It is the object of this book to trace the often sharply differing perspectives historians have formed with regard to the key incidents in the careers of the two foremost politicians of the Victorian age – William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli. As such, it is a work of synthesis. It seeks to juxtapose the various interpretations of events historians have advocated, rather than arrive at settled conclusions of its own. To aim for any kind of ‘final verdict’ upon the debates under review would not merely be presumptuous but also subvert the book's entire raison d’être. For it is the contention of this study, and of the wider series of which it forms part, that history is a continually evolving subject in which finality is not to be looked for. Every generation poses new questions, or reformulates answers to old ones, and there can be no end to this process. It is this very fluidity and contestability of key historical doctrines that gives the subject its perennial attraction and ensures that every student must confront the issues for themselves, and weigh up the sometimes bewildering array of theories and explanations, so as to come to their own conclusions: realizing, full well, that their own judgement can never be anything other than provisional and that new insights and discoveries will be made that will call for the matter to be re-evaluated by historians. If this book encourages the student to relish the interplay of argument and debate that makes up modern history, and helps them steer their way through the sometimes perplexing world of Victorian politics, then it will have achieved its purpose. To bring more forcibly before the reader the fact that written history is generated by actual historians operating within a particular social and intellectual context, a brief résumé of the career of the chief historians cited is included as an appendix.