October 20, 2010 <Back to Index>
PAGE SPONSOR |
Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, more popularly known simply as Lord Palmerston KG, GCB, PC (20 October 1784 – 18 October 1865) was a British statesman who served twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century. Popularly nicknamed "Pam", he was in government office almost continuously from 1807 until his death in 1865, beginning his parliamentary career as a Tory and concluding it as a Liberal. He is best remembered for his direction of British foreign policy through a period when the United Kingdom was at the height of its power, serving terms as both Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. Some of his aggressive actions, now sometimes termed liberal interventionist, were greatly controversial at the time, and remain so today. He was the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to die in office.
Henry John Temple was born in his family's Westminster house to the Irish branch of the Temple family on the 20th of October 1784. He was educated at Harrow School, the University of Edinburgh, and St John's College, Cambridge, he
succeeded his father to the title of Viscount Palmerston on 17 April
1802, before he had turned 18. Over the next 6 years he was defeated in
two elections for the University of Cambridge constituency, but entered parliament as Tory MP for the pocket borough of Newport on the Isle of Wight in June 1807. Thanks to the patronage of Lord Chichester and Lord Malmesbury, he was given the post of Junior Lord of the Admiralty in the ministry of the Duke of Portland. A few months later, he delivered his first speech in the House of Commons in defence of the Battle of Copenhagen (1807), which he justified by reference to the ambitions of Napoleon to take control of the Danish court. Lord Palmerston's speech was so successful that Perceval,
who formed his government in 1809, asked him to become Chancellor of
the Exchequer, then a less important office than it was to become from
the mid nineteenth century. Lord Palmerston preferred the office of
Secretary at War, charged exclusively with the financial business of
the army. Without a seat in the cabinet, he remained in the latter post
for 20 years. In the later years of Lord Liverpool's Tory administration, after the suicide of Castlereagh in 1822, the cabinet began to split along political lines. The more liberal wing of the Tory government made some ground, with George Canning becoming Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons, William Huskisson advocating
and applying the doctrines of free trade, and Catholic emancipation
emerging as an open question. Although Lord Palmerston was not in the
cabinet, he cordially supported the measures of Canning and his friends. Upon
the death of Lord Liverpool, Canning was called to be Prime Minister.
The more conservative Tories, including Peel, withdrew their support,
and an alliance was formed between the liberal members of the late
ministry and the Whigs. The post of Chancellor of the Exchequer was
offered to Lord Palmerston, who accepted it, but this appointment was
frustrated by some intrigue between the King and John Charles Herries.
Lord Palmerston remained Secretary at War, though he gained a seat in
the cabinet for the first time. The Canning administration ended after
only four months on the death of the Prime Minister, and was followed
by the ministry of Lord Goderich, which barely survived the year. The Canningites remained influential, and the Duke of Wellington hastened to include Lord Palmerston, Huskisson, Charles Grant, William Lamb, and The Earl of Dudley in
the government he subsequently formed. However, a dispute between
Wellington and Huskisson over the issue of parliamentary representation
for Manchester and Birmingham led to the resignation of Huskisson and
his allies, including Lord Palmerston. In the spring of 1828, after
more than twenty years continuously in office, Lord Palmerston found himself in opposition. Following
his move to opposition, Lord Palmerston appears to have focused closely
on foreign policy. He had already urged Wellington into active
interference in the Greek War of Independence, and he had made several visits to Paris, where he foresaw with great accuracy the impending overthrow of the Bourbons. On 1 June 1829 he made his first great speech on foreign affairs. Palmerston
was a great orator. His language was relatively unstudied and his
delivery somewhat embarrassed, but he generally found words to say the
right thing at the right time and to address the House of Commons in
the language best adapted to the capacity and the temper of his
audience. An attempt was made by the Duke of Wellington in September
1830 to induce Lord Palmerston to re-enter the cabinet, but he refused
to do so without Lord Lansdowne and Lord Grey, two notable Whigs. This can be said to be the point at which his party allegiance changed. When Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey,
came to power a few months later in 1830, he not surprisingly placed
foreign affairs in Lord Palmerston's hands. He entered the office with
great energy and continued to exert his influence there for twenty
years, which he held it from 1830-1834, 1835-1841, and 1846-1851. His
abrasive style earned him the nickname "Lord Pumice Stone", and his
manner of dealing with foreign governments who crossed him was the
original "gunboat diplomacy." The revolutions of 1830 gave a jolt to the settled European system that had been created after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands was rent in half by the Belgian Revolution, the Kingdom of Portugal was the scene of civil war, and the Spanish were about to place an infant princess on the throne. Poland was in arms against the Russian Empire (the November Uprising),
while the northern powers formed a closer alliance that seemed to
threaten the peace and liberties of Europe. Lord Palmerston was
prepared to act with spirit and resolution in the face of these varied
difficulties, and the result was notable diplomatic success. William I of the Netherlands appealed
to the great powers that had placed him on the throne after the
Napoleonic Wars to maintain his rights; a conference assembled
accordingly in London.
