Quis enim iam non intelligat artes
    Patricias?[74]

“Who in our days is not up to the dodges of the patricians?”

The programme was foredoomed to failure, and the failure has been complete.  Modern Conservatives can appeal to the middle classes, who—­in spite of what Mr. Monypenny says—­are their natural allies.  They can also appeal to the working classes by educating them and by showing them that Socialism is diametrically contrary to their own interests.  But, although they may gain some barren and ephemeral electoral advantages, they cannot hope to advance the cause of rational conservative progress either by alienating the one class or by sailing under false colours before the other.  They cannot advantageously masquerade in Radical clothes.  There was a profound truth in Lord Goschen’s view upon the conduct of Disraeli when, in strict accordance with the principles he enunciated in the ’forties, he forced his reluctant followers to pass a Reform Bill far more Radical than that proposed by the Whigs.  “That measure,” Lord Goschen said,[75] “might have increased the number of Conservatives, but it had, nevertheless, in his belief, weakened real Conservatism.”  Many of Disraeli’s political descendants seem to care little for Conservatism, but they are prepared to advocate Socialist or quasi-Socialist doctrines in order to increase the number of nominal Conservatives.  This, therefore, has been the ultimate result of the gospel of which Disraeli was the chief apostle.  It does no credit to his political foresight.  He altogether failed to see the consequences which would result from the adoption of his political principles.  He hoped that the Radical masses, whom he sought to conciliate, would look to the “patricians” as their guides.  They have done nothing of the sort, but a very distinct tendency has been created amongst the “patricians” to allow themselves to be guided by the Radical masses.

I cannot terminate these remarks without saying a word or two about Disraeli’s great antagonist, Peel.  It appears to me that Mr. Monypenny scarcely does justice to that very eminent man.  His main accusation against Peel is that he committed his country “apparently past recall” to an industrial line of growth, and that he sacrificed rural England “to a one-sided and exaggerated industrial development which has done so much to change the English character and the English outlook.”

I think that this charge admits of being answered, but I will not now attempt to answer it fully.  This much, however, I may say.  Mr. Monypenny, if I understand rightly, admits that the transition from agriculture to manufactures was, if not desirable, at all events inevitable, but he holds that this transition should have been gradual.  This is practically the same view as that held by the earlier German and American economists, who—­whilst condemning Protection in theory—­advocated it as a temporary measure which would eventually lead up to