As to the main point, John Russell distinctly narrowed down the ground of my dismissal to the fact of my having expressed an opinion on the _coup d’état_ without reference to the nature of that opinion, Johnny saying that that was not the question. Now, that opinion of mine was expressed in conversation on Tuesday the 3rd; but on Wednesday the 4th, we had a small evening party at our house. At that party John Russell and Walewsky[4] were, and they had a conversation on the _coup d’état_ in which Johnny expressed his opinion, which Walewsky tells me was in substance and result pretty nearly the same as what I had said the day before, though, as he observed, John Russell is not so “expansif” as I am; but further, on Friday the 6th, Walewsky dined at John Russell’s and there met Lansdowne and Charles Wood; and in the course of that evening John Russell, Lansdowne, and Charles Wood all expressed their opinions on the _coup d’état_, and those opinions were, if anything, rather more strongly favourable than mine had been.[5] Moreover, Walewsky met Lord Grey riding in the Park, and Grey’s opinion was likewise expressed, and was to the same effect. It is obvious that the reason assigned for my dismissal was a mere pretext, eagerly caught at for want of any good reason. The real ground was a weak truckling to the hostile intrigues of the Orleans family, Austria, Russia, Saxony, and Bavaria, and in some degree also of the present Prussian Government. All these parties found their respective views and systems of policy thwarted by the course pursued by the British Government, and they thought that if they could remove the Minister they would change the policy. They had for a long time past effectually poisoned the mind of the Queen and the Prince against me, and John Russell giving way, rather encouraged than discountenanced the desire of the Queen. [4] The French Ambassador in London. [5] Just before Lord Palmerston’s dismissal was discussed in Parliament, Walewsky reminded Lord John Russell of these facts, and added that, whereas he had only conveyed Palmerston’s opinion in a private letter to M. Turgot, he had made Russell’s the subject of an official despatch. Lord John Russell asked whether Lord Palmerston knew all this, and meant to state it in the House of Commons (_Life of Palmerston_, ii. 326). RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA (1853). =Source.=—_Life of Lord John Russell_, by Spencer Walpole, vol. ii. (London: 1889.) A. _Lord Aberdeen to Lord John Russell._ I think that it will be necessary to be very careful in preparing instructions for Lord Stratford, if, as I presume, we must consider his memorandum as giving an outline of what he would desire.