Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (20 October 1784 – 18 October 1865), known asLord Palmerston, was a British statesman and politician who served asprime minister of the United Kingdom from 1855 to 1858 and from 1859 to his death in 1865. A member of theTory,Whig andLiberal parties, Palmerston was also the first Liberal prime minister.[1][2][3] He dominatedBritish foreign policy from 1830 to 1865 when Britain stood at the height of its imperial power.
In 1802, Temple succeeded tohis father'sIrish peerage as the 3rdViscount Palmerston. This Irish peerage did not entitle him to a seat in theHouse of Lords and Temple became a Tory MP in the House of Commons in 1807. From 1809 to 1828, he wasSecretary at War, organising the finances of the army. He wasForeign Secretary from 1830–1834, 1835–1841 and 1846–1851, responding to a series of conflicts in Europe.
In 1852, Palmerston becameHome Secretary in the government of theEarl of Aberdeen. As home secretary, Palmerston enacted various social reforms, although he opposed electoral reform. When Aberdeen's coalition fell in 1855 over its handling of theCrimean War, Palmerston was the only man able to sustain a majority in Parliament, and he became prime minister. He had two periods in office, 1855–1858 and 1859–1865, before his death in 1865 at the age of 80 years. Palmerston is considered to have been the "first truly popular" prime minister. He remains the most recent British prime minister to die in office.[4]
Palmerston masterfully controlled public opinion by stimulatingBritish nationalism. He was distrusted byQueen Victoria and most of the political leadership, but he received and sustained the favour of the press and the populace. Historians rank Palmerston as one of the greatest foreign secretaries, due to his handling of great crises, and commitments to thebalance of power and British interests. His policies in relation to India, China, Italy, Belgium and Spain had extensive long-lasting beneficial consequences for Britain. However, Palmerston's leadership during theOpium Wars was questioned and denounced by other prominent statesmen.[5] The consequences of the conquest of India have also been reconsidered with time.[6]
Henry John Temple was born in his family'sWestminster house to the Irish branch of the Temple family on 20 October 1784. His family derived their title from thePeerage of Ireland, although he rarely visitedIreland. His father wasHenry Temple, 2nd Viscount Palmerston (1739–1802), anAnglo-Irish peer, and his mother was Mary (1752–1805), a daughter of Benjamin Mee, a London merchant.[7] From 1792 to 1794, he accompanied his family on a long Continental tour. While in Italy, Palmerston acquired an Italian tutor, who taught him to speak and write fluent Italian.[8] The family owned a hugecountry estate in the north ofCounty Sligo in the northwest of Ireland.[9]
He was educated atHarrow School (1795–1800).Admiral SirAugustus Clifford, 1stBt., was afag to Palmerston,Viscount Althorp andViscount Duncannon and later remembered Palmerston as by far the most merciful of the three.[10] Temple was often engaged in school fights and fellow Old Harrovians remembered Temple as someone who stood up to bullies twice his size.[10] Henry Temple's father took him to the House of Commons in 1799, where the young Palmerston shook hands with the prime minister,William Pitt the Younger.[11]
Temple was then at theUniversity of Edinburgh (1800–1803), where he learnt political economy fromDugald Stewart, a friend of the Scottish philosophersAdam Ferguson andAdam Smith.[12] Temple later described his time at Edinburgh as producing "whatever useful knowledge and habits of mind I possess".[13]Lord Minto wrote to the young Palmerston's parents that Henry Temple was well-mannered and charming. Stewart wrote to a friend, saying of Temple: "In point of temper and conduct he is everything his friends could wish. Indeed, I cannot say that I have ever seen a more faultless character at this time of life, or one possessed of more amiable dispositions."[14]
Henry Temple succeeded his father to the title ofViscount Palmerston on 17 April 1802, before he had turned 18. He also inherited a vastcountry estate in the north ofCounty Sligo in the west ofIreland. He later builtClassiebawn Castle on this estate. Palmerston went toSt John's College, Cambridge (1803–1806).[15] As a nobleman, he was entitled to take hisMA without examinations, but Palmerston wished to obtain his degree through examinations. This was declined, although he was allowed to take the separate college examinations, where he obtained first-class honours.[16]
After war was declared on France in 1803, Palmerston joined theVolunteers mustered to oppose aFrench invasion, being one of the three officers in the unit for St John's College. He was also appointedLieutenant-Colonel Commandant of theRomsey Volunteers.[17] When the Volunteers were subsumed into the Local Militia, he commanded theSouth-West Hampshire Local Militia from March 1809 to April 1816. Based at Romsey the regiment assembled for two weeks' training each year.[18]
In February 1806, Palmerston was defeated in the election for theUniversity of Cambridge constituency.[19] InNovember he was elected forHorsham but was unseated in January 1807, when the Whig majority in the Commons voted for a petition to unseat him.[20]
Due to the patronage ofLord Chichester andLord Malmesbury, Palmerston was given the post of Junior Lord of the Admiralty in the ministry of theDuke of Portland.[21] He stood again for the Cambridge seat inMay, but lost by three votes after he advised his supporters to vote for the other Tory candidate in the two-member constituency so as to ensure a Tory was elected.[22]
Palmerston entered Parliament as Tory MP for thepocket borough ofNewport on the Isle of Wight in June 1807.[23]
On 3 February 1808, he spoke in support of confidentiality in the working of diplomacy, and of the bombardment of Copenhagen and the capture and destruction of theRoyal Danish Navy by theRoyal Navy in theBattle of Copenhagen.[24]Denmark was neutral butNapoleon had recently agreed with theRussians in theTreaty of Tilsit to build a naval alliance against Britain, including using the Danish navy for invading Britain.[25] Pre-empting this, the British offered Denmark the choice of temporarily handing over its navy until the war's end or the destruction of their navy. The Danes refused to comply and so Copenhagen was bombarded. Palmerston justified the attack by peroration with reference to the ambitions of Napoleon to take control of the Danish fleet:
it is defensible on the ground that the enormous power of France enables her to coerce the weaker state to become an enemy of England... It is the law of self-preservation that England appeals for the justification of her proceedings. It is admitted by the honourable gentleman and his supporters, that if Denmark had evidenced any hostility towards this country, then we should have been justified in measures of retaliation... Denmark coerced into hostility stands in the same position as Denmark voluntarily hostile, when the law of self-preservation comes into play...Does anyone believe that Buonaparte will be restrained by any considerations of justice from acting towards Denmark as he has done towards other countries? ... England, according to that law of self-preservation which is a fundamental principle of the law of nations, is justified in securing, and therefore enforcing, from Denmark a neutrality which France would by compulsion have converted into an active hostility.[26]
In a letter to a friend on 24 December 1807, he described the late Whig MPEdmund Burke as possessing "the palm of political prophecy".[27] This would become a metaphor for his own career in divining the course of imperial foreign policy.
