on the 2d of December. The next day a cabinet meeting was held, at which a request was presented from Lord Normanby, the English Minister at Paris, that he might be furnished with instructions as to the continuance of diplomatic relations with the new Government. In conformity with the decision then made, Lord Palmerston, on the 5th, instructed him to make no change in his relations with the French government. On the 6th, Lord Normanby wrote saying that he had called on M. Turgot, the French Minister, and informed him of this decision, to which M. Turgot replied that it was of less consequence as he had two days since heard from M. Walewski, the French Minister in London, that Lord Palmerston had expressed to him his entire approbation of the act of the President, and his conviction that he could not have acted otherwise than he had done. On seeing this dispatch, Lord John asked Lord Palmerston for an explanation, but got no answer. On the 13th of December, he received a letter from the Queen, requesting an explanation; but Lord Palmerston maintained the same disdainful silence. On the 17th, he received another dispatch from Lord Normanby to Lord Palmerston, complaining that Lord Palmerston should use one language in his instructions to him and another to the French Minister in London, and that while enjoining him not to express any opinion of French politics, he should himself have expressed a very decided judgment. Such a course, he added, subjected him to misrepresentation and suspicion. Lord Palmerston, in reply to this, stated that Lord Normanby's instructions related only to his conduct, and not to opinions: but that if he wished to know Lord Palmerston's opinion concerning French affairs, it was, that "such a state of antagonism had arisen between the President and the Assembly, that it was becoming every day more clear that their coexistence could not be of long duration; and it seemed to him better for the interests of France, and through them for the interests of the rest of Europe, that the power of the President should prevail, inasmuch as the continuance of his authority might afford a prospect of the maintenance of social order in France, whereas the divisions of opinions and parties in the Assembly appeared to betoken that their victory over the President would be the starting-point for disastrous civil strife." Lord John Russell said that this dispatch contained no satisfactory explanation of Lord Palmerston's course; that the merits of the French government had now nothing to do with the case: but that the real question was, whether the Secretary of State was entitled of his own authority, to write a dispatch, as the organ of the Government, in which his colleagues had never concurred, and to which the Queen had never given her sanction. He thought, therefore, that he could not without degrading the Crown, advise her Majesty longer to retain Lord Palmerston in the Foreign department, and he had accordingly