[The announcement by Lord John Russell] that England will not recognize the Southern Confederacy until it has established its own independence to her satisfaction, puts a quietus to any expectations of aid and encouragement from that quarter. We have never known but one man in the Southern Confederacy who, at the beginning of this contest, doubled that England would have to succumb to King Cotton, and that was John B. Floyd. We recollect well Mr. Floyd's letter on the subject, which was transferred at the time to the Richmond Dispatch, and not one opinion of which, so far as England was concerned, did the public endorse. It turns out, however, that Mr. Floyd, with his accustomed sagacity, was right, and the rest of us all wrong. Whilst we have repeatedly warned the community against manifesting any dependence on foreign support, we have never entertained the shadow of a doubt that their interests would ultimately compel both England and France to break the blockade. If the counsels of France had been followed, it would have been broken before this time Mr. Massey, an influential member of Parliament, lately stated that the Emperor of the French had repeatedly urged the British Government to that course, but his recommendations had all been declined. "Behold with how little wisdom the world is governed," and never was that truth more strikingly illustrated than in the stupid and stolid indifference of the British Government to the fates of the South and of its own manufacturing population.

We need not recapitulate here the ten thousand interests — commercial, manufacturing, and political — which throw their gigantic weight into the scale against the six hundred millions of British money in the North which might have been confiscated in the event of a war between the United States and Great Britain. That these interests would direct her course and make her an ally of the South, was always believed at the North more firmly and universally than it has ever been in the Southern States. The New York Herald and the Northern journals almost without exception have taken it for granted from the start that England would side with the South, have accused her of it in every daily issue, and have been endorsed by the evident convictions of their own Government, which has appropriated seven millions of dollars for the fortification of the Northern seaboard. So that it cannot be said that the Southern leaders held out unreasonable expectations to the Southern people, for these expectations were as widely spread in the North as the South. But they seem to have been doomed to disappointment. The North has managed to convince England that she can get the cotton without breaking the blockade, and England has been credulous enough to swallow that story.

Another reason, besides her diversified and self evident interests, gave rise to the belief that Great Britain would recognize Southern independence. It was, that, beyond all dispute, English anti-slavery influence has been brought to bear for nearly thirty years upon the domestic institutions of the Southern States in such a manner as to leave no doubt in reflecting minds that her object was, not to abolish slavery — for her commerce and manufactures were dependent upon its products — but to divide the United States, on which she was dependent for products essential to her welfare. Slavery in Brazil, in Cuba, in other countries, received no attention from English philanthropists; it was only slavery in America that excited their horror and aroused their energies. It was to America that they sent emissaries, stirring up the smouldering embers of fanaticism in New England, and urging on that war of aggression upon Southern Rights which has culminated in the present bloody struggle. It was abolition authors like Mrs. Stowe, and fugitive negroes from the Southern States, who were made the companions and pets of the British nobility. All the moral aid and comfort that any nation could give to say cause on the face of the earth was given by Great Britain to the abolition cause in America, and never, till the Union was dissolved, did England ever discover that there was more than one side to the American slavery question, and that the South was entitled to be heard at the tribunal of nations.--Since that period, the most intelligent and well written arguments we have ever seen in behalf of Secession have appeared in English journals; the character of the Southern people has been eloquently defended, and even the institution of slavery, if not openly vindicated, apologized for and presented to the British public with every extenuating circumstance that human ingenuity could suggest.--A change so wonderful could never have occurred if the public sentiment of Great Britain, which is generally all-powerful in that kingdom, had not warmly favored a dissolution of the Union, and a recognition of Southern independence.

If Lord Russell expects to get Southern cotton or Northern capital by this late disclosure of British policy, he only proves to the world that he is in his dotage. He will get neither. Why did he not declare the position of England long ago? Why did he suffer both belligerents to remain in doubt till this time of the purposes of the British Government, and continue to excite hopes in the South and apprehensions in the North? Let him now get the cotton if he can. If the South is worthy of independence, she will make a bonfire of the whole rather than permit the North or Great Britain to seize a pound of it. Let the South now show her faith by her works. Let her plant no more cotton for the benefit of foreign or Northern consumers. Whatever be the result of this struggle — and if the Southern people are true to themselves, there can be but one result — England has lost forever the friendship of the North, and has thrown away from her that of the South.