CHAPTER XIV.

CONCLUSION.

Palmerston’s great merit as a governing man arose from his perfect sympathy with those whom he was called upon to govern;--and his demerit, such as it was, sprang from the same cause. He was bold, industrious, honest, strong in purpose as in health, eager, unselfish, and a good comrade. He was at the same time self-asserting, exacting, never doubting himself when his opinion had been formed, and confident against the world in arms. We cannot be surprised that such a one should have been loved by us, and still less so that he should have been hated by others. He was an enemy to the Ministers of other Courts, not only because he was bold, honest, and eager, but also because he showed himself plainly to have those qualities, and was never tired of asserting himself because of them. Who is this man that claims to himself to be more hardworking and honester than any among us,--and who is making good his pretensions? Such were not the spoken words of any foreign statesman of the day; but they describe the feelings on which they seem to have acted. And these men at the same time did believe themselves, and truly believed themselves, to be intellectually his superiors. Let us take Guizot as one of the number, who had much to do with Palmerston, and with whom Palmerston was much concerned. Guizot must have been conscious of brighter faculties and greater thinking power. But he must have been aware that in all discussions among men of the same class Palmerston’s word was the strongest, because of his probity, and truth, and industry.

The same idea occurs to us in reading what has been written of him since his death. He is called “stupid” and “blundering” by those who have been opposed to his politics as a War Minister. But such as his politics were, they were always those of his countrymen for the time being; and in a country professing to be ruled under the Constitution which here prevails, I do not know what higher praise can be given to a Minister. Let the people change their principles; let the Cobdens and Brights teach them that war is altogether a bad thing, and that commerce will suffice to procure for us the respect of other nations. I do not say that it may not be so, and that the teaching of Cobden and Bright may not approve itself in the long run. But such has not yet become the opinion of Englishmen generally; and until Cobden and Bright have taught their countrymen, the country requires such a Minister as was Lord Palmerston. They liked his honesty; they liked his self-assertion, and they did not like it the less, because he expressed himself with a hectoring tongue.

Mr. Morley, in his “Life of Cobden,” vol. ii. p. 189, has said of Palmerston, that Sir John Bowring was wrong in the affair of the _Arrow_, and should have been recalled. He then goes on as follows; “It was not, however, to be expected from the statesman, whose politics never got beyond _Civis Romanus_, especially when he was dealing with a very weak power.” The charge here made is manifestly unjust. Had he said that Palmerston had preached the doctrine of _Civis Romanus_ against all nations, weak or strong,--_usque ad nauseam_,--there might have been some truth in the saying. But the sting of the reproach lies in the assertion that he had preached it especially when the weak were opposed to him. He has intended to imply that when Greece or Portugal were concerned, then, on behalf of Britons, Palmerston exclaimed, _Civis Romanus_; but that he lowered his colours and bated his breath when he had to deal with France or Austria, with Russia or Prussia. Against this I protest. Take all the matters in which he was engaged with other countries,--the creation of Belgium, the Spanish marriages, his treatment of Metternich and Buol, and his life-long battle with Nicholas, and then say whether he was _Civis Romanus_ “especially with the weaker powers!” The word has escaped Mr. Morley in the pride of his contempt, and should be recalled from a work destined to live long because of merits which his prejudice cannot obscure.

But we do know that Lord Palmerston was unpopular among the foreigners, especially in the early part of his career. Mr. Greville thus wrote of him in his journal in 1834; “Madame de Lieven told me that it was impossible to describe the contempt as well as dislike which the whole _corps-diplomatique_ had for Palmerston, and, pointing to Talleyrand, who was sitting close by, ‘surtout lui.’ They have the meanest opinion of his capacity, and his manners are the reverse of conciliatory.” Again, he says, in 1835; “Palmerston is beaten in Hants, at which everyone rejoices.” But by degrees Mr. Greville mends his verdict. “The other night I met some clerks in the Foreign Office to whom the very name of Palmerston is hateful. But I was surprised to hear them,--Mellish particularly, who can judge both from capacity and opportunity,--give ample testimony to his abilities.”

It will be seen from this that even among Englishmen likely to be intimate with the diplomatic circle in London, so late as 1835 Lord Palmerston was supposed to have been generally unpopular, and his want of punctuality is spoken of, a fault likely to interfere much with the comfort of others. But at that time he was a man of fashion, and though he had been for many years specially noted for his industry in mastering all the details of his office,--at the War Office for instance, through his many years of service before he was appointed to the Foreign Office,--it may be surmised that he preferred to work at such hours as best suited himself. If this was so, it only gives an additional proof of that determination to have his own way which governed him through all his life. But his popularity as a Minister did not commence even among Englishmen till after the dates above quoted from Mr. Greville’s journal;--nor that respect among foreigners, did in fact mean a reverence for the power he exercised. It was not in truth known to the world at large how great had been his influence in regard to the creation of Belgium, nor how powerful had been his policy as to the quadruple alliance, till long after the period in question. And though he was sowing the seed for that respect which afterwards grew till he had become the arbiter of European politics generally, the men in whose minds the seed was growing would not, to themselves, admit the growth until the full plant was there, ripe for the use of the nations. In such a career it was necessary that the man should be hated before he was esteemed. Therefore it was that Madame de Lieven spoke of him with contempt, and told of him how Talleyrand specially disliked him. Had he been courteous and servile, and fit to take a place among themselves, the Russian lady and the French gentlemen would have loved the polished man of fashion well enough.

