The Press. — London, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

570 " TORIA, and burlesqued the part of a lillipu " tian Cromwell, and ordered public works to " be done in his own name, without consent of " Queen or Parliament. It was while residing " in this street also that HALL got into angry " collision with his Marylebone friends, " whom he offended by the majestical air " which ho assumed after his verbal associa " tion with the family of the Medici. He had " previously been connected with the " Waddingtons. Here, also, he lived while " engaged in his Vandal assaults upon the " public gardens of St. James's-park. It is " only by the irreparable injury inflicted on " the Queen's gardens that HALL'S name is " now preserved. It was supposed that in his " fantastic ambition he desired to become a " Peer. But he had to content himself with " the patent of ' Magnificence,' humorously " bestowed on him by Lord MALMESBURY. " Opposite to where the Marylebone dema " gogue lived is the house (now much " altered) where a public man of a different " stamp resided, Lord RAGLAN." But we shall not go farther with the Peter Cunningham of a century hence. We return to the con sideration of Sir BENJAMIN HALL as he is now. Unquestionably Sir BENJAMIN HALL, all jokes apart, is an extraordinary character in his small parochial way. He is emphatically a " representative man," and presents the finest example of a metropolitan member who shakes hands with some thousands of the " people." An ex-demagogue in office, he is a capital specimen of a silent and salaried sup porter of Official Liberalism. Towards Sir BENJAMIN HALL himself we have not the least antipathy ; to us Sir BENJAMIN HALL has often been a source of infinite amusement. We have seen and heard him in the House of Commons while engaged in " Ben-Hailing" English bishops and Irish landlords. We have smiled at him while he was earning his first title of " Sir Benjamin Brawl." We have laughed at his laborious efforts to kindle a big bonfire for roasting a Puseyite curate. We have wit nessed his heroic rage while trying to give utterance to the petty passions of a vestry. We have noticed the difference between his demagogic pulsations when he had no chance and when he had some chance of a place under the Ministry. His silence under the Coalition, when the army was rotting in the Crimea, his cautious avoidance of anything which could commit him, or nip the strawberry-leaves on a panto post futuro coronet—all the small acts and platform genuflections which exposed him in Parliament to the dislike of many and the mockery of more could not fail to invest Sir BENJAMIN HALL with exquisite absurdity. He is a Radical born for promotion in the official Gazette, and for " laughter" in the Parliamentary reports. In order properly to appreciate the felicity of Lord MALMESBURY'S patent of precedence given to " Sir Benjamin the Magnificent," it would be necessary to see Sir BENJAMIN called out in the lobby by some of his Marylebone friends. The door-keeper, without meaning anything satirical, cries, "'Who wants Sir BEN• " JAM IN HALL?" and a glance at his air and attitude, and a recollection of his new titles, could not fail to convulse with laughter any one with a sense of humour. He seems as if oppressed with the consciousness of the majesty of his own nature as a Welsh cousin of the Medici. He knows that the responsi bility of being a great men is onerous, but he cannot help that. He looks serenely proud of his admitted rank as The beadle's terror, and the vestry's pride. - - He knows that he is the greatest man of the age—in Marylebone• He feels that his word commands reverence amongst the " people " who live near the New-road. His patronage is sought fur by all ranks of Liberals amongst the ten-pounders of his borough. He feels assured that lie stands prodigiously high in his own opinion. He seems confident that while he lives he will never lose the admired approbation of himself. He looks back on what he was, a boisterous Radical ; he sees what he has become, a contented placeman; And he turns to the political almanac to count the revolving moons and dissolving Parlia ments which must take place before he can put a coronet on hie demagogic brow. THE PRESS. Now, in answer to the question, " Who wants Sir BENJAMIN HALL 9 " we may say that several people in and out of Marylebone wish to know what was Sir BENJAMIN thinking of while the jobbery of Liberalism was running up the Miscellaneous Estimates from 2,545,9481. in the year 1838 to 6,721,250/. in 1856 ? On previous occasions we have shown the extra ordinary increase in these public charges, and we observe that the returns for• the current year testify to further augmentation of the "frightful increase." " The British Museum Establishment," for example, has been gradually mounting up to a vast Wire. We venture to say that if the question was suddenly asked in any London Club or in literary society, What does the British Museum Establishment annually cost the country ?" The answer would be—" From 30,0001. to 40,0001., or thereabouts." The fact is that the Museum Establishment cost the country for the last four years, viz. : IBM 1854 1855 1856 and in 1857 the " Museum Establishment " stands at 70.0001.! " Who wants Sir Benjamin the Magnificent ?" We answer that the literary men of London, and even of " the Principality," desire to know why there is not a better and more accessible cata logue for reference at the Museum, seeing that the charges for the establishment have mounted up from 27,409 in 1838 to 70,0001. in 1857 ? There are a score of other questions which various parties of economists desire to ask Sir BENJAMIN, and which for the convenience of " his magnificence," we shall tabulate on an other day. Meantime we may communicate to our readers that the " Civil Service Esti- mates" tor the current year show the following increase : Education, Science, and Art, in 1856, .