6.  The British ministry construed strictly as against the Washington government, but liberally as toward that of Jeff Davis, in regard to all arising complications.

7.  The British government palpably permitted purchases and shipments of contraband articles by Southern emissaries, but exercised the utmost vigilance when the United States agents entered the market for similar purposes.

8.  The action of Lord Russell respecting the proposition to abolish privateering was covertly insulting.  It asked to interpolate a new condition as between France and England of the one part and the United States of the other; and a condition conceived in a spirit of liberality toward Jeff Davisdom, and promulgated in a meddlesome mood toward the United States government.

9.  The tone of Lord Lyons was a more permissible manifestation of British spleen than the higher functionaries at home displayed, yet none the more acrid.  This appears in all his letters and dispatches respecting blockade, privateering, the arrest of spies, and the detention of British subjects, or the seizure of prizes.  It is especially offensive in the letter to Mr. Seward which drew forth a diplomatic rebuke upon a dictation by English law authority regarding constitutional construction.

10.  The correspondence of the State Department was conducted by Mr. Seward (as was well said by the N.Y.  Evening Post, Dec. 21) with great skill and adroitness.  It was also firm in the defence of our national honor and rights.  His rhetoric was always measured by the dignified, tasteful, and cautious rules of international intercourse.  Its entire tone in correspondence was earnest but restrained, and in style fully equaling his best, and most ornate efforts.

What are Mr. Seward’s views in the ‘Past’ respecting England and the emergency of a war with her, is a question now much mooted.  It can be readily answered by reference to a speech made at a St. Patrick’s Day dinner whilst he was Governor.  ’Gentlemen, the English are in many respects a wise as they are a great and powerful nation.  They have obtained an empire and ascendancy such as Rome once enjoyed.  As the Tiber once bore, the Thames now bears the tribute of many nations, and the English name is now feared and respected as once the Roman was in every part of the world.  England has been alike ambitious and successful.  England too is prosperous, and her people are contented and loyal.  But contentment and loyalty have not been universal in the provinces and dependencies of the English government.  The desolation which has followed English conquest in the East Indies has been lamented throughout the civilized world.  Ireland has been deprived of her independence without being admitted to an equality with her sister-island, and discontent has marked the history of her people ever since the conquest.  England has not the magnanimity and generosity of the Romans.  She derives wealth from her dependencies, but lavishes it upon objects unworthy of herself.  She achieves victories with their aid, but appropriates the spoils and trophies exclusively to herself.  For centuries she refused to commit trusts to Irishmen, or confer privileges upon them, unless they would abjure the religion of their ancestors.’