“I have your note of 29th ult.  You will see in the papers of to-day the debate in the House last night, at which I was present, and will have seen what in the H.L.  Lord Russell said in reply to Lord Campbell.  Thus the French affair remains in a ‘muss,’ unless the Emperor will show his hand on paper, we shall never know what he really means, or derive any benefit from his private and individual revelations.  As things now stand before the public, there can be but one opinion, i.e., that he holds one language in private communications, though ‘with liberty to divulge,’ and another to his ambassador here.  The debate is adjourned to to-morrow night, when Lindsay will give in his explanation.  It would be uncivil to say that I have no confidence in the Emperor, but certainly what has come from him so far can invite only distrust[1092].”

As in Parliament, so in the public press, immediate recognition of the Confederacy received little support.  The Times, while sympathetic with the purpose was against Roebuck’s motion, considering it of no value unless backed up by force; to this the Times was decidedly opposed[1093].  Of like opinion was the Economist, declaring that premature recognition was a justifiable ground for a declaration of war by the North[1094].  July 2, Roebuck asked when the debate was to be renewed and was told that must wait on Palmerston’s recovery and return to the House.  Bright pressed for an immediate decision.  Layard reaffirmed very positively that no communication had been received from France and disclosed that Napoleon’s alleged complaint of a British revelation to Seward of French overtures was a myth, since the document in question had been printed in the Moniteur, thus attracting Seward’s attention[1095].  Thus Roebuck was further discredited.  July 4, Spence wrote strongly urging the withdrawal of the motion: 

“I have a letter from an eminent member of the House and great friend of the South urging the danger of carrying Mr. Roebuck’s motion to a vote.  It is plain it will be defeated by a great majority and the effect of this will encourage the North and distress our friends.  It will also strengthen the minority of the Cabinet in favour of the North....

     “The fact is the ground of the motion, which was action on
     the part of France, has failed us—­and taken shape which
     tells injuriously instead of being the great support....

“If a positive engagement were made by Mr. Disraeli to support the motion it would alter the question entirely.  In the absence of this I fear the vote would be humiliating and would convey an impression wholly delusive, for the members are 10 to 1 in favour of the South and yet on this point the vote might be 5 to 1 against Southern interests[1096].”

On July 6, Palmerston was back in the House and Roebuck secured an agreement for a resumption of the debate