The Press. — London, England, 1857-10-17 00:00:00

the foundation for the restoration of tran quillity over the plains of Bengal, without the introduction of that dangerous Sikh and Ghoorka element, since so helplessly em ployed. Our inaction during those months lost us many valuable lives, and will yet cost us millions of treasure, and torrents of blood. To the native mind, ignorant of our resources, we appeared to be torpid from despair. The slothful, dilatory conduct of our Government gave that strength and apparent stability to the rebels' causo, which, rendering them daring and ferocious, drenched India in Christian blood, and produced atrocities at which the world will shudder to the end of time. But her Majesty's Ministers enjoyed as great a natural antipathy to promptitude and de cision as they expresled contempt for saga city and foresight. They would not see the difference between the riot of a populace and the convulsion of a kingdom. They would not use the Isthmus of Suez for the transport of their troops. " It is attended," said Lord PatmEasToN, " with too much trouble, " inconvenience, and expense." They would not increase the permanent strength of the country so as to enable her to preserve her reputation unsullied. "I do not think "—we again quote Lord PALMERSTON (July 18, speech, House of Commons)—" I do not think that the services " of the Militia are at all required, and I (do) " think it would be a very unadvisable pro " ceeding to call them out." They would not employ steam vessels in preference to sailing tubs for the transport of their troops by way of the Cape. "It is quite a mistake," said Sir CHARLES WOOD (July 18th), alluding to the employment of steamers for the rapid trans port of troops, " to suppose that steamers are " preferable to sailing vessels." No, they would do none of these things. That vast application of science to the purposes of war, whether we regard it at the I sthmus of Suez or in the hulls of our ships, and which has distinguished us above the nations of the world, was useless to us at a moment pregnant with peril. The Government declined its employment : they preferred depending on the winds to save an empire. This, then, is what they have done for the succour of those struggling demigods in India. They hare violated every principle of pru dence and policy by first stamping their mea sures with the vice of inadequacy, and then by persevering from day to day, and from month to month, in trusting to the " despe rate die " whose successes could win for us only a barren though glorious safety, and whose failure in a single cast may over whelm us with a terrible misfortune. LORD CARLISLE AND HIS S CHANCELLOR. THE recent letter of Lord Chancellor BRADY to the Marquis of LONDONDERRY is a very re markable document. Regarded as the pre lude to a new system, the inauguration of a new policy, it possesses an importance and an interest which cart scarcely be exaggerated. In one point of view, especially, it appears to us that the decree of the Irish Government deserves the strongest censure. It has been decided at Dublin Castle that no one con nected with an Orange association is capable of exercising magisterial functions. For the future such persons are to be rigidly excluded from the Commission of the Peace, as dan gerous members of society, fomenting discord and encouraging illegality. This is in sub stance the last of the many notable edicts with which Lord CARLISLE has illustrated his Vice regal career. The first aspect in which we are led to consider this measure is the particular time chosen for its adoption. Of all periods that could have been selected, the present was the most impolitic and inopportune. Had the course now determined upon become im peratively necessary—had its wisdom been admitted and its justice acknowledged by rHE PRESS, OCTOBER 17, 1857. all classes of society and all bodies of reli gionists, we believe that to have pursued it at this conjuncture would have been most imprudent and inequitable. For whence proceeds this bitter crusade against Orangeism ? It is no sudden impulse, uncon nected with and dissociated from contempo rary events, but, on the contrary, is the result of a particular view of the recent disturbances at Belfast. The Government appoints a Com mission to institute a close and searching in. quiry into the origin of those disturbances Such a step would have been useless and absurd, had there been no occasion for an investigation at once stringent and impartial. Amid such conflicting reports and such diver sified opinions, it became requisite to collect and weigh the evidence as a preliminary to an adjudication upon it. This is, at all events, the most favourable way of explaining the appointment of this Commission ; and if it was not nominated in this spirit and for this ob ject, it was a mockery and a farce! But what has the Irish Government done in the matter? It has deliberately superseded its own agents, anticipated their report, and prejudged their decision. For ourselves, we never thought that any solid good could bo effected by such machinery as that employed at Belfast. We know that such expedients have this as their characteristic, that they aro only resorted to as a mode of escape from a difficulty. The Ministry which is unwilling or afraid to act assumes an appearance of fairness and candour by promoting a long and elaborate inquiry, in the majority of cases tending rather to mystify than elucidate the subject, and at the same time avoids pledging itself to accept the result as binding and con clusive. But this could not have been Lord CARLISLE'S opinion of the nature and effect of his Commission—this we aro bound to assume in all honesty. What is it, then, which has changed his opinion and reconciled him to the repudiation of his own act? Lawlessness and bloodshed have of late disgraced Belfast, and who is to be adjudged responsible? Before the trial is concluded and the verdict delivered the sentence is passed ! Lord CAR