The Press. — London, England, 1853-11-05 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 5, 1853. dismantle your ships, they exelaim ; who wants soldiers who's afraid " ? they gaily and merrily ask ; and the question is intended to create, and generally does create. a laugh. Funny rogues! who can resist their facetious ness" But we answer and in sorrowful earnest—the master inanufactitrers of Pres ton. Wigan. anti Blackburn are afraid, and with good reason ; anti they want soldiers to ensure to them and their property that safety which trey risked and lost by their own miserable parsimony : which parsimony, in their madness. Messrs. COBDEN anti Batton would, if they had their will. and practised what they preached, apply on a grander wale. to be followed by a catastrophe more appalling. MR. DAM lAN AND IRISH INDUSTRY. HITHERTO failure has been so often associated with I r ish projects, that we may well rejoice at the an nounced success of the bold and public. spirited pro position of Mr. Patinas. Vast crowds from all parts of the empire visited the Exhibition, and, unlike the case of the Americans at New York, the Irish kept their words punctually with exhibitors and the country. The building itself was very beautiful ; in its erection the industrious energies of Irishmen were employed ; Protestants and Catholics, Impe rialists and Bepealers, were seen rejoicing together at a triumph which reflected honour on them all. But far superior even to these advantages one great fact results from the Exhibition. In the fame and honour won by Mr. Dainty.; the mass of the Irish people behold a conspicuous example how utterly false were those self-styled "national leaders " who, with equal ignorance and injustice, have as serted that Irishmen cannot win honours under the British empire. Without political influence—with out the aid of metnber4 of Parliament, or popular eOquelc?—the Irish have seen one of themselves honoured in a manner al ogether beyond precedent. They have beheld the Sovereign visiting at his private dwelling an Irishman who had no other advantages than the capacity to raise himself by his superior industry. integrity, and good sense. Compared with such brilliant success, the petty promotions of political adventurers look paltry and commonplace; and the public honours won by Mr. Dainty; disenchant "agitation" of its fascinating spells. HOW high an Irishman can attain by being loyal and industrious is now popularly known. The triumphs of industry have eclipsed the bubbles of Milesian imagination. The worker stands erect and honoured, pointing to a happy futurity ; the agitator, cowering and crest fallen, shudders at the dreariness of the past, to whose social horrors he was a principal contributor. Our only regret connected with the Dublin Exhi bition is one to which we have heard utterance given by Irishmen of opposite parties. Brilliant as the Exhibition was, it would have been still more so if the Irish Government bad been more genially repro rented, as it would have been if Lord and Lady Eta.ticros occupied the Viceregal posts of honour. Various opportunities, which were lost for want of tact and skill in addressing mixed audiences, would have been taken advantage of by Lord EOLINTON, with that winning grace and manly eloquence which, with other qualities, gained for him a personal popularity denied to his predecessors, and not con tinued to his follower in office. The brilliancy of Lord I.7.eilicrois's court would have saved the Vice royalty from being so completely overshadowed by a commoner. LORI) CLONCCRRY, THE LAST OF THE AGITATORS. I x the modern history of Ireland the word " Agitator " is specially applicable to the politicians identified with the " Catholic Association" and the " Repeal " bubble. The late Lord CLoNcranv, whose death we record elsewhere. may he considered the last " leader " of that particular class. Fond of popularity, and not a little vain of his aristocratic rank, he pursued a line of polities which rendered him alternately obnoxious to the friends of order and to the mercenary fomenters of discord. Like some of his more eminent contem poraries, be was for several years a constant target for most virulent attacks from the late Mr. O'Coxst.f.L. Ills intentions were, in the main, worthy, but his con duct was often highly injudicious. At an advanced period of his life he dictated his " Memoirs "—a volume containing several "revelations "—against the publi cation of which good taste should have protested. The work is ill-compiled and very inaccurate, and will not secure its writer a high place amongst "noble authors." The successor to the title has followed a more guarded course in politics than the late rer ; and, as he is universally respected by all parties, the titlo of Cloncurry will lose no lustre in its trantaniaeiou, THE PRESS. ROMISII TITLES AND PRETENSIoNs. WHILE in the Irish journals we constantly read th e term "Lord