The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-23 00:00:00

NG, MAY 23, 1866.

Government generally:lt/id of some of the members
of that Cabinet in particular. Of the language used,
and of the course taken by Lord Russell, who held
the post of Foreign Secretary during the civil war,
he spoke in terms of great bitterness. When the
report of Mr. Bancroft's speech was published in.
England, Earl Russell addressed a non-official letter
to Mr. Adams justifying himself from the charges
advanced by Mr. Bancroft, and a copy of that letter
having been transmitted to Mr. Bancroft, elicited
from that gentleman a reply, which, so far as we
are aware, closed the correspondence. Both letters
were published in our columns yesterday, and a not
uninstructive moral may be deduced from their con-
tents. In his speech at Washington Mr. Bancroft
charged Earl Russell with having, on the outbreak
of the civil war, hastened to apprise the European
Courts that the Republic was in its agony, was in
fact no more, and that nothing remained but to write
the epitaph of the late Union. The truth of this
charge Earl Russell emphatically denied, and being
of course unable to prove a negative, referred to cer-
tain language which he held at the time, and which
was in its nature inconsistent with the assumption
that he could have either orally or in writing ex-
pressed himself in the manner alleged. He reproved,
he said, a member of the House of Commons for
stating in his place that the bubble of Republicanism
had burst, and expressed the belief that, whether
the division of the Union was assented to or not,
" the Great Western Republic would remain, hap-
pily for the world, a powerful and independent Re-
public." Earl Russell concluded his letter by de-
precating the general tone of Mr. Bancroft's address,
and by pointing out that nations which were at
peace should also be friends. To this letter Mr.
Bancroft in due course replied, and, so far from re-
tracting any of his previous assertions, repeated
them, supporting them by a series of quotations
from Earl Russell's own despatches. That the
Foreign Secretary regarded the Union as a thing of
the past, Mr. Bancroft urged Was proved conclu-
sively by the language of a despatch addressed by
him to Lord Lyons in the beginning of May, 1861,
in which he stated that " civil war had broken out
between the several States of the late Union," that
"the Government of the Southern portion had duly
constituted itself," and that the British Government
did not wish their representative in Washington to'
make any mystery of that view. On the same day a
second despatch was written by Earl Russell to Lord
Cowley, accompanying a copy of that sent to Lord
Lyons, in which the expressions " the late Union,"
" the late United States," were freely employed,
and in which the Foreign Secretary desired to be
made acquainted with the views of the Imperial
Government. These despatches, Mr. Bancroft
further asserts, were written by Earl Russell pre-
vious to the arrival in Loudon of the Minister accre-
dited by Mr. Lincoln, and, as the Foreign Secretary
himself admitted, before he had " received from
Lord Lyons any report as to the state of affairs and
of the prospects of the several parties." The re-
proof uttered by Lord Russell in the House of
Commons was 24 days after the date of these
despatches. On these several grounds Mr Bancroft
submits to the public that he was justified in alleg-
ing that ere the war had well commenced the Bri-
tish Foreign Secretary regarded the Republic as no
more, and hastened to communicate that view to
foreign courts. It must be confessed that, viewing
the matter literally, the American has much the best
of the controversy, and many persons will be inclined
to think that the present Prime Minister has gained
nothing by challenging Mr. Bancroft to make good
his assertions. But the truth is that the only fault
which Earl Russell committed was in using the lan-
' guage of commonsense instead of that of diplomacy
Although froni the commencement to the close of
that most disastrous war every Cabinet in Europe
regarded the Union as perfect, and assumed that the
jurisdiction of the central Government was acknow-
ledged throughout the length and breadth of the
Republic, yet every member of those several Cabi-
nets well knew that the Union was temporarily at
least dissolved, and that, exceptin official despatches,
one could not, without absurdity, speak of the en-
tire Republic as the United States. Lord Russell,
however, has always had the character of being an
awkward letter-writer. And in the despatches
quoted by Mr. Bancroft he unquestionably used
language which had better been avoided,and which,
however harmless, at all events furnished some jus-
tification for the assertions made by Mr. Bancroft
respecting the attitude he assumed on the com-
mencement of the war. Lord Russell echoed the
sentiments of the vast majority of the people of this
country when he said of the American war that it
war a struggle for empire by the North, and for in-
dependence by the South. But, having used this
language, he ought not to be surprised if one who
was an ardent Federalist should accuse him of par-
tisanship. The conclusion we are driven to is that a
Minister of State should never entirely divest him-
self of his official character, and should weigh well
the literal meaning of every word which he em-
ploys.
The Bombardment of Va'paraiso.

