"The Queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerston will distinctly state what he proposes in a given case, in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she is giving her Royal sanction. Secondly, having once given her sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the Minister. Such an act she must consider as failing in sincerity towards the Crown, and justly to be visited by the exercise of her constitutional right of dismissing that Minister. She expects to be kept informed of what passes between him and the foreign Ministers before important decisions are taken, based upon that intercourse; to receive the foreign despatches in good time; and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their contents before they must be sent off. The Queen thinks it best that Lord John Russell should show this let ter to Lord Palmerston."

I sent that accordingly, and received a letter in which the noble Lord said::

"I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen, and will not fail to attend to the directions which it contains."

The first important transaction in which Lord Palmerston had taken part since the end of the last session of Parliament, was his reception of a deputation of delegates from certain metropolitan parishes, respecting the treatment of the Hungarian refugees by the Turkish Government. On this occasion he (Lord John Russell) thought that his noble friend had exhibited some want of due caution, but he gave him the credit of supposing that this was through an oversight. The next occasion to

which he thought it necessary to re-. fer, related to the events which had taken place on the 2nd of December, in France. The instructions conveyed to our Ambassador from the Queen's Government were to abstain from all interference in the internal affairs of that country. Being informed of an alleged conversation between Lord Palmerston and the French ambassador repugnant to these instructions, he (Lord John) had written to that noble Lord, but his inquiries had for some days met with a disdainful silence, Lord Palmerston having meanwhile, without the knowledge of his colleagues, written a dispatch containing instructions to Lord Normanby, in which he, however, evaded the question, whether he had approved the act of the President. The noble Lord's course of proceeding in this matter he considered to be putting himself in the place of the Crown, and passing by the Crown, while he gave the moral approbation of England to the acts of the President of the Republic of France, in direct opposition to the policy which the Government had hitherto pursued. Under these circumstances, he (Lord John Russell) had no alternative but to declare that while he was Prime Minister Lord Palmerston could not hold the seals of office, and he had assumed the sole and entire responsibility of advising the Crown to require the resignation of his noble friend, who, though he had forgotten and neglected what was due to the Crown and his colleagues, had not, he was convinced, intended any personal disrespect. Lord John deprecated in very earnest terms all harsh criticism upon the conduct of the ruler of France, who, he believed,

was desirous of being on terms of amity with us, and he distinguished between extending to foreign exiles our ancient hospitality and indulging in intemperate judgment on the policy of other nations.

He (Lord John Russell) was more particularly anxious to declare the pacific disposition of the British Government towards France and the earnest desire of Her Majesty's advisers to maintain friendly relations with that country, because it would be their duty, as intimated in Her Majesty's Speech, to propose some augmentation of the estimates. When the proper time came, he trusted to be able to show that the proposed measures were no more than those necessary precautions which it was the duty of every prudent State to adopt. "It is impossible not to see that, in the great changes which have taken place in the world within these few years, among other arts, the art of war has been improved, and that it is necessary when there is-as there always is-a possibility of war, to be prepared for our defence. But, really, to see some of the letters which have been published, and to hear some of the language that has been used, it would seem that these two great nations, so wealthy, so civilized, so enlightened, were going to butcher one another, merely to see what would be the effect of percussion shells and needle guns! (Cheers and laughter.) I trust those fears are only temporary; I am convinced the solid and deliberate opinion of this country and of this House is for peace (Loud cheers) for the continuance of the most permanent and solid peace; and I own I think it the greatest blessing the nations of Europe can enjoy. But there is something

