The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-03 00:00:00

THE KHIVAN EXPEDITION.

A letter from Jellahabad, of the 23d of April
States that the Russian army had entered Khiva in
triumph. The KIIAN, finding resistance impos-
sible, submitted with a good grace—set at liberty
all Russian prisoners in his dominions—entered
into an alliance, offensive and defensive, with the
Emperor NICHOLAS—and promised to afford the
Russians all the assistance in his power towards
the extension of their dominion in the East. The
writer further sates that, on leaving Khiva, the
Russian army would march to Bokhara. If this
news be confirmed, we may prepare ourselves for
an encounter with Russia, on the banks of the
Indus. It is mare than probable that from the
battle-fields of Central Asia the voice of England
will be first heard evoking the restoration of Polish
nationality and independence.

The opinion of the Lords on the Canada Bill is to be
brought to the test of a division on the third reading, the
Earl of HARDWICKE having given notice that he will
move to postpone it for six months. If certain Lords
do not then vote away their own souls, as the Standard
describes its party as doing, the Bill will most likely be
thrown out.

Several petitions were presented, and, amongst them,
one by Lord BROUGHAM, from Edinburgh, signed by
8,000 persons, aga net the union of Church and State ;
and the Noble Lord added, that the desire to separate
the Church from the State was promoted by the late
proceedings of eceesiastical authorities.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE expressed a diffe.
rence of opinion.

The Earl of ABERDEEN., Church Bill went
through a Committee. After some oppositiort on the
Part of the Marquis of 1311EADALBANE, who wiihrd
that Counsel should be beard at the bar against the
Bill, and who gave notice, that on bringing up the
Report, he would move that Counsel be heard against
the Bill,

The Marquis of WESTMEATH again brought the
case of Priest O'REILLY under the notice of the House,
and moved for the papers relating to the transaction.
The Marquis of NORMA:CBI' denied that there
were rich papers as the Noble Marquis moved for.
Ho had just received the most satisfactory accounts
from that part of Ireland, and, considering the extent
of business before their Lordships, hoped their time
would not be wasted by such trifling.
Th• rebuke seem►_d to be felt us it was deserved,
and the Marquis of WESTMEATH withdrew his motion.
The Payment of Wages Bill was withdri wn, several
measures were fora; irdcd a stage, and their Lord.h ps
adjourned.

The Commons engaged in long Li d arm ( onteiton
about the Weaver Clurches the third ; cad a; of
which was moved by S.r P. ECE:I( N.
Mr. THORNILY moved for a SL ect Con mitten :o
Quire into the matter.
xr. arm moved the ad;ournn eat of the sk,bc• ;

but after several divisions the Bill was read a third time,
and, some amendments being proposed, the further con-
sideration of the Bill was finally postponed till to-day.
On Monday Sir ROBERT PEEL will ask a question
concerning the construction of the Orders in Council,
relative to China.
On the motion that the House should go into a
Committee on the Irish Registration Bill (L )rd
STANLET'S), Mr. O'CONNELL moved an instruction to
the Committee, with a view to define the franchise.
The lion. Member set forth the necessity of defining
the franchise before proceeding to enact registration
clauses, at great length. He complained of Lord
STANLEY for forcing on the Bill before the English
and Scotch Registration Bills were proceeded with,
and concluded by moving that the Committee be in-
structed to define municipal cesses and taxes.
Mr. LEFROY opposed the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed that the law was
uncertain, and that the franchise required to be defined.
1 Sir E. SUGDEN, of course, took an opposite view.

Sir D. NORREYS supported Mr. O'CONNELL, and
Mr. SHAW opposed him. Mr. LYNCH and Mr. LITTON
also took opposite sides. Mr. H. GRATTAN said the
people of Ireland ought not to submit to the Bill.
Lord STANLEY was indignant that no Minister bad
spoken, and that his progress in doing mischief was
delayed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained at some length that
he thought qualification and registration ought to be
regulated by separate measures, and he could not vote
with the [lon. Member for Dublin.
Sir ROBERT PEEL condemned in strong terms the
course pursued by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin. Alter a debate which turned principally on the
course of proceedings which had been adopted, the
Howe di%idcd, and the instruction was refused by 311
to 162.

Toe Committee was then postponed till Monday.
At a Quarter to One the House adjourned, having
done nothing but debate this instruction, debate the
Weaver Churcnes Bill, and perform some matters of
Course.

