NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19627, 4 May 1927, Page 10

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

A RESEARCH WORKER'S MIND. A biography of tho late Sir Patrick Manson, who worked as a doctor in China for many years, and made valuable contributions to the study of tropical diseases, was recently published. In tho closing chapter the authors say:—"To his retentive memory ho owned not a little of his success in public life. He seldom forgot what ho had once read, and passages from the classics which he had learnt in early life came readily to his tongue. His power of sustained concentration was remarkable. When intent upon a new theory he would sit for hours completely detached from all that was going on around him, but when the formulation was complete ho was able to dismiss it from his mind and concentrate with the same intensity upon the work that came next to his hand. 'Learn to think' was a favourite injunction of his; 'most people do not think at all!' . . . One principle on which his researches were conducted, and the standard he set and expected from others, ho epitomised as follows: —'Never refuse to see what you do not want to see, or what might go against your own cherished hypotheses, or against tho views of authorities. These are just the clues to follow up, as is also, and emphatically so, the thing you have never seen or heard before. The ihing you cannot get a pigeon-hole for is the finger-point showing the way to discovery.' " THE MODERN SUNDAY. " Tho atmosphere of peace and restfulness of the English Sunday even fifty years ago, when all shops were closed, all ordinary traffic suspended, public games prohibited, and places of amusement shut up, has gone—apparently for ever," says Dr. Frank Ballard, in the English Methodist Magazine. "It is worse than useless simply to lament or denounce. There is very much that is *dso good .in modern developments, both iis the correction of former religious mistakes and the better understanding of the Christian gospel. The great and moat lamentable, as well as mischievous, mistake of bygone days was to identify the Lord's Day with the Jewish Sabbath', base it on the Fourth Commandment, and make all its restrictions to bo binding upon the Christian conscience. Thus all the real comfort and rest, peace and happiness, liberty and inspiration, which belong to that day, and are so plainly and emphatically illustrated in the apostolic doctrine and practice, have been pitifully obscured, and in some cases wholly lost. Men have seen both that no Christian living keeps the Fourth Commandment, and that for the times in which we live, however much it may be read—thoughtlessly—in churches, it is an utterly impossible ideal. Then, confusing it with the Christian Lord's Day, they have dismissed both alike as impracticable and negligible. The emphatic and measureless avowal of Christ Himself—'wherefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day'—with all its significance, has been forgotten or underrated." ——————— • SCIENCE AND RELIGION. "How curious that people belonging to a nation which produces a Roger Bacon, a Francis Bacon, a Newton and a Darwin should still imagine that the scientist is arrogant and insolent in his attitude toward God. There is no humility greater than that of the really great in science," said Miss Maude Royden in an address in England recently. "Think of the attitude of the modern men of science whose whole conception of the universe was built up on the Newtonian system, confronted by an iconoclast like Einstein, who comes to tell them that the one thing they thought was proved to demonstration is no longer wholly true; that they must modify, and radically modify, their whole conception of the universe. With what almost touching humility does the world of science come to sit at Einstein's feet! Truth is the scientist's God. Has he not 'walked humbly with his God' '{ . . In every really great scientist is a sense of awe at the wonder of the universe. What does it matter whether he calls this 'God' or not t Is it not God to him who bears this attitude of reverence and humility ? Science has its martyrs as religion has, physical and intellectual martyrs, with minds stunted and perverted by the stupidity of the world in which they were born. Who knows what such men suffer when they see wrecked on 'one inconvenient fact' the cherished hypothesis to which they have devoted the work of a lifetime 1 Surely we may claim for the scientist that he has said of Truth, 'if it slay me yet will I trust it,' ivnd surely the Christian will admit that Truth is another name for God." GREAT POWERS' ARMAMENTS. A comparision of the annual expenditure on naval and military by the Great Powers was recently made in the Manchester Guardian by Mr. W. T. Langton, editor of the Economist. He says that according to the most recent and authoritative estimate, the national income of Great Britain in 1924 and 1925 (1926 was, of course, abnormal), amounted to about £4,200,000,000. Her naval and military expenditure amounted to well over £120,000,000. In other words, the premium paid for insuring national security was tlirce per cent. While this is a perfectly reasonable method of representing the burden of armaments on the population of Great Britain it is not a true index of tho military effort of the British Empire; for the figure would work out at a much lower rate for the Empire 1 as a whole. At the present moment France is paying a premium of some 3£ per coiit- with & " war " budget of nearly si> milliard francs, as compared ; with a national income which M. Berfenger ! put at 130 milliard francs, but is prob- i ably nearer 160 milliard francs Italy is paying a security premium of over ■3 per cent, with a " war " preparation j budget of over four milliard lire and i a national income of about 100 milliard i lire The figures for Germany are in j striking contrast, and her "war" expen- j diture, at 560 million marks out of a i national income estimated by the Berhn Chamber of Commerce at 55,(XX) million marks, is equal to a premium of 1£ per cent. This national mcome figure is, however, probably on the low side, and the premium, therefore, is rather less than this figure. The lowest premium of all the Great Powers is that of the United States, which works out at about 1 per cent., the national income being at least £1,200.000.000 and defence expenditure under £120,000,000.