m m : .

• i • - .- • ••

; :

• HBs

/.

SELECTED SPEECHES

OF THE LATE RIGHT HON. THE

EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

VOL. I.

'There is one great drawback inherent in Parliamentary orator)', that it is always criticised in a partisan spirit. The object which the speaker has in view is almost invariably foreknown and pre- judged, and it is hopeless to expect an impartial hearing from either of the political parties whose sympathies, interests, or prejudices have predetermined their opinions for or against the cause he represents. The most convincing logic, the most unanswerable facts, are listened to with a scepticism which no powers of persuasion can remove. On the other hand, the most transparent fallacies are accepted and applauded with a liberal and accommodating faith for which no imposture is too extravagant. An energetic " whip " baffles the highest oratorical effect ; empty benches paralyse the most brilliant powers ; crushing majorities annihilate reason, facts, and figures. But the orator who looks beyond an ephemeral political triumph has this consolation — the record of his speeches is preserved. The time comes sooner or later when his judgment is tested by an impartial audience, and his claim to statesmanship decided — not on a parliamentary vote, but on the strength of fulfilled predictions, of realised calculations, and of proved foresight.'

L OF BEACON*

LOND'

N /

IXD

SELECTED SPEECHES

OF THE LATE

RIGHT HONOURABLE THE

EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

AERANGED AND EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

BY

T. E. KEBBEL, M.A.

tij n portrait

IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME L

LONDON LONGMANS, GEEEN, AND CO.

1882

All rights reserved

5-64

w.l

LONDON : PRINTED BY

/SPOTTI8WOODB AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUAUB AND PARLIAMENT BTKEET

PREFACE.

ON giving these volumes to the public, it is my first duty, as it is also my greatest pleasure, to acknowledge the aid which I have received from the friends and colleagues of Lord Beaconsfield. To the MARQUIS of SALISBURY, SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, LORD KOWTON, Mr. E. STANHOPE, SIR PHILIP EOSE (one of Lord Beaconsfield 's executors), and last, but not least, to BARON DIMSDALE, late Member for Hertford, I am indebted in various degrees for assistance in the process of selection, for the revision of the proof sheets, for the communication of many in- teresting details, and for the key to Lord Beaconsfield 's tactics in more than one Parliamentary campaign. With- out these powerful auxiliaries, I could scarcely have presumed to venture on a task of so much difficulty ; even with them I am only too conscious how very im- perfectly I have discharged it.

T. E. KEBBEL.

January 17, 1882.

CONTENTS

THE FIEST VOLUME.

PAET I. EARLY SPEECHES.

PAOB

HIGH WYCOMBE, JUNE 9, 1832 3

HIGH WYCOMBE, NOT. 27, 1832 5

HIGH WYCOMBE, DEC. 16, 1834 . . . , . . . .10

TAUNTON, APKIL 29, 1835 ......... 25

PART II.

SPEECHES ON AGRICULTURAL INTEREST, FREE TRADE, AND CONDUCT OF SIR ROBERT PEELS GOVERNMENT.

7C.THE NEW TARIFF, MAY 10, 1842 35 i

^IMPORT DUTIES, APRIL 25, 1843 38

SPEECH AT SHREWSBURY, MAY 9, 1843 . . . . . .46

SUGAR DUTIES, JUNE 17, 1844 58

OPENING OF LETTERS BY THE GOVERNMENT, FEB. 28, 1846 . . 63

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, MARCH 17, 1845 74

OOTH, APRIL 11, 1845 82

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, JAN. 22, 1846 98

AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF WHOLE

HOUSE, FEB. 20, 1846 ... Ill

Viii CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

PAOB

\/ CORN IMPORTATION BILL, THIRD READING, MAY 15, 1846 . . 144

v AYLESBURY, JUNE 26, 1847 173

INCOME-TAX, MARCH 10, 1848 182

LOCAL TAXATION, MARCH 8, 1849 208

STATE OF THE NATION, JULY 2, 1849 240

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, FEB. 19, 1850 . . . . . . 258

FEB. 11, 1851 279

„ „ MARCH 28, 1879 324

„ „ APRIL 29, 1879 . . . . .334

PART III. LATER FINANCIAL SPEECHES.

, DEC. 3, 1852 . . 345

, DEC. 16, 1852 396

SPEECH ON MR. GLADSTONE'S BUDGET, MAY 2, 1853 . . . . 436

YS AND MEANS. BUDGET, . APRIL 19, 1858 .... 444

. GLADSTONE'S BUDGET, FEB. 24, 1860 475

WAYS AND MEANS, APRIL 7, 1862 493

MR. WALPOLE'S RESOLUTION, JUNE 3, 1862 605

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH ITALY, FEB. 17, 1863 .... 519

PART IV. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

« BOROUGH FRANCHISE, MAY 8, 1865 . . . . . . . 529

ON INTRODUCING BILL OF 1867, MARCH 18, 1867 . . . .544

SECOND READING, MARCH 26, 1867 567

(MR. GLADSTONE'S AMENDMENT (COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDERS),

APRIL 12, 1867 592

READING REFORM BILL, JULY 15, 1867 607

COUNTY FRANCHISE, MAY 18, 1874 . 624

INTRODUCTION.

THE Speeches of Lord Beaconsfield possess a value peculiar to themselves. Not only do they present us with the opinions of a great statesman in the language of a great orator ; they are also the product of a singularly original and penetrating mind, surveying English history and politics from a perfectly inde- pendent position, outside of all the hereditary influences and prejudices of our party life, and unattainable perhaps by one whose mind has been steeped in them from childhood. In this respect they are unique. No other English statesman who has risen to the same eminence has ever contemplated the English constitution from the same external height, or brought to the consideration of political theories an understanding so abso- lutely unhampered by the shackles of political tradition. That this circumstance was not an unmixed advantage to Lord Beaconsfield himself in his public career may readily be granted. Veteran politicians did not like being told by a young man of five-and-twenty that the whole conception of our party history which had been implicitly accepted by them for the last forty years was wrong from the beginning; and much of the peculiar animosity which Mr. Disraeli inspired on his first entry into life may be ascribed to this cause. *But it was an unqualified advantage to the world at large that our history and our constitution should be subjected to this inde-

X INTRODUCTION.

pendent criticism, which has, certainly, had the effect of exploding more than one vulgar error on the subject of political parties.

I have accordingly been guided in this work by three principles of selection. It has been my object to select (1) those speeches which exhibit in the strongest light the character of the speaker, and the views of history and poli- tics which were peculiar to himself; (2) those which form an essential part of the history of great public questions, and which are indispensable to the full comprehension of them ; and (3) those which are of general and permanent interest, containing maxims and arguments which, in the opinion at least of Lord Beaconsfield's admirers, all future generations may consult with profit.

The difficulty of forming a selection from the speeches of any leading statesman of our own times, whose public career has extended over half a century, must obviously be consider- able, if only on account of the number which are now required of him, compared with what would have sufficed some five-and-twenty years ago. But, in the case of Lord Beaconsfield's speeches, the difficulty is at least doubled by the exceptional extent to which the English people are familiar with them. His graver eloquence was often of a very high order; but here he has his equals, and, as many perhaps may think, his superiors. He might have had both perhaps even in the domain in which he now shines without a rival had we the speeches in full of either Charles Townsend or the elder Pitt. In default of such competitors, however, it is no dispar- agement of any English orator, either living or dead, but a simple fact, to say that no one has ever equalled Lord Beacons- field in that special combination of humour and sarcasm by which he originally gained the ear of the House of Commons, and which served him more effectually than the most impas-

INTBODUCTION. xi

sioned declamation, in the particular kind of warfare in which he found himself engaged — a warfare which reminds us at one time of the quarrel between Pope and the dunces, at another of the more dignified hostilities between Pope and Addison.

These were the oratorical triumphs which won him the sympathetic admiration of the English people, and it was the consummate and truly racy rhetoric displayed in these en- counters which made the deepest impression on their minds. A brilliant repartee, a happy illustration, a choice metaphor, remain embedded in the popular memory, when longer and even higher flights of oratory are forgotten ; and Lord Beacons- field hardly ever made a speech of first-class importance which did not contain some gem of this description. Each of them will probably have its own circle of admirers, who will naturally find fault with a selection in which they look for it in vain. This is a difficulty, the difficulty, namely, of pleasing everybody, whi,ch I could not expect to overcome ; and I can only therefore .throw myself on the indulgence of the public — should I be charged, as I almost certainly shall be, with the omission of speeches which ought to have been included, and the inclu- sion of others which might just as well have been omitted.

But, if such has been my own principal difficulty, I must warn the reader of two others which he will encounter for himself in perusing the speeches of Lord Beaconsfield. One is the cor- ruptness of the text, in many, if not all his earlier ones ; the other is the variety of meanings which the orator was accustomed to attach to the same words. For instance, he as often uses the word democracy to signify a class in society as to signify a form of government. He occasionally uses the word aristocracy when he means oligarchy, and oligarchy when he means aristocracy. And other instances might be given. Finally, perhaps, this may be the place to acknowledge • that his style is some-

xii INTRODUCTION.

times obscure, and his constructions harsh, though this is more apparent of course in reading his speeches than it was in listening to them ; and I have been assured by veterans of the gallery, that there were no speeches in the House of Com- mons easier to report than Mr. Disraeli's. To use their own language, he never ' rushed ' at a topic or an argument, but was always deliberate, and consequently always intelligible, even when in the disposition of his sentences he was not a little Thucydidean.

His early speeches are in some respects the most in- teresting of all, because in these the most original side, of his mind is turned towards us. After he became one of the recog- nised chiefs of the Conservative party, and was enrolled among the dozen leading men on whom the country relies in turn for the administration of affairs, the difference between him and others was one less of kind than of degree. His policy on public questions was the policy of a great party moulded to a large extent by its political traditions and based on accu- mulated experience. His financial policy, his foreign policy, his reform policy might be better or worse than the views espoused by other statesmen ; but they were not views of which it could be said that nobody else could possibly have entertained them. They were founded on considerations fami- liar to all politicians ; and though Mr. Disraeli would have impressed his own idiosyncrasy upon everything he undertook, it cannot be said that he imported any absolutely new ideas into the practical questions of the day. But in his concep- tions of our political history, and in the creed which he en- deavoured to found upon them, he stands entirely alone ; nor do I think it improbable that posterity will attach at least as much importance to these as to those more solid achievements in the domain of practical statesmanship, which,

INTRODUCTION. Xlll

during the latter part of his life, threw them completely into the shade. I have accordingly been careful to give as many speeches as I could in which these opinions find expression ; and that the reader may be in a position to do justice to them, I would press upon him the following considerations.

Mr. Disraeli, like Mr. Gladstone, entered public life with a theory ; not one which he had inherited, but one which he had constructed for himself. The period immediately succeeding the Keform Bill of 1832 was favourable to the growth of original opinions, and the tendency of the Romanticist revival which marked the first half of the nineteenth century was to turn men's thoughts upon the past. Mr. Disraeli was stirred by the wave as well as others ; and as to others it came in a feudal or an ecclesiastical shape, to him it came in a political. As earlier forms of society and earlier conditions of religion attracted some minds ; so the earlier struggles of our two great political parties attracted his, who fancied that he saw them reproduced before his own eyes. As Scott loved to brood over the idea of reviving in his own person the feudalism of the Middle Ages : as Newman and Keble, and even Mr. Gladstone, recurred to the Church of the Stuarts as the only remedy for the religious distractions of the day : so did Mr. Disraeli's ima- gination carry him back to the Toryism of the first Georges as our only protection against the dangers threatened by the Reform Bill. At one period of our history the Whigs had changed the dynasty in order to acquire power ; they had now changed the constitution. Eighteen hundred and thirty-two was sixteen hundred and eighty-eight ; William IV. was another George II., a puppet in the hands of a party, yet chafing under a thraldom from which he was unable to extricate himself. Mr. Disraeli was the champion of a popular Toryism exposing the pseudo-popular pretensions of a Whig oligarchy. What

XIV INTRODUCTION.

Wyndham had advocated in 1733 he would advocate in 1833. That he overlooked certain very awkward differences between the two periods may be granted. But a similar class of differ- ences was overlooked by the feudal and the ecclesiastical revi- valist. All three aspirations had their origin in the same source. ' It was the stirring of the blood ' when the present century was young. But neither Mr. Gladstone's theory nor Mr. Disraeli's was found to stand the test of experience, and each silently allowed it to drop into the background. Not, indeed, that either of them ceased to look back on it with fondness. Mr. Disraeli, indeed, perhaps as late even as 1867, may have felt that he was to some extent acting up to the letter of his earliest professions. But we find in both con- stant traces of the early love — indications of an intellectual craving for a creed which was found to be impracticable.

We are next led to ask what there was in the actual world of politics when Mr. Disraeli entered it to lend any colour to such opinions as he expresses in his earlier speeches. We must remember, then, that, strange as his declamations against the Whig Party may sound to ourselves, they represent what was by no means an uncommon feeling at the time, and that among men of long political experience and of what is called sober common-sense. That the Constitution and the empire would be destroyed by the success of the Reform Bill and the continuance of the Whigs in power, is a sentiment which meets us constantly in the correspondence of the Duke of Wellington, Mr. Disraeli had, probably, excellent reasons for saying what he says in ' Coningsby : ' « Nevertheless, there existed at this period a prevalent conviction that the Whig party, by a great stroke of State, similar in magnitude and effect to that which, in the preceding century had changed the dynasty, had secured to themselves the government of this country for at least the

INTRODUCTION. XV

lives of the present generation.' Cobbett, whose early Toryism was just what Mr. Disraeli aspired to reproduce, though he had become a violent Kevolutionist by the time of the Reform Bill, could say nothing too severe of the Whigs. So that, take it all in all, there was material enough to lend to the world of imagination in which Mr. Disraeli at that time loved to move, the appearance of reality which was necessary to sustain the illusion. But practical experience very soon revealed to him the superficial nature of the analogy which had once misled him ; and, though he retained to the last his faith in popular Toryism, he saw clearly enough that the enemies of the consti- tution and the empire were not to be sought among the Whigs.

There was, however, one tradition of the eighteenth century to which he always clung, and in the first twenty years of his public life, from 1832 to 1852, its influence is conspicuous. Lord Shelburne says of the Tories in the reign of George II. 6 that justice has not been done to their character and princi- ples, owing to the never-ceasing outcry of Ministers in con- founding them with Jacobites ; but in fact they were the landed interest of England, who desired to see an honourable,, dignified government conducted with order and due subordina- tion, in opposition to the Whigs, who courted the mob in the first instance, and in the next the commercial interest.'

Almost every word of this might have been written of Lord Beaconsfield. 'The landed interest of England' was, to the day of his death, the object of his devotion ; and on it he con- stantly maintained that the greatness of England had been reared. Hence his opinions on Free Trade and Protection,, which were not founded on any disbelief in the economic soundness of the former. But he was irritated by the sophism which represented the Corn Laws as a tax on the food of the people for the benefit of a single class. The territorial system

xvi INTKODUCTION.

of England did not exist for its own sake. It conferred enormous benefits on the nation. If you disputed this asser- tion, and said that you did not want a territorial aristocracy, that was a different question, to be argued at another time. But till you did say so you had no right to describe Protection as a tax on the food of the people for the benefit of a single class. It was a tax on the food of the people for their own benefit; for the sake of a great public object; for the main- tenance of a national institution of which long experience had taught them the inestimable value. Granted that protective duties on agricultural produce were required for the mainten- ance of the territorial system, we must set against these the whole results which flow from the existence of an aristocratic order ; from its sagacity and fortitude in the conduct of public affairs ; from its moral and intellectual influence on the national life ; from its discharge of great local duties, and its close hereditary sympathies with the labouring population ; from its patronage of art, science, and literature ; from its pride and its chivalry ; and it was by no means so certain that the balance would come out in favour of unlimited Free Trade. There were those who questioned both these assumptions ; who would deny either that the landed interest was necessary to the welfare of the people, or that Protection was necessary to the support of the landed interest. We have seen his answer to the former proposition. With the latter he would have agreed in the abstract. The landed interest had flourished before the Corn Laws were imposed, and might flourish after they were repealed. But then with the removal of Protection must come the removal of those special burdens on the land for which Protection was the only excuse.

He seems to have thought that Free Trade, salutary free trade, ought to be based on the principle of reciprocity

INTRODUCTION. XVli

established by commercial treaties. But as our own financial policy had left us nothing 'to give in exchange, it was useless, he thought, to rely on reciprocity as an economical principle. Commercial treaties might be useful to England on political grounds, but on no other. The conclusion was that the landed interest must be relieved of those exceptional charges for which when Protection was abolished it received no equivalent what- ever. Hence arose the demand for the readjustment of Local Taxation, which in our own time has become a question of the first magnitude, of which for a quarter of a century the Tory party has never lost sight, and which on their accession to office in 1874 they immediately took into consideration.

Of Mr. Disraeli's financial speeches, beyond what I have written in the paragraphs prefixed to each, I am able to say little. He never commanded a majority of the House of Commons while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer ; and it would have been impossible for him, as Sir Stafford Northcote has pointed out, to achieve any of those dazzling financial exploits which distin- guished the career of Mr. Grladstone, even had he been so minded. Such achievements require for success the support of an unflinching majority and the control of the public revenue for a considerable series of years. Mr. Grladstone brought in eight Budgets in succession ; but towards the middle of the series his policy looked very like a failure ; and no minister in a minority, certainly not one with Mr. Grladstone in Opposition, could have survived the ordeal of 1862. Nor should it ever be ) £ forgotten that Mr. Grladstone, while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, occupied a position very different from that of Mr. Disraeli when he was Finance Minister. Mr. Gladstone had his hands free ; Mr. Disraeli had not. The latter, in addition to the labours of his own department, was leader of the House

of Commons. Mr. Grladstone was not. Mr. Disraeli, while VOL. i. * n

Xviii I&TKODUCTION.

framing his Budget, was at the same time immersed in labours from which Mr. Grladstone during all those years in which his financial reputation was built up was comparatively exempt. Eeform Bills, Foreign Policy, the very struggle for existence pressing heavily on the Conservative minister, absorbed a great deal of the time which Mr. Grladstone was able to devote exclu- sively to finance. But that his genius was well qualified for the mastery of economic science is shown as well by his own financial statements, as by the admitted value of the criticism'' which he bestowed on others.

The speeches here given on Parliamentary Keform, though not as specimens of oratory among Mr. Disraeli's best, possess considerable value. They vindicate the right of the Tory party to deal with the question as soon as the Whigs had reopened it ; and show that Tories had been the earliest Re- formers, as they had also been the earliest Free Traders. His own objects in legislation were mainly two : first, the extension of the franchise among the working clashes, to compensate them for what they had lost in 1832, coupled with securities for the due representation in the House of Commons of the variety of interests and classes of which the community is com- posed ; and secondly, the increase of the county representation. He always considered it to be of the deepest importance to prevent any single class in the country from obtaining a deci- sive preponderance in Parliament, and he denied to the last that his own Bill of 1867 was calculated to have that effect.

On Foreign Affairs in general his own Government was accused of very much the same propensity as he himself had constantly condemned in the policy of Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston. But I think all candid and impartial critics will

allow that there was a vast difference in the circumstances of

1

the two governments. The Italian question, the Polish ques-

INTRODUCTION. XIX

tion, the Danish question, were not in the first place questions which touched the British Empire, while the charge brought against Lord Eussell in connection with them was that he irritated and estranged foreign Powers by perpetual and in- iudicious interference, without diverting them from their objects by the legitimate use of British influence. No reader of these speeches can bring the same charge against Lord Beaconsfield. The questions on which he interfered were those in which our Empire was at stake, and his remonstrances, so far from being futile, produced important and valuable results. He would pro- bably have said himself that his foreign policy steered a middle course between a policy of isolation and a policy of intrusion ; that it was strictly a defensive policy, vigilant and energetic, but neither vexatious nor ambitious. It is, however, no part of my present task to reconcile all the discrepancies, either real or apparent, which show themselves between the earlier and the later speeches of this illustrious man. Some of them are due to real changes of opinion, caused by corresponding changes in the condition of the world, in the relations of party to party and of country to country ; some to the different de- grees of knowledge with which at different times he spoke upon the same subject; others, and not a few, are merely nominal, due to the habit which I have already mentioned of using the same words in various different significations. But whatever may be thought of his policy during the last six years of his life, no one can rise from the dignified and im- pressive eloquence in which it is embalmed without doing homage to the character of a true patriot.