more which, if I may be permitted, I shall point out to the attention of the House. Four years ago we were astonished with accounts of insurrection in various capitals of Europe; day after day we heard of revolts and outbreaks, and were made acquainted with the intelligence of the establishment of the most democratic constitutions. I heard opinions of some in this House expressing their great joy at the establishment of those constitutions; but I could not participate in their joy or in their grief. I looked on those events with mixed feelings. I was glad of whatever would promote the prosperity of the nations of Europe, but I was by no means confident those changes would have that result. We have seen four years go over, and we have seen in almost all those countries that these democratic constitutions have been destroyed, and that absolute powers have been put in their place. For instance, there is that little country of Tuscany, where I lived for several months under the indulgent rule of a mild and enlightened governor. We have seen that Government overturned by a democracy, and the Grand Duke driven from his dominions by the party which seeks what is called Italian unity; but we have seen that democratic Government suppressed, and the Grand Duke restored to power by a foreign force occupying his chief town, and which has its subsistence provided by the diminishing means of the State, while the Italians have made no more progress than before. In Austria, again, the constitution which had been given to the people has been since strangled in its birth, and absolute power restored. In Hesse, likewise, force has been used to put

an end to the constitution which had been introduced under the influence of popular excitement, and absolute power prevails. Now, Sir, is there no moral to be drawn from this? Does it not show, in the first place, that we should not judge hastily or rashly of events occurring in foreign countries? Does it not show, likewise, that, with respect to ourselves, though it was thought we had not the same degree of liberty as some of those States, we have done wisely to adhere to our ancient institutions, and that freedom of the press and liberty of speech-quid velis exponere, quid sentias dicere-the essence of freedom, are here more fully enjoyed than where popular liberty prevails to the utmost? (Hear, hear.) I trust, therefore, that we shall, with regard to our own country, continue in the path of peaceable and safe reform, rather than, by the hasty adoption of anything discordant with our institutions, run the risk of losing the very liberty for which we make the change. But as to foreign countries, there is this to be said, that while we do not interfere with their domestic concerns-while we abstain from any intemperate judgment on their internal affairs-yet there is one result which comes home to us, and which imposes on us a duty from which we cannot flinch. All these various Governments of foreign States, as each gets uppermost, send their enemies and opponents out of the country, and the consequence is that we have many who are seeking refuge in England. In giving them hospitality we are but pursuing the ancient and known policy of this country; we are but doing that which was celebrated two centuries ago, when Waller said

• Whether this portion of the world were rent

By the rude ocean from the Continent, Or thus created, it was sure designed To be the sacred refuge of mankind." (Cheers.) I trust that we shall never see this boast falsified; that while we disapprove of any attempt made in this country to change the established Governments of other countries, so long as those exiles conduct themselves peaceably, we shall consider it the honour and distinction of this country to receive indiscriminately all those who are the victims of misfortune. With these opinions, therefore, with respect to foreign affairs and as to the advantages that we derive from them, and the obligations which they impose upon us, I shall conclude when I say to the House, that, not wishing in any degree to enter on the topics which have been introduced, it has been necessary that I should give the explanation of the conduct I have pursued with respect to my noble friend, and that it has been impossible to do so without at the same time recurring to what took place in a neighbouring country; but I must again repeat, that in any measures which we have to take-that in any measures which we may have to submit to this House-it shall be our object not to increase that unreasonable panic, but to alleviate it. (Cheers.) It is my persuasion that it is wise at all times to take precautions against contingent and possible danger; but at the same time I say there is no reason to suppose that any danger threatens us, that there is in fact no dispute between us and any other power. I have the happiness to say that the relations of peace exist between this country and foreign nations in the fullest degree. I trust they

may continue to do so; and while I deplore events which have passed on the continent of Europe-events which I fear were but the too certain consequences of the revolution of 1848 I do trust that by peace and civilisation, by the intelligence which is daily pouring in on us, by the inventions made to improve the condition of mankind, liberty shall be at length introduced and established, and that, with religion, it shall govern the hearts of men and produce happier days to mankind." (Loud cheering.)

