The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-07 00:00:00

218 with " the axe of the executioner of the bar " barons YEH ;" and we again hear of " these " barbarians," and in a single sentence we read of their " flagitious falsehood (again), base " perfidy, cruel inhumanity, and atrocious " crime." Now, who are the people that the Premier was vituperating as " kidnapping, murdering, " poisoning barbarians " ? The Chinese people have an authentic history dating from eleven hundred years before our Saviour. In Lord MACARTNEY'S time their population was com puted at 333 millions. Their country is fourteen hundred miles long, and from six to thirteen hundred miles wide. Its area was computed by Sir GEORGE STAUNTON at 1-297.999 miles. There is not the least doubt that the art of printing was known to the Chinese in the tenth century of the Christian century. They were also inventors of gun powder, though they did not k now o f its application to firearms ; and they were also acquainted with the magnetic compass. Their manufactures of silk and porcelain have always been famed. Even in the luxurious elegancies of civilisation the Chinese have shown refine ments that might free them from the imputa tion of savages. A lady of the highest rank in England scarcely breakfasts without being surrounded by a variety of objects recalling the Chinese. The beverage which she inhales, the delicate porcelain from which she sips it, the patterns in h.:r carpet, the figures on the panelling, the hangings of the windows, the screens to exclude draughts or to shade from the fire, might all suggest the man ners and habits of those whom the Premier calls " barbarians." Our gardens and our hothouses are stocked with Chinese plants, and greater proficients in the science of hor ticulture cannot be found there. The light parasol which shields the face of our fair from -the sun is of Chinese origin, and the palanquin in which the Chinese ladies are carried was the origin of our once fashi ona bl e sedan chair. The luxury of their feasts, the expense of their dress, their curious system of, Government--with its six great Boards of Court Appointment, Council, Public Works Rites and Ceremonies, &e.—their extraordinary system of religion, their singular ingenuity and their untiring industry, have excited the admiration of enlightened travellers. The work of Lord MACARTNEY is perfectly au thentic, and the grandsires of the present generation recollect the sensation produced by its appearance. But the works of Du HALDE, STAUNTON, DAVIS, ELLIS, and others, all sub stantiate that the Chinese are one of the most extraordinary people on the earth, and that they possess extraordinary civilisation. Now the practical question is, " How are " we to treat the Chinese ?" Arc we to adopt 'an intellectual, or a grossly vulgar policy, in dealing with that extraordinary people? Shall we consider them as " savages " because their civilisation differs entirely from our own, or shall we believe them a people with refine ment and mental culture ? Upon those ques tions the people of England should carefully study the recent debates. The coarse, vulgar, and passionate view of the case was advo- cated by Lord PALMERSTON'S supporters, and the policy of giving credit to the Chinese for their civilisation, intelligence, and commercial talent, was advocated by the opponents of the Government. Let us see how the leading • intelligences of the Houses of Parliament are arrayed upon this question. 1. The view that the Chinese are barbarians, fit only to be extirpated like savage beasts, , td - be bi " blackguards," can be rm the speech of the isterial hacks, not one of address. The danger Inister of such unscru the head of the State is the whole habit of mind ration of the Chinese is that we ought not to humanity the life with Ipathise, is the elevated of our Imperial Policy _,ERBY with Lords ELLEN _ 111 R .1 , 011, MALMEmBETRY, LTNDIIURST, and ST. LEONARDS, in the House of Lords, and by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. GLAD- THE PRESS. STONE, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SIDNEY HER BERT, Mr. COBDEN, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. W. J. Fox, Mr. GIBSON, and several more, in the House of Commons. _ Between these opposing views it is for England to decide. THE MEETING OF LORD DERBY'S SUPPORTERS. A JOURNALIST is not unfrequcntly placed in a perplexing position. Ho is an advocate of the public ; and without adopting Lord BROUGHAM'S exaggerated idea of the devotion which an advocate owes to the interests of his clients, it is evident that the first duty of a journalist is to give his clients, the public, all the information in his power on matters of political importance. It is not always accorded to him to present that information in a per fcctly accurate, still less in an " authorised," shape. Leading (particulars reach him which he thinks it concerns the public to know. The narrator of contemporary events may have to deal with the same difficulties as the historian of the past—to .reconcile varying statements, and to form his own judgment on conflicting accounts. He has this addi tional difficulty to contend with, that he has little time for inquiry, and that his decision must be rapid. The whole history of the press of this country is a record of effort to obtain pub licity for proceedings which the parties con cerned thought it most expedient to keep secret. It is known what continuous strug gles were required before the presence of reporters was recognised in the Houses of Parliament. That publication of the proceed ings, which was at one time thought the gravest offence against the dignity of Parlia ment, is now ranked among the most valuable of our constitutional privileges and safeguards. The notice we printed last week of the meeting of Opposition Members of the Com mons, at the invitation of Lord DERBY, was, it seems, " grossly inaccurate." We are bound to accept the contradiction from such high authority. At the same time we owe some explanation to our readers. Lord DERBY has admitted that " the state " went of the proceedings undoubtedly bears " on the face of it evidence of some