Utcnnque ferent ea facta minores, Vincet amor patrias, laudumque immensa cupido.

I will only add that if changes of opinion on the gravest questions which can occupy the attention of public men be

XX INTRODUCTION,

indeed a crime, then statesmen of eminence, and living states- men among the number, who are still considered worthy of our reverence, must stand at the bar alongside of him.

The reperusal of these memorable speeches seems to wrap one in a dream. One finds it difficult to believe that the speaker will be heard no more, and that we shall never again see him in that English House of Commons whose fame and honour were so dear to him. Insensibly one's mind wanders back to the days when every eye in that great assembly was fastened on the Tory leader as he sat silent through a hurri- cane of invective, or rose to retort or to expound. Once more one seems to see that motionless figure, that pale impenetrable countenance, which had betrayed hardly a sign of animation during the speech of his antagonist, suddenly kindle into life and flame as he sprang up in answer to the challenge, confi- dent in his own resources against even the most tremendous odds. Again one hears the ringing rounds of applause or the loud peals of merriment as he successfully demolished what had seemed to be a resistless argument, or turned the tables on an adversary who had rashly tried to be sarcastic. It is hard to persuade one's self that this is all the work of the imagina- tion, and that he will never again, in either House of Parlia- ment, cheer his followers to the fight, sustain the drooping spirits of a party, or vindicate the name and fame of a nation and an Empire.

SPEECHES

OP THE

EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD

PAET I, EARLY SPEECHES.

HIGH WYCOMBE . . . JUNE 9, 1832.

HIGH WYCOMBE . . . Nov. 27, 1832.

HIGH WYCOMBE . . . DEC. 16, 1834.

TAUNTON APRIL 29, 1835.

VOL. I.

HIGH WYCOMBE, June 9, 1832.

[In the summer of 1832, a vacancy having occurred in the repre- sentation of High Wycombe by the retirement of Sir T. Baring, Mr. Disraeli, then in his twenty-eighth year, presented himself to the electors. Mr. Bulwer had applied to both Mr. Hume and Mr. O'Connell for letters recommending Mr. Disraeli to the electors of Wycombe, a circumstance which Mr. Disraeli describes as follows in a letter to the ' Times ' of December 31, 1835, which we commend to the attention of all persons interested in the controversy. ' A friend of mine, interested in my success, knowing that I was supported by that portion of the constituency styled Radicals, applied to Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Hume, with whom he was intimately acquainted, to know whether they had any influence in Wycombe, and requested them to exercise it in my favour. They had none, and they expressed their regret in letters to this gentleman, who forwarded them to rne at Wycombe ; and my committee, consisting of as many Tories as Radicals, printed them. This is the story of my connection with Mr. O'Connell.' Mr. Disraeli accepted their assistance in the crusade which he was preaching against Whig domination ; but it is clear that he made no attempt to gain votes by pretending to be either a Radical like the one, or a Home Ruler like the other. He spoke of the institutions of the country with the greatest veneration. He had told O'Connell that he could not listen for a moment to the repeal of the Union. The one point which he had in common with them, and which entitled him in his own opinion to make use of their support, was disapproval of the Whigs. His opponent, on this occasion, was Colonel the Honourable Charles Grey, son of the Prime Minister; and Mr. Disraeli, whose father resided at Bradenham House in the immediate neighbourhood, came forward as the local candidate in opposition to the Whig nominee. He made the most of

v 2

4 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

this position, though not able to turn it to full account till after the carriage of the Reform Bill, when he again contested the borough. But as this speech may be Raid to mark his entrance into public life, I subjoin the brief account of it which is all that I have been able to discover.]

MR. DISRAELI, says the < Bucks Gazette,' had with much good generalship placed himself on the roof of the covered entrance to the Red Lion, and from this commanding situation addressed the throng in a very able speech. He commenced by. saying that he stood before them, not relying on the ties of rela- tionship, or founding his claims to their notice on the merits of his father or any kinsman, but on his own individual intentions. He was a neighbour, living in their close vicinity. He thought, and was sure they would think with him, that a resident member who would at all times be near and accessible to his constituents, who from bis contiguity would necessarily know personally so many of the inhabitants, and who would as a resident have more claim to their suffrages, was the person whom they would choose in preference to Colonel Grey, who only came there relying on the merits of his father, and making no pledges of his own principles. . . . He begged them to give him their votes and interest; to remember that he was their neighbour, a dweller amongst them, who had their welfare deeply at heart, and who would prove his gratitude to his constituents by con- sulting their interest and preserving their independence.

HIGH WYCOMBE, November 27, 1832.

[In his speech of the previous summer Mr. Disraeli had evidently said enough to draw all eyes upon himself, and in the interval which elapsed he had been exposed to merciless criticism. He had been described as a Radical obtaining Tory votes on false pretences. This is how he deals with the charge. In the present circumstances of the country, the Tory party must recur to the principles of its founders. This is the doctrine with which he afterwards familiarised the world both in speeches, pamphlets, and works of fiction ; and in the introduction to these volumes I have endeavoured to explain its connection with another great movement of the day, the ecclesiastical renaissance of 1833. Both were regarded at first both by Eldonian Tories and high-and-dry churchmen with a stare of stupefaction.]

I FIND that I have been described in the organs of the present Government as a ' destructive Radical.' It is some con- solation to remember that, but a few short months ago, I was therein alluded to as 'a disappointed Tory- candidate.' I need scarcely say to you that I have undergone no change. I am as I ever was in motive, principle, and determination. You have undergone no change unless it be for the better — unless it be that you have increased in number, in energy, and in firmness. Thus does the charge of flagrant inconsistency revert to the source from which it emanated. I am a ' destructive Radical,' forsooth, because I have given pledges which, it is said, destroy everything. Let us look at the justice of such a charge. Feeling that a real revolution has occurred in the nation, I have thought much and deeply upon what should be the duty of a statesman at such a time. If, instead of filling the humble position of a private individual, I held a post near the person of my king, I should have said to my sovereign, ' Oppose all

6 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

change, or allow that change which will be full, satisfactory, and final.' In the change produced by the professing party now in power, there are omissions of immense importance. These points they promised ; these points they have not given you ; and now, after all their protestations, they turn round and ask how the people can have the audacity to demand them. Yes, they dare to do this — they dare to shrink from their promises and to express astonishment and horror when the people remind them of their pledges, and clamour at their wilful omission. The two great points which they say we shall never possess, and which we must have, it is scarcely necessary for me to say, are triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot. The first is a just and necessary measure, or I would not stand here as its advocate ; and in adverting to its necessity I only support the true princi- ples, the just spirit of our admirable constitution, for that was always best maintained by triennial Parliaments. It best flourished when they were in use ; it has been injured when they were abused. If there be any epoch of history more glorious, more satisfactory than another, it is the reign of Queen Anne. Then were our armies most brilliant with success ; then were our victories most glorious ; for even Waterloo, the most famed of battles, has not obliterated the memory of Blenheim. This was a period of England's greatest eminence, of England's proudest glory ; and then there were triennial Parliaments. It was then that the House of Hanover acceded to the crown of these realms ; the Whigs got into power, and the nation, blindly confiding in them, elected their nominees throughout the land. What was the result ? Why, when they were returned by a credulous people for three years, they extended their own political existence for seven years, by passing the Septennial Act. In 1716 this measure was carried. A few desolate Tories opposed this arbitrary . and unconstitutional edict of a Whig minister, but in vain. Let them, let the Tories again unite in opposing this Act ; * they will do so with consistency and justice. At that period it was in vain to oppose Sir Eobert Walpole, that able and corrupt minister, for he had the popular cry with him ; he was backed by the voice of the nation, and

1 I.e. the Septennial Act.

HIGH WYCOMBE, NOVEMBER 27, 1832. 7

all remonstrance was useless. For twenty years did this pro- fligate minister sway the rod of empire, and administer the corrupt government which he had seized on with so much ability and so much tenacity. After a quarter of a century ] of the most grinding oppression and open corruption, the Tories again came forward and moved the repeal of the Septennial Bill. Sir William Wyndham, a man of high family, of large property, of weight, influence, and respect, of great authority with his party, in fact the leader of the Tory opposition, proposed this repeal in a speech which for sound argument, keen research, close reasoning, and bitter invective, is, I think, unequalled. A more happy composition is not to be found in the records of Parliamentary eloquence. I need not tell you that this motion failed. Now I, who am cried down and branded as a destructive Eadical, only advocate what Sir William Wyndham, the Tory champion, sought to recover as an act of justice to the people, as an essential point in the well-being of the constitution. Lord Bolingbroke, one of the ablest men who ever lived, was a firm and uncompromising Tory, and he advocated triennial Parliaments. He said that without this there was no security for the people, no integrity for the constitution. What these illustrious and able men deemed vitally important, I humbly advocate, and yet I arn ' a destructive Radical.' So much for consistency !

Now let us look at the ballot. We are told that this is an innovation, an unjust and an un-English measure. Much, I confess, is to be said on both sides, and I have not formed my opinion without deliberation, and I can see in the great con- stitution of my country a glorious and admirable structure, to which I would fain add two wings. Under the old system of representation I should not have thought ballot necessary, because that system was anomalous, and ballot could be of little use in a borough that had no electors. But if you will change, if you will give a constituency to every town returning members to Parliament, and if you will give to that constitu- ency the legitimate right which the constitution contemplates,

1 I.e. in 1734, a period from the accession of the House of Hanover of about twenty years.

8 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

and which is a freeman's claim, you must add to the elective franchise vote by ballot. My gallant opponent, the breath of whose overpowering and convincing eloquence still hovers about the atmosphere of Wycombe, paused long before he indulged in the tirade which lately obtained so much notoriety through the medium of the i Times ' newspaper. I say to the son of the Prime Minister, that if the Whig ministry had not altered the representative system of the country, we should not have called for ballot ; but I now say, that in proportion as the electors increase in number, so does the necessity for the ballot. I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, ^ a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few. I alike detest the despotism of an oligarchy and the pre-eminence of a mob. I shall ever seek to confer the greatest happiness upon the greatest numbers, and I conscientiously believe that in ad- vocating triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot, I am labour- ing to promote this desirable end. As a statesman I should gay that it is impossible to refuse popular demands well matured and energetically supported. If so, let the people be fitted to discharge the functions reposed in them ; and, as the means to this great end, I would unflinchingly advocate the repeal of the taxes on knowledge, because, though we admire and enjoy the liberty of the press, yet we feel its tyranny. Now, taxed as it is, it requires- a large capital to carry on a newspaper, and its interests once established by a large circle of readers, and by an immense supply of advertisements, it bids defiance to the small capitalists who would embark in an untaxed competition, but are now overwhelmed by the oppressive impost laid on by Government.

[What follows is reprinted from the ' Wycombe Sentinel/ No- vember 30, a small single sheet published every Friday during the autumn and winter of 1832-3 by the young Tory party in the Borough.]

Mr. Disraeli then took a most elaborate, luminous and powerful view of the foreign policy of the present administra-

HIGH WYCOMBE, NOVEMBER 27, 1832. 9

tion. He said lie knew it was not a favourite subject with the general, but, while the cannon were thundering from the citadel of Antwerp, he could not be silent. He Chewed how the foreign policy of the present administration must lead to an ultimate loss of the sovereignty of the seas, the destruction of our commerce, and finally of our country. He said that peace was now the policy of England. We had gained every- thing. Now it was our duty to preserve. All domestic policy, he said, at this moment merged into the question of the Corn Laws, doubtless one of the most difficult and delicate that could solicit the attention of a statesman. As it was one which, under any circumstances, must always be a matter of partial legislation, he should feel it his duty to bow to his con- stituents: nevertheless he should venture to offer them his opinion, and if it appeared to be on the side of the existing system, he was a most disinterested advocate of it, as he had but a very slight stake in the soil ; nevertheless, looking to the nature of this county, and to the state of society therein exist- ing, he could not resist the conviction that if we had recourse to any sudden alteration of the present system, we might say farewell to the county of Bucks, farewell to the beautiful Chil- terns, farewell to Wycombe market. The cultivators of the soil might then throw themselves, not on the parish, for that would have ceased to exist, but on the barren soil, and there perish. They would ask, is bread, then," to be always dear? By no means, but it was surely better to have dear bread than to have no bread at all. Eeduce the burdens that so heavily press upon the farmer, and then reduce his protection in the same ratio. That was the way to have cheap bread. He did not doubt that when the question of tithes was eventually settled, when the poor laws were brought back to the system of 1795, and when we employed our surplus revenue in relieving the agricultural interest instead of sending forth fantastic expeditions to attack our ancient allies — he did not doubt that then we might have the blessing of cheap bread without de- stroying the interest which is the basis of all sound social happiness.

10 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

HIGH WYCOMBE, December 16, 1834. (The Crisis Examined.)

[In November 1834, on the removal of Lord Al thorp to the Upper House, King William IV., instead of listening to the proposed reconstruction of the Whig ministry, entrusted the Duke of Wellington with the formation of a new one. Sir Robert Peel was at once summoned from Rome ; and it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take place as soon as he returned. Mr. Disraeli again presented himself to the electors of High Wycombe, and de- livered the following speech, afterwards reprinted with the title of ' The Crisis Examined.' Fully to comprehend a speech of this de- scription, the reader must himself have mingled in the transactions recorded in it, and retain a lively recollection of the political pas- sions as well as of the club gossip which at this particular period agitated or amused society. Without this knowledge it must neces- sarily appear in many passages far-fetched and exaggerated.]

C\ ENTLEMEN, — A considerable period has elapsed since I last VJ had the honour of addressing you within these walls ; and in that interval great revolutions have occurred — revolutions of government and revolutions of opinion : I can, however, assure you that I remain unchanged. I appear before you this day influenced by the same sentiments that I have ever pro- fessed, and actuated by the same principles I have ever advo- cated. There are some among my supporters who have depre- cated this meeting ; who have believed that I stood in so favourable a position as regarded the final result of this contest, that to move might perhaps endanger it ; who observing that I was supported by individuals of different opinions, and hither- to of different parties, were fearful that in hazarding explana- tion, I might hazard discomfiture. But, gentlemen, unless I enter Parliament with a clear explanation of my views, there is little chance of my acting with profit to you or with credit to myself. I cannot condescend to obtain even that distin-

HIGH WYCOMBE, DECEMBER 16, 1834. 11

guished honour by Jesuitical intrigue or casuistical cajolery ; I cannot condescend at the same time to be supported by the Tories because they deem me a Tory, and by the Liberals because they hold me a Liberal ; I cannot stoop to deception, or submit to delusion.

It is the fashion to style the present moment an extra- ordinary Crisis. I will not quarrel with the phrase. The times are, indeed, remarkable ; we have a new administration just formed, a new Parliament immediately threatened. It is therefore incumbent on the constituent body throughout the empire to prepare and to resolve upon the course expedient to pursue. Hoping, even believing, that I shall be your repre- sentative, I will venture to offer to your consideration the course of policy which, under existing circumstances, I think it the duty of an administration to pursue. And in the first place, I think that administration should be based upon a determination to reduce the burthens, to redress the grievances, and to maintain the rights of the people. I will not, however, shelter myself, and certainly I do not wish them to shield them- selves, under a declaration so vague. Let us, therefore, be de- finite. I think the necessary measures may be classed under four heads: Financial Eelief, Ecclesiastical Eeform, Sectarian Eeform, and Corporate Eeform. I will consider the Irish question as collateral to the general one of Ecclesiastical Eeform.

As to Financial Eelief, I am of opinion that the agricultural interest, at the present moment, is more entitled than any other class to whatever boon the minister may spare. All who hear me know, and most who hear me feel, that that interest is fearfully depressed. We may hope, therefore, that the Ex- chequer may grant them at least the partial relief of the malt tax, although I recommend them to petition for the whole. I would not at the same time make a request and intimate a compromise. As for any further relief that may be conceded us, I am always an advocate, in spite of political economists, for the abolition of direct taxes. I hope, therefore, the window tax will soon disappear ; it is a tax the most onerous and the most unjust. Further relief we cannot certainly now anticipate.

I approach now the solemn subject of Ecclesiastical Eeform.

12 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

Church Reform, gentlemen, is the popular cry of the country : and when I recall the desperate professions that have been made, and the abortive measures that have been prepared upon this subject, I confess I recoil from a cant phrase which only reminds me of the intrigues of ignorant faction, or the wily projects of the protectors of vested rights. I hope the time approaches when we may hear less of Church reform, and more of Church improvement. I deem it absolutely neces- sary that pluralities should be abolished, and that the great and consequent evil of non-residence should be terminated for ever. It is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to observe that I can- not conceive that this all-important object can be obtained without increasing the value of the lesser livings, and the in- comes in general of the inferior clergy. Ecclesiastical reform naturally and necessarily draws our attention to Ireland — a name fatal to so many Grovernments.

I deem it absolutely necessary, even for the existence of the Protestant Establishment itself, that the question of the Irish Church should be forthwith grappled with ; that it should be the object of a measure in its nature as final, in its operation as conclusive, as human wit can devise. It is now impossible to avoid, and too late to postpone it ; it must be met immedi- ately— the question is, how may it be met efficiently ? Twelve months, therefore, must not pass over without the very name of tithes in that country being abolished for ever ; nor do I deem it less urgent that the Protestant Establishment in that country should be at once proportioned to the population which it serves. But, gentlemen, I for one will never consent that the surplus revenues of that branch of our Establishment shall ever be appropriated to any other object save the interests of the Church of England, because experience has taught me that an establishment is never despoiled except to benefit an aristocracy. It is the interest of the people to support the Church, for the Church is their patrimony, their only heredi- tary property ; it is their portal to power, their avenue to learning, to distinction, and to honour. I see no reason why the surplus revenues of the Church of England in Ireland should not be placed in trust of the prelates of that land, and

HIGH WYCOMBE, DECEMBER 16, 1834. 13

of lay trustees, for the purpose of advancing the propagation of the Protestant faith in Ireland by all salutary and sacred means. We may fail, gentlemen, in this great end, but failure under such circumstances is preferable in my mind to seeing this property, hallowed by its original consecration to the purposes of religion, of learning, and of charity, in the ruthless and rapacious grasp of some bold absentee baron. I know the love that great lords, and especially Whig lords, have for abbey lands and great tithes, but I remember Woburn, and I profit by the reminiscence. As I am upon the subject of Ireland, I will at once declare that I see no chance of tranquillity and welfare for that impoverished and long distracted land, until the Irish people enjoy the right to which the people of all countries are entitled — namely, to be maintained by the soil that they cultivate by their labour. I cannot find terms to express my sense of the injustice and the impolicy, the folly and the wickedness, of any longer denying to Ireland the con- solation and the blessing of a well-regulated system of poor- laws. But not, gentlemen, that system which has recently made all England thrill with feelings of horror and indignation, as they wept over the simple, though harrowing, tale of the sufferings of our unhappy neighbours at Bledlow.1

Under the head of Sectarian Eeform I approach the deli- cate subject of the claims of the Dissenters. In my opinion these are claims which must not be eluded by any Government that wishes to stand. I would grant every claim of this great body that the spirit of the most comprehensive toleration re- quired, consistent with the established constitution of the country. Therefore, I think that the Eegistration and the Marriage claims should be conceded. As for the question of the church-rate, it is impossible that we can endure that every time one is levied, a town should present the scene of a con- tested election. The rights of the Establishment must be respected, but, for the sake of the Establishment itself, that flagrant scandal must be removed. These are concessions

1 A village near Wycombe, where the alleged ill-treatment of some labour- ing men by the parish authorities had recently attracted the attention of the London papers.

