ten per cent. will speedily be found necessary. -London Times, (city article,) August 13. THE AMERICANS AND OURSELVES. The effects of the war in America are beginning to react on this country. Hitherto we have been mere spectators of the sanguinary struggle, hoping that the course of events would bring it to a speedy and satisfactory close; but recent events show that we are only at the beginning of the end, and that, great as the sufferings of the immediate combatants are, these sufferings must be felt more or less by the whole of Europe, and more especially by the great producing countries, France and England. One of the first consequences of this unfortunate civil strife is a serious diminution in the amount of English railway dividends. Almost every great artery of communication which pierces England from one extremity to the other acknowledges a decrease of business, and this is reflected in the reduced division of profits-a condition of things which is painfully felt by those whose property is embarked in such undertakings, and the worst feature is that, bad as the present prospect is, the future holds out little encouragement. Every week the stock of cottonfor the manufacture of that article is the staple produce of England becomes "small by degrees and beautifully less," and the question arises where shall we look for a fresh supply when the present one is exhausted? The East Indies may send us 300,000 or 400,000 extra bales; but this is a mere sop to Cerberus," when measured by our actual necessities. What supplies may we hope for from Australia, from the West Indies, from the West Coast of Africa, or the other portions of the earth to which we were told to direct our eyes? Ultimately, we may perhaps receive from these and other sources enough to keep the mills of Lancashire and Lanarkshire going; but "while the grass grows the seed starves," and the difficulty is how to manage during the painful interval. This difficulty must have been present to the minds of the Southern planters when they raised the standard of revolt. They argued that the first law of nature, self-preservation, would compel England and France to force the blockade of the Southern ports to supply themselves with an article the possession of which is essential to keep down starvation and insurrection at home, and in this sense they reasoned wisely. We may rub on with comparative ease until the Fall of the year, but towards November and December next, when cotton-laden vessels from New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, and other ports in possession of the Southern Confederacy, usually make their appearance in British and French waters, the question will arise-a serious one for all parties -what is to be done? There are those among us who contend that, unless peace between the North and South has been secured in the interval, we must in self-defence violate the block ade to secure that great essentia of life-cotton. Better, these persons argue, to risk a war with America than to see millions of our operatives turned into the streets to die of wantbetter to provide ourselves with what we cannot do without, at whatever cost, than to bring worse than war-famine, disease, and pestilence to our own doors. These we admit are extreme views; but it was the belief that they would be realized that induced Mr. Jefferson Davis and his abettors to defy the power of the President and attempt to dismember the | Union. Now, we cannot, for the life of us, see, unless some desperate alternative of this kind is to be encouraged, why a large section of the English press takes a morbid delight in inflaming the passions between the North and South, which already burn so violently. Every consideration of humanity ought to induce us to act in the very opposite spirit. We are far removed from the scene, and however much we may deplore the conflict, can look on while the game of war is played out without becoming heated partisans on one side or the other. But some of our cotemporaries appear to exult at the reverse which the Northern States sustained at Bull Run, and the spirit of their comments cannot fail to make a very unfavorable impression on the other side of the Atlantic. Charges of cowardice against the men, and of want of gallantry against the officers, are as plentiful as blackberries in Autumn; and to make the draught still more bitter, we are reminded of the inherent vices of democracy, and of the usually vaporing character of the Americans. Such charges, at such a moment, exhibit, we cannot help saying, singular bad taste. It is not conduct which the Americans pursued to us in our days of adversity-and that we have had to struggle against misfortunes, it would be useless to deny. When Ireland was stricken with famine, America, in the spirit of the good Samaritan, rushed to her assistance in a way that ought not to be forgotten. When it was believed, in the early days of the Second Empire, that Louis Napoleon had inimical designs against us, a loud and almost simultaneous cry of aid came from the Western shores of the Atlantic. But, apart from these considerations, there are no people in the world to whom we are united by so many and such close ties—no people on the earth in whose material prosperity we are more interested, and with whom we do a greater amount of reciprocal trade. When Parliament was sitting, its good taste refrained from all allusion to a subject which can hardly be handled without giving offence; but now that Parliament is adjourned, too many of our public writers and public speakers cannot refrain from giving an expression, often in a very coarse and offensive way, to what they think of the working of American institutions, and the vast superiority of a Limited Monarchy to an absolute President. The