behind me (Sir B. Hall), and the noble of the efforts made by Her Majesty's GoLord who has just sat down, it is abso- vernment to obtain the release of the Hunlutely incumbent on me to make some ob- garian refugees detained in the Turkish servations to the House. I should be dominions. I was asked by letter to resorry, indeed, Sir, that this House and the ceive a deputation, instructed to express country should run away with the impres- the acknowledgments of a certain meeting sion which the speech of the noble Lord to me, as a member of the Government, has been too well calculated to make, and the organ of its foreign policy, for the that I have abandoned principles I have efforts made to obtain the liberation of ever entertained-that I have changed those refugees. I thought it was my duty, opinions, and which, I trust, I never being thus applied to by respectable pershall alter that I have been the advo- sons, to receive this deputation from a cate of absolute power-and that I have meeting of Her Majesty's subjects. I been in favour of the abolition of consti- certainly did not expect, not being so much tutional government; but I shall come to in the habit of receiving deputations as my that immediately. The noble Lord at the noble Friend probably is, I did not expect head of the Government began the re- that what passed in conversation with those marks he made to the House by stating his persons was to appear in a newspaper paropinion of the relations which ought to agraph next day as "an important declasubsist between the Foreign Secretary and ration on the part of Her Majesty's Governthe Crown on the one hand, and the Fo- ment." But nothing was said to that reign Secretary and Prime Minister on the deputation by me which I had not stated other. In that definition I most entirely previously in my place in this House, and concur, and I flatter myself I have done elsewhere, and which has not been perfectly nothing which is inconsistent with either of well known to the Government. I certhose relations. Sir, the practice that pre- tainly regret that the meeting should have vails in the Foreign Office was that which mixed up with their acknowledgments to the noble Lord has described as laid down Her Majesty's Government expressions in the Memorandum of 1850; but the prac- with respect to foreign Sovereigns, which tice did not begin at that time, but was in it was entirely unfitting to be addressed existence before-namely, that no impor- to a person in my situation. If I had tant political instruction is ever sent to taken the precaution, which I certainly any British Minister abroad, and no note might, to see the address previously, I addressed to any Foreign diplomatic agent, might have objected to such parts, and without the draught being first submitted they might have been expunged; but, being to the head of the Government, in order taken by surprise, and the address being that the pleasure of the Crown might be read to me on the spot, all I could do was taken upon it; and if either the higher au- to repudiate those expressions, and to disthority or the Prime Minister suggested claim any participation in the opinions alterations, those alterations were made, or which they expressed. I do not think the despatch was withheld. It has, I know, that what passed on that occasion was reasometimes been said, that though the gene- sonably calculated to impair the friendly reral tenor of the policy pursued by me had lations between Her Majesty's Government met with the approval of Her Majesty's and any Continental Power. I will now Government, and was right, yet there was, come to the particular transaction to which notwithstanding, something in the manner the noble Lord has referred as the groundof conducting it calculated to excite irrita- work of my removal from office. The tion on the part of foreign Governments. event which is commonly called the coup Now, the manner of conducting that busi-d'état happened in Paris on the 2nd Deness consisted in the framing of despatches cember. On the 3rd the French Ambasor notes; and I have stated that these de-sador, with whom I was in the habit of spatches and notes were never sent unless they had obtained the previous sanction of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord has commented upon an incident which I am ready to admit excited some degree of regret on my part-namely, the interview which took place between me and a certain deputation from Finsbury and Islington on the subject almost daily communication, called on me at my house to inform me of the news which he had received, and to talk over the events of the preceding day; and I stated conversationally the opinion I entertained of the events which had taken place. That opinion was exactly the opinion expressed in the latter part of the despatch to Lord Normanby, which the noble Lord has read; and the French Ambassador, asked. When the Marquess of Noras I am informed, communicated the re- manby's despatch reached my noble Friend sult of that conversation in a private (Lord J. Russell), he wrote to say he letter to his Minister. On that day, the trusted that I would contradict that report. 