Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-10-24
ANOTHER "SACKVlLLE" INCIDENT.


NOW 10TH lluobs
Lord Sackvile, who became very
well known throughout this country
seven years ago as Mr.. Sackville-West
and as British Minister at Washington,
is still dissatisfied with the treatment
he received upon that occasion. He
has written pamphlet for the sake of
indicating himself and of exposing the
American officials who were constrained
to send him his passports. As has hap
pened before, his vindication has an
effect exactly contrary to that which
he intended. II took thee to curse
mine enemies, and behold thou hast
blessed them altogether. Z" So far from
justifying himself, Lord Sackville
shows anew how unfit he is for any
place requiring the exercise Of discre
ton, and anew iustifies President
Cleveland and Secretary Bayard for de-
clining to transact any further bust
ness with or through him.
On would suppose that diplomatist,
of all men, who had been successfully
drawn" by a confidence man would
be shy of the subject thereafter, and
would let the memory of his victimiza-
tion die out AS fast as possible, instead
of writing pamphlets TO keep il alive.
That is the common custom of men who
havo shown themselves too innocent
and credulous. In fact, we do not re-
member case, before this of Lord
Sackville's, in which anybody has
written book, even book for private
circulation, entitled "How | Was Bun
koed." That may not be the exact
title of Lord Saciiville's pamphlet, but
it is a title which exactly describes its
subject matter. The moro the memory
of "the Sackville incident" is stirred
up the clearer it becomes how very
shallow and how unfit to catch an adult
male diplomatist was the trap into
which MIR. SacSville-West fell. Tho
Western "localr who bunkoed" him
had no reason whatever for rejoicing in
his skill. His production bore all his
own earmarks and had not the least
resemblance to the composition of the
born British subject and naturalized
| American citizen from whom it pro-
fessed to emanate. But even il it had
been the appeal of British born voter
honestly in doubt as to how his vote
could best serve tho cause of Britain,
| Mr.. Sackville- Vests answer to il
would have been grave breach, moi
only of diplomatic usage, but Of mani
fest propriety. Nothing is clearer than
the improperly of a diplomatist in
terfering in any way with the domestic
i politics Of the country to which he is
accredited. If the creature of the
Western "local'sp imagination had
been an authentic Briton, Mr.. Sack
vile Vests communication would
equally have deserved the punishment
which overlook him in the deremptorl
refusal of our government to recognize,
him any longer as the representative o
Great Britain.
This is the view that has EVIDENT,
been taken by the British government
Although Lord Salisbury at the TIM
INDUCED himself in sneer at the ex
igencies of American electioneering
neither he nor his successors in tn
Foreign Office have yentured to entrus
any further diplomatic missions to tn
too facile victim of the confidence MAJ
who had also violated the Fundamental
rules of diplomatic behavior. That h
himself should wish to revive thu
memory of the incident, even for tn
purpose of injuring Mr.. Bayard il
English society, is an additional proc
that our government was right in 1888
and that the British government ha
been right about him ever since
Whether we consider him as diploma
fist or as a self-vindicating pamph
letter. we are constrained to remin
him, as Thackeray reminded Bulwer
that "his intellectual nature is no
physically adapted'' for success il
either of those capacities.