all his energies to frustrate its designs. As soon as he received notice of this intended concert, he notified our ministers at the European capitals that he would not recognize any combination or understanding of the powers having relation to our domestic contest, and that he should insist upon dealing with each government separately.'

He soon had occasion to put this resolution into practice. On April 15, 1861, the French and British ministers came together to the department to make a joint representation on some subject connected with the war. It afterwards developed that their purpose was to offer their mediation to bring about peace. An interesting account of this event is given by Assistant Secretary F. W. Seward, which he justly characterizes as more influential on the fortunes of the Union than even an important battle. As the Secretary of State was sitting at his table reading dispatches, a messenger announced the arrival of the British and French ministers, and that they jointly desired to see him, an unusual diplomatic proceeding. He directed them to be shown into the room of the assistant secretary, where he found them seated together. Smiling and shaking his head he said: "No, no, no! I cannot see you in that way." greet him. "True," said the one, "it is unusual, but we are obeying our instructions." "At least," said the other, "you will allow us to state the object of our visit?" "No," said Mr. Seward, "we must start right about it." "If you refuse to see us together," - began 1 Dip. Cor. 1861, p. 225.

This will never do. The ministers rose to

22 Life of Seward, 580–582.

the French minister, with a courteous smile and shrug.

Certainly I do refuse to see you together, though I will see either of you separately with pleasure, here or elsewhere." So the interviews were held severally, not jointly, and the papers they were instructed to jointly present were handed to him for his examination. A brief inspection enabled him to say courteously, but decidedly, that he declined to hear them read or to offcially receive them.

Writing to the United States ministers in London and Paris, he said: "We shall insist in this case, as in all others, on dealing with each of these powers alone, and their agreement to act together will not at all affect the course we shall pursue. This government is sensible of the importance of the step it takes in de clining to receive the communication in question.”1

The courteous but positive treatment by Mr. Seward of the two envoys put an end to further joint action on the part of the British and French representatives in Washington, but the efforts for concerted intervention did not cease in London and Paris. Russell, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in a public speech delivered in October, 1861, doubtless expressed the views of the ministry, when he said the war in America was not about slavery, but the two parties were contending, "the one for empire and the other for inde pendence;" and he announced that the separation of the two sections was the only logical and permanent settlement of the controversy. No positive step was

1 Dip. Cor. 1861 (to Adams), p. 106; (to Dayton), p. 224.

2 London Times, Oct. 16, 1861. The almost universal sentiment of

taken, however, until a year later, when the cotton famine was at its worst. On September 14, 1862, when the news of Lee's invasion of Maryland and the imminent fall of the federal capital was received, Palmerston wrote Russell, asking if the time had not arrived for England and France to "address the contending parties and recommend an arrangement upon the basis of separation." Russell replied: "I agree with you that the time has come for offering mediation to the United States, with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates. I agree, further, that, in case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognize the Southern States as an independent state." Arrangements were made for a meeting of the cabinet, with a view to proposing to France and other powers a joint intervention.

1

But two important events occurred to modify the views of the Prime Minister and his Secretary for Foreign Affairs. While Russell was writing his letter just cited the battle of Antietam was being fought, and soon thereafter news came of the retreat of Lee's army back into Virginia. Mr. Adams's vigilant eye had detected that the plot for intervention was rapidly ripening, and he wrote to Mr. Seward for instructions

the English people at that time was that the Union was permanently divided. Cobden did not believe the North and the South could "ever lie in the same bed again." Morley's Cobden, Am. ed. 572. Darwin, who was friendly to the North, wrote Professor Gray: "How curious it is that you seem to think that you can conquer the South. I never meet a soul, even those who would wish it, who think it possible." 2 Life and Letters, 174.

1 2 Walpole's Life of Russell, 349, 350.

as to the course he should pursue in case it was & tempted to be carried into effect. The reply wasistinct and emphatic. Our minister in London was "forbidden to debate, to hear, or in any way receive, entertain, or transmit any communication" relating to mediation or intervention in American affairs; and in case of recognition of the insurgents, he was instructed to immediately break off relations.1

These instructions could not be made known to the British government until he had some notice of action on its part; but Mr. Adams felt that the situation was, as he expressed it, "the very crisis of our fate," and that it was his duty in some way to impress upon the ministry the grave consequences which would result from its contemplated action. He accordingly made known in confidence to Mr. William E. Forster, a prudent and influential member of Parliament, an ardent friend of the United States, and on good terms with the ministry, the substance of Secretary Seward's instructions. Adams never communicated them to the British government, but there can be no doubt that it became aware of their purport.2 The proposed cabinet meeting was never held, and the Prime Minister decided it best to do nothing further to add to the resentment of the United States.

Meanwhile the Confederate commissioners had been active in their efforts at the French court, and Louis

1 Seward to Adams, Aug. 2, 1862, in Life of Adams, by his son, 285. See, also, circular instructions to American ministers in Europe, Dip. Cor. 1862, p. 176.

2 4 Rhodes's U. S. 343.

Napoleon had lent a willing ear to their schemes.1 On the 30th of October, 1862, his Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed a proposition to the Russian and British governments that the three powers unite in a formal mediation in the American war, asking for a cessation of all hostilities, with a view to some arrangement of the differences, although one week afterwards he denied to the American minister, Mr. Dayton, that any such step had been taken. The Russian government, following its uniform policy, discouraged the movement and declined to join in it.3 The subject, as we have seen, had already been fully considered by the British ministry during the previous two months and decided adversely to mediation, and it also declined to unite with France in the proposed joint action.

Napoleon was not to be diverted, however, from his purpose, and he instructed his minister in Washington to present the offer of mediation, in much the same terms as proposed to the Russian and British governments. This was done by a note through M. Mercier, on February 3, 1863, in the darkest period of the war, between the disasters of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Secretary Seward's reply, sent within three days, was a dignified but firm declination of the offer. At considerable length he reviewed the situation of affairs between the contending parties, and their relation to and effect upon European nations, and it constitutes one of the most notable and able of Mr.

1 See extracts from Confederate Archives, quoted in 6 Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, 76 et seq.

2 Dip. Cor. 1862, p. 404.

8 Ib. 1863, p.

769.