14 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

which, I think, are due to a numerous and powerful portion of our fellow-subjects ; due, I repeat, to their numbers, their in- telligence, and their property, and consistent, in my opinion, with the maintenance of an Established Church, a blessing with which I am not prepared to part, and which I am resolved to uphold, because I consider it a guarantee of civilisation, and a barrier against bigotry.

I now arrive at the fourth head under which I classed the measures, in my opinion, necessary to be adopted by the Government, Corporate Reform : a subject, I believe, very interesting to those I am now addressing. I am of opinion that a municipality should be formed upon the model of that mixed constitution which experience has proved to be at the same time so efficient and so beneficial. I am desirous that the burgesses should be elected by the general body of inhabi- tants of a town, subject, of course, to certain limitations and restrictions ; that the aldermen should be elected by the bur- gesses, and serve the office of mayor in rotation ; for I never will consent that the mayors and returning officers of boroughs shall be appointed by the Crown. This is part and parcel of the Whig system of centralisation, fatal to rural prosperity and provincial independence — one of those Gallic imitations of which they are so fond, but which, I hope, the sense, and spirit, and love of freedom of Englishmen will always resist. Paris decides upon the fate of France, but I hope we may con- tinue to receive our morning papers by the Oxford coach with- out acknowledging a ukase in every leading article and recog- nising a revolution in every riot.

Gentlemen, I need not, I am sure, remind you that peace and economy are two things without which no Government could now exist four-and-twenty hours. The question for you to decide this day is, whether, if a Government be prepared to adopt and carry similar measures to those I have detailed, and are determined to support, with their utmost energy and reso- lution, everything which may tend to the improvement and amelioration of the society of this realm — whether under these circumstances your representative in Parliament is to support such a Government ?

HIGH WYCOMBE, DECEMBER 16, 1834. 15

I am glad to hear that cheer. You are not ignorant that a contrary axiom is now laboriously propagated. I am for mea- sures, gentlemen, and not men, and for this simple reason, that for four years we have had men and not measures, and I am wearied of them. But we are told that we ought not to accept any measures from the hands of those who oppose the Reform Bill. This is a proposition which it becomes us to examine with an unimpassioned spirit, and a severe scrutiny, for it is a very important one. The country is now divided into two parties, headed by different sections of the aristocracy: those who introduced, and those who opposed the Reform Bill. Admit the proposition of men and not measures, and the party that introduced that Bill are our masters for life. Are you prepared for this ? Is your confidence in the Whigs so implicit, so illi- mitable, that you will agree to the perpetual banishment of their political rivals 'from power? Are you prepared to leave the Whigs without opposition, without emulation, without check ? I think it very dangerous ; I think it very unconstitutional.

But let us examine this famous proposition a little more severely. All of you have heard of the Duke of Wellington's declaration against reform — God knows it is very famous. One would almost fancy that the people of England had listened to a declaration against reform from a Prime Minister for the first time in their lives. And yet but a few years before, a very few brief years, and they had listened to another declaration against reform, not less decided, not less vehement, not less vindictive — ay ! and uttered, too, in the House of Commons, and not in the House of Lords — uttered, too, by a Prime Minister, the head of a Government of which all the individuals composing the recent Cabinet were either members or supporters. I allude to the declaration of Mr. Canning — a declaration that com- promised l Lord Lansdowne and Lord Melbourne, and indeed every member of their party, who are now so loud ' in their anathemas against apostacy, and their personal horror of rene- gadoes. One solitary Whig alone stood aloof from Mr. Canning,

1 In the preface to his History of the Whig Party, published in 1852, Mr. Roebuck has some similar remarks on the conduct of the ' Canningites ' in relation to Parliamentary reform.

16 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

and that was Lord Grey. Will the late Cabinet screen them- selves under the shadow of his mantle ? Lord Grey did not leave it behind ; he did not leave them with his blessing, or the odour of his sanctity. Gentlemen, what strange changes have we not lived to witness ! You all remember when my gallant opponent, for whom I entertain sincere respect, first appeared among us. You remember it was the most sudden thing in the world. We did not know where he came from ; we thought he had dropped from the skies. You remember that Mr. Ellice, the Right Honourable Mr. Ellice, called upon us to elect the Colonel, although a stranger, out of gratitude to Lord Grey. Gratitude to Lord Grey ! I suppose when he makes his appearance among us again, we shall be summoned to elect him out of ingratitude to Lord Grey, for that seems more the fashion now. Yes, gentlemen ! Lord Grey refusing the Privy Seal,1 and Lord Brougham soliciting the Chief Barony,2 are two epigrammatic episodes in the history of reform that never can be forgotten.

But, gentlemen, fancy Mr. Spring Rice cheering Mr. Canning in his anti-reform tirade, and Mr. Ellice, the Right Honourable Mr. Ellice, who was so good as to send us down a member, crying \ Hear, hear,' and Sir John Hobhouse, who, from his conservatory of consistency, throws stones at the Duke of Wellington — Sir John Hobhouse, the supporter of Mr. Canning, who sailed into public life on the popular wings of annual parliaments and universal suffrage, and afterwards* Got pelted for his pains —

— oh ! rare Sir John Hobhouse ! Are 'we to be told that men like these, who backed and supported Mr. Canning under such

1 In the first Melbourne Administration, July, 1834. An amusing account of both of these incidents is to be found in the Greville Memoirs, vol iii. pp. 113 and 157. Lord Brougham himself made the offer to Lord Grey, ' who rather smiled at the proposition, but did not express the pious resentment of his children. The Grey women would murder the Chancellor if they could.'

* In the following November, Lord Brougham, who was out of office, applied to his successor, Lord Lyndhurst, for the office of Chief Baron. Greville thought the appointment might be convenient for the Government. 'He (Brougham) could cut fewer capers in ermine than he could in plaid trousers ' — the Chan- cellor's favourite wear.

HIGH WYCOMBE, DECEMBER 16, 1834. 17

circumstances, because they afterwards introduced and sup- ported the Keform Bill, possess an exclusive right of calling every man an apostate who sees, in the altered condition of affairs, a ground for applying to a totally different set of cir- cumstances a class of measures essentially new? What an exquisite pretence to consistency there is in saying, < So pure is the love we bear it, that we will sacrifice for its sake every chance of freedom — that we will endure the worst tyranny, rather than accept the greatest blessings that Eeform may shower down upon us from the hands of renegades.' Did any one chalk ' apostate ' on the back of Lord Palmerston, or outrage the nerves of those delicate tergiversators, the Messrs. Grant, by squibbing them in the street for their change of opinion ? On the contrary, a remarkable abstinence from such crimination prevailed, as I think, gentlemen, it prevails at the present moment. The people were content to accept the Keform Bill as a great remedial measure which they had often demanded, and which had been always denied, and they did not choose to scan too severely the previous conduct of those who conceded it to them. They did not go about saying, * We must have reform, but we will not have it from Lord Palmerston, because he is the child of corruption, born of Downing Street, and engendered in the Treasury, a second-rate official for twenty years under a succession of Tory Governments, but a Secretary of State under the Whigs. Not they indeed! The people returned Lord Palmerston in triumph for Hampshire, and pennies were subscribed to present him with testimonials of popular applause. The people then took reform as some other people take stolen goods, 4 and no questions asked.' The Cabinet of Lord Grey was not ungenerously twitted with the abandonment of principles which the country had given up, and to which no man could adhere who entertained the slight- est hope of rendering himself an effective public servant. The truth is, gentlemen, a statesman is the creature of his age, the child of circumstances, the creation of his times. A statesman is essentially a practical character ; and when he is called upon to take office, he is not to inquire what his opinions might or might not have been upon this or that sub- VOL. I. c

18 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ject ; he is only to ascertain the needful and the beneficial, and the most feasible measures are to be carried on. The fact is, the conduct and the opinions of public men at different periods of their career must not be too curiously contrasted in a free and aspiring country. The people have their passions, and it is even the duty of public men occasionally to adopt sentiments with which they do not sympathise,1 because the people must have leaders. Then the opinions and prejudices of the Crown must necessarily influence a rising statesman. I say nothing of the weight which great establishments and corporations, and the necessity of their support and patronage, must also possess with an ambitious politician. All this, however, produces ultimate benefit; all these influences tend to form that eminently practical character for which our countrymen are celebrated. I laugh,2 therefore, at the objection against a man, that at a former period of his career he advocated a policy different to his present one. All I seek to ascertain is whether his present policy be just, necessary, expedient ; whether at the present moment he is prepared to serve the country according to its present necessities.

Such are the claims to public confidence which may be put forth on behalf of the Whigs ; but if instead of being so miser- ably slender they were indeed substantial and important, I would say that no claims can entitle them to become the masters for life of the British people ; and for my own part I have no doubt, and I have ever thought, that they intended to become our masters for life ; and decidedly they would have gained their object had they succeeded in swamping the House of Peers as well as packing the House of Commons.3 One of the most distinguished writers of the day,4 and a member of the extreme Liberal party in the House of Commons, has recorded

1 This was notoriously the case with Sir Robert Peel and Roman Catholic emancipation.

2 Mr. Roebuck, in the work just referred to, marks the difference between such changes of opinion as Mr. Disraeli here describes and Sir Robert Peel's chanjre upon the Corn Laws.

8 See Preface.

4 Mr. Bulwer (the late Lord Lytton) in England and the English, book v., chapter 4.

HIGH WYCOMBE, DECEMBER 16, 1834. 19

in a work which many of you have read, his regret that he ever was a supporter of the Whigs in their threatened attempt to overpower the House of Lords, and his self-congratulation that the attempt failed. Had it, however, succeeded, gentlemen, it well fits us to consider what would have then become of the liberties of England. I do assure you that in drawing your attention to this important topic I am not influenced by any party, any electioneering views. The remarks which I shall venture to make upon it have pressed upon my mind in the calmness and solitude of study. I will allow for the freedom of the press ; I will allow for the spirit of the age ; I will allow for the march of intellect ; but I cannot force from my mind the conviction that a House of Commons, concentrating in itself the whole power of the State, might — I should rather say would — notwithstanding the great antagonist forces to which I have alluded, establish in this country a despotism of the most formidable and dangerous character. Gentlemen, I repeat, I cannot resist the conviction, because I cannot shut my eyes to the historical truth. Let us look to the reign of Charles I., a period as eventful as, ay, infinitely more so than, any that has since occurred in this country. Believe me, gentlemen, we err when we take it for granted that this present age in England is peculiarly distinguished from preceding ones by the general diffusion of public knowledge and public spirit. Two great revolutions immediately preceded the events of the reign to which I have alluded, revolutions productive of as much excitement and as much effect on the public mind of Europe as the great French Kevolution, the Protestant Ke- formation, and the establishment of a republic in the Nether- lands. There was about this time, too, doubtless in some degree impelled by these great and strange events, a spring- tide in the intellect of England. What marvellous men then met within the walls of Parliament ! The indefatigable Pym, the inscrutable Hampden, the passionate Eliot, the austere genius of Strafford ! Worthy companions of these were St. John, Hollis, Vane ; nor should we forget a Digby and a Capel, the chivalric Falkland and the sagacious Clarendon. Why, gentle- men, these were names that imparted to the deliberations of

c 2

20 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSF1ELD.

your Parliament an intellectual lustre not surpassed, perhaps not equalled, even in the brightest days of Pitt, and Fox, and Burke, and Sheridan. There was the same feeling abroad in favour of freedom, and the same enthusiasm for the rights of the subject. There was also, although it is not generally sup- posed, the same omnipotent influence operating in favour of this cause which we now hug ourselves in believing to be the invincible bulwark of our liberties. Yes, gentlemen, I am in- clined to believe that the English press exercised at that mo- ment a power not inferior to the authority it wields at the present day. Every street had its journal, every alley its ballad; besides these great methods of communication, public opinion, that vaunted public opinion, which we would fain believe to be the offspring of the present hour, appealed to the people in favour of the people by an oracle that for political purposes is now happily silent : I mean the pulpit.

Yet, gentlemen, notwithstanding all these checks and all these guarantees — checks and guarantees for your rights and liberties, I maintain, as powerful as any that exist at the present day — what was the result ? Your House of Commons, in which you are now called upon to place implicit confidence ; your boasted House of Commons, which I for one will no more trust than any other human institution ; your omnipotent House of Commons, after having pulled down the throne and decapitated the monarch, after having expelled the bishops from the House of Peers and then abrogated the peerage, set you at defiance. They concentrated in themselves all the powers of the State, and then voted their sittings perpetual ; they began by quarrel- ling with the King about one hundred thousand pounds, and ended, in the short space of five years, in imposing upon the people burdens to the amount of forty millions sterling ; con- fiscated the estates of a large portion of their fellow-subjects, divided themselves into separate committees, and monopolised in their own persons all the functions of the State, and finally, on one morning, divided among themselves 300,000£. of the public money. Did I say finally? Can we forget that this same House of Commons, when their rapacity had dried up all other sources of spoliation, invented the tax most odious to

man WYCOMBE, DECEMBER ie, 1334. 21

Englishmen — the excise ? and which they laid, too, not merely upon the luxuries, but the very necessaries of existence.

Looking then, gentlemen, at such consequences of an implicit confidence in the House of Commons, I confess myself reluctant to quit the vantage-ground on which the constitution of the country is now felicitously placed. Looking at such con- sequences, I think we may feel that we have some interest in maintaining the prerogative of the Crown and the privileges of the Peers. I, for one, shall ever view with jealous eye the proceedings of any House of Commons, however freely chosen. Nor have I marked in the conduct of the reformed House of Commons anything, I confess, to lull me into over-confidence or security. I think I perceive, even thus early in their career, some symptoms of jobbing which would not have disgraced the Long Parliament itself; and some instances of servility which perhaps we must go to the reign of Charles the Second to rival.

So much for the Reformed Parliament, gentlemen ; and now for the Reform Ministry !

One would think, from the cry that is now raised by the partisans of these persons, that they were a band of patriots, who had never been animated by any other sentiment than the welfare of their country, and had never by any chance quarrelled among themselves. The Reform Ministry ! Where is it ? Let us calmly trace the history of this 6 united Cabinet.'

Very soon after its formation Lord Durham withdrew from the royal councils — the only man, it would appear, of any decision of character among its members. Still, it was a most ' united ' Cabinet. Lord Durham only withdrew on account of his ill-health. The friends of this nobleman represent him as now ready to seize the helm of the State ; a few months back, it would appear, his frame was too feeble to bear even the weight of the Privy Seal. Lord Durham retired on account of ill-health ; he generously conceded this plea in charity to the colleagues he despised. Lord Durham quitted the united Cabinet, and very shortly afterwards its two most able members in the House of Commons, and two of their most influential colleagues in the House of Lords, suddenly secede. What a

22 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

rent ! But then it was about a trifle. In all other respects the Cabinet was most ' united.' Five leading members of the Keform Ministry have departed ; let the venerable reputation of Lord Grey and the fair name of Lord Althorp still keep together, and still command the respect, if not the confidence of the nation. But, marvel of marvels ! Lord Grey and Lord Althorp both retire in a morning, and in — disgust ! Lord Grey is suddenly discovered to be behind his time, and his secession is even intimated to be a subject of national congratulation : Lord Althorp joins the crew again, and the Cabinet is again ' united.' Delightful union ! Then commenced a series of scenes unparalleled in the history of the administrations of any country ; scenes which would have disgraced individuals in private life, and violated the decorum of domestic order. The Lord Chancellor, dangling about the Great Seal in post-chaises, spouting in pot-houses, and vowing that he would write to the Sovereign by the post ; while Cabinet Ministers exchanged menacing looks at public dinners, and querulously contradicted each other before the eyes of an admiring nation.1 Good God ! gentlemen, could this go on? Why, even Mr. Ellice — the Right Honourable Mr. Ellice — who was so good as to send us down a member of Parliament, he could no longer submit to nestle in this falling house, and he, too, quitted the ' united ' Cabinet, because he had — what, for a ducat ? — a sore throat !

Why, they ridicule themselves ! and yet the tale is not all told. There is really too much humour in the entertainment ; they make us laugh too much — the fun is overdone. It is like going to those minor theatres where we see Liston in four successive farces. Lord Melbourne, whose claim to being Prime Minister of England, according to the Whigs, is that

1 This is an allusion to Lord Brougham's celebrated tour in Scotland in the autumn of 1834, when he carried the Great Seal with him. On one occa- sion it was stolen from him by some ladies, who threw him into a pitiable state of consternation. He told the people of Inverness that he would write to the King that night, to tell his Majesty of their loyalty. Lord Durham and Lord Brougham met at the Edinburgh banquet given to Lord Grey at that time, when they spoke some sharp words of each other ; and although Lord Durham had then left office, they are probably the two ' Cabinet Ministers ' here intended. Of. Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. viii. p. 453.

HIGH WYCOMBE, DECEMBER 16, 1834. 23

he is * a gentleman ' — Lord Melbourne flies to the King-, and informs him that a plan of ' Church reform ' has been proposed in the united Cabinet, and that Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Spring Kice, the only remaining ministers in the slightest degree entitled, I will not say to the confidence, but the con- sideration of the country, have in consequence menaced him with their resignations.

I doubt not, gentlemen, that this plan of ' Church reform ' was only some violent measure to revive the agitation of the country, and resuscitate the popularity of the Whigs — a mea- sure which they had never meant, and never desired, to pass. Perhaps, feeling that it was all over with them, it was a wretched ruse, apparently that they might go out upon a popular measure. However, Lord Melbourne, with as serious a face as he could command, informed His Majesty that the remains of the ' united ' Cabinet, Sir John Hobhouse and Lord John Russell, were still as united as ever, and he ended by proposing that the House of Commons should be led by his Lordship, who, on the same principle that bad wine produces good vinegar, has somehow turned from a tenth-rate author into a first-rate politician ; and then Lord Melbourne says that the King turned them out. Turned them out, gentlemen ! why, His Majesty laughed at them ! The truth is, that this famous Reform Ministry, this great ' united ' Cabinet, degenerated into a grotesque and Hudibrastic faction, the very lees of ministerial existence, the offal of official life. They were a ragged regiment, compared with which FalstafFs crew was a band of regulars. The King would not march through Coven- try with them — that was flat. The Reform Ministry indeed ! Why, scarcely an original member of that celebrated Cabinet remained. You remember, gentlemen, the story of Sir John Cutler's silk hose. Those famous stockings remind me of this famous Ministry : for really, between Hobhouse darns and Ellice botching, I hardly can decide whether the hose are silk or worsted. The Reform Ministry ! I dare say, now, some of you have heard of Mr. Ducrow, that celebrated gentleman who rides upon six horses. What a prodigious achievement ! It seems impossible ; but you have confidence in Ducrow. You

24 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

fly to witness it ; unfortunately one of the horses is ill, and a donkey is substituted in its place. But Ducrow is still admir- able ; there he is, bounding along in a spangled jacket and cork slippers ! The whole town is mad to see Ducrow riding at the same time on six horses. But now two more of the steeds are seized with the staggers, and lo ! three jackasses in their stead ! Still Ducrow persists, and still announces to the public that he will ride round his circus every night on his six steeds. At last all the horses are knocked up, and now there are half-a-dozen donkeys. What a change ! Behold the hero in the amphitheatre, the spangled jacket thrown on one side, the cork slippers on the other. Puffing, panting, and perspir- ing, he pokes one sullen brute, thwacks another, cuffs a third, and curses a fourth, while one brays to the audience, and another rolls in the sawdust. Behold the late Prime Minister and the Reform Ministry — the spirited and snow-white steeds have gradually changed into an equal number of sullen and obstinate donkeys ; while Mr. Merryman, who, like the Lord Chancellor, was once the very life of the ring, now lies his despairing length in the middle of the stage, with his jokes exhausted and his bottle empty !

