The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-09 00:00:00

LORD PALMERSTON.

(From the 111.97:ni.v,Herdld.)

The resignaiion of office by LorclXal,merston, and his
extraordinary resumption of it, constitute an incident in
English history not lightly to be passed over. We need
scarcely say that nothing like a true explanation of this
occurrence has been as yet communicated to the public.
We are bold to say that the real facts will never be stated.
The causes of that sudden resignation and startling with-
drawal of it are, we suspect, destined to remain among
the state secrets of the reign of Queen Victoria.
It is impossible not to remember, in connection with
this strange event, that just two years before there had
occurred another removal from office of the noble lord.
On the 22d of December, 1851, Lord Palmerston was
dismissed. It is not without its use to recal the atten-
tion of the public to the circumstances connected with
that extraordinary dismissal.
On the 22d of December, 1851, Lord John Russell
intimated to Lord Palmerston that he had received her
Majesty's commands to take from him the seals of a
Secretary of State. In the month of February follow-
ing Parliament met, and of the first night's debate the
dismissal of the noble lord formed the most prominent
subject. Those who will take the trouble to read that
debate will now feel perfectly satisfied that the real
cause of Lord Palmerston's dismissal was purposely sup-
pressed—that all allusion to it was avoided both by Lord
John Russell and' by Lord Palmerston, and that the
"explanations" which were given were only calculated
to mystify the transaction for which they professed to
account.

Lord John Russell's statement was, in fact, that the
first movement towards Lord Pahnerston's dismissal
came, in fact, from the Queen ; that about the 13th or
14th of December the Queen had addressed a communi-
cation to Lord John Russell adverting to a dispatch of
Lord Normanby's, in which expressions of Lord Pal-
merston's to Count Walewski had been referred to, ex-
pressing surprise at Lord Palmerston's acting without
the Queen's sanction, and desiring Lord John Russell
to ascertain the truth. Upon this Lord John Russell
further stated that he felt it his duty to advise the Queen
to dismiss Lord Palmerston, as having been deficient in
proper respect for the Sovereign.
The very statement was in itself perfectly sufficient
to show that all was not told. Lord Palmerston, in his
reply, triumphantly pointed out that in his conversa-
tion with Count Walewski he had not said one word
more than had been said by other members of the Ca-
binet, including Lord John Russell himself. The in-
ference appeared irresistible, that the assigned cause of
his dismissal was not the real one, and in this position
both Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston seemed
content to leave the affair.

But among the most singular of all the singular facts
connected with the transaction was this—that neither
Lord Palmerston nor yet Lord John Russell stated to
the house that he had sought the permission of the
Queen to disclose the facts connected with Lord Pal-
merston's dismissal.

We pray our readers' special attention to this. It was,
we venture to say, the first occasion since the revolution
on which a British Minister has been removed from office
wichout seeking and obtaining the permission of the
Sovereign to state to Parliament every fact connected
with his dismissal. Without that permission Lord Pal-
merston's lips were sealed. His speech told us nothing,
because it could not tell us anything. But even Lord
John Russell did not say that he had sought the per-
mission of the Queen to state all the facts. He could
not have done so without advising the Queen equally to
release Lord Palmerston from his obligation of secrecy.
Be this as it may, this occasion was the first since the
revolution upon which a British Minister was dis-
missed from office without a statement to Par-
liament, that the Sovereign had consented to an
unreserved disclosure of every fact connected with
that dismissal. No such statement was made. That
dismissal is to this hour a matter lying under the veil of
secrecy. That Lord Palmerston submitted to this—
that the House of Commons tolerated it, is but one of
many proofs that the Government of England, as to its
foreign politics is no longer a parliamentary one.
But Lord John Russell's statement disclosed some im-
portant facts. In the first place, the noble lord dis-
tinctly stated that the first move towards Lord Palmer-
ston's dismissal came from the Court, A letter front
the Queen, sent by special messenger to Lord John, at
Woburn, was the origin of that dismissal. This letter
was followed by a correspondence with Lord Palmerston.
All this Lord John Russell stated, but, contrary to
every precedent—in violation of every principle of our
parliamentary constitution, Lord John Russell neither
read to the house the letter of the Queen, nor his own
correspondence with Lord Palmerston.
Who is there that does not now see that this was the
play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted by par-
ticular desire ?

This was not all. The same speech also disclosed the
fact, that for a year and a half previous, Lord Palmer-
ston had been conducting the Foreign-office under pecu-
ittirqtehtiptions imposed by the Court. Lord John
Russell read to the house a sentence from a letter of the
Queen's, addressed to him in the year.lBso—no more
certain date was given. In the sentence which he read
her Majesty desired that all foreign despatches should be
laid before her, with full time for her to be acquainted
with their contents. Lord John Russell was desired to
read the letter to Lord Palmerston. He did not read
the entire letter to the House of Commons, although he
read the sentences we have stated. Neither did he tell
the house that which, in truth, gave its significancy to
this direction—that there was a third key for the dispatch
box which conveyed the papers from the Minister to the
Queen.

