How did the political collaboration between Lord Derby and Benjamin Disraeli develop and change from the 1840s to the 1860s

Grach Arakelian

How did the political collaboration between Lord

Derby and Benjamin Disraeli develop and change from the

1840s to the 1860s?

The Victorian era saw a great many outstanding

personalities dominating the politics of the country,

leading it to prosperity, and to being one of the

strongest empires in the world. Among these, Lord Derby

and Benjamin Disraeli deserve special attention. These

two statesmen inherited the leadership of the

Conservative party after the disastrous split of 1846.

The 14th Earl of Derby faced disagreement among his

troops in Parliament; his party was unpopular with the

electorate, and there was a lack of experienced and

brilliant politicians on his Commons front bench.

Highlighting the condition of the Conservative party in

the first years of Lord Derby’s leadership, historians,

with reason, call them a ‘schism’, and a ‘period of

frustration’ and generally agree that the split of 1846

was the most difficult time for the party during its

whole history. Therefore, Lord Derby, in many respects,

was forced to build a close political relationship with

Disraeli, and even make the latter his ‘lieutenant’.

1

Despite the merits of Lord Derby, historians have

paid scant attention to his biography. There have been

only four investigations devoted specifically to his

political career in the historiography (Kebbel, 1890;

Saintsbury, 1892; Jones, 1952; Hawkins, 2007), compared

with dozens of monographs on Disraeli. This can be

explained by the fact that the first Disraeli

biographers were prone to exaggerate his achievements,

leading to an underestimation of Lord Derby’s role in

party politics. Not by accident, the most recent

comprehensive biography of Lord Derby by Angus Hawkins

is called ‘The Forgotten Prime Minister’. This neglect

by scholars underlines the relevance of a special

exploration of the relationship between Derby and

Disraeli.

This essay will examine a number of different

factors which influenced their relationship. It will

firstly focus on the personalities of both statesmen

through exploring their character and temperament,

social origins, personal interests and attitudes to

friendship. Secondly, it will analyse their public

image, as portrayed in newspapers, and their reputation

among their contemporaries, emphasising what impact

these had on their relationship. The main focus will be

a comparison of their political tactics and ideological

2

principles, highlighting the main differences and

crucial similarities, which created the basis for

successful cooperation during the 1840s-60s. It will

conclude by summarising the main watersheds in the

history of their collaboration, and arguing that it led

to an effective and successful party leadership,

achieved over a long and critical time for the party.

The origins of Lord Derby and Benjamin Disraeli were

totally opposite. Lord Derby can be seen as a typical

representative of the Victorian aristocracy. He was a

noble man, from one of the most respectable, most

powerful and wealthiest aristocratic families in

Britain. As the heir of an aristocratic family, Derby’s

life was prescribed long before his birth: Eton, Christ

Church, a trip across Europe or America, and an almost

immediate political career. All this in many respects

shaped his temperament: there was no need to struggle

to achieve prominence.

Outside politics, he favoured sports, such as

horseracing and hunting. Lord Malmesbury, his closest

friend, called him “the keenest sportsman I ever met”1.

Often Lord Derby put sport above politics, as he

confessed in a letter to Lord Malmesbury: “…we have

1 Malmesbury, earl of. (1885) Memoirs of an Ex-Minister. An Autobiography.L.: Longmans, Green, and Co., Vol 1. P. 33.

3

been so busy shooting, that I have had no time to give

to politics”2. Classics, on the other hand, played a

distinct role in Derby’s interests. Studying at Oxford,

he wrote a poem in Latin called ‘Syracuse’, which won him

the Chancellor’s Prize. Throughout his life, Lord Derby

worked on a translation of Homer’s ‘Iliad’, which was

published in 1864. All these personal interests shaped

his character.

Lord Derby’s temperament was choleric. As noted by

G. Kitson Clark, Derby ‘was a creature of moods’3 Derby

was prone to experience depression following political

failures and attacks of gout4. However, when Lord Derby

was in good health and spirits, he was active. There

have been numerous anecdotes about him5. His

contemporaries also noted Derby’s outstanding, but

sarcastic sense of humour, and his ability to keep

people in “roars of laughter”6; this often offended

people, as happened with Mary Anne Disraeli, which

affected the relationship between the two men. Derby

was very reserved in matters of friendship; he never

2 Derby to Malmesbury, 15 Dec. 1853 / Ibid. P. 416.3 Kitson Clark, G. S. R. (1964) Peel and the Conservative party: a study in party politics 1832-1841. L.: Frank Cass, P. 202.4 Hawkins, A. (2007) The Forgotten Prime Minister: the 14th Earl of Derby. Vol. 1,Ascent, 1799-1851. Oxford: OUP. P. 303, 420- 422.5 Kebbel, T.E. (1907) Lord Disraeli and other tory memories. N.Y.:Mitchell Kennerly, 1907. P. 93. 6 Malmesbury, i. P. 42.

