of Progressive Republicanism, has less difficulty in understanding the paradox. It was not indifference to the welfare of the masses that induced Disraeli's belief in the rule of a selected class, but a distrust of popular ability and judgment, and a conviction (acknowledged in our own time as a truth and the real salvation of democracy) that efficiency can come only from expert knowledge and training. From such a viewpoint satire would naturally be directed not against the people but against its incapable and dishonest leadership. Peacock's scorn of this exploitation of popular ignorance and helplessness is taken up by both his nearest successors, expressed, as it happens, in a pair of portraits of the ward-politician type.
Pelham repudiates Vincent's proposed new party because of its bad personnel, men—[1]
"* * * who talk much, who perform nothing—who join
ignorance of every principle of legislation to indifference for
every benefit to the people:—who are full of 'wise saws', but
empty of 'modern instances'—who level upwards, and trample
downwards—and would only value the ability you are
pleased to impute to me, in the exact proportion that a sportsman
values the ferret, that burrows for his pleasure, and destroys
for his interest."
Montacute draws a more concrete and ironic picture:[2]
"Find a man who, totally destitute of genius, possesses
nevertheless considerable talent; who has official aptitude, a
volubility of routine rhetoric, great perseverance, a love of af-*
- ↑ Pelham, 210.
- ↑ Tancred, 73. Cf. the king's speech to Popanilla; also Gerard's observation,—"'I have no doubt you will get through the business very well, Mr. Hoaxem, particularly if you be "frank and explicit"; that is the right line to take when you wish to conceal your own mind and to confuse the minds of others.'" Sybil, 403.