contrast is the more remarkable because, of recent years, the tone of the English press towards America has been respectful and friendly, an example which has been set by the leading journal, and followed by newspapers reflecting every shade of political opinion. The kind of criticism which we see indulged in by Conservative and Liberal organs alike, is not calculated to shorten this struggle but to prolong and embitter it. It may require a great effort on the part of certain ambitious candidates for a seat in the House of Commons to refrain from abusing the ballot, and universal suffrage, as they exist in America, but good taste as well as good feeling ought to induce them to make the attempt. These and all other public questions will bear a good deal of discussion at the proper time; but it is not friendly, nor neighborly, nor just, to open a broadside of invective against these and similar features in a Republican form of Government, when that government is engaged in fighting for its own preservation. Two or three years ago a similar course of policy was pursued by the bulk of the English press against the person of the Emperor Napoleon, when Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Bright-politicians of the most opposite views -declared in Parliament that if these attacks were continued, it would be impossible to preserve peace between England and France. These attacks were not levelled so much at the people of France as at the head of the chief personage in the State; but the French nation felt insulted when their monarch was assailed, though they might have serious grounds of dissatisfaction with him themselves. It is the same with every nation. We are just as much inclined to praise and glorify our own institutions as the Americans are their own, and we quote with avidity from foreign journals whatever contributes to our own self-esteem. This national vanity, so far from being censurable, is, within certain limits, to be respected and admired, and as we so largely indulge in it ourselves, we ought at least to make a liberal allowance for those who follow our example, and, it may be, exceed it. -European Times, Aug. 17. AN ENGLISH COMMENT ON ENGLISH CRITICISM. The battle of Bull Run has produced an extraordinary effect upon our English asses. Ever since the news arrived they have been lifting up their voices in one huge bray, and there is no telling when they will give over. It is not a bray of sympathy, of sorrow, or even of triumph. On the contrary, it is a highly moral bray, articulating lofty lessons for the advantage of all people, Englishmen especially. Yesterday we dealt with one of these big utterances, which had just been bellowed forth by the monarch of the race; to-day we pay our respects to the tamer creature which lowers its ears to the salutations of the dowagerduchesses and political flunkeys of Belgravia. Thus ruminates the Post: "A Democratic Republic which, for warlike purposes, raises one hundred millions sterling in one year, and which imposes an income tax on real and personal property, is certainly a model which Englishmen ought neither to admire nor imitate." Now, is not this asinine? We appeal to our readers, whether this stupid effusion left us a choice of similitudes. It is purely and outrageously donkeyish. We were not aware that a Democratie Republic of any sort ought to be admired, or imitated by Englishmen. We are satisfied with our Constitution, asking only that it be perfected and developed in harmony with its native spirit. We are attached to our monarchy, and should start at the idea of exchanging the throne for a President's chair. Are we to infer that, if we could only obtain solid guarantees against extravagant expenditure, the Post would go in for a "Democratic Republic"? But the sting of the objection is that this extravagant expenditure is raised for "warlike purposes, -we as a people loving peace so well that we never spent and never will spend a stiver upon armaments. Why, the objection is disarmed in stating it. The "Democratic Republic" over the water was never more like ourselves than it is now. Yesterday it was thrifty, economical, raising a miserable revenue, denying itself the luxury of a standing army and navy, except on a scale ridiculously small. To-day it has an army almost as big as the Queen of England maintains for the defence of her wide dominions, and it is spending money on just such a lavish scale as we were only six years ago. The Americans and we are brethren at last; equally warlike, equally prodigal. Ah! but look at the burdens which this extravagant expenditure imposes upon the people. This Democratic Republic is actually levying an income tax on real and personal property! Wherein consists the grievance? Is it that the incidence of the tax is on income? or that personal property is taxed? or that real property is taxed? Well, we have the tax in all these shapes, and have had it these last eighteen years. Suppose, when the Russian war was at its height, some of our New York contemporaries had said: "A Constitutional Monarchy which, for warlike purposes, raises one hundred millions sterling in the year, and which imposes an income tax on real and personal property, is certainly a model which Americans ought neither to admire nor imitate "--what should we have said to the argument? Should we not have derided their pettifogging estimate of human interests, and held them up to contempt as a miserable race, incapable of sentiment, chivalry, and glory? Yet this is precisely what Englishmen are now told they ought to have said themselves. We do not wonder that Balaam struck his ass, if the animal he rode was half as stupid as ours. Having been furnished with this new test, let us apply it by the aid of a few figures