[Footnote 350: F.O., Am., Vol. 767. No. 324. Inclosure No. 2. Private.

Lyons to Bunch, July 5, 1861. Bunch in reporting to Lyons, also used the word "negotiation."]

[Footnote 351: When Davis proclaimed privateering Bunch had thought this indicated a "low morality" and that Southern privateers would be in reality pirates. F.O., Am., Vol. 763. Inclosure in No. 162. Bunch to Russell, April 18, 1861.]

[Footnote 352: Bancroft's account, _Seward_, II, pp. 197-203, states that Pickens was absent from Charleston. Bunch's account privately was that he and Belligny thought Pickens "totally unfit to be intrusted with anything in which judgment and discretion are at all necessary." (Lyons Papers. Bunch to Lyons, Aug. 16, 1861.)]

[Footnote 353: Bancroft, _Seward_, II, p. 198.]

[Footnote 354: Lyons Papers. Bunch to Lyons.]

[Footnote 355: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 4. Adams to Russell, Sept. 3, 1861.]

[Footnote 356: _Ibid._, No. 2. Lyons to Russell, Aug. 19, 1861.]

[Footnote 357: Russell Papers. Bunch to Lyons, Aug. 18, 1861. Copy in Lyons to Russell, Aug. 31, 1861.]

[Footnote 358: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 7. Lyons to Russell, Aug. 23, 1861.]

[Footnote 359: Lyons Papers. Bunch to Lyons, June 23, 1861.]

[Footnote 360: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 15.

Inclosures. Bunch to Lyons, Sept. 30, 1861.]

[Footnote 361: _Ibid._, "Correspondence respecting International Maritime Law." No. 39. Lyons to Russell.]

[Footnote 362: Palmerston MS. Russell to Palmerston, Sept. 6, 1861.]

[Footnote 363: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 6. Russell to Cowley, Sept. 7, 1861.]

[Footnote 364: Russell Papers. Cowley to Russell. Private. Sept. 17, 1861.]

[Footnote 365: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 10. Cowley to Russell, Sept. 10, 1861.]

[Footnote 366: F.O., France, Vol. 1396. No. 1112. Cowley to Russell, Sept. 10, 1861. Also Russell Papers. Cowley to Russell. Private. Sept.

10, 1861.]

[Footnote 367: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 9. Russell to Adams, Sept. 9, 1861.]

[Footnote 368: _Ibid._, No. 8. Two days later, September 11, Russell wrote to Palmerston that Motley was ignorant of Seward's intentions, and that the Queen wished a modification of the "phrase about not being prepared to recognize," but that he was against any change.

Palmerston MS.]

[Footnote 369: _Ibid._, No. 12. Adams to Russell.]

[Footnote 370: Russell to Lyons, 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 that never were more serious charges, etc.," and second:--

"When Mr. Seward had finished reading the despatch I remained silent. [I allowed the pain which the contents of it had caused me to be apparent in my countenance, but I said nothing. From my knowledge of Mr. Seward's character, I was sure that at the moment nothing which I could say would make so much impression upon him as my maintaining an absolute silence.]

After a short pause, etc." (F.O., America, Vol. 773. No. 607. Lyons to Russell, Oct. 28, 1861).]

[Footnote 381: Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell, Oct. 28, 1861.]

[Footnote 382: Lyons Papers. Russell to Lyons, Nov. 2, 1861.]

[Footnote 383: Palmerston MS. Russell to Palmerston, Nov. 12. 1861. He added, "The dismissal of Bunch seems to me a singular mixture of the bully and coward."]

[Footnote 384: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 26. Russell to Adams, Dec. 9, 1861.]

[Footnote 385: Bonham, _British Consuls in the Confederacy_, p. 45.

Columbia University, _Studies in History, Economics and Public Law_, XI-III. No. 3. Bonham shows that Bunch was more pro-Southern than Lyons thought. Lyons had suggested that Bunch be permitted to remain privately at Charleston. (_Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on the Withdrawal of Bunch's Exequatur." No. 29. Lyons to Russell, Dec. 31, 1861.) That Bunch was after all regarded by the United States as a scapegoat may be argued from the "curious circ.u.mstance that in 1875, Mr. Bunch, being then British Minister resident at Bogota, acted as arbitrator in a case between the United States and Colombia." (Moore, _Int. Law Digest_, V, p. 22.)]

[Footnote 386: Bancroft, _Seward, II_, p. 203, says that if Great Britain ever attempted another negotiation "that British representatives were careful to preserve perfect secrecy." I have found no evidence of any similar communication with the South.]

[Footnote 387: As early as April, 1861, Stoeckl reported Mercier as urging Lyons and Stoeckl to secure from their respective Governments authority to recognize the South whenever they thought "the right time"