Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
Sir: Following up the plan suggested in my despatch No. 243, I asked an interview with Lord Russell. He gave it to me yesterday. The cabinet meeting appointed for that time had been postponed until to-day, which will yet be in season for the departure of Lord Lyons, who goes in the Scotia to-morrow. My surmise as to the connexion between the two events proved correct.
I opened the conversation with a reference to the topic which had occupied us at our last meeting, the remonstrance of Lord Palmerston against a sentiment supposed to have been attributed to him by me on the strength of a statement made by the commander of the Quaker City. Since that time, I said that I had had communication with the government at home, and had received a despatch on the subject which seemed to me finally to dispose of it. I then read the essential parts of it, and expressed the hope that his lordship would communicate the information to Lord Palmerston. His lordship said that he would do so, and that this would dispense with the necessity of saying anything about it through Lord Lyons.
I then turned in a half serious way to the departure of Lord Lyons, and expressed a hope that he was about to go with a prospect of remaining for some length of time. For myself I was obliged to confess that I had lately been called somewhat suddenly to the consideration of the condition of my travelling equipage, in certain possible contingencies, which at one moment seemed to approach more nearly than I liked. If I had trusted to the impressions generally prevailing here, directly after the delivery of a certain speech, my conclusions as to my departure would have been absolute. But I preferred to wait until later developments, like those which had since taken place, should give a more [Page 224] definite idea of the extent of the authority to which it was entitled. The speech of Sir George Lewis had done much to set the balance once more even.
His lordship took my allusion at once, though not without a slight indication of embarrassment. He said that Mr. Gladstone had evidently been much misunderstood. I must have seen in the newspapers the letters which contained his later explanations. That he had certain opinions in regard to the nature of the struggle in America, as on all public questions, just as other Englishmen had, was natural enough. And it was the fashion here for public men to express such as they held in their public addresses. Of course it was not for him to disavow anything on the part of Mr. Gladstone; but he had no idea that in saying what he had, there was a serious intention to justify any of the inferences that had been drawn from it, of a disposition in the government now to adopt a new policy.
I replied that I did not expect a disavowal nor even did I seek to impute to Mr. Gladstone an intention of the kind referred to. At the same time, I could not sufficiently express my great regret at the occurrence on account of the ill effects it was likely to have upon the relations of the two countries. On the one side, it would be reprinted in every newspaper in America, and construed as an official exposition of the policy of the government; and in this view it was scarcely necessary for me to say how much it would tend to increase the irritation already very great there. On the other, it was having a great effect in concentrating the popular inclination in this kingdom which was swaying every day more and more unfavorably to us. I regretted to be obliged to confess that from the day of my arrival, I had observed a regular and steady decline of good will towards the United States. Lord Lyons had been to see me in the morning. Whilst we had united in deploring the respective tendencies on the two sides, we had also joined in expressing our intention to continue our utmost efforts to counteract them. But for my part I was much less sanguine of success when I perceived the influences brought to bear upon opinion here by leading men.
Lord Russell admitted that opinions were much divided and that there had been an unfavorable change to us going on. But he still thought that in most popular meetings the greater number would sympathize with the United States.
To which I replied that, admitting it might be so now, this slight preponderance would soon disappear under the effect of two or three more speeches like that of Mr. Gladstone. Whilst I was willing to acquit him of any deliberate intention to bring on the worst effects, I could not conceal from myself the fact that he was doing it quite as certainly as if he had one.
His lordship intimated as guardedly as possible, that Lord Palmerston and other members of the government regretted the speech, and Mr. Gladstone himself was not disinclined to correct, so far as he could, the misinterpretation which had been made of it. It was still their intention to adhere to the rule of perfect neutrality in the struggle, and to let it come to its natural end without the smallest interference, direct or otherwise. But he could not say what circumstances might happen from month to month in the future. I observed that the policy he mentioned was satisfactory to us, and asked if I was to understand him as saying that no change of it was now proposed. To which he gave his assent.
I remarked that this answer left me nothing more to trouble him with, and then took my leave.
I ought to observe that before my interview, I met with Baron Brunnow, the Russian ambassador, in the ante-chamber, and he took me aside on his return from his conference to express his firm belief that the government here intended faithfully to adhere to their policy. He reminded me of a former meeting of the same kind, when I appeared to doubt, and he had said the same thing. So far, he had proved to be right. I admitted the fact, but added that at some future time I might, perhaps, be able to put him in possession of the evidence which had then affected my judgment. I could not do it just now.
[Page 225]The public speeches of members of Parliament to their constituents appear in the papers almost every day. I think they are much more guarded than they were just after Mr. Gladstone’s. The general opinion now is that he was very indiscreet. But I see no change in the current. Indeed, nothing short of a very decisive victory in Virginia will avail to check it.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, V. C.