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

r engaged in it. Neither in Parliament nor in society was the subject even so much as alluded to. And if the object of the dissolu tion was not to waste a year, its result cer tainly seems to have been the waste of a good deal of powder and shot. We have no objection to peace, and we have no objection to war, each in their proper place ; but we have a most decided objection to a state of things which is neither. Does anybody really know at what stage the Chinese war has arrived ? What steps have actually been gained ? How much nearer wo are to the attainment of our revenge now than we were three months ago. Who can tell us whether the fighting which has taken place has led to any results, or not? or whether it was not resolved on simply to avoid the absurdity of total inaction ? It certainly seems to us that if we can afford to abstract 5,000 men from the force destined for China, we could almost afford to give up the quarrel altogether. A war that is merely kept alive by occasional skirmishes may be capital fun for the men and officers engaged, but we cannot understand what national end can be gained by it. A battuo of Chinamen every now and then, with a boatload of pigtails for trophies, is doubtless amusing and exciting enough ; but when the people of this country perused the fiery declamations delivered by the friends of fighting in February last, they looked for something more than this puerile persecution, which is just enough to prevent our enemy from forgiving us without com pelling him to fear We admit, most readily, that Government is perfectly justified in withdrawing their troops from China. We never believed there was any necessity for sending them there, and we think the ease with which this proceeding has been effected, and the apathy with which it has been witnessed, is the best proof that we were right. There is nothing "embarrassing to Government," as the phrase runs, in these observations. We desire to see war prosecuted with vigour; but we do not approve the scheme of keeping up the semblance of war where there is no reality, merely to save the reputation of Ministers, and to prove that PALMERSTON "can do no wrong." We have intended the above remarks to be purely interrogative. We want an answer to the question, what is being done in China ? It is the positive duty of the public press to suggest such inquiries as these. If ill-timed, the people will neglect the suggestion, and no harm will be done. But, seeing that our representatives will be dispersed in a fort night's time, when all control over our foreign policy will be abandoned, our readers will probably agree with us in the propriety of trying to learn a little more of this quarrel which Government has declared to be serious, which we know to be expensive, and which Parliament seems to have forgotten. THE PRESS, AUGUST 15,1857. far persuaded themselves that it is ono of those abstract propositions which need never be put in practice, that they affect to smile with some degree of pity upon the few mis taken zealots who enforce it. We do not propose to go bail for all the indis cretions of which our Indian missionaries may have been guilty. That their efforts may have been ill-timed, ill-devised, and ill-executed is all very possible ; but, if so, it does but prove with still greater force how dangerous and how culpable is the prevalent tone of mind in England upon this subject. The apathy of the public has allowed this whole question to fall into the hands of incompetent persons— men of more zeal than philosophy—of more learning than knowledge of the world—of more ardour than refinement. Christianity has been presented to a race of delicate organisations and refined perceptions under its least attractive aspect, and men versed in the metaphysics and complicated lore of the most ancient religion in the world have been tempted to sneer at the sermons of a class who were ignorant of all they themselves consider valuable. No doubt there is plenty to be done for India of a wholly non-religious character. Canals, roads, and railroads, the tenure of land, the practice of the law courts, and all the mechanism of material civilisation, is sus ceptible of vast improvement. If all were done that could be done, in this direction alone, England would have much to boast of. Nor, on the other hand, do we for a moment underrate the enormous difficulty of convert ing a nation like the undoes to a faith like Christianity. With barbarous nations the process is, of course, much simpler. But in India we have to deal with a people already civilised, already learned, already provided with a creed more ancient than our own, the subtleties of which are better suited to the intellect of the East than the broader and easier doctrines of Christianity. To under stand and expound these is a work that confers no distinction. There is nothing flattering either to the pride of intellect or the pride of caste in the lessons of the Cross. Inveterate prejudices must be overcome, and immemorial privileges surrendered, before the Brahmin can be brought to acknowledge that he is but as other men. If, therefore, we would say to the people of this country that they may not forget their lofty mission as the messengers of the Gospel wherever the Anglo-Saxon name prevails, no less would we urge upon the missionaries themselves the necessity of caution and patience. We believe, indeed, that an acknow ledgment of our duty in the one case would tend to the exercise of these qualities in the other. But however that may be, it is surely madness to seek the extension of Christianity by means that defeat themselves, to sow the harvest while the ground is being mined be neath us, and to imperil our whole empire for the sake of one proselyte. We still, however, repeat that, without pre sumptuously seeking