The Lion and the Unicorn: Gladstone vs. Disraeli

by Richard Aldous

The vicious political struggle that electrified Victorian society, brilliantly re-created for a new generation. William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli were the fiercest political rivals of the nineteenth century. Their intense mutual hatred was both ideologically driven and deeply personal. Their vitriolic duels, carried out over decades, lend profound insight into the social and political currents that dominated Victorian England. To Disraeli―a legendary dandy descended from Sephardic Jews―his antagonist was an "unprincipled maniac" characterized by an "extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, hypocrisy, and superstition." For the conservative aristocrat Gladstone, his rival was "the Grand Corrupter," whose destruction he plotted "day and night, week by week, month by month." In the tradition of Roy Jenkins and A. N. Wilson, Richard Aldous has written an outstanding political biography, giving us the first dual portrait of this intense and momentous rivalry. Aldous's vivid narrative style―by turns powerful, witty, and stirring―brings new life to the Gladstone and Disraeli story and confirms a perennial truth: in politics, everything is personal. 16 pages of illustrations

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Biography, Victorian, 19th Century, European History

368 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Richard Aldous, the author of The Lion and the Unicorn, is Eugene Meyer Professor of British History and Literature at Bard College. He has been a fellow at the Royal Historical Society, a trustee of the Gladstone Library, and advisor to the British Council, and commentator for the Irish Times and the BBC.

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a history of 19th century British politics. It does not pretend to be so. In fact, it states from the first that its mission is to recast the story of Gladstone and Disraeli for a 21st century audience, in a way that will appeal to us. Aldous' assessment of a 21st century audience's needs are a Reality Show-like combination of high drama, 'oh-no-he-didn't- personal pettiness, a fast paced showing of all the highlights on the grandest scale. I can't say that he's wrong in that assessment. This approach has shortcomings- such as if you don't already know about the bills and arguments going on, you never feel like you're getting all sides of the story. He does explain a few of the bigger bills- Reform Bills, the important Irish bills, but the legislation isn't his focus so much as where each of the two of them came down on supporting it or not.

Neither is this the dual biography that the back of the book proclaims it to be, you don't get everything both of them ever did in their lives. You get the highlights, their interaction with each other, and a really good casting of their personalities.

It is like a boxing match in that when one rises, the other one falls, sometimes incredibly quickly. Also, that the book tries to get you to take sides and root for one or other. I had difficulty in rooting for either, simply because Aldous was so intent on exposing the flaws of both of them, always sullying any triumph with something petty or awful about them. My opinion changed many times. In the end, I ended up thinking that Gladstone was a black and white moralist who only wanted to fight when he could ride in on a white horse, but nonetheless had principles and things he cared about, and for the great majority of his life, he appeared to really stick to those ideas. He was also difficult, cantankerous, had no idea how to deal with people, preachy, arrogant, mean, incredibly strict on religion, and yet very hypocritical- (he did extensive "rescue work" with prostitutes that mostly culminated in him sleeping with them rather than "saving" them), very small and petty on a lot of levels, and quite Anti-Semitic (a lot of which was directed right at Disraeli). And yet, many of his opinions are things that modern day liberals would agree with- self-determination, anti-imperialism, non-interference abroad, secret ballots and expanding the electorate. Basically, you end up really disliking him, though respecting him for several principled stands and some of his opinions. You don't want to ever talk to him in heaven though.