4

had many friends, and very warily permitted people into

his close circle. Throughout his entire political

career only Lord Malmesbury became a close friend,

whereas another intimate, Sir James Graham, was never

forgiven after their split in 1846.

Lord Derby suffered from severe attacks of gout

throughout his life, which had an immensely negative

effect both on his career and character, causing

depression and compelling inactivity. Often he could

not even lift a finger to write a note, and sometimes

he even had to consult colleagues lying in bed7.

Religion was an essential part of Derby’s belief-

system. Throughout his life, Lord Derby wrote a few

books on religious education, which were published

numerous times during his lifetime. Greville’s

description is a good summary of Lord Derby’s

personality: “He is certainly the most natural

character I ever saw; he seems never to think of

throwing a veil over any part of himself: it is this

straightforward energy which makes him so considerable

a person as he is”8.

7 Diary, 30 June 1867.P. 43 / The diary of Gathorne Hardy, later LordCranbrook, 1866-1892: political selections (1981) L., Clarendon Press.8 Greville, Journal, 18 July 1837. iv. P. 12. // Greville. Journal. In Eight Volumes / ed.by Henry Reeve (1896) L., Longmans, green, andCo.

5

In contrast, Disraeli had no aristocratic origins or

huge patrimony, but was from a middle class nouveau riche

family. He was the son of Jewish writer, a fact which

was obviously often used against him by the opponents.

Although Benjamin Disraeli was baptised into the

Christian faith in 1817, he still had to achieve the

respect of society and secure financial independence.

In order to succeed, Disraeli had to find wealthy and

influential patrons, which determined his attitude

towards friendship and his character. This can be seen

as a crucial difference between Disraeli and Derby;

whereas the former had a wide intimate circle, the

latter was rather reserved in friendship. The need to

struggle to achieve recognition formed Disraeli’s

character: he was a very active, even restless person,

who was also extremely ambitious.

As to Disraeli’s interests, he also favoured fashion,

and would try to behave like Lord Byron – poetic hero,

dandy, and man of letters. In contrast to Derby’s

passion for classics, Disraeli favoured the modern

literature of his time, and was a writer himself. Also,

Disraeli was averse to traditional aristocratic

amusements, such as racing and shooting, and never

learnt to ride a horse. Once Disraeli wrote with irony,

regarding the hunting season in Newmarket and

6

Doncaster: “Statesmen do not much meddle with politics

in September”9. This obviously created an abyss between

him and the sports-loving Lord Derby. Seemingly,

Disraeli was never devoted to the same extent to

religion and faith as Derby; he rather masterfully used

religion and church as political tools to favour his

own and his party’s interests. Disraeli’s financial

status was very precarious, which often left him in

debt. However, money shortage was totally alien to

Derby, and the usurers, debts, associated with

Disraeli’s Jewishness (amplified) bred mistrust in his

young colleague. For these reasons, personal aspects of

the Derby-Disraeli relationship undoubtedly affected

negatively their future collaboration.

The public images of two statesmen were also very

different and changed over time. From the very

beginning of Lord Derby’s career, he had been

represented as an eminent and very promising

politician. Even as a student at Oxford University, he

was called “the only brilliant eldest son produced by

the British peerage for a hundred years”10. Melbourne’s

words in conversation with Disraeli describe Derby’s

reputation in the mid-1830s: “Nobody can compete with9 Disraeli to Lord Londonderry, 26 Sep 1853 / Disraeli letters / ed. by M.G. Wiebe et al. Vol. vi. P. 259.10 Lord Derby. The Times, 25 Oct. 1869, 7.

7

Stanley … He will be the next First Minister”11.

Therefore, reasonably early on, he became a recognised

eminent politician12 and a party leader; even when he

joined Peel in 1838, he was immediately regarded as one

of the Conservative leaders. In fact, within the

Conservative party Derby was respected and unchallenged

for more than 22 years during his whole party

leadership, which remains the longest in British

history. Lord Ellenborough was ready to “carry a musket

for” Lord Derby13; it was his authority which kept the

party together, and prevented another split after 1846;

the rank and file of the party were always pleased with

attention from their Chief, and found his speeches

inspiring14. Lord Derby was often represented in the

newspapers as “an honest man” having “an independent

mind”15.

