them as being such as are imaged forth in "Venetia," they might, even in their homes beyond the skies, wring their hands over the joy of the Philistines whom Lord Beaconsfield had so triumphantly avenged, and the wild delight of Little Bethel, whose worst judgments on Shelley and Byron Lord Beaconsfield's portraits would justify.

Undeterred by the conspicuous failure of "Venetia," Lord Beaconsfield two years after announced another project equally ambitious. In that year he published "Alarcos," which, in the dedication to Lord Francis Egerton, he calmly described as "an attempt to contribute to the revival of English tragedy." The work that was to perform this great exploit was scarcely heard of after its production, and would by this time have been completely forgotten, were it not for the political eminence to which its author has attained. But even the adventitious accessory of the writer's rank could not give it even the semblance of life. When Mr. Disraeli was Prime Minister for the first time, an enterprising manageress thought it might draw. It was not, however, in any of the theatres identified either with the classic drama or refined comedy, or with anything whatever of even a decent reputation, that Mr. Disraeli's work was produced. This attempt to revive English tragedy-this dramatic masterpiece of the chief ruler of this vast empire-made its appearance on the boards of a house devoted to tame elephants and chained lions, waltzing horses, performing monkeys, and the equestrian drama; but even in this humble

asylum of the houseless playwright, " Alarcos" was laughed off the stage after a few nights.

It is not uninstructive to pause for a moment to contrast the difference in the verdict pronounced upon Lord Beaconsfield's political and that on his literary and dramatic achievements. Pretentious inanity can make muddle-headed agriculturist or dining alderman admire and cheer, but it cannot obtain a decent run for the worthless drama of even a Prime Minister. The arbiters of literature, too, are happily of somewhat brighter material than the fatuous aristocrat, or the dull farmer, or the rabid Jingo that lift political impostors to power. In the world of literature, as in the world of politics, Lord Beaconsfield has sought to succeed by continually shouting at the top of his voice that of all literary men he was the greatest. But literary, unlike political arbiters have refused to take him at his own exaggerated estimate of his powers; and by them, the writer who ranked his epic beside that of Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Milton, who saw in his "Alarcos" a revival of the English drama, and who places his novels among the highest efforts of the human mind, is consigned to the region of poetasters, wrecked playwrights, and fifth-rate novelists.*

* It was not an English theatrical authority that ventured to put "Alarcos on the stage; this bold exploit was reserved to what the Pall Mall Gazette (July 29, 1868,) calls a "venturesome American actress, one Miss Agnes Cameron." For an excellent critique of the tragedy itself, see the number of the Pall Mall Gazette just quoted; the issue of August 3, following, gives a most amusing description of how the play was " damned."

202

CHAPTER IX.

YOUNG ENGLAND.

WHEN Parliament reassembled after the general election, there could be no doubt that the Government of Lord Melbourne was in a minority. The Conservative leader at once took decisive action, and, a few nights after the opening of the session, proposed a want of confidence motion. In the ensuing debate, Mr. Disraeli, of course, was one of the speakers.

During the election, Protection and Free Trade were one of the many issues contested, and the Whig Cabinet had not obscurely hinted that they were ready to make some advances in the direction of Free Trade. The body of the Conservative party, of course, still adhered to Protection; but their discreet leader had taken care to leave himself unpledged on the subject.

Mr. Disraeli, naturally, took the cue from his leader. His speech, therefore, on Peel's motion, was directed to show two things: (1) that Free Trade was not a monopoly of the Whigs; and (2) that a Ministry under Sir Robert Peel would be far more likely to carry

efficient Free Trade measures then the Ministry of Lord Melbourne. Such a line of argument, however inconsistent with Mr. Disraeli's expression of opinions on the same question a few years later, was yet in perfect consistency with his general plan of private and public life. The chief article of his own creed of conduct was that he should flatter those who could be useful to him, and Peel was one of those. His chief article of belief on the conduct of political parties was that the Tories should filch all the cries and measures of the Liberals. Free Trade had the appearance, in 1841, of becoming a popular cry, which might be taken up very advantageously by a political party. And Mr. Disraeli may have thought that the Free Traders might be used for Tory purposes, just as he had formerly thought that the Radicals and the Chartists could be played off against the Whigs. Mr. Disraeli, of course, had taken very good care to watch Peel's conduct during the elections; and a keen observer like him would not fail to observe that Peel's reticence on the subject pointed to the probability of his proposing Free Trade measures. The influence of those ideas may be easily traced in Mr. Disraeli's speech.

He began by completely denying that the policy of Free Trade would be retarded by the accession of a Tory Ministry. The Tories, not the Whigs, he contended, were the true Free Traders. "Why," he exclaimed, "the progress of commercial reform was only arrested by the Reform Act." That is to say, the

* Hansard, 3 S. lix. 173.

movement in favour of Free Trade would have been advanced by the virtuous Tories, had not the wicked Whigs intervened with their Reform Bill.

Then he went on to make another and perhaps still more important declaration. It will afterwards be found that one of the main assertions in Mr. Disraeli's philippics against Peel was that the Conservative chief had been elected as the champion of Protection. Mr. Disraeli also was most distinct in declaring over and over again that he himself had been returned to Parliament as an advocate of Protection. Such was his representation of the 1841 election in 1846: mark what his representation of it was in 1841.

"No man could pretend," said Mr. Disraeli, "that the late dissolution of Parliament, or the want of confidence which the country had expressed in the Government, was in consequence of any sympathy in respect of the import duties; but it was because the Government was weak-inefficient-incapable of carrying those measures which they themselves believed to be necessary for the country.'

Can anything be plainer than the meaning of this passage? What can it mean but this-that the verdict of the constituencies had gone against the Whigs, and in favour of the Conservatives, not because the Whigs were in favour of Free Trade, but because they could not carry such efficient Free Trade measures as the Conservatives? †

* Ibid. 174.

It is not necessary to overload my text with quotations in proof