The London journals on liberty in America.
[from the New York Herald.]
Before the commencement of the Southern rebellion the London journals had a habit of decrying the democratic freedom of American citizens.
It was told us by the English press that we had too much liberty; that the reins of Government were not held tight enough; that there was too little restraint upon individual caprise — in fact, that we were not much better than a huge transatlantic mob. But since the commencement of the Southern rebellion the English press has changed its tone, and, from having no Government at all, we are accused of supporting too strong a Government.
If we are to believe what is told to the British public by their own newspapers there is more anarchy in New York than in Naples, less individual liberty than under the iron grasp of Austria in Venice, and a more complete despotism than the present Government of the United States never existed; liberty of the press and speech are at an end, and, with the revocation of all our former liberties, a reign of terror has been inaugurated far and wide; the habeas corpus is repealed and personal liberty forfeited with a stroke of the pen and without pretence of trial; spies are everywhere peeping into letters and overhearing political conversations, and, by the introduction of the odious passport system, finis republica has been written in plain letters on the document which authorized it. The republic is as dead as the Heptarchy, and a vicious tyranny rules in its stead. These are the representations of the condition of the United States that make their appearance in leaded type in the columns of leading London journals. But they are as erroneous as those erring in the opposite extreme which preceded them. It is true that there is now less liberty of the press and speech than there was when we were in a state of peace. In what country, however, where a great rebellion was in process of being put down by the sword, would there not be a curtailment of the freedom of unpatriotic speech and writing? If there was an insurrection in Lancashire and the adjoining counties, would not the British Government punish as treasonable the outpourings of any one, or any newspaper, to the effect that England ought to give the rebellious districts their independence? And is not the Southern rebellion in the United States a nearly parallel case?
The reports of the vagabond correspondents of the London Times and other journals doubtless lead to the belief that things are pretty much as their editors describe them to be; but they, finding themselves roughly handled in criticism here, write home startling and doleful accounts of the state of public affairs, which far exceed the truth. Yet there is liberty enough left to allow of the re-publication of these in every American newspaper. We admit that things are in a bad state, but, after all, not as bad as we anticipated; and as for the conclusions drawn from existing facts by the English press, we are at a loss to understand how sober Englishmen can so easily arrive at what to us is the height of absurdity. The measures — undoubtedly oppressive to a few — which have been adopted by the Government, in order to prevent aid and comfort being given to the enemy, will be withdrawn as soon as the war is over, and we shall then resume our normal condition. Mean while a strong Government is necessary to the purpose of suppressing the rebellion and preserving the vitality of that republic which our English contemporaries already announce to be dead. But as the phŒsix rising from its ashes, as Minerva springing full armed from the brain of Jove, this republic will emerge from the smoke of battle in all its original strength and grandeur.
