The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-07-04

1t will be seen by the extracts from the British
journals and the debates in Parliament, which
are published elsewhere, that a marked change is
coming over British feeling and British opinions
with regard to this country The dismissal Of
Mr.. Champion is considered calmly, and the lead
ing journals seem at least resigned to the acct
dent. More important than these, the speech of
Mr.. Disraei openly takes the ground that much
of the bad feeling that has been reused in past
times between the United states and England has
been originally caused by British jealousy Of
American expansion--a feeling, says the orator,
unjustifabe in principle unjustifed by practice.
We are exceedingly happy TO perceive this
sensible language-coming az 1t does from one
Of the forernos. statesmen OF England. from an
orator of the party from which we had leastright
10 expect good will. and listened to with marked
applause in The British House Of Commons
Many years have elapsed since similar sentiments
fret appeared in these columns. Wehave always
been satisfied that every increase in the territory
Of the United States was not an injury bat q.
large benefit to mankind in general, and 10 the
great trading nations, such ~ France and Eng
".
Mr. Disracli might have added that Of
Louisiana, whose purchase was regarded
at the time AZ severe blow to England,
but from which we viii venture to say that she
has since derived more wealth and more profit
than from any OF her own colonies, India ex-
ceptcd. The acquisition of Mexico. we're such q
thing possible, which It il not al present and that
Of Central America. which II ont of the question,
would also be beneficial TO England to France
10 every nation that has a trade ami ships, TO
every person who is interested in the spread Of
civilization commerce, industry, religion, free
dom and good government.
We cannot help wishing that MI. Draeli had
awaited himself Of his position and his opportu-
nifty to explain why It has happened that the
expansion Of the United States has been for the
worlds good, and why Great Britain has hitherto
opposed il. A very few words might have male
the matter clear In former times, annexation
implied subsection. Conquest was the usual
mode Of annexing territory; and all other modes
being assimilated to II, the race whose territory
was annexed was treated az a conquered people,
wthou, rights or claims save on the mercy ofthe
conquerors. They we're quite commonly deprived
Of their institutions, stripped Of their liberty,
made TO pay tribute; aud not unfrequently denied
the free use Of their language AMI their religion.
Under a system Of such severity as this, anS&a-
ton naturally appeared very hateful operation
10 all but the annexers. Again, in former times
when wars we're sempiternal, nations strength
consisted in the number Of men she could bring
into the Held; and the nation which owned the
most conquered provinces, whose male citizens
she could Ivy the rules Of public Law force intohcr
public service. was naturally the most powerful
Hence, a very natural reason for dislike on the
part OF one nation TO see its rival providing itself
with new supplies Of soldiers from this source. II
was mainly from these reasons that the peculiar
British aversion 10 gee the United States expand
first took its origin. The feeling was tradition.
airy one, and modern rivalry aggravated H.
A glance at the facts Of course shows its falla.
cy. III the first place, the United states seek no
war viii any one, do not impress soldiers, owe
their strength to their corn and their cotton and
their labor and their freedom, and the happy
combination Of circumstances which render il
good policy FOR foreign capitalists to invest their
money here. Thcso elements Of strength can
hardly b. increased by the annexation Of new
statcs And, secondly. the United States have
no provinces, no sulyugastd people whom ,u,y