Disraeli? I was amused by him at first, then really disliked him, then came back around slowly to respect and admiration for him by the end. At first I thought he was kind of an amusing dillettante, the Byron wannabe with more styles than principles. His early years in parliament show him to be capable of lying and backstabbing and vicious, vicious personal attacks. Which never stopped. His absolute insistence on the survival and continuation of the British Empire may be the most consistent principle he stood for, along with a more general nationalism and slow, gradual domestic reform. But for awhile it really didn't look like he stood for anything but getting himself in power. He even said at one point that he lived for 'fame and reputation'. But then his many many talents, intersting policies, ways of dealing with people, and most of all, the great description of his performance at the Congress of Berlin and his interaction with Bismarck... there's also all that. Also, he was not a whoremongering hypocritical Christian doing 'rescue work'. By all accounts, he had great, long lasting Romantic relationships with women, among them the Queen. He did press for reform. Plus he was multitalented- he was also a novelist. His Romantic personality is realatable, his witty quips and speeches magnetic...Etc, etc, etc. This is definitely the guy you wanted to sit next to at dinner, anyway. Of the two, I definitely was more pleased to see Disraeli win whenever he did... but I don't think that was the best part of me who wanted him to win all the time.

It's just funny that in this story that was set up to be a boxing match, I really ended up not being able to root for either of them fully, because you see just how many flaws each of them had. It's just a never-ending mess. Yeah, I know. That's politics.

[Paula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sad but true: my interest in Disraeli can be traced to a Family Guy episode. Peter's blathering on, as he does, and compares someone to Benjamin Disraeli. Cut to Disraeli in his study, who looks at the camera and sadly tells the viewer, "you don't even know who I am." Thus, my curiosity in the infamous British Prime Minister was piqued.

It turns out that "The Lion and the Unicorn" was not the best book for a first foray into the subject. Aldous assumes the reader is already familiar with the general timeline and issues of the day, and focuses almost entirely on the personal enmity and numerous smackdowns between Gladstone and Disraeli. Although the writing is excellent and the hatred palpable, I found it somewhat difficult to follow. Personally, my knowledge of British history fades out somewhere after 1812 and doesn't show up again until 1914, so lots of historical figures and bills (The Reform Acts, The Irish Question) were news to me. As if that weren't bad enough, I also had to decipher the Westminster system of government. I pieced most of it together while reading, but it was so confusing, I was sure I was missing a crucial part. So I went on to wikipedia and it turns out, it's just as confusing as I thought. Calling for an election whenever you feel like it? Poppycock! Casting a vote of no confidence in the government? Hell, in America, we'd do that every day.

All that aside, I still thought this book was a great read. Aldous is excellent at illuminating Gladstone's and Disraeli's vastly different personalities and how they affected British politics for half a century. The comparisons are integrated and don't feel repetitive, unlike what you'll find in, say, [The Courtier and the Heretic]. And though I was sometimes lost in historical debates, I was rarely bored. So if you're interested in political rivalries and mudslinging in the 19th-century fashion, I'd definitely recommend "The Lion and the Unicorn," but make sure you've got a solid understanding of the basics first.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and well-written.

[Frank Stein · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a missed opportunity. William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli were two of the oddest characters to traipse across the 19th century. Their political feud reached almost apocalyptic proportions, and came to define the nature of Great Britain when that country was at the pinnacle of global power. It's hard to imagine a better feud about which to write. Yet time and again the author decides to focus on fripperies and odd set-piece scenes rather than the real struggle between the two.

William Gladstone, like his hero, Tory Prime Minister Robert Peel, was the son of a wealthy manufacturer who had bought a country estate and provided his children with all the advantages of the British aristocracy, except the title. Gladstone's indefatigable high-church conscience pushed him to work incessantly. He rose through the political ranks, and become head of the Board of Trade under Peel by 1843, when he was only 34 years old. After the Tory Party broke apart under Peel's low tariff policy, he joined the rump group of "Peelites" fighting for free trade and the memory of their hero. He finally moved over to the Liberal Party, and became prime minister four separate times. Despite his attachment to the Church of England, he championed the freedom of Irish Catholicism and eventually Irish nationalism, and despite his frugal inclinations, supported increased outreach to the poor. Gladstone's dark secret, however, was that he spent many nights wandering the London streets looking for prostitutes, under the guise of "saving" them, and then whipped himself for his transgressions later. His whole life he walked a tight line between salvation and damnation.

