LVII.
The Final Exodus
“And what now is the aspect of Palestine? Still, truly, it is a land rich in the grandeur and beauties of nature’s handiwork—still, in some parts, ‘... hills, plains, and valleys, fields of wheat and barley, vineyards and olive-yards, are spread out before you as on a map’—still does the benign influence of the sun’s warmth engender in the bosom of the earth the germs of fruits and flowers, that languish for want of culture, and never arrive at perfection—still do the hills uplift their heads amid the clouds, which drop down, as though with tears of sorrow, upon their barren and exposed sides, once covered with artificial soil and by the hands of a favoured race rendered fruitful as the vale beneath. The mountains remain unshaken, but where are the countless flocks? the stones of the water-course are there, but where is the limpid stream? Alas! the promised blessing has been withdrawn from the land; the flocks no longer multiply as heretofore, neither as in former days do springs and fountains burst forth everywhere out of the valleys and the hills; and her cities are desolate and forsaken, and of many even the site is not accurately known; literal, indeed, has been the fulfilment of the prophetic declaration ‘the land shall be desolate.’ Solitude now reigns where once the busy hum of voices enlivened many a glad city, ay, even in the wilderness—ruins now mark the spot where once rose the sound of harp and tabret, and where heart joined with hand in mocking with merriment the threatened desolation....”
“... But more than this—Britain! rejoice! it is for you to lead back to their beautiful land the long-dispersed members of Judah’s neglected race, and by planting in their native country a colony of whose attachment to its protectors there could be no doubt,...”
“... Jerusalem shall, indeed, become again the glorious city among the nations: no longer shall her name be Jerusalem, but ‘the City of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel,’ for there shall be holiness,’ and in the midst of her ‘the King of Israel, even the Lord;’ ... Her walls shall be called ‘Salvation,’ and her gates ‘Praise’; and her children shall enjoy the former and the latter rain; ‘the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them....’
“Among these there are many whose wealth—... has caused the name of the Jew too often to be coupled with the idea of sordid gain...: but it will be well for the few, who by ... prosperity, ... occupy now an elevated ♦position, ... prepare to head with energy every warrantable occasion for furthering the restoration of their unhappy people to Palestine. Providential is it for them, that among them are men possessing influence and wealth sufficient to become their leaders....”
“Once again—Britain, beware! and hasten to exert the means which, lying at your disposal, may be made use of as a defence for your valuable possessions in the East, and for the advancement of God’s glory, by the return of His people to the land whither He has said He would bring them again ‘that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.’”¹
LVIII.
Disraeli and the Purchase of the Suez Canal Shares
The story of the purchase of the Suez Canal shares by Lord Beaconsfield has been told many times, but Mr. [afterwards Sir] Henry Lucy, in “Sixty Years in the Wilderness,” throws fresh light on the subject.
“On a certain Sunday night in the spring of 1875 he¹ chanced to be dining in Bruton Street with Henry Oppenheim, one of the original proprietors of the Daily News. During a residence in Paris and Egypt that gentleman, just settling down in London, was brought into close connection with Egyptian financial affairs. On the previous day he heard of the intention of the impecunious Khedive to sell en bloc his holding in the capital of the Suez Canal. Greenwood instantly saw the opportunity for a great stroke of State. On leaving Bruton Street he went direct to the private residence of the Foreign Secretary (Lord Derby) and told him of the rare chance. Lord Derby informed the Prime Minister, whose Oriental mind glowed at the prospect of so stupendous a deal. Inquiry secretly made at Cairo disclosed the fact that the Khedive would ‘part’ for a sum of four millions sterling. But it must be money down.
“It was, Greenwood told me, on Lord Beaconsfield’s personal suggestion that the difficulty, at the moment apparently insuperable, was overcome. The consent of Parliament was necessary to confirmation of the deal. That involved both delay and publicity, either fatal to success. Late on the Thursday night following the Bruton Street dinner, the Premier sent his private secretary, Monty Corry,¹ to call upon Baron Rothschild, the Sidonia of ‘Coningsby,’ at the time head of the great financial house. Even a Rothschild did not happen to have about him at the moment a trifle of four million sterling. Nor was it possible, in accordance with the traditions of the house, that such a transaction should be entered upon without having been considered in family council. Corry accordingly returned to the Premier without definite reply. It came promptly on the following morning, the terms being that the money would be advanced on a commission of 2½ per cent.
“These terms were pretty stiff, involving a payment of £100,000. The City heard of them with envy, and they were discussed with much severity when the matter came before the House of Commons. The Rothschilds and their friends defended them on the ground that the colossal transaction involved a certain measure of risk. There was absolutely no security beyond the influence of the Premier, still master of a majority in the House of Commons, and pledged to invoke its aid in order to obtain Parliamentary sanction. The whole thing happened between two Sundays. On the first Greenwood dined at Bruton Street; on the second, calling on Lord Derby, he learned that the transaction had been successfully carried through, and was invited to say what form his personal recompense should take. He declined to specify a request, protesting he had done nothing but his duty, and was content that its accomplishment should be his reward....”¹
LIX.
