The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-10-15

Nn8Hsh Editors and Am<w(e&a x6E4rV,
As steamer after steamer briggs u our hieu
OF English newspapers, we continue to find the
same ignorance of the causes, the objects and
the progress of our civil war prevalent among
the English editors. The editorial columns OF
most OF the English journals are filed just a.
they were months ago-with the most infamous
Misrepresentation of the origin and causes Of
tne war, with statements that the disruption of
inc Union is a fact accomplished, or with de-
ciaratlons tending to make that disruption GER
tain-that this is a war for the abolition Of
slavery. Nor are these misstatements made ON
account of any lack of reliable information a. to
the true state of affairs here. Again and again
we have demonstrated that these views of our
condition and of our policy were mistaken; and
SO plainly proven were our arguments in the
matter that they have never been refuted, and
could only be ignored. An ignorance 50 per-
sistent and bigoted as that of the English edit
ors has its cause. None are SO blind as they
who will not see, and these editors do not un-
derstand, because they will not.
In his recent speech in Hertfordshre Sir r
Lytton Bulwer disclosed very plainly the cloven
foot of the devil who is at the bottom of English
sympathy with the Southern rebellion He
declared emphatically that England would be
afraid of our great American Union, just as she
now trembles at every movement of united
France, and that she would hail with rejoicing
the disruption of the republic and the creation
of four or five minor unions, too weak to do her
any harm, and not too strong for her to manage
easily That is to say, England is afraid of the
United States, and if she can divide them it is
her policy to do it. Cover it up as Bulwer
may, by all sorts of fair professions of regard,
it is the policy of coward, and he tacitly
admits it to be so. Nevertheless it is thepolicy
of England, and is not the less characteristic
for being cowardly. The government of Eng
land is great blusterer and braggart-full of
big words, butwith no stomach for fght-brave
in small cases and with weak opponents. but
trembling and shaking with abject fear when
Napoleon lays his hand upon his sword hilt.
The English people may be the very opposite
of this, but the English government does not
represent the English people, nor is it, except
secondarily and after tedious interval of wire
| pulling, at all controlled by them. The peo-
pie are brave; but the aristocracy controls the
people; the aristocracy is timid, and it controls
the government; and hence it follows that the
government Of England is, and always has been,
cowardly in its policy.
The aristocracy of England has always feared
this country, and its pet scheme has been to de-
| stroy our government and make our institutions
our ruin. 1t was matter Of rule or ruin, GER
tainly; for our institutions have been for years
SO affecting and moulding those Of England that
every day the people were becoming holder in
their demands, and every day the aristocracy
was.becoming less secure in its tenure of power.
tn 1eaven of democracy was leavening the
whole English monarchical lump, and John
Bright and his party were gradually but surely
| gaining the ascendency. Democracy in Eng
land could not be annihilated while democracy
here was aiding and abetting it, and continually
refuting the ablest arguments of English aristo-
Gratis by outrivalling their own government in
its benefcent power. So democracy in Anne
RIGA must fall, and with it would fall democracy
| in England
The weak spot in our system was the institu-
ton of slavery, and to that the English
aristocracy directed its attention. It gave
Fictitious Importance to cotton, on the ono
hand, and thus deluded the South with the idea
that cotton was king, and that King Cotton
could rule better alone On the other hand,
aided by such minions as our abolition dema-
gogues, journalists and lecturers, it urged the
North into . crusade against slavery, and at
| one time went so far as to demonstrate, through
the Tribune, that the North would be stronger
and richer without the South. This admirable
scheme worked in different ways, but towards
the same end. The South was urged to separa-
ton by motives of selfinterest and selfconceit,
and these were strengthened by hatred of aboli-
| tionism. The North was encouraged to oppose
slavery forcibly, and was told that if the worst
came to the worst, it would be much better off
without the South. &c. backing both parties at
once. and leading each to believe that it alone
was in the right, and certain of success, the
English aristocracy urged on the fight. 1t was
| the old game Of getting two men to fight while
third took all the spoils. The game sue
| ceeded We came to blows. Immediately the
organs Of the aristocracy announced the end
accomplished, and began to chaff John Bright.
Look at your democratic institutions Is that
the sort of thing you want to try here?
All this Bulwer tells us in his Hertfordshire
speech; and if we remember that the English
press is the organ Of the English aristocracy, we
shall have no difficulty in understanding the
persistent ignorance Of the English editors.
The press in England has no real existence
apart from the aristocracy. Its reporters are
not even allowed in Parliament, except by a
legal fiction which declares they are not there,
because lattice work screens them from the
view of the honorable members. Almost every
English newspaper is the organ Of this noble
man OF that nobleman, or of this or that noble
clique. The newspapers, therefore, represent
aristocratic views; and if any one wishes to
know the secret of the animosity of the
English press towards this country he will
find it in the open, avowed hostility Of
the English aristocracy, which controls and
d;rocts the English press and in the scheme for