LORD PALMERSTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 82, 31 July 1852, Page 10

LORD PALMERSTON.

Additional and interesting- light is thrown on the causes of Lord Palmerston's ejection from the Foreign Secretaryship. We have now reason to believe that, although the course taken by his Lordship with reference to Louis Napoleon's coup d'etat was. the immediate occasion of final rupture, yet this only brought to a point old and continued feelings of dissatisfaction on account of his habit of dealing with important questions in an independent manner, without consulting his colleagues, or duly layin°- the documents and facts before Her Majesty. It turns out that so long ago as August, 1850, the Queen had in an autograph letter given decided expression to her royal opinion to this effect. The following is the extract from this remarkable communication, as given by Lord John Russell in his speech on the Address. Lord John said—

But with regard to liis noble friend it so happened that in August, 1850, the precise terms were laid down as to the transaction of business between the Crown and Secretary of State. He was the organ of a communication to his noble friend and lie was responsible for a document which he was about to read. He

omitted the former part which refers only to past transactions. It is as follows :—

" 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 sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the minister. Such an act she must consider as failing 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 of 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."

The obvious inference from this communication is, that previously Lord Palmerston had not acted in conformity with these regulations ; and indeed he virtually admitted that it was so by his reply (also quoted by Lord John Russell), "I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen, and shall not fail to attend to the directions which it contains." He did not attend to them, however, in the case of the French President's coup d'etat, and therefore, argues Lord John, it became the Prime Minister's duty to require Lord Palmerston to resign. Still, as the Examiner puts it, "Itis sufficiently clear that the commencement of Lord John Russell's explanation only introduces us in medias res of differences. It is the old story of the hair that breaks the camel's back, or the drop that makes the glass overflow." But what is to be thought of Lord John Russell's own conduct in the matter? In June, 1850, when Lord Palmerston was censured by the House of Lords, and only escaped censure in the House of Commons for his policy in the Greek affair, Lord John vindicated, and identified himself with his " noble friend's" conduct. And yet, just after, he felt himself obliged to invoke the Queen's authority to control this lauded colleague! Moreover, as respects the immediate point (the indiscretion of Lord Palmerston in expressing his favourable opinion of the coup d'etat to the French Ambassador) his Lordship was able to retort upon his colleagues that they (and that Lord John himself in particular) had done almost precisely the same thing, and in the hearing of the same personage ! The conclusion plainly is that the quarrel was not so much with the policy of the Foreign Secretary, as with the man : his colleagues wished to get rid of him, and the French question furnished the opportunity. The whole transaction gives no favourable view of either of their Lordships' conduct, viewed in the light of high and honourable principle. The Spectator well remarks—

" This disclosure has inflicted serious damage on the political reputation of both Ministers. Honest people cannot understand the sincerity of a Premier, who could have a public and private opinion so diametrically opposed, nor the constitutional pride of a statssman who could for party convenience retain in office a colleague so insubordinate. Neither can the public understand the self-respect of that nobleman who could remain in office eighteen months under so humbling a rebuke. The disclosure reveals the degree to which the standard of political morality has been lowered in high places. The way in which the Assembled Commons made light of it is the reverse of consoling or reassuring. On the public it has had a very painful effect." —New Zealander.