LORD DERBY.* IT would perhaps be going too far to
assert that intellectual " commonness " was the late Lord Derby's dominant charac- teristic. Still, if Mr. Matthew Arnold, in the exercise of that prerogative of kindly insolence which he enjoyed as of right, had happened, as he well might, upon such a description, we should have understood what he meant. In the sense in which the word was wont to be used by Mr. Arnold, many, if not all, of Lord Derby's mental gifts were distinctly "common." Common-
• The Earl of Derby, K.G. The "Statesman Series." By T. E. Kebbel, M.A. London: W. H. Allen and Co. 1890. new is the mark of his literary style ; commonness stamps his oratory and the metallic rhetoric with which he attempted Co adorn it; and a vein of commonness rims, too, throughout his enthusiasms, his aspirations, and the actions they inspired. If we compare Lord Derby with Sir Robert Peel or with Mr. Disraeli, it is curious to notice how the element of " distinction " which belonged to the great statesmen and the great adventurer is absent from their con- temporary's words and deeds. Since he was always saying and doing things with an air and from a position which naturally makes us expect to find this particular note of conduct- distinction—apparent, its absence is all the more marked. A man called to play a lesser part would not have exhibited so plainly the lack of that creative and originating faculty which we term genius, whether in the poet, the artist, the soldier, or the politician. As it was, Lord Derby was obliged to under- take a great role before a crowded House, and so to show the world plainly that his intellectual powers were of aluminium, not of gold. Fortunately for him, he possessed that readi- ness and self-confidence which is often found coupled with an innate commonness of mind, and he therefore was always able to acquit himself with a certain amount of credit and success in whatever he undertook. If he did not possess a spark of the true fire divine, he had many qualities both showy and really serviceable which enabled him to present a very fair imitation of a great man. He was honest in thought and act ; he never let himself be hurried into extremes by the spirit of party, in spite of the fact that he often used language of great violence ; and, lastly, he sincerely endeavoured to place what he believed the best interests of the country as a whole over the interests of himself, or even of his own class. The chief claim of the English aristocracy to the good-will of the nation rests on the spirit of moderation in which they have met the re- forms which they most dreaded. The best of them have always been optimists at heart, and hence, even when most in earnest in attempting to resist change, they have secretly believed that things would somehow or other come right in the end. This was Lord Derby's attitude, and to it he owed not a little of the influence which he exerted in politics. After fighting a reform with all the vehemence of a narrow mind and a hot head, and being finally beaten, he did not think it necessary to sulk like a Continental noble, but at once accepted the inevitable with a good grace, and began to look out for another " essential bulwark of the Constitution" be- hind which to ensconce himself and his followers. Lord Derby, though he often used language of the high Tory kind, was, in troth, fax less of a reactionary than he seemed. He liked to talk as if his mission in life were "to stem the tide of democracy;" but at the same time he held fast to the principles of the Revolution of 1688. But these principles, though put into practice by an aristocracy, are essentially democratic, and clearly recognise the sovereignty of the people. When once a man has admitted that the representa- tives of the people can lawfully turn out one King and put another on the throne, his opposition to the popular will is not likely to be very dangerous. Lord Derby was, in fact, a thoroughly English statesman, and on the whole exer- cised a very useful influence on his contemporaries. If, as we have said above, he had little of originality or genius, he had plenty of honesty and common-sense, and plenty also of courage and " go." The practical work of legislation and administration performed by him will be remembered throughout our history; and it can be said of him as truly as of any English statesman that he did nothing to lower and much to improve the political tone of the times in which he lived.
Mr. Kebbel's biographical sketch of Lord Derby, though, as we think, far too laudatory, is an excellent piece of work. It is far better that the writer of a book of this kind should over rather than under-estimate the merits of his subject. A. short memoir may be pardoned any fault better than want of sympathy. The business of an author in a case like the present is to say all that can be said in favour of his hero's claim for public recognition, and it is in this spirit that Mr. Kebbel, who is evidently inspired with a genuine admiration for Lord Derby, has undertaken his task. In view of the fact that no regular memoir of Lord Derby is in existence, the difficulties encountered in obtaining accurate information as to his life were doubtless by no means inconsiderable, and Mr. Kebbel is, therefore, to be congratulated upon being the first to put forward a clear and connected view of Lord Derby's position at many critical moments of his life. In unveiling the statue which stands in Palace Yard, Mr. Disraeli summed up the career of his former chief in words which are an epigmmmatical epitome of his life :—" He abolished slavery, he educated Ireland, he reformed Parliament." Into the details connected with these memorable events Mr. Kebbel goes at as great length as the limits of his two hundred pages allow him. Instead, however, of dealing with his account of Lord Derby's actions in regard to slavery, education, or reform, we shall quote his reflections on his hero's resignation in 1834 —reflections which appear to us both sagacious and well put :—
" His resignation was regarded at the time as a heavy blow to the Whig Ministry ; and so it was, for he occupied a higher place in the estimation of his then contemporaries than he will do, perhaps, in that of posterity. His superiority was essentially parliamentary. Though an able practical legislator and a clear- headed, skilful man of business, there were men of his own standing who were his equals in these respects. But on the floor of the House of Commons he had no rival; and those who rated him so highly were either the actual witnesses of his brilliant parliamentary triumphs, or those who heard of them from others fresh from the scene of action and still under the spell of the magician.' They, of course, could hardly exaggerate the extent of the loss which the Government had sustained by his defection, possessing, as he did, just the qualities which they most wanted— a great orator, a superlative debater, and with all the wit, courage, and force of character necessary for coping with such antagonists as O'Connell and Shiel. In fact, he was the only man in the Cabinet equal to the effort ; and we have only to place the first Reform Government alongside of the second to see all that Stanley was to it. They shall know the difference now that I have left them,' he might have said to himself. Yet his loss, after all, was not, perhaps, an unmitigated calamity to the Whig Government. Stanley had made himself a host of enemies, not more perhaps by the fearless eloquence with which he tore to pieces the case of the Repealers than by the air which he possessed in common with Beauclerk, and which Johnson called the air of being above his company, which irritated one part of the House of Commons as much as his severity did the other. The new Radical members thought it aristocratic insolence, and reproached him for his haughtiness. Many years afterwards, they brought the same charge against Lord Palmerston, who was hated at one time by all that section quite as much as Lord Stanley ever was. In neither man, however, was there anything like studied or pre- meditated insolence. It was not that. But both were men of rank and fashion, moving in a world of which the middle classes knew little—a world which has a language of its own and manners of its own, strange to those who hear and see them for the first time. Neither Lord Palmerston nor Lord Derby were sufficiently careful, perhaps, to remember this ; and, in addressing the House of Commons, forgot sometimes that they were not at White's or at Newmarket, and that if they did not pick their phrases and school their countenances they might be cruelly misconstrued."
Into the controversy over the merits of Lord Derby's translation of Homer we have not, unfortunately, time to enter, though the subject is one which is always interesting to write on, if not to read about. Mr. Kebbel is full of admiration for the rendering, and evidently regards it as often monu- mentally successful. In this we cannot agree with him. It appears to us that the commonness—the lack of distinction— which we regard as the key-note to Lord Derby's character, is especially apparent in his attempt to translate poetry which, more than any other in the world, is free from this particular defect. No doubt Lord Derby's mechanical and voiceless blank verse has sometimes a certain amount of verbal ingenuity ; but this, after all, is the least good part of a translation. The heart is what we want, not the words, and this is far too often of atone in Lord Derby's translation.
Previous page
