The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT -OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Times, in discussing the debate in the House of
Lords on Chinese missions, takes an unfavourable view of
the action of missionaries. They have gone out with not
much learning, and still less knowledge of mankind. They
probably have a vague notion that the Chinese believe in
the doctrines of Confucius, which, whatever their merits,
do not lead to salvation. With some eminent exceptions,
they do not even seek to understand the religious system
they would supplant. The commonplaces of the chapel
and the prayer-meeting form the controversial armoury
they have prepared before leaving home ; a poor ver-
nacular acquaintance with the language of the people
they would convert is the amount of their later acqui-
sition. They rush into controversy with, perhaps, the
most lamentable ignorance of the character, the
attainments, the tone of thought of those whom they
would convert. The result is that, after years of
wonderfully sustained zeal and self-denial, the progress of
the faith in those distant regions is not encouraging. The
Chinese are quick to learn, and are destined in
the opinion of very acute judges to rise to a much
higher grade of civilisation. But in theology
and metaphysics they keep to their traditional
systems, and though they, doubtless, look with
respect on anything that is promulgated by nations so
powerful and ingenious as those of Europe, the teaching
of the missionaries probably fills them only with a send-,
ment of wonder that the people who come in clipper ships
and who use the steam engine and the telegraph should
take the trouble to address them upon religion. The ques-
tion now is, whether the advice now given to the mission-
aries will be taken. The Times thinks not. The thorough-
bred missionary will at once take high ground, quote the
example of the ancient Christians, and declare that, gun-
boats or no gunboats, he will go into the interior and
preach in season and out of season. And no doubt

this high-spirited programme will often be followed.
Men, however commonplace, tend to rise to the ideal
of their calling, and a missionary must not be
pusillanimous. To say the truth, missionaries are among
the most courageous of men. Their point of honour
urges them to encounter danger as much as the soldier ;
and their interest invites them to propitiate their own
sympathising world with exploits of hardihood and
romance. The societies of which Lord Shaftesbury speaks
will rather have to check than to instigate the zeal of their
emissaries. So much the more reason for urging on the
Chinese the concession of all the rights which are enjoyed
by civilised nations. If China were within this pale, each
man would have the right of settling where he chose, and
each sect of propagating its own opinions.
The Daily Telegraph thinks that the attitude of the Irish
Protestants face to face with Mr. Gladstone's bill is cer-
tainly not worthy of their old renown. They speak with
divers tongues ; every man doeth that which is right in
his own eyes ; there is no leader. From one parish comes
a whine ; from another a menace ; from a third a groan.
The bishops are silent and inactive; excepting the Bishop
of Down and Connor, who long ago advocated a compro-
mise now pretty well " past praying for." We have
never given very much weight to the boasts of
the Irish Protestants that they were the best,
bravest, most industrious, and most intelligent popula-
tion on the face of the moth ; but we did believe
that, in presence of a great political crisis, they
would exhibit more resolution and readiness of
resource, greater real firmness, and less futile vaunting.
They still utter. the old and rather toothless defianctl
"No surrender !" but what does it mean ? "No sur
render" of what? They have enjoyed certain exceptional
privileges of lordship and titles—will they refuie to Bur-
render these ? Will the vehement Bishop of Cork force
his way into the House of Lords after 1871? Will the
clerical successor to any one of the " life-interest clergy'
retain perforce the church, the parsonage, and glebe ?
Will the landlords who pay tithes refuse to transmit the
money to the new commissioners, and thus defy the law?
We all know that none of these overt acts is even imagined.
What, then, is the meaning of "No surrender ?" We still
believe that, notwithstanding all the bravado and sulky
inaction now displayed in Ireland, the Church, associated
BO long with cruel persecution, military terror, social
disorder, and centuries of crime, will come to the feet of
the Minister, no longer "clothed" with State robes, but
"in its right mind ;" and will—a new Guinevere prostrate
before the Arthur of our day—tacitly confess its "defeat
of fame." When we remember the strong Church feelings
of the present Premier, his former pride iu upholding the
Irish Church because he believed- in its truth, and his
manifest tenderness even now in dealing with it—we can
well imagine his pity at seeing "lie so low that golden
head," his " pride in earlier summers." But not the less
would he re-echo the voice of the nation if he summed up
in Arthur's impresive words the story of a Church that,
after centuries of union with the State, remains barren of
all but bitter fuit. "The children born of thee were
sword and fire, red ruin, and the breaking up of laws."
The Daily News remarks that the period of the
Gladstone Administration is likely to prove a millennial
era to the outcasts, and using the word -in its honourable
sense, adventurers of politics. The leaders of forlorn hopes
catch glimpses of victory. Mr. Berkeley has long pleaded
to deaf or inattentive ears on behalf of the Ballot, and the
Ballot is as good as gained. Mr. Locke King, with equal
assiduity , has asked session after session for the assimila-
tion of the law which regulates the descent of real pro-
perty in the case of intestates to that which prevails in
regard to personal property. In other words, he demands
the repeal of the law of primogeniture. The fruition of
his patient desires is near. Mr. Gladstone avows that
legislation is necessary, and that it must be more or less
in the direction of Mr. Locke King's proposals. The
subject is one in regard to which the Government acknow-
ledges its responsibilities. It would be prepared to take
the initiative but for the fear of charging itself with more
work than it can hope to bring to a satisfactory issue this
session. Irl this aspect of affairs, Mr. Gladstone feels that
he is bound to give a private member every facility in
undertaking a settlement of the question.

