But before doing so he cannot refrain from mentioning some circumstances which appear to him to weigh materially in the consideration of Lord Palmerston's conduct.
In many instances Lord Palmerston has yielded to the remonstrances of Lord John Russell, supported as they have been by your Majesty.
He did so on the question of furnishing guns to the Sicilians.
He did so in respect to the letter to Baron Koller on the affair of Count Haynau.
He gave way likewise in this last instance, when, after assuring Lord Dudley Stuart that he would see Kossuth whenever he chose to call upon him, he consented to intimate privately to Lord Dudley that he requested him not to call.
This last concession must have been mortifying to Lord Palmerston, and he has consoled himself in a manner not very dignified by giving importance to the inflated addresses from some meetings in the suburbs of London.
But it appears to Lord John Russell that every Minister must have a certain latitude allowed him which he may use, perhaps with indiscretion, perhaps with bad taste, but with no consequence of sufficient importance to deserve notice.
Lord John Russell must, however, call your Majesty's attention to an article in the Morning Post, which denies the accuracy of the report of Lord Palmerston's answer to what is there called "the froth and folly of an address to Downing Street."
Lord John Russell, in admitting that he has more than once represented to your Majesty that the expulsion of Lord Palmerston would break up the Government, begs to explain that he has always done so upon one of two grounds: