adopted a policy of retrenchment. country must not be taken by surprise. There must be no repetition of the humiliating scenes which led to the Crimean war. Let us," he said, "profit by that experience. Let the government of the country feel that the House of Commons, without respect to person or party, is prepared to give them a hearty support. Let them speak to foreign powers with that clearness and firmness which can only arise from a due conception of their duties and a determination to fulfil them. If that course is taken by the government I more than hope, I believe, that this country will not be involved in war. I believe more than that-I believe that the influence of England, especially if combined with the influence of the other great neutral powers, may speedily secure the restoration of peace." The during this session, he at least had not been idle. After an absence of a quarter of a century, he returned to the arena in which he had gained his first triumphs. Early in the May of this year appeared his novel "Lothair." The discussion as to the disestablishment of the Irish Church had turned the attention of Mr. Disraeli to religious topics. He saw the country fighting against three powerful influences, each struggling for the mastery, and each with its ranks crowded with followers - Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and the various forms of free-thought. He resolved to write a book in which those three creeds should be portrayed, and the nature of their teaching discussed. He selected a young and wealthy but somewhat undecided peer as his hero, who successively lost his heart to three heroines, who stood as types of the three different forms of faith. Corisande represented Anglicanism, Miss Arundel the creed of Rome, and Theodora freethought. In the end Lothair married Corisande, and thus Anglicanism gained the victory. When a man who has ruled cabinets writes a book he is sure of readers; and to describe the success which "Lothair" achieved we must go back to the days when "Waverley" first made its appearance, when the "Pickwick Papers" made the name of Charles Dickens famous, and when "Uncle Tom's Cabin" first made us realize the horrors of slavery. The book was subscribed for by every library in the kingdom; it was read everywhere; it was reviewed everywhere; it was translated into every language in Europe. Seldom had publishers brought out such a financial success; seldom had an author been more talked about. Yet as a literary effort "Lothair" cannot be said to have added to the reputation of the man who wrote "Coningsby"-the best political novel in our language. As in all Mr. Disraeli's works of fiction, the book abounds in witty and amusing dialogue, in charming descriptions of scenery which remind us of Octave Feuillet, and in clever delineation of character; but it must be confessed that In reply Mr. Gladstone described our position to be one of strict neutrality-not an "armed neutrality," but a secure neutrality, backed and sustained by adequate measures of defence. "Happily," he said, "we have peace establishments which are not only in the highest efficiency, but capable of easy and rapid expansion, and the reductions which have been made have promoted instead of diminishing our strength. We have now an army of 89,000 and a reserve of 41,000, as compared with 87,500 regulars and 19,000 reserve in 1868; and a strong concentrated system of naval defence in every way superior to the old sporadic system." Before the session closed the safety of Belgium had been assured. A new and triple treaty had been signed by England, Prussia, and France, with the object of maintaining intact the independence and neutrality of Belgium, as provided in the quintuple treaty of 1839. In the event of either belligerent violating that neutrality, England was to co-operate with the other in such a manner as might be mutually agreed upon to insure its ob servance. If the duties of leader of the Opposition sat somewhat lightly upon Mr. Disraeli Lothair himself fails to excite our sympathy, | distinguishing between the excellence of that the story often flags and becomes dull, a principle and its injurious or obsolete and that the style is in many places tawdry application. The feudal system may have and slipshod in the extreme. It is no worn out, but its main principle, that the injustice to the author to assert, that had tenure of property should be the fulfilment the novel been written by an unknown of duty, is the essence of good government. man, it would scarcely have attracted ordi- The divine right of kings may have been a nary attention. plea for feeble tyrants; but the divine right of government is the keystone of human progress, and without it governments sink into police, and a nation is degraded into a mob. The introduction to the book is, however, of much interest, since it throws a light upon the political teaching of Mr. Disraeli. We there read what was the object with which "Coningsby," "Sybil," and "Tancred" were given to the world. The origin and character of political parties in England, their influence on the condition of the people of the country, some picture of the moral and physical condition of that people, and some intimation of the means by which it might be elevated and improved those were themes which Mr. Disraeli said had long engaged his attention, and those he discussed in his three celebrated romances. "Coningsby," "Sybil," and "Tancred," he said, constituted a real triology. "Born in a library," he wrote, "and trained from early childhood by learned men who did not share the passions and the prejudices of our political and social life, I had imbibed on some subjects conclusions different from those which generally prevail, and especially with reference to the history of our own country. How an oligarchy had been substituted for a kingdom, and a narrow-minded and bigoted fanaticism flourished in the name of