The Press. — London, England, 1855-10-06 00:00:00

OCTOBER 6, 1855. considerations of humanity, is it true that the Russian force which withdrew from Sebas topol was really by that skilful retreat " degraded, dishonoured, and disgraced ?" Regarded from Mr. FRERE'S exalted military point of view, it would no doubt have been more satisfactory that the whole Russian force should have been hemmed in and slaughtered to a man. In the fervency of our warlike zeal we may regret that such was not the case, but regard for fact and sense will not allow us to reproach the Russians with the misfortune of their escape, nor to assert that the remaining garrison of Sebastopol was really degraded by the success of its last movement. It is in view that such services as that of Sunday last may, perhaps, be frequently re peated before the 'war is brought to a close that we make these remarks. We think Mr. FREER has allowed a sanguine temperament to carry him too far in his exultation, and that he has set an example by no means to be imitated. It may be the duty of a preacher on such occasions to animate the patriotism of the people, to encourage their fortitude, and to connect the prosecution of the war with principles of righteousness ; but it never can be his office to represent the army with which we are contending in the most odious and des picable light, or to regret after such a terrible slaughter as ensued on the memorable Bth of September that more blood was not shed, and that so great a number of our foes had the misfortune to escape. INJUSTICE OF THE "LEADING JOURNAL." DIMING the last week the fury of the Times at finding that everything is not done according to its orders is vastly amusing. When rage is kept up for a long time it ceases to be impres sive, and we almost suspect that it is simu lated. On Wednesday the Times was angry because there was a report that the Princess Royal was likely to be married, without the editor's permission; and on Thursday it was equally furious because certain officers of old renown were gazetted as Field Marshals ! In neither case was it first consulted by "the authorities." We are sure that many of its readers must have felt disgust at the way in which the Times on Thursday spoke of Lord STRAFFORD, Lord COMBERMERE, and Lord HARDINGE. At Hougoument, as through a long time pre viously, Lord STRAFFORD conferred distinction on his name, and he is never mentioned with out honour in military circles. Not to speak of his services elsewhere, Lord COMBERMERE was an able, vigilant, and energetic general in his Indian command. The Times, however, cares for none of these things. It even assails Lord HARDINGE as a general " not very eminent "in the field " ! Of course, it never heard of what Lord HARDINGE, when only a regimental officer, performed at Albuera, nor does it care for the Duke of WELLINGTON'S opinion on him. Indeed, so cheaply does the Times hold our English military reputation, that not long since it had the indecency to say that " English Generals were like American aloes, " and bloomed only once in a century." Did the Times ever hear of the names, not of MARLBOROUGH and WELLINGTON, but of officers whose talents for generalship held a deserved repute wherever military science and splendid exploits are respected? Is it to be pretended that mere fighting alone got us our Indian empire and Transatlantic possessions? The names of Sir EYRE COOTE, CLIVE, General WOI.FE, Sir THOMAS MUNRO, Sir RALPH ABER CROMBY, Sil JOHN MOORE, Marshal BERESFORD, Lord HILL, Sir GEORGE MURRAY, Sir CHARLES NAPIER, Sir EDWARD PAKENHAM, belong to those of officers who were " Generals" in their talents as well as heroes in their deeds. Some of them were singularly unfortunate in the circumstances in which they were placed, and more than one of them was subjected to cruel and unjust newspaper vituperation. With such a catalogue of distinguished names, we do not like the idea of an English journalist casting shame upon the military character of his native land. The most remarkable thing about the vitu peration of the Times is, that it generally ITHE PRESS. attacks the absent or the helpless. It rarely assails a Cabinet Minister, though it made a special exception in the case of Lord PALMERS TON. Are there no men in the present Ministry obnoxious to severe criticism? Is Lord PANMURE " the right man in the right " lace?" Is the Duke of ARGYLL a nobleman of any distinction beyond being hereditary M'CULLUM MORE, and a mere pretending sciolist in all that relates to the ologies 1 Is the health of Sir GEORGE GREY equal to the requirements of his arduous office ? Does Lord CRANWORTH make a Chancellor worthy of sitting where Lords ELDON, LYNDHURST, and ST. LEONARDS have dispensed equity? We submit that these are questions which the Times might consider as well as the reputa tions of professional military men. The worst of this continued abuse of all notabilities (except a favoured clique) is, that the practice has a tendency to make public characters callous to censure. Even when properly censured, they reply (or their friends for them), " Oh! what matter? See how " the Times was always abusing Lord PALMERS " TON, and he is now Prime Minister," and so forth. The practice, however, has its amusing aspect, and the ludicrous way in which the Times is always retrospectively wise, with the air of an oracle upon mischiefs too late to be remedied, is very droll. After the shower, it waters the garden. When the steed is stolen, it locks the stable. When the ship has foundered, it brings a chart of navigation. THE PAPACY AND IRELAND. FOR some time past the proceedings of the Roman Catholic Church in this country have ceased to attract much attention. The Czar, and not the Pope, the Krem lin, not the Vatican, have monopolised our discussion. Nevertheless, it would be a great error to suppose that the Roman Catholic Church has been idle, though we have heard of no noisy demonstrations from her agitators. The long sojourn of Mr. FRE DERICK LUCAS at Rome, the confessions of Mr. GAVAN DUFFY in his farewell to public life, and the publicity given to the vigorous measures by which Roman Catholic Bishops silenced some priestly agitators, along with many other circumstances within