By contrast, Disraeli’s early political reputation

was highly controversial: people remembered his first

unsuccessful attempts to be elected as a Radical MP,

11 Torrens, W. (1890) Memoirs of ... William second viscount Melbourne. L. P.275; Blake, R. (1966) Disraeli. London: OUP. P. 114.12 Lord Ellenborough called Derby “…by all accounts, the best man…”. Diary, 26 Feb 1831. P. 65 / Three Early Nineteenth Century Diaries.Ed. by A. Aspinall. London, 1952.13 9 Feb. 1855 / Malmesbury, ii. P. 8.14, Hardy Diary, 1 May 1858, i, P. 117; 13 March 1867, Ibid., ii. P. 32.15 The Times, 6 Jan. 1835, 6.

8

his rebellious behavior in the Conservative party,

attempts to establish “The Young England” movement, his

attack on Peel, and other actions. Contemporary

newspapers, as well as his political opponents,

frequently taunted Disraeli for his Jewishness. These

abuses culminated in the mock-heroic series on

“Benjamin Dejuda” in ‘The Morning Chronicle’, at which

Disraeli himself described “astonishment” and

“horror”16. Because of his sporadic attempts to make

alliances with different parliamentary fractions,

Disraeli was also called a “leader without principle”17.

At the same time, Disraeli was a famous novelist, and

“a celebrity” of his time, as recent researchers call

him18. His major novels, such as ‘Vivian Grey’, ‘Coningsby’,

‘Sybil’, and ‘Tancred’ had been published several times during

his lifetime and were immensely popular in Britain, as

well as abroad, which gained him considerable respect

and public recognition.

However, in the latter period of their leadership,

newspapers and journals focused much more on Disraeli

than on Derby. Analysis of ‘The Punch ’and ‘The Illustrated

16 Disraeli to Monckton Milnes, 20 November 1852. Disraeli letters. vi, 183.17 The Times, 10 Nov. 1852, P. 4.18 Mayer, S. "Pegasus and Carthorse: The Many Shades of Disraeli'sCelebrity." Symposium "The Many Lives of Benjamin Disraeli: Fame, Legacy, Representations," The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities, University of Oxford, 24 March 2015.

9

London News’ of that period shows that the former appeared

incomparably more than the latter in the cartoons.

Disraeli was much more aware of newspapers’ influence

on public opinion; he set up his own newspaper, ‘The

Press’, which was, as Lord Malmesbury noted, “always

putting him (Disraeli) forward and ignoring Lord

Derby”19.

At the same time, relationships with other

contemporaries also influenced their attitude towards

each other. Indeed, Lord Derby and Benjamin Disraeli

were regarded differently by their colleagues.

Irrespective of party membership, Derby was respected

by the politicians. The eminent Peelites, (such as

Gladstone, Graham, Lord Aberdeen), and the Liberals

(Lord Grey, Lord Palmerston, and Lord Melbourne)

expressed respect for Derby’s talents. The Relationship

between Lord Derby and the Royal family developed throw

time. Seemingly the Queen blamed Lord Derby for the

1846 party split; nevertheless, with time they achieved

close friendship, and the Queen preferred him to the

Liberal leaders of his time. Similarly, the Queen

severely blamed Disraeli for the attack on Robert Peel.

Forming the government in 1852, Derby had to defend

Disraeli, when the Queen expressed irritation at his

19 4 March 1857 / Malmesbury, ii. P. 62-63.10

appointment as the Chancellor of Exchequer. Prince

Albert also asked Derby whether he could trust

Disraeli20.

In contrast, Disraeli was unpopular among his

colleagues in parliament. His attitude to the Whig

party, which he severely criticised in his early

manifesto ‘The Vindication’21 disposed the Whigs against him.

The noted attack on Robert Peel in the mid-1840s made

Disraeli the main enemy of the Peelites during the

1850s, and was the main obstacle to party reunion.

William Gladstone, for example, admitted that if it was

not for Disraeli, he would join Lord Derby22. It took a

long time to Disraeli to secure the respect of the

colleagues in his own party. He became a party leader

in the Commons in 1852, however after Lord Derby’s

retirement, the leaders still did not recognise

Disraeli as their Chief, naming him an “impediment”

which should be “removed”23.

