The Sun. — London, England, 1852-02-04 00:00:00

and responsible Governments, and treachery and false rulers on *le other, he had to congratulate the country thee it had never been enten vied in a ft oaezn war.—(Hear, bear.) It was impossible, however, for the people of this country not to sympathise with foreign nations who were endeavouring to share some of the advantages we ourselves possessed; and we not only did so, but we offered them an asylum, and let them come from where they may we should still adhere to that course of conduct. Sympathy we may always express for them, but fur ther than that, as a nation, they must not go. Order must be preserved, and, therefore, they should not speak further upon that matter. He must now make mention of a circumstance which had made a most serious impression on the public mind. He:alluded to the visit of a most remarkable man (Kossuth) to our shores. fin was Wee idol of interest, for a time, among every grade of the people.—(Hear.) The interest, amounting almost to religion, which his countrymen felt in him, was equal almost to idolatry—an interest in which be he forsaw a ready s:olipathy, and in which all would be ready to participate.—(fleas, hear.) B a t i t s h ou ld b e recollected that this remarkable man had visited these coasts with an ostensible motive.—(Hear, hear.) His objtzt, avowedly, was to wage a war upon the whole of the despotic Powers of Europe. His orations had been singularly powerful, and full of political power and poetic beauty. There was, however, another object to be served in his visit to this eosntry, and this was evidently shown in the splendid speeches which he had delivered since his arrival in America.—(Hear, hear.) The visit of that great man, therefore, was not in its consequences likely to disturb our association with other powers.—(Hear, hear.) He had next to advert to the position which was occupied by Britain with regard to the principle of that party which was supposed to advocate protection.— (Cheers.) On this point it must be remarked that the Right Hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated indirectly the necessity for affirming the income-tax. But if this was accomplished, it should be recollected how great an amount of taxation had been repealed. That great statesman, Sir Robert Peel, had fully anticipated this result, and nothing had evinced more the magnitude of his ability, and the greatness of his statesmanship, than the results at which he had arrived. The next poiat which he had to take under consideration was the adjudication of differences in civil matters. Much benefit had arisen in the codification, so far as it had gone, of our civil and criminal laws, and this spin was largely owing to the conduct and management also of the late Sir Robert Peel. The ordinary- statute law had been mush simplified, but it should be remembered that great mischiefs still existed in the practice of the Court of Chancery. lithe several branches of that court were both expensive, dilatory, and unsatisfactory.— (Hear, hear.) To this the attention of her Majesty's Government had been directed. The remedy was difficult to find, but still it was necessary, and he himself being a sufferer could speak to the neces sity for the reformation to which her Majesty had that day alluded in her Speech from the Throne. Into that matter, however, he would Rot enter. The mischief and the evils were patent to sib% so that it was quite unnecessary io particularize instances for an in ducement to the reformation of the whole of our equitable jurisdiction in matters of property He was not a personal sufferer, but he had been a trus tee for a relative of his, who unfortunately had become connected with a set of usurers and Jews.—(Laughter.) The trust was for simple sale, but before it could out they had to encounter eight salts in Chancery, to some of which there were fifty or sixty parties; 10,0001. had been spent in defending actions, and the costa of litigation had in all amount,:d to no less than 70,000/. ; and instead of a surplus there had been in the end a deficiency. Rather than such a state of things should be permitted, he would say, perish the Court of Chancery and all connected with it An Encumbered Estates Act would, in truth, be a blessing for this country. The Noble Lord, however, could not have chosen a better time for introducing this measure, for there never was a time when there were more Gen tlemen of the legal profession in the House than the present. With respect to the manufacturing interest, which they were told by the Royal Speech, was in a state of prosperity, notwithstanding that there was a great number of gentlemen both in and out of that House, who asserted that the commercial pros perity of the country was a fallacy, he, himself, often us he had heard the contrary, was convinced that there never was a time when the manufacturing interest had been more prosperous then the present. He came next :to the consideration of the measure upon which he expected there might be some diversity of opinion. He alluded to the extension of the suffrage. Political writers had blamed the Noble Lord for not introducing this measure earlier in the present Parliament; but he thought they did him great injustice. Did they not remember the number of measures which had occupied the attention of that 114ase during every session? One session we; ocetaciA in regulating the duties on corn, another in removing the navigation-laws, and the last year divided between the pleasures of the Exhi bition and a religious warfare in that House. The time had now arrived when Ministers were about to place on the title of the House their measure for extending the suffrage. Some funny writer or other had said, that in this House Gentlemen " thought in herds."--(Laughter) and that ho thought was often the case—what one man said another thought, and so in time it became a party cry. He, for one, would bo perfectly willing that every man contributing to the direct taxation of the state should hews a vote—that every men holding a small sum, say 501, in the savings' bank, shoUld vote; but he would gigs no man two votes; and for the way of takilig them, be must express his utter abhorrence of the ballot. 'As for triennial Parliaments, he thought they would have the e ff ect of driving every person of station and property out of the Hoar, because who would submit himself to the-triennial nuisance of an election? Who was afraid to extend the suffrage? Could they forget that within a short time ,three of the principal cities of karope—Paris, Berlin, and Vie era—were in the haude of the mob, and in this e° 9l Fry 110 e had not she slightest attempt from the work - 11 g classes, tar loyalty to the Throne never once shook. nor was their respect for constituted authority lessenea one jot. But it would be said —What had reform done for the working classes ? Since the Reform Bill the whole attemion of that House had been turned to /he bettering the condition of the working classes. He ebe he Hon. n.Member then a ll u d e d to t h e state o f I re land. teed that the laic Sir R. Peel once stated that he never recollected a session without a Salmon Fishery Bill. Now, durin g the whole time he ba d been a Mem ber he (Sir Bulkele IY remembers , a session in which the grievances t h e principal subj ec t of discussion .—( ' of sc Ireland a did not form re . gear,) He was happy, however, to inform the home, that though some ns lafs n table circumstan ces had occurred on in the s of proposing Ire laud, her Ma j est y' s Ministers had i no legislation d any additional leg subject. They hoped that the ordinary course of the law would restore tranquillity. He had learnt from the ' Ireland that the same line of press in conduct would Members this • be pursued by Irish session as that formerly adopted, let the measure they had be whatever it ra i g ht.—(LfeaL, hear. ) would earnestly appealed to hose Hon. _Members t o recon sider their conduct. W re, h e asked, could they find occurrences such as those which took place last year, treated with so much len i enc y and consi deration a s they were by h e r Majesty's Ministers ?—(Hear, hear.) On the continent of Europe events were now happening to which, as Englishmen and Protestants , they could not be insensible. Two parties were there striving f or mastery — constitutional freedom on t he one side, and despotism on the other. Despotism had called to its assistaece the ultramontane party of the Roman Catholic Church. sad they bad ac cepted the mission. Now we could not and would not further the ends of despotism—whether it was that of the old constitutional dynasties of Europe or of t any upstart ruler who might have risen out of the cif mstances of the times.—(Hear, hear.) We wish lii not only the letter, but the spirit of the Emancipation Bill to be adopted, and we wished to re store that harmony which existed in this country pre vious to the arrival of the Papal ordinance; but they were bound to maintain the Queen on the throne . Her Majesty's Speech referred to a most important subject, which, with the country, was become a fixed sentiment and opinion —namely, a measure of reform, for the extension of the suffrage. He repeated, that every man who paid direct taxes should have a vote. He might, on this subject, advent() the circumstances which a short time back affected some orilhe great towns of Europe, and yet such war the '"yalty of the people of this country, and their submission to the laws, that they remained unmoved by those con vulsions which overturned the institutions of other nations. An effo rt had b een ma d e to ge t u p a demonstrati on; and House would recollect the monster petition which had been brought in, and rolled upon the floor of that 11"use—apetition • which it took eight horses to draw. Nothin S' h o wever, could be e ff ec t e d o n the subject of that petition at that time, and hints had been thrown out by the supporters of the petition tha t • •might some decision be come to t i sack London. But that miserable threat effected nothing, and the ini4evable elmand at khe sight of a p.liceman.— _ L s their leader vanished tienun, perhaps, On the ( ingher.) There were gen wou!el say what benefits °PPUa i te rile of the House, who Ref.