The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-18 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Tnis DAY.—Morning, sh. 55m.—Afternoon, 6h. 15m.
To-Monnow.-Morning, 6h. 30m.—Afternoon, 16h. 50m.

5'
Snit

OND ON, WEDNESDAY, lAN. 18, 1865

Mr. SEWARD is certainly a great authority, and
his manner of laying down the law is about as
absurd as it is amusing, looked upon theoretically;
but practically it is lamentable to reflect upon, that
a man in so influential a position should act with so
little consideration and want of respect for the ordi-
nary rules that govern civilised nations. In his
reply to the Brazilian Charge d'Affaires at Wash-
ington, relative to the seizure of the Florida, he
manifests his usual arrogant style and speaks in his
usual impatient and impertinent manner. It was
doubtless a great annoyance to Mr. SEWARD to con-
fess that the employees of the United States Go-
vernment had been engaged in an affair that was
not creditable, and in fact violated the law of
nations ; but it is the worst possible way to extri-
cate oneself from a difficulty by doing it with a bad
grace. Those who are actuated by high and honour-
able sentiments will always be the first to disclaim
any sympathy with injustice or injury, and whether
the offenders are connected with them by private or
public ties they will not allow any considerations to
make them slur over wrongs or condone crimes.
Had there really been the indignation existing
among the Government at Washington that Mr.
SEWARD intimates or insinuates to prevail there, a
very different spirit would have characterised this
reply to that which we now regret to find
as the most prominent feature in it. It
is evident that the chief object of the
writer was to put in his despatch as
many contradictions as he could to the remarks of
the Brazilian Government, and, above all, to avail
himself of this opportunity of venting his spite and
rancour against the Confederates. The burning
hatred which the officials of Washington cherish
against their opponents is a disgrace to them as
men, and
Cannot fail to militate very considerably
against their
efforts to appear to the world as states-
men who are prescient enough to direct a State with
confidence and success. From first
is a vehement assertion to last this reply
of the rights of the United
States, and if an avowal of
it is immediately followed
is allowed to creep
reader
a to quoque argu-
ment,
ent, until the uninitiated
might believe
that the fault of the captain
and the c
errors of the
the consul were quite secondaryomplicity of
to the
other parties in the affair. While it is
customary
loubt when
give the accused party the benefit of the to
the offence is not positively brought home to them,
it is quite absurd to take their estimate of their cw,,,
conduct, when it is patent to the world that they
have committed acts that are contrary to all prin-
ciples of honour and justice. Thus Mr. SEwARD,s
attempt at their defence is quite a failure when he
says that his Government does not attach credit
to the charges of " falsehood, treachery, or decep-
tion that have been brought against the captain
and Consul ; these charges are denied on the autho-
rity of the officer accused." This is quite ridiculous,
because it was manifestly an act of treachery by the
owing of Mr. SEwARD's own explanation. It