Benjamin Disraeli, by contrast, was the son of an immigrant Jewish family, and he wore his converted religion very lightly. His fame came from his novels, such as Coningsby, which became the talk of the literary world, and made him a young romantic hero, one who rouged his cheeks and sauntered around town in flashy clothes. Disraeli soon, however, also became the surprising hero of the conservative movement that broke with Peel, when he defended the value of the aristocracy and the Church of England against liberal reform. And despite his scandalous reputation, he was intensely attached to his older wife, Mary Anne, who became one of the most powerful political women in England. Disraeli's two terms as prime minister caused him to champion gradual conservative reform and international realpolitik, especially in defending the Ottoman Turks against the expanding Russian empire.

The two men, who were so dissimilar in every way, and who somehow took the political stance which seemed more appropriate to the other one, absolutely despised each other. It didn't help that Queen Victoria was clearly infatuated with Disraeli, yet threatened to not even accept a government with Gladstone as its head. Victoria gave Disraeli and his wife titles (they became the Earl and Viscountess of Beaconsfield), and ignored his opponent. Gladstone's public attacks against "Beaconfieldism," as the ultimate corrupting influence in British life, in his famous Midlothian campaign of 1880, helped make him the "People's William," but only further tanrished the Queen's opinion of him.

So, a great story, but the author seems incapable of telling it straight. Instead, in each chapter we get boring vignettes, followed by backtracking over some older stories, followed by a series of new narratives with little relation to the political stakes. I'm sure there are better versions of this amazing tale out there.

[David Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

8.2/10

[Carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gladstone and Disraeli were two greatest British statesmen of the second half of the nineteenth century, and they hated each other. It is almost impossible to write the biography of one without including the other, since they were like two sides of the same coin. The book is very well written, I would only complain of the excessive use of the word 'brilliant' (but it might be possible that the adjective really applied to every speech made by them). Why this period is important? In the first half of the nineteenth century, British politics was still a exclusive club. Only a minority of the population could vote and the parliament was populated almost exclusively by aristocracy. After a series of reforms, the voting population was expanded, culminating in the ascension of the labour party in the twentieth century. Disraeli and Gladstone were the ones that passed the majority of those reforms through parliament, albeit from different sides of the political spectrum. It is quite a unique phenomenon in history: elites relinquishing power voluntarily to obtain the new electorates' sympathy for their parties and an immediate advantage in the political competition. It is the second book I read about the same subject and it is hard for me not to sympathise more with Disraeli, the reason being that he was a jew and thus an outsider to the aristocratic group when he started and because he was more of a human character: imperfect but capable of great deeds. This book also clarified something that puzzled me: Gladstone's 'charity work' with prostitutes was not charity at all.

[Colin Hoad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very enjoyable and informative review of two great titans of British political history. Both men are given a fair hearing, though it is apparent that the author favours Disraeli over Gladstone (which is fine by me as that chimes with my own opinions). The book emphasises the struggle between them rather than simply giving potted histories of each man, which makes the material all the more interesting to read. Some of Disraeli's barbs aimed at Gladstone were just as funny to read now as they must have been at the time. The book also pulls back the covers (!) on Gladstone, revealing his night time dalliances with prostitutes (his "rescue work" as he deemed it) and his insatiable sexual appetite - not something you would expect from the severe portraits and gruff speeches through which we tend to analyse Gladstone's personality.

An excellent book for anyone with even a passing interest in the period, and definitely one for Disraeli fans like myself.

[Pauk · Rating 3 out of 5]

An intriguing blend of politics and biography, which ends up disappointing in both regards.

Instead of a straight chronology of events, the book focuses on the major debates and elections that emphasised the differences and arguments between Gladstone & Disraeli. Each chapter often jumping 2-5 years at a time to jump to the next bout. This is sometimes a great way of focusing on the conflict between the two personalities, but I found two major problems with this.

