was observed. The inquiry of the queen, as to what
was the meaning of the alleged conversation between
her foreign secretary and the ambassador of a foreign
country, was left entirely unnoticed. I own I was
greatly surprised at such a state of things; but on the
morning of the 17th I received copies of despatches, one
of which had been received and the other had been
sent. The first was from Lord Normanby to Lord
Palmerston, dated Paris, December the 16th, and
received on the 17th. Now, although no answer had
been given to me, and although I was unable to satisfy
the inquiries which were made by my sovereign, it
appears that Lord Palmerston, on the 17th, the day on
which this despatch was received, wrote of his own
authority a despatch, which he sent to Paris, and which
had not obtained my concurrence, nor the concurrence
of my colleagues. Lord Palmerston (pursued Lord J.
Russell) had, in this despatch, evaded the real question
at issue. The foreign secretary had chosen to put
himself in the place of the crown, and to pass by and
neglect the crown, although a secretary of state had no
constitutional authority whatever. Another question
had arisen, which had been one of delicacy. The act of
the French President had not only dissolved the
assembly, but abolished the constitution, and fettered
the press. This might be desirable or not, but this was
a matter for the French alone. It was not for an
English minister to place the broad seal of England on
such acts. We had been showing sympathy to various
nations, for many years, in their attempts to obtain
constitutions—how could we take that course after
expressing approbation of what had been done in
France? Under all circumstances, he had come to the
conclusion, that he could not continue to act with Lord
Palmerston. The latter had at last addressed to him a
long letter, giving his reasons for advocating the cause
of the president, but these reasons did not seem to Lord
John to touch the question. He had, therefore, on the
20th, written to her Majesty, advising that Lord
Palmerston be required to resign. He had consulted
none of his colleagues in that step, feeling that the
responsibility ought to remain with himself alone, but
at a cabinet council on the 22nd they decided that he
could have taken no other course. Lord John Russell
then entered upon continental affairs, and, in reference
to France, declared his own opinion that though
it was not for us to act as Austria and Russia
had done in regard to the president, still he had
no hesitation in saying that no doubt the president
had acted from the best sources of information, and had
done what from his knowledge of the question he
thought best for France. He proceeded to condemn
the severe language the English press had used against
Louis Napoleon, and reminded the house that such
language by the press of former days had goaded the
First Consul into war; hut he thought this was not
probable on that account, because the President of France
well understood that the press of England did not
necessarily convey the feelings of the government or of
the nation. He was opposed to alarmist doctrines, and
did not believe that two of the greatest nations of the
earth were going to butcher one another. Alluding to the
hospitality we had for so many years shown to refugees
of every nation, he trusted we should never forget this
obligation, but he hoped we should remember it without
incensing other nations, or increasing our own
armaments."—Lord PALMERSTON replied to the statement of
Lord John Russell. Referring to the incident of the
deputation, he said that he had thought it his duty to
receive it, but had scarcely thought his answer would
have been made a matter of public importance; but
there was nothing in that answer which he had not said
in his place in that house, and though he had regretted
expressions in the addresses in question, he did not think
there was anything in that affair to impair our foreign
relations. Adverting to the incidents of the coup
d'état, he said, that "he had, in conversation with the
French ambassador, uttered precisely the sentiments
which appeared in the despatch Lord J. Russell had
read. But when Lord Normanby applied for instructions,
there could be, of course, but one answer
consistently with our habitual policy. Lord Normanby
thought it necessary to communicate this to the French
minister. The latter said that two days before he had
received a communication, which he described, however,
in highly-coloured words. Lord J. Russell had written
for explanation, and he (Lord Palmerston) had, being
much pressed by business, delayed his reply until he
could write fully, which he did on the evening of the
16th of December. My answer (said Lord Palmerston)
was, that the opinions, the words quoted by Lord
Normanby, gave a colouring to anything that I could have
said in conversation with the French ambassador, but
that my opinion was, and that was the opinion that no
doubt I had expressed, that there had been for some
time such an antagonism arising between the president
on the one side, and the assembly on the other, that
their long co-existence had become impossible, and that
it was my opinion if one or the other was to prevail,
that it was better for the French that the president
should prevail than that the assembly should prevail.
The assembly had nothing as a substitute for the president,
except what would lead to civil war; but the
president, on the other hand, had to offer unity of
purpose and unity of authority. This opinion was
expressed on the 3rd, the day after the coup d'état. I
will not trouble the house with all the arguments that
I used in my letter or the illustrations which it
contained. To that letter my noble friend replied that
after that letter he had come to the reluctant conclusion
that it was not consistent with the interest of the
country that the general management of foreign affairs
should any longer remain in my hands. He said that
the question between us was not whether the president
was justified or not in what he had done, but whether
I was justified or not in having expressed an opinion
upon the subject. To that I replied that there was a
well known and perfectly understood distinction between
conversations which are official, and by which governments
are bound, and representing the opinion of
governments, and unofficial conversations which do not
bind governments, and in which the speakers are not
expressing the opinions of government, but the opinions
which they themselves have. I said that I had said
nothing in my conversation with Count Walewski,
which could in the slightest degree ever affect her
Majesty's government. I said, if the doctrine of the
noble lord were to be established, that the foreign
secretary was to be precluded from expressing on
passing events any opinion to a foreign minister, except
in the capacity of the organ of a previously concerted
cabinet, that there would be an end of all that easy and
familiar intercourse between secretaries of state and
foreign ministers which led so greatly to the maintenance
of good understandings and the facilitating of
public business." Lord Palmerston proceeded to say,
that his opinion, objected to by Lord John Russell, was
expressed on the 3rd December; and the same evening,
under the same roof, Lord John Russell expressed his
opinion to the same individual, and, judging by what
had fallen from Lord John Russell that night, it was
probable that his opinion was the same as Lord
Palmerston's. And on the following Friday each of the
other ministers seemed to have expressed an opinion
upon the very subject which Lord Palmerston was told
he must not express an opinion on. So every minister,
except the only one who had studied foreign questions,
was to be free to pronounce upon them. And as to the
despatch to Lord Normanby, was it to be laid down as
a rule that on no occasion was a foreign minister to send
a despatch on his own discretion, without being charged
with breach of duty to the crown and the prime minister?
He had certainly often adhered to that rule, to
the damage of his own character for punctuality in
matters of business; but was such a rule to be pushed
to absurdity? It was an unfair misrepresentation to
say that in his despatch to Lord Normanby he had
given any instructions, or spoken in the name of
England. He had done no such thing. Lord John Russell
had therefore written to the Queen to remove him
(Lord Palmerston) for doing precisely what every
other member of the government had done. Lord
Palmerston concluded by saving that he fully concurred
in the policy which Lord John Russell had declared
should be ours, and that he had been proud to be, as
Lord John had once described him, the minister not of