It is apparent that Russell did not approve of Palmerston’s move against Adams nor of any “vigorous” language in Parliament, and as to the last, he had his way, for the Government, while disapproving Butler’s order, was decidedly mild in comment.  As to the letter, Adams, the suspicion proving unfounded that an immediate change of policy was intended, returned to the attack as a matter of personal prestige.  It was not until June 15 that Palmerston replied to Adams and then in far different language seeking to smooth the Minister’s ruffled feathers, yet making no apology and not answering Adams’ question.  Adams promptly responded with vigour, June 16, again asking his question as to the letter being official or personal, and characterizing Palmerston’s previous assertions as “offensive imputations.”  He also again approached Russell, who stated that he too had written to Palmerston about his letter, but had received no reply, and he acknowledged that Palmerston’s proceeding was “altogether irregular[642].”  In the end Palmerston was brought, June 19, to write a long and somewhat rambling reply to Adams, in effect still evading the question put him, though acknowledging that the “Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is the regular official organ for communications....”  In conclusion he expressed gratification that reports from Lord Lyons showed Butler’s authority at New Orleans had been curtailed by Lincoln.  The next day Adams answered interpreting Palmerston as withdrawing his “imputations” but stating plainly that he would not again submit “to entertain any similar correspondence[643].”

Adams had been cautious in pushing for an answer until he knew there was to be no change in British policy.  Indeed Palmerston’s whole move may even have been intended to ease the pressure for a change in that policy.  On the very day of Adams’ first talk with Russell, friends of the South thought the Times editorial indicated “that some movement is to be made at last, and I doubt not we are to thank the Emperor for it[644].”  But on this day also Russell was advising Palmerston to state in Parliament that “We have not received at present any proposal from France to offer mediation and no intention at present exists to offer it on our part[645].”  This was the exact language used by Palmerston in reply to Hopwood[646].  Mason again saw his hopes dwindling, but was assured by Lindsay that all was not yet lost, and that he would “still hold his motion under consideration[647].”  Lindsay, according to his own account, had talked very large in a letter to Russell, but knew privately, and so informed Mason, that the Commons would not vote for his motion if opposed by the Government, and so intended to postpone it[648].  The proposed motion was now one for recognition instead of mediation, a temporary change of plan due to Palmerston’s answer to Hopwood on June 13.  But whatever the terms of the motion favourable to the South, it was evident the Government did not wish discussion at the