= Bill ? He would have the people received from the wh , la attention Qf that Y•—(Hear, hear ) The been turned to We improvement o lince the Reform Bill, had ple •; the taxes on the first ce ee , • the condition of the peo away with, and the people now &arum of life had been done got th • nattily, .and he wished he could thei r beef and bread E tto ESA dition of the country h ad s ay their beer. The " .c ."7 and the hours of labour see a lso been greatly im - bed For those 'and oth er he working classes had • if(4; indebted to the spiriter beneficial measures " •* t. He congraugat,4 of reform which per th • a e ecantry, then, on te s 41s1 a, s ~~ TILE SUN, the progress made in its social condition. He now came to a subject which related to transactions which had taken place in Ireland. He was happy to inform the Hsuse, however, that measures were in con'emplation for the improvement of the condition of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) But while he was now on this subject, he could not resist the opportunity of addressing a few words to Hon. Members connected with Ireland. He had found it stated in several of the Irish newspapers, that it was understood to be the in tention of a party in that House to oppose every measure, no matter of what character, which might be brought for ward by the Goyernment this session. He trusted that such i w n o h u m d not to alludeprove to be it, the buthis case. feelingslt perhaps a an was Englishmanindiscreet forced him to say that he was not, in referring to those matters, actuated by any unkindly feeling, and there were circumstances which to some in that House would be a gua rantee that he was not actuated by any such. There was, wwere theire last h o numbers,eve r, a but ut sectionrespectable that b y H t o h u e s i e r , n talents.ot f o r m i T d h a b e y l e w b year bound by a bond, and, by their combination, ob structed much of the business of the session. He trusted that that party would not pursue the same obstructive course this session, and that the rumours to which he had alluded of their intention to do so would prove un founded. He implored them to pause and reflect well upon the injurious consequences that must result from such a course. Let them look round the house, and where, he would ask, would they find a party who would act with the same consideration that the Noble Lord at the head of the Government did last session? - (Hear, hear.) Supposing they bring in the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, would they make it a condition with him to bring in a Bill to repeal the Papal Aggression Bill, or would the Right Hon. Baronet himself bring in one of his own accord? There were circumstances passing in that nation which were of great importance. There were two parties there struggling for the mastery between constitutional and semi -constitutional prin ciples. This country could not look indifferently on at those proceedings. With respect to the Roman Catholics, the peo ple of this country wished well to them, and were most anxi ous to afford to them the free exercise of their religion ; but while they accorded to them all that was just in that way, he might say that the people of this country were essentially Protestant, and determined, uninfluenced by Papal ordinances, to uphold the Protestant principles. With those views he should conclude by hoping that the House would agree to unanimously vote a loyal and dutiful address to the Throne. —(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The Honourable Baronet here read the Address. Mr. BONHAM CARTER, in seconding the address, ex pressed a sense of the difficult position in which he was placed, and a hope that the House would extend that in dulgence to him which it had on all similar occasions ex tended to Hon. Members placed in the same situation. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to advert to the circum stance of Members taking formal possession of the new House of Commons. Whatever subject they might hear discussed, he believed the House of Commons would ever maintain its dignity ; and although they did not possess the splendour of the other House of Parliament—although they did not see on their walls episodes from the history of every country—and although their walls were not adorned with those exquisite specimens of art, which were dis played in the other House, still this House would not the less perform its duty to the country. The people of this country always relied with veneration on the institutions of their country, and he might say, that they felt neither jealousy nor opposition towards foreign countries, and in particular they did not entertain any hostile views towards that country whose geographical position to England was so important.— (Hear.) The object of this country was to establish feelings of amity with every country. Englishmen were naturally proud of their institutions, they wished to see them maintained, yet they would not enforce them on any country. It should not, however, be forgotten that their material interests were essentially bound up with those of foreign states, and confidence was therefore essentially neces sary, whether in matters relating to the withdrawal of capi tal, or diversion of it into other channels, as in former years, when heavy losses were sustained. For these reasons, this House, and the people of the country, would bail with satis faction the maintenance of peace with foreign countries. lie believed that no precaution was wanting on the part of any party who bad a share in the Government of the country, and who had the interests which every freeman bad at heart, to maintain the continuation of peace.— (Hear, bear.) He ventured with great • deference to say that the character which this country ought to maintain with other nations was expressed in the words of the Roman poet:— " Populus nobilissimus; quique magnitudinem suam malit justitia tueri, sine cupiditate, sine impotentia; quieti secre tique. Nulla provocant belle; prompts tamen omnibus arma, ac si res poscat, exercitus. Quiescentibus eadem fama."—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He trusted that the nation would ever feel its just weight to maintain its autho rity, and that God would save it from any interference with foreign states.—(Renewed cheers.) Her Majesty had called their attention particularly to a subject the details of which had occupied much conversation. It was a painful saoject, and one which he regretted they should have to discuss at the present time. He should not mention it, but that in the last session, in Committee, he felt it to be his duty to call attention to it. In reference to that subject he would only say, that the present outbreak was not occasioned by aggres sion on our part. Whatever opinion might be entertained as to the constitution necessary for that colony, all agreed that it was necessary first to vindicate our power and authority, and until that was done, it was almost premature to discuss the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The peculiar circumstances attending the military operations, now carrying on in that colony, rendered the presence of a large number of troops indispensable. The country therefore would not be sur prised at a proposal for the augmentation of the army, a measure upon which also the general safety is a great mea sure would depend.—(Hear, bear.) Her Majesty's Ministers would also, in due course, inform the House of the measures to be submitted to Parliament for the improvement of the administration of the law. Her Majesty had also congratu lated the House that notwithstanding the large reduction which had taken place in taxation, there had not been a proportionate diminution in the annual revenue.—(Hear.) In addition, he believed that the present state of her Ma jesty's subjects was a source of great and general satisfac tion. Their prosperity was increasing; that would be ap parent by a brief reference to the sources of revenue. The exports had enormously increased—they amounted to three millions sterling. At the same time commerce had not suffered, according to auguries that had been made.— (Hear, hear.) They had now three ships for every two which they had in 1832. They had one ship of 13U tons now for every ship of 100 tone in that year. Last year there was a larger amount of tonnage returning freight than was ever known. The home market was favourable and satisfactory to the manufacturers. That test of prosperity, the poor law, was also in their favour. There was a general reduction in the relief required. There was a general ad vance in the comforts of the people. The working classes were better off. Their houses were more comfortable. They consumed more tea, more butter, and more animal food. There had not been at any time a larger demand for labour. The abundance of the people was the best source of safety and security for the nation.—( Hear.) There was another point which should not be passed over in silence: great numbers of the population had congregated last year to see the Great Exhibition. Their comfortable appearance was remarkable.—(Hear.) In alluding to these subjects, he felt he must claim the indulgence of the House.—( Hear, hear.) One of the closing paragraphs of her Majesty's Speech called attention to the tranquillity, good order, and willing obedience to the laws prevailing throughout the country. Whilst all classes were vieing with each other in the maintenance of the law and in loyalty to the Sovereign. there could not be a more fitting time to take into considera tion the propriety of extending the franchise, or making such amendments to the Act of the last reign, relating to the representation of the Commons in Parliament, as may be deemed calculated to carry into more complete effect the principles upon which it was f ounded. (Loud cr i es o f " Hear, hear.") He believed thir the intelligence of the country justified them in taking thot•subject of reform into consideration. There had been a vast increase in postal in tercommunication. At the present time nearly a million of letters per diem passed through the post. That showed a general increase of commercial intercourse. Many wrote letters now who never wrote them before. There were ex traordinary advantages from the press in the number and character of the literature sent forth. The number of cheap and sound publications of every description was un precedented. The well-known publishers, Messrs. Chambers, se .t forth of such publications no less than 10,000,000 sheets per annum ; and this increased circulation had given rise, of late, to the necessity of raising the style of the subjects. The number of mechanics institutes and valuable libraries was considerable. There was a point which he felt a peculiar interest in noticing. He alluded to the increase of friendly societies. There were now 4,000,000 subscribers to these societies. The number of depositors in savings' banks, in 1832, was 433 , 00 0; they had now increased i n 11,0. 1 3,000 depositors. (Hear, hear.) These facts gthoporloasipmeeritoyf aanldarginotoelleliegeentoceaofpartthie_ showed the j in n e et r i e fi a e s d in people, and cipation in the representation, which was the simplest act. of Government. But while noticing these topics, it was undeniable that some great social evils loomed in the distance. Doubts were entertained whether the prin ciLles now regulating capital and labour would be perma nent. But he would no longer trespass on the House.— ( Hear, hear.) He felt that he had performed the duty cast upon him. The page of history was yet before them. He felt that the questions they were to be called upon to debate were great and serious. Duties were gathering round every man in the " coming time," bat he felt that her Majesty might place reliance upon them, and that the stability of the institutions of the country depended upon the character of the people.—(Cheers.) And while they were vieing toge ther in loyalty and good order, and engaged in the just con sideration of the rights of all, he felt and hoped they would all cordially join with him in the sentiment " That naught should make us rue, If England to herself prove true."