The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-09 00:00:00

was naturally excited and irritable. Be spoke in a
becoming manner of the University, but he never-
theless thought that he had a good opportunity of
saying something sinister about the Conservatives.

He fixed upon their management of the Treaty with

China. Mr. GLADSTONE'S words on the occasion most

certainly convey a reproach to the Government of

which Lord MALMESBURY was a member. He said

that his predecessor in office deemed it advisable
to sign a treaty, but thought this could not be done

in a satisfactory manner without a large fleet ; the

people of China did not understand the necessity of
this fleet for signing a treaty, and serious conse-

" However that may be," con-
" a great disaster occurred

quences ensued.
tinues Mr. GLADSTONE,

in the month of June, 1859, at the mouth of the

Peiho, under the instructions of Lord MALMESBURY,
and before the present Government had assumed
their office, or at any rate had been able to take
any step in reference to China." No wonder the
noble lord, who is referred to in this passage in so
very uncomplimentary a manner, should deem it
advisable to make some protest against the sweeping
charges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble lord proceeds to reply to the impertinent
insinuations of Mr. GLADSTONE in a very business-
like and straightforward manner. He observes, in
the first place, that if the words mean anything they
must infer that he is responsible for the repulse by
the Chinese, through sending instructions to Admiral
HOPE to " send up with Mr. BRUCE to the mouth of
the Peiho a sufficient naval force ;" and likewise
Mr. GLADSTONE conveys the meaning that
had the present Government of her MAJESTY
been in office at that time they would have
acted very differently. Lord MALMESBURY
refers to the China papers, and declares that his
instructions were rendered necessary by Lord
ELGIN'S previous remarks, when he complained of
not having a sufficient naval force at his command,
and also by Admiral Sir MICHAEL SEYMOUR, who
averred that nothing would satisfy the Chinese but
the " conclusive evidence" of irresistible force. The
statements of Mr. BRUCE at a conference held by
Admiral HOPE, GenerAL STRAUBENZEE, and himself,
confirm the opinion of the others. Lord MALMES,.
BURY truly observes upon this that, whether his
instructions were ill-judged or not, all these eminent
diplomatic naval and military chiefs, who were on
the spot, agreed as to the necessity of there being
" a sufficient force" to protect the British Envoy.
In respect to Mr. GLADSTONE'S insinuation that a
different policy would have been adopted by his
colleagues and himself, Lord MALMESBURY refers to
Lord RUSSELL'S remarks on the subject. The noble
Earl, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, took quite a
different view of the subject to that entertained by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and declared by
him to be the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet.
In a despatch dated the 6th of July, 1859, Lord
RUSSELL replied to Mr. BRUCE'S :desphteh in the
following terms :—" Her MAJESTY'S Government
approve the arrangements as reported in your de-
spatch of the 4th of May, which you have adopted
in concert with Sir C. VAN STRAUBENZEE and Rear-
Admiral HOPE, for the purpose of proceeding up
the Peiho, backed by an adequate naval and mili-
tary force !" No wonder that Lord MALMESBURY
adds to this quotation—" Lord RUSSELL speaks in
the name of Her MAJESTY'S Government,
of which you yourself were a member." It
is too much for the effrontery of
Mr. GLADSTONE to make such a declaration
as this at Liverpool, when a little investigation
would have shown him the fallacy of his assertions,
if his memory was not good or his memory defec-
tive. Nothing can excuse a man in his eminent
and influential position for going out of his way to
make erroneous statements and prefer unfounded
charges against his political opponents when he
has got the field to himself, and they cannot answer
in the presence of those who hear the false report.
Such a course may be the dodge of the moment,
but it is a manoeuvre totally unworthy of a great
statesman, and in direct opposition to the
candid and cautious bearing which should
distinguish rival politicians. Lord MALMES-
BURY concludes by asking how is he to ac-
count for the attempt at Liverpool to saddle him
with the " undivided odium" of a policy which was
approved by Mr. GLADSTONE'S own Government in
an official manner before the facts themselves were
generally known in England. " How am I," he
continues, " to reconcile Lord RUSSELL'S straight-
forward letter of the 6th of July, 1859, with your
sneering attack upon me of the 18th of July, 1865 ?"
To these very plain questions Mr. GLADSTONE
makes a very lame reply, and strives to throw
ambiguity into his language to cover his retreat. Of
course no one who knows anything of Mr. GLADSTONE
would expect him to confess he had made a mistake,
because he never condescends to such a:thing as that,
but still he might have adopted a less haughty tone in
his reply, and kept a little more to facts and less to
fiction. The fact is he saw he had made a blunder,
and was at a loss how to come out of the affair with
anything like credit, and so he turned round on his
opponent and declared that the matter at issue was
not what Lord MALMESBURY made it out to be, and
that it was not a question as to how the expenses
had been incurred in China, but who had incurred
them ? One remark in this letter is especially
worthy of notice ; Mr. GLADSTONE is quite shocked
at Lord MALMESBURY'S allusion to his making
" insinuations and sneering references," " it be-
ing his habit to state with great plainness
what he thinks in regard to public affairs." If this
is meant for a joke it is a very poor one; and if it
is put forward .as a fact, it is too much for the
greatest admirers and most devoted partisans of
Mr. GLADSTONE to pretend that they believe, for
there is no public man living who is a greater adept
in " sneering" than the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer.

The account of the tragical ascent of the Matter-
horn, given by the survivor, will be read with the
deepest interest in this country. Few accidents of
late years have excited so wide a range of sympathy
and regret. We have unfortunately become too
much accustomed to railway and colliery acci-
dents to be startled or surprised when we hear
of two or three lives falling a sacrifice, however
much we may be grieved at the disaster ; but all
the attendant circumstances of the Alpine tragedy
tend to heighten the natural regret with which we
tirs
tation and position, started at different times on
their summer holiday, and having turned their
steps towards the Alpine regions with the intention
of pursuing that laborious pastime so popular
among the members of the Alpine Club, they met
At the foot of the Matterhorn, one of the fel,
peaks that have defied the adventurous moun-
taineer. Nothing seems more natural than that
they should combine their forces, and, accompanied
by a sufficient number of experienced guides, should
start full of health and vigour, delighted with the
prospect of achieving the glory of being the first
to scale the Matterhorn. What a startling contrast
is shown in Mr. WHY3IPER'S narrative between
the night of the 13th passed in the tent, with
the laughter of the party and the songs of the
guides ascending in the clear mount .in air, to the
next night which fell on the wretched party of
the three euryivor4 while they were yet looking in