The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-18 00:00:00

LI L'EUM.

TRIM F.YE rNt , srmrsorf .150 co. Mews Emery & Irnrn
man; Mrs. Honman.—And THE MASTER Oi' RAVENSWoOD
Mows. Jordan, Hursman, Vezto, Ernery,Withlicuntlo, Fitzpatrick,
&c. ; Masilamas Ternan, glawurthy, Lareuu, and C. Lecieroi.

BRITANNIA.

TRU ETIIIIINO, THE CORPORAL'S DAUGHTER Meaari.
Reynolds, Cranford, and Blgwood ; Miss Clara St Cause, Mrs. S.
Lame, and Mn. K. Yarnold.—The Rename ramlly.—To conclude
with THE HURON CHIRP. Mr. Juno Anderson..

HIGH•WATER AT LONDON.BRIDOK.

THT DATA—Morning, 4h. Dint titernoon, .111. 51m.
To•Moasow—Morning, 511. 15m Afternoon, sh. 40m.

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 18.

Tits statements made in Parliament by the
Duke of Somalis= and Mr. LAYARD show that if
the withdrawal of Admiral DENMAN from before
Valparaiso when that city was threatened with
bombardment was a fault, the party to be blamed
is the British Government. Thu policy of neu-
trality between Spain and Chili which Ministers
deliberately adopted is a fair subject of discussion ;
but it is anything but fair to censure a high-
minded officer for a strict and intelligent obedience
to the orders which he had received. A naval
officer on a foreign station who is suddenly called
upon to act in doubt' uland unforeseen circumstances
ought to be able to reckon on a generous and
liberal appreciation of his conduct on the part of
his countrymen; but he would deserve the strongest
censure who should disregard his instructions in
the very case for which they were intended to
provide. Trite and obvious as is this maxim, it is
ignored by some of our countrymen, who, it seems,
would have been glad to hear that Admiral DEN-
melt had taken the liberty of setting aside his in-
structions, and of acting upon his own view of what
the honour and interests of his country required.
If our officers should ever come to think thus of
their duty, and never suffer any wrong to be
done which they had the physical means of pre-
venting, we should have almost as many foreign
policies as admirals on foreign stations, and should
never know when we were at peace. We see a
picture of the officer who is ready to " take all
" the responsibility " of his action in the report of
Commodore ROORRA, the American naval com-
mander at Valparaiso, to his official superior.
This officer has been much praised in England, as
well as by some of our countrymen at Valparaiso,
at the expense of Admiral DENMAN. It is on
record that Commodore ROO ERN was ordered by
his Government to observe a strict neutrality; but
he states in his letter that he was ready to sink the
Spanish flag-ship in order to prevent the bombard-
ment of Valparaiso, if Admiral DENMAN would co-
operate with him. We may safely presume he
would not have done so without the consent of
General Kurirsicx, the United States Minister
to Chili, who, however, does not seem to have
contemplated taking any part beyond protesting
against the bombardment. Admiral Daxst.sx, in
hie official report, negatives the assertion that he
declined the co-operation of Commodore ROGERS,
and, with all respect to the latter officer, we prefer
to rely on the accuracy of our own countryman.
But there is no reason why Commodore Reuss
should not draw his own portrait, and here it is :

In offering to go beyond the letter of my instructions to
observe a strict neutrality I acted upon the supposition
that neutrality among the nations did not preclude all
well directed efforts to keep the peace among them ; that
as a peaceable citizen is not obliged to standby inert while
another is suffering from the unlawful violence of a third
person, but may justly interfere with force to pre-
vent an infraction of the laws—a murder, for ex-
ample—so a nation, witnessing the like disturbance
among her sister nations, need not rest absolutely im-
passive, but with sincere neutrality might interfere with
force if necessary to keep the operation of belligerents at
least within the law for the protection of neutral persons
and neutral property. I considered that Spain had lost
her colonies under a stringent colonial policy and religious
intolerance. In the course of time, encouraged by the
more liberal laws of a state of freedom, foreigner's had been
induced to settle in the country, and to embark their capi-
tal in commerce and other industrial pursuits. Towns
bad sprung up along the coast, railroads had been built,
and other material interests developed. Ideas as well as
manufactures had been introduced, the wealth and intel.
ligence meanwhile remaining with the foreigners. At
last Chili had reached the goal in human progress, marked
by the establishment of religious toleration, and now
Spain, on a point of etiquette rather than from any great
political end as I believe, proposes to burn the property
and destroy the towns along the sea-coast as far as she sees
At. Is it right that she should thus exercise her power of
destruction, unrestrained, along the shores of this conti-
nent ? The mode of warfare which Spain proposes is terri-
ble, but it seems to me such as will provoke private ani-
mosity rather than coerce national will, and, therefore,
that it is not directed to its legitimate end, and, moss
quently, that such warfare might be resisted.
It is reported that when TALLEYRAND was Am-
bassador at this Court a lady having asked him the

meaning of non-interventionrhe rliffislis4`MactaultS
" non-intervention eat un mot diplomatique et enig-
" matique, qui signifie a peu pres la meme chose
" qu'intervention ;" and Commodore Roozas ap-
pears to have been of the Frenchman's opinion.
Neutrality in his view was consistent with de-
ciding that one of the belligerents was in the
wrong, and thereupon attacking him. If a nation
professing neutrality may interfere by force, and
sink, burn, and destroy the ships of one of the par-
ties to a war—what more remains to be done after
a declaration of hostilities ? These political admirals
and generals—who know better than the PRESI-
DENT, or the Secretary of State, or the Senate
what the country ought to do, and are ready to
do it, trusting to the people to " endorse" their
action—have in times past been one of the greatest
curses of the United States, and we must protest
against any attempt to set them up as examples
for our officers.

For the sake of justice it should be clearly
understood that in no case can the inactivity of
the British fleet, when outrages such as the born-
bardment of Valparaiso are perpetrated, in the
least degree lessen the responsibility of the perpe-
trators. It is not to be supposed that Great Britain
sanctions every wrongful act which she could, but
does not, prevent. Independent nations must
answer for their own deeds and take all their con-
sequences. The whole and undivided infamy of
this business rests upon the Government of Spain.
At the same time we believe that the English
public is getting to think that something ought to
be done by the combined action of the great
maritime Powers to put an end to these repeated
and unwarrantable Spanish expeditions, which are
becoming a general nuisance.

OUR CONTEMPORARIES.

(THIS DAY.)

T]IE thaTEd