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

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.