3rd of December, Her Majesty's Am- There was, as he has stated, an interval bassador at Paris wrote a despatch to between the receipt of the noble Lord's ask what instructions he should receive letter and my answer. The noble Lord's for his guidance during the interval letter was dated on the 14th, and my anwhich must elapse before the vote of the swer the 16th. I was at the time labouring French nation upon the questions to be under a heavy pressure of business, and, proposed to them by the President was wishing fully to explain the opinion I had known; and whether in that interval he expressed, it was not until late in the evening should infuse into his relations with the of the 16th that I was able to write my anFrench Government any greater degree of swer. The noble Lord got it early next reserve than usual. I took the opinion of morning, on the 17th. My answer was, the Cabinet on that question, and a draught that the words quoted by the Marquess of of answer was prepared and sent for Normanby gave a high colouring to anyHer Majesty's approbation. The answer thing I could have said in my conversation could only be one, in consistence with the with the French Ambassador on the 3rd of course we had pursued from the very be- December; but that my opinion was, and ginning of the events in 1848, and was that opinion, no doubt, I expressed, that such as the noble Lord has read. Her such was the antagonism which had arisen Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to between the French Assembly and the make no change in his relations with President of the Republic, that their long the French Government, and to do no- co-existence had become impossible, and thing that should wear the appearance that it was my opinion that if one or of an interference of any kind in the the other were to prevail, it would be internal affairs of France. There was better for France, and, through the inno instruction to communicate that docu- terests of France, better for the interment to the French Government; it simply ests of Europe, that the President should contained instructions, not, in fact, what prevail than the Assembly. My reason the English Ambassador was to do, but was, that the Assembly had nothing to what he was to abstain from doing. The offer as a substitute for the President, noble Lord, however (the Marquess of but alternatives ending obviously in civil Normanby), thonght it right to communi- war or anarchy; whereas the President, cate to the French Minister for Foreign on the other hand, had to offer unity Affairs the substance of that instruction, of purpose and unity of authority, and accompanying his communication with certain excuses for delay. Delay, however, there had been none, because his despatch was dated the 3rd, the answer was sent off on the 5th, and he communicated the reply on the 6th. The French Minister stated that he had nothing to say with respect to the delay, and the less, indeed, because two days before he had received from the French Ambassador in London a statement which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has read, namely, that I had entirely approved of what had been done, and thought the President of the French could not have acted otherwise. That was a somewhat highly-coloured explanation of the result of a rather long conversation. Those particular words I never used, and probably the French Ambassador never would have conceived it consistent with the dignity of his country to ask the approval of a Foreign Secretary of State. Consequently, the approval was not given, and was not My if he were inclined to do so, he might there is in diplomatic intercourse a well- | the Friday, and in the noble Lord's own known and perfectly understood distinc- house, I have been informed that the tion between official conversations, by French Ambassador met the noble Lord which Governments are bound, and which represent the opinions of Governments, and those non-official conversations by which Governments are not bound, and in which the speakers do not express the opinion of Governments, but simply the opinions they may themselves for the moment entertain. I said, that in my conversation with Count Walewski, on the 3rd December, nothing passed which could in the slightest degree fetter the action of the Government, and that if the doctrine of the noble Lord were established, and if the Foreign Secretary were to be precluded from expressing on passing events any opinion to a Foreign Minister, except in the capacity of an organ of a previously consulted Cabinet, there would be an end to that freedom of intercourse between Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Ministers, which tends so much to good understanding and to the facility of public business. To this my noble Friend replied that my letter left him no other course than to ask Her Majesty to appoint a successor to me. Now, it is my humble opinion that my doctrine is right, and that of my noble Friend is wrong; because it is obvious that if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were never allowed in easy and familiar conversation with Foreign Ministers to express an opinion on foreign events, whether important or not, not as the opinion of the Government, but as an opinion which he had formed himself at the moment, then such a restriction on his intercourse with Foreign Ministers would be extremely injurious and very prejudicial to the public service. Now be it remembered that I expressed this opinion to which the noble Lord has referred, to the French Ambassador, on the 3rd of December, the day immediately after the coup d'état; but was I the only Member of the Cabinet who did thus express an opinion on that event? I am informed that on the evening of that very day, and under the same roof, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in conversation with the same Ambassador, expressed his opinion. It is not, perhaps, for me to say what that opinion was, but from what has just now fallen from the noble Lord this evening, it may be assumed that that opinion was not very different even from the reported opinion which I am supposed to have expressed. Was that all? On the President of the Council and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord at the head of the Government again expressed an opinion, and the President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also expressed an opinion. I believe their opinions were similar to mine; but, be it remembered, the charge against me was not the nature of the opinion I had expressed, but the fact