Bishop," applied to the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics of episcopal rank, it is remarkable that in the United States the clergy of Rome are not see designated. Thee last Taidet, in its account of roll. gious ceremonies in Newhaven and Kentucky, speaks simply of the " Bishop of 80wr0%," and " Bishop of Libuisviii.E." The Yankees have , often been re proached by European critics as being addicted tee tuft-hunting. and their love of tides is notorious. It would appear, however, that they have no liking for spurious " whose letters patent are dated from the Vatican. The foreign correspondence Of the Tablet often contains striking statements as to the true spirit of Roman Catholicism where it rules without a rival. There is much significance in at , followinv passage, which we find in the letter of " Our Madrid Correspondent," in the biers last number : " The Protestant burial ground eontitmes to be' a matter of debate in the Queen's comfit and in the public prints : an enclosed piece of ground has been granted ; but, not• withstanding the exhortations of the Liberals of this is • try. it is to Is hoped that the public exervise of heretical worship will not he allowed in a kingdom where the people fortunately know not even the meaning of t he word rho. testantism." chi! authorities with whom I hese Dent 4. The Kites' Ministers have OW little claim upon sae as the Court of Directors." _ . Now mark the difference of position. At that pe riod the Iron I►nke " hail been made a Knight ot the Bath— then a far higher honour than now. Its hail received without stint the thanks of Parliament, and had a large party in the Parliament ready to de fend and slipport him against his enemies ; and tin/ did support him, and a very few yearn afterwards gave him the command which led to such lame and fortune•. Sir Napier, having ' , smelly the same grounds of complaint, and greater claims than the duke had at that time, had no party--no, not even a single member—in Parliament to defend or support him against ill-usage of the grossest kinif—shuidet, neglect, injustice, the thanks of Parliament withheld for a tear, and every indication o f % i n d e nt enmity. Non the part of the I►irectors and the Queen's Mini.- ter;--yet he made no complaint, and the duke did! if the writer of the notice be a mere seller of phrases, without regard to truth, these observations will he t brown away,thut his remarks will them he of no oiaiequenee; if he is, as I ►aelieve, a well-intentioned critic, he will find that he has too lightly drawn a false conclusion. WILLIAM NAPIER. October :11, Sir NA Mem Napier is justly entitled to the insertion ' his letter in these pages, for, apart from his —oirteous presumption in favour of the critic of Sir Charlea Napier, *lnch se are proud to acknowledge, he has other claims which se at once defer to. His challenge of our criticism—" Should this have been writte tof a des ma i without the support of facts r—mitst be t &Ain distributively, because, of course, without the support of facts, nothing sl hi he written, either of the dead or the living. As suming, then, that the two implied questions are separated, to the first—Sl hi this have been written of a dead man'—we reply, the duty of writing explicitly what we thought was east upon WI by the friends and relatives of the late distiuguntiosi general, who, by puhlishing a posthumous vindication, invited a posthin 11111 l s criticism. Whether the whole THE LATE SIR CHARLES NAPIER. truth should, in every instance, be spoken of a great Ti) THE EDIToR OF " Till ellss." Man when the grave has freshly closed over him is a Sir,—The writer of the notice in your journal upon questi 111 l of taste and feeling which depends upon en-- the late Sir C. Napier's posthumous work is multi- cumstances; but, if it is ever legitimate to speak the ciently able, and in most points impartial enough, to truth, it is so in this instance, where a padlinmonts call for a refutation of a very ill-founded conclusion. toirered 14 S' 1101111111111‘ W Isieli,ir erroneous, line at at which he has arrived on false data. lie says , "NO work is ill treatment, no liSlieTS . s, would have extorted least of his surviving relatives is known to be so cos • from the ' Iron Duke' mitten words of angry cos indent and zealous to confute. plaint, while his rival loved to wage war with the pen The double tneation from this point of view, as well as with the sword." is reduced to lids: were the statement* of our Should this have been written of a dead man with reviewer made " without the support of facts "? The out the support of facts? Yet facts are entirely op- writer says, Sir Chitties " never entered into contro posed to the writer, and sound conclusion also, even versy, 4Cc.," whirls is truer, we conceive, in the letter though the facts had been snore sufficing fur his in- than the spirit. If Sir Charles did not actually publish foresee. his own