It is understood that the split in the Conserva-
tive party, of which the Standard of last night
furnished additional evidence, is immediately caused
by the refusal of the moderate and respectable
Tories to support Lord NV YNFORD'S motion to
exclude Dublin from the Irish Municipal bill.
Our Contemporary gives the following graphic de-
scription of his friends staining their souls by
voting for what they believe to be unjust :--
If we could trust to the avowed conviction of Conser-
vatives we should have no fears : all agree in condemning
tie 13;11—all call it an unjust, an odious, an execrable
measure ; but, most strangely, some of the very men who
use this language tell us teat the house of Lords is not at
',betty to reject the treasure in integro, and at once, es
they ought surely to reject what is unjust. odious, and exe-
crable. Some pledge, forsooth, is referred to, though
when given, or upon what consideraticn, no man w.ll say.
Now, will the House of Lords adopt the •'unjust, odious,
and execrable measure" under the compulsion of this mys-
terious engagement—will it thus repay thenipport which
it has received in its day of peril from the
Conservative people ? Will it throw away the hope
of again receiving that support when it shall be again in
danger, ns in danger agai❑ it must be? But some one has
given a pledge, we hear it repeated. What has been the
equivalent? If the pledge is not to be treated as a mere
nudum pactum, let us know the value received. Let us
see the concessions made by the 3linisters or their Ro-
manist task-masters. Nothing whatever of the kind can
be shown. How, then, is any party bound by a ple,2ge
in the price of which no party has partkipated ? Let
every man bear his own burthen. It is not servitude, it is
nut tlavery in the mild form in which it exists in Barbary
or Turkey—it is a degradation cf the human bring below
the delaaement of the wretch wl7o places his head under
the wheels of Juggernaut, that c.atupels a man to stain
his soul by voting for what he believes to be unjust, odious,
and execrable, because truly another has promised that he
shall do so. If the majority of the House of Lords em
brace this foul slavery, trt Clem never again represent
themselves as the guardians of cur liberty. Liberty seems
theguardianshiis of 'o,ectsman.

.•
The Duke of WELLINGTON is more of a poli-
tician than a sectarian—more of a statesman than
an ecclesias,',:ic ; and he refuses, unlike the late Lord
LIVERPOOL, and Mr. SPENCER PERCEVAL, to
bow 1-as neck to the yoke of tl'e bigot. Ile will
not consent to take Dublin out of the Bill, because
tiae Irish parsons and the Irish Orangemen swear
that Protestantism will be endangered by reforming
that corrupt corporation. In this point he agrees
with the Tory statesmen of the House of Com-
mons, who allowed the all to pass without pro-
posing to remove Dublin from its operation ; but
he disagrees with the ultra-Protestants whom the
Standard describes as the supporters of the peer-
age in its days of peril. This is one vital differ-
ence between the two sections of the 'Tories, which
must make it far more difficult for them to form an
Administration, when they have an opportunity,
than to turn out the present Ministry.
But between the DUKE and his friends in the
House of Lords on the one hand, and the Tory
statesmen in the House of Commons on the other,
there is also a serious difference. He and Lord
ELLENBOROUGII, though they declined to take on
themselves the responsiniiity of rejecting the Canada
Government Bill, spoke strongly against it, while
Sir R. PEEL lent is aid to make it perfect,
and Mr. GLADSTONE spoke of it as the only
measure which could serve and save the Canadas.
Lord ASHBURTON, again, was quite radical on
Canada. On such vital questions, then, as the
mode of governing the Colonies—as the constitutions
they are to have—and as the local administration of
Ireland, there is a complete schism in the party
which claims to govern the country on account of
its unity and its strength.
On Wednesday, too, the Standard expatiated
at great length on the power of the ultra Pro-
testants, and made it out, very much to its own
satisfaction, that the Conservative statesmen in the
House of Commons owe all their power to the fa-
natics. They seem induced to adopt the same con-
victicn, and therefore placed themselVes, on Tuesday
evening, under the generalship of Sir It. INGLIS.
The question he brought forward concerned the
balance of power in the Constitution. He proposed
to swidl the ecclesiastical authority ; and Lord
STANLEY, who cut off ten Bishops in his Reform-
ing days, as well as Sir R. PEEL and Sir JAMES
GItAII.,I, acknowledged the propriety of the mo-
,ion by their votes. Such a question, binding
down a great party, should have at least the ad-
vantage of the advocacy of its leaders if they had
not originated it, but both Sir R. PEEL and his
rival Lord STANLEY, gave a silent vote in favour
of the proposition of their new leader. Perhaps
they were ashamed of their recent submission to his
power, and thought to conceal their degradation
by their silence. Lord STANLEY, the author of
Church Reform in Ireland, and Sir It. PEEL, the
author of the Church Commission, now voting
under Sir It. INGLIS to extend the Church, is as
sorrowful an example of political folly and incon-
sistency as has of late fallen under our notice.
But a more important consideration than the
personal character of these statesmen is the effect
on the public of the differences between the Tories,
should they get possession of the Government, and
of the predominance of the ultra-religious party.
The disjointed Tories are prepared to turn out the
Whigs, but from these differences on vital questions
it would be impossible for them to carry on the
Government for three months. They obstruct and
would destroy, without the possibility of rebuilding
and maintaining.
Lord J. RUSSELL alluded, on Tuesday to the
hostility of the Dissenters to the Church, but what
they now feel is as a little comfortable parlour fire
to a glowing furnace to what they will feel when
alarmed by the Church Extensionists being in pos-
session of the Government. A hopefut prospect
this for the country ! A powerful faction is re-
solved to destroy the present Administration,
and to seize power which it could not hold, though
its momentary suet( ss would excite the most angry
passions in more than half the nation. No man can
say that the Whigs, who are mostly Churchmen, are
the enemies of any class ; but the Church Exten-
sionists must be, and are regarded, as enemies, as
unjustextortioners and oppressors by a majority ofthe
nation. Against a Government founded on Ultra-
Protestant principles—and the Standardassures us no
other has any chance of standing, the hostility of the
Catholics, of the Dissenters, and of all those who
belong to no sect—now a considerable party in the
empire, would be directed ; so that the success of the
Tories in breaking up the present Administration
must lead to contention and anarchy. Never was
a greater misnomer than to call such mischievous
men Conservatives.