Lord Palmerston said he should be sorry if the House and the country should run away with the notion which Lord J. Russell seemed to entertain, that he had abandoned principles. He concurred in Lord John's definition of the relations between the Foreign Minister and the Crown, and he contended that he had done nothing inconsistent with those relations. With reference to the deputation on the subject of the release of the Hungarian refugees, he had thought it to be his duty to receive it; he had repudiated certain expressions contained in the Address, and he had said nothing upon that occasion which he had not uttered in that House and elsewhere. The noble Lord then entered into a lengthened statement of the transactions in reference to the coup d'état in France, which had been represented by Lord John Russell as forming the groundwork of his removal from office. "The event, which is commonly called the coup d'état, happened in Paris on the 2nd of December. On the 3rd, the French Ambassador, with whom I was in the habit of almost daily communication, called on me at my house to inform me of what news he had received, and to talk over the events of the pre

ceding day, and I stated conversationally the opinion I entertained of the events which had taken place. That opinion was exactly the opinion expressed in the latter part of the despatch which the noble Lord has read; and the French Ambassador, as I am informed, in a private letter, communicated the result of that conversation to his Minister. On that day, the 3rd of December, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris wrote a despatch to ask what instructions he should receive for his guidance in France during the interval before the vote of the French people on the question that was to be proposed to them, and whether in that interval he should infuse into the relations with the French Government any greater degree of reserve than usual. I took the opinion of the Cabinet on that question, and a draft of that opinion was prepared and sent for Her Majesty's approbation. The answer could only be one in consistence with the course we had pursued since the beginning of the events alluded to, and was such as the noble Lord has read. Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to make no change in his relations with the French Government, and to do nothing that should wear the appearance of any interference in the internal affairs of France. There was no instruction to communicate that document to the French Government; it simply contained instructions, not, in fact, what the English Ambassador was to do, but what he was to abstain from doing. The noble Lord, however (the Marquis of Normanby), thought it right to communicate to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs the substance of that document, accompanying his communication with certain excuses

for the delay, which, however, did not rest with that noble Marquis, as his despatch to the English Government was dated the 3rd of December. The French Minister stated that he had nothing to complain of with respect to the delay, and the less, indeed, because two days before he had received from the French Ambassador, in London a statement which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has read, viz., that I had entirely approved of what had been done, and thought the President of the French fully justified. That was a somewhat highly-coloured explanation of the result of the long conversation we held together. Those particular words I never used, and probably the French Ambassador never would have conceived it consistent with the dignity due to his country to ask the approval of a Foreign Secretary of State. Consequently, the approval was not given, and was not asked. When the Marquis of Normanby's despatch reached my noble friend (Lord J. Russell), he wrote to say he trusted that I could contradict that report. There was, as he has stated, an interval between the receipt of the noble Lord's letter and my answer. The noble Lord's letter was dated the 14th, and my answer the 16th. I was at the time labouring under a heavy pressure of business, and wishing fully to explain the opinion I expressed, it was not until the evening of the 16th that I was able to write my answer. The noble Lord got it early next morning, on the 17th. My answer was, that the words quoted by Lord Normanby gave a high colouring to anything I could have said in the conversation with the French Ambassador, but that my opinion was, and that opinion, no doubt, I ex

pressed, that such was the antagonism arising from time to time between the French Assembly and the President, that their long coexistence became impossible, and that it was my opinion that if one or the other were to prevail it would be better for France, and, through the interests of France, better for the interests of Europe, that the President should prevail than the Assembly; and my reason was that the Assembly had nothing to offer for the substitution of the President, unless an alternative ending obviously in civil war or anarchy; whereas the President, on the other hand, had to offer unity of purpose and unity of authority, and if he were inclined to do so, he might give to France internal tranquillity with good and permanent government. I will not trouble the House with all the arguments in my letter, or with all the illustrations it contained. My noble friend replied to that letter, that he had come to the reluctant conclusion that it would not be consistent with the interests of the country to allow the management of the foreign affairs of the country to remain any longer in my hands. He said that the question between us was not whether the President was justified or not, but whether I was justified or not in having expressed any opinion on the subject. To that I replied that there was in diplomatic intercourse a well-known and perfectly understood distinction between conversations official, by which Governments were bound, and which represented the opinions of Governments, and those unofficial conversations by which Governments were not bound, and in which the speakers did not express the opinions of Governments, but the opinions they might themselves for