person who " was either present, or had heard what had " passed." We do not feel called upon to ex plain the sources from which we derived our knowledge. Let any gentleman listen to the proceedings of an hour's discussion in any assembly, and let him afterwards endeavour to note down what was said, and he will be easily satisfied of the difficulty of giving an exact transcript of oral communications. Even with stenographic aid, the most expert of the accomplished Parliamentary reporters occa sionally record sentiments the reverse of what fell from a debater's lips. As Lord DERBY may know, orators in Parliament have sometimes misunderstood each other, or misinterpreted the words delivered vehemently in their own presence. " Explanations " are surely not infrequent even amongst orators of the most finished elocution. Our article, as every reader of it in THE PRESS must know, was not intended to be an accurate report of what took place. It was rather a comment upon the leading points of the proceedings. That it was not written by a person present at the meeting is evident from one slight error. The meeting was stated to have taken place at Lord DERBY'S house in St. James's-square, when it was really held, as such meetings have frequently been held before, at the house of Lord EOLINTON, in St. Jam es's-square. We are inclined to believe that " the gross " inaccuracy" of which Lord DERBY com plained was to a peat extent rectified in a second edition of THE PRESS. In our first impression the Noble Earl, in denying the reports of a coalition with ML'. GLADsToNE, was represented as saying that he had had no " communication with Mr. GLADSTONE On the subject." When we were informed, on good and to be branded as inferred logically fror Premier awl. his Minis Ithom tnade a sttecessfu -of having a Prime Mil ulous tertura at the incalciilable. 2. The view that th 4,ad system of civilise .7obposite to nuts, but rdronvise in pact of 1 . which we cannot symi and „Intellectual view • taken by the Earl of Di ♦♦••\\• [ 1 7 ~ i , SATURDAY, authority, that the sentence did not express what Lord DERBY really said, we altered it in conformity with what we believed, and still believe, to be a tolerably accurate version of that particular part of the Noble Earl's address:— He had no compact or understanding with Mr. Glad- stone as to any political union. He and Mr. Gladstone were each perfectly free to act on any question without reference to the opinions of the other. At a later period, the noble earl expressed a hope that what he had said might not be misunderstood. He had had more than one conversation with Mr. Gladstone on political matters, but, as he said before, there was no political arrangement or understanding between them. The Globe copied its notice from our first impression. The Times, aceordina to its custom, copied from the Globe ; and hence, from the world-wide currency given to the erroneous report, arose the necessity for Lord DERBY'S disclaimer. On the chat ge of " breach of confidence," urged by Mr. NEWDECIATE, we have some thing more to say. It is the first condition essential to the validity of all laws that their observance shall be practicable. No authority in the world can impose the ob servance of impossible conditions, either in the code of jurisprudence, of morals, or of manners. The Parliament would be esteemed mad which enacted that men should reach seven feet in height, or which embodied in a statute Lord PALMERSTON'S theological dictum that babies are born good. A similar kind of impossibility must attend any attempt to pre serve proceedings secret which take place in presence of one hundred and sixty persons, those proceedings, moreover, being of public importance. It may be possible to get together a dozen persons, as in the Cabinet, of approved discretion, capable of preserving secret the deliberations which take place. But in prac tice this can rarely be done. When Sir ROBERT PEEL'S Cabinet was deliberating on the corn laws, we know how the Times news paper startled the world by the announcement that repeal had been decided on. Much more recently it published, though the strongest reasons for secrecy existed, that the allied forces in the East were ordered to invade the Crimea, several weeks before the invasion actually took place. To suppose that the proceedings at a meet ing of a whole party can be kept secret is contrary to the common experience of society. We are inclined to go farther, arid say, that if secrecy could be observed, it would be far from desirable. For what purpose do parties exist? Surely for great public ends. They are not con spiracies to be shrouded in darkness and mystery The members of an English party should not meet, as SHAKESPEARE represents the conspirators against CEesar meeting, with muffled faces ; or as St. Real describes the Venetian conspirators assembling when they proposed to seize the State. Lord PALMERSTON is not a Cataline, nor Lord DERBY (except in a punning sense) a Pierre. Their portals are not guarded by pass-words; they do not address their notes of invitation in cypher, nor conduct their priceedings in an unknown tongue. If their followers really met in secret conclave, if they concerted schemes which could only be carried out in secret, and which it was im proper for the public to know, such a feeling of indignation would be roused as no party would be strong enough to resist. In our opinion the pretence of secrecy at such meetirgs would be much better dispensed with. Occasions will continually arise when it is expedient for the leader of a party to call his followers together ; and we are strongly disposed to believe that on all such occasions it would be better to encourage the publica tion of authentic notes of the proceedings than to affect secrecy, which it is absolutely impos sible to preserve, though the partial conceal ment frequently gives rise to much misappre• hension, and much malignant conjecture. POLITICAL PROSPECTS. THE fitness of any body of men to undertake the government of this country depends on a variety of qualifications. The chief of these is undoubtedly that they should be a fair reflex of the British people—that, in other words,