our knowledge, have convinced us that the Court of Rome is now intent on the inauguration of a new policy. We had no necessity for perusing the long statement of the Paris correspondent of the Times to awaken our attention to a fact which will demand vigilant examination. We believe that the rulers of the Irish Roman Catholic Church find that they have got all from " agitation " that could be gained. It enabled Rome to fight in Ireland with bands of ecclesiastical tribunes, who turned the altar into a platform, and rioted and ranted at elections with unpunished audacity. Ap parent influence for a time followed on such courses, but turbulence became monotonous. The priesthood forfeited its respectability and cast into bright relief the superior moral qua lities of the clergy of the Established Church. Hence, it has been thought wise by the rulers of the Roman Catholic Church to attempt an internal reform, and to assimilate the habits and manners of the Irish priests to the conti nental pattern. That they are resolved on doing so is certain ; but the Times corre spondent does not seem to be aware that some of the new Romish policy has already been put in force in Ireland. A more staid demeanour has been imposed on the priests in some dioceses. They have been taught by word and example of their superiors to assume a more strictly professional tone, and to avoid as much as possible all vulgarising associa tions. Thus, for example, the practice of " night weddings " has been abolished in several parishes. The priests of the old school were fond of marrying their parishioners at night. Beef, cabbage, and punch were swallowed with greater avidity at the evening hours. There was more jollity ; and in pro portion as the Paddies were softened by the whisky, in the same degree were their sub scriptions strengthened when the priest went round the room to collect his dues. Scenes of a most indecorous character often resulted from such habits. O'KEEFFE'S famous charac ter of Father Luke in the Poor Soldier was no 948 caricature of the Irish priest of the modern school. But it is now proposed to raise a school of practical Jesuits—sly, subtle, and wary. not prone to electioneering or strong potations ; less " Irish," and more Romanist ; intent on divinity, and indifferent about " nationality ;" not openly factious, though covertly formidable to England ; ready for the crafty work of propagandism with the silken smoothness of their specious logic and in• sinuating manners. The question, however, is a practical one— " Whether a refined Romanist clergy, disci " plined by the Jesuits, and made suitable for " Dr. CULLEN'S convenience, will work in " Ireland ? Will Rome gain or lose in Ireland " by such a policy?" We do not think that it is at all so clear that the new kind of clergy would be " popu lar " amongst their flocks, who have been ac customed to a rattling, jocose, and familiar priesthood, whose Hibernian temperament was not depressed by the artificial rules of the continental clergy. The coarse manners and gross tone of the Irish priests kept them on a social level with their parishioners, and vastly increased their personal powers. Each man amongst them was hand and glove with his flock, eating, drinking, and making freo with them on all possible occasions. Generally of humble birth, his arrogant pretensions and his fierce tone of aggressiveness, and his vulgar self-sufficiency, were reserved for the Protestants (with whom ho could not consort), or for the " respectable Catholics," who tole rated, or superciliously patronised, his pre• Renee. We are not sure whether even the faults of the priest of the old school did not render him more socially powerful amongst a community where the gentry of his persuasion were few in numbers, and where the middle class was not intelligent or large. The Roman Catholic Church has of late years made several false moves, which have practically demonstrated the absurdity of its claims to infallibility. We would not be surprised if this project of rearing a Wisemanian clergy in Ireland should turn out to be one of the greatest fallacies of Propaganda. We shall be glad if such should prove to be the case. By a providential dispensation of events, social causes have of late years mate rially invigorated the power and extended the action of Protestantism in Ireland. The mind of the country has been opened, and delusions on many subjects have been dis pelled. The age of demagogism has passed away, and a course of social prosperity and practical mode of thinking has commenced. The hearty applause given to the recent manly speech of Lord STANLEY in Tipperary con clusively demonstrates how changed is the tone of society in Ireland It is not at such a time, we think, that the Vatican will find it useful to put all people more on their guard than ever against the wiles of intriguing Jesuits, or the schemes of ambitious " Legates or " Cardinals." In another point of view, however, it is worth remarking that Dr. CULLEN has, by his intended policy, given a strong testimony against the Maynoothian clergy. If May nooth has worked well, why the necessity for ' all these changes? Why this late interference against an electioneering clergy ? Why all this newborn horror of politics ? Two millions of Roman Catholics have been struck off by famine, the exodus to America, and the emigra tion to the colonies. America has raised its voice against the arrogant claims of Rome ; and at such a moment Dr. CULLEN finds it wise to change tactics altogether, and strive to sup port his Church by a priesthood trained on different models from that followed' at May nooth. We shall not be surprised if his pro ceedings result in a serious schism amongst the Irish Romanist priests, with all the boasted " unity " of' their Church. There are symptoms amongst them of heartburnings and bitter jealousies, and some of the shrewdest feel that their Church is in serious danger of sure, though gradual, extinction in this realm. We doubt whether such men, recollecting the influence which they have wielded in bygone times, will be likely to submit to the new scheme which has so long occupied the atter.. tion of some influential chiefs amongst the Roman Catholic clergy. i E~