Another significant person who influenced the

relationship of the two men is Henry Stanley, the

20 Disraeli to Queen Victoria, 23 November 1852 / Disraeli letters, vi, P. 192; Hawkins, ii. P. 50.21 Disraeli, B. (1835) Vindication of the English constitution. L: Ideal Publishing Union Ltd., P. 274.22 Gladstone to Granville, 7 Nov 1872 / 14. The Gladstone-Granville correspondence / ed. by Agatha Ramm. Cambridge: CUP, 1998, P. 360.23 Hardy, Diary, ii. P. 103.

11

eldest son of Lord Derby. Disraeli found in Stanley the

“dearest comrade”, and “the only person who never

disappoints” him24. Then Political principles and views

of Stanley were rather liberal, sometimes even more

progressive than those of Disraeli. This undoubtedly

worried his father, and distanced them from each other.

However, Stanley’s role in the Derby-Disraeli

relationship was positive and useful; Disraeli

frequently used Stanley as a channel to his more

distant father. In the 1850s-1860s the party politics

mechanism worked well: Disraeli’s proposals went first

to Stanley, who gave an approving summary, and only

then to Derby who made a detailed, “considered

critique” 25.

The political tactics of each politician were totally

different, which often led to disagreement and

dissatisfaction with each other. Throughout his

political career Lord Derby employed passive tactics

when in opposition; he urged his colleagues to adopt

calm and measured behaviour in parliament, which he

named ‘masterly inactivity’26. Another expression he

used regarding party tactics in the mid 1850s was

24 Disraeli to Stanley, 1 Aug 1852 / Disraeli letters, vi, P. 111.25 Disraeli letters, vi. P. xii.26 Derby to Malmesbury, 4 December 1860 / Cited in: Hawkins A., ii.P. 231.

12

‘killing with kindness’27. Lord Derby explained his

tactics in a letter to Lord Malmesbury: “I never was

ambitious of office, and am not likely to become more so

as I grow older; but I am now, as I have been, ready to

accept the responsibility of it if I see a chance not

only of taking but of keeping it”28. Thus Lord Derby

never sought power itself, however, when there was an

opportunity to achieve it and provide a long-term

political programme and conservative reforms, Lord

Derby declared his willingness to do so.

Disraeli’s style of tactics was as restless and

active as his temperament. Seemingly, the main

objective of the Commons leader was to secure power

rather than provide a Conservative policy. Throughout

his leadership in the Commons, Disraeli made numerous

attempts to make alliances with almost any party in

parliament: with the Peelites, the Radicals, and the

Irish Brigade. Those alliances were almost never

approved by his Chief. Disraeli very often “complained

loudly of the apathy of the party”29. Irritated by his

leader’s inactivity, Disraeli began correspondence in

1858 with the former Peelites and Palmerston,

27 23 Dec 1851 / Derby, E.H. Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative party:journals and memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849-1869. / ed. by.Vincent, J. (1978). L., P. 92.28 Derby to Malmesbury, 15 Dec 1856. / Malmesbury, ii. P. 53-54.29 Diary, 9 Feb 1853 / Derby, E.H., P. 210.

13

approaching Sir James Graham in the Commons30. After

Graham’s refusal, he tried to persuade Gladstone to

join the Conservatives by providing either the India

Office or colonial office31. The culmination of this

arrangement was a similar ‘overture’ to Palmerston

when, without Derby’s knowledge, Disraeli was giving

hopes to succeed Derby as head of the party, and offer

‘as conservative as you please’ an upcoming Reform

bill32.

Therefore, different political tactics created

dissatisfaction with each other. During Disraeli’s

visit to Knowsley in 1853, Derby was “much bored,

because he is obliged to discuss politics with him”33.

However, there was a positive side to Disraeli’s active

party politics: he managed to fill the empty place,

which was caused by Derby’s unavailability during

severe gout attacks. As W.D. Jones noted: “Disraeli’s

cooperation, in fact, made it possible for Derby to

head the party long after his health would naturally

have caused him to seek retirement”34. Undoubtedly,30 Disraeli to Graham, 16 May 1858 / Disraeli letters. vii, p. 186; Disraeli to Graham, 17 May 1858 / Ibid., p. 186; Disraeli to Graham, 18 may 1858 / Ibid., P. 188. 31 Disraeli to Gladstone, 25 May 1858 / Ibid., P. 192-194.32 Disraeli to Palmerston, 25 May 1859 / Disraeli letters, viii, P. 368-370.33 Diary, 9 Dec 1853 / Malmesbury, i. P. 414.34 Jones, W.D. (1956) Lord Derby and Victorian conservatism.Oxford: Blackwell, P. 271.

