objection to this suggestion of an intended change in Mr. Disraeli of his allegiance from Sir Robert Peel to Lord John Russell, that he had for years previous to this inflicted on the one his most abject flattery and on the other his most virulent abuse. It is true that he had called Peel "the only hope of a suffering people," and Lord John Russell a man of "a strong ambition and a feeble intellect." It is true that he had talked

had lost his seat because he had supported the right hon. gentleman's tariff, he went down to see his friends in the country, and explained the history of England to them, and he could assure the House that after that they took the most enlightened views upon the subject, and were proud to recur to old Tory principles of commerce." I have not quoted this passage merely to give a further example of that astonishing modesty which is one of Lord Beaconsfield's most prominent characteristics; I had the more important purpose in view of drawing attention to the speech to his constituents, of which mention is made in the passage quoted. The speech was delivered at the dinner of the Plough Club, in Shrewsbury, in May 1843. I have carefully but vainly looked for any historical information in the address; the greater part of it is mere election blague about our glorious principles, our territorial constitution, and so forth. One really wonders, in reading the speech, how any man could condescend to talk such rubbish. And still more one wonders how any one could be deceived by language so plainly insincere. The speech is really as much a burlesque of the oratory for Tory farmers as the speech of Serjeant Buzfuz is of the oratory of lawyers. Amid the mass of blague, how. ever, we find some matter that has an interest for us; that is to say, we find a good deal about Sir Robert Peel, and about Mr. Disraeli's support of Peel's Free Trade Corn Bill and Tariff of 1842. These, Mr. Disraeli declared, he voted for as "wise and expedient measures." I voted," he says in another passage, "that Sir Robert Peel should do that which nearly a quarter of a century before Lord Liverpool had done, and which, nearly a quarter of a century before Lord Liverpool's time, Mr. Pitt had done. (Hear, hear.) Sir Robert Peel only followed the example of those eminent statesmen—of those eminent Conservative statesmen-(cheers)"-and so on. Now here is a point I wish to draw particular attention to in this speech. Mr. Disraeli, in allusion to this address, says, as has been seen, that he had been

66

of Peel as one of "splendid talents" and "spotless reputation," while he had compared Russell to an "insect." But I have written to little purpose if the reader who has followed the narrative up to this point "equires to be told that the recollection of all this past adulation and this past vituperation would not have had the least influence in preventing Mr. Disraeli from beginning to abuse the man whom he had praised, and to praise him whom he had abused.*

threatened with the loss of his seat because he had supported Peel's Tariff. And this is true, for the Shropshire Conservative, one of the journals of Shrewsbury which had formerly supported Peel most strongly, contained at this period-as I have already mentioned (ante, 210-11, note)-most bitter denunciations of Peel. The chief ground of these denunciations was that the Premier had, in his Tariff and Corn Act, abandoned the Protectionist principles which he had been raised to power to defend. In other words, the Shropshire Conservative brought against Peel the very same charge which, a few years later on, Mr. Disraeli used with such crushing effect. But mark how, on this occasion, Mr. Disraeli meets the chief article in his own and the Shropshire Conservative's indictment of Peel. "It would have been easy for me," said Mr. Disraeli, "as many others have done, to turn round suddenly and say, here is the Minister of England, the man whom the men of England have put at the head of the great Conservative party; he has gained power, and the moment he has gained power he seems to hesitate whether he should carry into extreme effect the principles we profess." (Hear, hear, from the Editor of the Shropshire Conservative.) “Hear, hear, says my hon. friend. (Cheers.) My answer to him is this, that Sir Robert Peel is not the man to be carried into power to be your tool! (Great cheers.) He will be your Minister, but he will not be your tool! (Applause.) "— Shropshire Conservative, May 3, 1843.