Enough, gentlemen, of the Reform ministry, and the Reformed Parliament. Let us hope that the time has arrived when we may be favoured with a national administration and a patriotic House of Commons. Let us hope that by their salu- tary influence the peace of Europe and the honour of England may be alike maintained, the great interests of the country fostered and protected, and those considerable changes firmly but cautiously prosecuted in our social system which the spirit of the age demands and the necessities of the times require.

TAUNTON, April 29, 1835.

[On the formation of Lord Melbourne's second Government in 1835, Mr. Labouchere, the member for Taunton, having accepted office, was opposed by Mr. Disraeli, who, in one of the best of his early speeches, explained what he had meant by his previous advo- cacy of the ballot and triennial Parliaments, and why it was no longer necessary to insist on either of them. The balance of parties de- ranged by the elections of 1832 had been restored, and the Whigs were no longer dangerous. This was the famous " O'Connell speech " which led to the savage denunciation of Mr. Disraeli by the incensed agitator. That Mr. Disraeli, having once accepted his assistance, would have done better to abstain from reproaching him may be granted without convicting Mr. Disraeli of the slightest political in- consistency. He had always been against Repeal. He spoke of the dismemberment of the Empire in 1835 as he spoke of^it in l881). But the opportunity was too good a one to be lost, and for many years afterwards the circumstances were thrown in his teeth when- ever he appeared in public. The speech gave rise to a long cor- respondence between Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Bulwer, Mr. Hume, Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Morgan O'Connell, which appeared in the ' Times ' and in the ' Globe,' and lasted through the summer and autumn of 1835 into January 1836. As Mr. Disraeli pointed out, had O'Connell applied to himself in the first instance for an explanation of his lan- guage, he would have known at once that the words complained of were not applied to him by the speaker, but were but a quotation of the terms which the Whigs had applied to him themselves. The report of the speech here given, which is taken from the ' Dorset County Chronicle,' differs a little from the one given by the ' Morning Chronicle,' which is probably what O'Connell saw. The word ' in- cendiary ' is not found in the local report. But the sense is the same.]

MR. BAILIFF and gentlemen electors of Taunton, I will not claim your gratitude for having given you the Reform Bill, but let me claim your gratitude for having given you the first poll under the Reform Bill. Some observations have been

26 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

made, gentlemen, deprecating any display of hostile feeling to either of the candidates. I have seen none. I can only say that a more courteous opponent or a more courteous constitu- ency I never encountered and never appealed to ; and I trust that as I feel that I have made many friends in Taunton, when I leave it I shall do so without a single enemy. I have at other times been placed before the people, and gentlemen, if I were now to be beaten, as my opponents loudly express them- selves, it would be almost preferable to be beaten at Taunton, than to win at any other place. I say this because from one unfortunate expression of mine, evidently spoken in playfulness, you may have believed that, instead of being a very good natured, I was really a very pugnacious person. But when I was assailed under the circumstances of appearing as a stranger the first time before you, I could not refrain from observing that I was the last person to be put down by clamour. Per- haps I may take this opportunity of explaining to that honour- able gentleman who seconded my opponent, and who laid so much stress on my observation that ' the Whigs had seized the bloody hand of O'Connell.' l Is it possible that so elaborate a rhetorician as that honourable gentleman can have literally supposed that Mr. O'Connell was in the habit of going down to the House of Commons with his hand reeking with gore, or that the Whig Government crawled upon their knees to embrace it ? I meant they had formed an alliance with one whose policy was hostile to the preservation of the country, who threatens us with a dismemberment of the Empire which cannot take place without a civil war.

My honourable opponent says that the Whigs would not go a hair's breadth to gain the assistance of Mr. O'Connell. Permit me to remind you that the Whigs have already gone much further. My honourable opponent says ' No.' What ! have they not adopted the principle which twelve months ago they opposed, to secure his support ? If they have done this

1 No report is to be found of the speech in which this sentence occurs. It may have been used in a speech made by Mr. Disraeli to some of his sup- porters in a room at the Castle Inn on the night of his arrival in Taunton, April 21, which is mentioned but not reported by the Taunton Courier, April 22.

TAUNTON, APRIL 29, 1835. 27

to gain his support and put them in power, what will they do to gain his support to keep them in power ? It is much more difficult to retain power than to obtain it ; if they mean to keep that power on the hair-breadth principle, they will soon have to return back to their constituents. I cannot understand the principle by which the Whigs would reform, as they style it, the Church of Ireland. It appears to me that they have offered a premium to the White Boys to destroy the Protestants. If forty-nine souls are not worthy to be saved whilst fifty are, I think we shall soon have no congregations in Ireland which exceed the Popish tariff of salvation. My honourable opponent has told you that the subject of the Irish Church is one that places the existence of the kingdom in hazard. I confess it ; but who has brought it to such a crisis ? Gentlemen, it was the ambition of that weak aristocratic party in the State, who could only obtain power by leaguing them- selves with one whom they had denounced as a traitor. If the Irish Church has always been the intolerable nuisance it is described, why has this nuisance been so lately discovered? It is upon record that twenty years ago tithes were paid more readily in Ireland than rents are now in England. Gentle- men, it is agitation that has made the nuisance, and it is the Whig party who, for their own ends, Have encouraged the agitator. Gentlemen, I am just reminded that I have written a novel. (Cries of ' A good one.') I am glad there is a critic in the crowd who joins with me in opinion. I trust there is no disgrace, gentlemen, in being an author. I trust there is no disgrace in having written that which has been read by thousands of my fellow-countrymen, and which has been translated into every language in civilised Europe ; and I trust that one who is an author by the gift of nature is as good as one who is Master of the Mint by the gift of Lord Melbourne.

This I do know, gentlemen, that twelve months hence I shall still be the author of ' Vivian Grey,' though I shall be very much surprised if at the same period my honourable opponent be still Master of the Mint. Gentlemen, this attack about the novel reminds me of the only charge of which I am accused. Really I think my opponents, if they wished to attack

28 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

me, should at any rate have taken care that their attacks were original. I think it is some reflection on the intelligence of Taunton that they should copy an anonymous article from a London newspaper. Though I have despatched the novel, I cannot help remembering that the editor of the ' Sun ' declares that I am the puppet of the Duke of Buckingham, and a fellow-labourer in the same vineyard. The editor of the * Morning Chronicle ' announces that I am a Marylebone Kadical. Gentlemen, if there be anything on which I pique myself it is my consistency. Well, I shall be ready to prove that con- sistency either in the House of Commons or on the hustings of ' Taunton. Every man may be attacked once ; but no one ever attacked me twice. Gentlemen, here is my consistency. I have always opposed with my utmost energy the party of which my honourable opponent is a distinguished member. That party I have opposed for reasons I am prepared to give and to uphold.

As the question ' What is he ? ' has been repeated by Mr. Bunter, I should wish to reply to it, that hereafter there may be no mistake. When I first entered into political life, I found the high places of the realm filled by the party of which my opponent is a member. I found they had an immense majority in the House of Commons, gained by a system of nomination not less equivocal than that of the late borough-mongers. Believing that the policy of the party was such as must destroy the honour of the kingdom abroad, and the happiness of the

people at home . That was my opinion, though I perceive

it is not the opinion of some here. I believed that if the Whigs remained in office for any length of time, this glorious, this unrivalled Empire would perish for ever — I considered it my duty to oppose the Whigs, and to ensure their discomfiture and, if possible, their destruction as a party. Let me recall to your recollection the extraordinary characteristics of the political world when I entered it. Gentlemen, the great safeguard of our liberties, the balance of power, was destroyed. There was then no constitutional opposition to keep the Government in check. That great Tory party, which is now so strongly con- stituted, was a shattered, a feeble, a disheartened fragment,

TAUNTON, APRIL 29, 1835. 29

self-confessing their own inability to carry on the King's government, and announcing an impending revolution. Gen- tlemen, had I been a political adventurer, I had nothing to do but to join the Whigs ; but conscientiously believing that their policy was in every way pernicious, I felt it my duty to oppose them. But how were they to be opposed ? Where were the elements of a party to keep the Government in check, and to bring back the old constitutional balance ? I thought they existed in the liberal Tories, and in those independent reformers who had been returned to Parliament independently of the Whigs. I laboured for their union, and I am proud of it. Gentlemen, remember the Whig policy; they had a packed policy. They had altered the duration of Parliaments once before. They had the whole power of the State in their hands. I believed, and I still believe, that we were nearer to a Long Parliament than we imagined. I wished to break their strength by frequent elections and frequent appeals to a misgoverned people ; therefore I advocated a recurrence to those triennial Parliaments which it was once the proudest boast of the Tories to advocate. I wished to give the country gentlemen a chance of representing the neighbouring towns where they are esteemed, instead of the nominees of a sectarian oligarchy. Therefore I proposed the adoption of the ballot in the only constituencies willing to assume it.

And now where is my inconsistency ? Have I not given an answer to my assailants? I 'am convinced that the result of these measures would have been that which I anticipated. Strong measures, certainly ; but when are strong measures to be adopted if not when our country is in danger ? Had the Whigs remained in power— and it seemed to me, and the wisest men in the kingdom shared my conviction, that they were our masters for life l — had, I repeat, they remajnedin power, I considered the dismemberment2 of the Empire inevi- table, a.nd therefore I tried to root them out. But, gentlemen, great, nay almost illimitable as was my confidence in Whig incapacity, I confess they far surpassed even my most sanguine

1 Mr. Disraeli repeats this assertion in Coningsby. Cf. Introduction.

2 Cf. Wellington Despatches of this period, passim.

30 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

expectations ; the mighty Whig party, which had consented to a revolution to gain power, fell to pieces, the vessel of the State righted itself, and now there is no necessity to cut away its masts.

Gentlemen, the object for which I laboured is attained; the balance of parties is restored : and now, gentlemen, I do not longer advocate the measures in question, simply because they are no longer necessary. Is this an answer ? Is this incon- sistency ? When I hear my honourable opponent say he comes before you as the advocate of the same principles which brought him here five years back, I would ask him in sincerity, what these principles are. Are they the principles of the renowned Government which gave you the Reform Bill ? If so, why has the head of that very Cabinet left the Government of which my opponent is a member? Lord Grey has left them with disgust. Are the principles of the honourable gentle- man the principles of Lord Stanley ? And he has left; and others also. Gentlemen, he says, during that period, the slaves have been emancipated. That great measure was carried by that illustrious statesman, Lord Stanley, who will have nothing to do with them. The WThigs profess economy ; they imitated the Duke of Wellington. They say that a reduction of taxation has taken place : thanks to the political unions that forced themselves into the antechamber of the Minister. Did the Tories ever repeal a tax one night and rescind the resolution of relief the next ? Gentlemen, that act alone sealed the fate of the Whig Parliament. Could the slaves of a Turkish Pacha be more servile ?

I am asked why Sir Robert Peel dissolved Parliament. I answer, because he knew well the Parliament was insincere in Reform. The House of Commons consisted of the tools of the Whig party. The best answer to the Whigs, why the Parliament was dissolved, is that 105 additional Conservatives have been returned. Gentlemen, there will be a better answer when it is dissolved the next time — that dissolution will be very speedy. I fear I shall not have the honour of representing you long before that takes place. I am asked how can Sir Robert Peel be a Reformer ? There has not been a greater number of

TAUNTON, APKIL 29, 1835. 31

votes recorded against Reform by any man than have been recorded against it by Lord Melbourne. Lord Melbourne put the amendment to the question of the Manchester Massacre, of which so much has been said. He was one of the hottest Tories that ever existed, and now he is prime leader of the Whigs.

Gentlemen, I believe there is some gentleman here who wishes to hear something about the bishops. That great practical measure of Church Eeform which the Tories had the honour of producing to the public, satisfactory and extensive in its details, is a measure of reform brought in by the Tories, a measure which goes to the equalisation of the bishops in the first place ; in the second place, puts an end to pluralities for ever ; in the third place, terminates the evil of non-residence ; and in the fourth place, ensures the general commutation of tithes. These are four great questions which have so long agitated the country. The same Tory Government in four months did ample justice to the rights and wishes of that im- portant part of our population, the Dissenters. Gentlemen, I have ever been and am a supporter of the Church of England, because I believe it to be the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty ; because I consider the leaders of the Church have been the leaders of the people in a great crisis of our country ; and these very bishops have saved the constitution of the realm.

PART II.

SPEECHES ON AGRICULTURAL INTEREST, FREE

TRADE, AND CONDUCT OF SIR ROBERT

PEEL'S GOVERNMENT.

THE NEW TARIFF MAY 10, 1842.

IMPORT DUTIES APRIL 25, 1843.

SPEECH AT SHREWSBURY .... MAY 9, 1843.

SUGAR DUTIES ...... JUNE 17, 1844.

OPENING OF LETTERS BY THE GOVERN- MENT FEB. 28, 1845.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS .... MARCH 17, 1845.

MAYNOOTH APRIL 11, 1845.

ADDRESS JAN. 22, 1846.

AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR GOING

INTO COMMITTEE OF WHOLE HOUSE FEB. 20, 1846.

CORN IMPORTATION BILL, THIRD READ- ING MAY 15, 1846.

INCOME-TAX , MARCH 10, 1848.

LOCAL TAXATION MARCH 8, 1849.

STATE OF THE NATION . . . . JULY 2, 1849.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS .... FEB. 19, 1850.

„ FEB. 11, 1851.

,, .... MARCH 28, 1879.

,, ,, ,,.... APRIL 29, 1879.

YOL. I.

For the effect produced by these speeches at the time they were delivered the contemporary press must be consulted. It was simply electrical. All England, not to say Europe, rang with the daring apophthegms and exquisite humour which delighted and convulsed the House of Commons. During these three or four years, and while Parliament was sitting, it was almost impossible to take up a news- paper without one's eye being caught by some reference to Mr. Disraeli's last witticism. The present generation seems inclined to admit that the provocation given by Sir Robert Peel, especially by the style in which he lectured his former supporters for adhering to the prin- ciples in which he himself had so long and so sedulously trained them, was, if not sufficient to justify every one of these attacks, far greater than the victorious converts were either willing to acknow- ledge, or perhaps even able to appreciate. Their success, their talents, and the popularity of the cause they had espoused, dazzled the public eye, and neutralised for a time" all the efforts of a beaten party to vindicate the justice of its anger. But we may learn from Mr. Morley's Life of Mr. Cobden that the old Free Traders, at all events, were doubtful of the political morality which sanctioned the carriage of Free Trade in a Parliament dedicated to Protection, and that they saw little to condemn and something to applaud in Mr. Disraeli's satire.

35

THE TAEIFF, May 10, 1842.1

[On tliis day Sir Robert Peel explained the chief provisions of his new Tariff; and Mr. Disraeli in reply to Mr. Labouchere took occasion to remind the House and the public that Free Trade originated with the Tories.]

ME DISRAELI said — with reference to the accusation made on the other side of the House, that the right honourable baronet at the head of the Government had repudiated prin- ciples when in opposition which he had adopted when in office — that that charge had been made without due examination of the facts of the case. He did not think that the honourable gentlemen opposite had succeeded in making out their claim to being peculiarly the originators of the principles of free trade ; and as it was of great importance that the House should have as correct a knowledge as possible as to the pedigree of those particular dogmas, that gentlemen opposite should not continue to consider that the country was indebted to them- selves for the doctrines of free trade, or gentlemen on his own side imagine that those doctrines were of such recent and modern invention as was generally supposed, he might be al- lowed to remind the House that it was Mr. Pitt who first promulgated them, in 1787. At the time when this country had been deprived of the great colonial market of America, he was led to look round for new markets on the continent of Europe, and first developed that system which he considered should form the future commercial policy of the country. Mr. Pitt said that we must begin to carry on commerce upon a system of complete reciprocity — that we must lower our duties, and consolidate our customs. This was at a time when the

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard.

D 2

36 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

Whigs ranked among their numbers such names as those of Fox, Sheridan, Burke, Sir Philip Francis, and the distinguished relative of the noble Viscount (Viscount Howick) opposite, and yet Mr. Fox, on a question in which the principles of the then proposed commercial policy was discussed, denounced those new principles of commercial reciprocity, and said they formed altgether a new system, in which not only were the established doctrines of our forefathers departed from, but all the essential principles on which our commerce had been previously con- ducted were to be changed and abandoned. Mr. Burke and Mr. Sheridan also strongly opposed the commercial system re- commended by Mr. Pitt. In the House of Lords, too, the opposition to it was still more strong and efficient, and the opinions of Mr. Pitt upon commerce were so far in advance of the age that not even a member of his own Grovernment in the House of Lords was willing or competent to become their advocate.

The task devolved on Lord Hawkesbury, not then a member of the administration : an able man, whose mind had been directed to such studies. Yet he could not maintain the con- troversy against the violent assault of Bishop Watson, who brought forward a mass of statistical details (rare materials of Parliamentary debate in those days) to prove that the system of Mr. Pitt was utterly erroneous, and that the first method of carrying it into effect — namely, a commercial treaty with France — was pregnant with ruin to British trade. It was the repeated attack of Bishop Watson, and its effect on the audience to which it was addressed, that brought from his retirement the most remarkable man of his age, Lord Shelburne. Let honourable gentlemen read and digest the speech delivered by Lord Shelburne in answer to Bishop Watson, on the French treaty ; and they will then find that instead of that great pro- gress which we are too apt to suppose public men have made . of late years in the science of political economy, we are at this moment far behind many of the great statesmen who nourished at the end of the last century. The principles of free trade were developed — and not by Whigs — fifty years ago; and how was it that the Whig party now came forward, and

THE NEW TAEIFF, 18*2. 37

contended that they were the originators of these opinions ? But what was the conduct of the Pitt party after the peace ? Was the party which originally brought free-trade principles into notice at that period false to those principles ? If that question were fairly examined, it would be found that exactly the reverse was the case, and that, on the very first possible occasion, the administration of Lord Liverpool showed itself in advance of the years [_sic] upon the question of a greater freedom of trade. Before Mr. Huskisson exercised his great and bene- ficial influence on the commercial legislation of this country, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Robinson had carried a series of measures founded on the true principles of commerce, and Mr. Hus- kisson only prosecuted their system ; and in what the right honourable baronet now proposed it was manifest that he was doing neither more or less than carrying into effect principles which originated with Mr. Pitt. The conduct pursued by the" right honourable baronet was in exact harmony, in perfect consistency, with the principles in reference to free trade laid down by Mr. Pitt, and his reason for saying thus much was to refute the accusations which had been brought against the present Government, that, in order to get into and, being in, to keep office, they had changed their opinions on these subjects.

38 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

FREE TRADE, April 25, 1843.1

[On February 13, Lord Howick had moved 'that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider so much of Her Majesty's Speech as relates to that depression of the manufacturing interest of the country which has so long prevailed, and which Her Majesty has so deeply lamented.' The object of the motion was of course an attack upon the Corn Laws. A debate ensued which extended over five nights, and on the second night Mr. Disraeli addressed himself to the question how far it was possible to find relief for our commercial distress in an extension of our commerce.

' Our markets,' said he, ' might fairly be divided under three general heads — our European markets, the markets of the East, and the markets of the New World. Our European markets must be regulated by commercial treaties.' And he then went on to comment on four projected treaties of commerce which had not yet been carried out : namely, with France, with Spain, with Portugal, and with Brazil. Mr. Morley says of this speech that it is ' remarkable to this day for its large and comprehensive survey of the whole field of our commerce and for its discernment of the channels in which it would expand.' 2 But I have preferred to give the speech which follows, for the sake of the remarks which it contains on the disposition of foreign States. On April 25, Mr. Ricardo; the member for Stoke, moved that remission of duties should not be postponed to the execution of commercial treaties. Mr. Disraeli here refers to his favourite doctrine that these questions could not be decided exclusively by political economy.]