The British solution involved the independence of Belgium, which Lord
Palmerston believed would greatly contribute to the security of
Britain, but any solution was not straightforward. On the one hand, the
northern powers were anxious to defend William I; on the other, many
Belgian revolutionaries, like Charles de Brouckère and Charles Rogier, supported the reunion of the Belgian provinces to France.
The policy of the UK government was a close alliance with France, but
one subject to the balance of power on the Continent, and in particular
the preservation of Belgium. If the northern powers supported William I
by force, they would encounter the resistance of France and the UK
united in arms. If France sought to annex Belgium, she would forfeit
the alliance of the UK, and find herself opposed by the whole of
Europe. In the end the UK's policy prevailed. Although the continent
had been close to war, peace was maintained on UK terms and Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the widower of a British princess, was placed upon the throne of Belgium. In 1833 and 1834 the youthful Queens Maria II of Portugal and Isabella II of Spain were
the representatives and the hope of the constitutional parties of their
countries. Their positions were under some pressure from their
absolutist kinsmen, Dom Miguel of Portugal and Don Carlos of
Spain, who were the closest males in the lines of succession. Lord
Palmerston conceived and executed the plan of a quadruple alliance of
the constitutional states of the West to serve as a counterpoise to the
northern alliance. A treaty for the pacification of the Peninsula was
signed in London on 22 April 1834 and, although the struggle was
somewhat prolonged in Spain, it accomplished its objective. France had been a reluctant party to the treaty, and never executed her role in it with much zeal. Louis Philippe was accused of secretly favouring the Carlists -
the supporters of Don Carlos - and he rejected direct interference in
Spain. It is probable that the hesitation of the French court on this
question was one of the causes of the enduring personal hostility Lord
Palmerston showed towards the French King thereafter, though that
sentiment may well have arisen earlier. Although Lord Palmerston wrote
in June 1834 that Paris was "the pivot of my foreign policy", the
differences between the two countries grew into a constant but sterile
rivalry that brought benefit to neither.
Lord Palmerston was greatly interested by the diplomatic questions of Eastern Europe. During the Greek War of Independence he
had energetically supported the Greek cause and backed the Treaty of
Constantinople that gave Greece its independence. However, from 1830
the defence of the Ottoman Empire became
one of the cardinal objects of his policy. He believed in the
regeneration of Turkey. "All that we hear", he wrote to Bulwer (Lord
Dalling), "about the decay of the Turkish Empire, and its being a dead
body or a sapless trunk, and so forth, is pure unadulterated nonsense." His two great aims were to prevent Russia establishing itself on the Bosporus and to prevent France doing likewise on the Nile. He regarded the maintenance of the authority of the Sublime Porte as the chief barrier against both these developments. Lord
Palmerston had long maintained a suspicious and hostile attitude
towards Russia, whose autocratic government offended his liberal
principles and whose ever-growing size challenged the strength of the
British Empire. He was angered by the 1833 Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi, a mutual assistance pact between Russia and the Ottomans, and he was a party to the mission of the Vixen to run the Russian blockade of Circassia in the late 1830s. In 1833 and 1835 his proposals to afford material aid to the Turks against Muhammad Ali, the pasha of Egypt,
was overruled by the cabinet. Lord Palmerston held that "if we can
procure for it ten years of peace under the joint protection of the
five Powers, and if those years are profitably employed in reorganizing
the internal system of the empire, there is no reason whatever why it
should not become again a respectable Power" and challenged the
[metaphor] that an old country, such as Turkey, should be in such
disrepair as would be warranted by the comparison: "Half the wrong
conclusions at which mankind arrive are reached by the abuse of
metaphors, and by mistaking general resemblance or imaginary similarity
for real identity." However,
when the power of Ali appeared to threaten the existence of the Ottoman
dynasty, particularly given the death of the Sultan on 1 July 1839, he
succeeded in bringing the great powers together to sign a collective
