counties of Louth, Down, Monaghan, and Armagh, in
proof of the increase of crime and outrage since the
failure of the Monaghan Commission, and insisted on
the necessity of some measures being taken to arrest
the progress of the Ribbon conspiracy.—The Marquis
of LANSDOWNE admitted the importance of the subject,
and after some observations from the Earls of WlCKLOW
and GLENGALL, the returns were ordered.

Viscount CANNING moved for the production of the
papers connected with the Attack upon Lagos, to which
Earl GRANVILLE acceded, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
remarking on the singular fact that after fighting on
the 23d and 24th, the officers suddenly suspended
hostilities on Christmas Day, a circumstance to which he
attributed the loss of life which had ensued.

The House having gone into committee on the
County Courts Extension Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR
moved the omission of the clause enabling barristers to
appear without the intervention of attorneys.—Lord
BROUGHAM defended the clause.—Lord CAMPBELL
supported the objection of the LORD CHANCELLOR,
and after some further discussion between his lordship
and Lord BROUGHAM, the clause was struck out of
the bill.

On Thursday the 19th, on the motion, that the report
on the County Courts Further Extension Bill be
received, Lord LYNDHURST called attention to the fact,
that according to the decision of the county court
judges, since confirmed by the superior courts, a suitor
who recovered the amount of his claim and the 15s.
costs allowed by the act, might be called upon to pay
to his own attorney a bill for expenses incurred out of
court, exceeding the amount of his claim, the payment
of which, according to the rule of the superior courts,
would in such a case fall upon a defendant; in illustration
of which the noble lord mentioned a case in which
a tradesman, after recovering a debt of £5 with 15s.
costs, had to pay his attorney a bill for expenses out of
court, which, when taxed, amounted to £11 4s.—After
a conversation between Lord Brougham, Lord
Lyndhurst, and Lord Campbell, from which it appeared that
the decision in the courts of Westminster was in
conformity with the wording of the county courts act, the
Earl of DERBY observed, that as it was clear that the
costs of a suit in the county court might be as
considerable as those in a superior court, and as the
successful suitor in the court was now liable to pay
expenses which in the superior court would fall upon
the defendant, it was clear that in extending the
jurisdiction of the county courts it was fitting that a remedy
for this acknowledged evil should be provided.—Some
further discussion ensued, in which, besides the noble
lords already mentioned, the Marquess of Lansdowne,
Lord Cranworth, Earl Fitzwilliam, and Earl Grey
took part, and which ended in the further consideration
of the report being adjourned till Tuesday next.

On Friday the 20th, a conversation took place between
the Earl of Minto and Lord Redesdale, respecting
the Megœra, from which it appeared that the master
had put to sea without a sufficient supply of provisions,
in the hope of completing it on cheaper terms at
Plymouth.

Monday 23d. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE announced
the Resignation of Ministers, and the formation of a
new ministry under the Earl of Derby. The noble
marquis said he had no wish to throw any impediments
in the way of the noble earl, especially as the experience
of the past year had convinced him that the retention of
office by a government which could not command a
sufficient amount of support was a positive evil. Having
said so much, he might stop; but as he felt that the
time had now arrived when it was improbable that he
should ever again address the house from that bench,
and when he might reasonably dispense with a compulsory
attendance on the proceedings of the house, he
could not sit down without thanking his friends,
personal and political, and the house at large, for the
cordiality and courtesy with which he had always been
treated. It had ever been his wish to see the proceedings
of that house characterised by a spirit of moderation
and an absence of all acrimonious feeling—qualities
which were essential to the dignity of the house, and to
the maintenance of that authority which it derived
from the constitution, and of which no sane portion of
the community wished it should be deprived. The
noble marquis concluded a very graceful and dignified
speech, which was cheered from both sides of the house,
by moving that the house on its rising should adjourn
till Friday next. The house adjourned accordingly.

IN the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Tuesday, the 3rd inst.,
the Address in reply to Her Majesty's speech was moved
by Sir R. William Bulkeley, and seconded by Mr.
Bonham Carter. Sir B. Hall asked Lord John Russell
for an explanation of the recent changes in the Administration
of Foreign Affairs. Lord John Russell entered
into this explanation. He began by describing what he
conceived to be the relative positions of a prime minister
and a foreign secretary, taking the definition of the
former from the evidence of Sir Robert Peel before the
committee on salaries; and then stated, that in August,
1850, a letter had been written to Lord Palmerston, in
the following terms:—

"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 draughts 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 letter to Lord Palmerston."

He then stated certain events of last autumn, and
said that there had been a cabinet meeting on the 3rd of
November, at which it was agreed that the state of
Europe was very critical, and that it behoved England
to preserve the strictest neutrality. Yet, a short time
afterwards, Lord Palmerston received deputations with
addresses, in which the most disrespectful language was
applied to the sovereigns of foreign nations. But though
in this matter Lord Palmerston had not exercised due
caution, he (Lord John Russell) had been willing to
consider it an inadvertence, and to take his share of the
responsibility. Lord John Russell then proceeded to
the circumstances which were the immediate cause of
Lord Palmerston's dismissal. A cabinet council had
been held on the 3rd of December last, in reference to
Lord Normanby's application for instructions on the
Parisian crisis, when it was agreed that Lord Normanby
had only to abstain from all interference, and Lord
Palmerston, on the 5th, sent off a despatch correctly
expressing the opinion of the government. A few days
afterwards, Lord Normanby wrote to Lord Palmerston
to say that he had communicated his despatch to the
French foreign minister, who had informed him that
two days before Lord Palmerston had signified to Count
Walewski his entire approbation of the coup d'etat, and
had said that there was no other course open to Louis
Napoleon. He (Lord John Russell) wrote to Lord
Palmerston for an explanation; conceiving that if
England, through her foreign secretary, pronounced
an opinion of that kind, it could no longer be said that
we abstained from any appearance of interference in
favour of the course pursued by the president. "Some
days," said Lord John Russell, "elapsed before I heard
anything more on this head, not having had any
communication from my noble friend, of any kind, relating
to these affairs. But on the 13th of December a
messenger arrived at Woburn, bringing a communication
from her Majesty to me, making inquiry with respect to
this same despatch, expressing incredulity at such an
intimation of opinion, but asking for explanations as to
the real state of the circumstances. The next morning
I sent a messenger off, and he must have arrived in
London on the 14th of December. I received no answer
on that day. On the 15th I received no answer
whatever. On the 16th I wrote a note by the early post,
expressing my opinion that such a silence was not
respectful to her Majesty, and asking for an answer.
However, neither on the 15th nor the 16th did any
communication reach me. The same extraordinary silence