£876,057 Ditto ditto in 1857, 1,000,32'2 being an increase in the year of 123,385/. And in the Colonial and Foreign Services (after all the promises to the contrary) there has been a further increase of 61,950/. ! There was a time when a Metropolitan Member used to make a great noise about a hundred pounds a year, more or less, in cer tain bishoprics, and when individual Irish landlords were pilloried in Parliament to please the low tastes of London vestrymen. These latter may wonder why their former favourite should not apply the "Ben-Hailing" process to this " frightful expenditure." If they want to know " the reason why," let them apply at " 9, Great Stanhope-street, Mayfair." lli'i OATHS BILL. WE have always considered Roman Catholic Liberalism to be one of the hollowest delu sions of the present age. Wherever the powers that be are opposed to their preten sions. there the Roman Catholics are noisy Reformers and demagogues. But wherever the Government is a dutiful aubject of the Vatican, who so zealous on the side of order as the Popish priesthood ? There is, however, this wide difference between their conduct under each contingency. Democracy they hate from their hearts, and only use as a tool; despotism they love with congenial warmth, and use as a trusted confederate. From one point of view we cannot blame them. nigh theories of civil government are naturally allied to high theories of ecclesiastical government. We might object to either or to both ; but as long as the alliance was openly acknowledged and vindicated on broad prin ciples the Romanists would be entitled to as much forbearance and charity as any other honest antagonist. But it is the attempt to persuade the people of this country that Romanism is something essentially different from what it is—something which sympathises with freedom of thought and action both in religion and politics, instead of being funda mentally hostile to both—that has excited in the minds of the British people a sentiment of unconquerable distrust. It has now become SATURDAY, almost impossible to persuade them that when a Romanist speaks on political questions ho has really anything at heart but the advance- ment of his religious tenets. Destructive in ono country and obstructive in another; hero calling for religious liberty, there burning the Bible and lashing the heretic ; now prating of loyalty, and anon whispering rebellion, he has created an impression Which it will take nigh a century-to efface--that with politics lie plays fast and loose, and will advocate political theories most opposed to the fundamental principles of his creed if lie thinks ho can thereby shake the resolution of Ministers or entrap the sympathy of mobs. The above remarks may seem too severe for the occasion, and we hasten to repeat that it is the system we are condemning more than individuals. Under the potent influence of a carefully organised system, directed by the deepest sagacity, experience, and foresight, individuals lose much of their responsibility, and become almost unconscious agents. We have no desire to make any personal reflec tions upon those noblemen and gentlemen who are banded together for the purpose of repealing the securities exacted from their coreligionists In 1829. We only say that their language upon the subject of religious liberty does but show the extraordinary extent to which men can impose upon themselves, and the extraordinay confidence which Romanists entertain in the credulity of mankind. If the Church of Rome were as consistent as the other bodies of English Dissenters she would be treated with the same consideration; but we cannot allow the great watchwords of civil and religious liberty to be prostituted to the purposes of a Church who would throw us off our guard by professions of friendship, and when the ramparts were unmanned rush on the defenceless citadel. This language, we repeat over and over again, is not too strong. It is justified by experience; it is justified by the conduct of the Roman Church in this country in 1850 ; it is justified by the spectacle of Irish and continental Popery for many years past ; and, more than all, it is justified by her recent experiments in Belgium. It is the boast of Rome that she never changes ; and if she speaks fair to Liberalism, we may be certain it is with the intention of betraying it. Granted that the oath imposed in 1829 leaves many Roman Catholics perfectly free in conscience to vote as they choose, it does not leave all, and even that is something gained. But what is more to the purpose is this, that a great principle is thereby affirmed ; that the dangerous difference between Romanisin and every other form of dissent is constantly kept before us ; and that this undoubtedly does exercise a certain moral influence over the whole of the community. This is the ad vantage of the existing state of things, and we do not see what counterbalancing boon would really be conferred on the Romanists by the removal of it. If they wish to remain good subjects cf Queen VICTORIA, and to abstain from interference with the Church of England, where is the hardship? If they don't, where is the policy of granting their request? THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CIVIL SERVICE. THE question which will occupy the attention and command the solicitude of the Legislature in consequence of the Civil Service Report which has been laid before it is a difficult and a delicate one. The superannuation tax is, it seems; to be abolished, and retiring pensions awarded free from this illiberal draw back. As guardians of the public purse, the House of Commons is bound to be jealous and vigilant in its control of public expen diture. Any arrangement which bore the appearance of prodigality or extravagance would be repudiated by the common sense of the country, and instead of being a benefit would be an injury to the parties concerned. On the other hand, it is as much the duty of Parliament to be just as it is to be thrifty. Called upon to redress a grievance of long