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

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)

There is an up-to-date 2 volume biography published in the last few years, so perhaps somebody should work on the article a bit. Didn't Derby try and fail to form a government in 1855, when Aberdeen fell? According to the Palmerston biog on here, he failed because Clarendon refused to accept the Foreign OfficePaulturtle (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) And wasn't Derby known as "the Rupert of Debate" (after Prince Rupert of the Rhine) in his younger days?"Paulturtle (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * Debrett's 1865 says his surname was "Stanley." Even if "Smith-Stanley" was sometimes used as a surname, I'm dubious that it's the most common name. john k (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Stanley Letter"
The article states that: "...this letter remains today the legal basis for the predominant form of primary education in Ireland." A letter cannot be a legal document as far as I am aware. Was the substance of the letter later enacted in Parliament? If so, I think that should be pointed out.--Britannicus (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this recent addition is correct, a citation is needed. In any event, I would have expected the basis to be an Act of Parliament.  I am therefore adding the tag  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070420212729/http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page147.asp to http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page147.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Multi-denominational school
I have just tagged for clarification the sentence "The National School system in Ireland, the predominant form of primary school education, remains based on the multi-denominational system[clarification needed] set up by Stanley in the Stanley Letter.". This seems poorly phrased at best, as Multidenominational school in the Republic usually refers to a 20th-century development. I don't have a copy of the source referenced, though I notice that one author is Áine Hyland who was involved in the development of multi-denominational schools. Could it be that the phrasing should read "denominational school" as virtually all schools on both sides of the border would be denominational schools? Autarch (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No he tried to set up a multi-d system, but it didn't last - see National_school_(Ireland). I've edited the passage, removing "remains the basis" as essentially not true. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)