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 know of 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 fashionable 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