It would appear from a letter written by Russell to Palmerston, on September 3, the day on which he gave the order to stop, that no Cabinet approval for this step had yet formally been given, since Russell notified Palmerston of his purpose and asked the latter, if he disapproved, to call a Cabinet at once[1026].  The plan to stop the Rams must have long been understood for Palmerston called no Cabinet.  Moreover it is to be presumed that he was preparing the public for the seizure, for on this same September 3, the Times, in a long editorial, argued that the law as it stood (or was interpreted), was not in harmony with true neutrality, and pointed out future dangers to British commerce, as had the Liverpool ship-owners.  Delane of the Times was at this period especially close to Palmerston, and it is at least inferential that the editorial was an advance notice of governmental intention to apply a policy known in intimate circles to have been for some time matured.  Four days later, while governmental action was still unknown to the public another editorial advocated seizure of the Rams[1027].  Russell had acted under the fear that one of the Rams might slip away as had the Alabama; he had sent orders to stop and investigate, but he delayed final seizure in the hope that better evidence might yet be secured, conducting a rapid exchange of letters with Lairds (the builders), seeking to get admissions from them.  It was only on September 9 that Lairds was officially ordered not to send the vessels on a “trial trip,” and it was not until September 16 that public announcement was made of the Government’s action[1028].

Russell has been regarded as careless and thoughtless in that it was not until September 8 he relieved Adams’ mind by assuring him the Rams would be seized, even though three days before, on September 5, this information had been sent to Washington.  The explanation is Russell’s eager search for evidence to convict, and his correspondence with Lairds which did not come to a head until the eighth, when the builders refused to give information.  To the builders Russell was writing as if a governmental decision had not yet been reached.  He could take no chance of a “leak” through the American Minister.  Once informed, Adams was well satisfied though his immediate reaction was to criticize, not Russell, but the general “timidity and vacillation” of the law officers of the Crown[1029].  Two days later, having learned from Russell himself just what was taking place, Adams described the “firm stand” taken by the Foreign Secretary, noted the general approval by the public press and expressed the opinion that there was now a better prospect of being able to preserve friendly relations with England than at any time since his arrival in London[1030].  Across the water British officials were delighted with the seizure of the Rams.  Monck in Canada expressed his approval[1031].  Lyons reported a “great improvement” in the feeling toward England and that Seward especially was highly pleased with Russell’s expressions, conveyed privately, of esteem for Seward together with the hope that he would remain in office[1032].