14

Derby stayed at the helm of the party for so long

because of the lack of a proper successor, but

Disraeli’s activity also played a distinct part in the

endurance of Derby’s leadership.

To sum up, there are clear differences between their

attitudes towards party politics. Yet Derby’s passive

approach might been more suitable to the Conservative

party’s condition at the time, firstly because of the

continuous minority in the Commons, secondly due to

Palmerston being “a Conservative Minister working with

Radical tools, and keeping up a show of Liberalism”35.

The most significant aspect of the relationship

between Derby and Disraeli is their political

principles, including both similarities and crucial

differences. Derby virtually never published explicitly

any comprehensive political doctrine as Peel’s ‘Tamworth

Manifesto’ or as Disraeli’s ‘Vindication’. The main early

declaration of his principles can be found in the

Inauguration speech (‘The Knowsley Creed’) in December

1834 in Glasgow. Therefore, his political principles,

in general, can be taken from his extensive speeches in

the House of Lords, and from his correspondence. One of

the main speeches in this regard is his Ministerial

statement on 1 March 1858, where he declared “the35 Derby to Malmesbury, 15 Dec 1856 / Malmesbury, ii. P. 53-54.

15

principles of Conservative progress”36, which were: 1)

abstention from intervention into foreign countries

home affairs; 2) adaptation and maintenance of the

institutions of the country; 3) arrangements of further

franchise extension, and others. There are several key

papers and speeches in which Disraeli’s principles may

be discerned: the comprehensive ‘Vindication of the English

Constitution’, published in 1835 and his manifesto,

“Conservative and liberal principles: speech at Crystal Palace” made in

187237. A comparison of these documents traces the

continuity and development of their political views.

Now the main differences between Derby’s and

Disraeli’s principles will be analysed; secondly, the

similarities of their belief-systems will be explored.

Derby and Disraeli held very different visions of the

British political parties of their time. Lord Derby saw

Parliament, in particular the Commons, as the

authoritative national forum providing social change

and progress38. As a former Whig, Derby / he saw

Parliament as akin to an objective mediating body

36 Lords, 1 March 1858. / Hansard. vol.  149. P. 51.URL: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1858/mar/01/ministerial-statement#S3V0149P0_18580301_HOL_4 (Accessed:05.06.2015).37 Disraeli, B. Conservative and liberal principles: speech at Crystal Palace, June 24, 1872 / ed. by A. Matthew (2007). Pp. 523-535.38 Hawkins, i. P. 22-23.

16

between different social interests representing them

equally, which should not be abused by the interests of

any single social class. This ‘virtual representation’

can be regarded as a Burkean influence. Also, for these

reasons, Derby did not favour the name ‘Tory’ for the

party, and endeavoured to revive the word

‘Conservative’. Disraeli, however, would often

violently attack the Whig party, declaring it as

‘odious to the English people’39, calling them

“plutocrats” and blaming it for their attempted coup

d’etat40. “The Tory party... is the national party, it is

the really democratic party of England”41, for him

representing the interests of nine tenths of the

population. Parliament for Disraeli was a mechanism to

provide Conservative policy, not to negotiate it. The

support of the party was necessary for Derby, as he

viewed himself as the voice of his parliamentary party;

Disraeli, however, believed that politicians should

provide politics irrespective of party attachment. For

these reasons Disraeli suggested the union of the

Conservative party and the Radicals in his paper ‘What is

He?’, which was published in 183342.

39 Disraeli, Vindication, P. 274.40 Ibid.41 Disraeli, Vindication, P. 276.42 Disraeli, B. (1933) What is He?

17

Both Derby and Disraeli had similar views on

society. Derby did not favour dividing society into

‘agricultural’, ‘manufacturing’, and other interests;

he believed that there should be a balance of interests

and a unified society, and parliament and established

institutions to provide the social consensus. Disraeli

also favoured the idea of ‘one nation’, instead of a

division of society into the aristocracy and the lower

classes. However, their methods were different: Derby

saw the improvement through parliamentary negotiations;

Disraeli through the pressing need to reform the

conditions of the working class43.

However, Disraeli’s views on the extension of

franchise were more progressive than those of Derby.

Although Lord Derby understood the importance of the

franchise extension and supported it both in 1832 and

in 1867, he famously called the latter Reform Bill “The

leap in the Dark». The co-operation between the two

party leaders in terms of establishing the 1867 Reform

Bill is an example of splendid achievement.