MR. DISRAELI said that the noble lord who had just addressed the House had indulged in a traditional sneer against the right honourable baronet (Sir R. Peel) for his policy with respect to what was called the balance of trade. It had been

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard.

- Life of Cobden, vol. ii. p. 336.

IMPORT DUTIES AND FEEE TRADE, 1843. 39

truly said by Sir Walter Kaleigh that what was wrong in the main might still be right in the detail. Now, he considered that anything that could cause a sudden abstraction of the precious metals from this country must necessarily affect the commercial transactions of the country at the same time. This was a subject which rendered the consideration of the honourable member's motion of the deepest importance. Three years ago, they made a very large importation of corn from Germany, at which time the Bank of England had negotiated a loan of money with the Bank of France. They all remembered the effects of that mercantile transaction upon the currency of this country. It was difficult to forget the humiliations that were cast upon them when it became known what were the terms on which this loan was effected between the two countries. No person could deny the abstraction of precious metals which then took place from England, which resulted in the most serious consequences. Their currency was deranged, prices were gen- erally reduced, and wages fell considerably. A mercantile con- vulsion had actually taken place. This sudden abstraction of 3,000,000£. of their precious metals was a very serious evil ; but he would ask, if the proposition of the honourable member for Stoke were agreed to, whether the abstraction of precious metals would not be larger than in 1839.

This was a subject of consideration totally independent of the balance of trade. It was a consideration that must occur to every person who took an interest in the subject. The noble lord contended that the abstraction of precious metals did not do much injury to the country. He believed that this was a point that was acknowledged to be one of the highest importance by the greatest economists in this country. This, he believed, would be the immediate consequence of the policy that was now recommended. It was their duty to inquire what was the opinion of foreign economists on this subject. There was ample evi- dence on this point to guide the people of England in their opinions on this subject. The work of Dr. Listz, and those of a great many other men, referred to the circumstance and the results of the great importation of corn by England from the continent of Europe in 1839 They alluded to the sudden ab-

40 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

straction of the precious metals, which materially affected their trade and the interests of this country. There was a conviction in the public mind of Germany that if they could occasion an abstraction of precious metals from England in a systematic way, they would raise prices in their own country, and lower prices in this country. He knew that some honourable gentlemen oppo- site would say that prices were but a relative consideration, and of itself the subject was of no great importance ; but such ab- stract truisms involved a practical error. He was of opinion that the sudden lowering of prices must deeply affect, not only the profits of capital, but the most important interests of the country.

It was highly important for the House to consider what might be the effect of such a course as was now advised upon their monetary system. Some might say that everything would ultimately find a level. Natural philosophers, who deal with principles, dogmatise ; but statesmen, who deal with circum- stances, must negociate. It was possible that they might carry on a trade with less expensive transactions more profitable than a trade with more expensive ones. No one could deny that as they had relaxed their duties, foreign countries had increased theirs. If they intended to proceed in the course that was now recommended, they should be prepared for a systematic abstraction of the precious metals. He would ask, were they prepared for the consequences ?

He could not conceal from himself — if such principles as these were carried out — there would be a great chance of their revenue being diminished, their commerce deranged, their prices lowered, and the wages of labour considerably diminished. Supposing that these prices were to go on for two, three, four, or five years, before the truth should suddenly flash upon the minds of the Government, he wanted to know if this country were prepared for this ordeal. He wondered what the effect would be if they had even the short experience of three years of these predicted changes. What would be the state of England during the working of this experiment ? There would be an immense mass of individual suffering, followed by fre- quent bankruptcies ; all the banks would be broken, the whole

IMPOET DUTIES AND FEEE TRADE, 1843. 41

commercial system would be in a state of derangement ; the revenue of the country would be upheld only by having re- course to the most violent attacks on property. He thought these were events that were more than probable — he thought they were inevitable. But surely there were considerations which were of great importance in viewing the case which ought not to be omitted. The House was called upon by the speech of the honourable member for Stoke-upon-Trent to open free ports as against the hostile tariffs of other countries. These were subjects which occupied the minds of Continental statesmen, and were of such importance in the economical sys- tem of Germany, especially, that he was surprised they had not occupied more attention, but which, right or wrong, ought to occupy their attention if honourable gentlemen thought of what must ultimately result to the continent of Europe, still remembering, however, that before that result was arrived at we must be the intermediate sufferers, and perhaps the victims.

There was another circumstance which seemed to be over- looked by those who held extreme opinions on these subjects : they were apt to think that the Governments of Europe proposed to themselves no other objects in their commercial arrangements than the wealth of nations, and totally omitted from their view one of the most prevailing influences — the poli- tical considerations which were always mixed up with indus- trial habits. These honourable gentlemen talked of what they called ' vested interests ' which were raised and cuddled and pampered with protection, and they said that such an artificial class might do very well for a time, but the system was fallacious : it must ultimately prove ruinous ; but, at the same time, the public mind, they admitted, was not enlightened, though a Government must see that such pampered manufacture was a losing concern. Such was the case with the cotton manufacture in France formerly, though now no longer the case. As long as pounds, shillings and pence alone were consulted, these gentle- men were right, and a trade so circumstanced must be given up.

But honourable gentlemen opposite seemed to forget that some Governments perhaps proposed to maintain certain manu-

42 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

factures as the elements of future strength. At this moment there were around the city of St. Petersburg some fourteen or fifteen factories which were worked at a great loss, and the loss was paid, and was cheerfully paid, by the Government — it was paid by the Government, as ostentatiously announced, to keep these places up as models to stimulate the industry of the country. Whether eventually this principle might be given up by the Governments of Europe was a matter of speculation, but until those Governments had accepted our high notions of political economy this country was likely to encounter such a state of transitive suffering as would render it impossible to cal- culate what commercial losses, what financial distresses, and what political catastrophes it might involve. It was impossible , to shut their eyes to the effect which years of commercial distress ' and financial difficulty might have on our political institutions. Admitting the general justice of these principles of public economy which had of late years exercised great influence in those countries, was it not the natural course to adopt the happy medium which was always followed by practical men — \ that system of reciprocity by means of which through negoti- ation they might obtain those benefits which they all acknow- ledged in increased commerce, and avoid those dangers that might possibly attend a less cautious and prudent course ? This was the wiser system to adopt under any circumstances. If the benefits proposed by the honourable member for Stoke were merely speculative ; more than all, if his principles might tend to great disasters, it followed most satisfactorily that they should take that course which, while it secured all the advantages he proposed, at the same time insured them against the dangers with which they were menaced.

There was another circumstance which should not be left out of their consideration. It would be found that in every one of those countries with which we sought treaties of com- merce considerable interests existed that advocated our policy. It should be remembered that these powerful interests were founded upon, and existed only in consequence of, our commer- cial system. The Chamber of Lyons, and that more powerful interest the wine interest of France, must sooner or later obtain

IMPOKT DUTIES AND FREE TEADE, 1843. 43

for us a treaty of commerce with that country ; and if not so advantageous as might have been secured in 1840, it should at least be remembered that it was no fiscal or commercial circum- stance which, in that instance, had operated to our disadvantage. The noble lord, the member for Sunderland, had treated the right honourable Vice-President of the Board of Trade somewhat unfairly in the reference he made to the speech in which he answered the honourable member for Stoke. The noble lord said his right honourable friend had misrepresented the object and purpose of this motion : he said that the motion was a most practical and moderate one, whereas the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had made a speech which was directed solely against extreme opinions. The right honourable gentleman had answered the speech of the honourable member for Stoke. The speech of the honourable member for Stoke was very different from his motion. His motion might be very guarded, moderate, and, in the opinion of some, very practical ; but it was impossible to dissever the speech by which it was prefaced from the motion which was ultimately, submitted. The honour- able member for Stoke did not attempt to conceal his opinions ; boldly, clearly, perspicuously, in the most manly way, he announced his adhesion to the most ultra-free-trade opinions. The honourable gentleman had come in like a lion, and gone out like a lamb ; but when he gave a programme of his opinions which was to have its effect on the country, although he con- cluded with what the noble lord called a very moderate and practical motion, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade was not bound to confine his reply to the limited and moderate motion and allow the more general extreme opinions of the honourable member for Stoke to pass unnoticed.

The motion of the honourable gentleman meant that they should fight against hostile tariffs with free imports, and no- / thing else. For himself, he believed that would be a policy financially of the most disastrous kind ; at any rate, there was sufficient evidence before them to prove that its immediate con- sequences would be tariffs more hostile to England, and under these circumstances it was not for the honourable gentleman who had introduced the motion, or his friends, to say that the

SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

opinions they had avowed in favour of what they chose to call 4 free trade ' should not be replied to. The expression 6 free trade,' as originally brought into public notice, designated very different principles from those it denoted in the mouths of the gentlemen opposite. It was first used by economists of very great celebrity, in contradistinction to the old colonial system, and meant a large and liberal intercourse — a free navi- gation from port to port ; but honourable gentlemen opposite attached to it a much more extensive signification, which the original authors of the expression never contemplated.

There was obviously some analogy between civil and com- mercial freedom. A man was not the less free because he was subject to some regulations and taxes; but honourable gentle- men opposite meant by ' free trade ' an absence from all restric- tions. But really the honourable gentlemen opposite spoke of restriction in the spirit of those of whom Milton had said —

Licence they mean, when they cry liberty !

A peculiar characteristic of the free-trade school was their total neglect of circumstances — they never took any circum- stances into consideration. He had stated that as a consequence of our commercial system powerful interests had grown up in other countries to advocate and enforce our views ; if those parties succeeded in their endeavours, if commercial arrange- ments were brought about, we should immediately have a con- siderable increase to our trade without intervening danger of any kind ; but honourable gentlemen might rest assured, if they were to be guided by what was said or, what was of more importance, by what was written in Europe and America at this moment, they never would succeed unless they took a decided course. If they meant to obtain advantages by negotiation they must un- reservedly announce it, and certainly it would not be long before they attained their end, because the minister of England who negotiated was placed in a much more favourable position than the minister of any other country. He could say what the minister of no other country could say : he could say to the President of the United States with his hostile tariff : ' There is a country belonging to the Queen of England that, if neces-

IMPORT DUTIES AND FREE TRADE, 1843. 45

sary, can produce illimitable quantities of that cotton of which you boast so much ; ' he could say to St. Petersburg : ' That very same country, within three months, in 1843, has sent ships to the port of London with cargoes of flax, hemp, and tallow ; ' and without sending a special mission to Brazil, without the expense of the mission or the mortification of failure, he could tell the Brazilian Minister : ' That very same country in one of its vallies produces sugar enough to feed the whole world, and in another district produces coffee superior to that of the Bra- zils.' These were facts the knowledge of which was not confined within the walls of the House of Commons ; they were con- tinually referred to in the political and economical dissertation in Europe : there was not a statesman in Russia or America that was not frightened at the available resources of India.

These were the elements of negotiation : as such they ought not to be forgotten ; they were the elements of our strength if we chose to resort to them. He thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to his observations. He had endeavoured to meet the question fairly. He thought the policy recommended by the honourable member for Stoke founded on principles which were utterly fallacious, and, if pur- sued, it would immediately produce financial consequences of the most disastrous kind by its effect on the monetary system of the country : he thought by adopting the medium course, ffv//' the principle of reciprocity, they would secure a very consider- 1 able share of the advantages contemplated by the honourable' mover, without endangering most important interests, and he thought the principle of commercial treaties was the only one that could be adopted in the complicated state of our relations. If carried into effect, it took its form in that public compact which the law of nations and the manners of Europe had sanctioned. He did not think they could do better in attempt- ing to gain those commercial advantages which they all desired than adhere to that system of negotiation by means which they could always have recourse to, which were always understood, which if they failed to-day might succeed to-morrow.

46 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

EXPLANATION TO CONSTITUENTS OF HIS VOTES IN PARLIAMENT, SHREWSBURY, May 9, 1843.

[This speech was delivered just at that moment when the thorough- going Protectionists were first beginning to express their suspicions of the policy of Sir Robert Peel. On this occasion Mr. Disraeli defended him. The new Corn Bill and the Tariff of 1842 were the measures which provoked the greatest hostility, and provincial Tory papers proclaimed in capital letters that Sir Robert Peel had forfeited the confidence of the Conservative party. Mr. Disraeli, however, went to the root of the matter in the latter part of his speech, in which he avowed himself a Protectionist, not on econo- mical, but on social and political grounds. His description of the landed interest in this speech raises the whole question which really underlies Conservative and Radical principles. It is the old theory, the theory of the eighteenth-century Tories, the theory of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Stanley. The landed interest is the foundation of our national greatness: our constitution is a territorial constitution. This interest embraces, not only the Church and the monarchy, but the great body of local and unpaid jurisdictions which form a part of English life, and must be considered with reference to all the habits, virtues and traditions which it has fostered for centuries : to the moral results, that is, for which we were indebted to Protection. All this is not lightly to be imperilled even for the benefits promised us by free trade. Sir. R. Peel was only revising the Tariff as it periodically required to be revised— as it had been revised by Mr. Pitt and Lord Liverpool. The speaker then went on to say : — ]

I AM not an enemy myself to free trade, according to my idea of free trade. I have shown it in every vote I have given in Parliament. I have never supported either prohi- bitions or monopoly, nor have I made native industry the stalking-horse by which to uphold any abuses. But my idea of free trade is this — that you cannot have free trade unless the person you deal with is as liberal as yourself. If I saw a

EXPLANATION TO CONSTITUENTS, 1843. 47

prize-fighter encountering a galley-slave in irons, I should con- sider the combat equally as fair as to make England fight hostile tariffs with free imports ; and I feel persuaded myself that system will be pursued — though I do not mean for a moment to say that the present Government are going to pursue it ; but, I say, the present Government may, by the chapter of accidents, be compelled to pursue anything — if the great mass of the constituency have not firm opinions on the subject and will not support the Grovernment, which is pressed by what is called a ' liberal minority,' incessant in their exertions in the House of Commons, and organised in their exertions in the country. Do not, I beg, suppose I am sceptical as to the dis- positions of the present Government ; but we live in a time in which it is utterly impossible for any administration, or any minister, to pursue his particular policy, however convinced he may be in his own mind, or however resolved he may be, if the great body of the people who have placed him in power do not actively maintain him there. I do not say, gentlemen, that this is a healthy state of the social system. I do not mean to tell you that governing a country out of the Government is what, abstractedly, I approve of. It is not either the Conser- vatives or the Tories ; it is not either Sir Robert Peel or the Duke of Wellington, that commenced agitation in this country ; but the moment you permitted that fatal principle l to be intro- duced practically into your constitution, it became necessary, according to the old principle of Mr. Burke, that ' when your opponents conspired, you were called upon to combine.'

Gentlemen, this is the position of Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons. \_Sir Robert Peel, I believe, is influenced by a desire of practically mediating between great contending parties. I believe he has adopted opinions which are just and right, and that he is anxious to support native industry ; but, at the same time, if native industry will not support Sir Robert Peel, how is he to go on f^" That is the precise position of the minister at this day, with an apparently feeble Parliamentary minority before him, but consisting of men of great intellec- tual ability, and with the classic temple of the classic drama, 1 Of. Coni-nggby, book iv. chap. 10.

48 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

hired at two hundred pounds a night, to represent the character of the House of Commons to the population behind them. How is any cabinet in the world, whatever may be their calm opinion of the policy they ought to pursue, if that policy is, as it ought to be, an unimpassioned, an impartial, a moderate, and an eminently salutary policy — how are they to pursue it, if bodies of men do not unite out of the House to let them know that the party which put them into power to preserve the institu- tions and interests of the country (let me remind you of that) are now prepared, under all circumstances, as they were then, giving them an ample allowance for circumstances, to support them so long as they adhere to principle.

I never will commit myself upon this great question to petty economical details ; I will not pledge myself to miserable questions of 6d. in 7s. Qd. or 8s. of duties about corn ; I do not care whether your corn sells for this sum or that, or whether it is under a sliding scale or a fixed duty ; but what I want, and what I wish to secure, and what, as far as my energies go, I will secure, is, the preponderance of the landed interest. Gentlemen, when I talk of the preponderance of the landed interest, do not for a moment suppose that I mean merely the preponderance of ' squires of high degree,' that, in fact, I am thinking only of justices of the peace. My thought wanders farther than a lordly tower or a manorial hall. I am looking in that phrase, in using that very phrase, to what I consider the vast majority of the English nation. I do not undervalue the mere superiority of the landed classes ; on the contrary, I think it a most necessary element of political power and national civilisation ; but I am looking to the population of our innu- merable villages, to the crowds in our rural towns : aye, and I mean even something more than that by the landed interest — I mean that estate of the poor which, in my opinion, has been already tampered with, dangerously tampered with ; which, I have also said, let me remind you, in other places besides Shrewsbury. I mean by the estate of the poor, the great estate of the Church, which has, before this time, secured our liberty, and may, for aught I know, still secure our civilisation. I mean, also, by the landed interest, that great judicial fabric,

EXPLANATION TO CONSTITUENTS, 1843. 49

that great building up of our laws and manners which is, in fact, the ancient polity of the realm, and the ancient constitution of the realm — those ancient institutions which we Conservatives are bound to uphold — which you sent us to Parliament to up- hold ; for there is not a greater, or a more general, there is not a more prevalent or a more superficial error of misconception, than to suppose that the English constitution only consists of Queen, Lords, and Commons. Why, gentlemen, that is only a part, and not even the most important, part, of the constitu- tion of England. Your trial by jury is as important a part, and it is also an institution of England. Your institution of trial by jury arises out of your landed tenure of property. And if you, because commerce is declining, forsooth, because gentle- men hire theatres, make tawdry speeches in tawdry places, and say that the spirit of the age is against the territorial and feudal system, and declare that it is all the consequence of the re- mains of that old system — if you, upon this account, uproot that tenure of property ; if you destroy all those institutions ; if you destroy all those manners and duties which only are supported by this species of property — which you will do if you have a great territorial revolution in this country (for I will show you that if you have any change it will soon lead to much change) — I want to know what will become of your institutions ? Institutions ! Why, gentlemen, anybody can have a King, Lords, and Commons. In my lifetime twenty-five States in Europe and America have made themselves Kings, Lords, and Commons. You may take a hundred gentlemen, and call them dukes, earls, and lords, and shut them up in a room ; you may take 300 other gentlemen, and make them deputies — that is, you may give them the name ; but do you think that an ancient, powerful, enlightened, and intel- lectual nation will consent to be governed by those men? No ; they would rather submit to be governed by two select vestries.

What do you think, gentlemen, makes the people of Eng- land submit to have their fortunes, or, it may be, their lives, decided by the votes of such men as the Earl of Powis, and Lord Forester, and other persons like them in this country ? Is it

VOL. i. E

50 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

because they are individuals against whom no fault has ever been heard, for any single or isolated act, that you leave your characters and fortunes to be decided by them ? Not at all ; but it is the great sympathy which proceeds from the fact that they have some stake in the realm, and which makes everyone feel these men have Shropshire at their back. Why, they re- present Shropshire as much as I represent Shrewsbury. They are as much the representatives of Shropshire in the House of Lords as their sons, nephews, or friends may be the representa- tives of constituencies in the House of Commons ; and it is be- cause there is throughout our constitution, as it were, a terri- torial bias, that there exists throughout the country a similar bond of sympathy. Two members are not sent up to a distant city, three hundred miles from the constituency they represent, for no purpose ; on the contrary, we all feel that the members sent up represent the property, and by the property I mean the traditionary rights and duties of the property of this country.