Palmerston's speech was so successful thatSpencer Perceval, who formed his government in 1809, asked him to becomeChancellor of the Exchequer, then a less important office than it was to become later. But Palmerston preferred the non-cabinet office ofSecretary at War, charged exclusively with the financial business of the army. He served in that post for almost 20 years.[28]
On 1 April 1818, a retired officer on half-pay, Lieutenant David Davies, who had a grievance about his application from theWar Office for a pension and was also mentally ill, shot Palmerston as he walked up the stairs of the War Office. The bullet only grazed his back and the wound was slight. After learning of Davies' illness, Palmerston paid for his legal defence at the trial, and Davies was sent toBethlem Royal Hospital.[29]
After the suicide ofLord Castlereagh in 1822,Lord Liverpool, who was Prime Minister had to hold together the Tory Cabinet which began to split along political lines. The more liberal wing of the Tory government made some ground, withGeorge Canning becomingForeign Secretary andLeader of the House of Commons,William Huskisson advocating and applying the doctrines of free trade, andCatholic emancipation emerging as an open question. Although Palmerston was not in the Cabinet, he cordially supported the measures of Canning and his friends.[30]
Upon the retirement of Lord Liverpool in April 1827, Canning was called to be prime minister. The more conservative Tories, including SirRobert 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 Palmerston, who accepted it, but this appointment was frustrated by some intrigue between KingGeorge IV andJohn Charles Herries. Lord Palmerston remained Secretary at War, though he gained a seat in the cabinet for the first time. TheCanning administration ended after only four months on the death of the Prime Minister, and was followed by the ministry ofLord Goderich, which barely survived the year.[30]
TheCanningites remained influential, and theDuke of Wellington hastened to include Palmerston, Huskisson,Charles Grant,William Lamb, and theEarl of Dudley inthe 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 Palmerston. In the spring of 1828, after more than twenty years continuously in office, Palmerston found himself in opposition.
On 26 February 1828, Palmerston delivered a speech in favour of Catholic emancipation. He felt that it was unseemly to relieve the "imaginary grievances" of the Dissenters from the established church while at the same time "real afflictions pressed upon the Catholics" of Great Britain.[31] Palmerston also supported parliamentary reform.[32] One of his biographers has stated that: "Like many Pittites, now labelled tories, he was a good whig at heart."[13] TheRoman Catholic Relief Act 1829 finally passed Parliament in 1829 when Palmerston was in the opposition.[33] TheGreat Reform Act passed Parliament in 1832.
Following his move to opposition Palmerston appears to have focused closely on foreign policy. He had already urged Wellington into active interference in theGreek War of Independence, and he had made several visits toParis, where he foresaw with great accuracy the impending overthrow of theBourbons. On 1 June 1829 he made his first great speech on foreign affairs.[30]
Lord Palmerston was no orator; his language was unstudied, and his delivery somewhat embarrassed; but generally he found the 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.
— "Lord Palmerston",Encyclopaedia Britannica 13th Edition
in September 1830, Wellington tried to induce Palmerston to re-enter the cabinet, but he refused to do so withoutLord Lansdowne andLord Grey, two notable Whigs. This can be said to be the point in 1830, when his party allegiance changed.[34] In November 1830 he accepted an offer from Lord Grey to join hisnew government as Foreign Secretary.
Palmerston entered the office of Foreign Secretary with great energy and continued to exert his influence there for twenty years; he held it from 1830 to 1834 (his apprentice years[35]), 1835 to 1841, and 1846 to 1851. Basically, Palmerston was responsible for the whole of British foreign policy from the time of the French and Belgian Revolutions of 1830 until December 1851. His abrasive style would earn him the nickname "Lord Pumice Stone", and his manner of dealing with foreign governments who crossed him, especially in his later years,[36] was the original "gunboat diplomacy".[37][38]
Palmerston's overall policy was to safeguard British interests, maintain peace, keep the balance of power, and retain the status quo in Europe. He had no grievance against Russia and while he privately sympathised with the Polish cause, in his role as foreign minister he rejected Polish demands. With serious trouble simultaneously taking place in Belgium and Italy, and lesser issues in Greece and Portugal, he sought to de-escalate European tensions rather than aggravate them, favouring a policy of universal non-interventionism.[41] He therefore focused chiefly on achieving a peaceful settlement of the crisis in Belgium.[42]
William I of the Netherlands appealed to the great powers that had placed him on the throne after theNapoleonic Wars to maintain his rights. TheLondon Conference of 1830 was called to address this question. The British solution involved the independence of Belgium, which Palmerston believed would greatly contribute to the security of Britain, but any solution was not straightforward. On the one hand, the reactionary powers were anxious to defend William I; on the other, many Belgian revolutionaries, likeCharles de Brouckère andCharles Rogier, supported the reunion of the Belgian provinces to France, whereas Britain favoured Dutch, not French influence, on an independent state.[43]
The British policy which emerged was a close alliance withFrance,[44] but one subject to the balance of power on the Continent, and in particular the preservation of Belgian independence. If the reactionary powers supported William I by force, they would encounter the resistance of France and Britain united in arms. If France sought to annex Belgium, it would forfeit the British alliance and find herself opposed by the whole of Europe. In the end the British policy prevailed.[45] Although the continent had been close to war, peace was maintained on London's terms and PrinceLeopold of Saxe-Coburg, the widower of a British princess, was placed upon the throne of Belgium.[30] Fishman says that the London Conference was "an extraordinarily successful conference" because it "provided the institutional framework through which the leading powers of the time safeguarded the peace of Europe."[46][47]
Thereafter, despite a Dutch invasion and French counter-invasion in 1831, France and Britain framed and signed atreaty settlement between Belgium and the Netherlands, inducing the three reactionary powers to accede to it as well;[44] while in Palmerston's second period of office, as his authority grew, he was able to finally settle relations between Belgium and Holland witha treaty in 1838-9 - now asserting his (and British) independence by leaning rather more towards the Netherlands and the reactionary powers, and against the Belgium/French axis.[48]
In 1833 and 1834, the youthful QueensIsabella II of Spain andMaria II of Portugal were the representatives and the hope of the constitutional parties of their countries. Their positions were under some pressure from their absolutist kinsmen, DomMiguel of Portugal andDon Carlos of Spain, who were the closest males in the lines of succession. Palmerston conceived and executed the plan of aQuadruple Alliance of the constitutional states (Britain, France, Spain & Portugal) to serve as a counterpoise to the reactionary 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.[30][49]
