Talk:Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

[edit] Weak

From Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:

Weak or titular Prime Ministers were more common prior to the twentieth century; examples include William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, and Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby.

Is it fair to say this is really the case with Derby? Part of the problem is that he's been rather neglected by historians (it doesn't help that unlike, say, Disraeli and Salisbury, Derby has been bereft of both a early post humous "Life and Times" toe stubber and a major acclaimed modern biography) with the assumption that the history of the party 1846-1868 is the story of the wilderness and Disraeli's rise and little else. But arguably the ministries were really weak in the Commons more than anything else. Any thoughts? Timrollpickering 14:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think saying that Derby was a titular prime minister along the lines of Devonshire and Portland is simply wrong. He was a real (minority) prime minister. john k 15:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, Derby was definitely leader of the Conservative Party after the death of Lord George Bentinck. Derby had the final say-so on policy and overruled Disraeli several times. I know that Robert Blake, for one, thought Derby had been unduly marginalized and had considered writing a biography of him (pity that he did not). Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thnk he's considered leader from an even earlier point - in 1845 odd he was invited at one stage to form a government if Peel resigned but declined. This seems to be the main qualification for a leader having been accepted by the parties in both houses and when the Peel government fell Derby (or Lord Stanley as he then was) was left holding the crown - all the lists I've seen mark Derby as undisputed leader from 1846.

Blake more than considered it - he was actively working on it at some point in the 1960s and/or 1970s (and was listed as doing this in some standard bibliographies), but for some reason abandoned the project. However this probably discouraged others from working on Derby. More recently John Charmley has highlighted the neglect of not just the 14th Earl but also the later ones (he sees a lot of continuity between father and son on foreign policy disputes with Disraeli for instance - and a survival of such views in both the Salisbury and Baldwin/Chamberlain eras). I wouldn't be surprised to see a notable output here. Timrollpickering 17:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entry into Lords

Latest change:

In 1832 he was created Baron Stanley of Bickerstaffe and was subsequently elevated to the House of Lords in 1844.

Surely he would have entered the Lords in 1832? Timrollpickering 10:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely wrong. I'll look into it. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I decided to make that change after checking two sources. Firstly, Encylopedia Britannica's 1911 edition, which is transcribed online, records this: "the injury to health arising from the late hours in the Commons led him in 1844 to seek elevation to the Upper House in the right of his fathers barony..." Secondly, a book called "The Oxford Companion to British History" reports that "he had won considerable standing with his party's backbenchers by the time he opted for a peerage and moved to the Lords in 1844." Upon performing an Internet search, I found two Internet sources which confirm this information. A political biography at The Peel Web states that: "In November 1844 he was elevated at his own request to the House of Lords as Lord Stanley of Bickerstaff." http://www.historyhome.co.uk/pms/derby.htm A rather comprehensive political biography at this website reports that Lord Derby was "Called to House of Lords as Lord Stanley of Bickerstaffe" in "October 1844". http://www.pdavis.nl/NamesR.htm

Hrmm. I've thumbed through Blake's Disraeli, and Stanley was definitely still in the Commons in the late 1830s. The 1832 is wrong, I think. I'll change all references to 1844, which seems far more likely. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone's confused the 13th and 14th Earls. The 13th Earl (Earl of Derby 1834-1851) was created Baron Stanley, of Bickerstaffe in the County of Lancaster, in 1832, before succeeding his father in the Earldom, and the 14th Earl (Earl of Derby 1851-1869) was summoned to Parliament by a Writ in Acceleration in his father's Barony of Stanley in 1844. Proteus (Talk) 07:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Is the title "Baron Stanley" or "Baron Stanley of Bickerstaffe"? Burke's (not always reliable) gives "Baron Stanley of Bickerstaffe". So does the Leigh Rayment page, which distinguishes it from the original title of "Baron Stanley" which went into abeyance in 1594. Do we have any definite knowledge on that front? john k 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

David Beamish (usually reliable for comma positioning) gives it as "L. Stanley of Bickerstaffe in the County Palatine of Lancaster", in contrast with "L. Stanley of Alderley in the County of Chester" and "L. Stanley of Preston in the County Palatine of Lancaster". Proteus (Talk) 18:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smith-Stanley?

No one else in his family seems to have this sort of double-barrelled name. Where does the "Smith" come from? His wife? His mother? Somewhere else? --Saforrest 01:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The surname Smith descends from the mother of the 12th Earl of Derby, Lucy Smith, daughter of Hugh Smith of Weald Hall. Phoe 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)