The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-01 00:00:00

_~
~:

),;•7
Lno

-4c

THE SUN.

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1860.

It would be difficult even for the Chinese them-
selves to surpass the insolence with which the
ultimatum of the British Government has been
rejected. There cannot any longer now be one
solitary doubt remaining as to the course that
ought to be pursued by the Western Allies in
regard to a race which has thus flagrantly violated
all international law. The memorable treaty
solemnly ratified a year or two since has been now
coolly ignored by one of the contracting parties as
though the said treaty had never been in existence.
The engagements formerly entered into between
the Chinese Plenipotentiaries on the one part, and
the English and French Plenipotentiaries on the
other, have been cavalierly set aside by the Asiatic
authorities of whom the former negotiators were
the acknowledged representatives—set aside not by
a stroke of the pen merely, but in the first
instance by the murderous discharge of a
treacherous and dastardly ambuscade. Turpi-
tude more heinous than this has never before
characterised the acts of any Power assuming to
itself in any way a chafacter for civilisation.
It is advisable to bear especially in mind what
are the demands contained in the British ultimatum,
which have now been peremvtorily rejected by the
Chinese. And then to recognise distinctly the
insulting arrogance characterising the manner of
their rejection. The despatch, dated 9th April,
1860, written from Shanghae by Mr. BRUCE, as
her Britannic MAJESTY'S Ambassador, addressed
to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and
laid by Lord JOHN RUSSELL upon the table of the
House of Commons last evening, enumerates suc-
cinctly, under three heads, what it really is that
the Chinese reply to the British ultimatum refuses
to do.

First of all, Mr. BRUCE tells us " It refuses any
apology or expression of regret for the treacherous
conduct at the mouth of the Peiho last year. Se-
condly, It refuses permission to ascend the Tien-
tsin river, and directs me to proceed, not to Pekin,
but to Peh•tang, there to await the exchange of
ratifications; stating that if I attempt to go by
way of Taku, the officer in charge of the forts will
be called on to act. Thirdly, It refuses to restore
the guns or ships abandoned at the mouth of the
river, or to consider the payment of an :n-
-demnity." Having done ali which categorically
and peremptorily in the. way of distinct denial
or rejection the reply goes on, fourthly, to
refer Mr. BRUCE " authoritatively (he writes) to
the regulations laid down for the reception of the
American mission last year, appearing to hint at
the same time that these may be in some degree
modified in discussion with Ho." Her MAJESTY'S
ambassador here adding immediately that, " Its
most important instruction to Ito, however, is, that
before I proceed to the north, he is to consider what
parts of the treaty are to be brought into operation
and what parts will require compromise or modifi-
cation."
Now, the mere fact of these refusals of all
apology or compensation is surely quite sufficient
of itself in the way of provocation—particularly
when that fact is followed up, forthwith, by
the intimation that we may yet, if we please to do
so, cat humble pie with exemplary meekness, as we
all know was actually done last year by the United
States' ambassadorial representative. But it is
the manner, above all, in which these refusals are
expressed that imparts the sting and the poison of
the sting to the provocation. For the instant ap-

preciation of the full insolence of the Chinese
reply to our ultimatum, it is only neces-
sary to glance, however carelessly or cur-
sorily, down the translation given elsewhere,
in our impression of this evening, the literal and
verbatim translation of this audacious document.
It will there be seen, for example, that the Chinese,
in reply to the demand for the restitution of the
gunboats lost by us at the Taku forts, go the
childish length of remarking, after a comment
upon the injury inflicted by the English upon these
very fortifications—" Besides this, half the British
ships and guns demanded were sunk in the sea :
they are not in the possession of the Chinese at
all !" adding, with consummate effrontery, " The
question may be dropped, therefore, by both parties
alike." But it is further on, towards the close of
this extraordinary effusion, that the arrogance of
the whole reply to our ultimatum reaches the
very climax of audacity. "To arrive at length,"
it says, "at the request advanced by the British
Minister BRUCE to be treated with courtesy when
he comes north to exchange treaties. If he be sin-
cere in his desire for peace, let the commissioner,
when he shall have thought over all the details of
the treaty, those which it will be proper to give
effect to, and those respecting which compromise
or arrangement is to be made, negotiate, and when
both parties shall be perfectly agreed, if he will
come north without vessels of war, and with a
moderate retinue, and will wait at Peh-tang to ex-
change the treaties, China will not take him to
task for what is gone by ! He must be di-
rected to acquaint himself with the rules ob-
served or laid down at the exchange of the
American treaties, and the course to be pursued
will be further discussed with him by the Commis-
sioner. But if he be resolved to bring up a num-
ber of vessels of war, and if he persist in proceed-
ing by way of Taku, this will show that his true
purpose is not the exchange of treaties, and it must
be left to the high officer in charge of the coast or
port defences to take such steps as shall be thereby
rendered advisable." And it is added, thereupon,
that—" The despatch written on this occasion by
the British Minister BRUCE is, in much of its
language, too insubordinate and extravagant
for the Great Council of the Chinese to do
more than discuss its propositions most superfi-
cially." Nay, her Britannic MAJESTY'S represen-
tative is actually reminded by the Chinese Council,
in their reply to the British ultimatum, that—
" For the future he must not be so wanting in
decorum !" Nothing, in short, could be more in-
sensate or more outrageous than the whole matter
and manner of this astounding rejection of our
ultimatum by the diplomatic organ or mouthpiece
of the Chinese Government. It is a rejection that
leaves us absolutely no alternative. We have but
one course to pursue, and that is to advance sword
in hand upon the Chinese capital. Nothing else
remains to be done, in fact, but to march upon
Pekin forthwith, to take it with the utmost possible
expedition, and from that 'vantage ground, there
—at Pekin, and nowhere else than Pekin—dictate
New Terms of Peace to this barbarous and insolent,
faithless and recalcitrant Government. The more
resolutely, promptly, and thoroughly the war is
accomplished this time, the more securely and per-
manently will the result be in the interests of hu-
manity and civilization.