France had been a reluctant party to the treaty, and never executed its role in it with much zeal.Louis Philippe was accused of secretly favouring theCarlists – 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 Palmerston showed towards the French king thereafter, though that sentiment may well have arisen earlier. Although 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.[30][50]
Palmerston was greatly interested by theEastern question. During theGreek War of Independence he had energetically supported the Greek cause and backed theTreaty of Constantinople that gave Greece its independence. However, from 1830 the defence of theOttoman Empire became one of the cardinal objects of his policy. He believed in the regeneration of Turkey, as he wrote toHenry Bulwer (Lord Dalling):"All that we hear about the decay of the Turkish Empire, and its being a dead body or a sapless trunk, and so forth, is pure unadulterated nonsense."[51]
His two great aims were to prevent Russia establishing itself on theBosporus and to prevent France doing likewise on the Nile. He regarded the maintenance of the authority of theSublime Porte as the chief barrier against both these developments.[51]
Palmerston (age 50), c. 1830s–1840s
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 1833Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi, a mutual assistance pact between Russia and the Ottomans, but was annoyed and hostile towardsDavid Urquhart, the creator of theVixen affair, running the Russian blockade ofCircassia in the mid-1830s.[52]
For his part, David Urquhart considered Palmerston a "mercenary of Russia" and founded theFree Press magazine in London, where he constantly promoted these views. The permanent author of this magazine wasKarl Marx, who stated "from the time ofPeter the Great until the Crimean War, there was a secret agreement between the London and St. Petersburg offices, and that Palmerston was a corrupt tool of the Tsar's policy."[53]
Despite his popular reputation, he was hesitant in 1831 about aiding the SultanMahmud II, who wasunder attack from Muhammad Ali, the wali of Egypt.[54] Later, after Russian successes in 1833 and 1835, he made proposals to afford material aid, which were overruled by the cabinet. 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." He 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."[55] However, when the power of Muhammad Ali appeared to threaten the existence of the Ottoman dynasty, particularly given the death of Sultan Mahmud II on 1 July 1839, he succeeded in bringing the great powers togethe. They signed a collective note on 27 July pledging to maintain the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire in order to preserve the security and peace of Europe. However, by 1840 Muhammad Ali had occupiedSyria and won theBattle of Nezib against the Turkish forces.Lord Ponsonby, the British ambassador at Constantinople, vehemently urged the British government to intervene.[51] Privately, Palmerston explained his views on Muhammad Ali toLord Granville thus: "Coercion of Mehemet Ali by England if war broke out might appear partial and unjust; but we are partial; and the great interests of Europe require that we should be so... No ideas therefore of fairness towards Mehemet ought to stand in the way of such great and paramount interests."[56][57] Having closer ties to the wali than most, France refused to be a party to coercive measures against him despite having signed the note in the previous year.[58]
Palmerston, irritated at France's Egyptian policy, signed theLondon Convention of 15 July 1840 withAustria,Russia, andPrussia – 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 cabinet. 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.[51]The London Convention granted Muhammad Ali hereditary rule in Egypt in return for withdrawal from Syria and Lebanon, but this was rejected by the pasha. The European powers intervened with force, and thebombardment of Beirut, thefall of Acre, and the total collapse of Muhammad Ali's power followed in rapid succession. Palmerston's policy was triumphant, and the author of it had won a reputation as one of the most powerful statesmen of the age.[59]
In September 1838, Palmerston appointed a British consul in Jerusalem, without the conventional consultation of theBoard of Trade, and gave instruction to assist with the construction of an Anglican church in the city, under the prompting influences ofLord Shaftesbury, a prominentChristian Zionist.[60]
British bombardment ofCanton from the surrounding heights, May 1841
China restricted outside trade under theCanton System to only one port and refused all official diplomatic relations except to tributary countries. In 1833–1835, as London ended theEast India Company's monopoly on trade with China, both Tory and Whig governments sought to maintain peace and good trade relations. HoweverLord Napier wanted to provoke a revolution in China that would open trade. The Foreign Office, led by Palmerston, stood opposed and sought peace.[61] The Chinese government refused to change, and interdicted the British smugglers bringing inopium from India, which was banned in China. Britain responded with military force in theFirst Opium War, 1839–1842, which ended in a decisive British victory. Under theTreaty of Nanjing, China paid an indemnity and opened fivetreaty ports to world trade. In those ports there would be extraterritorial rights for British citizens. Palmerston thus achieved his main goals of diplomatic equality and opening China to trade. However his angry critics focused on the immorality of the opium trade.[62]
Palmerston's biographer,Jasper Ridley, outlines the government's position:
Conflict between China and Britain was inevitable. On the one side was a corrupt, decadent and caste-ridden despotism, with no desire or ability to wage war, which relied on custom much more than force for the enforcement of extreme privilege and discrimination, and which was blinded by a deep-rooted superiority complex into believing that they could assert their supremacy over Europeans without possessing military power. On the other side was the most economically advanced nation in the world, a nation of pushing, bustling traders, of self-help, free trade, and the pugnacious qualities ofJohn Bull.[63]
An entirely opposite British viewpoint was promoted by humanitarians and reformers such as theChartists and religiousnonconformists led by youngWilliam Ewart Gladstone. They argued that Palmerston was only interested in the huge profits it would bring Britain, and was totally oblivious to the horrible moral evils of opium which the Chinese government was valiantly trying to stamp out.[64][65]
Meanwhile, he manipulated information and public opinion to enhance his control of his department, including controlling communications within the office and to other officials. He leaked secrets to the press, published selected documents, and released letters to give himself more control and more publicity, all the while stirring up British nationalism.[66] He feuded withThe Times, edited byThomas Barnes, which did not play along with his propaganda ploys.[67][68]
