ement of the Sicilian
affair was discreet--and it certainly was not successful.

The differences with Spain, in connection with the dismission of
our ambassador, gave rise to another warm debate. The wisdom of the
ambassador and of the foreign minister was impeached, while the conduct
of the Spanish government was deemed rash, unnecessary, and insulting.
The conduct of the government in exposing the country and its queen to
such insult was now called in question. Lord Stanley on the 6th of May,
called for the correspondence between Lord Palmerston, Mr. Bulwer, and
the Duke of Soto Mayer. In his speech, which was very eloquent, the
noble lord expressed the highest respect for the person and powers of
Lord Palmerston, but considered that, in this particular case, he had
erred. It was evoked, during the discussion, that the published despatch
of Lord Palmerston did not contain certain words used by the noble
foreign secretary, which gave to the ambassador a discretion as to the
propriety of making the communication dependent upon the tone of public
opinion in Spain, and the nature of events. It was generally considered
by the lords, that any indiscretion which had taken place was at the
embassy in Madrid, and not in the Foreign-office. The ambassador at
the court of Madrid had been appointed by the Earl of Aberdeen, whose
management of the Foreign-office was in every direction disastrous. The
Peel foreign policy required men of a certain stamp, whose agency little
suited the policy or character of Lord Palmerston's foreign-office
administration. Mr. Bankes withdrew his motion, and Mr. Urquhart was
clamoured down in a subsequent attempt to address the house upon the
subject. That gentleman seized every opportunity, in and out of the
house, to vituperate Lord Palmerston, and persisted in reiterating as
facts, fallacies which had been many times exposed. The house and
the country became utterly weary of his absurd harangues, hence the
extraordinary ebullition of feeling among honourable members on that
occasion.

CLOSE OF THE SESSION.

On the 30th of August, Mr. Disraeli reviewed the labours of the session
after the manner so effectively observed by Lord Lyndhurst in the other
house. The oration was ingenious, and eloquently amusing; it entertained
honourable members very much, but it neither instructed nor edified
the commons or the country. Some curiosity was entertained as to how he
would notice the measure for re