By focusing on the big debates, the book jumps over huge parts of the history. What did each minister do during their tenure in government? Doesn't matter! One gets elected and the other thrown out, before jumping to the next time when the roles are reversed. Sometimes I had to go back to check dates since sometimes these throws are in a very short period of time and other times the book jumps several years. So it can be somewhat disorientating in tracking the time throughout. Maybe it needed more in the chapter titles for easier reference?

The second issue is that book very much focuses on the personalities of Gladstone and Disraeli. Their political beliefs driving their decisions is often summarised in a few sentences, sometimes a paragraph. As little as possible to understand why they are arguing. At times it is clear one is arguing just out of hatred for their opponent, but sometimes I felt the author was being somewhat disingenuous by not presenting the full political arguments. So sometimes I wasn't entirely sure what they were each arguing for, or knew one was for a policy and the other was against, but without depth I struggled to form a view of the two. Even worse, sometimes it felt like caricature - Gladstone is the noble Voice of the People, Disraeli is the Queen's bezzie who was vehemently protecting the interests of the conservatives.

I found the party politics of the time the most interesting aspect of the book. How prime ministers were selected was alien compared to modern politics, with politicians stepping up and dropping out whenever they became unpopular. I'd love to read a book of this period that covers more of the policies and the wider political landscape. But as it was, this book is hugely entertaining and brings to life two behemoths of UK politics. Hugely engaging, and I learnt a lot.

So it's good, but I just want a little bit more!

[Thomas Canfield · Rating 3 out of 5]

‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ by Richard Aldous is an engaging and insightful account of the decades long struggle between Gladstone and Disraeli to forge political majorities in Parliament and to lead and fashion Britain according to Liberal or Conservative principles. It was, by any measure, a battle of heavyweights.

Two men of outsized talent – and of correspondingly large egos – pitted one against the other, dominating the political arena with their oratory, their intellects and the force and dynamic thrust of their personalities. To add to the drama, all of this took place against the backdrop of Britain’s ascendency to the height of her powers, as the Industrial Revolution triumphed at home and Great Britain extended her power around the globe.

Aldous’ book provides more than adequate context for this rivalry but its focus remains on the two men themselves, delivering fascinating portrayals of each, depicting not only their many strengths but their idiosyncrasies, their flaws and their failures – both political and personal.

Where it might be easy to champion one man at the expense of the other, Aldous maintains an admirable impartiality, giving to each his due and favoring neither. This is easier said than done, given the strong contrasts between the two men, the genuine hostility and dislike which existed between them and the inevitable partisanship which such contrasts (political and personal) give rise to.

In the end, perhaps the greatest compliment which can be paid to the author is that one finishes the book with a genuine respect and appreciation for both men. Though flawed, each aspired to greatness and, in more than a few instances, attained it.

[Brad Eastman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Benjamin Disraeli and Willim Gladstone dominated UK politics at the same time the UK dominated the world. This was also the time when England transformed itself from an Aristocracy to a democracy, from an agrarian economy to an industrial powerhouse and into a colonial master. Mr. Aldous has written a biography of the pair that very much pushes their personal rivalry to the forefront. The focus obliterates all other details and leaves Mr. Aldous' account a sterile journal of parliamentary maneuvers with no social, economic or cultural context. In the 1870s Mr. Gladstone introduced legislation to decrease British government control of Irish churches and universities. The reforms are presented by Mr. Aldous as another skirmish in the battle of supremacy between Gladstone and Disraeli with no explanation of English control of Ireland at all. There is barely a mention of Italian or German reunification, the American Civil War, multiple independence movements or changing styles of art, architecture and music. About the only interesting (but only in a titillating manner) vignettes concern Mr. Gladstone's addiction to prostitutes. Mr. Gladstone continued to visit prostitutes well into his 70s, even though Viagra would not be invented for more than 100 years. Nineteenth century Britain was a transformative time when the modern world came fully onto the stage. Mr. Aldous completely ignores this transformation.