In 1839, Palmerston married his paramour of many years, the noted Whig hostessEmily Lamb, widow of Peter Leopold Louis Francis Nassau Clavering-Cowper, 5th Earl Cowper (1778–1837) and sister ofWilliam Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, prime minister (1834 and 1835–1841). They had no legitimate children, although at least one of Lord Cowper's putative children, Lady Emily Cowper, was widely believed to have been fathered by Palmerston.[69] Palmerston resided atBrocket Hall inHertfordshire, his wife's inheritance. His Londontownhouse wasCambridge House onPiccadilly inMayfair.[70]
Emily's son-in-law,Lord Shaftesbury wrote: "His attentions to Lady Palmerston, when they both of them were well stricken in years, were those of a perpetual courtship. The sentiment was reciprocal; and I have frequently seen them go out on a morning to plant some trees, almost believing that they would live to eat the fruit, or sit together under the shade."[71]
Young Queen Victoria found it unseemly that people in their 50s could marry, but the Cowper-Palmerston marriage according to biographerGillian Gill:
was an inspired political alliance as well as a stab at personal happiness. Harry and Emily were supremely well-matched. As the husband of a beautiful, charming, intelligent, rich woman whose friends were the best people in society, Palmerston at last had the money, the social setting, and the personal security he needed to get to the very top of British politics. Lady Palmerston made her husband happy, as he did her, and she was a political power in her own right. In the last and most successful decades of Palmerston's life, she was his best advisor and most trustedamanuensis. Theirs was one of the great marriages of the century.[72]
Within a few monthsMelbourne's administration came to an end (1841) and Palmerston remained out of office for five years. The crisis was past, but the change which took place by the substitution ofFrançois Guizot forAdolphe Thiers in France, and ofLord Aberdeen for Palmerston in Britain kept the peace. Palmerston believed 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 Palmerston had inflamed gradually subsided. During the administration of SirRobert Peel, Palmerston led a retired life, but he attacked with characteristic bitterness theWebster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 with the United States.[51] It resolved several Canadian boundary disputes with the United States, particularly the border betweenNew Brunswick and the State ofMaine and betweenCanada and the State ofMinnesota fromLake Superior and theLake of the Woods. Much as he criticised it, the treaty successfully closed the border questions with which Palmerston had long been concerned.[73]
Palmerston's reputation as an interventionist and his unpopularity with the Queen were such thatLord John Russell's attempt in December 1845 to form a ministry failed becauseLord Grey refused to join a government in which Palmerston would direct foreign affairs. A few months later, however, theWhigs came to power and returned Palmerston to the Foreign Office (July 1846).[51] Russell replied to critics that Palmerston's policies had "atendency to produce war" but that he had advanced British interests without a major conflict, if not entirely peaceably.[13]
Palmerston's years as foreign secretary, 1846–1851, involve dealing with violent upheavals all over Europe – he has been dubbed "the gunpowder minister" by biographer David Brown.[74]
The French government regarded the appointment of 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 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 theTreaty of Utrecht and the other powers of Europe, were wholly unsuccessful; France won the game, though with no small loss of honourable reputation.[51][75]`
Historian David Brown rejects the traditional interpretation to the effect that Aberdeen had forged an entente cordiale with France in the early 1840s whereupon the belligerent Palmerston after 1846 destroyed that friendly relationship. Brown argues that as foreign secretary from 1846 to 1851 and subsequently as prime minister, Palmerston sought to maintain the balance of power in Europe, sometimes even aligning with France to do so.[76][77]
As anAnglo-Irish absentee landlord, Palmerston evicted 2,000 of hisIrish tenants for non-payment of rent during theGreat Irish Famine that ravaged Ireland in the late 1840s.[78] He financed the emigration of starving Irish tenants across the Atlantic to North America[79] as didPetty-Fitzmaurice (Lord Lansdowne) to equal notoriety. Palmerston asserted that "... any great improvement in the social system of Ireland must be founded upon an extensive change in the present state of agrarian occupation [through] a long continued and systematic ejectment of Small holders and of SquattingCottiers."[80]
TheRevolutions of 1848 spread like a conflagration through Europe, and shook every throne on the Continent except those of Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, Spain, and Belgium. Palmerston sympathised openly with the revolutionary party abroad.[51] In particular, he was a strong advocate of nationalself-determination, and stood firmly on the side of constitutional liberties on the Continent. Despite this, he was bitterly opposed toIrish independence, and deeply hostile to theYoung Ireland movement.[81]
No state was regarded by him with more aversion thanAustria. Yet, his opposition to Austria was chiefly based upon its occupation of northeastern Italy andits Italian policy. 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 Palmerston, and his sympathies had ever been passionately awakened by the cause ofItalian independence. He supported the Sicilians against KingFerdinand II of the Two Sicilies, and even allowed arms to be sent them from theRoyal Arsenal,Woolwich. Although he had endeavoured to restrain KingCharles Albert 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 Britain, based on a large cession of Italian territory. Palmerston rejected the terms he might have obtained for Piedmont.[51] After a couple of years this wave of revolution was replaced by a wave of reaction.[82][83]
InHungary, the1848 war for independence from theAustrian Empire, ruled by theHabsburg dynasty, was defeated by the joint army of Austrian and Russian forces.Prince Schwarzenberg assumed the government of the empire with dictatorial power. In spite of what 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 Palmerston as its representative, was regarded with suspicion and resentment by every power in Europe, except theFrench republic.[84] Even that was shortly afterwards to be alienated by Palmerston's attack on Greece.[51] WhenLajos Kossuth, the Hungarian democrat and leader of its constitutionalists, landed in England in 1851 to wide applause, Palmerston proposed to receive him at Broadlands, a design which was only prevented by a peremptory vote of the cabinet.[85]
This state of things was regarded with the utmost annoyance by the British court and by most of the British ministers. On many occasions, Palmerston had taken important steps without their knowledge, which they disapproved. Over theForeign Office he asserted and exercised an arbitrary dominion, which the feeble efforts of the premier could not control. The Queen and thePrince Consort did not conceal their indignation at the fact that they were held responsible for Palmerston's actions by the other courts of Europe.[51][86]
WhenBenjamin Disraeli attacked Palmerston's foreign policy, the foreign minister responded to a five-hour speech byThomas Chisholm 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. Arguing for domestic political effect, Palmerston declaimed:
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 theQuixote 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.[87]
(...)
Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.[88]
Russell and the Queen both hoped that the other would take the initiative and dismiss Palmerston; the Queen was dissuaded by her husband Prince Albert, who took the limits of constitutional power very seriously, and Russell by Palmerston's prestige with the people and his competence in an otherwise remarkably inept Cabinet.
In 1847, the home ofDon Pacifico, a Gibraltarian merchant living in Athens,Greece, was attacked by anantisemitic mob, which included the sons of a Greek government minister. The Greek police did not intervene in the attack, despite being present.[89] Because Don Pacifico was a British subject, the British government expressed concern. In January 1850, Palmerston took advantage of Don Pacifico's claims on the Greek government, and blockaded the port ofPiraeus in 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.[90][91]
After a memorable debate on 17 June, Palmerston's policy was condemned by a vote of theHouse of Lords. The House of Commons was moved byJohn Arthur Roebuck to reverse the rebuke, which it did on 29 June by a majority of 46, after having heard from Palmerston on 25 June. 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.[92]
EnglishWikisource has original text related to this article:
It was in this speech, which lasted for five hours, that 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;[92] comparing the reach of theBritish Empire to that of theRoman Empire, in which aRoman citizen could walk the earth unmolested by any foreign power. This was the famouscivis romanus sum ("I am a citizen of Rome") speech. After this speech, Palmerston's popularity had never been greater.[93]
Notwithstanding his parliamentary triumph in the Don Pacifico affair, many of his own colleagues and supporters criticised the spirit in which the foreign relations of the Crown were carried on. The Queen addressed a minute to the Prime Minister in which she recorded her dissatisfaction at the manner in which Palmerston evaded the obligation to submit his measures for the royal sanction as failing in sincerity to the Crown. This minute was communicated to Palmerston, who accepted its criticisms.[92][94]
On 2 December 1851,Louis Napoleon – who had been elected President of France in 1848 – carried out acoup d'état by dissolving the National Assembly and arresting the leading republicans. Palmerston privately congratulated Napoleon on his triumph, noting that Britain's constitution was rooted in history but that France had had five revolutions since 1789, with theFrench Constitution of 1848 being a "day-before-yesterday tomfoolery which the scatterbrain heads ofMarrast andTocqueville invented for the torment and perplexity of the French nation".[95] However, the Cabinet decided that Britain must be neutral, and so Palmerston requested his officials to be diplomatic. Palmerston's widespread support among the press, educated public opinion, and ordinary Britons caused apprehension and distrust among other politicians and angered the Court. Prince Albert complained Palmerston had sent a dispatch without showing the sovereign. Protesting innocence, Palmerston resigned.[96] Palmerston was weakened because Parliament, where he had great support, was not in session. Palmerston continued to have wide approval among the newspapers, elite opinion, and the middle class voters. His popularity led to distrust among rivals and especially at the Royal Court. His fall demonstrates the lack of power of public opinion in a pre-democratic era. However, Palmerston kept his public support and the growing influence of public opinion steadily increased his political strength in the 1850s and 1860s.[97]
After a brief period ofConservative minority government, theEarl of Aberdeen became Prime Minister (in office 19 December 1852 – 30 January 1855) in acoalition government of Whigs andPeelites (withRussell taking the role of Foreign Secretary and Leader of theHouse of Commons). It was regarded as impossible for them to form a government without Palmerston, so he was madeHome Secretary (28 December 1852). Many people considered this a curious appointment because Palmerston's expertise was so obviously in foreign affairs.[98] A story recounts that after a great wave of strikes sweptNorthern England, the Queen summoned Palmerston to discuss the situation. When she enquired after the latest news, Palmerston allegedly replied: "There is no definite news, Madam, but it seems certain that the Turks have crossed theDanube".[99]
Palmerston passed the Factory Act 1853, which removed loopholes in previousFactory Acts and outlawed all labour by young persons between 6pm and 6am. He attempted to pass a Bill that confirmed the rights of workers to combine, but the House of Lords rejected it. He introduced theTruck Act which stopped the practice of employers paying workmen in goods instead of money, or forcing them to purchase goods from shops owned by the employers. In August 1853, Palmerston introduced the Smoke Abatement Act in order to combat the increasing smoke from coal fires, a problem greatly aggravated by the Industrial Revolution.[100] He also oversaw the passage of theVaccination Act 1853 into law, which was introduced as a private member's bill, and which Palmerston persuaded the government to support. The Act made vaccination of children compulsory for the first[citation needed] time. Palmerston outlawed the burying of the dead in churches. The right to bury the dead in churches was held by wealthy families whose ancestors had purchased the right in the past. Palmerston opposed this practice on public-health grounds and ensured that all bodies were buried in a churchyard or public cemetery.[100]
Palmerston reduced the period in which prisoners could be held insolitary confinement from eighteen months to nine months.[101] He also endedtransportation toTasmania for prisoners by passing thePenal Servitude Act 1853, which also reduced the maximum sentences for most offences.[102] Palmerston passed the Reformatory Schools Act 1854 which gave theHome Secretary powers to send juvenile prisoners to a reformatory school instead of to prison. He was forced to accept an amendment which ensured that the prisoner had to have spent at least three months in jail first.[103] When in October 1854 Palmerston visitedParkhurst gaol and conversed with three boy inmates, he was impressed by their behaviour and ordered that they be sent to a reformatory school. He found the ventilation in the cells unsatisfactory and ordered improvement.[104]
Palmerston strongly opposedLord 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, Palmerston resigned. However, Aberdeen told him that no definite decision on reform had been taken and persuaded Palmerston to return to the Cabinet. The electoral Reform Bill did not pass Parliament that year.[105]
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 theCrimean War of 1853–1856. 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.[99] Palmerston argued in Cabinet, after Russian troops concentrated on the Ottoman border in February 1853, that theRoyal Navy should join the French fleet in theDardanelles as a warning to Russia. He was overruled, however.
