The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-10 00:00:00

THE PRESS, APRIL 10, 1858. s ' Governments on earth, including the Federal Government, we will hang hint." The Federal Government itself, when it has a point to carry, is equally unscrupulous. In England we are shocked, if a landlord, to avenge a hostile vote, gives a tenant notice to leave his land. In America, openly, and with the approbation of all his own party, the Pre sident unhesitatingly gives notice that all public servants who do not vote as he wishes, shall be dismissed. There are 26,000 postmasters in the United States. To each of these, the following letter was addressed, previous to the late Presiden tial election : TO THE OT -. Dear Sir,—At a private consultation of the leading Democrats of the Union held in this city, immediately after the adjournment of the Cincinnati Convention, it was recommended that each postmaster be requested to contribute an amount proportionate to the receipts of their respective offices. Upon examining the returns of the Post-office department, it is found that your proportion would be three dollars, which you will confer a favour by remitting by return of mail. The principal object in making these collections is to throw into the doubtful States an immense quantity of speeches in favour of the policy of the Democratic party, and also to assist in defraying the expenses of speakers who will be employed during the coming canvass. You will therefore perceive that every postmaster who wishes for a continuance of his official position will find it his interest to use every effort to bring about so desirable a result. Postmasters are appealed to because they are con sidered the representatives of the party in their respective localities, and being the recipients of the patronage of the Administration, it is but just that they should comply with its demands. Please send us the name of some reliable leading De mocrat in your town whom we can confer with hereafter. Address PERRIN M. BROWN, Jun., Washington City, D.C., 1856. More recently, on the agitation of the Kansas question, the New York Daily News, a Govern• ment organ, wrote as follows : The present Postmaster of Chicago is an active oppo nent to the admission of Kansas as a State under the plan proposed by the President, and consequently a busy and zealous adherent of Mr. Douglas, and favourable to the movements of party disorganization lately initiated by the Senator. The postmaster, Wm. Price, based his hopes of retention on the friendship of Mr. Douglas, and the demands he knew the Senator would make upon the Administration in his behalf. This demand was made, and firmly insisted upon, but Mr. Buchanan could not be moved—the fiat had gone forth ; such insubordination— such opposition to the known will of the Executive, could not be countenanced or recognised, and Mr. Price was promptly removed, and Isaac Cook, Esq., a true and reliable Democrat, a devoted friend of the Administration, and an able and honourable man, appointed in his place. This is as it should be. Mr. Ponglas, we learn, threatens to defeat the nomination of Mr. Cook whenever his name shall came before the Senate ; but this effort, if made, will certainly fail of success, and will only show the declining—the wasting strength of the " giant." A similar case has occurred at Cleveland, Ohio, where Mr. Gray, editor of the Plaindealer, has turned his bat teries upon the Administration and against the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution. The fact of his having control of a Democratic paper bad no weight with the Executive, any further than to make his deter mination more posittve; and Mr. Gray will soon find, if be his not ere this, that he cannot serve two masters and at the same time hold a lucrative place under the Admi nistration. This is a movement of no little significance, as Mr. Gray was an early appointment of Mr. Buchanan's. In Columbus (Ohio), another recusant postmaster was found, and he too retires, and will be succeeded by ex- Governor Sam. Medarv. We wish that this stern old Democrat and popular writer would also resume his edi torial control of the Columbus Statesman, which has be come unstable and wavering, and lost much of the popu larity and all the strength and v . jour for which it was formerly so justly noted. Such are some of the foreshadowing of events to come. It is quite time this bold and determined stand was taken by the President. The people expect it—look for it, and it is the only policy the Administration can pursue if it hopes to sustain itself and maintain in all its vigour the supremacy of the Democratic party of the Union. This simplicity and directness mark the Ame rican system at every step. Our readers will be reminded of the famous circulars of M. LEDRII RoLuN, when he was Home Minister at Paris—which circulars were marked with the same straightforwardness and absence of cir cumlocution. Naturally enough, the same directness and simplicity attend the movements of indi viduals. Does an Abolitionist make a dis. agreeable speech in the Senate, the most straightforward course is to knock him down ; and if possible, as in the Brookes and Sumner case, to give him such " a cowhiding" as will make him more cautious for the future. Lord GIRT is a statesman, and writes with statesmanlike decorum ; but in his recent vo lume on Parliamentary Government he says : "M. de Tocqueville has shown that the effect of this system has been nearly to exclude from public business the men most eminent among their fellow-citizens for talents and for virtue. Since he wrote, these evils have grown more and more apparent, and it is becoming a subject of anxious speculation to those who take an interest in the welfare of mankind, what part the United States will hereafter play in the affairs of the world. They possess gigantic and fast increasing power, the direc tion of which seems day by day to be falling more completely into the hands of the least estimable of their citizens—men little under the restraint of any sense of justice, or of right or wrong among nations, and whose party organization enables them to control the measures of those who are ostensibly intrusted with the conduct of affairs." Lord GREY refers to the case of America, because he sees clearly that it is this way we ale tending. And he observes, also, that the American system introduced here, would he even worse than it has yet been found in America itself : "In the American Union, the division of authority between the Central and the State Governments, and the independence of the President in the exercise of his executive