England and the Confederacy.
The London Herald, in one of its excellent articles on American affairs, says: ‘"Lord Russell is determined that, happen what may, it is not the duty of England to interferes. So the thinkers and actors lock on with folded arms; kindred is nothing, nor right virtue, nor heroism. For once Englishmen must not be meddling, warm-hearted, or over-sensitive to the wrongs or sufferings of others. We may applaud Italy, and speak encouragingly to the Greeks, but the Anglo Saxon blood, which is unmixed in the Carolinas and Virginia, we must regard as water, and the aspirations of the Confederates as impertinent and vain."’After those and similar expressions of kindly feeling, the Herald proceeds to controvert the proposition that it is impolite and undesirable for England to intervene. It disputes the rhetorical statement of Mr. Cobder, that it would be cheaper to feed Lancashire on turtle and champagne than to fight for it. It shows that Lancashire is not the only sufferer by the present war, but that it operates injuriously on general interests, and that if the war proceeds English commerce may be compromised enough to occasion a financial crisis.--For our own part, whilst indifferent now to any Governmental recognition, and well content with the more practical and substantial recognition which we have just received from the money kings of England, we believe now, as we have ever believed, that the danger of a war between England and the United States, on the ground of recognition, or even intervention, has been greatly magnified in the former country. The conduct of the United States Government in the Trent affair clearly showed the metal of which it is made. It bullies and butchers only those whom it believes to be week and defenseless, and crouches like a whipped hound in the present of a powerful antagonist. But suppose England had united with France in the proposition made by Napoleon, or even in intervention, can any one believe that the United States would have fought those two Empires and the Southern Confederacy to boot? or, if she had, what would have become of her? Their united navies could have blockaded all her ports swept her public and private armed vessels from the face of the seat, whilst their armies could not only have kept Canada intact, but carried fire and sword into the heart of the North. As we said before, however, we are quite satisfied with the recognition we have just received from England in the great Confederate loan. It is not the money only, but the proof of friendship on the part of the substantial men of England which the loan affords; the conviction they manifestant the strength and success of our cause; the morel laid and comfort which it gives to our glorious flag. We head not the ravings of Exeter Hall, nor the detestable radicalism of Bright and Cobden; nor the clabe, rate attempts of Palmerston and Russell to straddle a ball in the most impartial manner. The English people are with us, and the substantial proofs of their friendship and condense will not be forgotten.
