The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS
FROM THE MORMNG PAPERS OF TLIP D.A.r.
TIMES.—Some time will probably elapse before
the causes of the late change in the Foreign Depart-
' ment of the Government will be fully known to the
public, and we must leave it to our Ministerial con-
temporaries to anticipate, with an authority to which
we lay no claim, the explanalons that may be ex-
pected on the meeting of Parliament. But if the true
state of the case between Lord Palmerston and his
former colleagues be still enveloped in some mystery,
it is at least important that this rupture should not be
imputed to erroneous and discreditable motives on either
side, and that the conduct of the Queen's Government
should not be prejudiced upon random and injurious
c ejectures. We disposed yesterday of the fiction of
what has been termed the " Grey conspiracy," and we
deny that it can be asserted with any shadow of
foundation that Lord Palmerston has been ejected
from the Cabinet by a personal cabal against him.
On the contrary, the high sc nse of his abilities which
many of his colleagues entertained, their confidence in
his long familiarity with public affairs, and their ad-
miration for his powers i.f debate, contributed to melee
them anxious to retain his services in the Government,
even under circumstances which had not unfrequently
tried their constancy and their friendship. In truth,
the only enemy to the duration of Lord Palmerston's
power in the office which he filled was himself. No
other band could or would have overthrown him but
his own. No attack has been directed against him ;
and since the termination of the debates on the
foreign policy in June, 1850, he has enjoyed a
singular exemption from public criticsm. The
acts and proceedings which have led to this rupture
were entirely in his own power, and might have
been regulated by the seeneral policy of the Govern-
ment ; but if it was otherwise, no one is so much to
blame as the Minister who, in his own department,
sets at nought the authority and opinions of the rest
of the Administration. A more serious but not less
unfounded imputation on the Government is the sup-
position that the removal of Lord Palmerston from
office has been instigated by the agents of foreign
Courts, or that a difference of opinion had arisen in
the Cabinet on the subject of the French refugees in
this country. It is long since we were first told that
every one who differed from Lord Palmerston's politi-
cal system was to be denounced as the hireling of some
foreign power; and Lord John Russell himself once
thought it worth while to indulge in the claptrap asser-
tion that his late colleague was not a Russian, or an
Austrian, or a French, but an English Minister. In
our eyes the question is simply whether he was a good
Foreign Minister for England; and on that point we
infer that Lord J. Russell has ceased to hold an opinion
different from our own. The question of the refugees
deserves some further explanation, for though we
wholly discredit the statement that it is in any way
connected with the recent change in the Cabinet, it
is a matter destined to exercise considerable influence
over our relations with the Continent. Some weeks
ago the French Ambassador in London was instructed
to remonstrate, with considerable force, against the
facilities afforded to French refugees in this country
for devising and preparing plots against the tran-
quillity of France; and an offer was made to adduce
abundant proof of the abuse of British hospitality by
these foreign fugitives. More recently the three
northern Powers have presented a note to the same
effect, couched in equally vigorous terms, and suggest-
ing that measures should be devised by the wisdom of
the British Government to prevent this country
from being the seat of clandestine hostilities against
several of the friendly Powers of Europe. To these
notes we are not aware that any answer has yet been
returned, and the subject is doubtless under the con-
sideration of Ministers. As far as the dignity of this
country and our ancient and undoubted rights of hos-
pitality are concerned, we can but anticipate but
one reply; fur no difference of opinion can have
occurred on such a point, though it is open to dis-
cussion whether it be expedient in any country to
allow to foreigners an unlimited right of abusing,
for their own political purposes and at our expense,
the hospitality we afforded them. But, we repeat,
this subject was not the cause of the division in the
Cabinet; nor is correct to state that the chief pres-
sure on this point has been applied by Austria or
Russia. The first application was made by France ;
the proximity of that country, the multitude of fugi-
tives from her successive revolutions, and the inse-
curity of a Government that deals so largely in plots and
other violent measures,constitute a far strongercase than
that against a few Hungarian or Polish refugees in
London ; and we believe that Louis Napoleon has
not scrupled to ask for the limitation of an asylum to
which he twice repaired in the days of his own ad-
versity. To such au application the Government will
no doubt return a fitting answer ; but if anything can
render even measures of proper precaution repugnant
to the people of England, it would be the notion that
they have been exacted by foreign States. But this
matter, though important in itself is irrelevant to the
principal subject of our present remarks. Speaking,
then, from the best information we have been able to
collect, though not from any Ministerial authority,
we believe the main cause of the rupture between the
Cabinet and Lord Palmerston to have arisen from
the different views taken by the two parties of the
late revolution in France, and not only from a dif-
ference of views on this, to us abstract question: of
politics, but also from an equally marked difference
in the mode of dealing with such an emergency. Lord
Palmerston's opinion, as expressed by the morning
journal which is his exclusive organ, was that of un-
bounded approbation and admiration for a successful
coup d etat that annihilated the liberties of France :
the opinion of the Cabinet is said to have been one of
regret at a change which transferred the French
people from constitutional government to military
absolutism. The former opinion expressed itself in
terms of highflown commendation ; the latter, though
not unfriendly to France under any form of Govern-
ment, was disposed to adopt a tone of greater reserve,
caution, and expectancy. We ourselves have traced
in our correspondence from Paris the existence at the
same moment of these two distinct and inconsistent
lines of policy. The communications described the
other day by our Paris correspondent as having been
made by a member of the British Government to a
personage of note at the Elyse?. were strictly authentic.
