House to understand that he did not mean to condescend to the baseness of repayment." But, after Mr Gladstone's solemn adherence to his creed in the existence of a surplus, it would be "improper and even indecent" for the Opposition to deny this entity. Well, granting the surplus, what duties ought to be remitted? Those on tea, not those on paper. He had to accept, but could not understand Mr Gladstone's statement, that Mr Horsfall's amendment would involve a loss of £950,000 on the revenue. Here the "array of figures" can hardly be followed in a brief abstract; but "if trade would be paralysed because there was going to be a fall in duty," that misfortune would arrive, whether the fall was on tea or on paper. The difficulty was to prevent the middleman from getting the benefit, if they reduced by dribblets; the producer, if they reduced by a large amount, and stimulated demand beyond supply. But there was any amount of tea to be had. The Chinese markets had just been opened the condition of the United States (the Rebellion, or Civil War, having commenced) was hostile to their demand for tea. He did not, he never did, defend the paper duties in themselves. They had an ingenious Chancellor of the Exchequer, fertile in expedients; if he longed to slay that giant, the paper duty, let him choose some other weapon from his armoury for slaying it, rather than the war tax on tea. The poor were now appealing to them for relief." (Oh! oh!) He ended by repeating (again in face of cries of "Oh! oh!") that he "did not love the paper duties."

The speech was very successful: unusually successful, -the real beginning of the speaker's parliamentary career and of his importance in politics. Mr Disraeli said: "Never since I have had the honour of a seat in this House have I heard a question more completely or more fairly put before the House, supported by ampler knowledge, illustrated in a happier manner, and recommended for our consideration by reasoning more irresistible." Lord Palmerston said that Sir Stafford "had spoken with great ability, and in great detail." But when the question was put "that the word 'tea' stand part of the proposed resolu

1861.]

CONGRATULATIONS.

109

tion," the Government had a majority of 18, "a very small majority, as it is in its 'teens' it can hardly be called a majority at all," said Mr Disraeli, with a characteristic calembour.

66

Lord Derby wrote to congratulate Sir Stafford on his "powerful and brilliant speech," and "the readiness with which he replied to and destroyed the fallacies" of Mr Gladstone. 'Stanley told me this morning that by your speech last night you had placed yourself in a position among our friends in the House of Commons second only to that of Mr Disraeli." Mrs Disraeli, in writing to Lady Northcote, said that Mr Disraeli considered the speech one of the finest he had ever heard." Lord Stanley, in a letter of May 3, called it "the most complete parliamentary success that I have heard in the twelve years I have sat in the House. You are marked out for a Chancellor of the Exchequer. The comment I heard from a competent judge was, 'It is Gladstone at his best, without Gladstone's temper."" There was much happiness when all these messages of praise and thanks came in. Lady Iddesleigh remembers the morning as "perhaps the happiest in her life." The Times' reporter, sending down from the gallery to ask for notes, rather unconventionally directed his message to "The Orator of the Opposition bench." Some one made the neat quotation, with regard to Mr Gladstone

"Keen are his pangs, but keener far to feel

He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel."

But, in spite of tradition, Mr Gladstone had not done very much for "the pinion." It had written his official letters for a short time. Sir Stafford was his secretary, not his pupil. Among other results of this speech was probably Sir Stafford's book on 'Twenty Years of Financial Policy.' Writing to Mr Disraeli on October 31, 1861, he says:

Some booksellers have entrapped me into a promise to write an account of our financial policy, and have forthwith advertised the work, as if it existed anywhere else than in the world of shadows. I am therefore trying to make a start, but don't expect to do much down here, away from all books of reference.

I suppose that the process of composing the pemmican of such works as M. Block's [on Finance] must be good for a man who is trying to get up a subject, although no digestion with which I am acquainted can assimilate the article when put before one to read.