[AshleyS · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed and well-written, but unequal and lacking context

Aldous focuses on the personal nature of the rivalry, which helps to avoid dryness. The quality of the writing is high and consistent throughout, so that it is very easy to read.

He slightly undermines his thesis by seeming to accept that Disraeli was 'better' and Gladstone succeeded only through some phoney religious populism (he keeps mentioning Gladstone's reliance on prostitutes).

In describing the response to Gladstone's death, he quotes The Times: "[Disraeli] left a policy, a school of admirers and something like a creed and a cult. Where are the Gladstonites?...". He does not challenge this statement, leading one to believe that he concurs. If it was such an uneven rivalry, why did it deserve 300+ pages?

Some knowledge of politics and history is assumed, and I was left googling around a few of the topics: what was the significance of the Corn Laws exactly? Who could vote before the first Reform Bill? What happened next for the Church of Ireland? Did the Peelites run as independents afterwards (I guess so)?

It lacked a sentence or two here and there to give sufficient context that you felt like you were learning about British political history and not just a personal rivalry.

[Brian Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's incredibly rare for two politicians to dominate a period of political history as Gladstone and Disraeli did, but that is precisely what happened in Parliament from the 1860s-1880s. After a period of tumultuous exchanges of power in the House of Commons, the twisting power grabs of these two excellent politicians makes for fascinating reading.

Disraeli was the leader of the Tories and Gladstone of the Liberals - after a little shifting of seats. Both were prominent Prime Ministers late in the reign of Victoria. To say they were unique personalities is the least I could write - but I don't want to spoil that for prospective readers. To leave it in a basic manner: Disraeli was more of a oiler of squeaky wheels (for his own party) and Gladstone was an iconoclast. Both craved the power they ultimately achieved but both paid a price. The framing device of their funerals is an effective choice, and the book doesn't waste time on frivolous matters; the personal lives intrude sparingly but usefully when it informs the main narrative.

Highly recommended for those who want the story of these Prime Ministers, though it takes a deep dive into late nineteenth century British politics.

[Dean · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s history Jim, but not as we know it. Let me say first off, I really enjoyed this. It was well written, fast paced, and had moments of genuine tension. The author took an approach that combined actual history with a little bit of cod psychology, of personalising these great men by getting inside their heads. It generally works, though at the cost of marginalising a lot of other big personalities. Robert Peel and Palmerston are background characters at best, despite being very influential historical and Parliamentary figures. The quotes liberally used throughout from contemporary characters are great for context, though they contain a certain degree of bias often being close friends.
It must be said though that as a way of making history interesting and accessible, this is definitely a success.

[Andy P · Rating 3 out of 5]

I knew nothing of these important characters of 19th century British politics and was fascinated, shocked even, by what I learned. I would however appreciate that where scandalous, scurrilous even, revelations are to be made that their sources are clearly stated and justified. I was left with some doubts as to the veracity of some statements made here and that tarnished my view of the author.

Very interesting to learn of the accepted politics of the time, that the idea of democracy it seems was anathama to those we now regard as our greatest statesmen. Confirmed my uninformed opinion of the unpleasant character of Victoria.
The book however ultimately dragged on and took an age to finish.

[Catherine McClelland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disraeli is a character and though I think in many ways would have agreed with Gladstone politically, I find his brand of religiosity quite annoying and the hypocrisy of his "missionary" work to prostitutes. Also, Gladstone was like a stereotypical hysterical woman of the Victorian era always on the verge of emotional collapse.
Disraeli on the other hand had the heart of a romantic and was able to stir the people and Parliament with his ability with rhetoric and prose. I understand why Queen Victoria was quite taken with him.
This book makes much of the contrasting personalities and their historical dislike for the other. Very interesting read!

