Disraeli-4

15.
It would hardly be conceivable in British Parliamentary history that two personalities so diametrically opposed to one another as Disraeli and Gladstone could also represent two opposing ideologies at the same time. William Ewart Gladstone was the leader of opposition when Disraeli represented the Tories. Gladstone who changed opinions whenever it suited him came to represent the highest political morality while Disraeli who after he had found his party stuck to it all his life, was regarded as a man of few scruples. It was ironic that Dizzy should for his oriental outlook,and because of his race, be treated with distrust. In his opponent everything irrational and impulsive in the English people found home, which he could express with the religious emotionalism and a high moral tone that his supporters found very English. In short he represented qualities that Disraeli despised.
To Disraeli politics was a question of expedience whereas with Gladstone was a matter of morality and he could delude himself his was the voice of justice and truth. He played the politics as a demogogue combined with a missionary zeal that Dizzy thought he was mad; while his opponent thought Dizzy was a devil.
Gladstone carried common qualities on such a vast scale and without imagination and humor, the public saw in him a political prophet of his times. He was a humbug and not above stooping to underhand methods if it helped. As Henry Labouchere, M.P remarked,”I don’t object to (him) always having the ace of trumps up his sleeve but merely to his belief that God Almighty put it there.”
16.
Once Disraeli feeling indisposed got up from his seat in the Treasury office saying to his secretary,”Don’t bother me with the routine work. Please attend to all of it yourself.”He walked towards the door and opened it. “But of course if there is any really important decision to be made..”he paused and seconds before closing it behind he added,”...make it.”
17.
A M.P who had been offered a knighthood did not feel easy and he consulted Dizzy who advised him to accept it but tell everyone that he had refused it.
“Why?”
“Because you get all the credit of having rejected it until you recieve it.”
“And then?”
“You will get all the glory of receiving it after having rejected it.”
18.
While engaged in talk with some cronies he at one point said that he could not remember the pub which came up in discussion. The ‘King’s Arms’ at Berkhamstead it was.
One recalled a barmaid who was a very handsome and a jolly girl. ”You must have been in the ‘King’s Arms’ one insisted.
“Perhaps if I had been in her arms I might have remembered it.”Dizzy answered.
19.
In The House
His complete control of the entire House while in opposition and in power, no one else in his day or before equalled- possibly with the exception of Chatham, was due to his ability to take its pulse and respond to it. Towards this he was always present on the House and was prepared. He knew the subject of debate and had an astonishing memory for facts that he did not have to rely on notes.
He always entered the chamber some five or ten minutes before the proceedings began and he had a solemn air combined with easy confidence. He walked up slowly on the whole length of the floor and when he reached the corner of the table he made a low bow to the Chair. Many M.P’s have found this ceremony painful and feeling self-conscious often have tried to duck it as far as possible. But Disraeli thought it was a necessary duty, a courtly recognition of the supremacy of the Chair.
20. Dizzy’s physical appearance and immobility added much to his authority. He sat with rigid head and body gazing vacantly into space, his arms folded across his breast, his hat slightly tilted over his brows, one knee crossing the other. No one in the House heard him laugh or smile; his usual expression when speaking was one of patient stoicism tinged with melancholy. His impassivity bordering on a catatonic state often infuriated his opponents whose diatribes seemed to go past him. But no one could have administered a snub with more telling effect than he but even that was done in a manner that delighted everyone except the one at the recieving end.
21.
His preeminence in parliament was mainly due to his genius as a speaker, not an orator in the manner of Gladstone or Edmund Burke. He had none of the tricks of their trade. He was fully calm and in control of his emotions and spoke without slurring his words clear and low, more as a man of the world. Standing with his hands on his hips or his thumbs in the armholes of his waistcoat he spoke in a consistent manner using no emphasis. This supercilious and even tenor in his voice was the result of careful training and it contrasted immeasurably when he wished to make a point. Suddenly he became animated, the tone in his voice changed, an ironic note crept in, the words were enunciated with more care and distinctness; A slight shrug, a quick glance, a fleeting expression of that sallow face drew bated breath from his hearers. They knew what was to follow. It came with an unerring aim and made some gasp and break up the stillness of the House with resounding cheers. He took no notice of the cheers as if he was above such display and continued with his speech as before.
He indulged little in gestures depending entirely on his voice to achieve its effect.
compiler:benny