FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197  
198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   >>   >|  
ons, Sept. 13, 1861. (Cited in Newton, _Lyons_, I, p. 52.)] [Footnote 371: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 11. Russell to Lyons, Sept. 14, 1861.] [Footnote 372: Palmerston MS. Russell to Palmerston, Sept. 19, 1861.] [Footnote 373: Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell. _Private_. Sept. 24, 1861.] [Footnote 374: _Ibid._, Sept. 27, 1861. The facts about Belligny were, as reported by Lyons and Cowley, that before Bunch's activities became known, the French Consul had been recalled and replaced by another man, St. Andre. It will have been noted that when Lyons and Mercier sent their instructions to the consuls at Charleston that of Mercier was addressed to St. Andre. Apparently he had not reached Charleston. Thus there was no opportunity to demand the recall of Belligny. Bancroft (_Seward_, II, p. 203), unaware of this, presumes that Seward "thought it important not to give them (England and France) a common grievance."] [Footnote 375: _Ibid._, Lyons to Russell, Oct. 14, 1861.] [Footnote 376: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 15. Inclosure. Bunch to Lyons, Sept. 30, 1861.] [Footnote 377: Lyons Papers. Copy, Private and Confidential, Lyons to Bunch, Oct. 24, 1861. Bunch was informed in this letter that Mure had been set free.] [Footnote 378: F.O., Am., Vol. 757. No. 381. Russell to Lyons. Draft. Oct. 26, 1861.] [Footnote 379: The criticisms of Lyons and Russell were not printed in the _Parliamentary Papers_. Bunch did later deny specifically that he had told anyone of his activities. _(Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 22. Inclosure. Bunch to Lyons. Oct. 31, 1861.)] [Footnote 380: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 17. Lyons to Russell, Oct. 28, 1861. There are two interesting unindicated elisions in the printed text of this letter. Indicating them in brackets the sentences run: first:-- "It may seem superfluous to make any observations on the charges brought against Mr. Bunch. [For it is plain that a high-handed proceeding being deemed advisable with a view to gratify the American Public, Mr. Bunch has merely been selected as a safer object of attack than the British or French Government.] I can not help saying th
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197  
198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Footnote

 

Russell

 

Papers

 
Parliamentary
 

Exequatur

 
Withdrawal
 

Correspondence

 

activities

 

French

 
Mercier

Charleston

 

letter

 

printed

 

Seward

 

Inclosure

 

Palmerston

 

Belligny

 
Private
 
interesting
 
elisions

unindicated

 

brackets

 
sentences
 

Indicating

 

criticisms

 

superfluous

 

specifically

 
brought
 

selected

 

object


American

 

Public

 

attack

 

Government

 

British

 

gratify

 

charges

 
observations
 

advisable

 
deemed

handed

 

proceeding

 

instructions

 

consuls

 

Newton

 

addressed

 

opportunity

 

reached

 

Apparently

 

Consul