Page 6

I sought and obtained an interview
with Lord Palmerston, as a private individual,
to which I exposed to him fully
the real position of affairs, and the
certainty of our approaching successes.

He was politely incredulous as to the latter
but listened very seriously to my statements
and explanations, and asked a great
many questions as to what he considered
our weak points. On these, I think
I gave him new lights. He spoke very
candidly on the subject of recognition,
and said he thought we must do
much more before we were entitled
to it, referring more particularly
to the [reocupation?] of New Orleans
as to the blockade of our Southern ports.

When asked the question "whether the
repulse of the Army before Richmond
and a transfer of the seige to Washington
would be regarded as sufficient, he still
replied in the negative. These views he
clearly expressed three weeks later at the
debate on Mr [Fendsay's] motion.

3

I saw Mr Mason immediately after the
interview, and gave him the details
of our conversation. I was careful,
of course, to say nothing to Lord Palmerston
relative to any separate action of France,
confining myself to the English view
of the question. The fixed conviction
of my mind was, and is that England
will insist on a "Masterly inactivity"
as she regards it and will restrain France
from acting also as long as possible.

The reasons for so doing you can comprehend,
as well as I could explain them to
you. The [pretext?] is "Fair Play". It is
but just to add that the popular sentiment
as England before, and especially
since the tidings of one late glorious victories
as far as I can judge, is decidedly in our
favor. But they are not willing to pay
the price of a War to indulge the sentiment,
and the course taken by the Tory
party (in opposition) proves this.

Immediately after my interview with