ember 25:

"Great Britain has since 1783, remained, with the exception
of a short period, connected by friendly relations with both
the Northern and the Southern States. Since the commencement
of the Civil War which broke out in 1861, Her Majesty's
Government have continued to entertain sentiments of
friendship equally for the North and for the South; of the
causes of the rupture Her Majesty's Government have never
presumed to judge; they deplored the commencement of this
sanguinary struggle, and anxiously look forward to the period
of its termination. In the meantime they are convinced that
they best consult the interests of peace, and respect the
rights of all parties by observing a strict and impartial
Neutrality. Such a Neutrality Her Majesty has faithfully
maintained and will continue to maintain[1250]."

If _The Index_ did indeed hope for results from the "Manifesto," and had
sought to bolster the appeal by dilating on a Southern plan to "let the
slaves win their freedom," the answer of Russell was disappointing. Yet
at the moment, in spite of the effect of Lincoln's re-election, the
current of alleged expert military opinion was again swinging in favour
of the South. The _Times_ scored Russell's answer, portraying him as
attempting to pose as "Our Mutual Friend":

"The difficulty, of course, was to be polite to the
representatives of the Confederate States without appearing
rude to the United States; and, on the other hand, to
acknowledge the authority of the United States without
affronting the dignity of the Confederates. Between these two
pitfalls Lord Russell oscillates in his letter, and now puts
his foot a little bit in the hole on one side, and then, in
recovering himself gets a little way into the hole on the
other side. In this way he sways to and fro for a minute or
two, but rights himself at last, and declares he has hitherto
stood upright between the two pitfalls, and he will continue
to do so.... Lord Russell seems to be in danger of forgetting
that _neuter_ does not mean _both_, but _neither_, and that
if, therefore, he would maintain even in words a strict
neutrality it is necessary to avoid any demonstrations of
friendship to either belligerent[1251]."

This was harsh criticism, evincing a _Times_ partisanship justifying
the allegations of the