the moment entertain. I said that in my conversation with M. Walewski nothing had passed which could in the slightest degree fetter the action of the Government; and that if the doctrine of the noble Lord were established, and if the Foreign Secretary were to be precluded from expressing on passing events any opinion to a foreign Minister except in the capacity of an organ of the Cabinet, and after having previously consulted the Cabinet, there would be an end to that freedom of intercourse which tended so much to good understand ing and to the facility of public business. To this my noble friend answered, that my letter left him no other course than to ask Her Majesty to appoint a successor to me. Now, it is my humble opinion that my doctrine is right, and that my noble friend is wrong; because it is obvious that if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were never allowed in easy and familiar conversation with foreign Ministers to express an opinion on foreign events, whether important or not, not as the organ of the Government, but an opinion which he had formed himself at the moment, then such a restriction on the intercourse with foreign Ministers would be extremely injurious and prejudicial to the public service. (Hear, hear.') Now, I expressed this opinion, to which the noble Lord has referred, to the French Ambassador on the 3rd of December; but was I the only member of the Cabinet who did thus express an opinion on passing events? I am informed that on the evening of that very day, and under the same roof as I expressed my opinion, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in conversation with

the same Ambassador, expressed his opinion. (Hear, hear,' and laughter.) I cannot tell what that opinion was, but, from what has fallen from the noble Lord this evening, it may be assumed that that opinion was not very different even from the reported opinion which I am supposed to have expressed. Was that all? On the 5th, and in the noble Lord's own house, I have been informed that the French Ambassador met the noble Lord the President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord again expressed an opinion; and the President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also expressed an opinion (Cheers and laughter): and be it remembered, that the charge is not the nature of the opinion, for the noble Lord distinctly told me, 'You mistake the question between us; it is not whether the President was justified or not, but whether you were justified in expressing an opinion on the matter at all.' I believe that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies did also in those few days express an opinion on those events, and I have been informed also that the then VicePresident of the Board of Trade, and now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, also expressed his opinion. (Cheers and laughter.) Then it follows that every member of the Cabinet, whatever his political avocations may have beenhowever much his attention may have been devoted to other matters-is at liberty to express an opinion of passing events abroad; but the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose peculiar duty it is to watch those events, who is unfit for his office if he has not an opinion on them, is the

only man not permitted to express an opinion; and when a foreign Minister comes and tells him that he has news, he is to remain silent, like a speechless dolt, or the mute of some Eastern Pacha! (Cheers and laughter.) Now I am told, It is not your conversation with M. Walewski that is complained of, but your despatch to the Marquis of Normanby.' What had I stated in that despatch, in reference to which a great parade has been made, as if I had been guilty of breach of duty to the Crown, and of my obligations to the Prime Minister, in sending it without previously communicating with the noble Lord? No man can lay down the matter more strongly than I have in reference to the obligations of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have always admitted that if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs sends a despatch of importance to an Ambassador abroad, without ascertaining the opinion of the Prime Minister or the Crown, he is guilty of a breach of duty. But there are many cases in which it is perfectly well known that he is only expressing the opinion of the Government, and inconvenience might arise from delay." Lord Palmerston then entered at some length into the effect of the despatches that had passed between himself and Lord Normanby, and also the communications between that noble Lord and Lord J. Russell with reference to the same subject: and he concluded his statement by maintaining that it was a misrepresentation of the fact to say, that he had given instructions to Lord Normanby inconsistent with the relations of general intercourse between England and France.

It

was no instruction at all. He did not profess to give the opinion of the Government or that of England. It was his own opinion, and whether right or wrong, it was shared by numbers in France. Therefore, the charge made against him by Lord J. Russell founded on this despatch, had no foundation either in justice or in facts. Lord Palmerston next observed upon the complaints made against him of having delayed so long in replying to the inquiry of the Prime Minister, an accident which was occasioned by the pressure of business. When he could reply, he had stated to the noble Lord that he had merely expressed an opinion to the French Ambassador that there had been for some time such an antagonism between the President and the Assembly that their co-existence had become an impossibility, and if one or the other were to prevail, it would be better that it should be the President. The noble Lord concluded with an animated defence of his foreign policy, in all its aspects, during periods of difficulty, whilst he had held the seals of office, which had contributed to the maintenance of general peace without sullying the honour or dignity of England. The noble Lord resumed his seat amidst partial cheers.

