NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11539, 26 November 1900, Page 4

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

A CAB&EGB-VM, published in the Herald on i Saturday, stated that Mr. Ritchie had declared that unless excesses in ritual in the Anglican Church were abated, legislation on the subject would be necessary. He, however, seems to have given no indication as to the fenn such legislation should take. Mr. Balfour dealt with this most difficult question recently, when, in reply to a combined Protestant deputation, he stated that he was not prepared to vote for the Church Discipline Bill, though he said lie had great sympathy with those who disliked ceremonial. But, after all, as the Pilot (the new English Weekly Review) says, " Mr. Balfour is a Presbyterian, and that a Presbyterian should dislike ceremonial would, till some recent developments in the Scottish establishment, have seemed perfectly natural." The article in the Pilot proceeds as follows:—"If at any time he iMr. Balfour) thought it his duty to give effect to his dislike by legislation, he would become our active enemy and would have to be treated as such. But as this is not at all likely to happen it need not give us any present concern. When we turn to the speech as a general exposition of Mr. Balfour's view on present ecclesiastical controversies we are struck by the singular inconsistency between its parts. He agrees with the deputation in thinking that the ceremonial to which the deputation objects should be repressed. That would be quite intelligible if it were not followed by a statement that the very fact that he himself docs not derive either pleasure or profit from ritualistic practices ' makes him anxious that no legitimate liberty already existing in the Church should be curtailed.''

The writer of the article quoted above goes on to ask: " How are we to reconcile these contemporaneous desires for repression and toleration? The secret must lie in the word 'legitimate.' In the mouth of the deputation this word would have a clear meaning. With the Church Association and its allies ' legitimate' means their own reading of the Prayer Book. The liberty to carry out this reading is what they claim for themselves, and —but no more than this—is what they are willing to extend to others. But what does ' legitimate' mean Pi Mr. Balfour? Does it mean any liberty which can by the most liberal interpretation of words be brought within the lines of the Anglican formularies? If so, this is a definition which would include most, if not all, of Ihe practices which the deputation seek to repress. The main difference between High and Low Churchmen "is not whether the Prayer Book is to be obeyed, but what it is that the Prayer Book orders. Or, again, does ' legitimate' stand for those interpretations of the Prayer Book, and those only, in favour of which there is a recorded decision of a court of law? This, too, we can understand, but it does not help us to understand Mr. Balfour. He, it seems, associates himself on this point with the ' Great Fathers of the Reformation,' and they of all men, he thinks, ' would have objected to seeing the living Church subjected to anything like the dead hand of a mere technical and. legal interpretation of lawyers, or of printed or written documents.' This is excellent sense, because it postulates the essential injustice of enforcing laws made three centuries ago, to meet a wholly different condition of things, in the absence of a legislature competent to alter these laws, if they are found unsuitable or oppressive. The only 'legitimate' liberty that we know of is that liberty which is allowed by the 'living Church,' acting through an autonomous ecclesiastical legislature. Perhaps this is what Mr. Balfour means also—at least, it is consistent with much that he has said elsewhere if so, we are wholly in agreement with him. But in that case his reply to the deputation stands in much need of revision." The same article also points out that High Churchmen do not ask for support, or help, or favour from Parliament; they simply ask to be let alone.