Cyprus and Palestine
The Anglo-Turkish Convention had given a new and unexpected addition to the already extensive list of British territorial responsibilities. It is true that a “conditional” element ... enters into the connexion formed with the Turkish Government; and the claims to interpose between the Sultan and his subjects, as well as the circumstances which would render interference necessary, are not very clearly defined. But the British Government, not only by entering into the Convention, but by the prominence with which important events invested that treaty, as also by its positive acquisition of the island of Cyprus, stand pledged before Europe and the world to secure to the populations of Asiatic Turkey a deliverance from the corrupt rule which has hitherto burdened them....
“In the minds of all thoughtful men there is a strong belief that this country is the instrument by which freedom, peace and true religion will be carried to the uttermost ends of the world. If that be so, there is assuredly no portion of the earth’s surface which more needs the possession of these blessings, or from which can come in keener despair the cry ‘Come and help us.’ The countries of Asia still remaining ... include those whereon the earliest progenitors of the human race appeared, and those which are familiar to us in Biblical records, or interesting as the platform upon which mighty nations strove, and empires fell in the strife which was raging then as now between the powers of Good and Evil.”¹
LX.
Disraeli and Heine
“Deux noms, dont le rapprochement peut sembler d’abord inattendu, me viennent sans cesse à l’esprit lorsque j’embrasse d’un coup d’œil cette physionomie singulière d’homme d’état et d’écrivain, et ils aident, si je ne me trompe, à en démêler la signification. M. Disraeli me fait souvent penser à Henri Heine. Chez tous les deux, en effet, même vivacité d’intelligence, même pénétration, même promptitude à saisir toutes les idées et à s’approprier pour un instant toutes les doctrines, même vagabondage d’imagination, même indiscipline de génie, même mélange bizarre de fantaisie et de pensée, de frivolité et de profondeur.... M. Disraeli a eu la chance, qui n’échut pas à H. Heine, de vivre dans un milieu oû certains excès n’eussent jamais été tolérés.... Il n’a pas connu non plus les souffrances morales, les âpres soucis, les angoisses, les sérieuses épreuves, qui répandent l’amertume dans l’ironie du poête allemand, et lui arrachent, parmi ses éclats de rire, des cris si poignans: mais comme il tranche néanmoins sur la société anglaise,... Quelle perturbation il jette dans son parti, quelle inquietude il y sème par les saillies de sa verve goguenarde,... De quel doigt irrespectueux il lève tous les voiles et touche aux institutions qu’il prétend défendre! Ici, comme chez H. Heine, on ne saurait méconnaître l’influence persistante de la race. L’un a fini par embrasser le catholicisme, l’autre est né dans l’eglise anglicane; mais ils restent Juifs, et pour sa part M. Disraeli, courageux avocat des Juifs à la chambre des communes et dans ces livres, n’a jamais désavoué sa parenté avec eux. L’eût-il essayé d’ailleurs, que le sceau de la race, vivement empreinte dans son génie et dans son caractère, l’aurait trahi. Malgré son torysme d’emprunt, on sent, il faut le dire à son honneur, dans le langage de M. Disraeli une sympathie de cœur pour les déshérités qui n’est guère une disposition anglaise et aristocratique: c’est bien plutôt un souvenir de l’égalité juive et un sentiment puisé dans la législation républicaine de Moïse; mais ce qui est plus juif encore, c’est ce fonde de cynisme, dernière défense d’une race trempée de longue date par la persécution et le mépris, bronzée par l’habitude de l’outrage. M. Disraeli n’est pas plus exempt que H. Heine de cette audace qui défie le ridicule et qui même sait en tire parti....”¹
LXI.
Disraeli’s Defence of the Jews
Disraeli supported the emancipation of the Jews in England on religious grounds:—
“... The very reason for admitting the Jews is because they show so near an affinity to you. Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their Judaism?... The Jew was necessarily a religious being, but not a proselytising one, and so would support and not undermine the Christian Church.... What possible object can the Jew have to oppose the Christian Church? Is it not the first business of the Christian Church to make the population whose minds she attempts to form, and whose morals she seeks to guide, acquainted with the history of the Jews? Has not the Church of Christ—the Christian Church, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant—made the history of the Jews the most celebrated history of the world? On every sacred day you read to the people the exploits of Jewish heroes, the proofs of Jewish devotion, the brilliant annals of past Jewish magnificence.... Every Sunday—every Lord’s day—if you wish to express feelings of praise and thanksgiving to the most High, or if you wish to find expressions of solace in grief, you find both in the works of Jewish poets.... In exact proportion to your faith ought to be your wish to do this great act of national justice. If you have not forgotten what you owe to this people, if you were grateful for that literature which, for thousands of years, has brought so much instruction and so much consolation to the sons of men, you as Christians, would be only too ready to seize the first opportunity of meeting the claims of those who profess this religion.”¹