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

WEDNESDAY

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 Noble 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
cbryettahrye atehtiison thooooatryt wwhaean Lordalw Palmerston
ayaohthe
brwinask olf'orweiagnr ; Sfoe-r
upwards of fourteen out of thirty-five years foreign affairs
had been under Lord Palmerston'a 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 some 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 ho (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 was 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-eniinently the qualifications of my 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-
ment, was eminently qualified for that post, and that I was
prepared to take that office if he did not. Again, when, in
•
December, 1845, and in July, 1846, I was called upon by her
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 Foreiga 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 Crown 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 between 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 requires, first, that Lord Palmerston will
distinctly state what he proposes in a given case, in order
that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she is giving
her Royal sanction. Secondly, having once given her 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
the foreign despatches in good time ; and to have the
draughts for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to
make herself acquainted with their contents before they
must be sent off. The Queen thinks it best that Lord John
Russell should show this 'letter to Lord Palmerston."
I sent that accordingly, and received a letter in which the
Noble Lord said,—
~ 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 front every foreign
Court. He cannot consult with the Secretary of State tor
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 Majesty 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 irst 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 cue 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 absolule power
should prevail, there was a danger, this country being an
exception in the form of its government from other 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 bad 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 persuaded at the time,
and lam 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 he 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,
with respect to the words which my Noble Friend used in
that there were great misrepresentations
reply to those addresses. I was ready, therefore, and I de-
clared it at once, to adopt with my Noble Friend the whole
;--that he woul
responsibility of his conduct on that occasion, although, I
d take
could not forbear seeing that an error had been committed.
I did hope that after that my Noble Friend would have
treated me with that fairnessto which I think I was en-
titledwould make no important
Minis-
ters, without giving m •
to give an opinion a
that full and completeuponcommunication to foreign COM
information, without. enabling me
no important.. step—that he
in short, without
any steps taken,— .
communication
Peel alluded. The next t
from which the whole to
thisransaetion which occurred
of unfortunate
arisen. It has relation to the
France on the 2d of December events
circumstance which Sir Robert
vetn. ts
On
nhitchhe t3oodkof
is that
has
I ce in
place
a dispatch was received from the M 'of Normanby
containing a question as to the d-
were to be maintained by him with Mar .
..
iplomatic relations which
the Government of the

President of France. A meeting of the Cabinet was held
on the subject, and there existed a general prevailing
opinion among its 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 i❑ the following dis-
patch :

" Foreign-office, Dec. 5, 1851.
"My Lord,—l have received and laid before the Queen
your Excellency's dispatch No. 365, of the 3d most, request-
ing to be furnished with instructions for your 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 Government. It is her
Majesty's desire that nothing should be dune 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, he ,
" 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 Majesty on the 4th, it came back on the sth, and was
then sent to Paris, A few days afterwards, among the
dispatches from the Foreign-office which came to my hands,
there was one from the Marquis of Normanby to Viscount
Palmerston, dated December 6, 1851, and which was received
December 8. The patch ran thus :
"Paris, Dec. 6, 1851.
" My Lord,—
I this morning received your Lordship's dis-
patch, No. 600, of yesterday's date, and I afterwards called
on M. Turgot, and informed him that I had received her
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 circumstance., 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 M. Walewski that your
Lordship had expressed to him your entire approbation of
the act of' the President, and your entire conviction that he
could not have acted otherwise than he had done. I said I
had no knowledge of any communication, and uo instructions
beyond our invariable rule to do nothing which should have
the appearance of interfering in any vay 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
M. 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. " NOILMANBY "
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 M. Turgot, my Noble Friend would
have explained that he had dons 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 17th I re-
ceived copies of two dispatches, one from the Marquis of
Normarby 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.
"My Lord,—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 detat.
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 of 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-
ceived through your Lordship from her Majesty. All this
is of more importance to me, because, as I stated before,
colleagues had had the dispatch several of my diplomatic
read to them, and had derived from it the conviction that,
if accurately reported, your expressions had been those of
have, he.,
unqualified satisfaction.--I

" NOIMANBY."
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, Lt
appears
that Lord Palmerston, on
the 16th, the day on which this dispatch was received, wrote
on his own authority a dispatch which was sent to our Am-
bassador at Paris, but which had not obtained the sanction
of her Majesty. It was in these terms :
" Foreign-office, Dec. 16, 1851.
My Lord,—I have received your Excellency's dispatch,
No. 406, of the 15th inst., referring to the statement made
to you by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the
occasion of your communicating to his Excellency the in-
structions with which you have been furnished by her Ma-
jesty's Government for?),
guidance in the present state of
affairs in France; and have to state to your Excellency
that there has been nothing in the language which I have
held, nor in the opinions 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 from anything which could bear
the appearance of any interference in the internal affairs of
France. The instructions contained in my dispatch, .i.
o.
600, of the sth inst., to
which your Excellency refers, were
sent 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 L your Excellency should
continue your usual diplomatic relations with the Presi-
dent during the interval which was to elapse between the
date of your Excellency's dispatch, No. 365, of the 3d inst.
and the voting by the French nation on the question to be
proposed to them by the President. As to approving or
condemning the step taken by the President in dissolving
the Assembly, I conceive it is for the French nation, and not
for the British Secretary of State, or for the British Am-
bassador, to pronounce judgment upon that event; but if
your Excellency wishes to know my opinion on the change
which has taken place in France, it is that, such a state of
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
of his authoritymight prevail, inasmuch as the continuance
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 point 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.--I am, &c.,
" PALMERSTON."
Now, it appears to me that that dispatch, 'in the first place,
was not written in the usual style of my Noble Friend ; it
was written in 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 bf 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
state
own, in order to give his own opinion with respect to the
r 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-
portanee—namely, giving the moral inflence and the moral
support of England to the act of the President of the
French Republic,
the opinion it seemed to me a measure so grave that
not only of the Prime Minister but of the
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 ere.)
What was the act to which that dispatch refereed ? It
is a question certainly of the utmost delicacy, but is, never-
theless, one upon which I cannot refrain from saying a few
dissolving
words. The
act of the President was .not merely that of
the Assembl It was an act which, in the first
place, dissolved the Assembly and put an end to the existing
Constitution; it was an act, in the next place, which, an-
ticipated the elections of 1852, which were to take place ac-
cording to that Constitution, but with respect to which
great apprehensions had been entertained. In the third
end to
place, it was an act putting an 'arlamentary go-
vernment in France (Hear, hear)—ainI
acti which, toge-
ther with ,Parliamentary government, suspended the right of
freedom ,of speech, and the freedom of the press, which
are considered the usual ACCOlinPalginelgS, of
tary govern/mat. I am not going to ©later into any