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

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 correctly represented 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, it came back on the sth, and was
to Paris, A few days afterwards, among the
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, oand 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
France.—(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 instant
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 in 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 of your Lord-
ship's I become subject to misrepresentation and suspicion in
merely doing my duty according to the official orders re-
your Lordship from her Majesty. All this
importance to me, because, as I stated before,
icse re-
ceived d
more through
diplomatichad derived from it the conviction that,
colleagues had had the dispatch
rseeavdertaol ofth memy,and
if accurately reported, your expressions 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 own authority a a
dispatch which was sent to our Am-
bassador which had not obtained the sanction
of
fhorMajesty
aajtePastyr.is,
It
tuwt ;
as in these terms :
" Foreign-office, Dec. 16, 1851.
,r my 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 communicating to his Excellency the in-
structionsoccs i ono fwyi
tohu r
which Excellency
you have been furnished by her Ma-
jesty's Government for sour
have
guidance in the present state of
affairs in France; 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
Excellency, to abstain fromanything which could bear
the appearance of any
interference in the internal affairs of
600,
France. The instructions contained in my dispatch, No.
which your Excellency refers, were
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 question,
which I understood to
, be, whether your Excellency should
continue your usual diplomatic relations with the Presi-
dent during the interval
r s
which was to elapse between the
date of ycur Excellenc
dispatch, No. 365, of the 3d inst.
and the voting
the b
by the ''reneh nation on the question to be
proposed to
Presiaent. As to approving 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 British Am-
bassador, to pronounce judgment upon that event; but if
your Excellency
which has taken place in France, it is that, such a state of
wishes to know my opinion on the change
antagonism had arisen between the President and the As-
sembly, that it was becoming
every day more clear that
their co-existence could not be 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 of opinions
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 rise
in the funds and in 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 appears to me that that dispatch, 'in the first place,
was not written
was written in in the usual style of my Noble Friend ; it
a style very unlike his usual force and cor-
rectness. However, that dispatch altogether avoided the
real question which was at issue. Lord Normanby asked,
and was entitled to ask
" Have you, Lord Palmerston, ex-
pressed your complete approbation of the act of the Presi-
dent on the 2d 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 to the opinion which the Government had given,
nor was the 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 matters of small importance, I am ready to admit that the
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
support of England to the act of the President of the
French Republic,
the opiition not only of the Prime Minister but of the
it seemed to me a measure so grave that
Cabinet should 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 upon which I cannot refrain from saying a few
words.
dissolving the Assembly. It was an act which, in the first
The act of the President was not merely that of
Place, dissolved the Assembly and put an end to the existing
the;
Constitution • it place, which, an-
ticipatedelections
anof act,lBs 1852, which
theo
ac-
cording to that Constitution, but with respect to which
wereext to take place
great apprehensions had been entertained. In the third
place, it was • end to Parliamentary tta act putting an
go-
vernment in France _ (Hear, hear)—an act which, toge-
ther with Parliamentary government, suspended the right of
freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, which
are considered the usual accompaniments of Parliamen-
tary goyerament. 1 an not going to enter into any