In Foreign policy Derby employed a peace-making

policy, guided by the “Concert of Europe” established

by the Congress of Vienna in 1815; the objective was to

prevent war if possible and to refrain from engaging in

43 Disraeli, B. (1947) Buckinghamshire Address.18

any conflict. This can be seen as the precursor of the

late Lord Salisbury’s “splendid isolation”. In

contrast, Disraeli was a creature of his time,

dominated by Bismarck’s “Realpolitik” on the

international arena, when success was determined by

military might. Disraeli, therefore, arguably inspired

by Lord Palmerston’s aggressive foreign policy,

favoured increasing the military strength of the

British Empire, advocating ‘Jingoism’.

Despite the fact that both politicians regarded the

colonies as one of the essential pillars of the

country, Derby did not favour extension of the Empire

and argued for a more autonomic style of governance of

the colonies; whereas Disraeli advocated the extension

of the Empire and a more despotic rule of the

metropolis. In fact, they faced different issues during

their governance, but sought to maintain a strong

empire and colonialism. Derby, however, saw imperialism

as despotic continental expansionism, preferring more

economic and financial influence in the colonies. By

contrast, Disraeli’s imperialism of the 1870s has a

positive image; for example, he declared Queen Victoria

the Empress of India on 1 May 1876.

The Established Church occupied a central place in

Conservative ideology. Both Derby and Disraeli did

19

everything possible to maintain its position as the

state institution. As has been noted, Derby was a

practising Anglican, ready to sacrifice anything to

uphold the position of the Established Church, as he

did in 1834 by leaving the Whig party44. At the same

time, he recognised the interests of other religions,

and supported the Emancipation of the Catholics (1829)

and Jews (1858). Similarly to his Chief, Disraeli

declared that the “authority of the Church of England

should only be supported”45.

Derby and Disraeli were different types of

politician. Lord Derby was a parliamentary politician

who favoured the measured, piecemeal Conservative progress

for the country through the enhancement of existing

public institutions. Disraeli’s political views,

however, were more ‘radical’46 for the period and

represented a curious mix of Conservative values such

as a strong monarchy and the maintenance of the

position of the Established Church on the one hand and

the extensive expansion of suffrage and social reform on

the other.

Ultimately, several main periods can be distinguished

during the collaboration of Derby and Disraeli as party44 Inauguration of Lord Stanley / The Times. 22 Dec 1834. P. 3.45 Disraeli, Vindication, P. 223.46 Edwards, H.W.J. (1937) The Radical Tory. Oxford.

20

leaders in 1840‒60s: 1846‒1849 was a period of initial

mutual mistrust. In fact, their relationship started

before they even met: Lord Derby blamed Disraeli for

his “immoral influence”47 on Henry Stanley when, in

1831, he was found gambling in ‘the Hell’. As was

colourfully noted by W.D. Jones, “Two statesmen in 1838

were a world, rather than a few benches, apart”48. Their

close political relationship started with Derby’s

failure to approve Disraeli’s leadership in the

Commons; however he had to accept this given the

absence of any other charismatic and capable figure.

Derby was arguably impressed by Disraeli’s struggle and

effort to become a party leader in the lower House49.

However, this period was characterised by a persistent

lack of mutual respect, and their correspondence

reveals somewhat cold language: Disraeli’s letters to

Derby are “dutiful reports… calculated to give Stanley

confidence that his House leader knew what he was

doing”. The essential step towards each other was made

at the dinner at Grosvenor Gate in July 1848 organised

by Disraeli, after which the two men started their

convergence. This was the period of fledging

rapprochement.

47 Hawkins, i. P. 203.48 Jones, P. 71.49 Disraeli letters, v. P. ix.

21

During 1850 and the summer of 1852 there was an

active collaboration between Derby and Disraeli. Both

leaders reached an agreement on Protectionism, and

party tactics in order to secure power, which they

achieved in 1852. Disraeli showed huge respect to his

Chief, writing to Phillip Rose on January 1852: “Lord

Derby will turn out a better general, than the world

imagined”50. The correspondence consists of frequent,

day-to-day letters to one another, and extensive

discussions of political issues. The substantial

progress that had been made in their relationship

notwithstanding, the letters reveal a tendency towards

careful, reserved avoidance of conflict.