—(Cheers.) The Address was then read by the Clerk at the table. sir B M q.u l HA N tio : h T a E vi ß ng lA be L en p E:PLANATIONS. L ORD JOHN RUSSELL AND LORD PALMERSTON. The es rose, and s a id, h e was no t a b ou t t o offer any oppositi oa to the Add ress; paragraphs i n i t related to th but, fore as one of the grst foreign policy of this country, and as place in the Ministry , es p eciall y h m e i n t O t te a i t\ great and important changes had taken h la e te e d xo to ns t e h d e if adin that part of it which re on of our foreign affairs, he might the o first opportunity, of asking the Noble Lord at the headde °f the Government to give the explanation of what had led to House and the country the change. He was aware thwaasteo this course was an unusual consequent h upon circum one—(Hear, hear)—but it met after was a pre stances which were of rare occurrenc was which tak had o to led .. ont o Almosta immediately achange cedent for it in 1833, when Parliament had taken place in the Administration. after the Address was moved, the Government was called f or an explanation of f thoughthe ciracnuombajteaonticoens explanation at that moment, it was not in c giving which the asked for, but the onsequence giving it was a good and sound one —that the explanation was ortt reason a sa e t tho a ne l te ftoi r mr at ne i alteration ; parties who were concerned were hich tTetniLreort_ at the time. a t 's ord w . Palmerston, replied that such place he found O the referring sec retary t . o at_ th e sv d a e r b , pre sent. In this instance the parties present : explanations would not bo given tinlolnternpedartwieesrewere and when, in the case to which reference was made, the parties entered the House an explanation was given to Par liament and to the country. It was necessary to refer to the (venlig of Parliament on the 31st of January, 1850. The Royal Commissioners by whom parliament was then opened were ordered to state that " Her Majesty happily continued It would be in peace and amity with foreign powers ." re collected that a debate took place on the Address, and, though 507 Members were present, not one word was then said respecting the foreign policy of the country, and not i,ne single objection was taken to the administration of the foreign policy by the Noble Lord at the head of that depart ment. From the journals of the .other House it apeared that a motion was made there on what was called " the Greek question." That motion was carried against the Go vernment by a large majority. Hon. Members on the other side of the House were taunted with not bringing forward a motion in accordance with that carried by their politicaPfriende elsewhere; and, on their declining to do so, the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield moved a resolu tion, Which leas =tell by a large—he might LONDON, phant—majority, because all those who sat on the other side voted together against those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. That resolutiion affirmed that the principles by which the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government had been regulated were such as were calcu lated to maintain the honour and dignity of this country in times of unexampled difficulty. He would call attention to a topic raised in the debate—that there was a cabal formed for the purpose of removing the Noble Lord from office in this country.— (Hear, hear.) The cabal was openly talked of prosecuting that object which had now been achieved. There was a remarkable passage in the admir rable speech of the Soble Lord at the head of the Govern ment, in which he expressed his unqualified approval of his colleague. Lord J. Russell said, let not any man be misled by the notion that when Lord Palmerston was Foreign Se cretary this country was alwaye on the brink of war ; for upwards of fourteen out of thirty-five years foreign affairs had been under Lord Palmerston's direction ; and the Noble Lord at the head of the Government referred to a presump tion that there was a foreign cabal at work which had. raised unfounded suspicions, and which was endeavour ing to overturn the foreign policy of the Government. In the last session her Majesty also said she continued in relations of peace and amity with foreign powers. During last session not one word was said about the foreign policy of the Government. Parliament closed in August ; and who could have supposed that when they met again the Government of the country should have lost one of its greatest ornaments ?—(Hear, hear.) He wished to draw the attention of the House to some remarkable facts, and should refrain as much as possible from comment. He would not refer to rumours as contradictory as they were various. His object was to put sume facts before the House, and elicit some information respecting the real cause which had led to a change in the Administration. On the 24th of December the resignation of Lord Palmerston was announced in the Times newspaper. The Ambassador of France was either recalled or gave in his resignation; but he (Sir Benjamin Hall) brought these facts before the House in order that the Noble Lerd might inform the House whether there was truth in the statement as to a cabal. He had stated that Lord Palmerston's resignation was announced in the Times newspaper of the 24th of December last. It was a curious fact that a letter was written from Vienna on Tuesday, the 23d of December, the day previous, printed in the Breslau Gazette on the night of the 24th, and published on the morning of the 25th, announcing, as clearly as it could do, the intended dismissal or resignation of Lord Pal merston. (The Hon. Baronet read the extract.) That was followed at Vienna by placards, put forward by the Govern ment—(Hear, hear) —announcing the circumstance, and it was also followed by rumours of an extraordinary nature, sanctioned, as he (Sir B. Hall) was informed, by the Prime Minister of Austria. So matters stood up to this day. Her Majesty had opened Parliament in person that day, and had been advised to state from the throne, " I continue to enter tain the most friendly relations with foreign powers." The adjective w as put in the superlative degree. If friendly re lations continued to be maintained, why this change ? Last year we were at peace with all foreign nations; now we were on the same footing. The House and the country ought not to be longer left in doubt as to the causes which led to the dismissal or resignation of the Noble Lord. He (Sir B. Hall) wished to put that alternative, because he did not know anything—he did not wish to prejudge. He wished to give the Noble Lord an opportunity of answering the question he had put; and he was confident the Noble Lord would do so at once. Lord J. RUSSELL—I am quite willing to answer the appeal made to me by my Hon. Friend. I cannot do so, however, without entering into a good deal of statement and of detail, both with respect to the particular occurrence to which my Hon. Friend has alluded and with respect to the state of parties. I hope, therefore, the House will give me ' its indulgence, that if other topics may be referred to on which any explanations are required, I shall be allowed to offer them.—(Hear, hear.) I will new proceed to answer the questions of my Hon. Friend. lam entirely ready to admit that which he has stated, that in the debate of 1850, with respect to Greek affairs, I expressed the utmost confidence in the administration of foreign affairs by my Noble Friend. I will say more; it is not in words only that I have shown my sense of the energy, ability, and knowledge of the in terests of this country in all parts of the world, which are pre-eminently the qualifications of ray Noble Friend for that office.—(Hear, hear.) I have borne testimony otherwise than in words ; and I will state that when the Administration of 1835 was formed by Lord Melbourne, the first proceeding of Lord Melbourne was to send for me, and ask me to what office I should wish him to recommend me, and added, that he supposed the office I wished to accept was that of Foreign Secretary. My answer was, that I did not propose to take that office—that I did not propose to take that office unless it suited the convenience of my Noble! Friend; that Lord Palmerston, who was then out of Parlia-f ment, was eminently qualified for that post, and that I was prepared to take that office if be did not. Again, when, in December, 1845, and in July, 1846, I was called upon by *r Majesty to submit a plan of administration for her Majesty's sanction, I earnestly recommended to her Majesty to place Lord Palmerston in the situation of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as the person best qualified to hold that office. The House well knows that her Majesty was pleased to appoint him, and that from that time the Noble Lord has continued to hold that situation. It was with deep regret that I found circumstances had occurred such as in my mind made it impossible for me to act any longer with my Noble Friend in that situation in which he had shown such distinguished ability. But before I enter into those points it is as well that I should state what I conceive to be the position which a Secretary of State holds as regards the Crown in the ad ministration of foreign affairs, and as regards the Prime Minister of this country. With respect to the first, I should state that when the Crown, in consequeace of a vote of the House of Commons, places its constitutional confidence in a Minister, that Minister is, on the other hand, bound to the Crown to the most frank and full detail of every measure that is taken, and is bound either to give a special case (as we understood) or to leave to the Orown its full liberty, a liberty which the Crown must possess, of saying that the Minister no longer possesses its confidence. Such I hold to be the general doctrine. But as regards the Noble Lord, it did so happen that in August , 1850, the precise terms were laid down in a communication on the part of her Majesty with respect to the transaction of business betty eon the Crown and the. Secretary of State. I became the organ of making that communication to my Noble Friend, and thus became responsible for the document I am about to read from. I shall refer only to that part of the document which has re ference to the immediate subject : " The Queen re jukes, 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 sanc tion to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modi fied by the Minister. Such an act she must consider as fail ing 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 th e foreign despatches in good time; and to have th e draughts for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to ma ke herself acqu a i n t e d w i t h their contents before they which the u a l d e c s o h r o di w n g t h i y i l a e n t d t e r r e t c o e i L v o e r d d a P a l e l m t t e e r r s in t o n. " m ust be sent off. Th e Q ueen t hi n k s i t best t h at Lord John ll th sh a o t Noble Lord said,-- IRusessnet I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen and will not fail to attend to the directions which it con tains." I believe those directions were entirely in conformity with the relations that exist between the Foreign Secretary and the Crown. And now I will state what is the duty of the Prime Minister, and I will state it not in my own words, but in words used by Sir R. Peel, with reference to the appoint ment of the Official Salaries Committee. The words are— " Take the case of the Prime Minister. You must presume that he reads every important dispatch from every toreign Court. He cannot consult with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and exercise the influence which he ought to have with respect to the conduct of foreign affairs, unless he be master of everything of real importance passing in that department " I believe to that statement also there can be no contradic tion : it lays down the just principle with respect to the po sition