The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

by the French, was not very discriminative ; and, on the whole, even
on English affairs, he cannot be praised for practical sagacity or clear
foresight. The gloomy view which ho always took of the national
prospects was described by the late Marquis WELLESLEY as
emanating from "a spirit of sanguine despondency." He never dis-
cerned the corrective causes which counterbalanced some of the effects
of the Reform Bill. and his lugubrious efforts as the Conservative
Cassandra in the Quarterly Review were so monotonous as to invite
bad punsters to play upon their writer's ominous name.
It has always been supposed that Mr. CROKER was a
careful preserver of all his papers, and that he employed
much of his leisure on his "Life and Times." His statements
must, we fear, bo accepted with caution, as he was a jaundiced
observer, and the gall-bladder was too active in his atrabilious com-
position. Although sarcasm was his favourite weapon, in its employ-
ment he was far surpassed by some of his adversaries ; and it would
be difficult, even for his best friends, to say in what Mr. CROKER ever
was first-rate. Yet, undoubtedly he had a mind of extraordinary
activity ; he was quick in acquiring knowledge, tenacious in retaining
it ; he was polemical by instinct, and controversial by profession ;
rarely profound in his views, his standard for measuring right and
wrong was purely conventional, but his affectation of at istocratic
prejudices, and echoing the fashionable cant of the great and high-
born, was ridiculous and out of place. On the whole, Mr. CROKER
was a literary man whose powers were more active than original, and,
even allowing their full force to his acuteness and prompt command
of details, wo fear that the defects of his mind counter-
balanced his merits. For several years his connection
with the Quarterly Review had ceased, and he did not at the
close of his career enjoy much of the confidence of many of
the leaders of the Conservative connection. The heaviest charges
against him probably are that ho was never chivalrous in dealing with
opponents, and that he never helped the rising talents of his own
connection. His self-sufficiency, his jealousy, and his spleen were too
often apparent. He did not agree well with the literary supporters of
the Conservative party, and one of them (now no more) wrote the
coarsest and cleverest epigram since the days of Swirr upon Mr.
CROKER'S intimate connection with the late Marquis of HERTFORD.
His biographer (if lie have one) will have a most difficult task to
perform, and he should be cautious how he lays himself or his prin-
cipal open to replies; for, judging by what already has appeared in
print, we fear little mercy can be expected from political adversaries
towards one who exceeded all living journalists and periodical contri-
butors in the excessive license of disparagement which he claimed.
But it is only fair to recollect that the times in which Mr. CROKER
was reared were more passionate than our quieter days, and that the
tone of " Liberal" writers was extremely abusive—so that a rose-
water school of reviewing would not have been adequate. On the
whole, however, it is to be regretted that Mr. CROKER did not remain
in Parliament, where his ready powers of argument, and his political
knowledge, would have been much valued after the Reform Bill. He
might then have gained a higher weed of fame than even the partiality
of friendship or community of political feelings can venture to assign
him now.

The Crystal Palace a commercial failure ! Hero is an awful
business for the apostles of universal knowledge to be acquired per-
fectly in three lessons. After all, then, gin-palaces and tea-gardens
have proved too powerful for statues and antiquities—the Adelphi and
Cremorne for Egypt and Assyria, and a living Buckstone for a dead
bull. The result does not in the least surprise us. If the poor man is
to be interested in exhibitions of art or science they must be brought
to him. He will not go to seek them. Or if any additional attraction
is held out to him in the way of eating and drinking it must be in a
locality appropriate to his own class, where he will be neither elbowed
by gents nor patronised by gentlemen. All who know the habits of
the labouring man know right well that he cannot enjoy himself under
the eyes of the gay and wealthy. It is all very well on certain
set occasions, just as a schoolboy may like to take tea
with the head master once in a half year. That is an
occasion for pride. But he shuns the light of that potentate's counte-
nance when he unbends for pleasure. If the price of admission were
lowered, it might go some little way towards counterbalancing
this feeling, but it would not go far enough. The success of the
Crystal Palace, as a more exclusively gastronomic institution, is, we
think, equally doubtful. The rich already have Greenwich and
Richmond, with natural attractions superior to anything at Sydenham.
Young men of more moderate resources have Hampstead ant Twicken-
ham, Hampton Court, and Kew; and poorer classes still would never
dream of going to Sydenham to dinner. The fact is, that " combined
attractions " frequently fail to attract. One or two qualifications of a
first-rate order will make any locality more popular with pleasure-
hunters than a numper of minor accessories. At Sydenharn there arc
the courts and the curiosities, and the concerts, the poultry, the
flowers, and the fountains. But the single recommendation
of exquisite scenery, or first-rate wine, or some special
amusement like tennis or rowing to be enjoyed in perfection, will at
once supersede them all. The Crystal Palace of 1s)1 was a novelty
in London, and was more splendid within its narrow limits than the
present building. People could go there too without the uneasy
sense that they ought to he learning something. It was, in fact, alto-
gether different—a difference which we are sorry the shareholders of
Sydenham did not perceive sooner. There is no reason, it may be
said, why the Crystal Palace should not unite the cuisine of Greenwich
and Richmond with all its present attractions. But then it must
depend upon the same class of visitors as Greenwich and Richmond
depend upon. It would no longer be the people's palace.
If a man wants a cheap dinner, he goes where the hest