"If England could, by legitimate means, and without unduly sacrificing or imperilling her own interests, accelerate this consummation, she would, in my opinion, earn the just gratitude of the civilized world." But the question, as he had previously asserted, was full of grave dangers.

The very suggestion of a concert of Powers was itself one to be avoided.

"A conference of the five great Powers is an imposing force, but it is a dangerous body to set in motion.

A single intervening Power may possibly contrive to satisfy both the adverse parties; but five intervening Powers have first to satisfy one another." Who could tell what divergence might arise on the question of slavery, or on boundaries, or how far England might find her ideals or her vital interests compromised[815]?
Here was vigorous resistance to Russell, especially effective for its appeal to past British policy, and to correct practice in international law.

On the same day that Lewis' memorandum was circulated, there appeared a communication in the _Times_ by "Historicus," on "The International Doctrine of Recognition," outlining in briefer form exactly those international law arguments presented by Lewis, and advocating a continuation of the policy of strict neutrality.
"Historicus" was William Vernon Harcourt, husband of Lewis' stepdaughter who was also the niece of Clarendon.