Adams was both angry and perturbed, since he thought the letter might indicate an intention to change British policy and that Palmerston was but laying the ground for some "vigorous" utterance in Parliament, after his wont when striking out on a new line.

He was further confirmed in this view by an editorial in the _Times_ on June 12, hinting at a coming mediation, and by news from France that Persigny was on his way to London to arrange such a step.

But however much personally aggrieved, Adams was cool as a diplomat.

His first step was to write a brief note to Palmerston enquiring whether he was to consider the letter as addressed to him "officially ...

or purely as a private expression of sentiment between gentlemen[639]." There is no evidence that Palmerston and Russell were contemplating a change of policy--rather the reverse.