to penetrate the designs of PROVIDENCE, it may reasonably be inferred that the empire of India was not given to a small island in a remote hemisphere merely to make roads and improve agriculture. We must bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of our occupation is of a spiritual and not of a material character. Unless we recognise this high mission we cannot justify our Indian career before either GOD or man. We sin cerely trust, therefore, that while the injudi• cious enthusiasm of English missionaries, wherever or however displayed, meets with a proper check, nothing like ridicule or discou ragement may be displayed towards the general principle involved. Let us be honest. Let us ask ourselves if we practically believe Christianity, and our duty towards subject nations will lie clear before us. RELIGION IN INDIA. " CHRISTIANITY is the salt of the earth." So at least all the nations of Western Europe have good reason to say. Almost all that ele- vates our public and domestic institutions over those of less favoured countries is attributable to our knowledge of a direct revelation. The relations between man and man, between husband and wife, between governors and governed, have all felt the healing and human ising influence of this benign creed. Honour, generosity, and charity have been thereby introduced into the world—words for which the old heathen nations have no equivalents— and we learn from the example of its Divine founder that simplicity and humility are two of the highest attributes of man. That we are under direct obligations to pro pagate this better faith among nations to whom it is unknown is what few Englishmen if pressed home upon the subject would have the courage to deny; but it is one, unfortu nately, which they find it convenient to forget. It is a troublesome truth which they will not look straight in the face; and, indeed, have so THE DIVORCE BILL. IliviNo on previous occasions pointed out the religious and ecclesiastical objections we en tertain to the above measure, we propose for the present to glance at some of its legal in consistencies, more especially in connection with the recent speech of the Attorney- General. Lord PALMERSTON, it appears, is determined to force a Divorce Bill of some kind or other through the House of Commons during the present session. He has been compelled to adopt so many amendments in the course of the late discussions, and it is probable that he will be obliged to adopt so many more, that it is utterly impossible to form any notion as to the shape which the Divorce Bill may eventually assume. The truth is, that in order to make up for the many promises they have broken, and the many blunders they have made during the present session, the Government are deter mined to do something in the way of Law Reform. There is not a farthing of political capital to be made in any other way. Dis gracefully surprised in India, signally humi liated at Constantinople, it is upon his domes tic legislation that the Premier relies to sustain the waning confidence of his sup porters, with what prospects of success it is easy to foresee. Upon two material points in the Divorce Bill the Government have already been de feated. The first point is the establishment of local tribunals for trying matrimonial ques• tions and dissolving marriage. The innovation upon the original plan entirely alters its character ; and how the necessary details are to be carried out the Attorney• General has not thought fit to inform us. The next point is the recognition of the right of divorce in the wife in case of the adultery of the hus band, committed within the conjugal resi dence. Lord JOHN MANNERS carried this clause without a division, but after a very long and somewhat acrimonious debate, in which Sir RICHARD BETHELL employed an argument of a very remarkable kind. He admitted the abstract justice of Lord JOHN'S pro posal, but he opposed it on the ground that it raised a question which the Government wero particularly anxious to avoid. The object of the Bill, he said, was merely to embody the law of divorce which at present existed, and not to amend it ; and he further freely ad mitted that the present state of the law, which absolutely denies the right of divorce to the weaker sex, was " opprobrious and wicked." A more astounding line of argument was surely never addressed to a deliberative assembly than this. A measure is brought forward professing to be au improvement in the law iu a department of the highest impor tance, and yet we are told, as a reason why we should adopt it, that it is in reality no im provement at all, and that it in fact will leave the law just as bad as it was before. The merciless exposure of the Attorney-General's logic by Mr. GLADSTONE was to the last degree effective. But we do not find fault with Sir RICHARD BETIIKLL'S reasoning alone. It is not true, as he is reported to have stated, that the object of the Bill now before the House "is merely " to embody the law of divorce which at pre " sent exists." It proposed, even in its original form, some sweeping alterations in the law. It proposed to give the wife certain rights which are now denied to her. It contained clauses giving her a right to a divorce in cer tain cases ; and it contained others giving her absolute control over her property in the event of the desertion or other gross misconduct of her husband. How, under these circum stances, the Attorney-General could assert that the Bill was a mere embodiment of the present law we cannot comprehend. It does in reality contain many important alterations in the law, but we entirely agree with him that it will still deserve the epithets of " opprobrious and wicked " should the Bill pass in its present confused and unintelligible shape. We have from the first condemned that pro vision in the Bill which draws a distinction 787