The Times observes that the question involved in Mr.
Locke King's bill is not whether large estates or small ones
are best for the general welfare of the community, but
whether the State, in its capacity of administrator to the
effects of an intestate, ought to distribute them in a
manner at variance with the plainest rules of humanity
and common sense. We do not say that this is a question
to be decided off-hand, or without reference to the
circumstances of each particular case. It is pcsslble that
in some .instances as much injustice would be
done by applying the law of gavelkind to the estates of
intestates as is done by applying the law of primogeniture.
But the presumption is certainly the other way ; and so
long as a man enjoys the fullest liberty of testamentary
disposition he cannot complain if the law declines to secure
to his eldest son the position which he neglected to secure
for him himself. The present seems a favourable oppor-
tunity for taking the question out of the domain of faction
and of setting it on a fair and equitable basis.

The Standard says that Mr. Locke King has obtained
leave to introduce once more his bill for what is naively
called.the " better settling the real estates of intestates"—
in other words, for the abolition of the English custom of
primogeniture. The arguments, or the phrases which
passed for such, were of the character which has become
familiar to the public, not only through the mouth of the
member for East Surrey, but from the speeches of greater
orators and mere distinguished Liberals. There were the
usual claptraps about the injustice to the small land-
holders, the inequality between the laws of real and of
personal property, the unhappiness of families, and the
over-exaggeration of properties ; the results of the pre.
sent system, which prevails through the greater
part of the kingdom, of permitting the eldest son
to succeed to the whole estate when the owner dies
without a will.• Of none of these points were there any
cause shewn why the- ancient custom of the country—a
custom not-the creation of any law, but of which the law
itself is but the expression—should be disturbed in favour
of. the • new principle of equal distribution in cases of
intestacy. Beyond a lame story of a prodigal son, who,
having taken to dissipated ways, contrived to get the
whole estate upon his father dying without a will, and to
squander it to the prejudice of a virtuous younger brother,
• there was not even a single illustration adduced to prove
that the existing custom works injuriously:
The Star declares that a very strong addition to tho
case which may be made out for the bill is the fact that
already local differences render the law of succession in
cases of intestacy very irregular. In Sussex the law of
Borough English 'Prevails, and in a case of intestacy in
that county the whole of a landed estate has gone to the
youngest son by a second marriage. In Kent, on the
other hand, a custom of legal obligation establishes in all
cases where there is no will a distribution similar
t) that which• would take place everywhere if
Mr. Locke King's bill were to pass into law.
Mr. Beresford }tope is no true Kentish man in
complaining of this local law. The existence of such dis-
crepancies proves most irrefragibly the necessity of some
change in the law, and also suggests that whatever change
takes place ought to be effected by a carefully prepared
and comprehensive measure. So far as we know, Mr.
Locke King's bill would do all that is necessary on the
particular point to which he has so long devoted himself.
But the_ law of real property requires to be generally
ov
rhauled, and perhaps all parties would be bestt pleased
with a measure which should effect the eh
gesesired in
a manner more elaborate and balanced thana
mi r. Locke
King, for obvious reasons, could, as
a private member,
propose with any chance of success.
The Herald is dissatisfied with Mr. Cardwell's reduction
in the number of army officers. If. it can be shewn that
we have a larger army than
itva.nt,. well and good ; but
if this fact be not shewn, thenneis clear that we are pre-
paring to do with a smaller army
Moreover,an we want, and to
take the chance of consequences.
no ved, even in the cause of economy, to reduce the
there was
when the same object
numerical strength of the army,
manipulationil of the staff
might be gained 1)37 a judicious
Nrithont loss of
and administrative expenses generally,
efficiency or prejudice to existing interests. defence of the plan adepted is, that it The only
does not
sacrifice machinery—that the reduced
advantagere ng
cruiti
can be filled up at any time companies
when the
officers set to work for the purpc,se. But this
applies only to men—it does not extend to officers.
It has been urged by some military reformers that th
i)roportion of officers to men is unnecessarily large in the
British army, and it is certainly larger nominally than in
some continental armies. In the English army it le Ito
23, in the French 1 to 33, in the Austrian I to 40, and in
the Prussian Ito 49. But against this comparison must be
placed the fact that the English army has a far more
extensive range of servit'e, even iu times of peace, two
any of.awgreAt armies of the Continent.