ENPages
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
