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

THE PRESS.

ROMISII TITLES AND PRETENSIoNs.
WHILE in the Irish journals we constantly read the
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 the 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 of %indent 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, at least, of the approlsation of their hero?
career in India, it is without a shadow of excuse, save At all 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 writing inwir, mid is „„ hell, in this iciimin„.,.., by the
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,),,, bay,. ,b.,.,.i,„1 us, we have seen
sial work on tither point, for the posthumous work yet-will letters 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 ins a4...nr„,.y, even in a literal sense; and, to Is
them with acclamation. entirely candid, it is 1411 4.4nittory to common belief
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 person or by proxy, that the proofs; we have offered
himself, and Wowed to by 31inisters of all parties— win be 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 Rim Ili, Duke. 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- conceive Sir Charles slid, through his brother. Hers
plaints, when in Portugal, of the Government of the is the difference on which our coromant was founded,
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 die 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.