The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-27 00:00:00

to be scrutinised without passion and without pre-

udice. Affecting as that quarrel did the relations of

two vast empires, and besides that, in a very
peculiar manner, the character of the British Gc-

vernment. Wherefore, seeing all this, as we have

said, we strove in the first instance, with conscien-

tious scrupulosity, to strike the balance of the ar-
gument, weighing the pros and cons of that argu-
ment by means of a judgment held, as nearly as
possible, in a state of absolute equilibrium. As we
intimated in our remarks upon this subject on Wed-
nesday evening—whatever mere " appearances"
might seem to indicate at the outset, we felt that Nte
ought in reason, in justice, in humanity to pause

before precipitately jumping to a conclusion in a
matter of such vital consequence. We did so.
And we did ao, as facts have proved, not by any
means inconsiderately. The whole of this extra-
ordinary Chinese Controversy was involved, in
regard to the mere facts of it, in so much obscu-
rity, in so many doubts, in such infinite and appa.
rently inextricable confusion—that it became, as
we considered, an imperative duty with us to ex-

amine the matter minutely before arriving at any

positive conclusion as to the supposititious Right or
Wrong vibrating pendulously between the British

Consul and the Chinese Commissioner. It was

especially because of the obscurity, the confusion,

and the complication of the entire question at
issue, that we hailed with so much sa-
tisfaction the appearance in extenso of the official
correspondence. It was even with peculiar and
unaffected pleasure, in one sense, that we observed
the hostile attitude in regard to Ministers as-

sumed upon this Colonial Controversy by the
Leaders of Her MAJESTY'S Opposition. It was
obvious at a glance that from the Collision of
Parties some flashes of light might be most vividly
and effectually thrown upon the "darkness
visible" of this tenebrous controversy. Neither
have we in any respect been deceived in our an-
ticipations. The subject has now been completely
and satisfactorily ventilated in both branches of
the Legislature. Truth, as usual,_ has sprung to
view out of the contentions of debate—like the
seeds of light that sparkle from the clashing arms
of combatants. And what confirms us all the
more securely in, the ultimate decision at which
we have arrived in the matter of this Chinese
Difficulty is the consideration of the really
extraordinary powers ineffectually concen-
trated upon the task of upholding the fallacious
side of the argument. In this respect the Earl
of DERBY'S opening oration—an oration zo
strongly condemnatory of the war as almost to
amount to a virtual impeachment of Ministers—
was sufficient of itself to exonerate from all blame
whatever, in reference to this difficulty, the mem-
bers of Lord PALMERSTON'S Administration. If
that was the best case Lord DERBY could make
out against the Cabinet, they must needs, in
truth, be altogether guiltless ! But when it is
remembered that, in addition to the Earl of
DERBY'S superb rhetorical onslaught, there
were directed against Ministers upon this
question, in rapid sequence, the cumulative
force of Lord ST. LEONARDS' legal eru-
dition, of Lord ELLENBOROUGH'S trenchant
invectives, of Lord LYNDHURST'S almost pythonic
denunciations, of Lord GREY'S snarling acrimony,
and of the Bishop of OXFORD'S politico-ecclesiasti-
cal fulminations—and all to no end whatever
beyond that startling anticlimax to an Opposition
Attack, a signal Ministerial Triumph—What shall
be said THEN? What?—buttliat the same argument
from its own inherent unsoundness must fail no
less entirely in the Commons than it has already
failed, completely and egregiously failed, in
the Lords—what though it has already been
sustained so far iu the popular branch of
the Legislature by the " remarkable and
enviable eloquence" of Mr. COBDEN, by the
variable and splendid abilities of Sir EDWARD
LYTTON, and by the authoritative voice of my
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—himself of late, it, must be
adm:tted, t some Extent the Arbiter of the
Destinies of the House of Commons. It remains
now, however, to be seen whether the great
Whig Leader can still maintain his character as
the Arbiter of those high Destinies—when Truth,
and Justice, and the Dignity of the Crown, and
the Honour of the Country are arrayed against
him on the aide of her MAJESTY'S Government

Lord CAMPBELL'S motion for the appointment
of a Select Committee, to inquire " whether the
privilege now enjoyed by reports of Law proceed-
ings might not be safely and properly extended to
proceedings in other bodies" was last night carried
by acclamation in the House of Lords. We trust
that the Committee will speedily enter on its
duties, and discharge the trust confided to its
care in an enlightened spirit, and with sound judg-
ment. By t:iis means', we hope, ere long, to
witness the removal of one of the most glaring
defects in the existing law of the land, and the
substitution of more salutary regulations for those
which have operated very prejudicially both to
the interests and efficiency of journalism. The
recent case of DATISON v. DUNCAN has exhibited
the deplorable state of the law in a ' very striking
point of view. It has revealed the stringent re-
striction by which the British Press is fettered,
and which, if strictly enforced, would para-
lyse its exertions, and destroy its utility.
We venture to assert that if the machinery of the
law were put in motion on every possible occasion
no person could venture to carry on the business
pf a public journalist. "The Freedom of the
Press " would cease to be the boast and security
of Englishmen. It would be impossible to report
the proceedings in either House of Parliament, or,
at public meetings, to comment upon the acts of
any public man, or to give any intelligence that
might be displeasing to any person whatsoever.
Newspapers would cease to contain news. They
dmerely give verbatim, reports of proceedings
in o u
the Law
and Police Courts. It would not
would
suffice that they should be fair abridgments.
The party complaining might choose to consider
any omission as prejudicial to his interests, and
punish the journalist for not having sufficient
space to publish a mass of dull and irrelevant
matter.

This anomalous and untoward state of affairs
is prevented by the very creditable forbearance
exhibited by the great majority of the people.
In 99 cases out of 100 a person who feels himself
injured, when satisfied that there is no improper
feeling against him, on the part of the journalist,
either passes the matter without notice, or merely
in a temper ate and gentlemanly letter explains the
mistake and requests a correction. But occa-
sionally a person of a different temperament turns
up---one who peremptorily demands, what ha is
pleased t) term " an unqualified," or possibly even
an "abject" apology. If the demand be not complied
with instanter, if time be requested for inquiry,
or consideration, an action is commenced, and costs'
being unnecessarily incurred, become additional
elements to be taken into account ; and we regret
to say that where lawyers are consuli`ed, they, in
too many instances, are 11 no means disposed to
act the part of peacemakers. Now the simple point
at issue is, whether the law should The in ac-
cordance with the general feeling, so that no
person should be subjected to legal pro-