In May 1853, the Russians threatened to invade the principalities ofWallachia andMoldavia unless the Ottoman sultan acceded to their demands. Palmerston argued for immediate decisive action - that the Royal Navy should be sent to the Dardanelles to assist the Turkish navy and that Britain should inform Russia of London's intention to go to war if theImperial Russian Army invaded the principalities. However, Aberdeen objected to all of Palmerston's proposals. After prolonged arguments, a reluctant Aberdeen agreed to send a fleet to the Dardanelles but objected to Palmerston's other proposals. The Russian Emperor,Nicholas I, was annoyed by Britain's actions but they did not 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 (June 1853).[106] The Russians saw this as a violation of theStraits Convention of 1841; they invaded the two principalities in July 1853. Palmerston interpreted this as the result of British weakness and thought that if the Russians had been told that if they invaded the principalities the British and French fleets would enter theBosphorus or theBlack Sea, they would have been deterred.[107] In Cabinet, Palmerston argued for a vigorous prosecution of the war against Russia by Britain, but Aberdeen objected, as he wanted peace. British public opinion supported 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."[108]
On 28 March 1854, Britain and France declared war on Russia for refusing to withdraw from the principalities. The war progressed slowly, with no Anglo-French gains in the Baltic and slow coalition gains in Crimea at the longSiege of Sevastopol (1854–1855). Dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war grew amongst the public in Britain and in other countries, aggravated by reports of fiascos and failures, especially the mismanagement of the heroicCharge of the Light Brigade at theBattle of Balaclava (25 October 1854). The health and living conditions of the British soldiers became notorious and the press, with correspondents in the field, made the most of the situation. Tories demanded an accounting of all soldiers, cavalry and sailors sent to the Crimea and accurate figures as to the number of casualties. When Parliament passed a bill to investigate by a vote of 305 to 148, Aberdeen said he had lost a vote of no confidence and resigned as prime minister on 30 January 1855.[109]
Queen Victoria deeply distrusted Palmerston and first askedLord Derby to accept the premiership. Derby offered Palmerston the office ofSecretary of State for War, which he accepted under the condition thatLord Clarendon remain as Foreign Secretary. Clarendon refused, and so Palmerston rejected Derby's offer; Derby subsequently gave up trying to form a government. The Queen sent forLord Lansdowne but (aged 74) he was too old to accept: so she asked Russell; but none of his former colleagues except Palmerston wanted to serve under him. Having exhausted the possible alternatives, the Queen invited Palmerston toBuckingham Palace on 4 February 1855 to form a government.[110]
Aged 70 years, 109 days, Palmerston became the oldest person in British political history to be appointed Prime Minister for the first time. As of 2024 no Prime Minister entering10 Downing Street for the first time since Palmerston has surpassed his record. Clarendon continued at the foreign office andWilliam Gladstone was appointed to the Exchequer. The War Department was reorganised and the position of "Secretary at War" was merged with the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies. However, when a committee of inquiry chaired by MPJohn Roebuck was established to examine the misdirection of the war in Crimea became evident, Palmerston was forced to "practically accept" it and this immediately led to the resignations ofLord Herbert, Gladstone and Clarendon. In turn their position were taken over withG. C. Lewis at the Exchequer,Sir Charles Wood asFirst Lord of the Admiralty and Russell at the Foreign Office.[111]
The public welcomed Palmerston's appointment as Prime Minister, believing he would safeguard Britain's war aims and national honour. However, political circles were less enthusiastic: John Bright was critical and dismissive: "Palmerston Prime Minister? What a hoax! the aged charlatan ambition.” However Lady Cowper noted, “I fear he is not popular, except out of doors among the people, who say he is a true Englishman.” Though some doubted his abilities, he was respected among the ruling elite and admired by the middle classes.[112] MPs initially resisted his premiership, rejecting his request to forgo the inquiry into the war's conduct.Benjamin Disraeli exaggerated Palmerston’s frailties, calling him “an imposter… an old painted pantaloon, very deaf, very blind, and with false teeth which would fall out of his mouth when speaking.” In reality, while his eyesight weakened and gout troubled him, he retained remarkable stamina, often outlasting colleagues in Parliament, riding to hounds, and taking long country walks. Despite concerns, he proved resilient, defying expectations and leading with energy.[113]
Palmerston took a hard line on the war; he wanted to expand the fighting, especially in the Baltic whereSt. Petersburg could be threatened by superior British naval power. His goal was to permanently reduce the Russian threat to Europe. IfSweden and Prussia were willing to join, Russia would stand alone. However, France, which had sent far more soldiers to the war than Britain, and had suffered far more casualties, wanted the war to end, as did Austria.[114] In March 1855 the old Tsar died and was succeeded by his son,Alexander II, who wished to make peace. However, Palmerston found the peace terms too soft on Russia and so persuadedNapoleon III to break off the peace negotiations untilSevastopol could be captured, putting the allies in a stronger negotiating position. In September Sevastopol finally surrendered and the allies had full control of the Black Sea theatre. Russia came to terms. On 27 February 1856 an armistice was signed and after a month's negotiations an agreement was signed at theCongress of Paris. Palmerston's demand for a demilitarised Black Sea was secured, although his wish for the Crimea to be returned to the Ottomans was not. Thepeace treaty was signed on 30 March 1856. In April 1856 Palmerston was appointed to theOrder of the Garter by Victoria.[115]
Original engraving by D. J. Pound, from a photograph by Mayall, the Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B. K.G., Prime Minister. From the "Supplement to the Illustrated News of the World" ca 1855–58.
