supplies[1309].  Three days later Bruce repeated his warning[1310].  This was, apparently, a complication unforeseen at the Foreign Office.  In any case Russell at once made a complete face-about from the policy he had outlined in reply to Lord Houghton.  On May 30 he instructed Cowley in Paris to notify France that England thought the time had arrived for recognition that the war was ended and laid special stress upon the question of Confederate cruisers still at sea and their proper treatment in British ports[1311].  Thus having given to France notice of his intention, but without waiting for concurrent action, Russell, on June 2, issued instructions to the Admiralty that the war was ended and stated the lines upon which the Confederate cruisers were to be treated[1312].  Here was prompt, even hurried, action though the only additional event of war in America which Russell could at the moment cite to warrant his change of policy was the capture of Jefferson Davis.  On the same day Russell wrote to Bruce stating what had been done and recognizing the “re-establishment of peace within the whole territory of which the United States, before the commencement of the civil war, were in undisturbed possession[1313].”

This sudden shift by the Government did not escape Derby’s caustic criticism.  June 12, he referred in Parliament to Houghton’s previous inquiry and Russell’s answer, asking why the Government had not stuck to its earlier position and calling attention to the fact that the United States, while now proclaiming certain ports open to trade, yet specified others as still closed and threatened with punishment as pirates, any vessel attempting to enter them.  Derby desired information as to what the Government had done about this remarkable American proclamation.  Russell, “who was very imperfectly heard,” answered that undoubtedly it was embarrassing that no “regular communication” had been received from America giving notice of the end of the war, but that the two Confederate cruisers still at sea and the entrance of one of them to various Australian ports had compelled some British action.  He had consulted Adams, who had no instructions but felt confident the United States would soon formally declare the end of the war.  The “piracy proclamation” was certainly a strange proceeding.  Derby pushed for an answer as to whether the Government intended to let it go by unnoticed.  Russell replied that a despatch from Bruce showed that “notice” had been taken of it.  Derby asked whether the papers would be presented to Parliament; Russell “was understood to reply in the affirmative[1314].”  Derby’s inquiry was plainly merely a hectoring of Russell for his quick shift from the position taken a month earlier.  But the very indifference of Russell to this attack, his carelessness and evasion in reply, indicate confidence that Parliament was as eager as the Government to satisfy the North and to avoid friction.  The only actual “notice” taken by Bruce at Washington of the “piracy proclamation” was in fact, to report it to Russell, commenting that it was “unintelligible” and probably a mere attempt to frighten foreign ship-owners[1315].  Russell instructed Bruce not to ask for an explanation since Galveston had been captured subsequent to the date of the proclamation and there was presumably no port left where it could be applied[1316].