And in those days Palmerston was a Tory, though he was a member of a Whig Government. It must be remembered that the death of Mr. Pitt was still nearer than the death of Lord Palmerston himself. There had to run more than thirty years before the latter event came. It was less than thirty years since Pitt had died. And Palmerston was still regarded as a man brought up in the courtly manner; and the fashion after which he was prepared to form a way of living for himself was not yet deciphered or understood. It was not believed that he intended to be so wise, so plastic, and so attentive a politician. In this respect he was running the same career which Canning had taken before him, and which Gladstone has taken since;--and which indeed Peel may be said to have adopted in the last year or two of his life. He had grown into accord with the people of whom he was one. But neither did he do this as Canning had done, with whom it was an affair of genius, of impulse, and of anger; nor as Peel, with whom it was conscience; nor as Gladstone, on whose versatile mind all motives which are not ignoble seemed to have acted with dangerous rapidity. Palmerston changed slowly without knowing that he changed, and learned to wear the common garb of an Englishman because Englishmen around him wore it. “It is a brave spectacle,” says the _Edinburgh_, in an eloquent article on his death, written in January, 1866;--“it is a brave spectacle to look back on, to see the skill and courage with which nearly single-handed he fought and baffled continental despotism for more than thirty years.” “Since Cromwell’s time no other British statesman has had the honour of having his name made a bugbear to frighten children and despot-ridden lands.” “He was accused of being insolent and aggressive; he was accused of being truckling and cowardly. But now that he is gone there is not a man of us but would say, with his generous antagonist, ‘We are all proud of him,’” The generous antagonist had been Sir Robert Peel; and the words he then spoke were the last which he uttered in the House of Commons. The writer then goes on;--“He is gone; peace to his ashes! It is sad to think we shall never see again that pleasant face, that jaunty air, still dashed by a tinge of the dandyism of the regency, that never-failing figure on the Treasury Bench which drew all eyes; never hear the cheery trumpet tone, not unmusical in its cadences; never learn from his graver wisdom, nor meet his old familiar smile again. We laid him in Westminster Abbey with pride as well as sorrow, side by side with the dust of his great compeers, not dearer or mightier than he. He was a great man. He loved his country and his country loved him. He lived for her honour, and she will cherish his memory.”

As I am now quoting what was said of him shortly after his death, I will give an extract from an article which appeared in August, 1868, in the _Saint Paul’s Magazine_, and was from the hand of Mr. Peter Bayne;--

