BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

New Zealander, Volume XIX, Issue 1791, 11 February 1863, Page 5

BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

(To the Editor of the “ New York Tribune.”) . Sir —ln an editorial headed “England and America,” in your issue of the 10th inst., you comment on an article found in a recent number of the London Saturday Review, under the title of “ American feeling towards England.” After expressing that, in this age of rapid communication, by steam and other ready channels for the interchange of opinion, there should never be an approach to a mutual understanding between this country and Great Britain, you go on to quote, from that article, certain assertions in reference to the unfriendly feelings exhibited by the North and the Federal authorities to the British Government, and then you “ solemnly assure so many of the British people as the Tribune can reach, that not one of the above quoted assertions are even colorably true. There is no ‘ blind fury ’ against England prevalent in this country. There has been no unceasing stream of vituperation and menace directed from the loyal States against the ‘ unoffending mother country.’ Whatever ill feelmcr against Great Britain has been evinced here mmht have been averted by the very simple expedient of letting us alone. _ We do not refuse to tolerate an ‘impartial position’ on the part of the ‘ peaceable mother country. _ _ , e do not ‘ require the English nation to rejoice in our victories,’ nor is there any genera prognosti(ration ‘ that our army is to be directed against Canada so soon as our civil war is ended. And what the Review styles the Radical factio. does not pronounce ‘ the scepticism of English politicians ’ a just cause of war, or any cause at all. In short, we are so unfortunate as to be inflicted with just one unprincipled and mendacious journal, the New York Herald, which is constantly iervimr its master, the Devil, and his servant, Jeff Davis,"by fomenting ill-will between this country and Great Britain ; but this is so noxiously done in the interest of the slaveholders rebellion, that intelligent British journalists have perceived mid repeatedly proclaimed the fact. Ye ‘ S British journals, thus warned and enlightened persist in treating the ridiculous rhodomontade of that characterless and treacherous sheet as thomdi it were the voice of the whole American

positive denials of the truth of the assertions made by the Saturday Review w\\. Sir, lam sure, be viewed by every one here who has observed the course of the Northern press, your speech-makers and your Government, in reference to Britain, since the commencement ot the rebellion, with the most utter as ton i#h merit, Why, Sir, since the date of the Queen a proclamation of neutrality, one could scarcely take up a Northern paper, of any description or shade of politics, that did not abuse and threaten England, and exhibit the most intense desire to misrepresent and talsty the conduct of the British Government, and every word said or written by British statesmen and journalists, on the question of your difficulties. Is it Sir, not notorious to every one, and to yourselves as well, that the minds of your people are enflamed to a pitch of frenzy by this every day course of your press and demagogical orators, which they regard as their chief passport to popular favor and public patronage; indeed, so incessant have they been in their repetitions ot abuse, threats, misrepresentations, and the utterance and publication of the most wanton falsehoods, in relation to the British Government and people, that —

like one Who having, unto truth, by telling of it. Made such a sinner of his memory. To credit his own lie.” It would seem that they have themselves come to regard their falsehoods as truth, and their abuse and their threats as well deserved. And it is exceedingly sururising, that in the face of facts which are patent to all, you should insist the New York Herald alone is chargeable with these offences. Can you, Sir, name a Northern journal, of any pretensions to influence, that has not poured out an “unceasing stream ot vituperation and menace,” or a conservative paper that is not in haste to empty out the whole seven vials of its wrath on the “unoffending mother country; Do not the Northern press and its foreign correspondents make it their chief business, and labor assiduously, to lash your Northern people into a “ blind fury ” against England, because she assumes “an impartial position!” Have not your press and orators, of all stripes of politics, threatened, not only an “invasion of Canada,” but to sweep every vestige of British rule off this continent, so soon as your boasted “ army of seven hundred thousand warriors,” your “triumphant Generals,” and your “ invincible iron clad navy, have whipt the South into obedience to the Federal rule?— Did not the whole Northern press give favourable notice to, and applaud the impotent threats made by one of Britain’s escaped whom you assisted to release from the penalty ot a crime like that you clamor to hang the Southerners for, of marching a fillibustering squad of Irishmen through Canada to Ireland, tor the purpose of wresting the colony from the British crown, and bringing on it and his native land all the horrors and calamities which you say the South is now realizing ? And have they yet ceased to hope that French depotism will crush out the liberties of constitutional Britain, and reduce her to a colony ot that power; and this while she, from the commencement of your troubles, has kept your standing menace against her, Louis Napoleon, from clutching at your very throat ? This your supplementary Ambassador to England, Mr. Thurlow Weed, who, too, in his Albany Evening Journal, can only consent to put off an “invasion of Canada” till the rebellion is ended, was forced to admit in his correspondence from that “ perfidious country ? And has not the confiscation of the nine hundred millions of dollars you honestly owe British subjects been held out by the-press as a bait to rouse the cupidity of your people of the North. *****