that I had expressed an opinion, for the noble Lord distinctly told me, "You mistake the question between us; it is not whether the President was justified or not, but whether you were justified in expressing an opinion on the matter at all.' I believe that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies did also in those few days express an opinion on those events; and I have been informed also that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, also expressed his opinion. Then it follows that every Member of the Cabinet, whatever his official avocations may have been-however much his attention may have been devoted to other matters-is at liberty to express an opinion on passing events abroad; but the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose peculiar duty it is to watch over those events and to form an opinion-who is unfit for his office if he has not an opinion on them-is the only man not permitted to express any opinion at all; and when a foreign Minister comes and tells him news, he is to remain speechless, like a gaping dolt, or as silent as the mute of some Eastern Pasha? Why, Sir, I say such a course would not be consistent with the position of a Minister: it would not be consistent with the interests of the country. But I am told now, "It is not your conversation with Count Walewski that is complained of, but your despatch to the Marquess of Normanby.' What did I state in that despatch, in reference to which a great parade is made, as if I had been guilty of breach of duty to the Crown, and of my obligations to the Prime Minister, in sending it without previously communicating with the noble Lord? No man can lay down the matter more strongly than I have as to the obligations of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have always admitted that if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs sends a despatch of importance to an Ambassador [ told him shortly what was the nature of abroad, without ascertaining the opinion the opinion to which I had given expression of the Prime Minister, or Crown, he is in conversation with the French Ambasguilty of a breach of duty. But there are sador. Therefore it is a misrepresentation many cases in which he perfectly well of the facts of the case to say that, in knows that he is only expressing the opinion answering Lord Normanby's letter, I was of the Government, and when inconvenience giving instructions inconsistent with the might arise from delay. There are many nature of our relations with the French cases in which a sedulous and careful ob- Government. It was no instruction at all. servance of the strict rule on my part has I did not give the opinion of the Government been attended with inconvenience to the or of England. It was my own opinion; public service, and has exposed me to im- which I had expressed ten days before; putations of neglect and delay in answering and, whether right or wrong, it was shared despatches received. But what was the by numbers in France. Therefore the despatch from the Marquess of Normanby, charge which the noble Lord (Lord J. and what was my answer? Lord Nor- Russell) has brought against me, founded manby, in his despatch of the 6th Dec., on that despatch, has no foundation in jushad said that the French Minister had re- tice or in fact. That is the state of the case ported that I used certain expressions which as between the noble Lord and myself. As Lord Normanby represents as inconsistent for the noble Lord advising the Queen to with the instructions not to interfere in the appoint a successor to me, that was a step internal affairs of France. I cannot see, which it was perfectly competent for the even if I had used the language ascribed noble Lord to take without assigning any to me, that it would have been in any way reason to me. But he chose to assign a reainconsistent with the instructions to him to son, and that reason was, that I did, in conmake no alteration in the nature of his re-versation with Count Walewski, that which lations with the Government of France, and not to interfere in the internal affairs of France. But what does he report in that despatch of the 6th as having been done? He says, that after making that communication to M. Turgot to which the noble Lord has alluded, namely, that he had been instructed to do nothing which should have the appearance of interfering in any way in the internal affairs of France, he proceeded to tell M. Turgot that he was quite sure that if the Government had known the events of Paris on the Thursday and Friday they would have joined their congratulations to his. Surely that was a greater apparent interference in the internal affairs of the French nation than any conversation of mine with Count Walewski. However, Lord Normanby having reported the expressions of the French Minister to me, I did not think it necessary to go into any argument on the subject; but ten days afterwards, on the 15th of December, the Ambassador at Paris, rather inverting, I think, the positions of Ambassador and Secretary of State, calls on the Secretary of State to give him an explanation as to the language the Secretary of State was supposed to have used to Count Walewski on the 3rd. I repeated in my despatch to him, that neither the Secretary of State nor the Ambassador were entitled to pronounce a judgment on the 'events which had taken place in France; and I he and other divers Members of the Cabinet appear also to have done in conversation with the same person. I do not, however, dispute the right of the noble Lord to remove any Member of the Government whom he may think it better to remove than to retain in the Cabinet. With respect to myself, the noble Lord has done me justice by saying that the course of foreign policy of which I was the instrument had received the constant approbation and support of the rest of the