Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2.
Frank Moore, Ed.

---

[123] tone of the English press towards America has been respectful and friendly, an example which has been set by the leading journal, and followed by newspapers reflecting every shade of political opinion.

The kind of criticism which we see indulged in by Conservative and Liberal organs alike, is not calculated to shorten this struggle but to prolong and embitter it. It may require a great effort on the part of certain ambitious candidates for a seat in the House of Commons to refrain from abusing the ballot, and universal suffrage, as they exist in America, but good taste as well as good feeling ought to induce them to make the attempt. These and all other public questions will bear a good deal of discussion at the proper time; but it is not friendly, nor neighborly, nor just, to open a broadside of invective against these and similar features in a Republican form of Government, when that government is engaged in fighting for its own preservation. Two or three years ago a similar course of policy was pursued by the bulk of the English press against the person of the Emperor Napoleon, when Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Bright-politicians of the most opposite views — declared in Parliament that if these attacks were continued, it would be impossible to preserve peace between England and France. These attacks were not levelled so much at the people of France as at the head of the chief personage in the State; but the French nation felt insulted when their monarch was assailed, though they might have serious grounds of dissatisfaction with him themselves. It is the same with every nation. We are just as much inclined to praise and glorify our own institutions as the Americans are their own, and we quote with avidity from foreign journals whatever contributes to our own self-esteem. This national vanity, so far from being censurable, is, within certain limits, to be respected and admired, and as we so largely indulge in it ourselves, we ought at least to make a liberal al lowance for those who follow our example, and, it may be, exceed it.--European Times, Aug. 17.

---

An English comment on English criticism.

The battle of Bull Run has produced an extraordinary effect upon our English asses. Ever since the news arrived they have been lifting up their voices in one huge bray, and there is no telling when they will give over. It is not a bray of sympathy, of sorrow, or even of triumph. On the contrary, it is a highly moral bray, articulating lofty lessons for the advantage of all people, Englishmen especially. Yesterday we dealt with one of these big utterances, which had just been bellowed forth by the monarch of the race; to-day we pay our respects to the tamer creature which lowers its ears to the salutations of the dowager-duchesses and political flunkeys of Belgravia. Thus ruminates the Post: “A Democratic Republic which, for warlike purposes, raises one hundred millions sterling in one year, and which imposes an income tax on real and personal property, is certainly a model which Englishmen ought neither to admire nor imitate.” Now, is not this asinine? We appeal to our readers, whether this stupid effusion left us a choice of similitudes. It is purely and outrageously donkeyish. We were not aware that a Democratic Republic of any sort ought to be admired, or imitated by Englishmen. We are satisfied with our Constitution, asking only that it be perfected and developed in harmony with its native spirit. We are attached to our monarchy, and should start at the idea of exchanging the throne for a President's chair. Are we to infer that, if we could only obtain solid guarantees against extravagant expenditure, the Post would go in for a “Democratic Republic” ? But the sting of the objection is that this extravagant expenditure is raised for “warlike purposes,” --we as a people loving peace so well that we never spent and never will spend a stiver upon armaments. Why, the objection is disarmed in stating it. The “Democratic Republic” over the water was never more like ourselves than it is now. Yesterday it was thrifty, economical, raising a miserable revenue, denying itself the luxury of a standing army and navy, except on a scale ridiculously small. To-day it has an army almost as big as the Queen of England maintains for the defence of her wide dominions, and it is spending money on just such a lavish scale as we were only six years ago. The Americans and we are brethren at last; equally warlike, equally prodigal. Ah! but look at the burdens which this extravagant expenditure imposes upon the people. This Democratic Republic is actually levying an income tax on real and personal property! Wherein consists the grievance? Is it that the incidence of the tax is on income? or that personal property is taxed? or that real property is taxed? Well, we have the tax in all these shapes, and have had it these last eighteen years. Suppose, when the Russian war was at its height, some of our New York contemporaries had said: “A Constitutional Monarchy which, for warlike purposes, raises one hundred millions sterling in the year, and which imposes an income tax on real and personal property, is certainly a model which Americans ought neither to admire nor imitate” --what should we have said to the argument? Should we not have derided their pettifogging estimate of human interests, and held them up to contempt as a miserable race, incapable of sentiment, chivalry, and glory? Yet this is precisely what Englishmen are now told they ought to have said themselves. We do not wonder that Balaam struck his ass, if the animal he rode was half as stupid as ours.

Having been furnished with this new test, let us apply it by the aid of a few figures to the glorious Constitution under which it is our privilege to live. The raising of a hundred millions