Reading, Friday, Feb. 25.

For the Daily Times.

AN ENGLISHMAN’S OPINIONS ANSWERED

Mr. Editor: -In your issue of the 21st inst.; there appears an anonymous communication (stars being used in lieu of the writer’s name) which, from its tone, was evidently the production of an Englishman.

From your prefatory remarks I infer that the writer is known to you, and is a resident of Reading, where he earns his livelihood. If this be so then his acts give the lie to his words. For why, if in his estimation, his own country and her institutions are so superior to this, and the American ‘braggarts’ so deserving his contempt, did he leave it to take up his abode here? With such feelings toward Americans as he professes to entertain, it appears to me, that the first steamer that left the American shores should bear me to his paradise – the Isle where knowledge, honor, truth, justice, and everything that constitutes human greatness and human virtue have taken up their abode.

I might make some remarks in reference to the class of Englishmen to which this writer belongs, but I forbear. I will leave the readers of the Times to form their own estimate of both the writer and his English feelings, while I notice some portions of his letter. Much that it contains is unworthy of notice.

Mr. Stars (I designate him by the signature I find to his letter) characterizes the Americans as ‘braggarts’ and every war they have been engaged in as unjust, unnecessary and avoidable, except that of the Revolution. The concession in favor of the latter is something, especially from such a source; and yet, the actors in it were denounced as rebels, and communications from the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces were addressed to ‘Mister Washington.’ This great man, however, knowing what was due to his country, to the position he occupied, and his own self-respect, returned the communication unopened, and received them only when they were addressed to him as the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army. Thus, teaching ‘John Bull’ a much needed, and important lesson.

With slender means and under circumstances the most discouraging, these American ‘braggarts’ gave to ‘John Bull’ the final- the concluding lesson of the Revolution, and Yorktown, when ‘Mister Washington’ received from Lord Cornwallis his sword, and the surrender of his army. As the result of eight years study at the point of ‘braggarts’ bayonets, and under their swords, the great, the magnanimous English nation was compelled to yield to force, that which it denied to respectful petition and entreaty.

The war of 1812 is placed by ‘Stars’ in the category of ‘unjust, unnecessary and unavoidable.’ Such may be his view of it, but the American ‘braggarts’ thought differently. The immediate cause of that war was the refusal of Great Britain to repeal certain order in Council, which, in violation of Treat stipulation. seriously affected American commerce; and the assertion of her right to board American vessels to search for seamen whom she chose to regard as British subjects.

This assumed right the Americans resisted, with what success, let the war of 1812, and the late correspondence between the two governments in relation to the subject of ‘British Aggressions’ in the Gulf of Mexico, answer. It is sufficient to say that the British government have formally yielded all pretensions to the right of search, and that the orders in Council were repealed and American right recognized after the Macedonian, the Guerriere and a few others of the British frigates had lowered the ‘Cross of St. George’ to the ‘Stars and Stripes.’ Thus, though in the estimation of ‘Stars,’ the treaty of Peace was disgraceful to the American ‘braggarts’ the accomplished their object.

Allusion is made to the blockade of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, and the assertion is made that a ‘sloop could not go from New York to New London.’ That is true. Sloops and fishing smacks were in imminent danger from the British vessels of war cruising in these wasters, and received their especial attention, so also were the unfortunate chickens in dancer that had the misfortune to have their roosts on the shores fo the Chesapeake Bay.

There was a certain Admerical Cockburne who commanded on this bay, and who had a keen relish for the flesh of American dunghill fowls.- Chivalrous Cockburne.’

Englishmen of education and good sense, will scarcely thank ‘Stars’ for his allusion to the burning of the Capitol and President’s house, with the archives of the Nation, at Washtingon, as that was one of the most disgraceful pieces of Vandalism that was ever perpetrated by a nation professing to be civilized, and is so regraded by Englishman generally.

There are other matters in the letter that I desire to notice, but which after must be made the subject of another Communication, as this has already grown beyond the limits I at first designed.

Respectfully yours,

Stripes

ANOTHER LETTER FOR YOUR RECORD

We have been favored with the following epistle from the author of the letter published in our columns on Tuesday last. We wish to assist the writer in his endeavors to extricate himself from an unpleasant position, and therefore publish it verbatim et lteratim, but we would merely remark that we did not term his first letter “senseless,” but referred to a communication written by him some months since for the Times, but which was refused publication on account of its bitter abuse of a certain religious denomination. We profess to be independent, but we do not consider that our independence should compel us to abuse persons or doctrines, merely to please the whims of one man or set of men.

Mr. J. R. Dunglinson,

Dear Sir: – After considerable delay and hesitation you have published my letter on the 16th although I told you it was not written for publication. But I do not object to it, nor regret its publication at all, although your object is fully apparent in your preceding remarks. Whether my letter be senseless or not it seems to have cut keenly into your editorial dignity, and under the smart of it you adopt the meanest plan of defence that a little mind could possible be expected to resort to. That I dispise the American people is only a foolish inference of your own, which I will not do the injustice to say that you believe yourself.

I have been a resident of Reading about 30 years, and many years an American Citizen. All my children were born here. Some of them are voters. I have the pleasure of the acquaintance of many highly estimable American gentleman, and hubby hope that I am honored with their good opinion. At least I have tried to deserve it. It is also true that I have had many kindnesses from Americans, for which I hope I know how to be truly thankful. It is also true that I have )in 30 years) “already gleaned a comfortable fortune from their support” for which I worked very hard & earned it faithfully, by the labour of my hands the sweat of my brow and the exertions of my brain. It is also true that I “could dare to write such a letter” because it is the truth and I dare you to prove it otherwise. I am a native born Englishman as well as an American citizen. The laws of both my native and adopted country guarentee “liberty of speech of the press and freedom of discussion.” I have, if possible, a double title to liberty, and if I have “gleaned a comfortable fortune” if you think I have also sold my birth right for the mess of Potage, and should not tell what I know to be truth, and truth too that ought to be better known, you have greatly mistaken your man, and also your own countrymen too. The American people never object to hearing the truth. Even if not always quite so flattering, still they would much rather have truth that falsehood. The people cannot be made to sanction any thing wrong, except by false representations. The could never be induced to fight for the protection of African slave ships, except by just such fals representation as your article on “British aggression.”

Since you have been “liberal” enough to publish my letter of the 16th, with the very generous remarks preceding it, please do me the favor and publish this reply, and oblige

Yours Respectfully,

Thomas Jackson