The Press. — London, England, 1857-11-07 00:00:00

THE PRESS, NOVEMBER 7, 1857. tools of the Company there. He is also the Premier who destroyed the Anglo-Indian press ; who refused compensation to the Indian sufferers ; who has sanctioned the alsification of all our sources of intelligence from that unhappy country; who has saddled it with Lord CANNING and with Mr. VERNON SMITH ; and who has authorised and is responsible for all the blunders that these in capable instruments of his have made. With such a catalogue of sins of his own to fling in his face, wo are not surprised to hear that the Company are Inclined to snap their fingers at Lord PALMERSTON, and that he is already beginning to think discretion the better part of valour, as is his custom on all occasions when he is boldly met. Meantime, we look anxiously for what con corns us more than these intrigues—the news that is coming to us by the approaching mail. THE ORANGEMEN OF IRELAND. WE cannot possibly overlook the fact that the recent movements initiated by the Orangemen in the north of Ireland are of a most dangerous character. We should much regret if the Protestant strength of Ireland wasted itself in intestine feuds, and we most earnestly depre cate any course of conduct which would cause permanent division amongst the Irish Protes tants. We must, also, caution the leaders of the Orange body to beware how they may be playing the game of the enemies of the Protestant Church. Intriguing Ministerial ists and levelling Radicals are most anxious to make Orangeism a bugbear with the English public. They are determined to make capital out of the revival of Orangeism, and they exult in the attempt to revive an institution which recalls an exploded system of government in Ireland. Sixty years ago, and later, the Orange institution had a decided local utility. A large portion of the Protestants of Ireland had become infected with the revolutionary mania of those times. Jacobinism had deeply tainted the north of Ireland, and in no part of the island had the " Umited Irishmen " such formidable supporters as in Ulster. The " United Irish Society " was confessedly one of the most fearful conspiracies of modern times. It united some Churchmen, many Presbyterians, and swarms of Romanists in one tremendous league against the Nlonarchy and the Empire. Its founders invoked the national passions of Ireland with extraordinary intensity, and all means were employed of exasperating the popular passions. Protes tants of rank and influence, and professional men with high prospects, allowed themselves to be carried away with the revolutionary frenzy of those days. Lord EDWARD Faz e ERA I.D. the Honourable SIMON BUTLER, BEAUCHAMP BAG): NAL HARVEY, ARTHUR tYCONNOR, the SHEARSES, the EMMETT% WILLIAM NEILSON, and many more, were all Protestants, and several gentlemen of birth and station were hanged as traitors from 1797 to 1803. In such terrible times, with the French Revolution raging abroad, we can understand bow the authorities of those days tolerated the Orange institution as a counteracting cower to the secret confederacy of the United Irishmen. Ireland had an absentee aris tocracy ; the Established Church in those days was not filled with a resident clergy of such high moral character as now minister at her altars ; and the social system was en dangered in various directions. In those times the policy of the Orange institution was ob vious and intelligible, in spite of its inherent taint of being unconstitutional. But with the Imperial Union a great change took place. With the extension of our power in India a demand was made for an enlarged army, which was recruited largely from Ireland ; and iu order to carry the Union it was necessary to have an arrangement with the Roman Catholics of Ireland. But to pre serve and cherish Orangeism, and at the same time to advocate "Emancipation" would have been absurd and impossible. Authority, gradually declined to sanction " Orangeisin; and the institution stood condemned in the general opinion of the Conservative body of the empire, and was dissolved nearly twenty years ago. Is it not most inopportune and inexpedient to dream of reviving it ? To the general argument against the revival of Orangeism we have little to add to the masterly argument of the Dublin Daily Express. There are, indeed, many considera tions which, we think, must disincline Con servatives from sanctioning a revival of such a peculiar institution. Is it not on account of its secrecy that we all dislike the " Vote by Ballot "? Is not the Conservative argument against " Ballot" always pointed to the constitutional right of publicity ? The Judicature exercises its duties in open court; the jurors and the accused face each other. Parliament does not close its doors, like the Orange body, and the records of what occurs there circulate freely round the land. Even the visitors of the Queen's pri vate Court are proclaimed aloud, and it is not too much to say that a system of secret politics is utterly abhorrent to the British Constitution. It is enough to cloud the influ ence of all those who take part in delibera tions which cannot bear the light. But it may be said by the advocates of an Orange revival, " True, we agree with your " general views, but have the Romanists no " secret conclaves, no organised influences in " the dark? Have they no Jesuits, no frater• " nities governed by `directors; lio religious " freemasonry of their own ?" To this we anwer that the secrecy of the Romish system is one of the main causes why there exists such well-founded and patriotic prejudice against the Church of Rome. It is on account of the secret mechanism of that Church, and the way in which its priests and laity are used as mere puppets, whose wiles are pulled by invisible fingers, that there exists such un conquerable objection to it in the minds of the people of this realm. Its secret system of do mestic espionage (we rejoice that there is not one English word for the " spy system "j, by means of auricular confession, is also inex pressibly distasteful to the people of this realm; and why