No. 10.

Department of state.  Washington, May 21, 1861

Sir:—–­Mr. Dallas, in a brief despatch of May 2d (No. 333), tells us that Lord John Russell recently requested an interview with him on account of the solicitude which his lordship felt concerning the effect of certain measures represented as likely to be adopted by the President.  In that conversation the British secretary told Mr. Dallas that the three representatives of the Southern Confederacy were then in London, that Lord John Russell had not yet seen them, but that he was not unwilling to see them unofficially.  He further informed Mr. Dallas that an understanding exists between the British and French governments which would lead both to take one and the same course as to recognition.  His lordship then referred to the rumor of a meditated blockade by us of Southern ports, and a discontinuance of them as ports of entry.  Mr. Dallas answered that he knew nothing on those topics, and therefore

   (The President’s corrections, both in notes and text, are in
   caps.  All matter between brackets was to be marked out.)

could say nothing.  He added that you were expected to arrive in two weeks.  Upon this statement Lord John Russell acquiesced in the expediency of waiting for the full knowledge you were expected to bring.

Mr. Dallas transmitted to us some newspaper reports of ministerial explanations made in Parliament.

You will base no proceedings on parliamentary debates further than to seek explanations when necessary and communicate them to this department. [We intend to have a clear and simple record of whatever issue may arise between us and Great Britain.]

The President [is surprised and grieved] regrets that Mr. Dallas did not protest against the proposed unofficial intercourse between the British Government and the missionaries of the insurgents [as well as against the demand for explanations made by the British Government].  It is due, however, to Mr. Dallas to say that our instructions had been given only to you and not to him, and that his loyalty and fidelity, too rare in these times [among our late representatives abroad, are confessed and] are appreciated.

Intercourse of any kind with the so-called commissioners is liable to be construed as a recognition of the authority which appointed them.  Such intercourse would be none the less [wrongful] hurtful to us for being called unofficial, and it might be even more injurious, because we should have no means of knowing what points might be resolved by it.  Moreover, unofficial intercourse is useless and meaningless if it is not expected to ripen into official intercourse and direct recognition.  It is left doubtful here whether the proposed unofficial intercourse has yet actually begun.  Your own [present] antecedent instructions are deemed explicit enough, and it is hoped that you have not misunderstood them.  You