In a brief article we copy from the Scotsman on
the state of trade in Dundee, it is said that the
spring demand from America has not been so
great as usual, partly because the Americans are
beginning to manufacture for themselves. As we
will not take their corn they cannot buy our cloth-
ing and cutlery, and as they must have garments
and tools, they are compelled by our Comb-laws to
turn manufacturers. They may ultimately be bene-
fited by this, and the same law which weakens
England may strengthen America. To provoke
anger in other nations and make them powerful are
the ricixssary consevericcQ of a law expressly esta.

Wished, as the landlords affirm, to increase the
wealth and preserve the independence of Britain.
One probable result of this slackness of trade,
and the rise of manufactures in other nations, seems
worthy of notice. To enable us to compete with
them, we must conic down to their prices, and
even undersell them. Tin that occurs, trade
cannot revive and extend in England. But what
a fall of prices here, to a level with, and below
the level of prices on the Continent, with our pre•
sent and increasing burdens, and with our Corn-
laws, signifies, the owners of property, of land, and
capital, will not require us to state. Bankruptcy is
beginning, but bankruptcy, we are afraid, wiil ex-
tend ; and when bankruptcy becomes eeneral
amongst traders, it will not be long before the
landowners and the monied classes will feel some of
those poignant miseries their stupid and wicked
legislation has inflicted on others.

A country Correspondent, who has not seen the
last Report of
.the Select Committee of the House
of Commons on the Opium question, expresses an
earnest wish that we shall publish it, for the advan-
tage of such readers as prefer knowing the conclu-
sions arrived at by the Committee upon the evi-
dence given before them, to the less deliberative de-
cisions of the daily newspapers. We set it down
to the wisdom of the Committee that a compliance
with the wish of our Correspondent, will make nei-
ther him nor those who think as he does, anything
the wiser. The Committee's Report, like the
knife-grinder's perilous adventures, is soon dis-
posed of.

6' A story, bless you I have none:to tell."
Equally lacon,c is the Hon. Reporter on the
part of the Select Committee. He states in two
lines and a half of prose, that the Committee feel
that they shall best discharge their duty to the
House by laying before it, without any observation
on their part, the evidence on the opium surrender
which they have taken. Thus every reader is left,
and very properly, we think, to draw his own con-
clusions from the mass of evidence sub-
mitted to him. Parliament has yet heard
but one side of the question. The witnesses exa-
mined, with a single exception, were all dealers in,
or otherwise interested in the sale of, opium. Su-
perintendent ELLIOT and the interpreters ate yet
to be heard, and it would ill comport with the Justice
of the House of Commons to condemn any proceed-
ing on the part of a Representative of the Crown in
a foreign country, without waiting to hear what
vindication he may have to offer, for what at first
sight may appear reprehensible in his conduct.
But while we willingly acquit Capt. ELLIOT of
intentional error—while we ate ready to grant, in
the fullest manner, that he had nothing more at
heart than to uphold the dignity of the Crown, and
assert the rights of his countrymen and of all other
Europeans and Americans trading in China, we
have no hesitation in asserting that it is deducible,
both from his own correspondence, and from the
evidence given before the Committee, that from time
moment of his arrival at Canton in March, when
the trade was stopped, he completely lost his ba-
lance, and acted like a man who had no settled pur-
pose. His sudden, and by the whole community,
unexpected surrender of the opium—his threats of
war, followed in almost the same breath by humi-
liating petitions for peace—his attack on the
Chinese fortress, which he abandoned when it was
in his power to carry it—are itrecoecilealde with
the conduct of a British officer in the cool posses-
sion of all his faculties.