Gentlemen, we hear a great deal in the present day upon the subject of the feudal system. I have heard from the lips of Mr. Cobden — no, I have not heard him say it, as I was not present to hear the celebrated speech he made in Drury Lane Theatre — but we have all heard how Mr. Cobden, who is a very eminent person, has said, in a very memorable speech, that England was the victim of the feudal system, and we have all heard how he has spoken of the barbarism of the feudal system, and of the barbarous relics of the feudal system. Now, if we have any relics of the feudal system, I regret that not more of it is remaining. Think one moment — and it is well you should be reminded of what this is, because there is no phrase more glibly used in the present day than ' the barbarism of the feudal system.' Now, what is the fundamental principle of the feudal system, gentlemen ? \ It is that the tenure of all property shall be the performance of its duties. Why, when the Con- queror carved out parts of the land, and introduced the feudal system, he said to the recipient, * You shall have that estate, but you shall dq something for it : you shall feed the poor ; you shall endow the Church ; you shall defend the land in

EXPLANATION TO CONSTITUENTS, 1843. 51

case of war ; and you shall execute justice and maintain truth to the poor for nothing.' 1

It is all very well to talk of the barbarities of the feudal system, and to tell us that in those days when it nourished a great variety of gross and grotesque circumstances and great miseries occurred ; but these were not the result of the feudal system : they were the result of the barbarism of the age. They existed not from the feudal system, but in spite of the feudal system. The principle of the feudal system, the principle which was practically operated upon, was the noblest principle, the grandest, the most magnificent and benevolent that was ever conceived by sage, or ever practised by patriot. Why, when I hear a political economist, or an Anti-Corn-Law Leaguer, or some conceited Liberal reviewer come forward and tell us, as a grand discovery of modern science, twitting and taunting, perhaps, some unhappy squire who cannot respond to the alleged dis- covery— when I hear them say, as the great discovery of modern science, that ' Property has its duties as well as its rights,' my answer is that that is but a feeble plagiarism of the very prin- ciple of that feudal system which you are always reviling. Let

1 It is interesting to compare with this passage the following words of Mr. Gladstone, spoken twenty-seven years afterwards : ' In Ireland, from the unhappy circumstances of the country, . . . there has not rested in the hands of the landlords the discharge of that immense mass of public duties, bearing upon every subject of political, social, and moral interest, without fee or reward, which has honourably distinguished for so many generations the landlords of England. This fixed and happy usage I take to be a just relic and true descendant of the feudal system, which never took a real or genuine root in Ireland. . . . Are you prepared to denude them (the Irish landlords) of their interest in the land ? and, what is more, are you prepared to absolve them from their duties with regard to the land ? I, for one, confess that I am not ; nor is that the sentiment of my colleagues. We think, on the con- trary, that we ought to look forward with hope and expectation to bringing about a state of things in which the landlords of Ireland may assume, or may more generally assume, the position which is happily held as a class by land- lords in this country — a position marked by residence, by personal familiarity, and by sympathy with the people among whom they live, by long traditional connection handed on from generation to generation, and marked by a constant discharge of duty in every form that can be suggested — -be it as to the ad- ministration of justice, be it as to the defence of the country, be it as to the supply of social, or spiritual, or moral, or educational wants ; be it for any purpose whatever that is recognised as good or beneficial in a civilised society.' —House of Commons, February 17, 1870 : Speech on Irish Land Act.

52 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

me next tell those gentlemen who are so fond of telling us that property has its duties as well as its rights, that labour also has its rights as well as its duties : and when I see masses of property raised in this country which do not recognise that principle ; when I find men making fortunes by a method which permits them (very often in a very few years) to purchase the lands of the old territorial aristocracy of the country, I cannot help remembering that those millions are accumulated by a mode which does not recognise it as a duty ' to endow the Church, to feed the poor, to guard the land, and to execute justice for nothing.' And I cannot help asking myself, when I hear of all this misery, and of all this suffering ; when I know that evidence exists in our Parliament of a state of demoralisa- tion in the once happy population of this land, which is not equalled in the most barbarous countries, which we suppose the more rude and uncivilised in Asia are — I cannot help suspecting that this has arisen because property has been permitted to be X created and held without the performance of its duties.

Now, I want to ask the gentlemen who are members of the Anti-Corn-Law League, the gentlemen who are pressing on the Grovernment of the country, on the present occasion, the total repeal and abolition of the Corn Laws — I want to know whether they have soberly considered how far they are personally respon- sible for this degraded state of our population. And I want them to consider this most important point, which has never yet been properly brought before any deliberative assembly- how far the present law of succession and inheritance in land will survive the whole change of your agricultural policy ? If that does not survive — if that falls — if we recur to the Conti- nental system of parcelling out landed estates — I want to know how long you can maintain the political system of the country ? That estate of the Church which I mentioned; that estate of the poor to which I referred ; that great fabric of judicial rights to which I made allusion ; those traditionary manners and associations which spring out of the land, which form the national character, which form part of the possession of the poor not to be despised, and which is one of the most impor- tant elements of political power — they will tell you ' Let it

EXPLANATION TO CONSTITUENTS, 1843. 53

go ! ' My answer to that is, ' If it goes, it is a revolution, a ^ great, a destructive revolution,' and it is not my taste to live in an age of destructive revolution. For these reasons, gentle- men, I believe in that respect, faithfully representing your sentiments, that I have always upheld that law which, I think, will uphold and maintain the preponderance of the agricultural interests of the country. I do not wish to conceal the ground upon which I wish to uphold it. I never attempted to uphold it by talking of the peculiar burthens, which, however, I believe, may be legitimately proved, or indulging in many of those arguments in favour of the Corn Laws which may or may not be sound, but which are always brought forward with a sort of hesitating consciousness which may be assumed to be connected with futility. I take the only broad and only safe line — namely, that what we ought to uphold is, the preponder- \ ance of the landed interest; that the preponderance of the landed interest has made England ; that it is an immense element of political power and stability ; / that we should never have been able to undertake the great war in which we embarked in the memory of many present — that we could never have been able to conquer the greatest military genius the world ever saw, with the greatest means at his disposal, and to hurl him from his throne, if we had not had a territorial aristocracy to give stability to our constitution.

And. I mean to say this, that if we had not done that, if we had not had that territorial power, and that preponderance of the land-owner in our constitution, I do not see why Grreat Britain, probably very contented and very prosperous, should have been a greater power than Denmark or Sweden ; but I for il one arn not prepared to sit under the power of a third-class if I can be a citizen of a first-class Empire. And I do not believe that any man who listens to me can differ with me upon that point. It is enough that you were born in Shropshire, that you are a portion of that ancient county, that you were born in a county full of historical recollections, a county that has taken the lead of all others in public affairs, a county where, as Lord Clarendon says, ' the Cavaliers' blood lives.' It is enough that you have undergone great vicissitudes ; it is enough that you

54 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

have lived under various dynasties ; it is enough that you have sprung from a race that has done something ; it is enough that you can talk of your ancestors as of a people that can be re- membered— it is enough to know all this in order to feel that you do not want to be put in the catalogue of new States which may hereafter turn out something or may not — in fact, to feel that you do not want to be turned into a sort of spinning- jenny machine kind of nation. You want, in fact, to be a great people, because you are a great people, and because you feel that the exertions of your fathers and your own aspiration s entitle you to that position : and it seems to be a reasonable ambition.

Before I sit down I do not wish to close without an observa- tion on those who are always finding fault with the humbler classes of the community — who at the same time charitably say they are not responsible for their deterioration. I confess that, as far as I can form an opinion, the deterioration of society is not to be found only among the labourers of the country. Jt is not in the squalid dwellings ; it is not in the miserable details of sickening poverty, that this deterioration may be found ; but, in my opinion, that heroic nobility which formed this country, and that spirited gentry which has so often come forward to vindicate our rights or to defend our liberties, and which have also been the main source of our commercial great- ness— for it is the nobility and gentry of the land who have founded our greatest colonies — in my opinion the present race is deficient in those qualities.1 There are, however, great exceptions to be made, even in the higher classes of the country ; but there is a miserable philosophy of the day which ascribes everything to ' the spirit of the age '—that thinks nothing is to be done by the influence of individual character, which is, after all, the only inducement to great actions, the 'Only spur to great achievements. That opinion is much too prevalent; and there is no question that it is not merely among the lower classes that we find a lack of those great qualities which hitherto have always been associated with the noble, national character of England.

1 But not the then rising generation. Cf . Sybil,, book v. chap. 2.

EXPLANATION TO CONSTITUENTS, 1843. 55

I told you when I saw you first that I should maintain, so far as my vote could maintain, the preponderance of the landed interest. I am of that opinion still. I believe the landed interest should be the basis of our political and social system. But if there be others who are of a different opinion, if it be — which I do not believe — that there are those of a different opinion in high places, and that these alterations may be brought forward, and perhaps even passed, do not let us for a moment disguise from ourselves the influence which such an event must have, I will not say upon the political power, or social condition, or financial prosperity of the country, for these are great themes, but upon the more limited but most interest- ing topic of the construction of parties. Kest assured, if these changes are brought forward, whoever may be the person to propose them, that we are on the eve of an age of great party convulsion —that we are on the eve of an age when we shall : see no more permanent Governments,1 no more strong Govern- 1 ments, no more administrations carrying out from long and patient experience and conviction the remedies of the faults of their predecessors. Then let me tell you that, in that time, they who look for benefit from the hands of public men, or look to the favour of Courts, or the confidence of ministers, will fM- build upon a rock of sand. No public man at that time will be in a position in which he can pursue his career who has not the power to cast his anchor deep in the rock of some great constitutional constituency. As for myself, if that happens, I shall come to you and tell you, ' I am here ; we are beaten ; but I have done my duty. Kemember what I told you when we met in the Music Hall at Shrewsbury in 1843 ; I told you what might happen ; I told you I did not believe it would occur, but that if it did occur I was prepared to act ; I told you then that I had elected to support that cause which I believe upholds the power and prosperity of my country, and the social happiness of all classes. Others have thought differ- ently ; the majority, perhaps the enlightened majority, ani- mated by that " spirit of the age " which hitherto we have seen,

1 The experience of the last few years invests these words with peculiar interest and significance.

56 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

have thought differently, and have had the power to act differ- ently.'

But I have still some confidence in the national character of Englishmen. I know well that before this, the country has experienced great vicissitudes. I know well that we had in England more revolutions, and upon a greater scale, than in any other country in the world. It is utterly impossible, in- deed, for the French Eevolution, or any other, to embrace more comprehensive objects. You have had the majesty of England brought to the block ; you have had the Church, personified by Archbishop Laud, brought to the block ; you have had the ad- ministration, in the person of Stratford, brought to the block — the king, the minister, and the archbishop. You have had the House of Lords voted a nuisance. You have had the House of Commons kicked out in an ignominious manner by a military officer. You have had the Church completely sequestrated. All this has happened in England. But before a quarter of a century passed over, you returned to your old laws, your old habits, your old traditions, your old convictions. In 1648 Oliver Cromwell slept at Whitehall ; in 1688 l Charles II. fol- lowed his example. And shall I tell you the reason why, after circumstances so wonderful, though no historian has noticed it ; though you saw every trace of the social system uprooted by the most prejudicial, grasping, and subtle enemies that were ever invented ; 2 though the vessel became a wreck, and the king, the Church, and the constitution were swept away, the nation returned to itself? Shall I tell you how it was that the nation returned to itself, and Old England, after the deluge, was seen rising above the waters ? This was the reason — because during all that fearful revolution you never changed the tenure of your landed property. That, I think, gentlemen, proves my case ; and if we have baffled a wit like Oliver Cromwell, let us not be staggered even before Mr. Cobden ! The acres remained ; the estates remained. The generations changed : the Puritan father died, and the Cavalier son came into his place, and,

1 Presumably 1660.

2 The reports of the speech differ so much in different papers, and all of them are so corrupt, that emendation becomes a hopeless task.

EXPLANATION TO CONSTITUENTS, 1843. 57

backed by that power and influence, the nation reverted to the ancient principles of the realm. And this, gentlemen^ is the reason why you have seen an outcry raised against your Corn Laws. Your Corn Laws are merely the outwork of a great system fixed and established upon your territorial property, and the only object the Leaguers have in making themselves masters of the outwork is that they may easily overcome the citadel.

58 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

SUGAR DUTIES, June 17, 1844.1

[In the second volume, among the speeches on Ireland will be found (August 9, 1843) the first open declaration of hostility against Sir Robert Peel's Government, together with the complimentary remarks of both the ' Times ' and ' Morning Chronicle ' on the young Tory party who followed Mr. Disraeli and had just acquired the title of Young England. Mr. Disraeli now follows up the blow. He had supported the Corn Bill and the new Tariff of 1842. But he was obliged to oppose Sir Robert twice during the session of 1844 : once on the Factory question, when ministers were first beaten on a motion of Lord Ashley's, and afterwards compelled the House to rescind its vote ; and secondly on the Sugar Duties, on an amendment proposed by Mr. Miles, when the same change of front was executed. Mr. Disraeli complains of the imperious tone adopted by Sir Robert Peel and thinks if he had assumed a more conciliatory manner he might have encountered less resistance.

In this speech Mr. Disraeli anticipates what he said at Shrewsbury in the following August. The House of Commons was called on by Sir Robert Peel to rescind its vote, and he now protests against the sound of the lash which was never silent on the Treasury Bench.]

MR. DISRAELI : Sir, I was not present during the event- ful debate of the other night ; and therefore, not having heard of the movement that has been made, nor of ' the con- spiracy ' that has been entered into, I own I am not without astonishment at what has transpired. I was not a little lost in wonder when I heard it said on Saturday and to-day — on the authority, as it would seem, of persons who had grounds for disseminating the report — that we were to come down to the House this afternoon to witness the resignation of the right honourable baronet at the head of the Government. I con-

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard,

SUGAR DUTIES, 1844. 59

gratulate the ministry — of course I congratulate the country — that instead of resigning an administration, the right honour- able gentleman has only moved an amendment. Sir, there has been an allusion to a case which is said to be analogous to the present — the case I mean, of Lord Althorp, who, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked the House to reconsider a vote it had come to on the subject of the Malt Tax. I was not in the House at the time ; but 1 have read and heard of the proceeding, and I know that it was held by men of both sides to be a remarkable case — a case the occurrence of which was attributed to the inexperience of a reconstructed assembly, and of gentlemen not very learned in the ways of Parliament. The vote on this occasion was generally felt, I believe, to be inevit- able ; but, at the same time, it was felt to be a vote that was distressing, if not damaging to the character of all parties in the House ; and it was a vote, I believe, which the members of both the Government and the Opposition felt to be only justi- fied by the extremest exigency. Several years have elapsed since that case occurred. It was left for the era of the present ' Con- servative ' administration — it was left for our own experience to witness a state of public affairs only too analogous. Twice with- in the present session have the ministry been driven to resort to the precedent of this 4 case of extreme urgency.' About a month ago this House was called upon to rescind a resolution on a subject of the deepest interest to the great body of the nation : and for the first time since the Malt Tax vote, this House submitted to ihat process which was previously regarded with so much distrust and only submitted to from such over- bearing necessity.

I cannot help thinking, Sir, that some mysterious influence must be at work to place us, within a month, in precisely the same position, and to put us before the country under circum- stances which I believe no one in this House, whether he be on this side or the Opposition' side, can describe as other than degrading. It may be that the right honourable gentleman will retain power by subjecting us to this stern process ; but I should mistake the right honourable gentleman's character if I were to suppose that he could greatly value a power which is only to be

60 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

maintained by means so extraordinary — I doubt whether I may not say, by means so unconstitutional. I think the right honourable gentleman should deign to consult a little more the feelings of his supporters. I do not think he ought to drag them unreasonably through the mire. He has already once this session made them repeal a solemn decision at which they had arrived, and now he comes down again and says, ' Unless you rescind another important resolution, I will no longer take upon myself the responsibility of conducting affairs.' Now, I really think to rescind one vote during the session is enough : I don't think in reason we ought to be called to endure this degradation more than once a year. That should be prevented. The right honourable baronet should introduce some Parliamentary tariff for the regulation of our disapproval. The Government ought to tell us to what point we might go — thus far, and no farther ; there are the bounds within which you are to enjoy your Par- liamentary independence, but the moment you pass them, you must submit to public disgrace, or we must submit to private life. Now, this is not the most agreeable way of conducting the affairs of the country ; it is not the most constitutional. I remember in 1841, when the right honourable baronet sup- ported the motion of the noble lord the member for Liverpool, he used these words. He said, ' I have never joined in the anti- slavery cry, and now I will not join in the cry of cheap sugar.' Two years have elapsed, and the right honourable gentleman has joined in the anti-slavery cry and has adopted the cry of cheap sugar. But it seems that the right honourable baronet's horror of slavery extends to every place except the benches behind him. There the gang is still assembled, and there the thong of the whip still sounds. Whatever may be the anti- slavery repugnance of the right honourable gentleman, his distaste would seem not to extend to this House. If the whip were more sparing here, his conduct would be more consistent with his professions.

After the vote of the other night became known and its consequences were in some degree contemplated, there were various rumours in circulation that the ministry had resigned, and these reports I certainly cannot but consider proceeded

SUGAR DUTIES, 1844. 61

from some who were authorised to circulate them ; but it now appears from the right honourable gentleman's declaration that it is not he or his colleagues who are to resign their offices, but we, the majority of the House of Commons, who are to resign our votes, and the country at large is to see the repre- sentatives of the people again disgraced as they were on a former occasion during the present session. That is the point to which I think it important to direct attention. We are called upon to rescind our votes a second time ; and, more than this, we are called upon to do so under circumstances so pecu- liar that no man whatever can entertain a doubt as to the personal distress and even disgrace which will be entailed upon him by his participation in such a proceeding. It will be the better for the House, Sir, and far better for the right honour- able gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that such a system as this should no longer prevail. I say^ that the right honourable gentleman is deserving of a far better position in the eye of the country than one which he can only maintain by menacing his friends and by using the arts of persuasion with his opponents. )_The right honourable gentleman menaces us, and deals out threats to keep us to our allegiance with him ; whilst he lavishes those arts of persuasion for which he has acquired so just a celebrity upon those who form what he has chosen to term a combination, if not a con- spiracy, against him. The right honourable gentleman came into power upon the strength of our votes, but he would rely for the permanence of his ministry upon his political opponents. He may be right, he may even be to a certain degree success- ful, in pursuing the line of conduct which he has adopted, menacing his friends and cringing to his opponents, but I for one am disposed to look upon it as a success neither tending to the honour of the House nor to his own credit. I, therefore, for one must be excused if I declare my determination to give my vote upon this occasion as I did in the former instance : and as I do not follow the example of the honourable and gallant member near me (Sir H. Douglas), it will not subject me to the imputation of having voted upon the former occasion without thought or purpose. It only remains for me to declare,

62 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

after the mysterious hint which fell from the right honourable baronet in the course of his speech, that if I, in common with other honourable members, am called upon to appear again upon the hustings I shall not at least be ashamed to do so, nor shall I feel that I have weakened my claims upon the confidence of my constituents by not changing my vote within forty-eight hours at the menace of a minister.

63

OPENING OF LETTERS, Feb. 28, 1845.1

[This is a continuation of the same complaint, the complaint of Sir Robert Peel's language and demeanour towards the independent section of his followers : a complaint which was endorsed not only by the Opposition newspapers, but still more decidedly by the * Times ' on the occasion to which I have already referred. The question arose in the previous year, in consequence of a petition presented by Mr. Buncombe from Mazzini and others complaining that their letters had been opened at the General Post Office. A committee of inquiry was appointed. But their report was considered so unsatisfactory that on the meeting of Parliament in 1845 Mr. Buncombe moved for another. The motion was defeated by a large majority, and he then moved for the production of certain Post Office books and was again defeated; On each occasion he was supported by Mr. Disraeli, who in the second of his two speeches illustrated the conduct of Sir Robert Peel in relation to the agricultural interest by an image which has now become historical. It may seem at first sight perhaps that there is little in common between free trade and the open- ing of private letters. But Mr. Disraeli was complaining of Sir Robert's demeanour towards the more independent members of his own party, and thus was able to introduce his sarcasm in an apo- strophe which did not seem irrelevant.]