to the glorious Constitution under which it is our privilege to live. The raising of a hundred millions er. for warlike purposes in a single year is the fact | under the instant pressure of war dooms one selected to excite our horror. Well, the reply form of government to perdition, what shall is that we have done it again and again. In we say of another government which spends 1813 we raised and spent one hundred and eighty millions on the mere expectation that eight millions, and one hundred and five mil-war may break out in a year or two? lions the year after. For eleven years together, during the war with Napoleon, our average expenditure was not less than eighty millions per annum, and the aggregate of our expenditure for the fourteen years ending 5th January, 1816, was upwards of one thousand millions. Twenty-seven years before the commencement of that period we also had an American rebellion on our hands. The population of the United Kingdom was not half what it is now. The whole number of our colonists in America did not much exceed three millions, and they were separated from us by the breadth of the Atlantic; yet to suppress that rebellion we borrowed one hundred and two millions sterling, adding it to our permanent debt, besides the extra sums obtained by increased taxation from the people. At the beginning of the war with Napoleon, our national debt was two hundred and thirty-three millions; by the close of the war we had trebled it. Every farthing of this money was spent in war, and hundreds of millions besides, the accumulating debt being bound, like a millstone, round our necks forevThe Russian war shows that we have only to get our blood heated to be as extravagant as ever. In 1856 our expenditure was eighty-four millions, the year after nearly as much, and the whole expense of the war has been estimated at not less than one hundred millions. And what was the object for which we threw away such vast sums of money? The integrity of the Empire was not threatened. An insurgent host was not encamped within thirty miles of the capital. We were not called upon to wage a struggle for national existence, and to preserve intact the glorious traditions of our country. No, the object which aroused us to such sacrifices was a paltry dispute in a distant corner of Europe. We fought not for the integrity of the British Empire, but in defence of the Turks. If Englishmen are told that they ought not to admire a Democratic Republic which spends a hundred millions in maintaining its own existence, what attitude must they assume towards a Constitutional Monarchy which lately expended the same sum in fighting Mahometan battles? A model which, when exhibited by others, we are bound neither to admire nor to imitate, we are also bound to destroy if it should unluckily prove our own. Here is a task worthy of the flunkies of Belgravia. In the name of the Morning Post, upset these extravagant institutions, and give us, ye powdered heroes, a cheaper form of government! Why, at this moment we are raising seventy millions a year on the mere surmise and suspicion of possible hostilities, besides sanctioning an expenditure of ten millions more on fortifications. If a hundred millions raised The practical inference from the foregoing comparison is, that of all known forms of Government, a "Democratic Republic" is the best because it is the cheapest; and we presume the verdict in its favor will not be disputed because, though economical as a rule, it is nevertheless ready to spend money to any extent when necessity requires an exceptionally large expenditure. This is not our verdict, nor is it our belief, but it is a conclusion which flows irresistibly from the premises furnished by our assailants. On these principles we ought to pull down the British Constitution, since, with all its virtues, it is unquestionably the largest spending machine ever constructed by the wit of man. For ourselves, we deny altogether the relevancy of the facts to the conclusion which has been forcibly wrung from them. We deny that the merits of this or that form of Government can by any ingenuity be legitimately imported into the contest now waging in the United States. The law of self-preservation acts with equal force upon all Governments. They are made to live; they make no provision for their own sepulchre; when assailed either from within or from without, they will fight to the last to defend themselves against extinction. It is so with Governments of all shapes, autocracies, mixed monarchies, and republics. The inference to be drawn from the money expended and the sacrifices incurred by any Government in defending its existence against inward or outward foes, relates to its comparative strength or weakness, its vitality or decay. Applied in this manner, the extraordinary exertions which the Americans are putting forth prove the vigor of their patriotism, the depth of their attachment to the institutions under which they live, the benefits which they believe to have derived from them, and, so far, the excellence of the institutions themselves. The vast sum that has been voted for the service of the year is not exacted by a despot's decree, nor will it be dragooned from them by military force. It is their own free gift, granted in their name by representatives whom they have all had a share in electing, and the costliness of the offering measures the worth of the equivalent. The expenditure may be wise or foolish; that is a question fairly open to dispute; but on the principles common to all Governments, on the principles which we have uniformly recognized ourselves, we are bound to regard it with admiration as a splendid act of patriotism. If, however, it is to be branded as an act of political delinquency, we ought, in justice, to