With your permission I would now notice, as briefly as possible, an editorial found in a recent issue of your city contemporary the World, under the title of “A Little Plain Talk with John Bull.” After expressing surprise how John Bull “should have the face to show himself here again,” your contemporary expends his pent up indignation in the following American stereotyped language;—“ You have behaved shamefully; you ought to know if there is one thing on earth shabbier than another it is to turn against a friend when he is down. It exhibits the meanest selfishness, the poorest cowardice and the faith - lessness ; it is the scamp• all over. There is only here and there a character in Newgate and Rotton Row that wouldn’t be absolutely ashamed of it. It would seem, Sir, appear as if madness seizes on the brains of Northern journalists, when John Bull is thought of, and it would also appear as if he was always uppermost in their minds, ihey <ro afloat roaring, ranting, and raving in language so incoherent about that gentleman while he is only quietly minding his own business that they appear more like bedlamites than rational beings. What does the World mean by this tiiade ? Is the North down, and when did they fall take place? Has the South whipped the North with its “Army of Seven Hundred Thousand Warriors,” its “Fifty Napoleons” in the field to ' command it, and its, “Fleet of Invulnerable iron-clad Monitors which is able to sweep the combined fleets of France and England off the ocean. It was given out to the world by the World, six months ago, that the Northern anaconda had encircled the whole South in its folds, and had only to crunch and swallow it when hungry. When did the Southern alligator remove this comfortable position ot the anaconda and make a breakfast of it ! Or does the World mean that John Bull has turned against the South in its extremity? But we will hear that the World intends to do with John for “ turning against his friend when he is down.” It says, “We will tell you what we propose to do about it; in the first place we shall refuse to take any further stock in your soft sawder; understand that distinctly at the outset; we have found out its real value. Next, we warn you off our premises; stick to your own patch. Don t darken our door again.’ We don’t want your society. Next we notify you that our business relations have got to be changed completely. You may as v>’oll open now hooka at once, leu will have no

further trade with us on the old scale. For the the last ten years, John, one-fifth of all your sales have been made to us. We have paid you as your books will show, in that time, two hundred millions sterling; one thousand millions of dollars. The thing must stop. We are going as far as we can to make our goods. We have had enough of your bad faith,” &c., &c., &c. This extract, Sir, from the IT orld exhibits a fair sample of the stupidity and ignorance with which the press of this country doses the people, on the subject of the relations between the United States and Britain. You ‘‘ warn ” British subjects “ off our premises.” Suppose you had not waited till now to give this warning, but had proclaimed it half a century ago, and in the wisdom of the IVorld this you should have done, having suffered immensely, as it believes, through your magnanimous forbearance in that respect. Who then would have dug your canals 1 You are above ditch labor. Who would half built your railroads? You are above the pick and shovel. Who would have built your Tilth Avenue mansions? You are above carrying a hod up five flights. Who ever saw a hod on the shoulder of a native sovereign ? Wiio would level, raise, and beautify your park ? You are above trundling a barrow or driving a cart. Who would clean your streets! It would be an outrage to put a broom into the hands of a native sovereign which all must revolt at. Who would do your housework ? It would spoil Miss McFlimsey’s hands to wash the dishes, and Master McFlimsey would prefer driving (he is not a rider) the horse to dunging the stable. Who would be your merchants? You are too mercurial for that; it would not suit your “ mounting spirit.” Gambling in Wall street is more suited to your taste. Who would write the editorials in the World , headed *‘A little plain talk with John Bull;” and what would you do without James Gordon Bennett ? Who would build your ships and sail them? You must he all bosses and captains. Who would you have to fight your battles for you !—Those of you who cannot be captains, colonels and generals, prefer political manoeuvring for shoddy contracts; providing diseased and broken-down horses for the army ; supplying shaving hats and paper shoes, and marshaling as an army of sutlers and gamblers to swindle those whom Britain has supplied you with to fight your battles. The lowest grade you will stoop to is that of a stage driver or horsejocky, and if it was not for Britain you would be cutting each other’s throats to obtain the means to live without wealth-producing labor. And but for her you would have been overrun by the South a year ago, for from the highest (your 1 President is not included) down to the lowest office holder, their patriotism is bounded by the money they can make, and the political capital they can secure out of the necessities of the occasion.