of a Prime Minister, and makes him responsible for the business. I may say, likewise, that I was informed both by her Majesty and by Sir R. Peel that Sir R. Peel had ad vised her Msjesty to consult and to take my advice on all matters relating to foreign affairs. Such, then, being the state of the relations which I held towards the Crown and towards my Noble Friend, and I must say that I found the situation in which I was placed one of vary great delicacy (as we understood). When the Noble Lord was first ap pointed Secretary for Foreign Affairs he was placed under Lord Grey, a statesman of age and experience, to whom my Noble Friend, then young in that office, would readily listen. When Lord Melbourne was at the head of the Government, Lord Melbourne's long intimacy and connexion with my Noble Friend would give him also influence with my Noble Friend. Without either of those advantages I certainly have found from time to time that relations like those were difficult to acquire. Sometimes I felt great responsibility. I will now refer to events which occured in the autumn of last year. There was a meeting of the Cabinet on the 3d of November, and I happen to have my memory more im pressed with what I stated on that occasion, having in that instance only taken a note of what my own staiements were. —(Cries of "Speak out.") I stated that I thought the situation of Europe was exceedingly critical ; that I thought we were on the verge of seeing in 1852 (and there I was mistaken) of seeing either what is called social democracy triumphant in other countries, or of seeing absolute power, on the other hand, prevail. I said that in either case the situation of England would be cne of some peril; that we could not expect that a social democratic republic in France would observe the faith of treaties or refrain from attacking our allies. I said, on the other hand, that if absolute power should prevail, there was a danger, this country _being an exception in the form of its government from otner coun tries of Europe, that there might be combinations on the subject of refugees in this country, and that demands might be made which this country, in consistency with its honour, could not concede. I stated that, in my own opi nion, in this critical situation of affairs, it was the interest of England to observe a strict neutrality. I said that we ought to guard most especially against giving any just cause of offence to France—(Hear, hear)—that we ought to exert the utmost vigilance in order to prevent any such cause of offence. I think my colleagues generally, and my Noble Friend in particular, entirely concurred in that opinion. No resolution was come to by the Cabinet on the subject, but there was a general understanding as to the desirableness of adopting such a course. Now, it happened, as I think, very unfortunately, a very short time after the events of the 2d of December had taken place, and my Noble Friend had re ceived at the Foreign-office deputations from certain dis tricts of the metropolis presenting to him addresses contain ing terms of a most offensive nature to the Sovereigns of Europe.—( Hear, hear.) I was fully pers ua d e d a t the time, and I am still fully persuaded, that although my Noble Friend had not exercised due caution in that respect—that although he had not taken the precaution of seeing those ad dresses at the time they were presented to him, and although he had not taken the further precaution when the deputations came into his room at ;the Foreign-office of taking care that his words were duly and accurately reported, yet I was en tirely persuaded that my Noble Friend had fallen into an error that day wholly from oversight, arising from the quantity of business with which he had to deal. I was per suaded, likewise, that there were great misrepresentations with respect to the words which my Noble Friend used in reply to those addresses. I was ready, therefore, and I de clared it at once, to adopt with my Noble Friend the whole res ponsibility of his conduct on that occasion, although, I could not forbear seeing that an error had been committed, I tr d ea id ted ho m pe e wthiatht t a h f a te t r fa t ir h h a e t sa n t iy e w N h o ie b h le I Frien Friend would have . without givingthink I was en titled ;—that he would take no important step—that he would make no important communication to foreign Minis ters,to give an opinion upon in short, without any steps taken,— that full and complete communication to which Sir Robert Peel alluded. The next transaction which occurred is that me information, without enabling me from which the whole of this unfortunate circumstance has arisen. It has relation to the events which took place i n France on the 2d of December last. On the 3d of Decem ber a dispatch was received from the Marquis of Normanby containing a question as to the diplomatic relations which were to be =hit:tined by him with the Goverment of the e WEDNESDAY President of France. A meeting of the Cabinet was held on the subject, and there existed a general prevailing . opinion among members that the Government of this country had nothing more to do than to abstain from any interference whatever with the internal affairs of France.— (Cheers.) My Noble Friend cor r ectly r ep r esented the views of the Government in this respect in the following dis• patch : " Foreign-office, Dec. 5,1851. eMy Lord,—l have received and laid before the Queen your Excellehey's disoatch No. 365, of the 3d inst, request ing to be furnished with instructions for) our guidance in the present state of affairs in France. lam commanded by her Majesty to instruct your Excellency to make no change in your relations with the French Uovernment. It is her 'Majesty's desire that nothing should be done by her Am bassador at Paris which could wear the appearance of an interference of any kind in the internal affairs of France. " I am, &c " ' PALMERSTON." There was this solemn and formal decision of her Majesty's Government, approved of by the Queen, communicated to her Ambassador at Paris, and, as I conceive, pointing out to him the line of conduct which was to be pursued by the English Government, whether here or at Paris. Mr. GOULBURN—What is the date of that dispatch ? Lord J. RUSSELL —It is dated the sth. It was sent to her on the 4th, i t came b ac k on t h e st h , and was to Paris, A f ew d ays a f terwar d s , among t h e then Maje sents dispatches from the Foreign -office which came to my hands, there was one from the Marquis of Nornianby to Viscount Palmerston, dated December ti, 1851, and which was received December 8. The dispatch ran thus : "Paris, Dec. 6, 1851. 4. My Lord,—l this morning received your Lordship's dis patch, of yesterday's date, and I afterwards called Turgot, o and informed him that I had received her l Majesty's commands to say that I need make no change in my relations with the French Government in consequence of what had passed. I added, that if there had been some lit tle delay in making this communication, it arose from mate rial circumstances not connected with any doubt on the sub ject. M. Turgot said the delay had been of less importance as he had two days since heard from 111. Walewski that your Lordship had expressed to him your entire approbation of the act of the President, and yoar entire conviction that he could not have acted otherwise than he had done. I said I had no knowledge of any communication, and no instructions beyond our invariable rule to do nothing which should have the appearance of interfering in any way with the internal affairs of France; but that I had often had an opportunity of showing, under very varied circumstances, that whatever might be the Government here, I attached the utmost impor tance to maintaining the most amicable relations between the two countries. I added that I was sure, had the Govern ment known of the suppression of the insurrection of the Rouges at the time I had heard from them, I should have been commissioned to add their congratulations to mine. I have thought it necessary to mention what was stated about Walewski's dispatch, because two of my colleagues here mentioned to me that the dispatch containing expressions precisely to that effect had been read to them in order to show the decided opinion which England had pronounced. " I have, &c. " ORMANBY Now, I own it did not appear to me that any serious diffi culty would arise from that dispatch. I wrote to my Noble Friend to ask an explanation of it, which I felt convinced he would be able to give, and that, without denying what had been stated with regard to the communication made by a Foreign Ambassador to 41. Turgot, my Noble Friend would have explained that he had done nothing more than stated to M. Walewski what appeared to him to be on the whole the best for the interest of France; and not that Lord Nor manby was the less to be guided by the instructions which were forwarded to him by his Government, or that he was to rest entirely upon information derived from other sources; but that in all his communications with the representatives of the various Governments of Europe at Paris he was to let it be understood that the Government of England ex pressed no opinion with regard to the internal affairs of F rance. —(Cheers.) I own that appears to me the only wise and the only safe course that could have been adopted. However, I heard nothing—l received no information from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the meaning of this declaration at Paris that England had pronounced in favour of the act of the President. Let me here say what is the view I t ke of this case. If England were to allow her Fo reign Secretary to pronounce an opinion of that kind, it could no longer be said that she had no interference with the internal affairs of France—(Hear, hear) - for in pronouncing such an opinion by her Secretary for Foreign Affairs a moral support, a moral sanction, and a moral influence would be given and exercised in favour of the course which had been taken by the President.