The Times' correspondent, who was at Foo-Chow, gave a very
highly-coloured account of the bombardment of the Foo-Chow Arsenal, from which it would appear that a great deal of wanton destruction on the part of the French had taken place ; and the Times itself indulged in some harsh strictures on the French procedure. Thereupon M. Jules Ferry opened his mind to the Times' correspondent in Paris. He had not observed, he said, that when we bombarded the forts of Alexandria the French journals attacked ns as the Times had attacked the procedure of the French Navy. M. Ferry went on to complain of the English Press for egging on China, which is, we think, hardly true. Many of the English papers have pointed out to China the extraordinary sacrifices she would have to make, and the cer- tain reverses the Chinese must suffer, if they would -wear out France in this enterprise. But when M. Ferry goes on to say that Chinese fraud and dissimulation had met him at every point, we must protest that he is not true to himself. As regards the Lang-son affair at least, it has been openly acknowledged that the officer who advanced off Lang-son was not empowered to attack the place, if it were found occupied by the Chinese, but ought to have referred to his superior for further instructions. That admits, in principle, the Chinese case. The French have shown at least as much disposition not to act straightforwardly as the Chinese.