note on the 27 July pledging them to maintain the independence and
integrity of the Turkish Empire in order to preserve the security and
peace of Europe. However, by 1840 Ali had occupied Syria and won the Battle of Nezib against the Turkish forces. Lord Ponsonby, the British ambassador at Constantinople,
vehemently urged the British government to intervene. Having closer
ties to the pasha than most, France refused to be a party to coercive
measures against Ali despite having signed the note in the previous
year. Lord Palmerston, irritated at France's Egyptian policy, signed the London Convention of 15 July 1840 in London with Austria, Russia and Prussia -
without the knowledge of the French government. This measure was taken
with great hesitation, and strong opposition on the part of several
members of the UK cabinet. Lord Palmerston forced the measure through
in part by declaring in a letter to the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, that he would resign from the ministry if his policy were not adopted. The
London Convention granted Muhammad Ali hereditary rule in Egypt in
return for withdrawal from Syria and Lebanon, but was rejected by the
pasha. The European powers intervened with force, and the bombardment of Beirut, the fall of Acre,
and the total collapse of the power of Ali followed in rapid
succession. Lord Palmerston's policy was triumphant, and the author of
it had won a reputation as one of the most powerful statesmen of the
age. At the same time as she was acting with Russia in the Levant, the British government engaged in the affairs of Afghanistan in order to stem her advance into Central Asia, and fought the First Opium War with China which ended in the conquest of Chusan, later to be exchanged for the island of Hong Kong. In
all these actions Lord Palmerston brought to bear a great deal of
patriotic vigour and energy. This made him very popular among the
ordinary people of Britain, but his passion, propensity to act through
personal animosity, and imperious language made him seem dangerous and
destabilising in the eyes of the Queen and his more conservative colleagues in government. Within
a few months Melbourne's administration came to an end (1841) and Lord
Palmerston remained for five years out of office. The crisis was past,
but the change which took place by the substitution of François Guizot for Adolphe Thiers in France, and of Lord Aberdeen for
Lord Palmerston in the UK, was a fortunate event for the peace of the
world. Lord Palmerston had adopted the opinion that peace with France
was not to be relied on, and indeed that war between the two countries
was sooner or later inevitable. Aberdeen and Guizot inaugurated a
different policy; by mutual confidence and friendly offices, they
entirely succeeded in restoring the most cordial understanding between
the two governments, and the irritation which Lord Palmerston had
inflamed gradually subsided. During the administration of Sir Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston led a retired life, but he attacked with characteristic bitterness the Webster-Ashburton Treaty with the United States, which closed successfully some other questions he had long kept open. Lord
Palmerston's reputation as an interventionist and his unpopularity with
the Queen and other Whig grandees was such that when Lord John Russell attempted in December 1845 to form a ministry, the combination failed because Lord Grey refused
to join a government in which Lord Palmerston should resume the
direction of foreign affairs. A few months later, however, this
difficulty was surmounted; the Whigs returned to power, and Lord
Palmerston to the foreign office (July 1846) with a strong assurance
that Russell should exercise a strict control over his proceedings. A
few days sufficed to show how vain were this expectation.
The
French government regarded the appointment of Lord Palmerston as a
certain sign of renewed hostilities. They availed themselves of a
dispatch in which he had put forward the name of a Coburg prince as a
candidate for the hand of the young queen of Spain as a justification
for a departure from the engagements entered into between Guizot and
Lord Aberdeen. However little the conduct of the French government in
this transaction of the Spanish marriages can be vindicated, it is
certain that it originated in the belief that in Lord Palmerston France
had a restless and subtle enemy. The efforts of the British minister to
defeat the French marriages of the Spanish princesses, by an appeal to
the Treaty of Utrecht and
the other powers of Europe, were wholly unsuccessful; France won the
game, though with no small loss of honourable reputation.
