The Express.
London, England, 1868-04-04 00:00:00

LORD STANLEY.

THE heir to largo estates and an ancient Peerage
cannot easily be true to his personal convictions
while reverencing the ties and upholding the claims
of his family. His conscience is pitted against his
pride. On the one hand duty demands that he
shall be indifferent to prejudices of caste ; on the
other, society incessantly reminds him that if he
would deserve its respect he must perpetuate family
traditions. Ho must either sacrifice his particular
opinions on the altar of his nobility, or else, devot-
ing himself to the quest after truth and shaping
his actions by his principles, he must be ready to
brave the bitter reproaches of hie family, of his
connections, and of the multitude in whose
oyes the petty interests of a titled family
are to be maintained at all hazards and for all time.
Should he advocate extreme views, he risks the
loss of what others may win. Accident has given
him a position to which they may never attain.
His pedigree is a testimonial of incontestable value
and his birth is a qualification for the highest
offices in the State. Should lie possess a little
knowledge ar 1 ordinary prudence, he may count
upon obtaining the favour of his contemporaries
and praise from historians. It would be almost un-
natural were hereditary peers to distinguish them-
selves as bold and consistent innovators. As a
matter of fact, they have never been thorough-
going radicals in politics unless they were unusually
poor, or inordinately eccentric.
There was a time when to the superficial ob-
server it seemed certain that Lord STANLEY would
rise superior to the rules which enthrall hie class.
He gave manifold tokens of a shrewdness which
is rare, and of an intellectual freedom which is
above praise. Although numbered among Tories,
he was yet to be found opposing in speech and by
vote the most cherished among Tory measures.

His numerous admirers discovered a not un-
flattering excuse for his inconsistency. They said
that exaggerated filial piety, rather than his own
inclination, induced him to remain in the
ranks of • party with which he had
little in common, and to act in con-
cert with men whose weaknesses he condemned.
This explanation was the more plausible, insomuch
as the Tory party took no pains to conceal its
aversion for his suspected liberality. Had he not
been heir to the Earldom of DERBY, this dislike
would have been manifested in a more active form;
but ancient custom rendered it indispensable to
display ordinary charity towards a political sinner,
whose forefathers had been such admirable Tories,
Ind who might walk to their steps after he bad
outgrown his hankering after the new-fangled
notions of advancing Liberalism. It was remem-
bered that his father had once strayed from the
fold only to return a humble penitent, and had
afterwards proved a pattern in lifting up
his voice in denunciation of the wolves that
prowled without. Nevertheless, the temper of the
more bigoted Tories was strained almost beyond
endurance by thecaprioiouscareerof Lord BTANLZY.
What he told the House of Commons with regard
to Mr. J. 8. MILL in 1859 may be recalled for the
edification of those among his colleagues, who now
think it seemly to disparage and ridicule that
philosopher :—" If there be in this country one
" man more than another who has laboured in the
" cause of human thought and human progress—if
" there be one man mere than another who believes
"in the future of mankind, and who is not dis-
" posed to look to the past with any superstitious
" feeling of veneration, that man is JOHN Brume?
" MILL." These words formed the introduction
to a quotation from a pamphlet then recently pub-
lished by Mr. MILL, which it was thought justified
a provision of the Reform Bill of 1859. It is not
recorded that Mr. DISRAELI protested against his
colleague's indiscretion in yielding due deference to
the arguments of a philosopher. Many Liberals,
however, were as gratified by the tone of Lord
STANLEY on that and other oocasions as nearly eery