acknowledge ourselves far greater culprits; and if it binds us neither to admire nor imitate the form of Government established in the United States, we must first stop to curse our own. -Manchester Post. THE BLOCKADE. We believe that we are only stating a simple truth when we say that every dispute which has existed between this country and the United States, during the present century, has arisen from the susceptibilities of the American people with respect to some supposed invasion of their national dignity and rights. The war of 1812 was occasioned by the right of search -a question which the treaty of Ghent and the Ashburton capitulation alike left unadjusted. The affair of the Caroline, McLeod's trial, the Maine boundary and Oregon disputes, and the recent San Juan difficulty, (now happily forgotten,) are all examples of the boastful and offensive spirit in which successive Presidents have endeavored to assert the national dignity and rights of the once great American people. In the civil war which at present afflicts the United States the Cabinet at Washington has acted in strict conformity with public law, at least in intention, if not in actual practice. It has adhered to the declaration of neutral rights annexed to the Treaty of Paris, it has abolished the odious practice of privateering, and, in imitation of the policy of European nations, it has practically conceded belligerent rights to the enemy. It has not treated captured secessionists as traitors, but has extended to them the usual courtesies of war. The Southern authorities, on the other hand, have commissioned letters of marque, and these sea rovers, if the account be true, have proved in a very satisfactory manner that the Federal blockade, extending over a coast of more than two thousand miles, is only valid on paper. An American correspondent writing from Pensacola the other day, not only stated, but professed to give, the text of a letter in which Admiral Milne, the commander of the British squadron, had officially notified to the Admiralty that the blockade of the Southern ports was altogether ineffectual. On a former occasion we expressed a doubt whether so discreet and experienced an officer as Admiral Milne would have committed an act so obviously beyond the pale of his duty. The authoritatire contradiction which has been given to this clever American fabrication was scarcely necessary, because everybody knows, as a matter of fact, that the Federal Government does not possess at present a naval force sufficient to close all the Southern ports from Virginia to Texas. All that it can hope to do is to blockade the most important points, such as the mouths of the Mississippi, and the great seats of the cotton export trade. We are, however, now informed that by means of gunboats, and other vessels of little draught, an attempt is to be made to enforce the entire line of blockade. If the Federal Government can accomplish this object, neutral nations will have no cause of complaint, because the blockade would then be effectual. If, on the other hand, the attempt should fail, merchant vessels would practically VOL. II.-Doc. 9 share in the immunity which the Southern privateers appear at present to enjoy. Of course it is extremely annoying to neutral commerce to be warned off the coast and compelled to return home, or to sail to New York or Canada, where the freight may be at a discount, and a return cargo cannot be obtained without a great sacrifice of time and money. But these are necessary evils which spring from a state of war; hard, we admit, to be endured by innocent parties; but so long as the action of the Federal Government is in conformity with public law, no one has a right to complain. When the American courts condemn foreign vessels for the breach of a mere paper blockade, the intervention of diplomacy will then be requisite, but at present no case has occurred either to merit or command the interference of neutral Powers. If Admiral Milne had made the report which has been attributed to him, the Federal Government would have a just right of complaint, because questions of the validity of blockades are not within the jurisdiction of an admiral commanding a squadron in the neighboring seas, but belong to those great courts which, either in belligerent or neutral countries, administer the law of nations. Knowing and fully appreciating the feelings with which the people of America regard every expression of foreign opinion, we are, upon the whole, glad that this idle story has received not only timely but official contradiction. If Admiral Milne had volunteered the statement which has been attributed to him, the Northern people, who are not likely to be much pleased with English criticism and comments upon the recent battle of Bull Run, would say that England preferred the pursuit of cotton to the obligations of honesty and fair play. As Lord Palmerston at the commencement of the contest stated, every question of neutral rights must be decided when a fitting case arises. This contingency has not yet arrived; and if the Federal Government can succeed in efficiently maintaining so enormous a blockade, it will in all probability never occur. It is the duty of this country, in the terms of her Majesty's declaration, to observe strict and impartial neutrality. For simply doing this England has been abused and vilified by the Northern press, and Canada was to be annexed to compensate for the loss of the South. We can afford to despise all this ludicrous and impotent malice, but as happily we have hitherto escaped all difficulties about American native dignity and rights, let us leave the two contending parties to fight their battles as best they may, without the slightest interference or even advice on our part. If the