_London, April 2nd._--One day last week (as mentioned above), on one of the numerous discussions of the Savoy question in the House of Commons, John Russell electrified the House and rather astonished the country by delivering a very spirited speech, denouncing in strong terms the conduct of the Emperor Napoleon, and declaring the necessity of cultivating relations with the other Great Powers for the purpose of putting an effectual check upon the projects of French aggrandisement and annexation. I must own that my first impression was that this speech was made merely to deceive the House and the country, and was only a part of the collusive system between our Government and the French, by virtue of which Louis Napoleon has been enabled to work out all his objects and designs; but though it is impossible to doubt that John Russell and Palmerston have all along been aware of the Emperor's intentions with regard to Savoy, and that they have been more intent upon procuring advantages for Sardinia and provoking Austria than upon thwarting the projects of France, I am inclined to see Lord John's speech in another light from what I hear since I came to town. He made it without any previous consultation with his colleagues, it having been one of those _impromptus_ which he is so apt to indulge in, and Palmerston, seeing the way in which it was received in the House and by the Press, approved of its tone and expressed a full concurrence with it. Flahault, who went to Paris a few days ago, called on Palmerston before he went and asked if he wished him to say or do anything there. Palmerston said he might inform the Government that Lord John's speech expressed the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet here. In my opinion his speech was a great imprudence, and will probably involve the necessity of our eating a great deal of humble pie. We have long ago declared that though we disapprove very much of the annexation of Savoy, we should take no steps to prevent it; but Lord John made a great distinction between the question of Savoy and Nice and that of Faucigny and Chablais, and though he did not commit himself to any positive course, he gave it to be inferred that something more would be required from us, in the way of opposition to the seizure of the latter, than there was any necessity for our making to that of the former. But the Emperor makes no such distinctions, and if, as is most probable, he does not admit our right to draw them, we shall be in an unpleasant fix, and have to back out of the position we have assumed in a way neither dignified nor creditable. [Sidenote: SCHEMES OF THE EMPEROR.]