As, between belligerents, the right to bombard
a defenceless town is allowable according to the
strict rules of war. But the modern practice
has generally been to relax this cruel practice.
Where a town is defended by ports and bat-
teries there is no obligation upon a belli-
gerent to spare the place, if thereby he can
weaken the support of the forts or demoralise the
enemy. This view of the rights of a hostile party
was taken during the recent war in the United
States in the bombardment of Charleston and
Vicksburg. But humanity requires that notice
shall be given to non-combatants of an intended
bombardment, and time given them to remove their
property if they see fit to do so. Between belli-
gerents and foreign nations whose citizens and their
property are in a town which is menaced there
may be some right in the neutrals to protest against
a proposed bombardment, and if, by good offices,
they can cause a relinquishment of the design, it is
proper and humane that they should do so. The
bombardment of Valparaiso by the Spanish fleet
on the 31st of March was an act which was wanton
and unnecessary, producing no benefit to the nation
which authorised it, and purely a work of destruc-
tion. It is certain that the intended bombardment
was protested against by all the representatives of
American and European nations at Valparaiso ;
but their remonstrances produced no effect. Would
they have been justified, therefore, in resisting
the operations of the Spanish fleet by actual force ?
It may be assumed that they would not in the
absence of instructions from their Governments.
Resistance would have been war ; and unless there
was universal accord among foreign nations upon
the question, such war might have had to be prose-
cuted by the nation which assumed the risk without
assistance from others.

The officers of the English,. American, and foreign
fleets at Valparaiso were, therefore, in a very
delicate position ; and it is not to be wondered at
that they hesitated in taking upon themselves a
tremendous responsibility. Commodore RODGERS
might, with the Monadnock alone, have pre-
vented the outrage, but he was under control
of the United States Minister, General KILPATRICK,
and the latter did not deem himself authorised to
command an armed interference. General KIL-
PATRICK did all he could to make an arrangement
which would satisfy both parties, and avert the
threatened destruction ; but be had to deal with
the stupid and stubborn pride of old Spain, and the
same qualities in the Spanish blood of the Chilinos.
Upon the trifling question of saluting a flag, an
idle ceremony, the negotiation stuck—the Spaniards
requiring that their flag should be first saluted—
and the Chilians, with great firmness, refusing to
submit to what they considered a degradation.
And, therefore, this barbarity was accomplished.
The English fleet left its anchorage in front of the
city, and got out of the way. The United States
squadron imitated the unpleasant example, and then
the Spanish ships moving up to within short dis-
tances of) the unfortunate city opened their ports
and blazed away. It is said that they made public
buildings the marks for their guns ; but, either
through bad gunnery or design, other buildings
were struck, including several churches. The
amount of property destroyed is estimated to be
worth as much as twenty millions of dollars, and as
low as eight millions. The exact damage will be
probably between these figures, nearer the lower
than the higher.
Abstractly considered, as we have said, Spain
had a right, by the Laws of war, according to
ancient precedent, to commit this savage and
wanton act, but according to the ameliorations
of the cruelties of war introduced by the spirit
of modern civilisation, it may be said that no
other nation would have resorted to such a
harsh measure. The war itself is unjust and
unnecessary, having been instituted without
any valid reason in the conduct of Chili, arising
out of absurd punctilio, and prosecuted in a
haughty spirit of pride, which is opposed to good
sense and generosity. The result must be to dis- ,

grace Spain in the opinion of the civilised world.
She has resuscitated the cruelties of the middle ages.
The pretext of quarrel which is pretended to justify
hostilities against Chili is absurd. The explana-
tions and satisfaction offered by the latter were
sufficient, in the opinion of impartial men. Spain
claims to be a civilised nation. She has instituted
and conducted this war in defiance of modern sen-
timent, and the bombardment of Valparaiso is a
blot upon her history, which will darken with the
progress of time, and be reprobated by the voice of
impartial history.—Anglo-American Times.