— ( Hear, hear.) Not having received any communication from my Noble Friend of any kind, but being at Woburn Abbey on the 13th of December, a messenger arrived, bringing to me a communication from her Majesty making inquiries re specting the said dispatch of December 6th, and asking for an explanation. The next morning (the 14th) I sent a messenger to the Noble Lord, and my communication must have arrived in London at an early hour, but I received no answer from the Noble Lord on that day; on the 15th I received no answer whatever. On the 16th I wrote a note by the early post to the Noble Lord, expressing my opinion that silence was not respectful to her Majesty, and asking for a reply. However, neither on the 15th nor on the 16th did any communication reach me, but the same disdainful silence 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. But on the morning of the Pith I re ceived copies of two dispatches, one from the Marquis of Normanby to Lord Palmerston, and the other from Lord Palmerston to the Marquis of Normanby. The former dis patch was in the following terms " Paris, Dec, 15, 1851. a ~lyLord,—ln my dispatch, No. 372, of the 6th i nstant notifying my communication of my instructions to M. Tur got, I reported that his Excellency had mentioned that M. Walewski had written a dispatch in which he stated that your Lordship had expressed your complete approbation of the course taken by the President in the recent corp d'etat. I also reported that I had conveyed to M. Turgot my belief that there must be some mistake in this statement, and my reasons for that belief. But, as a week has now elapsed without any explanation from your Lordship on this point, I must conclude M. Walewski's report to have been sub stantially correct. That being the case, lam perfectly aware that it is beyond the sphere of my present duties to make any remark upon the acts of your Lordship, except inas much as they affect my own position. But within these limits I must, with due deference, be permitted to observe that if your Lordship, as Foreign Minister, hold one lan guage on such a delicate point in Downing-street, without giving me any intimation you had done so,—prescribing afterwards a different course to me, namely, the avoidance of any appearance ot interference of any kind in the internal affairs of France, —I am placed thereby in a very awkward position. If the language held i n Downing-street is more favourable to the existing order of things in France than the instructions on which I am directed to guide myself upon the spot, it must be obvious that by that act o f your Lord ship's I become subject to misrepresentation and suspicion in merely doing my duty according to the official orders re your Lordship f r om her Majesty. All this importance to me, becaus e , as I s t a t e d before, icse re ceived d more through diplomatichad derived from it the conviction that, colleagues had had the dispatch r s e e a v d er t a o l ofth memy,and if accurately reported, yo ur express i ons had been those of unqualified satisfaction. —.I have, &c., " Noastazinv." Now, although no answer had been given to me, and al though 1 was unable to satisfy the inquiries which were made by the Sovereign, -- 4 appears that Lord Palmerston, on the 16th, the day on which this dispatch was received, wrote on his o wn authority a a dispatch which was sent to our Am bassador which had not obtained the sanction of fhorMajesty aajtePastyr.is, It t u w t ; as in these terms : " Foreign-office, Dec. 16, 1851. ,r m y Lord, —I have received your Excellency 's dispatch, So. 406, of the 15th inst.,. referring to the statement made to you by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the a com municating to his E x cellency the in structionsoccs i ono f w y i t o h u r which Excellency you have been furnished by her Ma jesty's Governm ent fo r sour have guidance in the present state of affairs in Franc e ; and oave to state to your Excellency that there has been nothing in the language which I have held, nor in the ()Pinions which I have at any time ex pressed on the recent events in France, which has been in any way inconsistent with the instructions addressed to your E xce llency, to abstain fromanything which could be ar the appearance of an y interference in the internal affairs of 600, France. The in struc tions contained in my dispatch , No. which your Excellency refers , w ere sent of the sth inst. , to to you not in reply to a question as to what opinions your Excellency should express, but in reply to a quest i o n, which I understood to , be, whether your Excellency s hould cont i nue your usual diplomatic relations with the Presi dent during the interval r s which was to elapse betw een the date of ycur Excellenc dispatch, No. 365, of the 3d inst. and the voting the b by the ''reneh nation on the questio n to be p r oposed to Presiaent. As to appr ovin g or condemning the m step y taken by the President in dissolving the Assembly, I conceive for the British Secretary it is for the French nation, and not Y of State, or for the Britis h Am bassador, to pronounce judgment upon that event; but if your Excellency which has t a ken place i n F rance, it is that, suc h a state of wi shes to know my opinion on the change antagonism had arisen between the President and the As sembly, that it was becomi ng every day more c lear that th e i r c o-existence could not b e of long duration ; and it seemed to me better for the interests of France, and through them for the interests of the rest of Europe, that the power of the President should prevail, inasmuch as the continuance of his authority might afford a prospect of the maintenance of social order in France, whereas the divisions o f o p inions and parties in the Assembly appeared to betoken that their victory over the President would be the starting poibt for a disastrous civil strife. Whether my opinion was right or wrong, it seems to be shared by persons interested in pro perty in France, as far at least as the great and sudden ri se in the funds and i n other investments may be assumed to be indications of increasing confidence in the improved prospect of internal tranquillity in France.—l am, &c., " PALMERSTON." Now, it app ears to me that that dispatc h, 'in the first pl ace, was not writt en was written in in the usual style of my Noble Fri end ; it a style very unlike his usual force and cor rectness. However, th a t dispatch altogether avoided the real questio n which was at issue. Lord Norma n b y as k ed, and was enti t l ed to ask " Have you, Lord Palmerston, ex pressed your complete approbation of the act of the Presi dent on th e 2 d of December, and, if so, am Ito guide my self with that opinion, or am I to act according to the dis patch of the sth of December ? " To that question no answer whatever was given ; neither is there in that dispatch a reference t o the opinion which the Government had given, nor was th e opinion expressed sanctioned by the Crown. But the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs put himself in the place of the Crown ; he neglected and passed by the Crown, in order to give his own opinion with respect to the state of affairs in Paris. Now, it strikes me that the Secretary of State constitutionally has no such power. It appears to me that he can only act with the sanction and by the authority of the Crown in matters of great importance. In matt ers of small importance , I am rea d y to a d m i t th a t th e Secretary of State must be allowed to take that course which he may deem best, without continually referring himself to the Crown. But on a matter which was of the utmost im portance—namely, giving the moral infience and the moral su pport of Engla n d t o the act of the Pres i de n t of the French R epu b lic, the opi it i on not only of the Prime M i n ister but of the it seemed to me a measure so g rave that Cabinet sh ou l d have been taken, and that no such ques tion should have been decided upon without their interfer ence and without the sanction of the Crown.—(Che ers.) What was the act to which that dispatch referred ? It is a question certainly of the utmost delicacy, but is, never theless, one up on w hi c h I ca nnot refrain from s a y in g a few words. dissolving the As sem bl y . It was an act which , in the first The act of the President was no t merel y that of Place, dissolved the Assembly and put an end to the existing the ; Constitution • it place, which, an ticipatedelections an of act,lBs 1852, which theo ac cording to that Constitution, but with respect to which were ext to take place great apprehensions had been entertained. In the third place, it was • end to Parliamentary tta act putting an go vernment in Fra nce _ (Hear, hear) —an act which, toge ther with Parliamentary government, suspended the right of freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, whi c h are considered the usual accompaniments of Parliamen tary goyerament. 1 an not going to enter into any EVENING, FEBRUARY 4, 1852. dispute whether that was a fit thing to be done; that was entirely a question for the French people to decide.- (Hear, hear.) The French people might say that their history entitled th em t o say , t h a t w h at w e call in Eng land Parliamentary government has produced such evils in France, it has so frequently led to convulsions in the State, and is so incompatible with the peace of society in their country, that it ought at once to be abolished, and a different system established in its place. If the French nation choose to say that, who has the right or the least pretence to contradict it ? (Hear, hear.) But it is another question to give the moral approbation of England, to place the broad seal of England upon that doctrine with respect to so great a question. If France has so resolved, let us acquiesce in that decision. I shall do nothing to prevent it. I may lament that those great qualities of human nature which are brought out by Parliamentary government, by free discussion, and a free press - that those great qualities could not henceforth have full development and display. But with respect to our position, it was to be remembered that during the existence of the present Administration, with my Noble Friend as its organ, we have given the moral support and the moral sympathy of England to constitutional govern ments. We have done so in Spain, we nave done so in Por tugal, we have done so in Piedmont ; and none was more ready than my Noble Friend to impart that moral influence. But if we were at once to side with a deviation from con stitutional government, and to give our sanction to the act cf the President of France, how can we tell any other country that we advise them to continue Parliamentary government? It therefore appeared to me a d -Future, a signal and wide de parture, from that policy which the Governmennt had sup ported and pursued, and which my Noble Friend had espe cially advocated. But when thsis took place-when, as 1 conceived, the authority of the Queen had been set aside, it appeared to me that I had no other course than to inform my Noble Friend that he, while I held office, could no longer hold the seals as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Later in the day, and after I had formed that resolution, I receiyed,a long utter from my Noble Friend, stating the reasons why he approved of the act of the President of France. But it appeared to me that those reasons no longer touched the case ; because the real question now was, whether the Secretary of State was entitled, of his own au thority, to write a dispatch as the organ of the Queen's Government, in which his colleagues had never concurred, and to which the Queen had never given her Royal sanction ? It appeared to me that, without degrading the Crown, I could not advise her Majesty to retain that Minis ter in the Foreign Department of her Government. lat the same time informed her Majesty that a correspondence had gone on between Lord Palmerston and myself with re spect to her Majesty. That was on the Wednesday, I think, and I waited till Saturday in order to consider and to reconsider the matter before I fairly submitted the cor respondence to the Crown. I think on Thursday I informed my Noble Friend I would be at home (as we understood), thinking he might propose some course by which a separa tion could be avoided, but nothing of that kind took place, and I, being fully as convinced then as I had been of what I should do, wrote on Saturday, the 20ih, to her Majesty, conveying the correspondence which had passed between my Noble Friend and myself, and shortly intimating my ad vice to her Majesty that Lord Palmerston should be re quired to give up the seals of the Foreign-office. Sir, in coming to a decision so painful-in coming to the decision that I must separate from a colleague with whom I had acted so long, whose abilities I had admired, and in whose policy I had agreed- I felt, whether rightly or wrongly it is not for me now to say, I was bound to take that decision alone-to consult none of my colleagues, to avoid anything which might hereafter have the appearance of a cabal, but to assume the sole and entire responsibility on myself.