Such a quarrel would render certain and permanent that Southern Independence the acknowledgment of which would have caused it.
"The first communication to be made by England and France to the contending parties might be, not an absolute offer of mediation but a friendly suggestion whether the time was not come when it might be well for the two parties to consider whether the war, however long continued, could lead to any other result than separation; and whether it might not therefore be best to avoid the great evils which must necessarily flow from a prolongation of hostilities by at once coming to an agreement to treat upon that principle of separation which must apparently be the inevitable result of the contest, however long it may last.
"The best thing would be that the two parties should settle details by direct negotiation with each other, though perhaps with the rancorous hatred now existing between them this might be difficult.

But their quarrels in negotiation would do us no harm if they did not lead to a renewal of war.

An armistice, if not accompanied by a cessation of blockades, would be all in favour of the North, especially if New Orleans remained in the hands of the North.
"The whole matter is full of difficulty, and can only be cleared up by some more decided events between the contending armies...." PALMERSTON[768]." Very evidently Palmerston was experiencing doubts and was all in favour of cautious delay.

American military events more than Granville's arguments influenced him, but almost immediately there appeared a much more vigorous and determined opponent within the Cabinet.

Cornewall Lewis was prompt to express objections.