Their existence was denied by the organ of the
Foreign-office, probably because they had not ema-
nated from that department. Those communications
expressed, we believe, the settled views of the First
Minister and his Administration ; but by a singu-
larity which we would hope to be unexampled in
diplomacy, they did not correspond with the mis-
sives and instructions of the Foreign Minister. In
short, the discrepancy of opinion which appears to
have manifested itself on this occasion is said to have
been followed by a divergency of action, which may
have amounted to what is gently termed insubordi-
nation. If this statement be correct, as we believe it
to be, without vouching for its entire accuracy, it
was clearly impossible to carry on the Government
on such terms , the deliberate opinion of the Admi-
nistration was stultified by one of its own members ;
and even the position of her Majesty's Ambassador
abroad rendered per,plexing and contradictory, On
one point we entertain no doubt whatever, namely,
that the direct causes of this schism were the highly
favourable opinions which Lord Palmerston ostenta-
tiously expressed in person, and by his public
organs, of the late military revolution in France,
and the measures he thought fit to take in conse-
quence. We leave it to his admirers to reconcile
their passion for liberty and constitutional
Government in all parts of the earth with his sudden
adoption of a cause which has already violated every
law and extinguished all freedom among the most ad-
vanced nation of the Continent. But this also we
know, that while it is the policy of England to main-
tain a system of amicable relations with France, it is
no part of the duty of the British Government to
affect an approval it cannot feel for acts so contrary to
every principle of political right, and so little calcu-
lated to strengthen the happy union of the two nations.
We recognise the new French Government, whatever
it may be, without the least hesitation or hostility,
for it rests with France alone to determine her poli-
tical condition ; but we cannot forget that there are
principles to which the people and the Government of
this country are indissolubly attached, and that to
swerve from those principles is to forfeit the best
tenure of office and of power.
DAILY NEWS.—We have always expressed a
high opinion of Lord Palmerston as Foreign Minister
of England. No man holding that position has ever
striven more earnestly for the cause of Constitutional
liberty. His active interference mainly secured that
blessing to the Peninsula. His negotiations chiefly
contributed to endow Belgium with independence and
with a monarchic Constitution that has hitherto defied
revolution and anarchy intro& morns et extra, as well as
any form of government in Europe, Lord Palmer-
ton's more recent efforts in Italy were stimulated by
generous and noble policy—going the length of
endowing that country with constitutional govern•
ment, and not going beyond that aim. If these
efforts failed—and if the failure and the misrepre-
sentation of these efforts have had the effect of
making England, and its Foreign Minister, disliked
by the Absolutist Courts, that may be an,inconvenience
under certain circumstances—but, it is no crime.
And yet with this tribute of admiration ,to Lord
Palmerston, we know that he had faults, and,
amongst others, a great and irremediable one. Ile
had been far too many years in possession of his
late (Ace. It is the misfortune of England that her
statesmen and placemen stick far too long by their
benches. What the country wants is not an admir-
able Crichton of a secretary, but a relay of politicians
in all walks and classes. We want statesmen, not
merely in the Cabinet, but in Parliament. It is not
such
or
ucht hae n
itne
setset of t
rmust
u te
continuecountry h ttoa tit h
ol
ds ho
ffio ucled be to
becausetold
there is really no one sufficiently
capable or in-
structed to be able to replace him. This it is that
peoples our V„hinets with lords,---An eternal EticCeS'

TAE SUN,