- (Cheers.) With respect, therefore, to the stories which my Honourable Friend has quoted from a Breslau paper, as regards a letter written in Vienna, I can assure him that, however curious the coincidence of that letter may be, there is no truth whatever in the stories that there was an attempt to establish fairer terms and more intimate relations with the Court of Austria, and that the affair was entirely founded on the correspondence I have stated and on the motives I have laid before the House. -(Hear, hear.) In two days after the Cabinet met I read to them the correspondence-both official correspondence and private correspondence-which had taken place between my Noble Friend and myself, and I stated to them that I was, of course, responsible for what had passed ; but if they disap proved of my conduct, then of course I must quit office; and I left it to them to form their judgment. They decided, without any difference of opinion, that they thought I could take no other course than that I had taken.-(Hear, hear.) I know not that I nee f state anything further with regard to this transaction, but I immediately proceeded to Windsor and advised her Majesty to make choice of a successor to my Noble Friend. Now, Sir, with whatever pain that separation was made, I was convinced at the time -I am convinced stilt- that, considering what was due to the honour of the Crown, and what was due to the character of the country, I could take no other course. But let me say, because some part of my statement may have led to a sepa rate impression, that I am far from accusing my Noble Friend of any intentional disrespect to the Crown.-(bear, hear.) My belief is that having been long conversant with the affairs of the Foreign-office and with foreign affairs, and having great confidence in his own judgment and in his own mode of carrying on the business of the country, he forgot what was due to the Crown, and what was due to his own colleagues, without any intention of personal disrespect to the Crown. But it is impossible for me to make the present statement without also referring in some degree to the state of affairs which now exists on the continent of Europe. - (Hear, hear.) I think it necessary to make this statement because I have been necessarily led into an avowal of my opinions that we could not properly or fairly express an opinion here favourable to the conduct of the President of France on the 2d of December.- (Hear, hear.) I thought it was not our part to do what we heard the Russian and Austrian Ministers had done-to go at once and congratulate the President on what he had done-- (Hear, hear)-but then I am bound to say that the Presi dent of France, having all the means of information he has had, no doubt has taken that course from a consideration of the state of France, and that the course he has taken is best fitted to insure the welfare of the country over which he rules.-(Murmurs and laughter.) Lef me state that over again-(Hear, hear),-that while I do not concur in the approbation of my Noble Friend, I have no reason to doubt, and everything I have heard confirms that opinion, that in the opinion of the President the putting an end to the constitution, the anticipating the election of 1852, and the abolition of the Parliamentary constitution, were all tend ing to the happiness and essential to the welfare of France. (Cheers and laughter.) But I have certainly to state fur ther, because I confess I have seen with very great regret the language which has been used by a portion of the press of this country-(Loud cheers from both sides of the House) -with respect to the President of France. I remember some thing as a boy, and I have read more, of that which occurred during the Peace of Amiens to render that peace of short duration, and to involve these two great countries in the most bloody hostilities that ever mangled the face of Europe. - (Hear.) I believe that temperate discussion and negotia tion between the two countries might have prevented the calamity of war, but that the lauguage of the press at that time was such that it embittered all negotiation and pre vented the continuance of that peace.-(Loud cheers.) Sir, I should deeply regret if the press of this country, at the pre sent time, were to take a similar course.-(Cheers.) We have obtained one advantage over that time-that the First Consul, great as were his abilities, was totally ignorant of the manners and constitution of this country. The present President of France has this advantage over his uncle, that he is perfectly aware how much liberty we enjoy, how much license of discussion prevails, and that the most unmeasured invective of the press does not imply any feeling of hostility either on the part of the Government or on the part of the nation. lam convinced of this, that there never was a time in which it was more essential that these two countries should preserve the relations of peace and amity. I am convinced that there never was a time when the peace of Europe would contribute more to the course of civilization and happiness. I am convinced, likewise, from every source of information I have had, that the ruler of France, the present President of France, is desirous of keeping on those terms of amity (Hear, hear)-and it shall not be any fault of ours-it shall not be any fault of the Government of this country, if these terms of peace and amity are not continued.---(Cheers.) I have said this more especially because it certainly will be our diry, as her Majesty has intimated in her speech, to propose some increase of our estimates. When the proper time comes, and when the measures for that purpose are produced, it will be shown to you-I trust to the satisfaction of the House-that those measures are not for an increase to our armaments, and that they propose no more precautions than what every country, and even the United States, thinks it necessary to take for national defence.-(Hear, hear.) 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 coun try 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. -(Hear, hear.) But there is something more which, it I may be permitted, I shall point out to the atten tion of the House. Four years ago we were astonished with accounts of insurrections 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, I said, 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 iv means ,ae i seen four years go o v er, and we have seen in confident those changes would have that result. We those countries that those democratic consteitutbeon put in constitutions s os have l been destroyed, and that absolute powers have v country of Tus cany, where I lived for several months under their place. For instance, there is that rule of, a mild and enlightened governor. we Government overturned by a democracy, and the Grand Duke driven from his dominions by which seeks t h h a e ves indulgent eenthat what is called Italian unity; but we demo cratic Government suppresse d, and the Grand Duke restored th h e av p e ar s t e to power by a foreign force occupying chief town, and his yenthat which has its subsistence provided by the diminishing means than before. In Austria, again, lissbeen since strangled in its been given to the people d• In Hesse, likewise, of the State, while the Italians hatvheemeaodnestnitoutroonrewhpircohghreasds force has been used to put an h e of events the c t on h stitut . ionwh fi i . c s h t influence of popular excite ment, i a r d t h h , e e a h n and introduced abs o l u t e under nder power t e r ensi prevails. `ow, uo e is there no t i s it no not sow,lllthe place, that we should judge a s stily No o w ;ra S s i h r ly • " foreign countries and absolute power not preva h i show, likewise, occurring in with respect to ourselves, though it was thought we moral to be drawn from this? ? D ri oe o s e t h h a a a t, not the same degree of liberty as some of those States, we have done wisely to adhere to our ancient insti tutions, and that freedom of the press and liberty of speech-quid yetis 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 different from our insti tutions anbkceee concerns--e said,_e twhhait change.ew we while eabstainw But e d a o s fn t rOOO not interfere n at foreign enryt:ei countries ha ttehei their r od e do gnt i s me this run the risk of l os i ng the very liberty for which we on their inter na l a ff a i rs, yet there is one result which comes homeestnonuots, a ti n i d nch w . hich A imposes p t o h s e e s s e on us Governmentsduty foreign States, as ea c h ge t s uppermost, send their enemies and opponents out o f th e country, and the consequence is from which o wet that we have many who are seeking refuge in England. In giving them hosoftaiity 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 111=W refuge of mankind." —(Cheers.) I trust that pro shall never see this boast falsi fied ; that while we disappve of any attempt made in this country to change the established Governments of other countries, so long as those exiles conduct themselves peace ' ably 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, as to the obligations which they im pose 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 at the request of my Honourable Friend I should give the ex planation 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 mea sures 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 ist in fact, no dispute between us and any other Power.— (Hear, hear.) 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 civilization, 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 intro duced and established, and that, with religion, it shall go vern the hearts of men and produce happier days to man kind.