In October 1856, the Chinese seized the pirate shipArrow, and in the process, according to the local British officialHarry Smith Parkes, insulted the British flag. When the Chinese CommissionerYe Mingchen refused to apologise, the British shelled his compound. The commissioner retaliated with a proclamation that called on the people ofCanton to "unite in exterminating these troublesome English villains" and offered a $100 bounty for the head of any Englishman. TheBritish factories outside the city were also burned to the ground by incensed locals. Palmerston supported Parkes while in Parliament the British policy was strongly attacked on moral grounds byRichard Cobden andWilliam Ewart Gladstone. Playing the patriotism card, Palmerston said that Cobden demonstrated "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."[116] He went on to say that if a 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."[116] The censure motion was carried by a majority of sixteen and theelection of 1857 followed. Palmerston's stance proved popular among a large section of the workers, the growing middle classes and the country's commercial and financial interests. With the expanded franchise, his party swept on a wave of popular feeling to a majority of 83, the largest since 1835. Cobden andJohn Bright lost their seats.
In China, theSecond Opium War (1856–1860) was another humiliating defeat for a Qing dynasty,[117] already reeling as a result of the domesticTaiping Rebellion. In 1858, British troops led byLord Elgin bombarded the city ofCanton and the conflict was concluded at theTreaty of Tientsin. In 1860, following a reconciliation withNapoleon III and strengthening of Anglo-French relation, a joint expedition was launched into China by British and French forces under the commands of GeneralSir Hope Grant andCount Palikao. After a series of successful battles,Peking was captured.[118]
Lord Palmerston Addressing the House of Commons During the Debates on theTreaty of France in February 1860, as painted byJohn Phillip (1863)
After the election, Palmerston passed theMatrimonial 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, who included Gladstone, were the first in British history to try to kill a bill by filibuster. Nonetheless, Palmerston was determined to get the bill through, which he did.
In June news came to Britain of theIndian Rebellion of 1857. On 19 May, mentions of the rebellion was raised byLord Ellenborough during a debate in the House of Lords, in which he questioned whether theSecretary of State for War,Lord Panmure, on whether he "recently viewed" the news of the uprising. Panmure replied that "intelligence recently received from India had not been such as to create any apprehension in the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers for the safety of our Indian empire."[119] Palmerston, who by now was highly popular among the British public and seen as "invincible" due to him leading the government through in times of crisis, did not took the rebellion seriously and was initially sceptical of British troops being defeated by what he considered "native rabble". He particularly opposed theGovernor-General,Lord Canning's attempts to divert troops heading to China back to India.[120]
When the severity of the situation was finally realized, Palmerston was immediate in sending troops to quell the revolt, ignoring fears it would leave the homeland underfedended.[121] Palmerston approved a suggestion to set a date for a day of "National Prayer and Humiliation" following a precedent established during the Crimean War. The Queen approved of the proposal and Palmerston planned the day alongside theArchbishop of Canterbury,John Bird Sumner on October 7.[122]
Palmerston sent SirColin Campbell and reinforcements to India.[123] Palmerston also agreed to transfer the authority of theEast India Company to the Crown.[124] Within three months of the rebellion around 30,000 troops were deployed to India.[125] At the urging of the Queen, Palmerston consulted with theDuke of Cambridge on further measures and sent two regiments of foot toMadras and two companies of artillery to each province.[126]
Much of the fighting, prior to the arrival of reinforcements, were carried by the army stationed in India and within months Delhi was captured by company forces and reinforcements from the mutineers.[127][128]
A bill was introduced to Parliament to alter the governance of India, which by then have been under the rule of the EIC, that would bring the control of Indian affairs under the oversight of aBoard of Control under the British government. The bill was passed by a unexpectedly large majority of 145. This was enacted in theGovernment of India Act 1858. This ended company rule in India which was established in 1757.[129][130]
After the Italian republicanFelice Orsini tried to assassinate the French emperor with a bomb made in Britain, the French were outraged. The French demanded that no such people be granted asylum in the country and the French ambassador was ordered to make presentations regarding the incident to Parliament. In order to preserve good relations with France, Palmerston introduced a Conspiracy to Murder bill, which made it a felony to plot in Britain to murder someone abroad. The condemnation of British conduct was sharply criticised by the French media and the use of bitter tongue by French army officers when receiving the French emperor as a delegacy, led to anger among the British public. Lord Derby took the advantage of exploiting the resentment of the British people to propose a amendment to the bill.[131] At first reading, the Conservatives voted for it but at second reading they voted against it. Palmerston lost by nineteen votes. Therefore, in February 1858 he was forced to resign.[132]
The Conservativeslacked 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 ageneral election ensued, which the Whigs won. Palmerston rejected an offer from Disraeli to become Conservative leader, but he attended the meeting of 6 June 1859 inWillis's Rooms atSt James's Street, where theLiberal Party was formed. The Queen askedLord Granville to form a government, but although Palmerston agreed to serve under him, Russell did not. Therefore, on 12 June the Queen asked Palmerston to become prime minister. Russell and Gladstone agreed to serve under him.[133]
Lord Palmerston's second Cabinet held power until his death in 1865. This was a lengthy duration attributable to two key elements: the consistent electoral fragility of the Tory party, and the formal merger of the Peelites, Whigs, and Radicals into the cohesive Liberal party. On the domestic front, Palmerston's firm Whig and aristocratic convictions stalled any progression toward broader political democracy, compelling more reform-minded figures, particularly Gladstone, to defer major reform legislation until after Palmerston's death. In foreign affairs, the administration was notable for backing Cavour's efforts to unify Italy and for maintaining neutrality in the American Civil War, despite his sympathy for the Confederacy. Historians usually regard Palmerston, starting in 1859, as the first Liberal prime minister.[134][135][136]
In his second premiership, Palmerston oversaw the passage of important legislation. TheOffences against the Person Act 1861 codified and reformed the law, and was part of a wider process ofconsolidating criminal law. TheCompanies Act 1862 was the basis of modern company law.[137] TheUnion Chargeability Act 1865 which overhauled and reformed thepoor laws.[138] Palmerston established theNewcastle Commission in 1859 which looked into the inadequacies of public education and led to increases in school funding in the Revised Code of 1862.[139] Palmerston's policies toward Ireland was more based on practical sense rather than radical change. He was firmly opposed to a measure by Gladstone that would have created a legal fixture on land tenure.[140]
