28th July. Tus leisure which Sir James Stephen has had since he was induced to retire from the Bench on the ground. that his intellect was failing, has evidently been successful in reinvigorating that intellect, for there is no trace of a failure of power in his short article in the last Nineteenth Century on "he Opium Resolution'" of Sir Joseph Pease, The resolution itself and its temporary success in the House have thrown the Friend of China into transports; it re~ gards the success, with the irreverence: that such fanatics so frequently display, as "the Lerd's doing," and professes to believe that the fact that Sir Joseph Pease in the ballot obtained the first place for his resolution was a ious answer to the prayers of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade. The.whole thing seems really to have been a piece of hypocritical humbug; for we learn from Sir James Stephen that as there was no resolution that the Speaker should leave the chair, and Sir Joseph Pease can hardly have been ignorant of the effect of this omission to comply with the rules of the House, there was substantially ne resolution at all; and this accounts for no results having followed on Sir Joseph's having snatched, a majority vote.
We only propose to consider very briefly Sir James Stephen's paper, but we cannot neglect altogether the views of a jurist so distinguished, and one, too, with a deep and special knowledge of Indian affairs, He considers it
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.