lmerston cordially subscribes to that opinion,
and maintains that he has not done so in the past, and declares that
he has no intention of doing so in the future. But if your
Majesty's meaning is that Viscount Palmerston is to be debarred
from communicating with Foreign Ministers except for the purpose
of informing them officially of formal decisions of the British
Government, Viscount Palmerston would beg humbly and respectfully to
represent to your Majesty that such a curtailment of the proper and
constitutional functions of the office which he holds would render
it impossible for him to serve your Majesty consistently with his own
honour or with advantage to the public interest.

[Footnote 75: Lord Palmerston then gives a very long and
detailed account of his position.]

[Pageheading: THE QUEEN'S OPINION]

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._

BALMORAL, _11th September 1859_.

Lord Palmerston has written (on the 8th) a long letter to the Queen,
which, besides giving his private opinion on the politics of Italy,
which were not disputed, purports to show that when a principle
of policy had been adopted by the Cabinet and sanctioned by the
Sovereign, the Foreign Secretary ought not to be impeded in carrying
out the details, either by objections raised to them by the Sovereign,
or by making them dependent on the meetings of Cabinets, difficult to
obtain at this time of year. Now the question raised by the Queen
was _just the reverse_. The principle adopted by the Cabinet and
sanctioned by the Queen was: not to interfere by active advice with
the peace to be made at Zurich; the Foreign Secretary had submitted a
draft which had appeared to the Queen to be in contradiction to this
principle, which, upon the Sovereign's objection, he withdrew; the
Cabinet was summoned and rejected a similar draft submitted to them,
and the Queen then complained that the very same advice should have
been given by the Prime Minister in an indirect way to which the
Sovereign and Cabinet could not agree openly. Lord Palmerston's letter
was not communicated to the Queen until it had been alluded to in a
public despatch, and Count Walewski had insinuated to our Ambassador
that, rather than be a party to a line of conduct, which he would look
upon as dishonourable for his master, he would resign office. What the
Queen has asked for is: an intimation to the French Government that
private communications like that of Lord Pal