[Stephen Dawes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Genuinely one of the best biographical books that I have ever read. Well paced, beautifully written. It almost reads as a novel or a work of brilliant fiction but it is in fact all accurate and referenced. This is a lot of fun to read even if your Victorian history isn't brilliant and forms a wonderfully contrasting view of both men through a well thought out narrative. If you are interested in either or both of the men concerned then this is a must read. The book does sometimes rely upon grand set pieces and miss the commentary on the underling political battle, the ideas concerned and their ideological underpinnings, that defined Britain at its height of imperial power.

[Tony Lawrence]

As with a lot of fact-heavy non-fiction books I struggled through this at times, until I got a hang of the tempo and style. To balance all the dates, people, and parliamentary minutiae, Aldous does focus consistently on the ‘biography’ of the relationship between Disraeli and Gladstone from their first meeting in 1835 to “Dizzy’s” death in 1881, and beyond. It’s interesting that their intense rivalry and competition - which tipped into public hatred - continued beyond the grave, including their respective funeral styles, permanent monuments, and tributes from the royals. Events in the outside world only impact on the main narrative if they were significant for either or both men, which created a selective and distorted lens. For example, the issue of the ‘Eastern Question’ (1878), little known today, was an important battleground for the men, specifically brinkmanship with Russian (in defence of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire) and Disraeli’s involvement in the Berlin peace talks, whereas the American Civil War was hardly mentioned, except the relatively minor matter of compensation for a Liverpool-built confederate ship, the Alabama. There are brief mentions of the Suez Canal, the Crimean War, the Isandlwana massacre, Abyssinia etc. On the home front, repeal of the Corn Law (import tariffs & duties), Irish home rule, and Electoral Reform are some of the bigger issues, all grist to the mill for the battling giants.

The rivalry between William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli was more about personal style, not essentially political, in fact they both started as Tories before Gladstone ‘crossed the floor’ to the main opposition at the time, the Whigs/Liberals. Disraeli, or D’Israeli as he was sometimes mischievously called, was not motivated by a strong principles, choosing causes and bills to further his own aims and agenda at the time, although he could be fearless and contentious. For example, early in his political career he challenged and out-manouvered the established ‘Peelite’ Tory core (Corn Law); he was instrumental in getting his great friend and admirer Queen Victoria the title Empress of India; and it took 10 years to steer through a bill allowing Jews to enter parliament, starting with his friend Rothschild. He was the son of a lapsed Jewish writer, and a prolific writer himself. On the other hand he was a champion of social justice and a strong England/British Empire, and the inventor of ‘One Nation’ Conservatism. He was a very strange fish at a time when most MPs were from landed gentry or industrialists, he was neither. He was flamboyant, charismatic, loyal to his friends, and wife, despite marrying her as an older woman ostensibly for her money. Both men had strong supportive wives, which is hard to understand given their obsessions and failings.

Gladstone on the other hand was part of the establishment, a very religious man (a so-called ‘Anglo-Catholic’), a great organiser, also a great orator, but he tendered to be priggish, unlikeable, and obsessed with detail. The men were similar in one respect, they both sought power and prestige, but were often beaten-down by self-doubt, health issues, and their wearying rivalry. On paper Gladstone was probably the ‘winner’, surviving his rival, and going on to hold 4 separate terms as Prime Minister, the most ever, to Disraeli’s 2. However, you could also say that the 'unicorn' Disraeli left the greater legacy, and was the more exotic and memorable character.

The book title comes from Lewis Caroll's Alice Through the Looking Glass and political cartoonist John Tenniel (1871) which showed Disraeli as a Unicorn and Gladstone as a Lion* - heraldic animals with a traditional enmity.

The lion and the unicorn
Were fighting for the crown
The lion beat the unicorn
All around the town
…

[Emma Heyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

How this subject hasn't become the basis for a blockbuster movie is beyond me. With the right cast, this historic relationship would be a guaranteed Oscar contender - the book is a fascinating glimpse into one of the most dynamic oppositions in politics. Period. That said, certain parts of the account could have benefited from a more fleshed out historic context -I did find myself lost in some of the more nuanced chamber arguments, which I was not familiar with prior to picking up the title. Nonetheless, a fascinating and brilliantly written account of two political titans.