Your press proclaims to the world, as loudly as it dares, that your rulers are but political tricksters, without a particle of patriotism in their composition. Your legislators, municipal authorities, and politicians are intent only on scrambling for the spoils, while your country is convulsed from centre to circumference by civil war. Your secretaries of State are protracting the war for political, party, and individual mercenary gains. They are so jealous of each other, and of your generals, that the one makes it his study to thwart the other’s operations, lest their successful issue should bring him political capital; and your generals, on the other hand, are being actuated by the same feelings towards your State Secretaries and each other. Each would be your next President, and caves not to sacrifice the best interests of the country to obtain the covetted prize. This picture, Sir, is not of my drawing; it is the portraiture of your whole Northern democratic press. Great Britain furnished yon with the men to dig your canals, and build your railroads, and the money to pay for the labir as well, and she expended besides, fifty millions of dollars of the national funds, over and above municipal and individual relief, to feed the decrepid, the old, and the young left on her charity by those who performed that labor, while you supplied them with two cargoes of corn meal—enough, it may be, to give each of them a breakfast —an unbounded liberality of which we can never cease to hear. The youth of that day, are now, a great many of them, spilling their blood like water for you, and you notify, her that yon will no more of them—they “ must stick to their own patch,” and those here “ warned off the premises.” Your “ business relations have got to be changed completely ”. Perhaps England will reply—the sooner the better for her. “ She may as well open new books at once.” She has already commenced to wind up the concern. You “ will have nothing further to do with her on the old scale.” It is understood she begins to think yon have had to do with her too long already. You “ have paid her, in the last ten years, two hundred millions of pounds sterling —one thousands millions of dollars. This thing must stop.” You have imported from her, perhaps that amount, but you have not paid her. You owe her now that sum, which of course you will not permit her to “ darken your doors ” to look after. You have in your hands “as your own books show/’ the whole value of your ten years’ importations, both cost and profit, and, even if you act more honestly than you propose, and pay her up in full, how much will she have made out of you in those ten years trade with you * Let us see. The profits on one thousand millions of dollars, at 7j per cent., which is more than an average profit, is $75,000,000 You have a peculiar knack of getting up panics after three or four years’ heavy importations ; by that in 1857 she lost, it is believed, over §50,000,000 And by that now in progress over - - $100,000,000

$75,000,000 showing a loss of seventy-five millions of dollars in five years over and above the profits of your ten years’ trade. Won’t you damage her very much by “ stopping this thing,” and won’t you all make your fortunes doing so?— You now owe Britain some thousand millions of dollars, and you have enriched yourselves with the sum of seventyfive millions, over and above the profit of ten years’ trade, for which you now propose to give her the valuable consideration of warning her off your premises, and threats of robbing her of all you owe her not yet wiped out by repudiation and bankruptcy. But again,suppose you pay her in full, cost and profits, and then you cease to trade with her—you think no doubt, this would utterly ruin her. Why, Sir, the whole profits—seven millions five hundred thousand dollars on your years’ trade—wouldn’t do more than purchase a twenty-five-cent breakfast, or a half-pint of Ferintosh or Innisshown, for each of her people. It would be just one twentieth part of the taxes you will be called upon to pay for fifteeen months expenses in moving your army from Washington to Richmond —partially opening up the Mississippi, and drawing the Confederates out of the Western border States, which they never classed as being of the rebellious South. The citv of London alone receives in interest on loans, in three or four days out of the three hundred and sixty-five, enough to cover the whole loss of the profits of your trade, which you rejoice to think will sink the nation. The trade with France in this the first year of its inauguration will amount to fifty millions of dollars—half the trade with the United States, in its palmiest days. And do you flatter youselves that “a nation of shop-keepers” will not be able to open a trade somewhere else in all the wide world to enable her to jog on a little longer without your custom ? It is not, Sir, the Joss of the Northern trade that Britain feels so sensibly, but it is the loss of the cotton of the South, which she has thus far permitted the North to lock up from her, from which she suffers, and which the North gloats over with intense delight. And now, in conclusion, what is the consequence of the conduct of your press and Government —your mob orators and speech makers, as far as relates to your own country ? It has been to fovea a feelio? in favor of the South, and leave

the N..rth almost without a friend among the Anglo-Saxon subjects of Her Majesty, at home or abroad. It lias disgusted them and the best of your own citizens with democracy, and made republicanism stink in their own nostrils. It lias forced foreign nations to the conclusion that there is no peace to the world, should a country so influenced, controlled and ruled become powerful enough to make aggressions with impunity. It has mined your ere lit abroad—you cannot now borrow a dollar out of your country. loreign capitalists will not lend to a nation whose press clamours for a war against a friendly power to rob its subjects out of what it owes them. It has forced your bonds and stocks held abroad into your market, which is draining' the conutry of specie, depreciating tire legal tender of your j Government, and the end is not yet. These, Sir, are some of the fruits of the mad career of your press and the reckless conduct of your rulers, however you may view it. I am Sir, Your very obedient servant, A Hibernian.