Sir Stafford's book is, at least, remarkably excellent pemmican. But his conclusions, as to how the country stood after the years between 1841 and 1862, were not very cheerful—that is, for him, who became famous for thinking he "saw a bit of blue" in a dirty sky. The wealth of the country had increased, owing to the effects of steam and other mechanical "advantages." But the expenditure had kept pace with the gains, and we had been able to spend so much, by the use of that other mechanical advantage, the income-tax. "The removal of restrictions on expenditure has promoted expenditure." Our ordinary sources of revenue had not increased in anything like proportion to our expenses. We were constantly drawing on our reserve, the income-tax, "and it is a grave question whether this is to be regarded as a proof of financial strength." The Russian war altered everything for the worse, "infecting the whole nation, and not this nation only, but all Europe also, with ideas of extravagance." All parties were to blame, "and each may retort upon the other the arguments which any one may use." Public spirit must take precedence of party spirit, and a general view of the policy most conducive to the interests of England must not be eclipsed by our attachment to particular theories and particular measures." And he sighs for an end of party and personal prejudices, and for hearty cooperation; but Zeus blew all the prayer, and not half alone, as in the Iliad, into the empty winds. What would such a policy be? The book tells us what it was not, but ends before reaching a constructive theory.

The education of destitute children had always been a matter of chief interest to Sir Stafford, and very much of his time and energy was occupied, as has been shown, with reformatory schools. On May 28, 1861, he moved for a select committee on the subject. The children who were provided for neither by the reformatories, the industrial

1861.]

"A PLEDGED COMPETITIONIST.”

111

The

schools, nor the national schools, were the children for whom he spoke. A Royal Commission had just presented an elaborate report, but this part of the subject had, in his opinion, been left incomplete by the Commission. He had heard it said that there was no such class" of children, which was merely a proof of the ignorance of the people who made that assertion. The children existed, their parents could not or would not assist them, and it was the part of the State to relieve a condition which sounded almost incredibly evil and neglected. elements of knowledge, " and sound, moral, and religious education" were required. Neither the day schools, the industrial schools, nor the workhouse schools met the need. Did any one believe that, because there was no place for those children in the official system, the class would therefore cease to exist, or that benevolent persons would not endeavour to deal with them?" He entreated the House not to say, "Because there are difficulties in the way, we will throw the thing overboard." Mr Lowe agreed to his motion for a committee, with a slight change, which Sir Stafford accepted, in his wording; and Mr Lowe paid a compliment to his "great ability and candour." Sir Stafford's share in a debate on Civil Service examinations (June 21, 1861) was chiefly notable for his declaration that he was "a pledged competitionist," who saw "not the slightest inconvenience or danger in open competition," and who thought that some members disliked it "because it would deprive members of that House of the advantage of putting their friends and relatives into public offices. He believed that to be at the bottom of the whole thing."

Here his parliamentary activity for the session practically ends. The year left him on a much higher level of public esteem than it had found him. To some

extent he was the lieutenant of Mr Disraeli, who wrote in September about affairs in the United States: "Our friend Jonathan seems in a pretty state; it is like the failure of some ancient house, one scarcely realises the enormous results. . . . 'Tis a privilege to live in such a pantomimic age of glittering illusion and startling

surprises." This was quite in the spirit of Leo X., but even Mr Disraeli might have had enough of "startling surprises" by 1890. The house of Jonathan Brothers did not fail after all, and occupied more of attention than was agreeable in the next session. The vacation saw Sir Stafford president of the Archæological Association, which met in Devonshire, and was entertained at Pynes. Sir Stafford was not, as he said, an expert in archæology, but he was invaluable as a host and a president. His time was a good deal occupied, during the vacation, with finance, and with the Public Schools Commission, of which he was a member. Mr Gladstone (Nov. 12, 1861) in a long letter expressed himself jealous of any invasion of modern languages which might displace classical culture, or any portion of it, "in minds capable of following that walk." "The whole method of dealing with them" (modern languages in general) “is quite alien from strict study," a remark certainly true, at least in that period; and probably no less true to-day.

The vacation was too busy, with all those matters, and with the book on Financial Policy,' for much diversion. Sir Stafford wrote that, being in town on October 8, he discontinued the Cornhill Magazine,' and "I have now been doing penance for my offence by sitting next Thackeray at dinner," at the Athenæum. One would

commit a multitude of sins for the chance of such a penance; but of the two divisions of mankind, Sir Stafford was not a Thackerayan, but a Dickensite. Happy are they who can read the lessons in both churches!

CHAPTER VII.

IN PARLIAMENT, 1862-1865.

THE "pantomimic times" ran on with their "glittering illusions," and shifting costumes of black and red. The war between the Northern and Southern States threat