Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-03-06
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.

The following article, which we find in the Boz
ton Daily Advertiser Of Wednesday last, embaces
interesting and highly instructive views Of 'ae i'm
mediate causes of Lord PALMERsToNs rem val from
the post which he held in the British Ministry, and
also Of his agency in the diploms'e relations be-
tween Great Britain and the Upised States.
THE REMOVAL OF LORD PALMERsTON
The recent dismissal from Office Of one of the
ablest members Of the British Cabinet and this at
time when Lord John RusselPs government was
considered as worry weak, and remaining in power
only from the difficulty Of finding any one to take
his place, is of course q remarkable event. The
parliamentary explanation of its causes was expected
with considerable interest That explanation, as far
as it was to be found in .any specific acts or oms
sons of Lord Pamerston, has now been given, and
we shall presently state what it is. 1t is quite evil
dent however, to all who have followed the course
of English politics for time past, that behind
the particular grounds Of complaint against Lord
Palmerston there was the part of his colleagues,
as of the public generally vague feeling Of dstrust
Of the Foreign Secretary as very able but an i'm
pusive and sefwilled person, whose prudence could
not be relied upon. Lord John Russell, however,
was precuded from all ausion to this fact, however
UNREASONABLE. He had placed the seals Of the
Foreign Office in his colleagues hands, knowing
Cnat Sucn was MS cnaracUer anu nc Hdu uclcuuCu
his conduct in the affair Of the Grecian blockade, one
Of the most offensive and unpopular Of Lord Pal
merstons measures 1t was necessary, therefore, to
assign reasons for his dismissal of more recent
date, and such as were not directly connected with
his general mode of transactng the business of his
department
The two causes assigned for Lord P. 8 dismissal
were these /. His reception of deputation of
Hungarian sympathizers, who spoke Of the CONT
mental Powers in very abusive terms. Lord p, in
replying to the delegation, stated that he must not
be held responsible for the language employed by
them in reference to sovereigns with whom England
was at peace but his receiving such delegation at
ALL and his courteous reply to an address OF so vio-
lent character probably gave offence to the foreign
soyereigns, and is spoken of by Lord John Russell
as an imprudence to be regretted, but not as an
event necessarily entailing serious consequences.
We are disposed to think that his conduct on this
occasion had been complained Of by Austria and
Russia, and that for this reason Lord John Russell
regarded it as falling within the rule of office which
requires the Foreign Secretary to consult his col
leagues, and to take the orders Of the Queen i'm
portant matters Lord Pamerston, not viewing it
in that light, had neglected this formality.
But the principal subject of complaint related to
the event Of the I'd of December-the coup detat
of Louis Napoleon. Lord Normandy, on the 3d.
wrote home for instructions how he was to act on
the occasion. The subject was brought before the
Cabinet and it was decided that he was to make
no change in his relations with the French Govern
ment A very short despatch to this effect was
drawn up by Lord Palmerston, sent to the Queen
on the 4th December, and came back with her APP
proval on the 5th on which day it forwarded to
Lord Normandy. 1t reached him on the 9th, and he
Immediately waited on M. Turgot, the French Min
lister of Foreign Affairs, and told him he had been in
structed that he need make no change in his rela
tions with the French Government in consequence
of what had passed" He apologzed for his delay
in making the communication on the ground of cir
cumstances not connected with the merits of the
question NJ Turgot said the delay of less conse
auence as two days before he had received from the
French Ambassador in London on. Walewski)
information that Lord Palmerston had expressed
his entire appreciation of the conduct of the Presi
dent and the conviction that he could not act other
wise than he had DONE" Lord Normandy learned
from two of his diplomatic colleagues that NJ Wa
lewsk's letter conveying this information had
been read by M. Turgot to them Lord Normandy
Immediately wrote to Lord Palmerston an account
Of these matters, and his letter was communicated
by him. in the usual course of business to the other
members of the Cabinet
Lord John Russell intimates in his parliamentary
explanation that he thought, though Lord Palmer
ston had been somewhat mprudent in thus express
ing himself on so important question, yet that no
dhcuty need arise from III. lie according
" wrote to Lord Palmerston for explanation an
tcipatng that satisfactory one would be made.
10 this letter no ansaoer ,chatcver returned by
lord Pnlnaerston.
A week afterwards, Con the 13th,) not having re-
c,ved any answer from Lord p, and being at Wo-
burn Abbey, (the residence Of his brother, the
Duke of Bedford,) Lord John Russell received
MESSENGER from the Queen, making inquiry on the
sibject Of Lord Normanby's despatch of the 9th of
december, and demanding explanation Of its
cdtents. The following day Lord John Russell
set communication to Lord Palmerston, who was
intown, which reached him at an early hour, but
noanswer was returned that the following day.
On the 18th Lord John Russell wrote the third
TIM to Lord Palmerston, expressing the opinion
"tat silence not respectful to her Majesty, and
aslng for a reply" No reply came that day, but
thdsame disdainful silence, he calls it, was per-
evred in by Lord Palmerston. On the following
day Lord John Russell received, not an answer
frop Lord Palmerston, but despatch from Lord
Nohanby to Lord Palmerston, complaining of the
position in which he is placed by receiving through
the French Government information of the views of
the British Foreign Secretary, which had not been
communicated directly TO himself,) together with
Lord Palmerstnn's answer, which had been written
and dispatched without being submitted to his col
leagues or the Queen This last step taken by Lord
Palmerston, while he maintaining "disdainful
silence in reference to three letters of Lor John
Russell, demanding explanation two of which