Mr. Baillie observed, that having heard both sides of the case he could come to no other conclusion than that the late Foreign Secretary had been offered up a sacrifice for the sins of the whole administration, whose foreign policy they now discovered to be a failure.

Mr. M. Milnes thought the country would collect from what had transpired that night, that there was something behind what had

been stated by Lord John Russell; that a great change had taken place in the Government of this country, and a great minister, whose administration had been misunderstood and misrepresented, had been, therefore, summarily dismissed.

Lord Dudley Stuart considered the change in the composition of the ministry, by the removal of a colleague on the most paltry pretences, a lamentable one. He was convinced that it had been a foregone conclusion to get rid of Lord Palmerston-an event which would not, in his opinion, conduce to British interests.

Sir Harry Verney thought that upon the facts as stated, the Cabinet were justified in the removal of the ex-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. B. Osborne, after adverting to the condition of the north of Ireland, observed that he had not heard with any satisfaction the explanations between the two noble Lords. He deemed the removal of the late Foreign Secretary a great national loss; but he could not entirely approve of the manner in which he had spoken of the recent transactions in France.

Mr. Roebuck said, that looking at the critical state of this country and its colonies, and of foreign Europe, it was a time to scan narrowly the power and capacity of those who were charged with the Government. The Foreign Secretary had been summarily dismissed; the right arm of the Ministry had been cut off, and what was left? Deficiencies were patent in various departments of the State, especially the Admiralty and the Colonial Office, which had created discontent in the colonies; and with respect to the law, there had been mischievous peddling changes, but

there was a want of a presiding mind.

Mr. Napier drew attention to the outrages in the north of Ireland, the result of a desperate confederacy against life and property, with which the ordinary powers of the law were unable to contend.

Mr. Roche deplored the crimes which disgraced his country, arising, he said, out of the land question, but he could not consent to recur to coercive measures. He adverted to the necessity of a Reform Bill for Ireland, and to the objectionable mode of conducting Irish business in the House.

Mr. Disraeli treated the reasons assigned for the removal of Lord Palmerston as unsatisfactory. He had never severed the policy of that noble Lord, which he thought a pernicious one, from that of the Cabinet. Was it their present policy? If so, he would rather it should be administered by the late Secretary, whom all recognized as an able man, than by any other person. He complained of the frequent, unnecessary, and unusual introduction of Her Majesty's name into the explanation of Lord John Russell, whereby he relieved himself of a responsibility which he should have been the first to adopt. He criticised the manner in which the projected amendment of the Reform Act was announced in the Royal speech, professing, on behalf of his party, a sincere desire to receive the proposition without prejudice; but if he found that, under the name and guise of a Reform Bill, it was only a measure to re-construct the House so as to favour the predominance of some political party, he should offer it his determined opposition. He noticed a strange omission in the speech from the throne. Last year the country

had been agitated by the aggression of the Pope and the letter of Lord John Russell, who had denounced it as part of an organized conspiracy against the Protestant liberties of Europe. What had been the fate of the Bill which the noble Lord had introduced in order to repel that aggression? It had been treated with contumely; the law had been set at nought as flagrantly in England as in Ireland. There was no notice of this subject in the Queen's speech; yet the country had a right to know what were the intentions or present opinions of the Government with respect to it. There was another omission in the speech-the diffi

culties of the cultivators of the soil, which, if not sympathized with, ought at least to be noticed. Upon this topic Mr. Disraeli dilated, appealing to a very recent admission of Mr. M'Culloch, that the peculiar burdens upon the land entitled that class to countervailing duties, as a compensation, and depicting in dark colours the sufferings and the perils which he ascribed to our past commercial legislation.

After a long and discursive speech from Mr. Grattan about Irish affairs, Lord J. Russell made some explanatory remarks upon particular passages of the debate. The motion was then agreed to without a division.