of Lord Palmerston, and to tell the house why, after the
expiration of twelve days, the noble lord had returned
to office. The noble earl concluded by stating that
there was no intention of moving an amendment upon
the address; but that he desired to see the word
"intimidation" inserted after the words "bribery and
corruption."—The Earl of ABERDEEN defended himself
in strong terms against the charge made by a portion of
the press of being a tool and instrument of Russia, and
mentioned that perhaps few public men in this country
had ever written more, or with greater acrimony, than
himself, against the Russian government. It was said
that to the present government was owing the present
state of things, and that if they had acted with more
vigour, it would not have arisen. He begged noble
lords to suspend their opinions on these subjects till they
had seen the papers; but he confessed he was no friend
to playing at the game of Brag. To small states it might
sometimes be useful to hold menacing language; but to
have held it to a power like Russia, at the time she first
occupied the principalities, would in the interests of
Turkey have been most inexpedient. There would,
however, be further opportunities of entering into these
subjects in detail. With regard to the resignation of
Lord Palmerston he should not be entirely silent. His
noble friend, believing that the provisions of a measure
were settled, which was not finally settled, resigned.
Explanations took place, after which his noble friend
resumed his functions, for he had not absolutely resigned,
and the country had not been left without those duties
being regularly and efficiently performed. The noble
earl, however, had no right to ask for the causes of
that difference, or the means of reconciliation. Had
Lord Palmerston left office, he would have been bound
to give a parliamentary explanation; but where a mere
misunderstanding took place, whether in the cabinet or
elsewhere, which was reconcilable, he contended that
no explanation was necessary. Before he sat down, as
he had himself been charged with being a Russian and
an Austrian, he was bound to say that the same imputations
had been cast upon a much higher person, and
with the same utter absence of foundation. There was
not the slightest ground for any of the base allegations
that had been thrown out against Prince Albert, and he
emphatically denied that his Royal Highness had ever
interfered in any manner with the patronage of the
army.—Viscount HARDINGE also gave a total denial to
the charges of undue interference on the part of Prince
Albert with the patronage of the army, or with the
transaction of public business at the Horse Guards.—
The Earl of DERBY, in the course of some explanations,
also said that, so far as his own experience went, his
Royal Highness had never unduly interposed in public
business. The charges brought against the Prince only
proved the extent of the gullibility of the public; and
he was only surprised that the noble earl at the head of
the government should have condescended to notice
them.—Lord CAMPBELL, viewing the question
constitutionally, expressed his opinion that not only as a privy
councillor, but as the husband of the Sovereign, Prince
Albert should be consulted upon public affairs.—In the
course of the short discussion which brought the debate
to a conclusion, the Earl of HARROWBY taunted the
members of the opposition with allowing these unfounded
attacks to be repeated in journals over which they had
influence enough to prevent their publication; upon
which the Earl of DERBY repeated his assertion that it
was the radical, and not the conservative press, that
originated and magnified the rumours, and the Earl of
MALMESBURY declared that, being unconnected with
the press, he had no power to check the calumnies.—
The address was then agreed to.

On Thursday, Feb. 2, Lord LYNDHURST, referring
to the papers presented to parliament on the
Turco-Russian Question, asked the Foreign Secretary
whether the account given of the Vienna
note in the despatch of Count Nesselrode to Baron
Meyendorff of the 7th of September was correct.
From this account it appeared that the Vienna note,
after having been modified and reduced to its present
form, was sent simultaneously to Constantinople and
St. Petersburgh. But it also appeared that, before the
note was complete, and whilst it was in preparation,
a draft of it had been sent to St. Petersburgh for the
assent and adoption of the Emperor. It was singular that
though the draft did not materially differ from the final
note, it should have been sent to St. Petersburgh only,
and not to Constantinople, although it related to the
sovereignty and independence of the Porte. He wished
to know whether this statement was correct, and also
whether the draft note had been sent to Russia with
the assent of the different Powers at Vienna, or whether
it was the sole act of Austria.—The Earl of CLARENDON,
in reply, detailed the history of the Vienna note, and
of the alterations made in it. When thus agreed
upon by the four Powers, it was sent simultaneously
to St. Petersburgh and Constantinople. But two slight
alterations were afterwards suggested by her Majesty's
government, in harmony with the intentions of all the
Powers, which, being accepted by the conference, were
transmitted to St. Petersburgh, and they were
immediately adopted by the Russian government. Their
lordships would, however, find full information of the
facts in the papers.—Lord LYNDHURST observed that
there was no document in the papers to show that the
draft or the alterations had been sent to Constantinople.
—Lord BEAUMONT said that the result appeared
to be just this—that the draft, without the alterations,
had been communicated to St. Petersburgh without
being made known to the Porte, but that the note in
its final state was sent simultaneously to the two
Powers. He inquired whether this was not the fact
with regard to the simple French note agreed to by the
English government in the first instance. The Earl
of CLARENDON believed that the French government
communicated the note to the Porte as well as to
Russia, but he could not say positively.

On Friday, Feb. 3, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE
gave notice that on Monday he should put a question
to the government with a view of ascertaining whether
this country was at War or not with Russia; and that
he would also call attention to the despatch of the 24th
of December.

On Monday, Feb. 6, an important discussion took place
on the State of tlie Country with respect to the question of
Peace or War; the Marquis of CLANRICARDE having
previously given notice that he would call the attention of
the house to this subject. He said, that from the
language held by government last week, he considered
that the Emperor of Russia had virtually if not formally
rejected the proposal which had been made to him.
But, seeing from the public papers that no formal reply
had been received, and that a semblance of negociations
was still going on at Vienna, he for one should be sorry
to occasion any discussion that might prevent a peaceful
termination to those negociations. Therefore he would
not that night discuss some necessary points; the
consideration of which, however, could not be delayed
many days. Our position was becoming so critical, that
Parliament must be accurately informed thereupon
before many days elapse. He would not interfere with
the faintest prospect of peace until negociations are
formally closed; but would content himself with asking
whether any answer had been received from the
Emperor of Russia, and whether any instructions had been
given to our minister at St. Petersburgh?—The Earl of
CLARENDON said, he was much obliged for the
consideration shown by Lord Clanricarde in postponing any
discussion which he thought might operate prejudicially
to the slight chances that still remain of maintaining
peace. Only that afternoon had he received an official
statement of the facts respecting terms on which the
Emperor of Russia stated that he would be prepared to
negociate for peace. Only on the 2nd of February, the
Vienna conference was called together, and those
proposals, or rather counter-project, were communicated to
the conference by Count Buol. Lord Clarendon had
not yet had time to show the official despatch on the
subject to his colleagues except Lord Aberdeen; so that
he preferred not to enter into details. But it was his
duty to say, that the terms of the Emperor's proposal
were quite unacceptable, and not of a character to allow
of their being sent to Constantinople. Upon this point
no doubt existed for a moment in the minds of the
conference. With respect to the second question, Baron
Brunnow had called on Lord Clarendon on Saturday