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

The Bombardment of Valparaiso.

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 thitm 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 he bad 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 ofj 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
1 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.