vindication, does any one mimosa. that the hooka First, if his remark as to " loving contention with int Slink would have been written without a morsi *ti the pen "be applied to any part of Sir C. Napier's „ mince , a t l eas t, of the approlsation of their hero? career in India, it is without a shadow of excuse, save At a ll events, he who allows his nearest relative to that the writer may have been misled by the shame- ante in his defence, with his cognisance, or without less falsehoods of the dead general's assailants. lie his disavowal, may fairly be In-ld reamoosilde for II a never entered into any controversy regarding either wr i t i ng i nw ir, mi d i s „„ hell, i n this i c iimin „.,.., b y t h e his government of Scintle, or Isis chief military cow- ~„1 „ , 11111 l consent of the public. Independently of mans of India. lie never published any controver- This, ashes our 5 , ) ,,, b a y,. ,b.,.,.i,„1 us, we have seen sial work on tither point, for the posthumous work y et -wil l l e tters in the newspaper*, signed by Sir reviewed has been published by his friends ; and was, Charles Napier, and particularly one, reflecting upon as indeed it is declared in the book itself, written Sir J. W. llogk, which substantiates the opinion ex solely as an explanation due tothe people of Englanat pressed by our reviewer, end essay h 0 vouchers ti r to account for his resigning a command bestowed by i n s a4 ... nr „,. y , even in a literal sense; and, to Is them with acclamation. entirely candid, it is 1411 4.4nittory to common b e li e f Let us come to the" Iron Duke." When that greet that any smiler of the remarkable family to which mats had received a dukedom from the Sovereign, Sir Charles belonged could be subjected to any forty thousand a year from the country—when he presumed injustice without a vigorous retort, either was placed at the head tor the army, was a Minister in p e rson or by proxy, that the proofs; we have offered himself, and Wowed to by 31inisters of all parties— w in b e husked upon as superfluous. when, in fine, lie was on the pinnacle of fame, of As to the maul orison drown between Sir Charles passer, and of riches, to complain would have been Ri m I l i , D u k e . It is, perhaps, not accurate to say ridiculous. What had be to complain of ? But that the latter never complained, but 'tilt complaint* in earlier times was he silent when wronged' were addressed to the Government or to private Read his letter upon hieing removed from the friends, not to the public. He never appealed to the promised command of the expedition to Egypt people, t hrough the press, on 114.11014 his claims, as we by the Red Sea. Read his continual and bitter cos- co nceive Sir Charles slid, through his brother. Hers plaints, when in Portugal, of the Government of the is the difference on which our coromant was f o unded, day as to personal ill.tr. atment. Finally, read the though we allow that its meaning was not defined following letter, dated homely, Isn't, published in with sufficient clearness. Earl De Grey's " Characteristics," page 53 : We did not attempt to pronounce an opinion on "in regard to staying longer, the question is exactly the merits of any of the controversies in which Sir whether the court of Directors or the King's Ministers Charles was involved ; while in other respects the have any claim upon me to remain for a great length of standard by wh eh we tried him is, from out point ot time in this country I have served d i e cempany in im• view, a proof of our high estimation of his qualities portant 44 itnatiutsai for many years, anti have never received When we compared the Hero of Seinde with the anything lan injury from the Court 44 Directors, although Hero of Waterloo, anti in one respect only dinaivan- I am it singular itistawe of an officer who has 54.11'4141 under tageously to the former, we offered, with a sin all the Governments ; and there is not a single instance on record, or in any private correspondence, of disapprobation verity to which we any fairly accept Sir Williams of any one of my sets :or of *simile complaint, or even testimony, the beat tribute in our power to a great a symptom of ill-taaper, from any oats of the political or nias.—EiWor of Passe. THE SCOTCH ORIEVANCES.-MEETING Xl' EIPINIWIt6II. Ix another part of the paper will be found an account of an important meeting of " The National Associa tion for the Vindication of Scottish Rights." We have inserted ns notch of the report as our limits would allow, !sully because we consider our Scottish friend►► have been unfairly dealt with, but chiefly be cause the proceedings of a meeting over which Lord Kot.tx•rox, support►•d by Sir Aucutti.o.o AusoN and l'rufessor Avrot . N N. presided, merit every attention. Without entering now upon the arguments advanced, we may state that there appears to us, on a cursor perusal of the speeches, to be gr►unds for complaint which deserve further examination. I