MR. DISRAELI AT MANCHESTER.

[TO TDB EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1

‘,Sm,—There are two things upon which Mr. Disraeli particularly prides himself,—his intimate knowledge of the British Constitution and the accuracy of his "historical conscience." On both these points his great speech at Manchester is somewhat perplexing, and as I may possibly be called upon ere long to exercise the franchise which his Reform Bill has given me, perhaps you will be good enough to allow me to place my difficulties before him in your columns.

More than once in his speech Mr. Disraeli characterized the 'Irish Church and the Irish Land Acts as "a plan to despoil churches and plunder landlords." While these Acts were the subject of Parliamentary discussion, Mr. Disraeli's language, however violent and unjust, would at least have been consistent with loyalty to the Constitution. But the Acts in question received the sanction of both branches of the Legislature and the sign- manual of the Sovereign, and are now an integral part of the law of the land. Mr. Disraeli, therefore, has seriously accused the Lords and Commons of England, with the Queen at their head, of passing into law "a plan to despoil churches and plunder land- lords." This appears to me an odd way of "maintaining the constitution of the country." To expose an institution to popular hatred is certainly a novel method of maintaining it ; and what better way is there of exposing Parliament and the Sovereign to the odium of the multitude than by representing them as guilty of spoliation and plunder?

So much by way of illustrating Mr. Disraeli's mode of defend- ing the British Constitution. Accipe nunc Danaam insidias, et crimine ab uno disce omits. Let us now have a look at his "historical conscience."

He took great credit to himself for having given household suffrage to the working-classes. "The Liberal party," he told his Manchester audience, "had not acted fairly in this matter. In their adversity they held out hopes to the working-classes ; but when they had a strong Government they laughed their vows to scorn." But Mr. Disraeli was determined "that the question should be dealt with sincerely," and so, on the first opportunity, he granted to the working-classes what had always been the darling wish of his heart—household suffrage. Where was the "historical conscience" when it allowed its gifted possessor to serve out this travesty of English political history for the delectation of Lanca- shire Tories? Even Tories must be a more "stupid party" than Mr. Mill himself could represent them, if they are persuaded by their clever leader that his chief quarrel with the Reform Bill of 1832 was that it did an injustice to the working-classes which could only be redressed by giving them household suffrage. Such, however, is Mr. Disraeli's assertion, and it is therefore necessary to look at the facts.

I find, then, that on the 20th of June, 1848, Mr. Hume made the following motion :—

" That this House, as at present constituted, does not fairly represent the population, the property, or the industry of the country, whence has arisen great and increasing discontent in the minds of a large portion of the people; and it is therefore expedient, with a view to amend the national representation, that the elective franchise shall be so extended as to include all householders ; that votes shall be taken by ballot ; that the duration of Parliaments shall not exceed three years ; and that the apportionment of Members to population shall be made more equal."

Every one of the propositions contained in this motion Mr. Disraeli controverted, except that in favour of triennial Parliaments, which he declared "were always supported by the Tory party." Of household suffrage, in particular, he said that "it was impossible that any plan could be more hard, more commonplace, more literal, more unsatisfactory, or more offensive." It was, in fact, "an absurdity ;" and he " contended " that the Reform Act of 1832 was "likely to be more satisfactory to the nation than the plan brought forward by the honourable gentleman" (Mr. Hume).

Some admirers of Mr. Disraeli, however, may tell me that the Reform Bill of 1867 has qualified household suffrage by restricting it to rate-paying householders, while Mr. Hume's motion, on the other hand, was in favour of household suffrage pur et simple. But on March 25, 1852, Mr. Hume made another motion, in which it was proposed "that every man of full age, and not subject to any mental or legal disability, who shall have been the resident occupier of a house, or part of a house, for twelve months, and shall have been duly rated to the poor of that parish for that time, shall be registered as an elector, and be entitled to vote for a representative in Parliament."

To this proposal also Mr. Disraeli offered a determined resist- ance. Moreover, in his address to his constituents in view of the general election in 1865, he congratulated the country on the fact that the House of Commons had "declared by a vast majority that the franchise in boroughs should not be lowered, and that the principle on which Lord Derby wished to extend it was the just one,"—that principle being that the extension of the franchise should be in a "lateral," not in a downward, direction. In the same address the lowering of the borough franchise is described as "falling into a democracy, which is the tyranny of one class, and that one the least enlightened."

In 1859 Mr. Disraeli had an opportunity of redressing the wrong done to the working-classes by the Reform Bill of 1832. He was leader of the House of Commons, and he introduced a Reform Bill which is a singular commentary on his Manchester speech. He proposed to give the franchise to persons having property to the amount of /10 a year in the Funds, in Bank stock, or in East India stock ; to all men who had /60 for one whole year in a savings' bank; to pensioners to the amount of £20

a year ; to graduates of all Universities, being English subjects ; to Ministers of religion of all denominations; to all certificated schoolmasters ; to persons paying 8s. a week for lodgings.