“When we were at war with Russia, and when the nation, after trying statesman after statesman, continued in the distressing consciousness that the administration lacked vigour, the man who, for a quarter of a century, had been checkmating the policy of Russia was naturally called for. In no spirit of confidence or enthusiasm,--feeling clearly that others had failed, but by no means certain that the right man was yet discovered,--England said, ‘Try Palmerston.’ It was on the 8th of February, 1855, that the Earl of Derby withdrew, and that he took the helm. On the 16th he explained his position to the House. Already all the machinery of an energetic administration was at work, and as the new Prime Minister glanced at department after department, detailing what had been done and what was planned, members felt that a new spirit of energy was already penetrating the framework of Government. The country looked on in hope, beginning to breathe more freely. Month after month went by; month after month the public watched. Troubles came at first in threatening battalions upon the Ministry; but the practical instinct of the nation gradually decided that Palmerston was the man to whom the business of the war could be committed, and in whose hands the name of England was safe. It was astonishing with what ease he held the reins at that noisy time, and with what lightness and self-possession he encountered the obstacles in his path. In May the Opposition made a determined attempt to unseat him, and a long and stormy debate took place. Mr. Disraeli, anxious to avail himself of the uneasy and disconted feeling which still widely prevailed, and to make the most of the inarticulate shouting of a number of ill-informed people who called themselves Administrative Reformers, moved a resolution to the effect that the language of Her Majesty’s Government was ‘ambiguous and uncertain.’ The Opposition maintained the attack with spirit and animosity, and the men below the gangway on the Liberal side, in whose eyes Lord Palmerston never found favour, kept up a raking fire of argument, taunt and invective. Mr. Disraeli closed the attack in one of his most impassioned philippics. One can still see him with the mind’s eye as his sentences rang through the House, his right arm coming down with fierce emphasis at each rhetorical close, while he asked, in impetuous torrent of interrogatives, whether the Prime Minister had not done this, that, and the other evil thing? It was beautiful to observe Lord Palmerston sitting in fixed and placid attention, cool as an old admiral cut out of oak, the figure-head of a seventy-four gun ship in a Biscay squall. At last, as the hours of morning stole on, he placed his hat quietly on the table, and, amid the intense excitement of the House, sprang to his feet. Not a shade of agitation or anxiety could you trace on that brave, clear, splendidly intelligent face. The forehead, broad and expansive, the eye frank, fearless, and sparkling, the whole countenance radiant with energy, courage, good temper, spoke assurance to his party and defiance to the Opposition. He had got into the heart of his subject,--eleven and a half columns of Hansard had been spoken,--when the cry of ‘Black Rod’ echoed through the House, and the usher who rejoices in that mysterious title summoned the Commons to the bar of the Lords, to receive her Majesty’s assent by commission to certain Bills. Lord Palmerston was interrupted; the Speaker left the chair, and, with as many of the members as chose to accompany him, proceeded to the Upper House. After a while the Speaker returned, and Lord Palmerston resumed. ‘I think,’--these were his first words,--‘I have some reason to complain of the impatience of the other House in not waiting for the censure which the right honourable gentleman opposite is desirous of inflicting, but in prematurely administering the rod.’ The Opposition, joining in the titter which ran along every bench, learned that the tempest they had so passionately raised had agitated the mind of Lord Palmerston to no greater extent than was consistent with its wafting towards them a jest so feather-light as this. The next second he was grappling with the arguments of his opponents, and in one or two minutes all recollection of the interruption had passed from the memory of the House. His speech may be pronounced one of the noblest ever uttered in Parliament. Simple, manly, luminous, convincing, high in tone and unanswerable in reasoning, it told upon the intellect not only of Parliament, not only of England, but of the civilized world. Some of its sentences deserve to be remembered. ‘I feel that, in whatever hands the Government is placed, the will of the country must and will be obeyed. I know that will is that England, having engaged in a war necessary and just, in concert with our great ally and neighbour, France, must and shall succeed.’ From the moment he was Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston felt that he held a trust higher than the interests of party, and not in the utmost fervour of debate, not in the most unguarded moment of social converse, could an expression pass his lips which, in discrediting his adversaries, cast a slur upon the name of England. In a still loftier tone, one seldom assumed by Lord Palmerston, and never except in a spirit of deep reverence and sincerity, is the following: ‘The fate of battle is in the hands of a Higher Power. It is not in our power to command success, but it is enough for us to do all in our power to obtain it. That we have done. In a cause which we consider to be just, necessary, and honourable, we confidently place our trust in a Higher Power.’ Mr. Disraeli was beaten by a majority of one hundred, and the Government confirmed in the hands of Lord Palmerston.

“From that night he was a kind of monarch in England. We learned to call him Old Pam, and to love him better than any Prime Minister was ever loved throughout the three kingdoms. All parties in the House took to him. It was pleasant to sit under his parliamentary government, and though there were Liberals more liberal than he, and Conservatives more conservative, the majority both of Liberals and Conservatives secretly preferred him to their special chiefs. He had not the slowness and heavy decorum of Earl Russell; he did not startle country gentlemen with extravagances, paradoxes, and freaks of intellectual rope-dancing, like Mr. Disraeli; and his virtue was not of that grim and earnest kind which rebukes a worldly-minded legislature in the person of Mr. Gladstone. The great neutral party in and out of the House discovered that the firebrand Palmerston would not kindle dangerous conflagrations, but was opulent in the heat that warms without burning.”

And further on he says;--

“Perhaps no single word goes so far in the description of Lord Palmerston as the word ‘manly.’ The feminine element is strong in some men,--they are vehement, impulsive, meekly obstinate, prone to extremes, apt to call whims principles, breaking down all fences of logic in their teacup storms of feeling. In every respect Lord Palmerston was masculine, not feminine. In one of those wise, well-packed bits which you meet with in the writings of Goethe, it is observed that the key to the female character, as distinguished from that of the man, is found in a reference to the personal and private nature of the interests of women as contrasted with the wider interests of men. Her husband, her children, her household,--these are a woman’s own, and within the circle of these Nature has ordained that her affections shall have their heartfelt play. These interests are essentially disjunctive; they pertain to the woman alone, and they isolate, while they intensify, her sympathies. The gregariousness of humankind, on the other hand, comes out where man acts in association with man; and man’s institution is not the family circle, but the nation. The masculine interests are common to the race, and the mental operation of the man is the impersonal reason which knows no prepossession and rejects all colouring of emotion. The Duke of Wellington occurs to one as specially illustrating Goethe’s conception of the masculine mind; and Lord Palmerston was at all points a man. No sentimental egotism, no moral irritability, no sweet feminine cant about him. A genial stoicism,--not the stoicism of the cynic,--an inestimable faculty of taking the good and leaving the bad alone, an invincible serenity and lightness and brightness of soul, distinguished him. Hopeful in adversity, cool in prosperity, ready for any fate, Horace would have smiled approval on him, and mildly exclaimed, ‘Bene preparatum pectus!’”