—(Loud cheering.) Lord PALMERSTON rose from his place on the front bench below the gangway, on the Ministerial side, and said, —Sir, I am sure the House will feel that after what has passed on the part of my Hon. Friend behind me (Sir B s Hall) and the Noble Lord who has just sat down, it is abso lutely incumbent on me to make some observations to the House. I should be sorry indeed, Sir, that this House and the country should run away with the impressiop which the speech of the Noble Lord has been too well calculated to make, that I have abandoned the principles I have ever en tertained—that I have changed the opinions I have expressed, and which I will never alter - that I have been the advocate of absolute power, and that I have been in favour of the abolition of constitutional Governments. The Noble Lord began the remarks he made to the House by stating his opi nion of the relations which ought to subsist between the Foreign Secretary and the Crown on the one hand, and the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on the other. In that definition I most entirely concur, and I flatter myself I have done nothing which is inconsistent with either of those relations. Sir, the practice that pre vailed in the Foreign-office was that which the Noble Lord has described as laid down in the memorandum of 1850, but the practice did not begin at that time, but was in existence before—namely, that no important political instruction was ever sent to any foreign minister abroad, and no statement addressed to any diplomatic agent, without the draught being first submitted to the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, that he might take the pleasure of the Crown upon it, and if he, either himself, or from high authority, suggested alterations, those alterations were made, and if - he objected to the dispatch, then the dis patch was modified. It is, at the same time, said that thought the general tenor of the policy pursued by me had met with the approval of her Majesty's Government and was right, yet there was, notwithstandiug, something in the manner of conducting it calculated to excite irritation on the part of foreign Governments. Now, the manner of conduct ing it consisted in the formation of dispatches or notes, and I have stated that they were never sent, unless they had obtained the previous sanction of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government. The Noble Lord had com mented upon an incident which I am ready to admit ex cited some degree of regret on my part—namely, the in terview which took place between me and a certain de putation from Finsbury and Islington on the subject of the efforts made by her Majesty's Government to obtain the release of the Hungarian refugees detained in the Turkish dominions. I was asked bt letter to receive a deputation, instructed to express the acknow ledgments of a certain meeting to me, as a member of the Government and the organ of its foreign policy, for the ef forts made to obtain s the_liberation Of these refugees. I thought it was my duty, being thus applied to by respectable persons, to receive this deputation from a meeting of her Majesty's subjects. I certainly did not expect, not being so much in the habit of receiving deputations as my Noble Friend probably is—l did not expect that what had passed in conversation with those persons was to appear in a news paper paragraph next day as an important declaration on the part of her Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But there was nothing which I said to that depu tation which I have not stated in this House and elsewhere, and which has not been publicly known.—(Hear.) I cer tainly regret that the meeting should haee mixed up with their acknowledgments to her Majesty's Government expres sions with respect to foreign Sovereigns which it was en tirely unfitting that a person in my situation should have presented to him.—(Hear.) If I had taken the p recaut i on, which I certainly might, to see the address previously, I might have objected to such parts, and they might have been expunged ; but, being taken by surprise, and the ad press being read on the spot, all I could do was to repudiate those expressions, and to declare that I had not any partici pation in them. Ido not think that what passed on that oc casion was reasonably calculated to impair the friendly re lations between her Majesty's Government and any conti nental Power. I will now come to the particular trarsac tions to which my Noble Friend—(after a pause)—the Noble Lord, has referred as the groundwork of my removal from office. The event which is commonly called the coup d'etat happened in Paris on the 2d of December. On the 3d 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 he had received, and to talk over the events of the pre ceding day, and .I stated conversationally the opinion I en tertained of the events which bad taken place. That opi nion was exactly the opinion expressed in the latter part of the dispatch which the Noble Lord bas read, and the French Ambassador, as lam informed, in a private letter commu nicated the result of that conversation to his Minister. On that day, the 3d of December, her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris wrote a dispatch to ask what instructions he should receive for his guidance in France during the interval before the vote of the French on the question that was to be pro posed to them, and whether in that interval he should infuse in the relations with the French Government any greater desree of reserve than usual. I took the opinion of the Cabinet on that question, and a draught 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 had read. Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to make no change in his rela tions with the French Government, and to do nothing that should wear the appearance of any interference in the inter nal affairs of France.—(Hear, hear.) There was no instruc tion to communicate that document to the French Govern ment; it simply contained instructions, not, in fact, whatthe English Ambassad or was t o 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 ex cuses for the delay, which however did not rest with that Noble Marquis, as his dispatch to the English Government was dated the 5d of December. The French Minister stated that lie had nothing to do with re spect to the delay, and the less, indeed, because two days before ho had received from the French Ambassador in Lon don a statement which the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has read, viz., that I had entirely approved of what had been d on e, and thought the President of the French fully justi fied. 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 con sistent 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 dispatch 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 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 Nor manby 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 expressed, that such was the antagonism arising from time to time be tween the French Assembly and the President, that their long co-existence became impossible, and that it was my opinion that if one or other were to prevail, it would be better for France, and, through the interests of France, better for the interests of Europe, that the Presidentt should prevail than the Assembly, and my reason was, Assembly had nothing to offer for the substituti on c i v il war ha of t the the President but an alternative ending obviously in the or anarchy ; whereas the President, to offer unity of purpose and unity if he were inclined to do so, he might give oofn and that authority,to France in ternal tranquillity with good and permanent in my it Government. I will not trouble the House with all the arguments letter, or with all the illustrations contained. M yNoble Friend replied to that letter that he had to come the re luctant 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 in tercourse 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 opinion of Governments, but the opinions they might I themselves for the mo ment entertain: said that, in my conversation with M. Walewski nothinglhad passed which could in the sligntest degree fetter the action of the Govern ment, and that if the doctrines 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 i n the _capacity of an organ of the Cabinet , and after havingpreviously consulted the Cabinet, there would be an end that freedom of intercourse which tended so much to good understanding and to the facility of public business. To this ray 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 op i n ion that my doctrine is right, and th a t my Noble Friend is wrong; because it is ob vious 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 mom en t, then such a restriction on the intercourse with foreign Minis ters would be extremely injurious and prejudicial to the public service.—( Hear, hear.) Now I expressed this opinion to which the No ble Lord has referred to the French Ambassador on the 3d of December; but was I the only Member of the Cabinet who did thus express an opinion on passing events? - (Hear, hear.) I am inf orme d t h at on the even i ng of that very day, and under the same roof as I ex pressed my opinio n, the Noble Lord a t th e b ead of the Go vernment, in conversation with the same Ambassador, ex pressed his opinion. — (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I cann ot jell what that opinion was, but from what has just now fallen from the Noble Lord this evening, it may be assumed that that opinion was not very different even from the reported opinion which Lam supposed to have expressed. --(Cheers.) Was that all? On the Friday, 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.—(Lould cries of " Hear.") The Noble Lord again expressed an opinion (Hear, hear)—and the President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also expressed an opinion— (Chem and laughter) ; and be it remembered, that the charge was 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. "-_(Hear, hear.) I believe that the Nob 1 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 Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, also expressed his opi n i on. —(Ch eers an d l aug ht er .) Then i t follows that every Member of the Cabinet, whatever his political avocations may have been—however much his atten tion may have been devoted to other matters—is at liberty to express an opinion on passing events abroad, but the Secretary of State for the Foreign Affairs, w h os e peculiar duty it is to watch tho se even t s , w h o i s unfit for his office if he has not a n o pi n i on on th e m, ig the only man not permitted t o express an opinion- - (Hear, and laughter); and wh en a f ore i gn Mi n ister c onies and tells him that he has new s , h e i s t o rema i n s ilent, like a speechless dolt, or the mute of so me E as t ern Pasha.—(Chee rs and laughter.) Now lam told, "It is not your conversa tion with M. Walewski that is complained of, but your dis patch to the Marquis of Normanby." What had I stated in that dispatch, in referen ce t o which a great parade was made, as if I had been guilty o f b reac h o f d uty to t h e C ro wn and e my obligations to the P r i me Mi n i s t er . i n sen di ng it without previously communicating with the Noble Lord?—(Hear') 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 Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs sends a dispatch of import non ae to an Ambassador abroad, without ascertaining the ph of the Prime Minister or Crown, he is guilty of duty. But there are many cases in which it is perfectly well known that he is only expressing the opinion of th Government, and inconvenience might arise from delay - There are many cases in which a sedulous and careful„„, ob servance of the strict rule is attended with inconvenience to the public service, and has exposed me to imputation. of neglect and delay in answering the dispatches I receivedf But what was the dispatch from the Marquis of a breacie . Normanby, and what was my answer? L or d Nor manby, in his dispat c h o f th e 6 t h . h ad said that the French Minister had reported that I used certain expressions which Lord Normanby represents as inconsistent with the laetrile" tions not to interfere in the internal affairs of France. 