The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-26 00:00:00

Our Relations with England.

The portion of the President's Message referring to our
relations with England was received in Congress with
emphatic and unanimous applause. That portion of the
Message simply recites the hostile acts committed against
us by Great Britain during the recent war, and concludes
with the significant remark that, "for the future friendship
between the two countries must rest on the basis of mutual
justice." From this remark wo infer—and England may
as well accept the same construction—that there is to bo
no friendship between the two countries for the future
until full justice is done us for the injuries inflicted during
the recent rebellion. If we do not choose to go to war
at present, that is no reason why we should either forget
or forgive the many wrongs which we have suffered, and
which the President clearly and succinctly recites. The
formal accordance of belligerent rights to the insurgent
States; the supplies of materials of war sent to the rebels
from British manufactories; the ravages of British pirates
sailing under the flag of a nation that did not exist—these
outrages upon the United States demand compensation and
apology at the hands of the British Government ; and
since even arbitration has been refused, they fully justify
us in declaring war against Great Britain, although wo
shall consult our own convenience as to the time when
war is to be declared. Under these circumstances the
President's stern and menacing tone towards England is
exceedingly appropriate, and it is unanimously endorsed,
approved, and re-echoed by the country.
A quotation from the Now York correspondence of the
London Spectator, published in these columns on Wednes-
day, shows that our interpretation of the President's re-
mark in regard to our relations with England is quite cor-
rect. This correspondence gives the details of a
conversation with Secretary Seward, in which Mr. Seward
said that he bad told Sir Frederick Bruce, the British
Minister, that "the way towards anything more than the
present relations of mere formal amity between the two
peoples and Governments must be led by the British people
and the British Government. If the British were content
with our present attitude towards each other, we were ;
but if any change were made in it for the better it must bo
of British making." Mr. Seward added that "we were the
aggrieved party," and that "it was not for us to seek a re-
conciliation." Ho concluded this verbal despatch to Sir
Frederick Bruce by stating that "nothing could be ex-
pected from us but to stand upon punctilio, as well as upon
our essential rights, and insist upon both in the minutest
particular," and that " this was as far as the people of this
cou.encttryw”ouldalinlogw any Administration to go in that
direction"--meaning
Seward is quite right iinn
ttnhiesdsitaretcetmioenntof clonndceileidatiho.
ho might
have explained that it is with the greatest difficulty that
the American people are induced to be satisfied with even
a "formal amity" towards a Government which has in-
sulted us so grossly, injured us so wantonly, and refused
reparation so impudently and unjustly. Beyond all ques-
tion a war with England would bo most popular, and had
not President Johnson wisely resolved to settle up all our
internal difficulties before dealing with our foreign rela-
tions, and had not the people acquiesced in his decision
because of their confidence in his patriotism and ability,
the recent Message would certainly have contained a de-
claration of war. But we know that we shall lose nothing
by waiting. Neither the debt that England owes us nor
our power to collect it will be lessened by time. And
Canada will not move out of our reach in the meanwhile.
- New York herald.