The
revolutions of 1848 spread like a conflagration through Europe, and
shook every throne on the Continent except those of Russia, Spain, and
Belgium. Lord Palmerston sympathized, or was supposed to sympathize,
openly with the revolutionary party abroad. In particular, he was a
strong advocate of national self-determination, and stood firmly on the side of constitutional liberties on the Continent.
No state was regarded by him with more aversion than Austria. Yet, his opposition to Austria was chiefly based upon her occupation of northeastern Italy and
her Italian policy. Lord Palmerston maintained that the existence of
Austria as a great power north of the Alps was an essential element in
the system of Europe. Antipathies and sympathies had a large share in
the political views of Lord Palmerston, and his sympathies had ever
been passionately awakened by the cause of Italian independence. He
supported the Sicilians against the King of Naples, and even allowed arms to be sent them from the arsenal at Woolwich. Although he had endeavoured to restrain the King of Sardinia from
his rash attack on the superior forces of Austria, he obtained for him
a reduction of the penalty of defeat. Austria, weakened by the
revolution, sent an envoy to London to request the mediation of the UK,
based on a large cession of Italian territory. Lord Palmerston rejected
the terms he might have obtained for Piedmont. After a couple of years
this wave of revolution was replaced by a wave of reaction.
In Hungary the civil war, which had thundered at the gates of Vienna, was brought to a close by Russian intervention. Prince Schwarzenberg assumed
the government of the empire with dictatorial power. In spite of what
Lord Palmerston termed his judicious bottle-holding, the movement he
had encouraged and applauded, but to which he could give no material
aid, was everywhere subdued. The British government, or at least Lord
Palmerston as its representative, was regarded with suspicion and
resentment by every power in Europe, except the French republic. Even
that was shortly afterwards to be alienated by Lord Palmerston's attack
on Greece. When Louis Kossuth,
the Hungarian democrat and leader of its constitutionalists, landed in
the UK, Lord Palmerston proposed to receive him at Broadlands, a design
which was only prevented by a peremptory vote of the cabinet. This
state of things was regarded with the utmost annoyance by the British
court and by most of the British ministers. On many occasions, Lord
Palmerston had taken important steps without their knowledge, which
they disapproved. Over the Foreign Office he asserted and exercised an arbitrary dominion, which the feeble efforts of the premier could not control. The Queen and the Prince Consort did
not conceal their indignation at the fact that they were held
responsible for Lord Palmerston's actions by the other Courts of Europe. When Benjamin Disraeli and
others took several nights in the House of Commons to impeach Lord
Palmerston's foreign policy, the foreign minister responded to a
five-hour speech by Anstey with
a five-hour speech of his own, the first of two great speeches in which
he laid out a comprehensive defence of his foreign policy and of
liberal interventionism more generally. Reviewing his whole
parliamentary career - reminding him, he joked, of a drowning man's
visions of his past life - he said: I
hold that the real policy of England... is to be the champion of
justice and right, pursuing that course with moderation and prudence,
not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her
moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and
whenever she thinks that wrong has been done. It
is generally supposed that Russell and the Queen both hoped that the
other would take the initiative and dismiss Lord Palmerston; the Queen
was dissuaded by Prince Albert, who took the limits of constitutional
power very seriously, and Russell by Lord Palmerston's prestige with
the people and his competence in an otherwise remarkably inept Cabinet. In 1850 he took advantage of Don Pacifico's
claims on the Hellenic government and blockaded the kingdom of Greece.