Government. I think that course of foreign policy was the proper one for this country to pursue. I always thought it was the duty of the Government of this country to make the interests of England the polar star to guide our course; and that it was my duty to beas the noble Lord described me in 1850, neither the Minister of Austria, of Russia, nor of Prussia, but the Minister of England. I have felt it my duty to maintain the interests of England, to afford protection to British subjects abroad in all parts of the world, to protect their commerce, their persons, and their property. It is not to be expected that, in pursuing that course, and in giving that encouragement which our own disposition and the wishes of the country stimulated us to give to the progressive diffusion of constitutional government in other countries—it is not to be expected, I repeat, that such a course could be pursued without meeting with opposition from persons and Governments who enter- | stained from all interference with the intained opposite opinions, or who have hap-ternal affairs of that country. Our principle pened to be wrongdoers, and from whom re- has been to treat the authorities of the dress might be demanded. But I am happy moment as the Government of the French to say-and my statement is confirmed by nation; and with those authorities our what has just fallen from the noble Lord relations have always been those of that after having for a considerable time cordial amity. Then, with regard to had the good fortune and honour to be the the United States. The United States instrument to guide the foreign relations of constitute a Power between which and this this country, I have left the country in a country in former years serious difficulties state of friendly relations with respect to have existed. But the relations between every country in the world, and that there these two countries are now upon a cordial is no question, no political question of any footing, and a better understanding prevails importance, creating a difference between between them than has ever before existed this and any foreign State. It is not always between those two great and kindred Powers. that that could have been said. There have This is a state of things, which I must say, been periods when, unfortunately, differ- is very much owing to the ability and conences have existed; but at all events, that ciliatory manners of our late Minister to the "firebrand of revolutions," as I have been United States, Sir Henry Bulwer; and very called, that individual who has been ac- much also to the manly, straightforward, cused of having embroiled the relations of frank, and conciliatory character of that England with all other countries, after hav- distinguished Gentleman who represents ing found the country involved in difficulties, the United States at this Court. Well, has left office with no question of serious Sir, with the Spanish States of America difference between this and other nations, our normal condition, I may almost say, has but with amity subsisting between this and been that of demanding redress for injuries all other countries. For instance, there done to British subjects. But many of are our relations with Russia. The time these points of dispute are now either sethas been when we have had serious dif- tled or in a train of adjustment; and our ferences with that Power. But between relations with those States are now as England and Russia there now exists the good as they ever have been, or as they most cordial understanding upon the very are likely to be. I now come to Brazil. questions on which formerly differences pre- With Brazil we are co-operating, for the vailed, namely, with regard to Persia and great object of the suppression of the Turkey. A short time ago questions arose slave trade. That object has been attainin which Prussia was concerned, which ed with such success that whereas in forseriously affected the peace of the north mer years the number of slaves imported of Germany, and which we succeeded into Brazil had been 50,000, 60,000, and in arranging; and it was satisfactory to 70,000, the number of slaves brought durHer Majesty's Government that, by our ing the last year was scarcely more than conduct in seconding the proper and just 3,000, of which a certain number were seized pretensions of Denmark, we succeeded in by the Government for the purpose of emanwiping out the recollections of former events cipation. And, Sir, if the measures now which had embittered the relations of the in operation between England and Brazil, two countries, and that we were enabled to and the measures which are now being establish between England and Denmark taken upon the coast of Africa, are well and relations of the most friendly and confi- systematically followed out, the people of dential nature. Then there is France. No this country will in a short time have the man, Sir, can estimate more highly than I satisfaction of fully accomplishing the great do those considerations which the noble and noble object which for so long a period Lord has adverted to, and which make it has been the aim at which they have dithe common interest of France and Eng-rected their efforts. I will not affront the land that the most perfect friendship and people of England by saying that they will cordial good understanding should subsist gain thereby reputation and renown, bebetween them; and accordingly during all cause it is not to gain reputation and renown the changes which have taken place in that those sacrifices have been made, and France since the year 1848, whoever those exertions have been continued. They was at the head of the Government, have desired the extinction of the slave and whatever form of government was adopted by the French nation, we ab traffic "not for fame, but virtue's better end;" and the people of this country, |