The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-27 00:00:00

EVENING, MAY 27, 1858.

in the matter, and that Lord Shaftesbury would not,
on any account whatever, sanction by his advocacy
a movement commenced under such circumstances,
and upon the most sacred day of the seven. But
the weekly organ of the opposition yesterday re-
peated the statement in conclusive terms. On
Sunday afternoon,' says the Observer, ' a meeting
of most of the membars of the late Cabinet was
held at Lord Palmerston's, when the position of
affair was fully discussed,' &c. And to this intrigue
to reinstate a Cabinet scoutad from power only
three months ago Lord Shaftesbury lent his influ-
ence and support. Deeply do we regret that one
generally respected should so far have forgotten
himself, and thus have shaken confidence in our
public leaders." Such ware our comments upon
the transaction ten days ago ; and we see no
reason why, after tho perusal of Lord Shaftesbury's
explanations, we should retract one line.
Lord Shaftesbury suffered a week to elapse
before be took notice either of the statement made
by the Prime Minister, in his place in Parliament,
or the remarks which it called forth from the press.
To the astonishment of all who remembered what
Lord Derby really had said, a letter bearing Lord
Shaftesbury's signature appeared in the Times of
Saturday last, containing, amongst other state-
ments, the following :—" The Prime Minister, in
the debate of the 14th, stated that. I had attended
a political meeting on Sunday at Cambridge
House." This charge, as we showed at the time,
is untrue. Lord Derby said, in plain English,
" I don't know whether he attended it ;" and this
poitive assertion, by some strange process, Lord
Shaftesbury would convertinto an insinuation that
he was present. On Tuesday a communication
from Lord Derby was published in tho Times, and
in this the noble eat]. refuted Lord Shaftesbury's
charge, quoting what he really did say in reply.
Lord Shaftesbury is not, however, satisfied, and in
yesterday's Times published a rejoinder, in which,
after quoting Lord Derby's speech in the exact
terms we have given it, adds, "If Lord Derby
will say tthat he did not intend, directly or in-
directly, to convey the belief that I had attended
such a meeting (though if he did not, I cannot con- I
prehend why the words were used), I will at once
withdraw my remark and express my regret for
having made it." In his first letter to the Times
Lord Shaftesbury declared Lord Darby "stated
that he attended the Sunday meeting; in his second
communication Lord Shaftesbury writes "intend,
directly, or indirectly, to convey tire belief." This
looks like an evasion. We always believed that
Lord Shaftesbury belonged to a school, by the
members of which all Jesuitical practices are con-
demned. Honest men are generally willing to
give a plain interpretation to a plain sentence.
Lord Derby said explicity enough that he did
not know whether Lord Shaftesbury attended
that Sunday meeting ; and the conduct of any one
who attempts to distort the meaning of such a
simple sentence must excite grave suspicions. Lord
Derby said one thing, and Lord Shaftesbury en-
deavours to prove that he said another. There can
be no doubt who will have the best of such an
argument.

The real grievance cannot, however, be con-
cealed. It matters little whether Lord Shaftesbury
was or was not present at that Sunday meeting.
The public havo seen him devoting himself with
the most extraordinary enthusiasm to the cause for
which that meeting was held, and endeavouring to
forward the views of its promoters in every possible
way. If Lord Shaftesbury really does object to
meetings for such purposes on the Sabbath, this
conduct is quite at variance with his convictions ;
if Lord Shaftesbury believes them to be proper and
justifiable, why should he take such pains to prove
that he was not present ? But for Lord Shaftes-
bucy to object to the new Sunday movement, and
yet to endeavour to promote its objects, is a gross
piece of inconsistency, and it is this which hangs
like a millstone round his lorclihip's neck. All his
efforts to escape from a false position must be fruit-
less. If a political meeting on such a day was
improper, and ought to be condemned, those who
took a prominent part in carrying out the plans
concocted on that occasion cannot escape condem-
nation. They rendered themselves particeps
criminis, and the correspondence to which we have
referred induces us to believe that Lord Shaftes-
bury's consciences is not very easy on this point.