LISLE'S profession of doubt as to the origin of these riots was a feigned and a delusive pro fession ; for, through his Lord Chancellor, he has fastened the stigma of guilt upon the Orangemen, and the Orangemen alone ! We say nothing now as to the expediency of these Orange societies which have been ostracised—that is a distinct and separate question, to be treated on its own merits. But what a time for disseminating the idea that Irish Protestantism is distasteful to the Irish Executive ! What a time for leading Irish Protestants to suppose that they are objects of suspicion and distrust! For, let it be disguised as it may, this decree is regarded as a blow to Irish Protestantism, and as such will be hailed with rapturous glee by the Romanists. We should imagine that such a determined measure would almost conciliate the Nation newspaper, and induce it to chuckle with more temperate satisfaction over the disasters and misfortunes of England ! It is verily some thing to have held out the olive branch to Irish sepoyism, and to give a colour to the notion that it is Protestantism alone which to Dublin Castle is a stumbling-block and an offence. But we are anxious to learn when this war of extermination against Orange magistrates is to be followed up by a war with Ribbonism, with Tenant Leagueism, and all the kindred evils with which Ireland is afflicted.. When is it to be decided that priestly interference and priestly intimidation are inimical to the liberties of the subject, are subversive of law, and productive of violence? WLea is it to be decreed that such men as Mr. KEOOH are not fit to be on the Bench, even though they abjure their Ribl onism, when they receive its reward? When is it to be understood that the John Reynoldses of society are not 'proper recipients of the magisterial office, though they are the pet candidates of a Protestant Ministry? Lord CARLISLE has the credit of an amiable disposition and a crateful style ; but if he persists in such jobbery for political pur poses, not all his social amenity, nor all his 1003 polished speeches, will savo his administration from the charge of being a reproach to his party and a calamity to his country. POLITICIANS UNDER GLASS. IF unattached politicians should choose to live under glass, it ought to be one of their household maxims never to throw stones. Indeed, we would recommend to such people that they should copy the example of the late Duke of WET.LINGTON, and put up iron blinds to secure them against volleys of missiles in return for any ponderous projectiles which they may have the temerity to cast from their crystal " castle." When, for example, we read in a weekly organ, a few days since, the attack made simultaneously on Mr. DISRAELI, Sir BULWER LYTTON, and Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, we were rather surprised at its rashness. The coarse language and vulgar vituperation aimed at Mr. DISRAELI are damaging only to those who employ it. Such attacks can proceed only from inveterate malice, or from the mere wan tonness of mischief. It is possible that the latter reason is the true cause of such a profit less display of personal virulence. An impo sition, in the shape of a hard task, is inflicted on schoolboys ; and we must set a lesson before these stonethrowers, and we must request them to construe it, and learn it accu rately by heart. These mischievous parties ought not to for get that they were the identical persons who wrote up the poor Duke of NEWCASTLE. (By the way, what hos become of him ?1 They told the British public that the Duke of NEWCASTLE had the highest order of administrative abili ties, and that nature and art alike combined to make him fit for the chief of a Parliamen tary connection. They vilified Lord DEBBY and his friends, while they bepraised the Duke of NEW:A.4I*LE ; they kept a large stock of ' invectives and panegyrics on hand ; they esta blished a great factory for the wholesale com position of literary treacle and vitriolic the ' tonic : Railing and praising were their usual themes; And both to show their judgment in extremes, So over-violent or over-civil, That every man with them was God or devil. For a time the system worked well for the Duke of NEWCASTLE. His Grace was perpe tually advertised as a great statesman. The Whigs could not any longer manage the Irish Roman Catholics, but the Duke of NEW CASTLE could do so. And a pretty manage ment his Grace and his friends made of their political affairs ! They set up JOHN SADLEIR, a third-class attorney, without capital or cha racter, for a statesman. They made EDMUND O'FLAHERTY one of the two Commissioners for the Irish Income Tax; they chose the pure minded Mr. STONOR for a high judicial office in the colonies ; they selected Mr FRANCIS LAwLEY for--shall we go on ? No. We shall not do so. We do not think that any practical utility, or high public purpose, could be attained by dwelling on the detestable scandals associated with the followers of the Duke of NEWCASTLE. We have no taste for " exposures," and we have always opposed the system which aspires to extract political capital from individual scandals. Yet should this literary stone throwing be continued, it may become necessary for us to take sharper and severer notice of it than we are now disposed to do. Political criticism is one thing ; personal libelling is another. The rabid vitu peration which says that " Mr. DISRAELI was " never the advocate of one good cause," is a gross reflection on the memory of Sir ROBERT PEEL, and on the characters of men like Lord DERBY, SW JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. GLADSTONE, and other eminent statesmen, seeing that for many years Mr. DISRAELI was associated with those distinguished persons in advocating what appeared to them to be " a good cause." ! To assert that Mr. DISRAELI " entered public life with no public object " is a mean imputa • tion, not above the level of the most scurrilous dealers in electioneering garbage. And other