_February 11th._--The Duke of Bedford told me yesterday that Clarendon had complained to him bitterly of John Russell's speech the first night of the session, of the hostility it manifested, and particularly of what he said about Naples. On looking at the report of the speech, the Neapolitan part was certainly strong, but it was not stronger than was warranted by the circumstances of the case, and there seems no reason why Lord John should abstain from speaking out his opinions fairly on any important point of foreign policy. His speech, on the whole, was not regarded as hostile or acrimonious. Disraeli has got into a scrape by blurting out an accusation which he has entirely failed in making good, and he has afforded Palmerston an occasion for a triumph over him not a little damaging. I am told the effect in the House was very bad for Disraeli. Palmerston is said to be beginning to show some symptoms of physical weakness, which if it be so, is very serious at the beginning of a long and arduous session. He is rising seventy-three, and at that age, and loaded with the weight of public affairs, it is not wonderful if the beginning of the end should be discernible. [Sidenote: TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND AUSTRIA.] _February 14th._--The defeat which Disraeli sustained the other night was turned the night before last into something like a triumph, and Palmerston found himself in a disagreeable position. Disraeli had asserted that a Treaty had been concluded between France and Austria for certain ends and at a certain time. Palmerston flatly contradicted him, and with great insolence of manner, especially insisting that it was nothing but a Convention, and that conditional, which _never had been signed_. Two nights after Palmerston came down to the House, and in a very jaunty way said he must correct his former statement, and inform the House he had just discovered that the Convention _had been signed_. Great triumph naturally on the part of Disraeli, who poured forth a rather violent invective. Then Palmerston lost his temper and retorted that Disraeli was trying to cover an ignominious retreat by vapouring. This language, under the circumstances of the case, was very imprudent and very improper, and (unlike what he had ever experienced before) he sat down without a single cheer, his own people even not venturing to challenge the approbation of the House in a matter in which, though Disraeli was not right, Palmerston was so clearly wrong. What business had he to make such a mistake? for he ought to have been perfectly and accurately informed of every detail connected with foreign affairs. He certainly is not _qualis erat_, and I am disposed to believe that he is about to begin breaking, and that he will not be able to go through a long and arduous session with the same vigour and success which he has hitherto manifested. Every sign and symptom of weakness and failing strength which he may show will raise the hopes