Pliny Miles, the writer on Postal Affairs, wrote from London to President Lincoln, who forwarded the letter to Mr. Sumner:-- “Mr. Sumner’s late speech in New York has arrived here in the journals, and is attracting a great deal of attention. Quotations and extracts are made from it in the leading liberal papers; but really the whole speech ought to be printed here, and circulated in pamphlet form. If sent to all the members of both Houses of Parliament and to the press, I think it would do great good.” Daniel R. Goodloe, for a long time connected with the press, then of Washington and afterwards of North Carolina, wrote:-- “I regard Lord Russell’s speech at Blairgowrie as a reply to yours; and the country is indebted to you for the important concessions he makes, and for the greatly modified tone in which he speaks of our affairs.” Hon. A. C. Barstow, formerly Mayor of Providence, wrote:-- “I returned from Washington this morning. Have read your speech with great satisfaction. I think you have touched the public pulse more widely than ever before.” * * * * * The speech had a different reception in England, being criticized by the press, and by Earl Russell in a public speech. The New York correspondent of the London _Standard_ called Mr. Sumner “the mouthpiece of the President,” and said that the speech “had been carefully examined by the President, and was analyzed by the confidential members of the Cabinet, before being let off to the public in this great city.” This was a mistake. Neither the President nor any of his Cabinet had seen a line of the speech. Its delivery was reported by the London _Times_ of September 22d, in a telegraphic despatch from Greencastle, in Ireland:-- “He denounced the conduct of the British Government in permitting the building of war steamers in British ports for the Confederates and recognizing on the part of the South any belligerent rights upon the ocean. He disbelieved that either France or England would intervene in favor of a state that based itself upon Negro Slavery, and asserted that all intervention in the internal affairs of another nation was contrary to law and reason, unless such intervention were obviously on the side of human rights.”