There is no direct _proof_ that this influenced Russell to denounce the plan of blocking Southern harbours with stone-laden boats sunk in the channel, but the existence of such a motive seems probable.

Moreover his protest was not made until December 20, the _day after_ he had learned officially from Adams that Wilkes was unauthorized in searching the _Trent_--a day on which strain and uncertainty regarding American intentions were greatly lessened.
Russell then wrote to Lyons that he observed it to be stated, "apparently on good authority," that the declared purpose of the stone boat fleet was "of destroying these harbours for ever." He characterized this as implying "utter despair of the restoration of the Union," and as being only "a measure of revenge and irremediable injury against an enemy." "But even in this view, as a scheme of embittered and sanguinary war, such a measure is not justifiable.

It is a plot against the commerce of nations and the free intercourse of the Southern States of America with the civilized world.

It is a project worthy only of times of barbarism." Lyons was instructed to speak in this sense to Seward, who, it was hoped, would disavow the project[535].
There was nothing in Lyons' despatches, nor in the American newspaper extracts accompanying them, to warrant such accusation and expostulation.

Lyons had merely commented that by some in America the project had been characterized as "odious and barbarous," adding, "The question seems to depend on the extent to which the harbours will be permanently injured[536]." It will be noted that Russell did not refer to information received from Lyons (though it was already in hand), but to "apparently good authority" in justification of his vigorous denunciation.