religious liberty, were problems long to me insoluble, but which early interested me. But what most attracted my musing, even as a boy, was the elements of our political parties, and the strange mystification by which that which was national in its constitution had become odious, and that which was exclusive was presented as popular. "What has mainly led to this confusion of public thought and this uneasiness of society is our habitual carelessness in not "National institutions were the ramparts of the multitude against large estates exercising political power derived from a limited class. The church was in theory, and once it had been in practice, the spiritual and intellectual trainer of the people. The privileges of the multitude and the prerogatives of the sovereign had grown up together, and together they had waned. Under the plea of liberalism, all the institutions which were the bulwarks of the multitude had been sapped and weakened, and nothing had been substituted for them. The people were without education; and relatively to the advance of science and the comfort of the superior classes, their condition had deteriorated, and their physical quality as a race was threatened. Those who in theory were the national party, and who sheltered themselves under the institutions of the country against the oligarchy, had, both by a misconception and a neglect of their duties, become, and justly become, odious; while the oligarchy, who had mainly founded themselves on the plunder of the popular estate, either in the shape of the possessions of the church or the domains of the crown, had by the patronage of certain general principles which they only meagerly applied, assumed, and to a certain degree acquired, the character of a popular party. But no party was national: one was exclusive and odious, and the other liberal and cosmopolitan. curiosity, but they assume a different character when they practically result in the degradation of a people. "To change back the oligarchy into a generous aristocracy round a real throne; to infuse life and vigour into the church, as the trainer of the nation, by the revival of Convocation, then dumb, on a wide basis, and not, as has been since done, in the shape of a priestly section; to establish a commercial code on the principles successfully negotiated by Lord Bolingbroke at Utrecht, and which, though baffled at the time by a Whig parliament, were subsequently and triumphantly vindicated by his political pupil and heir, Mr. Pitt; to govern Ireland according to the policy of Charles I. and not of Oliver Cromwell; to emancipate the political constituency of 1832 from its sectarian bondage and contracted sympathies; to elevate the physical as well as the moral condition of the people, by establishing that labour required regulation as much as property; and all this rather by the use of ancient forms and the restoration of the past than by political revolutions founded on abstract ideas, appeared to be the course which the circumstances of this country required, and which, practically speaking, could only, with all their faults and backslidings, be undertaken and accomplished by a reconstructed Tory party." This was the aim which Mr. Disraeli set before him; and to make the public familiar with his teaching he embodied his views in the form of fiction. In "Coningsby " the derivation and character of political parties were discussed; in "Sybil" was portrayed the condition of the people; and in "Tancred" the duties of the church were laid down. "It will be seen," writes Mr. Disraeli, "that the general spirit of these productions ran counter to the views which had been long prevalent in England, and which may be popularly, though not altogether accurately, described as utilitarian. They recognized imagination in the government of nations as a quality not less important than reason. They trusted much to a popular sentiment, which rested on an heroic tradition and was sustained by the high spirit of a free aristocracy. Their economic principles were not unsound, but they looked upon the health and knowledge of the multitude as not the least precious part of the wealth of nations. In asserting the doctrine of race, they were entirely opposed to the equality of man, and similar abstract dogmas which have destroyed ancient society without creating a satisfactory substitute. Resting on popular sympathies and popular privileges, they held that no society could be durable unless it was built upon the principles of loyalty and religious reverence." CHAPTER VII. LIBERAL LABOURS. complained. But the topic which especially interested England at this time, and aroused all her indignation, was the calm and insolent repudiation by Russia of the clause in the treaty of Paris relating to the neutralization of the Black Sea. THE comparative repose which Mr. Disraeli | and of the other grievances of which she had enjoyed during the last session was not to be of long duration. Important events were occurring which required careful investigation on the part of a leader of the Opposition, for already the Liberal government were beginning their work of national degradation and interference with domestic interests which was, three years later, to lead to their overthrow amid the wellmerited contempt, not only of their own countrymen, but of the foreign powers. Politics, diplomacy, and cruel war were busy re-arranging the map of Europe. The biter had been terribly bitten; and the hordes of Germany, not content with Sedan and the downfall of the Bonapartist dynasty, were surrounding Paris, refusing to quit French soil until their stern demands had been fulfilled to the letter. The King of Italy, finding the moment opportune, marched his troops into Rome and proclaimed the city, in spite of the pope and the whole college of cardinals, as the future capital of his dominions. "With Rome for our capital," cried Victor Emmanuel, "I have fulfilled my promise, and