LORD STANLEY.
LORD STANLEY has taken up a position which a politician of his ardent and irascible temper will find it impossible to maintain in such times as these. Even in a season of calm, when the public mind is comparatively indifferent to the conduct of statesmen, it requires great caution and address to steer between two contend- ing parties. But now and for :some time to come, a fierce conflict is to be looked for, in which all who wish to preserve character or retain influence must take sides. Neutrals will be suspected and hated, and filially forced into the ranks of one or other of the bel- ligerents. There is no man in the House of Commons more likely to "commit himself" than Lord STANLEY. He is unfitted boa) by nature and habit for the part he has undertaken, and which, notwithstanding the confidence of his tone, we do not scruple to designate as that of a Trimmer. Lord STANLEY'S almost avowed intention is, to place himself at the head of a party in the House of Commons, which would ren- der him formidable both to the Tories and the Reformers. There he will be disappointed. He overrates his influence and impor- tance, if be calculates upon a Juste Milieu phalanx disposed to take orders from him. When he quitted Earl GREY, his sole fol- lower was Sir JAMES GRAHAM; and even he seems very much dis- post d to relapse into his pristine Liberalism. Not a single deserter joined his standard, from the Whig, Tory, or Radical ranks, except the slippery Baronet. This was what might have been anticipated. The Whigs then looked up to Earl GREY, and afterwards to Lord MELBOURNE; the Tories have the Duke and Sir ROBERT; the Radicals deem Lord STANLEY little better than a disguised Tory, and he is personally disliked by them. There was and there is no room for him, of all men, in the place he aims at occupying. Lord STANLEY is in fact a person of very little importance after all. His sole useful qualification is ready energy in debate. Yet even as a debater, he is a dangerous ally ; offending those it would be wise to conciliate, and provoking attacks when the disposition of the adversary is inclined to be yielding. His knowledge appears to be very limited in its range. He shows little acquaintance with the actual state and working of society. He seems incapable of reasoning on a large scale. His mind is contracted by schoolboy prejudices. His sentiments are commonplaces. He is not an orator: be has no imagination, no originality, no copious richness of feli- citous expression. His real qualifications, as a debater even, consist in physical force and animation of delivery', clearness of arrange- ment, and quickness in seizing small advantages in the war of
words: he is formidable in personality, and in the boxer-like alacrity with which he deals out hard hits. This would-be leader of a new Juste Milieu party, has shown a lamentable lack of political sagacity and foresight. It is strange indeed, how a man, pre- tending to statesmanship, could he an ardent supporter of Par- liamentary Reform, and yet a bigoted champion of the most
enormous of the abuses which Reform was intended to furnish the means of extirpating. But Lord STANLEY, who denounces the principle of taxing the subject without his consent, as uncon- stitutional, will not permit one shilling to be taken from the revenues of the Irish Chnrch, though it absorbs for the advan- tage of half a million, what, on the theory of the Establishment being national, must be held to have been intended for the spiri- tual wants of seven millions. He insists upon rnaintaining a system which is the prolific source of murder and oppression, under the profession of devotion to Protestantism; as if reli- gion and dragooning, Protestantism and tithe-driving, were essentially connected together in Ireland. On the subject of the Irish Church, Lord STANLEY is as narrow-minded a bigot as Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL Or L. rd Rours.
in, his election-speech at Lancaster, Lord STANLEY alludes to Sir ROBERT PEEL'S application to him and the other seceders from Earl GREY'S Cabinet to join the Tory Administration. He claims credit for great personal disinterestedness in his conduct on that occasion. But the disinterestedness will appear to be not so great after all, if we examine the logical coherence of the debater's state- ment as closely as he would deal with that of an adversary in Parliament.
" If we had felt the acceptance of office at that time the most effectual means for promoting and supporting, and carrying into effect, those great principles of sound and rational improvement to which we were attached, we might have had the firmness of mind not even to shrink from the obloquy which we knew we should have incurred—even to risk all—to risk even the appearance of the loss of character, and trust to time to do us justice., even in the acceptance of office."
Here, be it observed, he declares his willingness, to incur the appearance of loss of character, if' by so doing he could carry his principles into effect. But almost immediately after, he adds-
" Had we consented, for the purpose of strengthening the Government in those Liberal measures which I yet believe that they will and must carry into effect,—had we joined the Government with such a view,—to what miscon- struction, to what calumny, would our motives have been subjected ! how the country would have looked back to our late resignation of office in order to rise upon the wreck of the Administration we had left ! how it would have been said, that all our past conduct was the result of a mere intrigue, for the purpose of re- entering office under different auspices."
So that the fear of loss of character, which he had just before avowed his willingness to incur in so good a cause, was the prin- cipal reason—indeed he gave no other—why be did not join Sir ROBERT PEEL and the Duke. The lame inconsistency is obvious.
The Lancaster speech to his constituents was intended to be Lord STANLEY'S political manifesto; and it affords evidence of his deser- tion of the party, the Whig party, to which he still professes to be- long. He refuses to join the Opposition to the most rank, bigoted, and thoroughgoing High Tory Ministry (looking at its composition, and its origin) that the country has ever seen. The acknowledged leaders of the Whig party are in open, avowed opposition. Not a man among them has gone over to the Ministry. Lord STANLEY refuses to act with them on the only principles on which the party can be held together—general, if not constant opposition to the Tories. He is therefore an outcast from the Whigs; he is a re- negade from his party. The earnest Reformers have long ceased to count him among their number. He avows his want of con- fidence in the Ministry, notwithstanding his belief in the sincerity of PEEL. He seems therefore to stand all but alone. If he has one follower except Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the name of that one is as yet strange to the public.
To speak of the political influence of a 'person so placed, is a
niaiserie. He is a would-be-leader without a party. He cannot command the votes of hundreds, like M. DUPIN. The STANLEY. Tiers Parti is non-existent in the House of Commons, except in the person of its leader and Sir JAMES GRAHAM. It is ludicrous, with this fact before us, to see the wonderful importance attached to the words and movements of Lord STANLEY by some of the newspapers. We look upon him as an exceedingly overrated per- son, who will soon find a lower level ; and we trust that whoever is charged with the formation of the next Liberal Ministry, will pay only so much regard to his Lordship, as to take especial care to exclude so unpopular and presumptuous a gentleman from all places of influence.
Previous page
