Russell was indeed distinctly worried by Seward's unfriendly attitude.
In the meantime the British press and public, while still uncertain and divided as to the merits of the conflict were now substantially a unit in accepting separation as final.

The _Times_, with judicial ponderosity declared: "The new nationality has been brought forth after a very short period of gestation....

and the Seceding States have now constituted themselves a nation[105] ..." At the other end of the scale in newspaper "tone," the _London Press_ jeered at the Northern American eagle as having "had his tail pulled out and his wings clipped--yet the meek bird now holds out his claws to be pared, with a resignation that would be degrading in the most henpecked of domestic fowls[106]." Having now veered about to expressions of confidence in the permanency of the Southern Confederacy the _Times_ was also compelled to alter its opinion of Southern Statesmen.

An editorial gave high praise to the Confederate Congress sitting at Montgomery, stated its personnel to be far superior to that of the Congress at Washington, yet was unable to resist making the customary reference to manners traditionally American; "With regard to the Congress itself, we cannot refrain from quoting the _naive_ testimony of a visitor in its favour.
'Gentlemen here [Montgomery] who have spent much time in Washington city declare that they have never witnessed such industry, care, propriety, courtesy, and pleasant Congressional action.

_Not one member has appeared in his seat under the influence of liquors or wines_, not a harsh word has been uttered in debate, and all exhibit the most unflagging energy and determination[107].'" The most of the British press quickly followed the lead of the _Times_, forgot its previous dictum that the South was in the control of "ignorant ruffians," and dilated upon the statemanlike directness and sagacity of Southern leaders as contrasted with the stupidity of the North, displayed in its tariff policy[108].