The question has often been mooted whether he was or was not an orator. Before that question be answered, the man who asks it must decide what it is to be an orator. An orator such as Bright and Gladstone, or even as were Disraeli and Lord Derby, as were in former days Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, or Mr. Pitt, he certainly was not. He would not, like some of these men, have arranged his words with studious care, and have committed the chosen gems of them to his memory; nor, as others have done, could he have burst out under the inspiration of genius into a sudden flow of words to which no study and no memory could have lent anything. To him it seems that oratory was an evil only to be encountered for the sake of certain purposes which could not be otherwise attained. How shall men know a fact unless they be told? Or how shall a man tell a fact so as to induce belief unless he be instructed in the way of doing so? Such was Lord Palmerston’s oratory. In the longest, and most telling speeches which he made, he seems never to have thought of the reflex effect upon himself. In his great effort on the Don Pacifico impeachment, or in his reply to Mr. Disraeli in the attack made on Lord Russell in regard to Denmark, his object was to leave such an impression on men’s minds that they should ultimately be brought to show their agreement with his side of the question by the votes which they were to give. It was for this reason that he did his best, and not that he might achieve for himself any palm of oratory. Gladstone bursts into speech that the brightness and splendour and marvel of the moment may be his own. Bright is enabled by his intellect and study, and industry, to carry his admiring hearers along with him. In both cases there seems to be left on the hearer’s mind a feeling that the orator has without doubt established his right to the name. In the latter there is the sense, perhaps, of too great an expenditure of oil in avoiding a superfluous word. With the other, words run riot with such glorious fecundity as to leave an impression that some oil might have been expended in pruning their abundance. In Palmerston there was neither the one nor the other; but in producing the effect which he generally did achieve, there was always an idea present to the hearer, first, that he did not know exactly the words which would best suit his purpose, and then a feeling that he had fallen into their use by some celestial and godlike aid. It was not Palmerston who had made the speech, but some goddess Fortune who had put the words on to his lips.

By Lord Palmerston his capacity for speaking was only a means used for an end. The same may be said of all orators. To persuade others is the art to be achieved. But this is done in most cases by teaching an audience, or teaching the country to believe that the speaker should be credited with the power he seeks to gain because he is great as an orator. It was not simply because Fox was wise that men ranged themselves on his side; but because from his tongue words flowed sweeter than honey. But with Palmerston there was no thought of words flowing sweet. He had come to a special crisis of some difficulty, and men had to be made to vote as he wished them. When that was done, the speech and all belonging to it was, for his purposes, a thing of the past. He thought not at all that men should be rapt in wonder at his words. But the thing that he was doing, the attempt that he was making, the lesson that he was teaching,--the lesson, for instance, that Palmerston was in truth the man in Europe who best understood how Europe might be governed,--that was his object in view, with as little of speech as might be possible, but still with a sufficiency, as such is the mode of governing in England.

But other means were wanting before any credence could be given to the immense claim he made on the confidence of those of his own country and of others. He had to show that he had learned the lesson he attempted to teach, and could do this only by daily industry and indomitable perseverance. And it must be understood that the industry and the perseverance had come before his ambition had formed itself in reference to the management of Europe. We must go back to his early days, when, after spending two years at the Admiralty, he had been, still a lad, transferred to the War Office, to perceive how resolutely he had begun the work of his life. England was at war, and he determined at once to learn all the ways and all the needs of a warfaring nation. But our wars brought us among foreign people;--to Spain, to Portugal, to France, and to the Low Countries. And in this way Palmerston achieved his knowledge of what they wanted and of what we wanted. He had begun to see the claims of other diplomats, and to contest them before he had won his place at our own Foreign Office. He had been a young man of fashion; but that had been added on, out of the superabundance of his nature. Hard work was to him the first necessity of his existence. He loved to be brilliant at Almack’s, but he did not care to carry his brilliance into the House of Commons. It followed him there in his latter years; but that too came from the superabundance of his nature. Some one has said that Palmerston, when at his greatest, was powerful and imperious only with a pen in his hand. We feel that this was so. But it is thus that the official work of a man in office should be done. And as he wrote the scathing letters to his own ambassadors which were intended to be read for the keeping in order of Foreign Ministers, we feel that he was very great. In the course of time they became too bitter. The arbiter of the politics of Europe became like other arbiters, its bully. They who shall hereafter be desirous of saying severe words against him, must if they desire their words to be effectual, confine themselves to this charge. Against his honesty, his industry and his courage we feel that no true word can be said.

INDEX.

