Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1873-1877, 1877-01-25
LORD MACAULAY ON THE JET
FERSONIAN PRINCIPLE.

1t was discovered and announced.
good many years ago, that there was
great political gulf lying between wha
may be called Washingtonian, oil
more properly, IIamiltonian princi
pies, and the principles taught an
upheld by Thomas Jefferson. Tn
latter had imbibed many Of his no
lions Of democracy from the Frencl
RevoIutionists; while Washington
had all the conservative Temperament
and conviction Of British Wing. Tn
late Henry S. Randall, who wrote
"Life OF Jefferson" having sent l
copy Of his work to Lord Macaulay
From q letter written by his Lordshil
to Mr.. Randall, acknowledging the
receipt OF this Life" Macaulay give
his views upon what may be termed
the Jetfersonian principle as follows
"Your book was preceded by letter
for which 1 have also to thank you
In that letter you expressed, without
the smallest discourtesy, a very de-
cided dissent from some opinions
which l have long held firmly, but
which l should never have obtruded
on you except at your own earnest re-
quest, and which 1 have no wish to
defend against your objections. II
you can derive any comfort as to the
future destinies Of your country from
your conviction that benevolen. Gre
ator will never suffer more human
beings to be born than can live in
plenty, it is a comfort of which 1
should be sorry to deprive you. By
the same process Of reasoning one
may arrive at many very agreeable
conclusions, such as that there is no
cholera, 10 malaria, no yellow fever,
no negro slavery, in the world. I'm
fortunately for me, perhaps, l learned
from Lord Bacon method Of investi-
eating truth Numerically opposite to
that which you appear to follow. /
am perfectly aware of the immense
progress which your country has
made and is making in population
and wealth. know that the laborer
with you has large wages, abundant
food, and the means of giving some
education to his children. But see
no reason for attributing these things
to the policy of jefferson. see no
reason to believe that your progress
would have been less rapid, that your
laboring people would have been
worse fed or clothed or taught, if your
government had been conducted on
the principles of Washington and
Hamilton. Nay, you will, l am sure,
acknowledge that the progress which
you are now making is only continu-
alton of the progress which you have
been making ever since the middle OF
the seventeenth century, and that the
blessings which You now enjoy were
enjoyed by your forefathers who were |
loyal subjects of the kings of England. |
The contrast between the lahorer OF
New York and the laborer CT Europe |
is not stronger now than it was when
New York was governed by noblemen
and gentlemen commissioned under
the English great seal. And there are
at this moment dependencies of the
English crown IN which all the phe-
nomena which you attribute to purely
institutions may be seen
in the highest perfection. The colony
Of Victoria, in Australia, was planted
only twenty years ago. The popula-
lion is now, suppose, near million.
The revenue is enormous, near five
sterling, and raised without
my murmuring. The wages of labor
are higher than they are even with
YOU. Immense sums are expended /,
,n education. And this is province
governed by the delegate of a heredi-
airy sovereign. 1t therefore seems to
me quite clear that the facts which I
,ou cite to prove the excellence of
purely democratic institutions ought
o be ascribed not 10 those institutions. {
tut to causes which operated in Amer
ca long before your Declaration of In !
dependence, and which are still oper-
ting in many parts of the British En- i
ire" We quite agree with the COM /
nents made upon these characteristic Z
riticisms of his Lordship's, by the =
ditor of Harper's Magazine, when he :
avs: "Macaulay perhaps did not b
reflect that one of the n
roofs Of the singular wisdom of our
ystem is the restriction upon the g
over of the majority imposed by the
lajority itself. Among the checks
nd balances which are held to be :,
10 glory of our institutions, as of the +,
ritish system, there is none more ad-
Iirable than that which by the occa-
onal constitutional election of mi fe
ority President accustoms the coun- =
y to repose upon a result which is - -
pparently opposed to the fundamen-
1 principle of the rule of the ma or- to
=. The arrangement is not however re