As Greece was under the joint protection of three powers, Russia and
France protested against its coercion by the British fleet. The French
ambassador temporarily left London, which promptly led to the
termination of the affair. Nevertheless, it was taken up in parliament
with great warmth. After a memorable debate (17 June), Lord Palmerston's policy was condemned by a vote of the House of Lords. The House of Commons was
moved by Roebuck to reverse the sentence, which it did 29 June by a
majority of 46, after having heard from Lord Palmerston. This was the
most eloquent and powerful speech he ever delivered, wherein he sought
to vindicate not only his claims on the Greek government for Don
Pacifico, but his entire administration of foreign affairs. It
was in this speech, which lasted five hours, Lord Palmerston made the
well known declaration that a British subject ought everywhere to be
protected by the strong arm of the British government against injustice
and wrong; comparing the reach of the British Empire to that of the
Roman Empire, in which a Roman citizen could walk the earth unmolested
by any foreign power. This was the famous Civis Romanus sum speech. Yet,
notwithstanding this parliamentary triumph, there were not a few of his
own colleagues and supporters who condemned the spirit in which the
foreign relations of the Crown were carried on. In that same year, the
Queen addressed a minute to the Prime Minister in which she recorded
her dissatisfaction at the manner in which Lord Palmerston evaded the
obligation to submit his measures for the royal sanction as failing in
sincerity to the Crown. This minute was communicated to Lord
Palmerston, who did not resign upon it; a crucial precedent, this was
taken to be an indication that he viewed the source of his power as no
longer being royal approval, but constitutional power. These
various circumstances, and many more, had given rise to distrust and
uneasiness in the cabinet, and these feelings reached their climax when
Lord Palmerston on the occurrence of the coup d'état by
which Louis Napoleon, President since 1848, made himself master of
France, expressed to the French ambassador in London, without the
concurrence of his colleagues, his personal approval of that act. Upon
this Lord John Russell advised his dismissal from office (Dec. 1851).
Lord Palmerston got his revenge a few weeks later, when he brought down
the Russell government in an amendment to the Militia Bill - his "tit
for tat with Johnny Russell" as he put it.
After a brief period of Tory minority government, the Earl of Aberdeen became Prime Minister in a coalition government of Whigs and Peelites (with Russell taking the role of Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons). Being impossible for them to form a government without Lord Palmerston, he was made Home Secretary in
December 1852. Many people considered this a curious appointment
because Lord Palmerston's expertise was so obviously in foreign affairs. Lord
Palmerston's exile from his traditional realm of the Foreign Office
meant he did not have full control over British policy during the
events precipitating the Crimean War. One of his biographers, Jasper Ridley, argues that had he been in control of foreign policy at this time, war in the Crimea would have been avoided. Lord
Palmerston argued in Cabinet, after Russian troops concentrated on the
Ottoman border in February 1853, that the Royal Navy should join the
French fleet in the Dardanelles as a warning to Russia. He was overruled, however. In May 1853 the Russians threatened to invade the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia unless
the Ottoman Sultan surrendered to their demands. Lord Palmerston argued
for immediate decisive action; the Royal Navy should be sent to the
Dardanelles to assist the Turkish navy and that Britain should inform
Russia of her intention to go to war with her if she invaded the
principalities. However, Lord Aberdeen objected to all of Lord
Palmerston's proposals. After prolonged arguments, Lord Aberdeen agreed
to send a fleet to the Dardanelles but objected to his other proposals.
The Russian Tsar was annoyed by Britain's actions but it was not enough
to deter him. When the British fleet arrived at the Dardanelles the
weather was rough so the fleet took refuge in the outer waters of the
straits. The Russians argued that this was a violation of the Straits Convention of
1841 and therefore invaded the two principalities. Lord Palmerston
thought that this was the result of British weakness and thought that
if Russia had been told that if they invaded the principalities the
British and French fleets would enter the Bosphorus or the Black Sea, she would have been deterred. In
Cabinet, Lord Palmerston argued for a vigorous prosecution of the war
against Russia by Britain but Lord Aberdeen objected, as he wanted
peace. Public opinion was on the side of the Turks and with Aberdeen
becoming steadily unpopular, Lord Dudley Stuart in
February 1854 noted, "Wherever I go, I have heard but one opinion on
the subject, and that one opinion has been pronounced in a single word,
or in a single name - Palmerston." As Home Secretary, Lord Palmerston strongly opposed Lord John Russell's
plans for giving the vote to sections of the urban working classes.
When the Cabinet agreed in December 1853 to introduce a bill during the
next session of Parliament in the form which Russell wanted, Lord
Palmerston resigned. However, Aberdeen told him that no definite
decision on reform had been taken and persuaded Lord Palmerston to
return to the Cabinet. On
28 March 1854 Aberdeen, along with France, declared war on Russia for
refusing to withdraw from the principalities. In the winter of 1854-5,
the British troops at Sevastopol suffered from the harsh conditions and military setbacks such as the Charge of the Light Brigade.
An angry mood swept the country and in January 1855 Aberdeen's
government was forced to set up a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry
into the conduct of the war after losing a Commons vote on the matter.