crowned the enterprise which was begun twenty-three years ago by my magnanimous father. Italy is free and united henceforth, and depends upon herself alone making her great and happy. We entered Rome by our national right, and shall remain there, keeping the promises solemnly made to ourselves of freedom to the church and the independence of the Holy See in its spiritual ministry and its relations with Catholicity." America was again agitating, in a somewhat aggressive tone, for the settlement of that long-vexed question the Alabama claims, Ever since the conclusion of the Crimean war, that clause had been rankling in the mind of Russia very much as the possession of Alsace and Lorraine by Germany rankles now in the mind of France. As long as that article in the treaty of Paris was binding and complied with, so long was Russia, in the eyes of the patriotic Muscovite, humiliated where she was the most sensitive, and prevented from being the mistress of her actions. The Black Sea is virtually a Russian lake; and it was the just opinion of the powers which drew up the articles of peace at Paris, that unless some control was exercised over the movements of Russia in those waters, she would ever continue to be a source of anxiety to Turkey and of menace to Europe. Accordingly it was stipulated in a clear and special article, that the power of the Muscovite in the Euxine should be limited. It was agreed upon that the Black Sea should be neutralized; that its waters should be open to the merchant marine of all nations, but not to any ships of war; that there should be no military arsenals on its banks; and that Russia and Turkey should mutually engage to maintain in the Black Sea only a specified number of light vessels for the service of the coasts. Such importance did Lord Palmerston place upon these stipulations that he declared, that unless they were complied with peace was out of the question. Russia agreed to THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. the terms imposed upon her; and it was then definitely laid down in the treaty of Paris that "the Black Sea is neutralized; its waters and its ports, thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war either of the powers possessing its coasts or of any other power." Good faith or the ordinary sentiments of honour have never been very conspicuous in the proceedings of Muscovite diplomacy; and Russia had secretly resolved, when pledging herself to the clauses of the treaty of Paris, to repudiate those which galled her at the first fitting opportunity. That moment had now arrived. Prussia and France were too absorbed in cutting each other's throats to abandon such delightful work for the consideration of a treaty framed fourteen years ago, and which merely crippled the activity of Russia in the Euxine. If the Euxine had been the Rhine, and Turkey a German principality, then the question would have had a real and practical interest; but with Paris besieged, and peace only to be purchased at a most cruel price, what cared France for Russia and her fleet? she had enough to do to think of her own humiliation. Since her late defeat and degradation Austria was of little account in the family of nations. There was therefore only England; and since the accession of the Liberal government to power, the impression in every city on the Continent was that nothing would induce England to go to war. She might be defied and insulted with impunity, it was sneered, as she was then too immersed in extending her commerce, in stimulating Irish agitation to pave the way for legislative reforms, in revising the "harum-scarum" budgets of her wondrous chancellor of the exchequer, in introducing a cheese-paring economy, and in impairing efficiency which she called retrenchment, to dream of hostilities or to object to the gauntlet even when flung in her face. She would pen despatches, she would make VOL. II. 177 endless appeals to the principles of a high morality, she would agree to an arbitration --but fight most certainly she would not. Her own aim, no matter under what provocation, was to amass bullion, not to shed blood; she was willing to sink her prestige, provided her commerce only developed. So thought Russia, and events proved that she had judged aright. A few weeks before the meeting of parliament Prince Gortschakoff had informed the English government that Russia declined any longer to be bound by the hateful clause in the treaty of Paris. The articles in the treaty, he said, had not been strictly kept by the other powers, and Russia saw no reason why she should not follow suit in the work of repudiation. “Our august master," wrote the prince to the Russian ambassador at the court of St. James's, "cannot admit that treaties violated in their essential and general clauses should continue to be binding in those clauses which affect the direct interests of his empire. His Imperial Majesty cannot admit, in fact, that the security of Russia should rest upon a fiction which has not withstood the ordeal of time, and that it should be endangered in consequence of his respect towards engagements which have not been performed in all their integrity. Relying on the sense of equity of the powers signataries of the treaty of 1856, and the consciousness these have of their own dignity, the emperor bids you declare that His Imperial Majesty can no longer consider himself bound to the terms of the treaty of March 18, 1856, in so far as these limit his rights of sovereignty in the Black Sea. That His Imperial Majesty considers it his right and his duty to give notice to His Majesty the Sultan of his withdrawal from the special and additional convention annexed to that treaty, which fixes the number and the size of the men-of-war which the two powers bordering on the Black Sea reserve to keep in the said sea. That he conveys loyal information of this to the powers and guarantors signataries of the general treaty, 23 |