| Captain F. E. Younghusband contributes to the National Review for October an article entitled, " A Plea for the Control of China." Captain Younghusband is convinced that some form of partition or control of China is inevitable, and he thinks .that the proper policy of the Powers is not, as they are doing at present, to accentuate the importance of the Central Government, but to deal separately with the local Viceroys as far as possible. Though no Empire has ever held together so long as that of China, the indications are plain that it is now breaking up. "The outlying dependencies have been falling away one by one. Annan, Tonquin, Siam, Burma, Sikkim, Hunza, the Pamirs, the Amur Region, Formosa, Hongkong, all have been broken away, and pieces even of China itself—Port Arthur, Wei-hai-wei, Kiao-Chau Bay, Kowloon—have passed into the hands of others. And many other instances besides those I have already given could be quoted to show how loosely what remains in held! together. While the Emperor has little authority over the Viceroys, the Viceroys on their part, as they freely acknowledge, have but slight control over the people. Patriotism is practically unknown. Mid-China and South China were perfectly callous as to what the Japanese did in North China." Captain Younghusband thinks that the antipathy of the Chinese to foreigners is a radical trait of their character. European antipathy to the Chinese is no less natural : — "In travelling through a strange country for one's own pleasure one naturally tries to think the best of the people; and most of the people (except the Mashonas and Matabele) among whom I have travelled I have formed some attachment to. But between me and the Chinamen there always seemed a great gulf fixed which could never be overcome. The Chinese gentlemen I met during my three months', stay in the Pekin Legation and the year I spent in Chinese Turkestan were always very polite, and often cheery and genial; but even then I could always detect a vein of condescension and superciliousness. They were polite because they are bred to rigid politeness, but I never felt drawn towards a Chinese gentleman as anyono would be towards & Rajput, a Sikh, or an Afghan gentleman." A quaint old-time ceremony, known as quit-rent service, dating back to Henry 111., took place in the Official Referee's Court 1., Loudon, recently. On a table in the centre of the room were set two small bundles of faggots, a hatchet, a billhook, six horseshoes, and 61 nails. These represented the yearly rent paid by the City of London to the Queen for certain properties outside the city. Master Walter Pollock, Queen's Remembrancer, received the rent from the city solicitor, and other officials, and signified each item as "good." , He also delivered a little address to the

,I ii jit ;ii 111 mi in SBJSaagaafr —-—— —-- — audience, which was mainly composed « ladies and 5 newspaper representatives, in which he explained the origin of the ceremony, touching lightly on the feudal system, and giving several instances of other lands in England for which quit-rent is still paid. Tie city solicitor then proceeded to cut one bqiidle of faggot* with a " superior" hatchet, »nd to knock about the other bundle with .in "inferior" billhook. One " inferior'") knife, and on? " superior" knife are the annual paymfcnt for certain wast* lands knoivn as the Moors in Shropshire. A forgo tint used to exist in the parish ,[ St. Clemenqs is also rented by the city, and for this are* paid the. six horseshoes and 61 nails, Thai city solicitor then asked Master Pollock i? t|is Queen had any need of th« articles. Jr.r Majesty had not, therefore they were presented to the official referee for his courtisy in lending his Court for the ceremony. |

That is a delightful story which comes from Paris and has the King of the Belgians for a hero. these being the days of democracy, the Frejeh beggarand the beggaresa more especially—have adopted a new and subtle means if cajoiing the humble sou out? of the pocket of their patrons. " Donnez moi up petit |m, raon prince! J'ai quatrt enfants a nouHr," or something to the same effect is the Accepted formula. And my lords and ladks the Republicans and Democrats, soothed by the delicately-implied compliment to tbtir aristocratic air, freely dispense their chjirity, The shopkeeper, quickwitted end njnble, has caught the tone of the kerbstone, 1 and is doing a roaring trade with the coun\s, dukes, and royalties who walk all day long into their chambers. A day or two ago a stately gentleman, with a flowing white /beard, entered an establishment, where, judging by the ear, only the titled nobility and gentry did business, " Votre altessej'' and even " vot' majeste," were everywha*. But the white-warded gentleman, perhaps because he gave himself no airs whatever, was set down as merel; monsieur le baipn, and treated accordingly, with just a degree less of humble adoration. When this geriieman was asked for hit name and addrtes, so that his purchase! might be sent oi to him, it was Leopold King of the Belgians, as monsieur le baron remarked, with jut the ghost of a -mile. Tableau! And, thile the humble citoyen is thus exalted into t persona grata, the law of contrasts, by meins of which the scales in the hands of Justice are kept fairly balanced, has plainly thrust the mighty from the seats in France. j At the present moment a descendant of the Due dAguillon makes an honest living as a cobbler in a Brittany village; and an old crony wandering about the rural districts in Wallon is rightly addressed as "the baroness." Her business is to "mind the lows."