After the vote, the government resigned. Queen Victoria did not want to
ask Lord Palmerston to form a government and so asked Lord Derby to
accept the premiership. Derby offered Lord Palmerston the office of
Secretary of State for War which he accepted under the condition that Clarendon remained
as Foreign Secretary. Clarendon refused and so Lord Palmerston refused
Derby's offer and Derby subsequently gave up trying to form a
government. The Queen sent for Lansdowne but
he was too old to accept so she asked Russell but none of his former
colleagues except Lord Palmerston wanted to serve under him. Having
exhausted the possible alternatives, the Queen invited Lord Palmerston
to Buckingham Palace on 4 February 1855 to form a government.
In March 1855 the old Tsar, Nicholas I, died and was succeeded by his son, Alexander II, who wished to make peace. However, Lord Palmerston found the peace terms too soft on Russia and so persuaded Napoleon III of France to
break off the peace negotiations. Lord Palmerston was confident that
Sevastopol could be captured and so put Britain in a stronger
negotiating position. In September Sevastopol surrendered when the French captured the Malakov whilst the British were driven back from the Redan after
many casualties. On 27 February 1856 an armistice was signed and after
a month's negotiations an agreement was signed at the Congress of Paris.
Lord Palmerston's demand for a demilitarized Black Sea was secured,
although his wish for the Crimea to be returned to the Ottomans was
not. The peace treaty was signed on 30 March 1856. In April 1856 Lord Palmerston was awarded the Order of the Garter by Victoria. In October 1856 the Chinese seized the pirate ship Arrow.
It had been registered as a British ship two years previously but was
owned by a notorious Chinese pirate. The titular captain was British,
and the crew was Chinese. It was intercepted in Chinese territorial
waters by Chinese coast guards and the Union Flag was pulled down. The
Chinese crew was arrested and the British captain was released. The
British Consul at Canton, Harry Parkes, protested against this insult to the flag and demanded an apology. The Chinese Commissioner Ye Mingchen refused and it was discovered that the Arrow's
registration as a British vessel expired three weeks before it was
seized and therefore had no right to fly the flag or to be exempt from
interception under international law. However, in disregard of
international conventions, Parkes refused to back down in order to save
face and protested that the Chinese did not know it was not a British
ship at the time they accosted it. Parkes sent the Royal Navy to
bombard Ye's palace and it was duly destroyed, along with a large part
of the city and a large loss of life. Ye retaliated by issuing a
proclamation calling on the people of Canton to "unite in exterminating
these troublesome English villains" and offering a $100 bounty for the
head of any Englishman as the British factories outside the city were
burned to the ground in reprisal. When
news of this reached the UK Cabinet, many Ministers thought that
Parkes' action had been both legally and morally wrong, and the
Attorney-General had no doubt that Parkes had acted in breach of
international law. Lord Palmerston, however, backed Parkes on the
principle that subordinates' actions should not be second-guessed. The
government's policy was subsequently strongly attacked in the Commons
on high moral grounds by Cobden and Gladstone during a censure debate.
On the fourth night of the debate (3 March 1857), Lord Palmerston
attacked Cobden and his speech as being pervaded by "an anti-English
feeling, an abnegation of all those ties which bind men to their
country and to their fellow-countrymen, which I should hardly have
expected from the lips of any member of this House. Everything that was
English was wrong, and everything that was hostile to England was
right." Lord
Palmerston went on to claim that if the motion of censure was carried
it would signal that the House had voted to "abandon a large community
of British subjects at the extreme end of the globe to a set of
barbarians - a set of kidnapping, murdering, poisoning barbarians." The
censure motion was carried by a majority of sixteen and Lord Palmerston
requested to the Queen that Parliament be dissolved for a general
election, which it duly was. On the international front, the
Sino-British crisis escalated subsequently and culminated in the Second Opium War. Lord Palmerston's stance was very popular in the country and his party achieved the biggest parliamentary majority since 1835. Cobden and Bright lost their seats and Lord Shaftesbury wrote of the election: [Palmerston]'s
popularity is wonderful — strange to say, the whole turns on his name.
