LORD DERBY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1851, 28 January 1880, Page 3

LORD DERBY.

We read in the “ Daily Telegraph: —“ Lord Derby, it ia stated, haa ‘ lately eignifiod an important and friendly modification in his attitude with regard to the Liberal party.’ This is likely enough. He formally seceded some months ago from a local Conservative society, and a few days since at Liverpool he spoke of his position at that time as one of ‘ absolute though perhaps only temporary neutrality ’ between the two great parties in the State. That he should have remained neutral long was not very probable. The only example of such a position held for nearly a lifetime by a statesman of Cabinet rank is afforded by Lord Q-rey, who, since he quitted office in 1852, has never sat in any Ministry, but has poured forth from the cross benches in the House of Lords a stream of cold and impartial criticism on men and things. We cannot say that the result has been satisfactory. The mastery of administrative knowledge possessed by the noble Lord—especially as regards the colonies and the War Department—has thus been lost to the country, while his speeches, intelligent and exhaustive, have failed to arouse public opinion, or to modify the legislation of the day. We should fear for Lord Derby a similar fate if he confined himself to barren criticism. He is much better in the official arena than out of it. Born with a great capacity for hard work, he brings to politics a singularly calm mind, and to political oratory a stylo so clear that it almost evades observation, and is the all but transparent medium of welldefined thought. No doubt Lord Derby has been all his life formally attached to the ranks of the Conservative organisation, but his Liberalism of tone and even occasionally of opinion has always been manifest. Tears ago he advised the abolition of Church rates, and on all ecclesiastical questions he has coldly refused to pass on the ‘ fiery cross ’ offered to his hand by excited partisans. His reluctance to accept proposals of Reform was invariably based on expediency and not on aristocratic prejudice, and his political speeches might at any time have been made by a moderate and statesmanlike Liberal who was keenly conscious of the ‘ falsehood of extremes.’ That he should now join the opposite party would therefore seem to necessitate as little —if any —change of principles as ever accompanied a political secession. It is also not inconsistent with family tradition.”