The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-16 00:00:00

Jaffa on their way towards St. Jean d'Acre, they
left behind them among the desolate fortifications
several deadly moinds of newly-turned earth, under
which lay the victims of this appalling retribution.
Europe shuddered at the first tidings of a catas-
trophe almost unexampled in war. Sir ROBERT
WILSON, perverting some of the facts, branded the
young conqueror's reputation with the evil brand
of a needless and pitiless cruelty. The accusation
was enforced in 1814 through the famous brochure
" De BONAPARTE et des BOURBONS," of the Viscomte
RENE de CHATEAUBRIAND. It was adopted as
" proven" a few years later by Sir WALTER SCOTT
in one of the earlier chapters of the eight volumed
life of the modern SESOSTRIS. Something in the
way of extenuation was attempted, it is true, in
England by HAZLITT, and in France by LAURENT
de L'ARDECHE, and accidentally by SAVART and
D'ABRANTES, and a multitude of other diarists and
autobiographers. Eventually—according to the
inevitable rule implied by that old familiar scrap
of classic wisdom, magna est veritas et prevalebit—
the truth has become known, not a fragment, but
the whole of it. It may be found dispassionately
and categorically stated, with every minute
particular, in the pages of M. TRIERS. Re-
garded in a military point of view, regarded
in a political point of view—the massacre
of the soldiers of DJEZZAR PACHA at Jaffa was
a Dreadful Necessity. Isolated with his forces in
the midst of the desert—BONAPARTE had, poli-
tically speaking, no alternative.
A Dreadful Necessity, of a very different cha-
racter, though one arising from a very similar
cause, is, beyond any doubt of it, thrust at this
moment upon the allied French and English Go-
vernments. An empire like that of China—con-
taining within it nearly a moiety of the human
race, or, in other words, according to the generally
accepted computation, 400,000,000 souls—cannot,
it is true, if we could wish anything so diabolical,
be exterminated, cannot be decimated, cannot be
held responsible for an atrocity perpetrated in a
little hole•and-corner of that vast territory (around
the forts upon the mud banks of the Peiho) by
20,000 or 30,000 lawless assassins, lying there in
wait for 1,300 men, and those men their sworn
friends, lying there in wait for them in deadly
ambuscade. The responsibility for this dastardly
and treacherous act belongs not to the whole of the
scarcely calculable myriads of the Chinese popula-
tion. BUT for this great crime the Imperial
Government at Pekin MUST be be held Directly
and Absolutely Responsible. That is the Dreadful
Necessity devolving now upon the Allied Nations
ruled by VICTORIA I. and NAPOLEON 111. Upon
the Imperial Government at Pekin—only a little
further up that river of the Peiho—must fall
swiftly, surely, inexorably, a Deadly Retribution.
There is in this no alternative whatever before
France or before Great Britain. The atrocity is
extraordinary. The punishment of it must be pro-
portionally grand and astounding. The complete-
ness of the chastisement—veiling the infamy of
the crime chastised—should be such that it should
be held in the world's perpetual remembrance.

It is hardly for us to censure the management of
another journal, however freely we may all of us
combat each other's opinions .;
but the course of
The Times in rejecting such a letter as we insert
to-day, is so extraordinary, that we are at a loss to
comprehend the reason. Generally, not only from
a sense of fairness, but as a practical principle of
journalism, respectable newspapers freely accept
letters advocating views entirely hostile to their own,
when they come from persons whose position gives
them a title to be heard. It is recognised by us all
as a compliment on the part of such writers to
think us a desirable medium for giving their views
publicity. We are, of course, free as air to prove
them utterly wrong. But the public like to know
what men whose special knowledge entitles their
statements to attention have to say, and we natu-
rally wish to give the public what it likes. Not only
because we have always a pleasure in giving our
readers both sides of the question, but for our interest
we should gladly insert any letter against our own
opinions if the writer had a fair claim to be heard,
or if the letter was remarkable for ability, or for
the facts it contained.

The letter of Mr. AMASA WALKER, who was ex-
ofcio Secretary to the Executive:Council, at the time
when the secret Ballot was in force in
Massachusetts, is certainly a gentleman whose
statements on the subject of the Ballot
are as well worthy of public attention as
those of Mr. DANA to Lord RADSTOCK on the same
subject. Mr. DANA is spoken of by Mr. WALKER
in the highest terms, as a gentleman of the highest
pc 3ition at the bar, and a man of integrity and
honour ; but Mr. WALKER thinks him too deeply
engaged in professional pursuits to have anything
more than " impressions" on such a political
subject as the Ballot. Mr. WALKER himself,
however, had to do with the working of the
whole business, " it came especially under his per-
sonal observation," " he saw all the returns opened
and examined," and there is hardly a statement made
by Mr. DANA from " impressions" and " report"
which Mr. WALKER is not able to correct by
facts, and by special knowledge. We have
heard of a very decided man who when told
that " the facts were against him"—replied—
" and so much the worse then for the facts." Is this
the penalty which the Times proposes to inflict on
hostile facts ? "So much the worse for them,"
they are not to appear in its columns unless they are
such facts as it can banter. Yet this is not always
the case, since frequently enough " it veers round"
all at once after long tacking against a gale of facts
which it could not exclude, and be a newspaper at
all.

In the absence of other reasons it is impossible to
imagine any other reason for the non-insertion of
Mr. WALKER'S letter than that it utterly anni-
hilated all the value of Mr. DANA'S letter as a tes_
timony against the Ballot from the experience of
Massachusetts. The Times wills that the false wit-
nessess (unintentionally, such we believe) shall alone
be heard. Evidence to prove that the Ballot cannot
be at the same time secret and free from fraud is freely
published ; evidence to prove the former evidence
erroneous must not be heard. The Times is not to
be a court of justice in regard to the Ballot, but a
grand jury to hear ex parte evidence only. It
will find true bills against the Ballot, but it
will not impartially try its merits, The State
of Massachusetts in 1851 passed a law that
the voting should be, by placing the voting paper
in adhesive envelopes of a kind provided by the
State. Now, Mr. WALKER, the gentleman who
officially superintended the balloting, tells us
that, contrary to Mr. DANA'S representations,
the balloting papers did not tumble out and
create difficulty ; that " gluten" was not provided
at the polls to aid in sealing, though some deriders
of the Ballot carried gluten pots to the poll to get
laughed at for their miserable joke ; above all, that
the attempt at once " to secure secrecy and prevent
fraud did not fail," that secresy was obtained, and
the fact never denied. That fraud was entirely
prevented and by the simple regulation, that two
voting papers in one envelope for the same
candidates counted only for one, and if for
different candidates for nothing ; and that the