We have, even on the meagre statement of Lord John
Russell, quite enough to show us that the whole truth
was not revealed. No permission is sought from the
Queen to make an unreserved disclosure' of the facts.
Correspondence is adverted to, but is not read. Ex-
tracts given from letters, of which every word would be
important, while the rest of the letter is suppressed.
We have again, the Foreign Minister for a year and a
half plainly watched and treated with suspicion by the
Court, and we have a representation made, for which
Lord John Russell never ought to be forgiven, that
these ungracious acts to Lord Palmerston emanated
directly from the Sovereign without the suggestion of
any of her Ministers. The inference is irresistible, that
there was "a shadow behind the Throne greater than
the Throne," and that the foreign policy of England was
virtually directed, not by the Queen's Ministers, but by
an irresponsible power acting in the Sovereign's name.
But evidence, unhappily, was not wanting that the
dismissal of Lord Palmerston, by whatever agency
brought about, was planned abroad. It had been deter-
mined on beforehand, and announced to the Austrian
Government. Lord Palmerston was dismissed from
office on the 22d December. Before that dismissal was
known in London, on the 23d of December, a letter
from Vienna announced it as certain to 'occur. The
words of that letter are too remarkable not to be
quoted :

" Rumours are current here of negotiations said to
have been engaged in by high personages in England
with our Court without the knowledge of Lord Palmer-
ston. Their object is said to be a rapprochement be-
tween the two Courts, and the retirement of the noble
lord from office is announced as certain to happen soon.
The first index of this rapprochement has been the
admission of Lord Westmoreland to an andience, and
his invitation to dinner by the Emperor.:"
Is it possible to believe that this Vienna rumour was
a mere coincidence ? Even Lord Aberdeen will not tell
us that the courtiers of Austria are gifted with the
faculty of second sight. Conspirators have been con-
victed in our courts of justice upon evidence far less
cogent than that which connects the prophecies of Vienna
with their accomplishment on the batiks of the Thames.
It is with pain that we advert to these matters, but
after all it is infinitely better that the people of England
shOuld know the whole truth— that they should under-
stand all that we have been struggling for, when we have
asserted the great principle that the foreign policy of
England ought never to be withdrawn from parlia-
mentary control.
To this history of Lord Palmerston's dismissal it is
still to be added, that after the seals of the Foreign
Office were taken from him, Lord John Russell
pressed on him to accept the office of Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland ! and, finally, offered him any place, except
that of Foreign Secretary, which he might choose. Lord
Palmerston then had a sense of what was due to his own
"dignity and to constitutional Government, and declining
to make a compromise with his enemies he submitted to
a dismissal, of which it is plain the true history has never
been discovered.

If explanations are asked as to the recent resignation
of Lord Palmerston, and the terms upon which he con-
sented to return, we can only hope that the present
House of Commons will not be as lightly satisfied—or,
in plain English, as easily bamboozled, as the least.

SUSPECTED SUICIDE OF A FEMALE.—Yesterday,
respectable married woman, of the name of Elizabeth
Ann Baker, in the prime of life, residing in Kenton-
street, Brunswick-square, was found dead in her apart-
ment, under the following circumstances :—lt appears
that the unfortunate woman not having made her ap-
pearance since last Thursday, the landlord ordered the
room door to be forced open, which was done, when they
were horrified at finding the deceased lying on the
greund, quite dead, with a tea-cup on the shelf, supposed
to contain poison. The last time the deceased was seen
she appeared cheerful, and there was nothinc, in her
manner to lead to the supposition, but from what° has
been allowed to transpire great fears are entertained.
DETERUTED CASE OF SUICIDE.—On Saturday morn-
ing, at about seven o'clock, a master tailor, of the name
of Samuel Botte, residing at 2, Crown court, Pall-mall,
committed suicide under the following circumstances :--
It appeared that the unfortunate deceased, who is 67
years of age, retired to bed with his wife on Friday night,
in good health and cheerful spirits, and on Saturday
morning, at the hour above mentioned, he arose, leaving
his wife in bed, and retired into an adjoining room.
Shortly afterwaads his wife was alarmed by hearing
something dripping
on the floor, and on getting out of
bed, and proceeding into the next room, she was horri-
fied at beholding her unfortunate husband sitting in an
arm-chair with a razor in his hand and his throat cut
from ear to ear, and the blood flowing in torrents all
over the room. Dr. Miller, of Kirg-street, St. James's,
speedily arrived, and pronounced life to be extinct.