We have on former occasions approved, and we
repeat our approval, of those acts of Captain
ELLIOT of which the Tories have most loudly ex-
pressed their disapprobation. His refusal to give
up an innocent person to be murdered by the
Chinese authorities to revenge the accidental kiil-
ing of a native in a drunken brawl, reflects the
highest credit upon him, both as a British oflicer
and the Representative of our Most Gracious
Sovereign. Neither do we find the least fault
with him for the part the opium dealers would
have it to be inferred he had in acceterating a
rupture with China. It was plain to every person
conversant with our relations with China, that
a contest must
._have arisen sooner or later. The
seeds of a rupture had been sown long before
his appearance in the Chinese waters, and the
fruit was ripe before his hand could be stretched to
pluck. Nor, indeed, could a better time be chosen
for deciding such a question in the Eat than when
Europe enjoys the blessings of a general and, we
trust, a lasting peace. What we blame Captain
ELLIOT for is, the vacillation he evinced,- when
firmness and steadiness of purpose were so essential
to the safety of a British community and the dignity
of the British Crown. We blame him for not having
taken his course at once, and never swerved from
it. From the instant he found him ,elf a prisonet
at Canton, his course was clear. He must have
known that the British Government would trot, and
could not, overlook such an outrage—such a gross
violation of the Law of Nations. By the very lag,
China had made war upon England. In attempt-
ing to treat with LIN after his escape, he was
treating with an enemy, with whom he had no
authority to make peace. The war was inevivible
—UN's mode of bringing it about unobjection•
able ;so far Captain ELLIOT is blameless. But
his conduct subsequently satisfies us that his moral
courage was not equal to so great and trying an
emergency .

The Church Extension question seems to us
like no other question, and demands from the public
peculiar consideration. How many policemen
shall be employed, what number of soldiers is
wanted, what shall be the size of the fleet and the
number of seamen, how many Judges shall sit in
Chancery, are all questions to be decided by a
physical standard, and though politicians may (Lifer
in applying it, they always look to the number of
population, to the enemies likely to be opposed to
us, or to the number of. suits, to determine the
number of judges, soldiers, sailors, and policemen.
But Church Extension is to supply the spiritual
wants of the people, which are wholly invisible
and intangible, and of which the sole judges are the
persons who say they alone can supply the wants.
It is not merely, to take an illustration from the
army, as if the military officers should determine
how many soldiers should be levied and how much
they should be paid, but as if they decided by
numbering up enemies whom nobody could see,
and nobody could combat but themselves. Such a
peculiarity in the question should make every man,
except he he as pr:est-ridden as Mr. P.LtimPTRE,
look on the assertion of the priest party with great
suspicion.
Another leading feature of this question, is its
super-eminent importance. Though Sir R. INGLIs
recommended his motion to the House of Com-
mons by considerations of public utility, he also
asserted that he wished the Church to he
extended because it is the true Church. Of
course no man proposes to extend a false Church.
But this true Church is not only the source, ac-
cording to him and his party, of all morality, and
all virtue, and all civilization,—it is also the means
of securing eternal happiness to mankind. Cer-
tainly nothing can be more thoroughly absurd than
the supposition that souls can be saved by a vote
of Parliament, as an army can be formed ; but
the more absurd it is, the inure strong may be the
belief in it, as it cannot be brought to the test of
the senses. Such being actually the absurd sup-
position, and such the strong belief of the priest
party, it follows that the extension of the Church,
as the means of securing order, obecliene,, peace,
and happiness in this world, and also of seeuriii
mankind eternal happiness, is beyond all
cottt-
parison the most important question which can
en-
gage the attention of statesmen. They pursue it
with the zeal of fanatics. It admits of no compro-
mise ; and the Church Extemionists require more
churches, in obedience to the commands of
as a means of saving society from sin and Souls
from cernal torture.

Moreover, this opinion of the paramount import-
ance of the Church is shared by statesmen. They
speak of it and uphold it as the means both of MI
spiring the people with a love of virtue and a sense
of political obedience, and also of leading the peoplc
to salvation. Sir B. PEEL and Lord' J Rus-
SELL alike share this opinion, and support the
Church as the basis of social order and future
happiness. On no other ground hut the
pre-eminent importance of the doctrines it
teaches can they or any men support our Church
Establishment. They believe the doctrines of the,
priests, and on their assertion, that there is great
spiritual destitution amongst the people, they have
been trying to increase the number of churches.
Then comes for public consideration the union
of the all-importance of the subject with the fact ,
that there- is no measure 'of the spiritual wants of