Other pro-Southern speakers emphasized Lancashire distress.  Gregory said:  “We should remember what is impending over Lancashire—­what want, what woe, what humiliation—­and that not caused by the decree of God, but by the perversity of man.  I leave the statistics of the pauperism that is, and that is to be, to my honourable friends, the representatives of manufacturing England.”  No statistics were forthcoming from this quarter for not a representative from Lancashire participated in the debate save Hopwood who at the very end upbraided his fellow members from the district for their silence and was interrupted by cries of “Divide, Divide.”  Lindsay’s quoted letter was met by opponents of mediation with the assertion that the operatives were well known to be united against any action and that they could be sustained “in luxury” from the public purse for far less a cost than that of a war with America.

But cotton did not play the part expected of it in this debate.  Forster in a very able speech cleverly keeping close to a consideration of the effect of mediation on England, advanced the idea that such a step would not end the war but would merely intensify it and so prolong English commercial distress.  He did state, however, that intervention (as distinct from mediation) would bring on a “servile war” in America, thus giving evidence of his close touch with Adams and his knowledge of Seward’s despatch of May 28.  In the main the friends of the North were content to be silent and leave it to the Government to answer Lindsay.  This was good tactics and they were no doubt encouraged to silence by evidence early given in the debate that there would be no positive result from the motion.  Gregory showed that this was a real attack on the Government by his bitter criticisms of Russell’s “three months” speech[704].

At the conclusion of Gregory’s speech Lindsay and his friends, their immediate purpose accomplished and fearing a vote, wished to adjourn the debate indefinitely.  Palmerston objected.  He agreed that everyone earnestly wished the war in America to end, but he declared that such debates were a great mistake unless something definite was to follow since they only served to create irritation in America, both North and South.  He concluded with a vigorous assertion that if the Ministry were to administer the affairs of the nation it ought to be trusted in foreign affairs and not have its hands tied by parliamentary expressions of opinion at inopportune moments.  Finally, the South had not yet securely established its independence and hence could not be recognized.  This motion, if carried, would place England on a definite side and thus be fatal to any hope of successful mediation or intervention in the future.  Having now made clear the policy of the Government Palmerston did not insist upon a division and the motion was withdrawn[705].