[Jason Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cetreing on the bitter hatred between two great Victorian political leaders. Fairly good at giving the context of issues at the time, but also sometimes two centred on the rivalry to allow us to really judge between them. When Disraeli objected to Gladstone's reform measures on an objection of numbers, who is right? We are not given the info to tell.

Both a mixture of the great and the merely opportunist, both with slightly odd aspects to them as well, their duel makes for an interesting, if slightly dry, book.

[A M Booth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a parallel lives style biography that focuses on the rivalry between Disraeli and Gladstone that began in the 1840s and continued until Disraeli's death in 1881. From 1867 until 1880 it was the defining rivalry of British politics.

The two men were both Tories at heart but were completely different characters. Disraeli was the exotic outsider, who was charming, fleet footed, and rooted in defence of traditional England and its values. Gladstone was stern, moral and unbending. They loathed each other personally and politically they fell on opposite sides of the great Tory split in 1846 over the repeal of the corn laws.

Aldous concentrates on key episodes in their rivalry and uses a compare and contrast approach to draw out the 2 men. Given how their lives intertwined so closely over a 35 year period, this gives him plenty of material. The result is a highly readable book that really brings to life this crucial period.

This is a key period of British political history. Both men emerged in the 1830s when politics was still run by informal oligarchies of Tories and Whigs. But Gladstone became the 1st politician to run a popular campaign in the 1860s, whilst Disraeli ran arguably the 1st modern election campaign in 1874. By 1881 politics was well in its way to being party driven and election based - something both men had a huge hand in.

[Tom Richards · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good survey. By concentrating on the relationship between these two titans of British politics, we get a good history of about 1835-1885 thrown in. I admit I found myself a bit behind in the sections relating to Ireland, which probably comes of having been taught history in England in the 1990s. There was literally no Irish history on the syllabus at the time, which was probably not an accident.

[Hans Myers · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lively and entertaining dual biography of the twin titans of nineteenth century British Politics, "The Lion and the Unicorn" captures the character of both men in riveting, well-written detail: presenting them both as almost beings returned to life to reenact their epic Parliamentary battles across the decades.

[Aidan McCaffery · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm closer politically to Gladstone but ended up liking Disraeli more; his flamboyant dandy is way more fun than the former's pious, Christian reformer. I can see why Queen Vicky was so taken by him. Great introduction to the decades long rivalry between two 19th century political giants, especially if you're a noob like me.

[Aris Catsambas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Though fun and engaging, the book is sensationalist and focuses on Disraeli and Gladstone's personalities, eccentricities and relationships, and barely scratches the surface of their policies and the substance of their ideological differences.

[David N. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Weill written dual biography of Disraeli and Gladstone, the political titans of 19th century England. Gives a sense of why they were such antagonists and why we should care about them today. Presumes a bit of knowledge about the British political system, but still readable if you don't know much.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

Riveting

These two are names that have existed on the fringes of my knowledge all my life. And I am pleased to say that I chose the right book to explain their rivalry and times. Strongly recommend to those who wish to explore these issues in a detailed but engrossing narrative.

[Jean Mehochko · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book. I learned so much about Gladstone and D’Israeli, also British government and history. Well written, drawing on the journals and letters of many people to present a balanced view of the subjects.

[Gareth Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very readable account of The rivalry between Gladstone and Disraeli. Excellent use is made of direct quotes and the slightly informal style leads to a thoroughly engaging and sometimes exciting read.

[Phil LeDuc · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, if occasionally gossipy, introduction to two great figures of Victorian Britain.

[Adelbert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat ponderous and hard to follow. An assumption by the author that the reader is well informed of mid 19th century British politics.