FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353  
354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   >>   >|  
, F.O. to Stoeckl, Oct. 3, 1862 (O.S.).)] [Footnote 771: Thouvenel, _Le Secret de l'Empereur_, II, pp. 438-9.] [Footnote 772: Russell Papers. Cowley to Russell, Sept. 30, 1862.] [Footnote 773: _Ibid._, Cowley to Russell, Oct. 3, 1862.] [Footnote 774: Even the _Edinburgh Review_ for October, 1862, discussed recognition of the South as possibly near, though on the whole against such action.] [Footnote 775: Palmerston MS. Walpole makes Palmerston responsible for the original plan and Russell acquiescent and readily agreeing to postpone. This study reverses the roles.] [Footnote 776: Russell Papers. Also see _ante_ p. 41. Stuart to Lyons. The letter to Russell was of exactly the same tenor.] [Footnote 777: Palmerston MS. Russell to Palmerston, Oct. 6, 1862. Lyons' departure had been altered from October n to October 25.] [Footnote 778: Morley, _Gladstone_, II, p. 79. Morley calls this utterance a great error which was long to embarrass Gladstone, who himself later so characterized it.] [Footnote 779: Adams, _A Crisis in Downing Street_, p. 402.] [Footnote 780: Bright to Sumner, October 10, 1862. Mass. Hist. Soc. _Proceedings_, XLVI, p. 108. Bright was wholly in the dark as to a Ministerial project. Much of this letter is devoted to the emancipation proclamation which did not at first greatly appeal to Bright as a wise measure.] [Footnote 781: The _Times_, October 9 and 10, while surprised that Gladstone and not Palmerston, was the spokesman, accepted the speech as equivalent to a governmental pronouncement. Then the _Times_ makes no further comment of moment until November 13. The _Morning Post_ (regarded as Palmerston's organ) reported the speech in full on October 9, but did not comment editorially until October 13, and then with much laudation of Gladstone's northern tour but _with no mention whatever_ of his utterances on America.] [Footnote 782: Gladstone wrote to Russell, October 17, explaining that he had intended no "official utterance," and pleaded that Spence, whom he had seen in Liverpool, did not put that construction on his words (Gladstone Papers). Russell replied, October 20. "... Still you must allow me to say that I think you went beyond the latitude which all speakers must be allowed when you said that Jeff Davis had made a nation. Negotiations would seem to follow, and for that step I think the Cabinet is not prepared. However we shall soon meet to discuss this very topic" _(Ibi
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353  
354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Footnote
 

Russell

 
October
 

Gladstone

 

Palmerston

 

Bright

 
Papers
 

speech

 
letter
 
Morley

utterance

 

comment

 

Cowley

 

laudation

 

northern

 
mention
 

Review

 

editorially

 

Edinburgh

 

intended


official

 

pleaded

 
explaining
 

utterances

 
America
 

equivalent

 
governmental
 

pronouncement

 

possibly

 
accepted

surprised
 

Stoeckl

 

spokesman

 

Morning

 

regarded

 

Spence

 

discussed

 

November

 

moment

 

recognition


reported

 

follow

 

Negotiations

 
nation
 
Cabinet
 

prepared

 

discuss

 

However

 

allowed

 
replied