New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-06-12
AN AMATEUR POLITICIAN.
LORD DERBY.

THE EARL OF DERBY. BY George sahtsbnry
l2no, PIP. 223. Harper & Brothers,
Mr.. Saintsbrry's Efe of Lo.d Derby Is written, as
he frankly states from T)ry pint Of View II Is
how yer by no means culoTstc. The bioSraphcr has
set ont 10 cxpiaa political career which stands IN
no little need Of explanation al more tann one paint
md nc has found The task anything but ensy. b
tween Sir Robert Peel and Lord Derby hcro dinrr
ences as wide as the poles but the two are drawn
together BY thcr political actions IN such manner as
70 suggest resent lancCs. Those WHO can hrh no OK
cnccs wide as the poles. but The two men are drawn
Laws ought one might think. 10 be no !css severe
with Lord Dc-by's leap n the dark OF 1867. Bu
1t appears that Pei may be blamed and Derby may be
exonersted by the Same mind-whch IS somewhat
curious Tt must however, be considered that Eas
sh politics since 1876 hav, presented snch bcwildcr
ing succession of kaleidoscope views that tile genera
ton which has arisen since the beginning OF that
period can hardly be expected 10 hold very irm or
clear views on political ethics II lord Derby di'hcd
the Whigs" By stealing their thunder, 1t must IL ad
mitted TINT the practice by one party OF stealing the
clothes OF the Other while they were In bathing" has
since been cGried to snch lengths that IT no longer
cxntcs any snrTris,, stu loss aouscs nny resent n
In Pecs time. and in the time Of Lord Derby. men
were rot iamllaIiycd with these tactics and many
even wont 80 far as TO call them unworthy and dis
honest Mr.. salntsbury In his role Of Tory boyrapher
naturally exhibits something Of this otsoesc,nt ten
dcrncss OF conscience; but 1t is cOnsonx observe
TIM, even with candid and impartial critic, IT
stin makes n human difference which party Is charged
with breach OF the moral law. 1t must INDEED
be said that he altogether acquts Lord Derby the
"lcnp in the dark" That would DE i'm
pnctlcab, from the Tory point Of view. For after
all what Lo7i Derby da In 1867 was 10 commit
his party to n which squarcy travcrsed lis
fundamental pnndpes-thnt Is, II II IS supposed to
have any, mat,,g about which Mr. Saintsbury him
ses is none too certain. The cass Is Interesting be-
cause It Is so diicult to explain and cannot admit
iha, Lord Derby's present bNgraphcr has explained IT,
Had the household suffrage scheme sprung from the
fertile brain Of Mr.. Disrae. Of cour,e explanation
would have b>en needed but Mr.. Saintsbury insists
thai Disrae really had nothing TO do with the inccp
tion OF the measure that IL wholly Lord Dsrby's
bill; and one Is compelled to ask-what did he
mean by IT.
1t cannot be asserted that Lord Derby was a dema
goeuc In fact he rather an amateur thnn
professional politician His bioerapher SAYS that h,
never had any large general view OF politics. The
single circumstances that he erter.d public life MS
whig. and served ten years with TINT party boforo
he found out that he rightly belonged on the Cons-rva
live benches might suggest his innbllity-hongh II Is
always necessary 10 remember that he Is not the only
distinguished Englishman OF his generation who
cmDSed parties But on lis fnce the act Of
1so7 was That OF demagoric, for Il
put party success before principle. The reflection
cannot b, avoided that II Lord Derby really
believed I'm the Reform Bill o. 1897 b,s
place was not at the head Of the Conservative party
1t may. moreover, very we'll be claimed that there was
no public demand for the measure, and therefore no
necessity for it II the PremIcrs course On t,.