There seems to be no measure, no principle, no cry, to influence men's
minds and determine elections; it is simply, "Were you, or were you
not? are you, or are you not, for Palmerston?" After the election, Lord Palmerston passed the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 which
for the first time made it possible for courts to grant a divorce and
removed divorce from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. The
opponents in Parliament, which included Gladstone, were the first in
British history to try and kill a bill by talking it out. Nonetheless, Palmerston was determined to get the bill through, which he did. In June news came to Britain of the Indian Mutiny and the attacks on British people there. Lord Palmerston sent Sir Colin Campbell and reinforcements to India. Lord Palmerston also agreed to transfer the authority of the British East India Company to the Crown. This was enacted in the Government of India Act 1858. After an Italian republican named Felice Orsini tried
to assassinate the French emperor with a bomb made in Britain, the
French were outraged. Lord Palmerston introduced a Conspiracy to Murder
Bill which made it a felony to
plot in Britain to murder someone abroad. At first reading, the
Conservatives voted for it but at second reading they voted against it.
Lord Palmerston lost by nineteen votes. Therefore, in February 1858 he
was forced to resign. However, the Conservatives lacked a majority and
Russell introduced a resolution in March 1859 arguing for widening the
franchise, which the Conservatives opposed but which was carried.
Parliament was dissolved and a general election ensued.
Lord Palmerston rejected an offer from Disraeli to become Conservative
leader, but he attended the meeting of 6 June 1859 in Willis's Rooms at
St James Street where the Liberal Party was formed. The queen asked Lord Granville to
form a government but although Palmerston agreed, Russell did not.
Therefore, on 12 June the Queen asked Lord Palmerston to become Prime
Minister. Russell and Gladstone agreed to serve under him. French intervention in Italy had created an invasion scare and Lord Palmerston established a Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom which reported in 1860. It recommended a huge programme of fortifications to protect the Royal Navy Dockyards, which Palmerston vigorously supported. Objecting to the enormous expense, William Gladstone threatened to resign as Chancellor when the proposals were accepted. The resulting forts came to be known as "Palmerston's Follies". Lord Palmerston's sympathies in the American Civil War (1861-5) were with the secessionist Southern Confederacy of
pro-slavery states. Although a professed opponent of the slave trade
and slavery, he also had a deep life-long hostility towards the United
States and believed that a dissolution of the Union would weaken the
United States (and therefore enhance British power) and that a southern
Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British
manufactures". At the beginning of the Civil War, Britain had issued a proclamation of neutrality on 13 May 1861. Lord Palmerston decided to recognise the Confederacy as a belligerent and
to receive their unofficial representatives (although he decided
against recognising the South as a sovereign state because he thought
this would be premature). The United States Secretary of State, William Seward,
threatened to treat any country which recognised the Southern
separatists as a belligerent, as an enemy of the Union and the North.
Lord Palmerston ordered that reinforcements be sent to Canada because
he was convinced that the North would make peace with the South and
then invade Canada. When news reached him of the Confederate victory at Bull Run in
July 1861 he was very pleased, although 15 months later he wrote that
"the American [Civil] War... has manifestly ceased to have any
attainable object as far as the Northerns are concerned, except to get
rid of some more thousand troublesome Irish and Germans. It must be
owned, however, that the Anglo-Saxon race on both sides have shown
courage and endurance highly honourable to their stock". When news came of the Confederate defeat at the Battle of Antietam a week later, this made Palmerston reject Napoleon III of France's offer to recognise the Confederacy. Palmerston
continued to reject subsequent attempts by Confederate supporters to
persuade him to recognise the South as he thought the military
situation did not warrant it. The tide eventually turned in the United
States' favour when the Confederacy was defeated in 1865. After the seizure of the British ship Trent by a United States Navy vessel under Captain Charles Wilkes in
November 1861 to prevent two Southern separatist diplomats making their
way to Europe to campaign for support for the Confederacy against the
United States, Lord Palmerston ordered the Secretary of State for War
to send an extra 3,000 troops to Canada and demanded the release of the
two diplomats. Lord Palmerston called Wilke's actions "a declared and
gross insult" and in a letter to Queen Victoria on 5 December 1861 he
said, "Great Britain is in a better state than at any former time to
inflict a severe blow upon and to read a lesson to the United States
which will not soon be forgotten." In another letter to his Foreign Secretary the next day, he expected there was going to be war between Britain and the North: It