functions, together with the constitution of the Supreme Court, effectually prevent the con centration of all power in the hands of one man or of one set of men. But in this coun try the machinery of the Government places in the hands of the House of Commons such means of overruling all the other authorities of the State, that if it were elected under a purely democratic system it could hardly fail, in times of popular excitement, to become an irresistible engine for carrying into effect any measure, however violent, which the passions of the People might dictate. Unrestrained by any of the checks upon abuse created in the United States by the division of authority, such a House of Commons would find, in the extreme use of its acknowledged powers, easy means of compelling the Crown, the House of Lords, and even the Courts of Law, to become the mere instruments of its will." Such is the course things are taking; and those who " yearn for the creation of a really " popular party," yearn for the commencement of a system like this. We do not say that they all mean this, consciously—that they all know whither their road leads. But the point they are now pressing—which is the only point on which a new party could be organized—the separation of Church and State—is the foundation-stone of the whole American system. Once admit the principle, which the Manchester school fully appreciate, that the only proper functions of a Govern ment are the protection of life and property, and the raising the necessary taxes for that purpose, and we are on the high road for that simplicity of system in which America rejoices, and in which Established Churches, Hereditary Peerages, and Monarchy of all kinds, hold no place. the bottom of both these much as possible concealed. Let the measures, however, be carried, and the principle would soon make itself felt. WAS AS For instance, if both Houses of Parliament were to pass the Oaths Bill in the shape in which it will probably leave the Commons, it would soon become impossible for those Houses to refuse to extinguish Church-rates. Blot out the Christian faith from the public profession of members of Parliament,—the maintenance of an Established Christian Church becomes anomalous and absurd. But you will not long have extinguished Church rates, before you will be asked how you can be guilty of the inconsistency of continuing tithe. The truth is, that one principle, the duty of a State to maintain the worship of Goo, lies at the basis of all these questions. If that prin ciple is to be given up—if it be discovered that the whole Christian world has been mistaken on this point for fifteen centuries—then we shall soon find that we have a large work before us. Such au edifice as the Established Church has deep and wide foundations, and its removal will not be the work of a day. A misgiving, too, will sometimes arise, whether we can adopt one part of the American system without adopting the whole. We would not lay too much stress upon King JAMES'S maxim, "No bishop, no king !" but there can be no doubt that the tone and temper of mind which would gladly sweep away our prelates and our cathedrals is not one friendly to thrones and palaces. The men who would vote to-morrow for the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, are the men who would as readily vote, a week after, that the House of Lords itself was an institution of at least questionable value. That we have those among us who prefer the American institutions to those of Old England, has recently been avowed ; and fore most among them is one who is named as an apostle of the new and truly popular party. And is it not a fair inference, that one who advises, as Mr. BRIGHT does advise, his countrymen to flee to the more genial institu tions of America, would bring those institu tions into England itself, if he had but the power to do so ? We feel, then, at least a doubt whether we can take a part of the American system without taking the whole And what is really the tenor and general character of that system ? Its distinguishing feature is, that which naturally recommends it to such minds as those of Messrs. BRIGHT and COBDEN—its great simplicity. It is simple when compared with the English, just as a bulldog or a bear is simple when compared with a man. Simple in aim, in motives, in likes and dislikes. We do not insult the Americans by this simile; for we borrow it from the well-known Kentucky orator, who, when defending a client charged with half-murdering a man, exclaimed. "Say he " is rough—so are our bears ; say he is rude— " so are our buffaloes!" The Englishman is more complex in his tastes, habits, feelings, and sym pathies. He is more swayed by things without and things above. Dr. JOHNSON said—" What " ever makes the past, the distant, or the future a. predominate over the present, exalts us in the scale of thinking beings." The English man acknowledges such feelings as loyalty, veneration, a regard for antiquity. Windsor Castle is something to him, and so is Canter bury Cathedral, and so ia Oxford, and so is lona. An American knows little of these feelings, or, as Jens BRIGHT would call them, these " stupid prejudices." One simple idea excludes and supersedes them all—" the almighty dollar." But this simplicity pro• duces wonderful effects. It pervades the entire system. The whole people—their government and individuals—all act much as the aforesaid bear and buffalo would act—i e., with similar directness and unscrupulosity. The people, as far as we can gather their expressed opinions, would take whatever they covet—as Canada, or Cuba, for instance—but for fear of the consequences. Among them selves, South against North, they act the buffalo. In their Senate, a slave-state orator, Mr. PRESTON, said, " Let an Abolitionist come "within the borders of South Carolina, and if we catch him, we will try him; and, notwith -0 standing all the interferences of all the THE WELLESLEY POLICY. GOVERNMENT•HOUSE, Calcutta, was built by the Marquis WELLESLEY. He was ambitious to build both a house and an empire. Houses have traditions, and so has this. It has been haunted by its traditions; and we should never be surprised to hear it rumoured that the marblA figure of the Marquis in the great hall, like the figure in Don Giovanni, had moved its head, with a Burleigh-like nod, approving of the acts of successive Gover nors-General, who have caught the spirit of his genius. Certainly the Marquis of DAL HOUSIE, during his tenancy of the house that the Marquis WELLESLEY built, must have felt the shade of his predecessor still abiding there, and the traditiona of hie government NI