1853‒1856 was a period of estrangement between the

two politicians. Following his resignation in 1852,

Lord Derby virtually lost interest in politics, and

devoted himself to shooting and hunting. However

Disraeli sought Derby’s active involvement. On 7 August

1854 he wrote to Lady Londonderry: “If ever there were

a time when a political chief should concentrate his

mind and resources on the situation, ’tis the present”51. Several times Disraeli also complained of Derby, as

in the same letter: “As to our Chief, we never see him.

50 Disraeli to Rose, 13 Jan 1852 / Disraeli letters, v. P. 14.51 Disraeli to Lady Londonderry, 7 Aug 1854 / Disraeli letters, vi. P. 355.

22

His House is always closed; he subscribed to nothing…”,

or in a letter to Lord Londonderry: “My despatches from

Knowsley have only taken the shape of haunches of

venison…”52. Curiously, there is not a single extant

letter from Disraeli to Derby in 1856. But when the

opportunity to claim power arose after the fall of Lord

Palmerston’s government in 1858, Lord Derby put all his

efforts into politics again.

Between 1857 and the summer of 1859, there was a new

period of warmth in the Derby-Disraeli relationship,

characterised by mutual avowal and respect. Lord Derby

recognised Disraeli’s leadership in the Commons,

writing that the party “could not do without him, even

if there were anyone ready and able to take his place”,

and regretted his unpopularity among his colleagues53.

Noticeably, Derby described their working partnership

in these years as “an entire and perfect sympathy …

personally and politically, in reference to public

affairs”54. Disraeli also publicly frequently declared

adherence to his chief: “Lord Derby seems very well,

and in good spirits. His conduct… appears to have

gained him golden opinions from all parties. His

52 Disraeli to Lord Londonderry, 26 Sep 1853 / Disraeli letters, vi.P. 259.53 Derby to Malmesbury, 15 Dec 1856 / Malmesbury, ii. P. 53-54.54 Derby to Disraeli, 30 April 1858 / Disraeli letters, vii. p. 177.

23

administrative talent in managing the vast sums

entrusted to the Central Committee by the nation, not

less admirable”55.

The correspondence of this period is much more

extensive than before. Between 1857 and 1859, over a

quarter of all Disraeli’s correspondence is to Derby

(71) and to Stanley (38), and gives an impression of

frequent meetings and discussions of the political

agenda. There are very few signs of their earlier

mutual frustration. The relationship with Derby had

noticeably matured; but to characterise their

collaboration as ‘respected equals’56 is not entirely

correct. Despite the fact that Disraeli was doing all

of the technical work, Lord Derby was aware of all the

details of the political agenda; as Phillip Rose, who

was working on the Reform bill, noted: “no one ought to

venture to talk to Lord Derby who does not thoroughly

understand his subject”57.

From the autumn of 1859 to 1866 there was a period of

few public conflicts and inertness in the political

life. There were several discrepancies in this period

in the Conservative leaders’ tactics. In March 1857

Derby’s words appeared in Distaeli’s ‘The Press’, which in55 Disraeli to Sarah Brydgs Willyams, 7 Feb 1863 / Disraeli letters, viii. p. 252.56 Disraeli letters, vii. P. x. 57 Rose to Disraeli, 11 Aug 1858 / Disraeli letters, vi, P. 371.

24

fact were “misrepresented”; this outraged Derby, as he

had to justify in the Lords, saying that “words were

put into his mouth which he had never used”58. Later on

in 1862, Disraeli’s attacks on the Palmerston

government in the Commons angered his colleagues, so

Derby had to “smooth matters” between his lieutenant

and Walpole both in the Lords and privately, writing

that “you cannot keep a large army in order without

giving them sometimes smell gun-powder”59. Therefore, a

new period of mistrust of Disraeli arose, “he was

suspected of disloyalty to Derby” by “anti-Disraeli

clique”60. However, Derby was disposed to trust

Disraeli, and warned him that there was a “Cabal”

against him. There was another, personal conflict: in

October 1859 Lord Derby invited his lieutenant with his

wife, but during the dinner he “mockingly taunted the

eccentric Mary Anne in front of the other guests,

causing Disraeli’s deep offence”61. After this, Disraeli

never visited Knowsley again.

In general, the political life of this period was

“comparatively uneventful”62. In one of his letters

Disraeli acknowledged “The external public life is more

58 Diary, 4 March 1857 / Malmesbury, ii P. 62-63.59 Blake, P. 428.60 Ibid. P. 426.61 Hawkins, ii. P. 23462 Blake, P. 425.