Aberdeen, Lord, succeeds Palmerston as Foreign Secretary, 81; Palmerston refers to him as an example of antiquated imbecility, 109; his attempt to avenge the insult, 113; becomes Prime Minister on Lord Derby’s resignation, 147; his timid policy on the eve of the Crimean war, 147, 153; is defeated on Mr. Roebuck’s motion for inquiry, and resigns, 162; helps Palmerston in Court difficulties, 165.

Alma, the battle of, false expectations as to the effects of, 161.

Althorp’s, Lord, elevation to the peerage, some political consequences of, 61.

Ashburton’s, Lord, unsatisfactory treaty with America on the right of search for slavers, 85.

Austria, abdication of the Emperor of, 105; war of Italian Independence, 97, 105-107, 188, 190; Hungarian struggle for independence, 109; abandons Lombardy, 99, 108; Palmerston’s hatred of its political system, 107, 110, 189; Palmerston’s advice to, 105.

Balance of power in Europe, the, 47, 69.

Bedchamber, Ladies of the, Government complications through, 74.

Belgium and Holland, 47; our treaty obligations to, 104.

Bentinck, Lord George, as leader of the House of Commons, 145.

Bright, Mr., preaches peace at the Reform Club, and finds fault with Lord Palmerston, 160; as an orator, 210.

British Legion in Spain, the, 63.

Brocket Hall, 12, 75.

Brougham, Lord, Lamartine’s refusal to naturalize, 104.

Bulwer, Mr., ambassador at Paris, 76.

Cabinet, the English, its exceptional nature, 28.

Canning, Mr., 11, 12, 16; his eloquence, 25; Prime Minister on Lord Liverpool’s death, 31; his influence on Palmerston’s character, 41, 55; his death, 36.

Canning, Sir Stratford, “friend of the Porte,” 110.

Canning’s, Visct, severe speech in the Lords _re_ Don Pacifico, 121; his heroism as Viceroy during the Indian Mutiny, 179.

Catholic Emancipation, 36, 43; circumstances leading to, 38.

Cavour’s surrender of Savoy and Nice, 188.

Chartist riots, 104.

Clarence, the Duke of, Whig sympathies of, 40.

Clarendon, Lord, 8; Foreign Secretary, 155; declares that we drifted into the Crimean war, 170.

Cobden, Mr., attacks Lord Palmerston on his China policy, 176; and loses his seat at the ensuing election, 177.

Cockburn’s, Mr., effective speech on Mr. Roebuck’s motion, 124.

Colonels, the French, 184.

Court interference in foreign politics, Palmerston’s jealousy of, 4, 106.

Crimean War, cause of, 151; “red tape,” 161, 165; cost of, 169; right and wrong of, 170.

Cumberland, the Duke of, a violent Tory, 41; contingent heir to the throne, 74.

Dalling’s, Lord, fragmentary Memoirs of Palmerston, 34, 45.

Danish Expedition, the, the occasion of Palmerston’s maiden speech, 15.

Danubian Principalities, Russian occupation of, 151.

Davis, Lieut., shoots at Palmerston, 22.

Derby, Lord, 6; weakness of his Ministry, 145; resigns on Disraeli’s budget being thrown out, 147; succeeds Lord Palmerston in office, 184; goes out on the question of Reform, 185.

Disraeli, Mr., motion “On the State of the Nation,” 107; member of Lord Derby’s Ministry, 145; his budget is thrown out, 147; strong attack on Russell’s Denmark policy, 197.

Don Pacifico’s claims for compensation, debate on, 7, 14, 83, 122; absurdity of, 114.

Doubleday’s, Mr., Newcastle speech on Palmerston, 72.

Eldon, Lord, exclusion from Wellington’s Cabinet, 37; one of the last of the “Protestants,” 38.

Fitzgerald, Mr. Vesey, County Clare refuses to re-elect, 39.

Free-Trade, the only political question in 1852, 145; Lord Derby’s Government accepts resolution in favour of, 147.

French, the, national love of aggrandisement a misfortune to Europe, 78; schemes for increase of territory, 188, 196.

George III., 18; and the American taxation scheme, 32.

George IV., Prince Regent, 18; personally hates Palmerston, 32; intrigues about Crown lands, 35.

Gladstone, Mr., quits Palmerston’s Cabinet on the Maynooth Grant, 86; on the Tory benches, 123; speaks on the Don Pacifico claims, 123; effect of his Neapolitan letters, 132; retires from Lord Palmerston’s Cabinet at the time of the Crimean war, 166; his versatility, 204; eloquence, 210.

Goderich’s, Lord, brief administration on Canning’s death, 35.

Goulburn, Mr., Chancellor of the Exchequer, 37.

Graham, Sir James, speaks on the Don Pacifico claims, 122; prepares resolution in favour of Free-Trade, 145.

Grant, Charles, 38, 41.

Granville, Lord, as Foreign Secretary and Ambassador at Paris, 33, 48; his difficulties in attempting to form a Government, 186.

Grey, Lord, Prime Minister, 44; resigns, 60.