MR. DISRAELI : Sir, the honourable member for Finsbury has brought before the House his proposition in an in- telligible shape. He has laid before the House the statement of a personal grievance, and he has distinctly affirmed to us that in making that statement he makes no personal attack upon any individual. Sir, I should have hardly thought that it was necessary to make that declaration, had it not been for the associations connected with this motion, which perhaps origin-

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard.

64 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ated in other debates to1 which I myself mean not to refer. If the case of the last general warrant1 that was issued by a Secretary of State be compared with the last Post Office warrant that was issued by a Secretary of State, I think we may clearly in the parallel discover that no personal imputation need be appealed to in order to vindicate a public right. Sir, there is not the slightest doubt that the last general warrant issued by a Secretary of State was an act of tyranny, an act of oppression, an act essentially iniquitous ; but no one pretends that the Secretary of State who issued that general warrant was a tyrant, an oppressor, a man eminently unjust. On the contrary, Lord Halifax 2 was a very good sort of man. Society under these circumstances steps in and settles the rule which decides these questions. It acknowledges that usage is the moral vindication of the minister; but while it frees the minister from any personal stigma, it does not emancipate him from the conse- quence of an illegal act. That is the question which now engages the attention of the House and interests the nation. We are not to seek what may be the cause that has brought it forward ; I give the honourable gentleman who has brought it forward credit for the same purity of motive as the minister appealed to, and I must say I was much surprised that a minister of the Crown should ever have risen in this House and said that the question was only prompted by personal motives. Sir, it was only in answer to such an imputation that I ever myself stated that no personal feeling in this respect could influence me, and made one of those disclaimers which are generally disagreeable and inconvenient, but which, after all, are only addressed to the individual concerned. I am myself perfectly satisfied that, whatever ebullition of feeling came from another quarter, the person in question did not misconceive my motive. The honourable gentleman, the member for Finsbury, has placed the case neatly and com- pletely before us. He says, ' If my letters have been stopped and opened by the Government, the officers of the Crown and Post Office have committed a breach of privilege, unless they

1 The warrant on which Wilkes was apprehended in 1763.

2 Home Secretary at the time.

OPENINGS OF LETTERS BY GOVERNMENT, 1845. 65

have done so upon the warrant of a minister.' If they have done so, let them produce the warrant , he will then be in a position to appeal to the House and the country for the vindication of his character, or to the courts of law, to decide whether that warrant is a legal instrument or not.

Sir, I am at a loss to comprehend what answer can be given to that direct appeal. This is the view naturally taken by the honourable gentleman in his individual case. He feels the in- dividual grievance — he naturally looks to the individual re- medy. All that he wants is the warrant. All that he wants is an opportunity of vindicating his innocence, or allowing others to prove his guilt. I believe that the country requires more. I believe that the country is anxious that the warrant should be produced — not merely that it should vindicate the honour and conduct of the honourable gentleman, or the re- verse ; but that an opportunity should be afforded to the subjects of the Queen to say whether that instrument is a legal one ; and how is it possible for any person to have that opportunity unless the House interferes, as it is requested in the present instance ? It is not asked to exercise its pre- rogative and privilege to vindicate any gentleman who cannot vindicate himself by law. The situation of the honourable gentleman is that which may be the situation of any member of this House, of any subject of the Queen, to-morrow. It is exactly this, 'Will you put me in a position worse than the meanest subject of the realm is placed in ? Will you say that I have experienced a wrong and that I have not a re- medy ? ' Now, Sir, that is the question, I believe, in which the country is interested. That it is also interested in the question whether this power should be exercised under any circumstances, no one can doubt. Some gentlemen may rise and say that this is a power that ought always to be at the dis- position of Government ; some may say that it is disgraceful to this country that foreign nations should know we exercise it ; and others may rise and state that that can hardly be the case, since every foreign nation does itself exercise it ; but there is this distinction — though foreign nations always do exercise this power, foreign nations never believed that England did. It VOL. I. P

66 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

resolves itself into this question — are you content to be ruled by a popular government, or do you wish to be ruled by a government of police ? No doubt a popular government has many inconveniences. No doubt it would be much bettter that the question of the Sugar Duties, for instance, should be settled without any loss of time. It is a great inconvenience to trade, as the right honourable gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) has often told us, that there should be any discussion on the subject. I don't doubt that if the question were settled by the right honourable gentleman himself, in his cabinet, it would be equally well, perhaps better. This is one of the incon- veniences we endure for popular government, and so it is with reference to the correspondence of individuals. You have a popular government, you have a strong local system ; you may by not prying into the correspondence of individuals be sub- jected to great calamities. You may have Bristol burnt, as Bristol was burnt ; you may have Birmingham assailed, as you had it assailed. But the country strikes the balance. It agrees to suffer those great injuries for the sake of a popular government, instead of a government of police ; and the country, after all, must decide it.

Now, Sir, I believe that is the impartial view as regards the general question. As regards the country, though sympa- thising with the honourable gentleman who presses the case of his individual wrong, they desire also an opportunity to decide whether this warrant of the Secretary of State is a legal warrant. They wish to have it decided as the question of general warrants was decided; and if it be a legal warrant, then it becomes an open question fit for discussion, whether such a power should be allowed in a free country to subsist. Sir, the honourable gentleman who has introduced the question to-night seems, in some remarks he has made, to think that an impartial discussion of the question is impossible in this House. Certainly, when I recollect the last debate, to which I need not refer, I am not surprised, from the elaborate misconception of former debates, that the honourable gentleman should fear this discussion should not be free. But I cannot believe, although the honourable gentleman fears, that any intimidation is pur-

OPENING OF LETTERS BY GOVERNMENT, 1845. 67

posely enacted in this House ; but there is not the slightest doubt that on both occasions now before us, and upon others which have occurred within the last two or three years, there have been misunderstandings, founded on the misconceptions —perhaps mutual misconceptions — of the relations that subsist between the leader of a party and the supporters of a party. Sir, I may allude to these circumstances, because the honourable gentleman seems to think that on this occasion he is not secure of a fair discussion of this question ; and because, unless there is a correct understanding on this head, I almost despair of his receiving that fair discussion. When the balanced state of parties ceased in this House, it must have been pretty evident to those who had any idea of the constituent elements of such an assembly, that what we call party feeling, though for a short time from custom preserved, would eventually evaporate. There were very few, if any, party questions, and it was pretty clear that in a popular assembly of more than six hundred persons, questions would constantly arise in which gentlemen, though sitting on different sides of the House, without compro- mising the elementary principles of their politics, would very often divide in the same lobby, and very often in discussions take the same side. An honourable gentleman on the other side gets up and proposes a motion which, at the first blush, does not seem to call in question any of the marked principles of either party — if two parties, indeed, still exist. Some gen- tleman on this side thinks it a legitimate opportunity to express his opinions on the question ; he happens to support the motion : the Government barely attend to the debate — treat it, perhaps, with indifference or carelessness ; the debate trails on ; comes into a second night ; certain circumstances occur which portend a division, which, I will not say, might be em-* barrassing — that would be impossible — but disagreeable to trie Government. Immediately this takes place, a certain system is brought into play which may prevent, perhaps, that fair discussion the honourable gentleman would seem to despair of, and which I can hardly believe can long be permitted to subsist in this House.

Sir3 it seems to me that the system is established on

r 2

68 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

two principles, or rather processes — innuendo and imputation — the insinuation of base motive, and the allegation of factious conduct. Generally it develops itself in this manner. There are some indications of irritability on the Treasury Bench, almost immediately followed by some impatience among the immediate adherents of the Government ; and then, as I have observed in several debates, some gentleman gets up — an avowed adherent, or perhaps a secret supporter of the Govern- ment— and instantly we have imputations l of mean motives — of personal motives — I should say, of corrupt motives — against every gentleman who is perhaps speaking, or about to vote, in opposition to the Government, although the question may not be one that involves any party principle, or any decided prin- ciple whatever — a mere matter of practice and detail. Now, Sir, in this state of affairs, probably at the end of the second or third night of debate, when a course so injurious has naturally produced acerbity in many quarters, perhaps expressions of that bitterness, the sincerity of which is not to be doubted, then at the right moment the right honourable gentleman (Sir Kobert Peel) rises to cap the climax, and, probably having just been assured by one of his aides-de-camp that he is secure of a greater majority than ever, he makes a passionate appeal to his sup- porters, as if the strong Government were in the very throes of dissolution, and uses language which, in my opinion, is suscep- tible only of one interpretation — that some gentleman on this side of the House would, to embarrass the Government, descend to political collusion and Parliamentary intrigue. Now, Sir, I protest against the system. The system is not founded in jus- tice or fair play. It is not founded upon a real understanding

1 When Mr. Disraeli first spoke against Sir Robert Peel on August 9, 1843, in condemnation of his Irish policy, the ' Morning Herald ' published a leading article in which appeared the following sentence : —

' We regret to express a harsh opinion of Mr. Disraeli, but a perusal and reperusal of his speech has left on our minds a very strong impression that it was the result of personal disappointment rather than of strong conviction, and that had Mr. Disraeli been made President of the Board of Trade, it is more than probable he would have found in Sir Robert Peel " the great minister " he sighs after.'

Such, however, was not the view taken of his conduct by the leading journal, an independent supporter of Sir Robert, nor yet by the ' Morning Chronicle.'

OPENING OF LETTERS BY GOVERNMENT, 1&45. 69

of the principles on which party connections should exist. It is, in fact, a system of tyranny, and as degrading to those who exercise it as to those who endure it.

I take a recent case, because fresh in our memory. When the honourable gentleman (Mr. Buncombe) the other night called our attention to the instance of his grievance, he brought for- ward a motion which on the face of it everyone must see would be opposed by the Grovernment which exists, and the Govern- ment that preceded them. It was, therefore, taken out of the category of party questions. There was a general impression in the House that it was extremely desirable that the decision of the Committee should be supported. That impression was not peculiar to this side of the House. An honourable gentle- man, the member for Hull (Sir. J. Hanmer), the independence of whose character is, I believe, universally acknowledged, who is certainly as incapable of political intrigue as any gentleman in the House, spoke in the debate without concert or combina- tion, forming his opinion merely on the statement of the honourable member for Finsbury, and being himself particularly inclined to support the decision of the Committee ; but he thought it was impossible that this individual instance of the honourable member could be passed over. He expressed his opinion in a frank, manly manner.

It so happened, as probably it will often happen in a popular assembly of this kind, that circumstances during the debate changed to that degree that them was a chance of a division, not embarrassing, but probably more disagreeable to the Government than they at first anticipated, if they condescended to think of a division in the first instance. Well, immediately all the powers of the system were put into action. The right honourable gentleman was brought forward to sanction it by his great example. The division is called for. Gentlemen are brought up from the country to support an endangered Grovern- ment that never was in peril, and gain a great party triumph when there was not a single party principle at stake, not a single party principle in danger. Now, Sir, I really think there ought to be a more liberal sense of party connection than that which the Treasury Bench at this moment recognises ; and I

-

70 SPEECHES OP THE EARL OF BEACONSPIELD.

think the right honourable gentleman at the head of the Government is the last minister who should assume to be a political martinet. I can conceive a minister in a position in which he requires devotion from his party ; I can suppose a minister having a very small majority ; I can suppose he holds power merely in deference to the wishes of his party ; he has a right to say to his supporters, ' I have to fight a very difficult game ; I would much rather give up power ; still I hold on ; but you must be ready at all times to support me with devo- tion.' That is not the position of the right honourable gentle- man. His position is quite the reverse. He has a very large party to support him, and an Opposition before him which, though distinguished doubtless by very eminent talents, and numerically far from contemptible, is not, nevertheless, dis- tinguished for its power of cohesion. The right honourable gentleman is in a position which really would allow him to be in- dulgent. It is very easy for him to turn round and say, ' What can be more treacherous than this — to be attacked l on the right flank? I am prepared to meet the foe before me ; no one ever saw me quail.' The right honourable gentleman forgets that the foe before him never wished to fight him. He may sometimes be assailed on his right flank, but while he boasts of his courage and determination to conquer, the right honourable gentleman forgets that the victory is very easy when nobody opposes him. There is another reason why he should not adopt this tone — he should not forget that, after all, a great many of his supporters were elected on the hustings under very different circumstances to those under which they sit here. Keally a little philosophical consideration from so great a statesman under such circumstances is the least we might expect. I admit that I for one was sent here by my constituents to sit on this side. He may object to me, although I think he has no great occasion to object, that I am sometimes in a different lobby to himself ; but I was sent to swell a Tory majority — to support a Tory ministry. Whether a Tory ministry exists or not I do not pretend to decide ; but I am bound to believe that

1 Sir Robert in a previous speech had complained of being assailed in flank.

OPENING OF LETTERS BY GOVERNMENT, 1845. 71

the Tory majority still remains, and therefore I do not think that it is the majority that should cross the House, but only the ministry. I hope that the right honourable gentleman, on reflection, will take a more condescending and charitable view of our conduct than he has hitherto been pleased to do. I am sure myself I never misinterpret the conduct of the right honourable gentleman. I know that there are some who think that he is looking out for new allies. I never believed anything of the kind. The position of the right honourable gentleman is clear and precise. I do not believe he is looking to any coalition, although many of my constituents do. The right honourable gentleman has only to remain exactly where he is. The right honourable gentleman caught the Whigs bathing, and walked away with their clothes.1 He has left them in the full enjoyment of their liberal position, and he is himself a strict conservative of their garments. I cannot conceive that the right honourable gentleman will ever desert his party ; they seem never to desert him. There never was a man yet who has less need to find new friends. I, therefore^ hope all these rumours will cease. I look on the right honourable gentleman

1 There is a fable in the fifth volume of the Craftsman, called ' Truth and Falsehood,' in which occurs the following passage, which may or may not have suggested the above illustration :—

Once on a time, in sunshine weather,

Falsehood and Truth walked out together,

The neighbouring woods and lawns to view,

As opposites will sometimes do.

Through many a blooming mead they pass'd,

And at a brook arrived at last.

At length quoth Falsehood', ' Sister Truth,'

(For so she called her from her youth,)

' What if, to shun yon sultry beam,

We bathe in, this delightful stream ;

The bottom smooth, the water clear,

And there's no prying shepherd near '? '

* With all my heart,' the nymph replied,

And threw her snowy robe aside,

Stript herself naked to the skin,

And with a spring leapt headlong in.

Falsehood more leisurely undress'd

And, laying by her tawdry vest,

Tricked herself out in Truth's array,

And cross the meadows tript away.

72 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

as a man who has tamed the shrew of Liberalism by her own tactics. He is the political Petrachio, who has outbid you all. If we could only induce the right honourable gentleman, there- fore, to take a larger or more liberal view of* his Parliamentary position than he seems to adopt in moments too testy for so great a man to indulge in, he would spare us some imputations which I assure him are really painful. If the right honourable gentleman may find it sometimes convenient to reprove a sup- porter on his right flank,1 perhaps we deserve it — I, for one, am quite prepared to bow to the rod ; but really, if the right honourable gentleman, instead of having recourse to obloquy, would only stick to quotation, he may rely on it it would be a safer weapon. It is one he always wields with the hand of a master ; and when he does appeal to any authority, in prose or verse, he is sure to be successful, partly because he seldom quotes a passage that has not previously received the meed of Parliamentary approbation, and partly and principally because his quotations are so happy. The right honourable gentleman knows what the introduction of a great name does in debate, how important is its effect, and occasionally how electrical. He never refers to any author who is not great, and some- times loved — Canning, for example. That is a name never to be mentioned, I am sure, in the House of Commons without emotion. We all admire his genius ; we all, at least most of us, deplore his untimely end ; and we all sympathise with him in his fierce struggle with supreme prejudice and sublime mediocrity, with inveterate foes and with • ••-* candid friends.' The right honourable gentleman may be sure that a quotation

1 To understand the conclusion of the speech, it is necessary to bear in mind the course which the debate had taken. On February 10, Mr. Buncombe moved for his committee. On the 21st, Lord Ho wick moved an amendment^ which was seconded by Mr. Disraeli, in reply to whom Sir Robert Peel quoted the well-known lines of Canning :

Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly foe, Firm I can meet, perhaps may turn, the blow ; But of all' plagues, good heaven, thy wrath can send, Save me, oh save me, from a candid friend.

The amendment was defeated by 240 votes to 145 ; but on the 28th Mr. Dun- combe returned to the charge, when Mr. Disraeli delivered the above speech.

OPENING- OF LETTEES BY GOVERNMENT, 1845. 73

from such an authority will always tell. Some lines, for exam- ple, upon friendship, written by Mr. Canning, and quoted by the right honourable gentleman ! The theme, the poet, the speaker — what a felicitious combination ! Its effect in debate must be overwhelming ; and I am sure, were it addressed to me, all that would remain for me would be thus publicly to congratulate the right honourable gentleman, not only on his ready memory, but on his courageous conscience.1

1 That is, on his having the courage to apply the words of Canning to Mr. Disraeli's treatment of himself when his conscience must tell him how much more applicable they were to his own treatment of Mr. Canning. I am offering no opinion on the merits of this controversy : I only wish to make clear the meaning of the text. Sir Robert said, in reply, that if Mr. Disraeli had wished to withdraw his confidence from him on account of his relations with Mr. Canning, he need not have waited for him to make that quotation ; an answer which can hardly be described as crushing or terrific, the epithets bestowed on it by his admirers.

74 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, March 17, 1845.1

[On motion of Mr. Miles, that in the application of surplus revenue towards relieving the burden of the country, due regard should be had to the necessity of affording relief to the agricultural interest. After enumerating a number of Conservative members who in 1836 had supported a similar motion, brought forward by the Marquis of Chandos, and on whom therefore the member for Somer- setshire had a right to rely that evening, Mr. Disraeli wound up with another philippic against the Government not less memor- able than his speech on Mr. Duncombe's motion.]

MR. DISRAELI: When I ineffectually attempted, Sir, to catch your eye, after the conclusion of the speech of the noble lord 2 the member for London, I would then have pre- sumed to offer some considerations to the House on the ques- tion respecting protection to native industry which that noble lord mooted ; but such considerations I cannot presume to offer at the present hour of the night, and therefore, I am afraid, I must restrict myself to that principle of discussion laid down by my honourable friend the member for Winchester, and confine myself strictly to the motion before the House. But watching, as we all must, with great interest, the forma- tion of the character of an individual so eminent as the noble lord, who has been, as he informed us to-night, thirty years in this House, but appears not yet to have arrived at a result on the great question which now interests the country, I, who would not presume to place my opinions, formed on much more recent experience than those of the noble lord, against his, may yet be permitted to say that, after all, one truth, I think, is perhaps evident from these discussions — that protection is not a principle, but an expedient. If it be the latter, it must

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard.

2 Lord John Russell.

AGBICULTURAL DISTRESS, 1845. 75

depend on circumstances, and, if it depend on circumstances, the matter cannot be settled by those quotations of abstract dogmas which have been cited by the noble lord. However, we shall all have ample opportunity to discuss this great ques- tion, which is now the question of the age and of the country. By our speeches or by our votes, either in this House or at the hustings, sooner or later, we must come to the test on this great question, * Will you have protection or will you have, not free trade, for that is not the alternative, but free imports ? ' I cannot forget the speech recently delivered by the honourable member for Stockport.1 That, indeed, is not easily to be for- gotten by anyone who listened to it. I will not therefore say that there is much more to be said on both sides of this question than we have yet been favoured with ; but I will say, with the greatest respect to those honourable gentlemen whom I see near me, that I do believe that there is much more to be said on one side of the question than has yet been offered to the House.