An appeal lies before us which it seems almost
like inhumanity not to notice. It is entitled,
" Startling facts ;" and the facts are respecting
" the poverty and distress of 400 clergymen of the
Church of England." The testimony is such as
can hardly be impeached, for the witness, who
cannot well be deceived in the vast majority of the
cases he records, is the Rev. IV. G. JERVIS, secre-
tary to the " Clerical Fund and Poor Clergy
Society." We have glanced, indeed, at the greater
part of the instances of clerical poverty which he
mentions, and can see no reasonable doubt that,
whatever the causes, the distressing particulars of
*ant and suffering are faithfully given; we mean,
of course, by those who furnished them to Mr.
/RIMS. We have often enough heard of the
Church of England as possessing, compared with
Dissenters, the claim to national support of being
the " poor man's Church ;" which claim we have
always thought a very rich fiction, since, as far as
our observation extends, the great majority of the
poor who go to any place of worship find the more
colloquial, or stimulating services of Methodists
and other Dissenters more to their taste. But we
are bound to acknowledge that Mr. JERVIS has
furnished the most ample proof that the Church of
England is the " poor clergyman's Church ;" for
we question whether, amongst all the Methodist
ministers in the country, a tithe of the instances
which he adduces of heart-rending poverty could
be found at all.

Before dropping a few remarks suggested to us,
by Mr. JERVIS' pamphlet, (which may be procured
at No. 345 of the street in which our own paper is
published), let us remark that the charitable
wealthy ought to obtain and read it at once. The
distress is extensive, that is certain ; the suffering,
in many cases, most severe, the difficulty of the
sufferers helping themselves often insurmountable,
always great, and the hardships are all such as
money, and other material aid, could mitigate or
relieve at once. To beg, themselves, most of these
poor clergymen would probably be ashamed. But,
they need the relief far more than many objects of
common charity. They may have been personally
improvident, or the system under which they suffer
may be in fault; but, as in the case of the Irish
famine, we cannot afford to wait for the working of
the principles of ADAM SMITH ; the principles of
Christian charity must step in and meet the pain-
fully exceptional case. We repeat, Mr. JERVIS
states facts which demand the present attention of
all who sympathise with the deeply suffering,
whose position and feelings yet forbid them to ask
relief.

But when we have put our hands into our pockets
to relieve any distressed individual or family,
whose wants admit of no delay, our next question is
what was the cause of the distress, and what is
the remedy ? One personal and obvious cause
strikes the reader at once. We read of large
families of children where the applicant seems,,,to
have had but the most limited means. Almost at
the beginning we find an incumbent with an income
of under £lOO a-year, in "heavy auction," and
with seven children. 'rho next, salary not men-
tioned, wants clothing for his wife and children,
for want of which they cannot attend divine service
—the clergyman's family through poverty cannot
go to Church ! A "domestic chaplain to a Lord"
has for five months been without a curacy, and
without means of support for a wife and child.
Another, with eight children, asks for clothing.
Another incumbent, income under £lOO a-year,
enjoys the burdensome blessing of seven children,
jive of them boys, and so on of " startling facts " by
the score. Now, we certainly are no advocates for
the celibacy of the clergy, but we may ask this
class to exercise ordinary prudence. If incumbents
or curates on £4O, or under £lOO a-year, will marry
aladmya
winittahionuintganay mfaomly,riere sources than themselves
for
nothing on earth can
save them from the workhouse or charity. The
shopmen or clerks with whom, in point of income,