blockade be ineffectual, neutral commerce will comparatively suffer little injury; if effectual, the first principles of public law tell us that we must obey with a good grace, however disagreeable the restriction may be for one great staple of British industry and British wealth. -London Post, (Government Organ,) Aug. 14. Doc. 11. SENATOR DOUGLAS'S LAST LETTER. CHICAGO, May 10. MY DEAR SIR: Being deprived of the use of my arms for the present by a severe attack of rheumatism, I am compelled to avail myself of the services of an amanuensis, in reply to your two letters. It seems that some of my friends are unable to comprehend the difference between arguments used in favor of an equitable compromise, with the hope of averting the horrors of war, and those urged in support of the government and the flag of our country, when war is being waged against the United States, with the avowed purpose of producing a permanent disruption of the Union and a total destruction of its government. All hope of compromise with the cotton states was abandoned when they assumed the position that the separation of the Union was complete and final, and that they would never consent to a reconstruction in any contingency -not even if we would furnish them with a blank sheet of paper and permit them to inscribe their own terms. Still the hope was cherished that reasonable and satisfactory terms of adjustment could be agreed upon with Tennessee, North Carolina, and the border States, and that whatever terms would prove satisfactory to these loyal States would create a Union party in the cotton states which would be powerful enough at the ballot box to destroy the revolutionary government, and bring those States back into the Union by the voice of their own people. This hope was cherished by the Union men North and South, and was never abandoned until actual war was levied at Charleston, and the authoritative announcement made by the revolutionary government at Montgomery that the secession flag should be planted upon the walls of the Capitol at Washington, and a proclamation issued inviting the pirates of the world to prey upon the commerce of the United States. These startling facts, in connection with the boastful announcement that the ravages of war and carnage should be quickly transferred from the cotton fields of the South to the wheat fields and corn fields of the North, furnish conclusive evidence that it was the fixed purpose of the secessionists utterly to destroy the government of our fathers and obliterate the United States from the map of the world. In view of this state of facts there was but one path of duty left to patriotic men. It was not a party question, nor a question involving partisan policy; it was a question of government or no government; country or no country; and hence it became the imperative duty of every Union man, every friend of constitutional liberty, to rally to the support of our common country, its government and flag, as the only means of checking the progress of revolution and of preserving the Union of States. I am unable to answer your questions in respect to the policy of Mr. Lincoln and cabinet. I am not in their confidence, as you and the whole country ought to be aware. I am neither the supporter of the partisan policy nor the apologist of the errors of the Administration. My previous relations to them remain unchanged; but I trust the time will never come when I shall not be willing to make any needful sacrifice of personal feeling and party policy for the honor and integrity of the country. I know of no mode in which a loyal citizen may so well demonstrate his devotion to his country as by sustaining the flag, the constitution, and the Union, under all circumstances, and under every Administration, regardless of party politics, against all assailants, at home and abroad. The course of Clay and Webster towards the administration of Jackson, in the days of nullification, presents a noble and worthy example for all true patriots. At the very moment when that fearful crisis was precipitated upon the country, partisan strife between Whigs and Democrats was quite as bitter and relentless as now between Democrats and Republicans. The gulf which separated party leaders in those days was quite as broad and deep as that which now separates the Democracy from the Republicans. But the moment an enemy rose in our midst, plotting the dismemberment of the Union and the destruction of the Government, the voice of partisan strife was hushed in patriotic silence. One of the brightest chapters in the history of our country will record the fact that during this eventful period the great leaders of the opposition, sinking the partisan in the patriot, rushed to the support of the Government, and became its ablest and bravest defenders against all assailants until the conspiracy was crushed and abandoned, when they resumed their former positions as party leaders upon political issues. These acts of patriotic devotion have never been deemed evidences of infidelity or political treachery, on the part of Clay and Webster, to the principles and organization of the old Whig party. Nor have I any apprehension that the firm and unanimous support which the Democratic leaders and masses are now giving to the Constitution and the Union will ever be deemed evidence of infidelity to Democratic principles, or a want of loyalty to the organization and creed of the Democratic party. If we hope to regain and perpetuate the ascendency of our party, we should never forget that a man cannot be a true Democrat unless he is a loyal patriot. With the sincere hope that these, my conscientious convictions, may coincide with those of my friends, I am, very truly, yours, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. |