I shall not presume, however, to enter into the question at present. If, indeed, I held the position of some who at such an hour as this might rise, but who, however anxiously expected, yet do not favour us with their observations, I might venture to enter a field so vast ; but I may be permitted to say, that before we come to settle this great question, we must grapple with the important point of waging war against hostile tariffs. We must ascertain how far free imports would affect wages and prices in this country ; how far these again would operate on the distribution of the precious metals ; and how far the distribution of the precious metals would affect your power of maintaining your standard of value. I am not offering these observations in a controversial tone to the House, but am merely indicating that before we come to that question, which must be settled, there are great considerations which must be entered into in an unimpassioned and, I trust, in a searching manner.

But I now come to the question before the House — the question which the honourable member for Winchester, who advocated with such fervour and ability his opposition to this motion, wishes the present discussion to be narrowed to. I will

1 Mr. Cobden.

76 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFJELD.

meet him on the ground he has chosen. We have a motion, the terms of which are familiar to every gentleman present — it is to take into consideration in the distribution of the surplus revenue the claims of the agricultural interest. This is not a new motion. It has been introduced to this House before, when honourable gentlemen now on this (the ministerial) side of the House were in Opposition. Under identical circum- stances a similar motion was then proposed. What took place under those circumstances ought to be some guide to us as the result of the present motion. The motion brought forward at the time I am referring to was the motion not of a triumphant but of a powerful Opposition — an Opposition distinguished by the quality of cohesion. In 1836 a powerful Opposition, wish- ing to try a fall with, I will not say a feeble, but at any rate a not-confident Government, selected this motion as a point of battle on which contending parties might try their force. The motion was proposed by a noble friend of mine, who is now a member of the other House — the noble lord the then member for Buckinghamshire : and after a discussion, not of very great length, a division took place, which did not shake the Govern- ment to the centre, but made it tremble. In 1836 the majo- rity was not much above thirty in favour of the administration on a vital question. The motions were identical ; I believe the phraseology of the resolution of 1836 was identical with the present ; and I should suppose therefore, that the honourable member for Somersetshire must have reckoned in bringing forward a resolution which on a previous occasion had united together a great number of supporters, many with distinguished names, on a successful issue to his proposition to-night.

I cannot doubt that the honourable member for Somerset- shire, looking to the list embalmed in those records to which we all appeal, and reading the names of those who voted in 1836 with my noble friend, must not only have anticipated equal, but even greater success, for this is a Conservative House of Com- mons, and the other was a Whig House of Commons. The honourable member must have reckoned on receiving a com- manding support in bringing forward this motion. There is the right honourable gentleman the Secretary for Ireland

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, 1845. 77

(Sir T. Fremantle) — he voted under similar circumstances for an identical motion. I know the right honourable gentle- man too well for a moment to doubt that he will vote the same way to-night. At the time to which I am alluding, 1836, there was a budget, and there was a surplus, and the agricul- tural interest came forward and said, 4 Are we not to be con- sidered ? ' The right honourable gentleman the Secretary for Ireland thought that they ought to be considered ; and I am not at all surprised at it, as he has always been a friend to agriculture. I remember having had the honour of meeting the right honourable gentleman in the presence of his consti- tuents. I cannot forget the occurrence, because the presi- dent of the meeting happened to be the noble individual who brought forward this very resolution in 1836 ; and I remember the speech which the right honourable gentle- man then made. Those were ' dreary moments ' — days of Opposition, when there was no chance of getting into power unless you were borne forward by an agricultural cry. I know the feelings of the constituency of Buckingham. They were satisfied, and justly so, with so accomplished a representa- tive ; they were satisfied with his sympathy in Opposition ; and they knew when he got into power they would have a friend on whom they could count. I should like to know whether, if the constituency of Buckingham had been told that a resolution would be brought forward, at a later period than 1836, similar in its nature to the motion of 1836, and that then their repre- sentative, being then a minister, would be found to vote against it, they would have believed such a tale. Of course they would not; and of course the right honourable gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would not vote against this motion to- night. The noble individual (the Duke of Buckingham) who presided at the dinner to which I have referred, could not, I am sure, suppose for one moment that the right honourable gen- tleman would vote against the motion, for that noble individual, finding that the policy of the Government was contrary to that policy which he had advocated in Opposition, quitted office.

Therefore I think we may count on the right honourable gentleman the Secretary for Ireland supporting this motion

78 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

to-night. I do not think that we need despair of the support of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Sir. Gr. Clerk), for he also supported a similar motion under similar circumstances. In 1836, there being a budget and a surplus, the right honourable gentleman the member for Stamford con- ceived that the agricultural interest, of which he was the champion, had a right to be considered. No doubt he too will now vote in favour of the present motion. There is also a noble lord the member for a division in Nottinghamshire (Lord Lincoln), no less a person, indeed, than a member of the cabinet. He was also of opinion in Opposition, and at that time, that if there were a surplus the agricultural interest should be considered. If the noble lord was of that opinion when in Opposition, of course now that he is a member of the Grovern- ment — a Government brought into existence by the agricultural interest — he will divide in favour of the present motion. I believe I might pick up a few Lords of the Treasury, but I will let them pass. I must not omit, however, the gallant officer the Clerk of the Ordnance (Captain Boldero), the member for Chippenham, a district so distinguished for its agricultural feeling. All these gentlemen the honourable member for Somersetshire surely counted on when he entered the House to-night. It is, however, but just to state (and I am sure that all the agricultural constituencies from Buckingham to Chippen- ham will feel doubly grateful for it, when they read the division list to-morrow and find their representatives were present) — it is, I repeat, but right to state that the right honourable gentle- man at the head of the Government was, on the occasion I have referred to, of a different opinion from those other honourable gentlemen whom I have mentioned. He acted in a different manner with respect to that motion ; on the division he went into the Whig lobby alone of all his party, whom he left united in favour of the motion. The right honourable baronet did behave throughout in the most handsome manner. He ex- pressed no annoyance at the indiscreet effort of his party, which had almost made him a minister ; he did not give them a lecture ; he did not say, notwithstanding that they went into a different division lobby from their leader, they had broken out

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, 1845. 79

into open rebellion. The right honourable baronet preserved his consistency, and kept on the very best terms with his party.

That being the state of the case, I have no doubt the right honourable gentleman will vote against the motion to-night ; following the precedent of that time, he will treat his imme- diate supporters with the same affability as he did before. These are facts. We may quote ' Hansard ' by the line to prove them. They are facts so notorious, and so fresh in the memory of every gentleman, that it is unnecessary to repeat them. This is sticking to the question, as the honourable member for Winchester requires. I entirely differ from my agricultural friends around me, though I make these observa- tions, in their view of the conduct of the right honourable gentleman ; nothing is more easy, when your constituents are dissatisfied, than yourselves to grumble against the right honourable gentleman. I believe the right honourable gentle- man has done more for agriculture than any minister or government has done for any quarter of a century. That is my calm deliberate opinion, and placed as I am in momentary collision with the Treasury Bench, I am bound to make this admission. ' Hear ! Hear ! ' as the honourable member says. I am sincerely prepared to maintain that cheer. Why, what has the right honourable gentleman not done for agriculture ? Before the meeting of Parliament, the right honourable gentleman reconstructed his cabinet, and left out the Minister of Trade. There was a great compliment to agriculture ! It was the most marked thing I know. The agriculturists, then, ought to be satisfied. And yet they complain. They complain of the Corn Law, which they supported ; the accuse they Tariff, which was passed at all events with their connivance ; they inveigh against the Canada Corn Bill, which, I beg to tell the noble member for London, I did not vote for : they complain of all this. Yet how unreasonable ! Can they forget that the right honourable gentleman has expelled from the cabinet the Minister of Commerce, and so made a decided demonstration in favour of agriculture, for which agriculturists should ever be grateful ? What do they want ? Not this tax to be taken off,

80 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

or this act to be done. No, they complain of the ' conduct ' of the right honourable gentleman.

There is no doubt a difference in the right honourable gentle- man's demeanour as leader of the Opposition and as minister of the Crown. But that's the old story ; you must not contrast too strongly the hours of courtship with the years of possession. 'Tis very true that the right honourable gentleman's conduct is different. I remember him making his protection speeches. They were the best speeches I ever heard./ It was a great thing to hear the right honourable gentleman say, ' I would rather be the leader of the gentlemen of England than possess the confi- dence of sovereigns.' That was a grand thing. We don't hear much of ' the gentlemen of England ' now. But what of that ? They have the pleasures of memory — the charms of remini- scences. They were his first love, and though he may not kneel to them now as in the hour of passion, still they can recall the past; and nothing is more useless or unwise than these scenes of crimination and reproach, for we know that in all these cases, when the beloved object has ceased to charm, it is in vain to appeal to the feelings.] You know that this is true. Every man almost has gone through it. My honourable friends reproach the right honourable gentleman. The right honourable gentle- man does what he can to keep them quiet ; he sometimes takes refuge in arrogant silence, and sometimes he treats them with haughty frigidity ; and if they knew anything of human nature they would take the hint and shut their mouths. But they won't. And what then happens ? What happens under all such circumstances ? The right honourable gentleman, being compelled to interfere, sends down his valet, who says in the genteelest manner, ' We can have no whining here.' And that, Sir, is exactly the case of the great agricultural interest — that beauty 'which everybody wooed, and one deluded. There is a fatality in such charms, and we now seem to approach the catastrophe of her career. Protection appears to be in about the same condition that Protestantism was in 1828. The country will draw its moral. For my part, if we are to have free trade, I, who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be proposed by the honourable member for Stockport, than by one

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, 1845. 81

who, through skilful Parliamentary manoeuvres, has tampered with the generous confidence of a great people and of a great party. For myself, I care not what may be the result. Dis- solve, if you please, the Parliament you have betrayed, and appeal to the people, who, I believe, mistrust you. For me there remains this at least — the opportunity of expressing thus publicly my belief that a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy.

VOL. I.

82 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

MAYNOOTH, April 11, 1845.1

[On April 3, Sir Robert Peel introduced his Bill for increasing the grant to Maynooth from 9,000£. a year to 30,000£ In the course of his remarks he dwelt on the poverty-stricken aspect of the college under existing conditions, and the wretched plight of the students, who had to be maintained at an expense of only 23Z. a piece, while it was found impossible to furnish them all with even separate beds. Sir Robert contended that if the increased grant were objected to as a violation of principle, the existing grant ought to be withdrawn on the same ground. Mr. Disraeli, on the second reading, made great fun of the proposed increase, which would give each student 28£. a year instead of 231. But he did not touch the question of principle. He took the Maynooth grant as one out of numerous instances in which the Conservative Government had stultified its former professions, and he urged upon the House the impossibility of keeping up the system of party if this example were generally followed. Without excusing the acerbity which Mr. Disraeli threw into his remarks, we may recognise the truth which they contain. Party is based on the supposition that the balance of the constitution is pre- served by the conflict of two opposing theories. [When the champions of the one adopt the policy of the other they disturb the machinery by which the whole system works?} Were this to happen often the result would follow which Mr. Disraeli deprecated : the constitution would capsize. Exceptional emergencies may justify the temporary neglect of a rule which is essential to its safety. But the experi- ment is hazardous : while the injury which it is liable to inflict on the political faith and morals of those whom it affects should increase our unwillingness to sanction it. The meaning of Mr. Disraeli's reference to the difference between an ecclesiastical establishment in the days of Mr. Perceval and in the days of Sir Robert Peel is more obscure. He may have intended that the precedent set by the endowment of Maynooth was less dangerous under the old system than it was under the new: when the theory of Church and State was still intact, than when it had been infringed by the legislation of

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard.

MAYNOOTH, 1845. 83

1828 and 1829. £Mr. Disraeli said on a subsequent occasion that his speech and vote on the Maynooth Bill broke up the Young England

ME. DISEAELI said : Sir, I should not have intruded for a moment between you and the noble lord l just now, had I the slightest idea that he intended to have caught your eye ; but the amendment having been withdrawn, I imagined, and the supposition is very general on this side of the House, that we should not have been honoured with any declaration of opinion from gentlemen opposite. But I am extremely glad that the noble lord has had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the subject. I trust he does not for a moment imagine that I rise to say anything injurious to his creed, which I respect, or anything offensive to himself and his co-religionists, with whom, in many respects, I sympathise. I come to the speech of the right honourable gentleman the member for Newark.2 My first impression when I listened to that able address was surprise that the right honourable gentleman had passed the gangway to deliver it. It seemed to be worthy of the Treasury Bench which this evening he criticised. It seemed to me that while the right honourable gentleman informed us that though he supported the present Bill, it was not for the reasons which were adduced by his late right honourable chief; yet never- theless, had he been in his position, and had he introduced the Bill himself, he might have brought forward, perhaps, unanswer- able arguments in its favour ; and, deeply sensible of what he styled the circumstances of the case, he might, perhaps, have arrested the flow of those petitions which he confesses has astounded him, but which next week, he informs us, will astonish us still more. But if I asked myself for a moment what was the necessity for the right honourable gentleman passing the gangway to deliver that speech, ought I rather not to have asked myself the question, what was the necessity for the right honourable gentleman to have crossed the House to deliver that speech ? If those are the opinions the right honourable gentle- man entertains, how can he, subtle a casuist as he may be, recon-

1 Lord Arundel and Surrey. 2 Mr. Gladstone.

G 2

84 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

cile the course which he now pursues with that which he pursued when in Opposition ? Because, after all, what is the result of the adroit argumentation of the right honourable gentleman ? It is this : that the principle upon which the State has hitherto been connected with the ecclesiastical affairs of this country is worn out. We must seek a new principle, says the right honourable gentleman, and the Government which I have left because I support it — that Government has discovered a new principle. But where is the new principle ? He tells us that it is not now definitely and distinctly made out. He acknow- ledges that the exposition of it is feeble, a little vague. It is not now complete ; we must look to futurity. But if this is the case, have there been no prior attempts to adumbrate this new system, and have no public men in the House raised their voices to support this principle and advocate this new settle- ment ? Have not their opinions been in fact the foundation of measures brought forward by them as a Government which no longer exists ? And has not an opposition to their measures, however imperfect their provisions, or however partially advo- cated, been the bond of union of the party which opposed them and the foundation of the Conservative theory ?

I am perfectly ready to agree with the right honourable gen- tleman that the relation which exists between the Church and the State in this country is an extremely unsatisfactory one. I have had some opportunities for observation on this head. 1 have been a member of this House now eight or nine sessions, during a very tempestuous period, the principal part of which has been expended in discussions arising out of this controverted prin - ciple. I have read the right honourable gentleman's book.1 But the right honourable gentleman in his argument to-night has made one great assumption. He says : ' You have endowed the Anglican Church. Can you, in fact, refuse to endow the Eoman Church ? ' But have we, in fact, endowed the Anglican Church ? That is a question. We know that there has been an alliance between the Church and the State ; and the very term ' alliance ' shows that they met on equal terms, and made an equal compact. But the right honourable gentleman, 1 The State in its Relations with the Church (1838).

MAYNOOTH, 1845. 8,5

with all his historical lore, and with all his trailed casuistry, cannot place his finger on any page in history which shows that the State endowed the Church. You may regret that the ecclesiastical power in this country has a large estate. You may say that it makes it predominant, and reason against the policy ; but its estate is a fact which none can deny. We deal with it as we deal with the great estates of the territorial aris- tocracy. Parties may be divided upon the policy of the landed inheritance of the country. But you cannot deny the. fact. As practical men we deal with great facts in such a way as to secure the greatest possible benefits. But when we come to the question of fresh relations, and speak of endowing religions, the plea, I will not call it -an argument, of analogy fails us. I should like to know what principle you will lay down for the step you are invited to take. I know that the right honourable gentleman who introduced the Bill-4-and I must make the same apology as the right honourable gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade for referring to his speech — told us that upon this subject there were three courses open to us. I never heard the right honourable gentleman bring forward a measure without his making the same confession. I never knew the right honourable gentleman bring forward, not what I call a great measure, but a measure which assumes to settle a great controversy — there is a difference — without saying that three courses were open to us. In a certain sense, and looking to his own position, he is right. There is the course the right hon- ourable gentleman has left. There is the course the right hon- ourable gentleman is following ; and there is usually the course the right honourable gentleman ought to follow. Perhaps, Sir, I ought to add there is a fourth course ; because it is possible for the House of Commons to adopt one of those courses indicated by the right honourable gentleman, and then, having voted for it, to rescind its vote. That is the fourth course, which in future I trust the right honourable gentleman (Sir Eobert Peel) will not forget.

The right honourable gentleman tells us to go back to pre- cedents; with him a great measure is always founded on a small ]jr£flftdent. He traces the steam-engine always back to

86 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

the tea-kettle. His precedents are generally tea-kettle pre- A cedents. In the present instance, he refers us to Mr. Perceval, and to some odd vote in a dusty corner, from which he infers the principle is admitted. He says, ' You have admitted the principle. Confine yourselves to the details. Don't trouble yourselves about the first and second reading, but reserve all your energies for the Committee, because the principle is ad- mitted.' Now, I deny that, even in the limited sense the right honourable gentleman says, it is admitted. In the first place, that was a temporary vote, and this is not : in fact, it is a per- manent one. But I will not make that the ground of opposi- tion to the right honourable gentleman. I will go to the argument, founded on circumstances, of the right honourable gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade l : I am somewhat astonished that he should so completely have given up principles. I looked upon the right honourable gentleman as the last paladin of principle, the very abstraction of chivalry ; and, when a question was raised which touched the elementary principle of ecclesiastical institutions, I never supposed that it would be the right honourable gentleman who would come and give the House the small change of circumstances to settle this great account.

But have circumstances, which ought to settle everything — have circumstances not changed since the time of Mr. Perceval ? How astonished must Mr. Perceval's ghost be — if he have a ghost to be thus appealed to ! Were it Mr. Pitt, or Fox, or Burke, whom the right honourable gentleman has quoted to-night, that was brought in to settle this question, we might feel the controlling influence of the great apparition. But Mr. Perceval to be brought in to settle it ! Mr. Perceval seems casually to have agreed to a miserable vote about this accidental college at Maynooth. What, let me ask you, was the political and religious situation of affairs by virtue of which Mr. Perceval became Prime Minister at the time of which I am speaking ? You had really then in England what you pretend you now have 2 — a constitution in Church and State. You had that constitution, and members of Parliament, being then 1 Mr. Gladstone. 2 Cf. Speech on Church, Nov. 25, 1864, .in vol. ii.

MAYNOOTH, 1845. 87

necessarily in communion with the Church, were, by virtue of this junction of Church and State, in fact members of a lay synod. What, again, was the situation of the other kingdoms of the empire ? You had a Church in Scotland without any Dissenters. What was the case with respect to Ireland ? There was a constitution in Church and State, not only in principle, but rigidly adhered to. What do we now see ? You have no lunger in this country your boasted union of Church and State — you may make speeches to prove that the union is as strong as ever — you may toast it at your public dinners ; but I tell x you that the constitution in Church and State no longer exists. What is the undeniable fact with respect to this proclaimed union ? You know very well that the Church of England is subject to the control of those who no longer exclusively profess communion with that Church.

I am politically connected with a district which is threatened with very severe suffering in consequence of this supposed union with Church and State l ; the inhabitants of this district are about to endure one of the greatest blows that could be in- flicted upon them, and this solely because it has pleased a Con- servative Government to destroy the ancient episcopate under which they have been so long governed. What is now the position of the Church of Scotland ? a Church which the late Earl of Liverpool held up as a model, and as the perfection of a religious community, because, I suppose, it gave him no trouble. What, I repeat, is the present situation of the Church of Scotland ? It is rent in twain ! Besides the Kirk, there is now the Free Kirk. Well, will you endow the Free Kirk ? WiJl you apply this principle of endowment to sectarians and schismatics of every class ? Where will you stop ? Why should you stop ? And this consideration brings me to the real question before the House. You find your Erastian system