Guizot, M., in London, 68; disagrees with Palmerston, 76, 77, 81, 84; his share in effecting the Spanish marriages, 93; his fall, 98.

Haynau’s, General, visit to England, 130.

Herries, Mr., 32; Palmerston’s charges against, 35.

Holland, Lord, offends Palmerston, 77.

Hungary: _see_ Austria.

Huskisson, Mr., 37, 41; member of Wellington’s Cabinet, 38.

India, abolition of the East India Company and formation of Indian Civil Service, 181.

Italy, Unification of, 188, 190.

Jamaica Constitution the question of the, 74.

Lamartine, Provisional President of French Republic, 102; receives deputations of Irish agitators, 103.

Lamb, William, 41, 80; is created Lord Melbourne, 60.

Lansdowne, Lord, persuades Palmerston to accept Lord Aberdeen’s offer of the Home Office, 147.

Leopold, King of the Belgians, 51.

Liverpool, Lord, as Prime Minister, 19; Palmerston’s relations with, 21, 24, 30; his death, 25, 31.

Lombardy: _see_ Austria.

Lorcha _Arrow_, the, 175.

Lords, the House of, meddles with taxation, 191.

Louis Philippe’s designs in Egypt, 67, 78; Palmerston’s opinion of, 67, 68, 98; refuses the popular demand for reforms in Paris, 100; takes refuge in England, 101; his death, 129.

Lyndhurst, Lord, 20; as Lord Chancellor, 37.

Malmesbury, Lord, Lord Palmerston’s guardian, 11.

Maynooth Grant, the, 86.

Mehemet Ali’s Eastern schemes, 66; submits to European pressure, 78.

Melbourne, Lord, succeeds Lord Grey as Premier, 60; his close connection with Palmerston, 12, 80; death, 80.

Mentschikoff crosses the Pruth, 151.

Metternich, Palmerston’s dislike of, 99, 110, 117.

Minto’s, Lord, services at Rome, 95; during Sicilian Revolution, 99.

Montpensier, Duke de, marries the sister of the Queen of Spain, 92.

Mutiny, the Indian, 177-179.

Napier, Sir Charles, “Don Carlos de Ponza,” 66; at Sidon and Acre, 73; Palmerston’s premature praise of, 160.

Napoleon’s, Louis, Coup d’Etat, 132; English opinion on, 133; allied with England in the Crimea, 152, 160; his conduct in the matter of Savoy and Nice, 188; the Danish war, 196.

Newcastle, the Duke of, at the War Office during the Crimean war, 162.

Nicholas, the Czar, claims the protectorate of the Greek Church in Turkey, 151; his mistaken idea of England, 155, 156; dispatches his fleet from Sevastopol, 157; his death, 166.

Nimmo, the Irish engineer, 24, 42.

Normanby, Lord, 94; our Ambassador at Paris, 100, 101; differs from Palmerston on the Greek Compensation question, 116; and as to the Coup d’Etat, 134.

O’Connell, Mr., is elected for Clare, 39; on Irish coercion, 60; is convicted for conspiracy, but released by the Lords, 85.

Orsini, 182.

Osborne, Bernal, 123.