But where were his dear friends the working-classes, on whom he now lavishes his admiration ? Echo answers, where ? They were simply left out in the cold. The Bill did not propose to lower the borough franchise at all, but it proposed to reduce the county franchise from 150 to £10,—a proposal which, if successful, would have swamped the borough voters by the nominees of the agricultural interest.

The Bill was opposed by the Liberal party just because it ignored the just claims of the working-classes ; and to avoid a crushing defeat, Mr. Disraeli offered to reduce the borough fran- chise to 18 rental, or /6 rating. This, however, did not satisfy the Liberals. Mr. Disraeli was defeated ; he appealed to the country on this very question, and the country returned a majority against him. But it is worth while to quote a sentence or two from Mr. Disraeli's speech on the second reading of the Reform Bill of 1859. "1 cannot look," he said, "upon what is called re- duction of the franchise in boroughs but with alarm, and I have never yet met any argument which fairly encounters the objections that are urged to it. You cannot encounter it by sentimental assertions of the good qualities of the working-classes. The greater their good qualities the greater the danger." Mr. Bright objected to the equalisation of the county and borough franchises because, "if you have the same franchise in counties and towns, I see but very little chance of your ever reducing the suffrage in towns." "Why," replied Mr. Disraeli in the speech from which I am quoting, "that was the very object we wished to attain, and it is something to have such an admission from the hon. member for Birmingham himself."

Your readers will remember Mr. Disraeli's speeches against the Reform Bill of 1866. That Bill proposed to reduce the borough franchise to /6, and Mr. Disraeli opposed it because it would put England in the power of the working-classes, and would thereby "make of a first empire a second-rate republic." I will not weary your readers by quotations. Suffice it to say that up to 1867 Mr. Disraeli never let drop a hint that be was in favour of what he called "vertical extension" of the franchise. He was willing to enfranchise a small and select band of the working-classes by means of fancy franchises, but he denounced in every variety of phrase the enfranchisement of "an indiscriminate multitude."

In January, 1867, he published a volume of Parliamentary speeches on Reform, all breathing unqualified hostility to the principle of household suffrage, or anything approaching to house- hold suffrage. This shows what Mr. Disraeli's intentions were when it fell to his lot a second time to propose a reform of the franchise. And his acts did not belie his intentions. He opened the campaign with a series of resolutions which were certainly hostile to the principle of household suffrage. These resolutions were laughed out of the House of Commons. Then followed "the ten minutes' bill," which fell still-born. Afterwards came an abortion of a household-suffrage bill, so overweighted by fancy franchises and dual votes that it was a mere sham. All these re- strictions were knocked off by the Liberal Opposition, and the Bill which passed eventually was really the bill of the Liberal party, though Mr. Disraeli's name happened to be on the back of it.

Mr. Disraeli is a master of fiction ; but it would be convenient if, in his future political dissertations, he would tell us whether it is the author of " Coningsby "or the leader of the Tory party who is speaking. It would not be necessary to test the accuracy of the "historical conscience" of the former ; but the leader of the Tory party and an expectant Prime Minister of England has no busi- ness, I venture to think, to deal with plain facts after the fashion of a novel-writer. It is this habitual passion for political leger- demain that prevents, and will continue to prevent, the people of this country from giving their confidence to Mr. Disraeli. They may go in crowds to see him and hear him speak, but that is a very different matter from giving him their confidence. He re- ceived an enthusiastic reception in Edinburgh in the winter of 1867, and was then also cheered by audiences of working-men ; but when the general election took place, the "great and under- standing people," whom Mr. Disraeli had eulogised in expectation of favours to come, gave their votes to his opponent.

I have confined my criticism to only two statements in Mr. Disraeli's speech ; but there are many others of his assertions of which, I trust, he will hear in the House of Commons. He ought certainly to be forced to explain the following sentence :—" I speak of what I know,—not of what I believe, but of what I have evidence in my possession to prove ; that the Crimean War would never have happened if Lord Derby had remained in office." ' I trust also that some Member will call attention to Mr. Disraeli's studied attempt to dissuade the American Government from re- ceding from their untenable position on the Alabama question. A triumph over a political opponent may be a good thing in its way, but patriotism is surely better. Patriotism, however, is a. misnomer when applied to Mr. Disraeli's relation to English life. He has never been able to identify himself with the English people, or to persuade them that he is really one of themselves. His political career among us has ever been that of a clever alien, scrutinising us from without, but not able to enter fully into our feelings ; and it is in consequence of this that Mr. Disraeli has so frequently miscalculated the force and mistaken the direction of public opinion. No genuine Englishman would ever dream of extolling the infamous Lord Bolingbroke as the very Bayard of English polities. The Conservatism of Lord Salisbury, of Mr.. Gathorne Hardy, even of Lord Derby, I can understand. But the Conservatism of Mr. Disraeli—what is it? What does it con- serve ? Will some one tell me ?—I am, Sir, &c., SCRIITATOR.