is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the rabid hatred of
England which animates the exiled Irishmen who direct almost all the
Northern newspapers, will so excite the masses as to make it impossible
for Lincoln and Seward to grant our demands; and we must therefore look
forward to war as the probable result. However,
the United States of America's government decided to hand back the
prisoners. Lord Palmerston was convinced that the reinforcements he had
sent to Canada had persuaded the North to acquiesce. Lord Palmerston received a law officer's report he had commissioned on 29 July 1862 which advised him to detain the CSS Alabama because it was being built for the South in the port of Birkenhead and it was therefore a breach of Britain's neutrality. Further, the cotton famine in
industrial regions of the North was beginning to bite, just at the time
when British popular opinion was starting to harden against the
Confederates. The ship had left the port after the order had been sent
on the 31 July but departed too soon for it to be detained, and it went
on to damage Northern shipping. The United States government accused
the British government of complicity in the construction of the ship
and, in the so-called Alabama claims, demanded damages from
Britain. Lord Palmerston refused to pay damages or to refer the dispute
to arbitration. It was not until after his death that his successor
(Gladstone) agreed to these demands and paid the United States
$15,500,000 in gold as damages. Lord Palmerston won another general election in July 1865, increasing his majority. He then had to deal with the outbreak of Fenian violence in Ireland. Lord Palmerston ordered the Viceroy of Ireland, Lord Wodehouse,
to take drastic measures, including a possible suspension of
trial-by-jury and a monitoring of Americans travelling to Ireland. He
believed that the Fenian agitation was caused by America. On 27
September 1865 he wrote to the Secretary for War: The
American assault on Ireland under the name of Fenianism may be now held
to have failed, but the snake is only scotched and not killed. It is
far from impossible that the American conspirators may try and obtain
in our North American provinces compensation for their defeat in
Ireland. He
advised that more armaments be sent to Canada and more troops sent to
Ireland. During these last few weeks of his life, Lord Palmerston
pondered on developments in foreign affairs. He began thinking of a new
friendship with France as "a sort of preliminary defensive alliance"
against America and looked forward to Prussia becoming more powerful as
this would balance against the growing threat from Russia. In a letter
to Russell he warned him that Russia "will in due time become a power
almost as great as the old Roman Empire... Germany ought to be strong
in order to resist Russian aggression." In
early October Lord Palmerston caught a chill and a violent fever. His
last words were, "That's Article 98; now go on to the next." (He was
thinking about diplomatic treaties.) Another
apocryphal version of his last words is: "Die, my dear doctor. That is
the last thing I shall do". He died at 10:45 am on Wednesday, 18
October 1865 two days before his eighty-first birthday. Although Lord
Palmerston wanted to be buried at Romsey Abbey, the Cabinet insisted that he should have a state funeral and be buried at Westminster Abbey, which he was, on 27 October 1865. He was the fourth person not royalty to be granted a state funeral (after Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Nelson, and the Duke of Wellington). Lord Palmerston was an Irish peer and so was not debarred from election to the British House of Commons. He was regarded as a nationalist and as a social conservative. He was considered by some of his contemporaries to be a womaniser; The Times named
him Lord Cupid (on account of his youthful looks), and he was cited, at
the age of 79, as co-respondent in an 1863 divorce case, although it
emerged that the case was nothing more than an attempted blackmail. In
1839, following the death of her husband, he married his mistress of
many years, Emily, Lady Cowper (née Lamb), a noted Whig hostess and sister of Lord Melbourne. They had no legitimate children, although at least one of Lord Cowper's putative children, Lady Emily Cowper, later Countess of Shaftesbury, was widely believed to have been Palmerston's. He was also an avowed abolitionist whose
attempts to abolish the slave trade was one of the most consistent
elements of his foreign policy. His opposition to the slave trade
created tensions with Southern American and the United States over his
insistence that the British navy had the right to search the vessels of
any country if they suspected the vessels were being used in the slave
trade. Lord
Palmerston is remembered for his light-hearted approach to government.
He is once said to have claimed of a particularly intractable problem
relating to Schleswig-Holstein, that only three people had ever understood the problem: one was Prince Albert, who was dead; the second was a German professor, who had gone insane; and the third was himself, who had forgotten it. Florence Nightingale said
of him after his death, "Tho' he made a joke when asked to do the right
thing, he always did it...He was so much more in earnest than he
appeared, he did not do himself justice." An early "biographer" of Palmerston was Karl Marx in 1853. |