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

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

,TuNt 13, 1857.

standing, it should approach the undertaking
in a large and comprehensive spirit, satisfying
itself with no partial remedies, and no tem-
porary expedients. It has to remember that
it is dealing with the material interests of a
large, important, and most useful body, and
that a n►ggardly economy in matters of State
concern is a spurious and vicious policy.
We have made these remarks, because we
have observed with some apprehension that
the Commissioners seem to have become
timid and bewildered when they neared the
subject of retiring allowances. The scale they
reco►umend is so crudely conceived, so defi-
cient in breadth, and so anomalous, that we
cannot believe it will be endorsed by Par-
iament.

There is one blunder they have committed,
and it is a serious one, which stands on the
ve►y threshold of the structure. They appear
to have imagined that the public require some
set off against the remission of the super-
annuation tax; that if the civil Servants be
eased of an unjust burden—a burden which
ought never to have been imposed upon them,
and which is a disgrace to those who devised
it—the shoe must be made to pinch in another
direction, and a new mode of torture adopted.
And so they propose to neutralise the benefit
conferred by reducing the amount of the
pensions.
We cannot for the life of us comprehend
the reasonableness of this proposal. If the
impost in question be a fair and a necessary
one, it ought, of course, to bo undisturbed.
But if it be neither the one nor the other, it
should bo removed unconditionally and en-
tirely ; nor should the effect of its abolition be
modified by any coincident deduction from its
value.
This is one of the cases where such a course
would be monstrous, for the national exche-
quer owes a very large debt to the Civil ser-
vants, and it has no intention of paying it !
The scale of retiring allowances suggested
by the Commissioners is unsatisfactory. It is
the same as that which was proposed by the
Committee of the House last year. It gives
ten-sixtieths after ten years' service, advances
one-sixtieth each year, and arrives at the
maximum of forty-sixtieths after forty years'
service. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S
plan was considerably more liberal and equit-
able, and, so far as its own merits, taken alone,
were concerned, would have made some
approximation towards an equitable adjust-
ment. But it had its unfortunate satellite in
the shape of a scheme for reducing the super-
annuation tax by one half only, and it accord-
ingly suffered the penalty of execution.
There are, of course, an infinite variety of
details to be considered in the settlement of
this subject, and it would be hopeless to
attempt to grapple with them in the cursory
form of an article. But there are ono or two
points which may be noticed, and which
deserve a significant prominance.
The House of Commons has the great ad
vantage in this discussion of being unpledged
to any particular theories. No shades of de-
parted orations can be invoked to terrify
members into consistency. The subject, more-
over, stands apart from the passions of politics
and the strife of parties. It may therefore be
treated with philosophic calmness and deli-
beration. Let the Legislature, therefore,
accord its regard, in the first place, to the
following consideration, for it is an initial one.
Ifjustice is to be done to the Civil servants,
the retiring pension must be adequate, and
the period when it can be enjoyed must be so
affixed as to make its posse,sion a fair pro-
spect, and' not a remote contingency. We are
of opinion that after forty years' faithful ser-
vice a man is entitled to a full pay retirement.
His official career will have embraced the best
portion of his life. The State will have had
the advantage of the energies of his youth and
the experience of his manhood tor a very
small annual cost, and the least it can do for
him is to surround his old age with comfort
and ease. We refer more particularly to the
working portion of the Civil servants. The
Government offices are hives full of bees, but
not by any means free from drones.
The functionary who owes his appointment
to political influence, and receives a fat salary
for signing his name a few times a day, °or-