* A writer from whom I have often quoted puts in effective juxtaposition the estimates given of Lord John Russell at different periods by Lord Beaconsfield. Having first quoted the epithets applied in the Runnymede letters, the writer proceeds: "Later in Mr. Disraeli's career, it became his cue to flatter Lord Russell as resolutely as in the letters of Runnymede he had bespattered him. In 'Coningsby,' his

Among the members of the House during this session, and for some years afterwards, was a Mr. Ferrand, who sat for Knaresborough. He was a Tory of the most violent school, and was by no means friendly to the existing Tory Cabinet, whose attachment to Tory principles he considered decidedly lukewarm. He seems to have had a boisterous, restless, unreasoning nature, and he made himself principally remarkable by speeches of the most violent and reckless

strong ambition' and 'dark and dishonourable intrigues' are converted into this moral intrepidity which prompts him ever to dare that which his intellect assures him is politic. He is consequently at the same time sagacious and bold in counsel; as an administrator, he is prompt and indefatigable.' The 'cold and inanimate temperament,' the 'weak voice and mincing manner,' the 'imbecile accents that struggle for sound in the chamber, echoing but a few years back with the glowing fervour of a Canning,' became 'physical deficiencies which even a Demosthenic impulse could scarcely overcome.' But these disadvantages detract little from the parliamentary influence of a statesman who is experienced in debate, quick in reply, fertile in resources, takes large views, and frequently compensates for a dry and hesitating manner by the expression of those noble truths that flash across the fancy, and rise spontaneously to the lips of men of poetic temperament when addressing popular assemblies.' 'The noble' of the Runnymede letters 'who, with a historic name and no fortune, a vast ambition and a baulked career, and soured, not to say malignant, from disappointment,' offered 'prime materials for the leader of a revolutionary faction,' becomes one whose 'private life of dignified repute,' and 'the antecedents of whose birth and rank,' added to the personal qualities before eulogised, made the best leader the Whigs have ever had or could have.' The 'individual' of Runnymede, 'who, on the principle that good vinegar is the corruption of bad wine, has been metamorphosed from 'an incapable author' into an eminent politician,' becomes, in the biography of Lord George Bentinck, an instance, along with Mr. Burke, Caius Julius,' and Frederick the Great, of the union of pre-eminent capacity, both in meditation and in action."—" Political Adventures of Lord Beaconsfield," Fortnightly Review, cxxxviii., N. S., 875-6.

personal invective. In a debate on the Corn Law, he would stand up to declare that Mr. Cobden grossly ill-treated his employés, and roundly call the manufacturers a set of slave-drivers. In moments of great excitement, and after dinner, his speeches received occasionally a good deal of applause from the more rabid of his party; but his sallies as a rule appear to have evoked nothing but laughter-half-amused, halfcontemptuous.

But though he might thus be contemned by other people, Mr. Ferrand had the satisfaction of being taken quite seriously by Mr. Disraeli. The future enemy of Peel saw in this silly, bigoted, and tempestuous man what he himself would call "the brooding elements" of an active opposition. It is one of the secrets of Lord Beaconsfield's success in life, as I have more than once pointed out, that he has selected the proper persons to be his tools. He has built his position, as he told us he intended to do in "Vivian Grey," on the mean passions of mean and foolish men. Mr. Ferrand was an excellent specimen of the kind of Conservative who could be played off against the Conservative chief, and the whole party which Mr. Disraeli afterwards succeeded in dragging after him against Peel consisted almost entirely of men of a Ferrand-like type of mind and character. All that was good in the Conservative party adhered to Peel; all that was bad, followed the lead of Mr. Disraeli.

Mr. Ferrand, like Mr. Disraeli, was great on the Poor Law, and was fond of delivering excited harangues

to working men on the wrongs the new bastilles inflicted on the poor. Sir James Graham, then Home Secretary, had the misfortune to come into collision with the member for Knaresborough on his pet topic, and was accordingly favoured with a large amount of Mr. Ferrand's vituperation. Sir James Graham was accused by Mr. Ferrand of having induced an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner to draw up a false report, and of having also induced Mr. Hogg, then member for Beverley, to give a partial vote at an Election Petition Committee, of which he was chairman.

In making a sort of defence for Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Disraeli took an opportunity of striking a blow at the Premier. In the previous session a painful scene had taken place between the Premier and Mr. Cobden.

The terrible distress of the year 1842 produced a great deal of political discontent. As is often the case in such moods of the public mind, some of the people attributed their privations to the Government. This feeling found terrible expression: Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir Robert Peel, was shot dead in the streets. Many persons thought-Peel among the rest that the bullet was intended for the Premier himself, and that Mr. Drummond was shot in mistake. This terrible event came upon Peel at a moment when he was physically almost worn out by hard work, and by the anxiety of his overwhelming responsibility; and much disturbed his mind.

Shortly after this occurrence, Cobden, in a fervid speech on the Corn Laws,-for he, poor creature, could