“Lord Palmerston stated to Mr. Adams on the occasion in question that Her Majesty’s Government could not permit any interference with any vessel, British or Foreign, within British waters; that with regard to vessels met with at sea, Her Majesty’s Government did not mean to dispute the Belligerent right of the United States Ships of War to search them; but that the exercise of that right and the right of detention in certain conditions must in each case be dealt with according to the circumstances of the case, and that it was not necessary for him to discuss such matters then because they were not in point; but that it would not do for the United States Ships of War to harass British Commerce on the High Seas under the pretence of preventing the Confederates from receiving things that are Contraband of War.

“I took an opportunity of mentioning to Mr. Adams, the account which Lord Palmerston had given me of the language which he had thus held, and Mr. Adams agreed in its accuracy.

“Nothing must be said on this Subject unless the false statements as to Lord Palmerston’s language should be renewed, when you will state the real facts to Mr. Seward.” (F.O., Am., Vol. 822.  No. 295. Draft.)

This resume by Russell contained still other variations from the original reports of both Palmerston and Adams, but the latter did not think it worth while to call attention to them.]

[Footnote 410:  Walpole, Russell, II, p. 357, is evidently in error in stating that the law officers, while admitting the right of an American war vessel to carry the British Packet into an American port for adjudication, added, “she would have no right to remove Messrs. Mason and Slidell and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the ship to pursue her voyage.”  Certainly Palmerston did not so understand the advice given.]

[Footnote 411:  Lyons Papers.  Hammond to Lyons.  F. O., Private.  Nov. 16, 1861.  This statement about explicit orders to Captain Marchand “not to endeavour, etc.,” is in line with Palmerston’s understanding of the conversation with Adams.  But that there was carelessness in reporting Adams is evident from Hammond’s own language for “no instructions to meddle,” which Adams did state, is not the same thing as “instructions not to meddle.”  Adams had no intent to deceive, but was misunderstood.  He was himself very anxious over the presence of the James Adger at Southampton, and hurried her Captain away.  Adams informed Russell that Palmerston had not understood him correctly.  He had told Palmerston, “I had seen the Captain’s [Marchand’s] instructions, which directed him to intercept the Nashville if he could, and in case of inability to do so, to return at once to New York, keeping his eye on such British ships as might be going to the United States with contraband of war.  Lord Palmerston’s recollections and mine differed mainly in this last particular.  Lord Russell then remarked that this statement was exactly that which he had recollected my making to him.  Nothing had been said in the instructions about other British ships.” (State Dept., Eng., Vol. 78.  No. 80.  Adams to Seward.  Nov. 29. 1861.) Hammond’s letter mentions also the excitement of “the Southerners” in England and that they had “sent out Pilot Boats to intercept and warn the Packet....”]