Palmerston, Lord, materials for life of, 1; his tendency to lessen the power of the Crown, 3, 107; two charges against, 4; his success as a Foreign Minister, 8, 27, 46; fifty years in office, 8; his character, 9, 16, 17; constitution, 10; “Cupid,” 10, 20, 25; early life and education, 10, 11; stands unsuccessfully for the University of Cambridge, 11; unseated for Horsham, 11; member for Newtown, 11; Junior Lord, 11; member for Tiverton, 12, 62, 77; his means, 12; as an Irish landlord, 12, 23, 42; his advantages of person, 12; his mode of life, 12, 26; advocates a military college, 15; as an orator, 15, 24, 211; his first speech in Parliament, 16; Secretary at War, 17, 33; magnifies the office, 20; political apprenticeship, 17; theory of official life, 17, 18, 20, 26, 42, 53; Tory traditions and Liberal leanings, 10, 18, 30; member for Cambridge, 1812-25, 19; enters Lord Liverpool’s Cabinet, 3, 19, 27; impression made on contemporaries by, 16, 25, 26; his parliamentary reticence, 19, 24, 62, 63; sides with the Whigs on the Catholic claims, 21, 24, 38; at Paris--reference to Napoleon’s pictures, 21; shot at by Lieut. Davis, 22; visits the scene of Waterloo--low opinion of the Belgians, 22; his estimate of Hume, 23; his style of letter-writing, 23, 64; his pluck and good-humour, 15, 26, 148; business capacities and energy, 25, 212; his political self-reliance, 29, self-diffidence, 30, and stubbornness, 31; Palmerston and Herries, 35; refuses the Gov.-Generalship of India, 32; favours the Catholics, 38; quits the Duke of Wellington’s Cabinet, 38; anxious for Greek independence, 39; out of office, 40; fallen among the Whigs, 41, 58; his exertions for Catholic Emancipation, 43; “hammering away” at the Slave Trade, 43, 56, 58, 81, 84; Palmerston and Parliamentary Reform, 44, 53, 150; becomes Whig Foreign Secretary under Lord Grey, 44, 47, 48; his autobiography, 33, 47; takes up the Belgian question, 48; opposes the policy of Louis Philippe, 53, 68; member for S. Hants, 54, 62; the Quadruple Alliance, 55, 59; a disciple of Canning, 55, 59; incessant work, 58, 103; out of office, 60; his cordiality with William IV., 61; back at the Foreign Office under Lord Melbourne, 62; speaks on the British Legion in Spain, 64; policy on the Eastern question--inaugurates the English protectorate of the Sultan, 71; Mr. Urquhart’s charges--“Russian Gold,” 72; on British interests, 73, 85; takes part in the discussion of the Bedchamber question, 74; marries Lord Melbourne’s sister, 75; success of his Eastern policy, 78; resigns with the Melbourne Government, 81; in opposition,--attacks Lord Stanley, 82; his doings on the Turf, 74, 84; on the right of search for slaves, 85; returns to the Foreign Office under Lord Russell, 88; his attitude towards the Spanish marriages, 90; as a politician compared with Guizot, 95, 201; on the partition of Poland, 94, 104; his advances to Rome in view of Irish disaffection, 97; his attitude towards the French Revolution, 100, 101; protests against Lamartine’s speeches on Irish disorder, 103; advice to Austria on Northern Italy, 105; on the French occupation of Rome, 108; befriends the Hungarian refugees, 110; his political arrogance, 96, 112, 118, 130, 139; causes ill-feeling among European diplomats, 115, 117, 203; presses Don Pacifico’s claims, 120, 129; his great speech on Mr. Roebuck’s motion, 124; at the culminating point of his career, 127; his interest in the Volunteer movement and Fortification schemes, and in the Great Exhibition, 131; believes in Louis Napoleon, 134; his indiscreet utterances on the Coup d’Etat bring about his dismissal, 135; Palmerston “is smashed,” 141; turns out Lord Russell on the Militia Bill, 143; refuses to serve under Lord Derby, 145; proposes a resolution on Free-Trade, 146; at the Home Office under Lord Aberdeen, 148; deputations, 149; presses for more active measures against Russia in the East, 150, 153, 155, 159; Palmerston’s luck, 151; controversy with Mr. Bright, 160; an anomalous Home Secretary, 161; resigns with the Aberdeen Ministry on the eve of the Crimean war, 162; refuses to serve under Lord Derby, and is called upon to form a Ministry himself, 163; circumstances of his advent to power, and his qualifications to meet them, 166; as a politician compared with Lord Russell, 167; his instructions for the Crimean army, 168; must be held mainly responsible for the war, 173, 178; created K.G., 174; is defeated on the China question, and appeals successfully to the country, 176; his popularity, 177, 178; his splendid success in dealing with the Indian Mutiny, 178; speech at the Mansion House on the Indian Mutiny, 180; abolishes the East India Company, 182; brings in the Conspiracy Bill, 182; is defeated on the Tory amendment and resigns, 184; becomes a second time Prime Minister, 187; promotes the unification of Italy, 188; distrusts Napoleon, 189, 196; organizing the Volunteers, 190; Warden of the Cinque Ports, 191; abolishes the paper duties, 191; maintains England’s neutrality during the American war of Secession, 193; sends the Guards to Canada, 195; his European policy during the Danish war, 197; his last speech in the House of Commons, 198; is buried in Westminster Abbey, 199; “Civis Romanus,” 201; general view of his career as Minister, 200; compared as a statesman with Gladstone and Canning, 204; his manliness, 209.

Panmure, Lord, Minister of War, 167.

Peel, Sir Robert, Palmerston’s opinion of, 24; Home Secretary, 37; vainly attempts to form a Government, 74; repeals the Corn Laws, 87; resigns, 88; last speech in the House, 123.

Percival, Mr., Prime Minister, 16, 18; assassinated, 19.

Petty, Lord Henry, defeats Palmerston at Cambridge, 11.

Pitt, the death of, 11, 14.

Ponsonby, Lord, our Ambassador at Vienna, 102; opposes Palmerston’s Eastern policy, 111.

Portland, the Duke of, 12.

Pope Pio Nono, Palmerston’s great expectations for Italy from his supposed liberalism, 96; his letter to McHale on Irish grievances, 97; escapes from Rome, 108.

Prince Consort, misjudges Palmerston, 2, 4, 6; opinions on the Crimean war, 156; his death, 192.

Quadruple Alliance, the, 54.

Queen’s, The, displeasure with Palmerston, 4, 141; coronation, 65; refuses Peel’s demand for the dismissal of her Ladies of the Bedchamber, 74; at the Great Exhibition, 131; her favour shown to Palmerston, 7, 165.

