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

LORD SEI AFTESBURY AND THE SUNDAY

CABAL.

(From the Morning Herald.)

Lord Shalesbury seems to be suldenly possessed
by an irresMible desire to destroy his own reputa-
tion. It is vain to attempt to disguise the unpala-
table truth, but the noble earl does not stand so
well with fee British public as he did a short time
since. Hit share in the late factious attack upon
the Goverment has given deep, and, we are com-
pelled to aid, reasonale cause of (dance to many
of his former admirers. Lord Shaftesbury's repu-
tation for earnestness and sincerity of purpose once
ranked amongst the first. It has, however, been
put to the test, and we are compelled to state, and
with sorrow we record the fact, has been found
wanting. We do not on this occasion allude to
Lord Sha!tesbury's ungracious attempt to persuade
the asseubled Peers on Saturday week that his
political sympathies " had ever been and still were
with that party which was represented by her Ma-
jesty's present Government." The assertion is
contradicted by his actions ; and certainly, if Lord
Shaftesbury had redly been a supporter of the
present ;.inistry, he might have saved himself the
trouble of crossing to the Opposition benches with
the late occupants of office.
It is, however, with a much worse case that we
have at present to deal. Our readers will remem-
ber that during the debate in the House of Lords
on the evening of the 14th instant Lord Derby
alluded to that Cambridge House Sunday meeting,
of which ample details have ben furnished to the
public by organs enjoying the confidence of the
Whig leaders. Lord Derby said—we repeat the
precise words used on the occasion, that there may
be no mist ike—

" The noble earl's notice was given on Monday
last. I don't know whether he attended it ; but I
presume Le had communicated to him the result of
that Sunday meeting, which I ani told was not
entirely for religious purposes. I mention it
merely as a singulir coincidence. On Sunday last
a meeting was held at the house of the noble lord
(Pahners:on) at which it is supposed (and believe
on very good authority) that the subjc,.ct of the
motion was discussed; and it,does so happen that
the noble ea, 1, intimately and closely connected
with the noble v:scount, gives on Monday, in
tl'is house, notice of his intention to submit a
reso'ution."

The real interpretation of the above is plain
e.iough. Lord Derby stated distinctly that he did
not know whether Lord Shaftesbury attended that
Sunday meeting, though he presumed that the re-
sult of the same had been onnnannicated to him.
On the Monday after the debate we wrote, "In a
certain pal tion of the religious world, Lord Shaftes-
tury's reputation stood high, but his share in the
new Sunday movement at Cambridge House has
created surprise and indignation amongst many of
his former friends and admirers. Whether Lord
Shaftesbury was or was not present at the meeting
at Oambtidge Home on Sunday week, can be of
little consequence. We are not in the confidence
cf these poi:tit:jams, and we do no', therefore, pre-
tend to decide that point. The Palmerston organ,
on Monday last, announced that such an assembly
$(.l taken place at Cambridge House on the pre
'ions Sunday, and that an assault upon Ministers
was to be delivered. On the evening of the day
on which thishnnouneement appeared Lord Shaftes-
bury came forward as the champion of the Oppcsi-
lion. He thus virtually became the approver and
and the abettor of this,Samday movement. Many I
persons imagined that there must be some mistake

in the matter, and that Lord Shaftesburywould 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 members of the late Cabinet was
held at Lord Palmerstoi's, when the position of
affair was fully discussed,' 3.7 c. And to this intrigue
to reinstate a Cabinet scouted from power only
three months ago Lord Saaftesbury lent his influ-
ence and support. Deeply do we regret that one
generally respected should so far have forgotten
tihnslf, 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 the perusal of Lord Shaftesbury's
explanations, we should retract one line.
Lord Shaftesbury suffered a week to elapse
before he 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 mee ing 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
pos tive assertion, by .some strange process. Lord
Shaftesbury would convertiuto an insinuation that
he was present. On Tuesday a communication
from Lord Derby was published in the Times, and
in this the noble mil 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 ,:that he did not intend, directly or in-
directly, to convey the belief that I had attended
such a meeting (though if lie did not, I cannot com-
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 Derby "stated
that he attended the Sunday meeting; in his second
communication Lord Shaftesbury writes "intend,
directly, or indirectly, to convey the 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 have 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 variauc3 with his convictions ;
if Lord Shaftesbury believes them to be proper and
justifiable, why should he take such pains to prove
that lie was not present ? But for Lord Shaftes-
btu yto object to the new Sun—day movement, and
yet to endeavour to promote its objects, is a gross
piece of inconsistency, and it is this iich hangs
like a millstone round his lordship'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
crirninis, and the correspondence to which we have
referred induces us to believe that Lord Shaftes-
bury's conscience is not very easy on this point.