25

interesting and active than the internal political

life”63. Lord Derby devoted himself to his work on the

‘Iliad’ (published in 1864). This political inertness was

caused by Palmerston; but once he died in October 1865,

the parliamentary struggle for a new Reform bill

started.

1865–1868 was the period of the climax of the Derby-

Disraeli relationship. Both leaders of the Conservative

party managed to co-operate in order to oppose the

Liberals in parliament, secure power, keep the party

united, and explain the benefits and necessity of the

Reform bill to their colleagues. The correspondence of

this period and diaries of other MPs show the co-

operation of Lord Derby and Benjamin Disraeli and their

detailed work on various political matters.

To conclude, despite the many important differences

between Lord Derby and Benjamin Disraeli, they overcame

their initial mutual mistrust and managed to unite

politically, which allowed both politicians to build a

working relationship, and to revive the party in terms

of both its structure and its ideology. William

Gladstone gave a brilliant description of their co-

operation: “Dizzy himself, who is an extraordinary man

63 Disraeli to Sarah Brydgs Willyams, 7 Feb 1863 / Disraeli letters, viii, P. 252.

26

and a genius, would not have been able to mount but for

the most singular manner in which Derby and G. Bentinck

played in his hands”64. Without detracting from

Disraeli’s merits, Lord Derby was the conductor of

party politics and tactics during their cooperation as

leader of the party and Prime Minister.

5469 Words

64 Gladstone to Lord Granville, 7 Aug 1874 / The Gladstone-Granville correspondence. P. 456.

27

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

1.Derby E.H. Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative party : journalsand memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849-1869. / ed.by. Vincent, J. (1978). L., Hassocks : HarvesterPress.

2.Disraeli, B. (1835) Vindication of the English constitution.L., Sounders and Otley

3. Disraeli, B. Conservative and liberal principles: speech atCrystal Palace, June 24, 1872 / ed. by A. Matthew(2007).

4.Disraeli, B. (1827) Vivian Grey. L.5.Disraeli, B. (1844) Coningsby; or The new generation. L.:

Henry Colburn. 3 Vols.6.Disraeli letters / ed. by M.G. Wiebe et al. Vols. 5-

10.7.Graham MSS. Bodleian library, Oxford.8.Greville. Journal. In Eight Volumes / ed.by Henry

Reeve (1896) L., Longmans, green, and Co.9.Jennings, L. J. (ed) (1884) The Croker papers. L.: John

Murray. 3 Vols.10. Lord Derby. The Times, 25 Oct. 1869.11. Malmesbury, earl of. (1885) Memoirs of an Ex-

Minister. An Autobiography. L.: Longmans, Green, and Co.12. Sanders, L. Ch. (ed) (1889) Lord Melbourne's papers.

L.: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1889. 534 p.13. The diary of Gathorne Hardy, later Lord Cranbrook, 1866-1892:

political selections (1981) L., Clarendon Press 14. The Gladstone-Granville correspondence / ed. by

Agatha Ramm. Cambridge: CUP, 1998.

28

15. The Inauguration of Lord Stanley. The Times, 22December, 1834.

16. Three Early Nineteenth Century Diaries / ed. by A.Aspinall. London, 1952.

17. Torrens, W. (1890) Memoirs of ... William second viscountMelbourne. L.

Secondary sources

1.Blake, R. (1966) Disraeli. London: OUP.2.Gash, N. (1976) Peel. London: Longman.3.Hawkins, A. (2007) The Forgotten Prime Minister: the 14th Earl

of Derby. Vol. 1, Ascent, 1799-1851. Oxford: OUP.4.Hawkins, A. (2008) The Forgotten Prime Minister: the 14th Earl

of Derby. Vol. 2, Achievement, 1852-1869. Oxford: OUP.5.Kebbel, T.E. (1907) Lord Disraeli and other tory memories.

N.Y.: Mitchell Kennerly, 1907. 6.Kitson Clark, G. S. R. (1964) Peel and the Conservative

party: a study in party politics 1832-1841. L.: Frank Cass.7.Jenkins, T. A. (1996) Disraeli and Victorian conservatism.

Basingstoke: Macmillan. 8.Jones, W.D. (1956) Lord Derby and Victorian conservatism.

Oxford: Blackwell.9. Parker C.S. (1907) Life and letters of Sir James Graham, 1792-1861.

L.: John Murray, 2 Vols.10. Smith, P. (1996) Disraeli. Cambridge: CUP.11. Young, G.M. and Handcock, W.D. (eds) (1956)

English historical documents, 1833-1874. L.: Eyre & Spottiswoode.

29