14 ° 4 if those expressions had been used, I do not see that they are inconsistent with the i ns t ruc ti ons, not to make anYat al teration in our relations with the French Government.' al% the aft wherat making does Lo that communrd Normanby ic pation to M roceed to state ur ? He ot to says, w hich . T the Noble Lord has alluded, to d o no thi ng which should bays the appearance of interf er i ug i n any way i n t h e i n tern affairs of France, he added that he was quite sure that if th e Government had known the events of Paris on the Thursday and Friday they would have joined their congratulations to his. That was a greater apparent interference in the internal affairs of the French nation than any conversation of min e with M. Walewski. However, Lord Normanby having re - , ported the expressions of th e F renc h Mi n i ster to me, I did not think it necessary to go into any argument on the Ob . ject, but ten days afterwards, on the 15th of December, the Ambassador at Paris, rather inverting, I thi n k, th e p os itions of Ambassador and Secretary of State - (Hear, and a laugh) —calls on the Secretary of State to give him an explanatio n as to the language the Se cre t ar y o f S tate was suppose d to have used to M. Walewski. In my dispatch in answer I re peated that neither the Secretary of State nor the Ambassado r at Paris was entitled to p ronounce j u d gment on t h e affairs, d France; but I stated the nature of the opinions I express e f on the 3d of Dember. Therefore it is a misrepresentation the facts of the case to say that, in answering Lord Nor' manby's letter, I was giving instructions inconsistent with the relation of our general intercourse with the French Ur . vernment. It was no instruction. I did not give the Or. nion of the Government of England. It was my own opinl and, whether right or wrong, it was shared by numbers d France. Therefore the charge which the Noble Lord ( J. Russell) ha s b roug ht aga i nst me, founded on a dispatch't has no found a ti on i n j ust i ce or i n fact.—(Hear, hear. ) Ths is the state of the case as between the Noble Lord and to self. As for th e l e tt er o f t h e N o b le Lord, giving reaso ns advising the Queen to appoint a successor to me, that was step which it wa s p er f ec tl y competent for the Noble L o rd to rake without assigning any reason to me. But he chose to assign a reason, and th a t reason was, that I did, in ee nVer. sation with M. Walewski, that which he and other divers members of the Cabinet appear also to have done in °rifl e r ; sation with the same person.—(Hear.) I do not disPut e ri t right of the Noble Lord to remove any member oft vernment whom he may think it better to remove Noble retain in the Cabinet. With respect to myself, thee'',4 o _ Lord had done me justice by saying that the course_ i n' t ' he reign policy of which I was the instrument had real"' a t. constant support and approval of the rest of the Govern for fOr I think that course of foreign policy was the proper on e this country to pursue.—(Hear.) I always thought it /La the duty of the Government of this country to make the terests of England the polar star to guide our course--AP: hat it was my d u ty t o b e — as t h e N o bl e L or d d escr ib e d 01 , ( in 1850, neith er th e Mi n i ster o f Austria, of Ru ss i a , nor Prussia, but the Minister of England.— (Cheers.) I hav e felt it my duty to maintain the interests of En g l an d, to af ford protection to British subjects abroad in a ll p ar ts of th e world, to protect their commerce, their per son s, and th e . l .! property.—(Hear, hear.) It is not to be e x p ec ted that,,T pursuing that course, in giving that encouragement which our own disposition and wishes stimul a t e d us t o give to the progressive diffusion of constit u ti ona l go vernment other countries, it is not to be expected, I reps" that such a course could be pursued without meetenlf_ w ith opposition from p ersons and Governme nts which e ntertained opposite opini ons, or who have happen ed te_o7 wrongdoers, from whom redress might be demanded. I am happy to say, and mystatement is confirmed by what D.: just fallen from the Noble Lord, that after having for 8 Cll siderable time had the good fortune and honour to be the in' 4trument to guide the foreign relations of this country have left the country in a state of most friendly relation; with respect to eve r y p art of Europe, and that there is _ question, no politi ca l quest i on of any importance, creel; difference between thi s and any country.—(Cheers.) been not always that that cou ld have been said. There have at periods when unfortunately differences have existed-1)11;1r all events that " firebrand,' as I have been called tha t dividual who embroiled the relations of Digland wit h other countries, as it has also been said of me, aft e ;„; -- w v ith found the country involved in difficulties, has left e ": ; ,„ - s. but no question of difference between this and other nations, with amity subsisting between this and all other countriett• '(Cheers.) For instance, there are our relations with Russia. e„ h time has been when we have had serious differences T that Power. But between England and Russia there now exists the most cordi it understanding upon the very ...,q u e iy, tions on which formerly differences prevailed- 135°°0 with regard to Persia. and Turkey. A short time 1 7 0 .. questions arose_ ithich Prussia was concerned,- which se' riously affected the_ peace of the north of Germany, and ' 9 to we succeeded in arranging ; and it was some satisfactiott_., her Majesty's Government that, by our conduct in second:l the proper. and just pretensions of Denmark, we ,necte.d in wiping out the recollections of former events embittered the relations of these two countries, an d Ot t o, were enabled to establish between England and Den relations of the most friendly and confidential flat"' the (Hear.) Sir, no one will be prepared to underrate h oe which a w ' e importance of this consideration, that whatever M a Y ae ers, been the nature of the Government in France of late yew' the nations of France and Great Britain have reine' oo e upon terms of the most complete friendship an d g geo understanding.--(Hea r , hear.) During all the Chan g which took place in France during the year 1848, rf , /3 1 Of was at the head of the Government, and whatever 10 . 1— a he government was adopted by the French nation, we • of stained from all interference with the internal affe l ." of France. Our principle has been to treat the authoritle!aj the moment as the Government of the French nation,Z;se with those autho r iti es our relations have always been WO of cordial amity. - (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to 00 , United States. The United States constitute a PO Wer tween which and this country in former years the meetunott rious difficulties existed. But these countries are not y ' a ile a more cordial footing, and a better understanding 1"` thos e between them than has ever before prevailed betwee n of of two great and kindred powers.—(Hear.) This is a 6 ,_ i htiee things which, I must say, is very much owing to the e ttle_ ii ,..a and conciliatory manners of our late Minister to e t t States, Sir Henry Bulwer, and very much t straightforward, frank, and conciliatory character distinguished person who represents. also d te s r ts o t f es tb e • et t this Court.— (Cheers.) wr e lsir, I wi m th ey th e e lm S es pa t nis s h ay !tf e e s s of America our normal condition, a . nd our subjects.bee nth a t o ß f a d t e r e n te d i p n e g i e t r e e derfes disputefor injuries le n % done ne either h to er British ed ever have been, or as the' are hear.) I now Bras are likely to be.—(Bear, come to With Brazil we are now co-operating, w i t h the relations with th h o eit ee great (nn Sortaintesaatrreainnowof asadjguosordniaenstth;ea of the suppression of the slave trade. That object has be attained with such success that whereas in former yea.rs, number of slaves imported into Brazil had heen 16, 000, and 17,000, the number of slaves brought during t hr last year was less than 3,000, of which a certain numbe r were seized by the Government for the purposes of eniall e i l ; tafeklelnowuepdon out tla pation.—(Hear, hear.) A n d , co-operation between Engl an d and Brazil, and the measures now Sir, if the measure s no , t e h e co p a e s e t p o l f e A ef fr t i h c i a s , e a e r s e s w tr e y ll sys tematicallyb ei ng will >n C short time have the satisfaction of accomplishing 11:_el, ee p and noble object which the aim at which they rest a length of time n _ for so g and cheers.) I have directed their effor n ig t a nd desire the Suppression of the slave they believe they w ill utation a n d gain thereb in rep hat renown, because it is not to • reputation and renown t _ gain repu a exertions these sacrifices have been made and those tinctioe; been c • ex conti nued.—(Cheers.) (Cheers.) They have desired the eod, of the slave traffic not for fame, but for "virtue's better _„ t and the people great Ale' of this country, whenever that „ N O is accomplished, will look for their reward, not to the tP. t iee of men, but to the dispensing award of a just and retrioteis. Providence. —(Cheers.) I now come to Spain.. Our ; 300 tions with Spain are now more cordial than they eve r t eat been, notwithstanding our recent differences with too Power. With the States of Italy we have had ntl ee es ee relative to losses sustained by individuals, but these m.. 0 ,e been settled in the most satisfactory manner. With fu r our relations have been perfectly amicable. Austria ial ea o haps, the only power with which our relations have no,t tor y. quite so cordial as in some former periods of our inte r But with Austria, so far as outward appearances and Le r e ito , matic relations are concerned, we are upon friendlY,t e ov et With regard to Austria I must observe, however, the' ' we l differences of opinion and principle have existed he J oe the English and Austrian Governments. England oat, supported the diff us i on o f constitutional governor while the Austrian Government, on the eo n ; 0 01, have preferred the despotic system. In F f e n °— e rerev Sicily, and the north of Italy the two `-"",. t heir meats were at variance in their opinions, and also in t he on views upon some difficult internal questions, and vP_,.., e es action of Turkey with regard to the treatment of the reel' on , from the Hungarian territory. But these difference s c 0 stitute no reason why the British and Austrian Governmu 00 should not co-operaie with each other upon any Ine tter e ar, which our opinions and our interests may agree.ierenees hear.) Why, Sir, England and A u stria had d . „„, w ith with each other in the years 1834, 1835, 1836, and 18je,, „ a g regard to the affairs of Portugal and Spain, but that.,etiviuh'oo prevent our co-operating with Austria in 1840 or 184 1 , n ar we found that their objects and views were identical veil uiv e own.—(llear, hear.) And whatever irritation may ba le been introduced, and whatever differences of policy maythere existed, that irritation was sure to subside, and I enL w ith fore justified in including Austria among the countries int et „T whom we have satisfactory relations of friendship and thr° - P h Sir, having conducted the affairs of this country to periods of considerable difficulty, it was my good for; the be the instrument of peace, and to combine therewt.d..... EDP' ice not unsuccessful assertion of the interests of (Hear, hear.) And I think I may say that in quittune e , to coup" I have handed over the foreign relations of the d my successor with the honour and dignity of Eng 5 ;; od ieg sullied, and leaving her character and reputation h ere. _ high among the nations of the world.— (Loud e e ufaulurera Mr. MUNTZ denied the assertion that the Mari _ tie wee had entertained Kossuth with distinction becar si e - t b, he a republican. As one of the entertainers of ht to , the could say for himself that he never gave a thong__ or t t question whether that individual was a rae n ar ez presse" himself had _ republican. His constituents and Wee 1 40 . they ge"" -- " their 'sympathy with liosauth becalm.