Raglan, Lord, in command at the Crimea, 161, 167.

Redcliffe, Sir Stratford de, encourages the Porte in resisting Russian demands, 152.

Reform Bill, Lord Grey’s, 31.

Rémusat discloses the French policy in Egypt, 78.

Roebuck, Mr., chosen to raise the question of Pacifico’s claims in the House of Commons, 122; moves inquiry into the state of the army, 162, 165.

Rome, French occupation of, 108.

Russell, Lord John, as a leader of the House of Commons, 81; succeeds Sir R. Peel as Prime Minister, 88; his powerful speech on Palmerston’s dismissal, 141; is turned out by Palmerston on the Militia Bill, 143; Foreign Secretary under Lord Aberdeen, 147; deserts the Government, 162; loses caste thereby, 164; joins Palmerston’s Government, 163; diplomatic failure at the Vienna Conference, 166; moves amendment to the Tory Reform Bill, 185; created a peer, 193.

Search for slavers, the right of, 85.

Sebastiani, Count, 49.

Secession, the American war of, causes of, 192; tension of international feeling during, 194.

Sick Man, chattels of the, 152, 171.

Sinope, sea-fight at, 158.

Slavery, the Abolition of, 55.

Smith O’Brien heads the Irish deputation to Paris, 103.

Spanish marriages, the, 90; their disastrous consequences, 93, 94.

Spencer, Lord, 61.

Stockmar’s, Baron, influence with the Prince Consort, 3; his opinion of Palmerston, 10.

Stanley, Lord, attacked by Palmerston, 83; opposes Repeal of the Corn Laws, 88; his speech against Palmerston’s position towards the Don Pacifico claims, 83, 112, 113.

Talleyrand in London, 49; hates Palmerston, 202.

Temple, Sir Wm., Palmerston’s brother, our Ambassador at Naples, 175.

Thiers, M., as French Minister, 68, 76; break-up of his policy, 78.

Tory Government, the last rally, 32.

_Trent_, the British steamer, Captain Wilkes boards, 195.

Turk, the doom of the, 172.

Urquhart, Mr., attacks Palmerston in his pamphlets, 72.

Vienna, the Treaty of, 47, 94; question of remodelling, 196.

Vienna, abortive Conference at, 152; second Conference at, 166, 167.

Walewski and the Coup d’Etat, 135.

Wellington, the Duke of, 21; resigns Command-in-Chief, 33; a soldier-statesman, 36; succeeds Lord Goderich as Prime Minister, 37; weakness of his Government, 43; Prime Minister again, 60.

William IV., a true Liberal, 61.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] When quotations from letters or speeches are made in the following pages they are taken from his work, unless it is otherwise stated.

[B] “Life of the Prince Consort,” vol. ii. p. 419.

[C] “Life of the Prince Consort,” vol. iii. p. 206.

[D] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 275.

[E] See the _Edinburgh Review_ for January, 1874, p. 196.

[F] Morley’s “Life of Cobden,” vol. i. note on p. 82.

[G] “Memoir of Right Hon. John Charles Herries,” by his son, Edward Herries, C.B.; with an introduction by Sir Charles Herries, K.C.B.; published 1880.

[H] When we read Mr. Kinglake’s picturesque account of the manner in which the _Coup d’Etat_ was prepared, we find it hard to understand that Lord Palmerston should have believed as he did. It is odd that two honest men should have entertained opinions so different. Lord Palmerston, no doubt, spoke immediately after the event, and the historian did not give his account till ten years later. But in the meantime the Emperor had been generally “approved of” in England, and the question arises whether the approval had been deserved. There were many here in England who never thought so, and to them the assent of Lord Palmerston has always been distressing.

[I] I think it should be remembered,--though I cannot give absolute proof for such an opinion,--that Palmerston, previous to the _Coup d’Etat_, had expressed his opinion in favour of an Empire for France; and it is probable that this opinion had previously reached Napoleon’s ears. Guided by what he had seen of a former Republic, he did not believe in a new Republic for France. There might have been an idea, on the part of the Crown, that in expressing this opinion, even in private speech or in public writing, he had gone too far. His personal feeling for the Emperor was, no doubt, friendly and strong, till subsequently Nice and Savoy had, as he felt treacherously, been taken from Italy and added to France. At that date Palmerston’s personal friendship for the Emperor is supposed to have ceased.

[J] The words were;--“If you should be of opinion that recent legislation, in contributing, with other causes, to this happy result, has at the same time inflicted unavoidable injury on certain important interests, I recommend you dispassionately to consider how it may be practicable equitably to mitigate that injury, and to enable the industry of the country to meet successfully that unrestricted competition to which Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided that it should be subjected.”

[K] “Life of Prince Consort,” vol. ii. p. 525.

[L] “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 374.

[M] “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 378.

[N] Lord Ellenborough, when he was Secretary for India, had found fault with Lord Canning, and had been forced to resign.