should Orangemen adopt the means and modus operandi which have caused such prejudice against the Church of Rome? But though we see strong political objec tions of the gravest character to a revival of the Orange body, we are strongly opposed to a system of insulting its adherents, or join ing in a cry of absolute proscription against its ill-judging but well-meaning supporters. So highly did the present Secretaryfor Foreign Affairs estimate the value of the Orangemen in 1848, that Lord CLARENDON, when Vice roy at Dublin Castle, was glad to receive private deputations from them, and to accept their particular assistance. Money and arms were given by Lord CLARENDON to the Orange men, and though it was denied that the money was from the public funds, yet the fact is in disputable that a most cordial countenance was given by the Earl Of CLARENDON when the Noble Lord was alarmed iu 1848. In fact, we believe that no other person has done so much for the revival of the Orange institution as the Earl of CLARENDON. As Protestants and Conservatives, we think the revival of the Orange institution both in judicious in policy and impracticable in fact. It could only be effective in a portion of Ulster, and it could have no utility at all in Munster and Connaught. Even if got up on a small scale, it would be used as a great bug bear by the enemies of the Church of Ireland; and we think that the Orangemen would only be playing the game of their adversaries. But we shall raise our voices against the plan which soma (not all) of the present Ministers wish to pursue towards them ; and in face of the deep committal of Lord CLARENDON with the Orange men in 1848, we do not think that the Cabinet will be so ill-advised as to inaugurate a system of positive insult and official despotism to the Orangemen of Ulster. Even the Laily News has exclaimed against the ungrammatical and unconstitutional missive from Lord Chancellor BRADY; and if the present Ministerial crusade be continued, it is plain to all men that the recent magisterial appointments of Lord 1075 Chancellor BRADY, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, must come under rigid examination in detail. TORYISM AND ITS TRADUCERS. NOTHING is easier than to frame an arbitrary ' definition, and then to deduce perfectly con- , sistent, yet purely imaginary, conclusions. The Liberal Cabinet is so well aware of its own mediocrity that it scarcely affects to claim the confidence of the country on the ground of its superior merit. Its policy is never very zealously defended by any of its abler organs. The ridicule which attends the efforts of those injudicious friends who take a contrary course is, we suppose, a sufficient warning. A far safer course is the depreciation of opponents ; and such have for some time been the tactics of tile more wary adherents of the Whig Libe ral connection. They know that the public will tire in time of the profound PALMERSTON, the eloquent LEWIS, the quick-witted WOOD, the patriotic PANMURE, and the modest merit of ARGYLE—ARISTIDES must not be called just. too often ; but they know right well that man kind is never tired of the opposite extreme, and we are seldom, therefore, surprised at any misrepresentations of Tories or Toryism which we meet with in contemporary journals. Yet we must confess that for once we have been astonished—astonished even to admiration— at the exquisite impudence with which a recent writer upon the Birmingham Congress under takes to assure the world that Tories are never found on the side of social amelioration —for that is only another name, after all, for social science. Now, even if we meet our opponents on their own ground, and admit that Toryism is synonymous with absolutist theories of government—which, we must remember, is the old notion of Toryism in the public mind— the shallowness of the asser tion is pretty manifest. Despotic Governments have always found the diffusion of material comfort one of their most powerful auxiliaries. But denying as we do that Toryism means anything of the kind, we would beg our candid critic to look for one moment to facts. Were not some of the leading promoters of the Birmingham Congress Tories? Did not Lord Defter, on taking office in 1852, espe cially give out that the work of a Conservative Ministry would be found to lie in social reform ? And since that time have not some of the leading men in reformatory and educa tional movements appeared in the Conserva tive ranks? If passion and prejudice must still rule political warfare, let us at least retain our old English character for truth and honour. Let us not scatter reckless asper sions on whole bodies of mut which we know, and all the world knows, to be false. Which no per-version of intellect, no crooked ness of perception, can possibly make us think true—and which it requires consider able faith in either the credulity or malignity of Englishmen to pen and publish. The affectation of judging all Tories by the standard of' Sir CHARLES WETHERALL, is just as disingenuous as it would be in ourselves to estimate all Reformers by the standard of Tom PAINE or FEAROUS O'CONNOR. The truth is, that never was anything more fallacious than this talk about Tories being stationary and Liberals progressive. What do these adjectives mean? We will answer our own questions by, in the first place, asking another. What does constitutional govern ment mean, and tte English Constitution in particular? Does it not mean an aggregate of laws and institutions so nicely balanced as to afford the maximum of liberty with the mini mum of licence, and the maximum of autho rity with the minimum of interference ? or something like it, would, we think, be gent rally admitted as a fair definition. Now, the aim of Conservatives is to keep this machine together —to hand it down through the suc cessive stages of national life with all its parts entire—to repair it when necessary, but to see that such repairs are adjusted to the rest of the machinery and do not impede its opera tion. Nay, more, we would go so far as to say that Conservatives would prefer the con- 'IIII I