Palmerston's second government was notable for its active and productive legislative work, which was able to absolved it of any charge of useless indolence, despite Palmerston and his cabinet not introducing far reaching innovative reform. The parliamentary budgets introduced by Gladstone were enough to demonstrate the effectiveness of the ministry and the annual Queen's Speeches at the end of each parliamentary session, showed promising modest reforms by both houses of parliament that were exceptionally useful such as prisons bills, partnership liability bills, crime chargeability bills and so on. HisLord ChancellorLord Westbury, proved to be one of the "greatest of the modern reform Lord Chancellors" with rigorous attempts at reform the legal system, despite falling short on his ambitions with his plans for land transfers and title registration not being fully realised.[141]
Unlike any of his reform-minded colleagues, Palmerston opposed further extending the vote, which lead many even in his own cabinet to accuse him of being a "Tory in disguise". According to biographerLloyd Charles Sanders, the fact that Palmerston held "such a body of men together until his death, with less than average number of resignations, is perhaps the greatest of his feats as a parliamentary manager."[142] Russell's support for lowering the voting franchise and redistribution of seats proved to be less urgent compared to the Gladstone's tense opposition to increasing military expenditure. Palmerston resolved the situation by allowing Russell to introduce a reform bill, which lowered the voting franchise from £10 to £6 and redistributed 25 parliamentary seats. However, a lack of public interest and disinterest from Parliament itself led to the bill's eventual demise in committee. Following the bill's failure,Benjamin Disraeli pointed that Palmerston was "not so much in support of, as about" the reform bill and in Palmerston's reports to the Queen he made "little or no attempt to conceal his satisfaction as its approaching demise."[143]
Scandal broke over revelations misdeeds done by Lord Westbury during his final months as lord chancellor.[144] The controversy did not impact the government which was shown during the election of 1865 when the public returned the government with a substantial majority. Palmerston's own handling of patronage—both secular and ecclesiastical—according toLord Shaftesbury were "compelling". His appointments of bishops for ecclesiastical positions were controversial among theHigh church faction and BishopSamuel Wilberforce, who opposed Palmerston's appointments due to many of the bishops belonging to theEvangelical wing of theChurch of England, known as "Shaftesbury bishops". In 1859, Palmerston's alliance with thePeelites led to his appointments becoming more inclusive which favoured candidates based on merit regardless of theological affiliation.[145][146]
Foreign policy continued to be his main strength; he thought that he could shape if not control all of European diplomacy, especially by using France as a vital ally and trade partner. However, historians often characterise his method as bluffing more than decisive action.[147]
Palmerston,Lord Russell andPrince Albert looking on as Queen Victoria presents aBible to an African ruler who is bowing down before her
Some people called Palmerston 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.
Although Palmerston andWilliam Ewart Gladstone treated each other respectfully, they disagreed fundamentally over Church appointments, foreign affairs, defence and reform;[148] Palmerston's greatest problem during his last premiership was how to handle his Chancellor of the Exchequer. The MP SirWilliam Henry Gregory was told by a member of the Cabinet that "at the beginning of each session and after each holiday, Mr Gladstone used to come in charged to the muzzle with all sorts of schemes of all sorts of reforms which were absolutely necessary in his opinion to be immediately undertaken. Palmerston used to look fixedly at the paper before him, saying nothing until there was a lull in Gladstone's outpouring. He then rapped the table and said cheerfully: 'Now, my Lords and gentlemen, let us go to business'."[149] Palmerston told Lord Shaftesbury: "Gladstone will soon have it all his own way and whenever he gets my place we shall have strange doings". He told another friend that he thought Gladstone would wreck the Liberal Party and end up in a madhouse.[150]
When in May 1864 the MPEdward Baines introduced a Reform Bill in the Commons, Palmerston ordered Gladstone to not commit himself and the government to any particular scheme.[151] Instead Gladstone said in his speech in the Commons that he did not see why any man should not have the vote unless he was mentally incapacitated, but added that this would not come about unless the working class showed an interest in reform. Palmerston believed that this was incitement to the working class to begin agitating for reform and told Gladstone: "What every Man and Woman too have a Right to, is to be well governed and under just Laws, and they who propose a change ought to shew that the present organization does not accomplish those objects".[152]
French intervention in Italy had created an invasion scare and Palmerston established aRoyal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom which reported in 1860. It recommended a hugeprogramme of fortifications to protect theRoyal Navy Dockyards and ports, which Palmerston vigorously supported. Objecting to the enormous expense, Gladstone repeatedly threatened to resign as Chancellor when the proposals were accepted. Palmerston said that he had received so many resignation letters from Gladstone that he feared that they would set fire to the chimney.[153]
The financial policy of Palmerston's government was heavily centred around the budgets of Gladstone and was marked by tensions between Palmerston and Gladstone.[154] Palmerston, who feared an imminent French invasion, wanted substantial increases in military defences, which clashed with Gladstone's committed to reducingpublic spending and pursuingfree trade principles.[155] One of the major fiscal measures proposed by Gladstone was the repeal ofpaper duties, a proposal which encountered stiff opposition from Palmerston within the Cabinet, who was not in favour of removing such duties, and from the House of Lords, which ultimately rejected the measure. Palmerston privately viewed the rejection of the repeal as a beneficial act, stating that the Lords had "performed a good public service" by blocking the measure.[156]
In addition to paper duties, Gladstone's budget of 1860 also introduced the first graduatedincome tax in Britain with renewing at varying rate (ten pence in the pound for incomes above £150 and seven pence for incomes above £100) and extended the license system to include wine-refreshment houses.[157] The reform was in line with Gladstone's broader goal of reducingprotectionist measures and promoting free trade policies. Gladstone expected increased receipts in the future from reduced duties, however, he retained full duties onsugar andtea was income tax placed at ten pence.[154] However, the Budget was not without controversy. While Gladstone celebrated the measures within the budget as a triumph, Palmerston remained focused on national defence, which was at odds with Gladstone's fiscal austerity. The conflict between the two men was especially evident in their differing views on public expenditure. Palmerston wanted funding for ironclad warships and fortifications to protect Britain's coastal ports, such asPortsmouth andPlymouth, which he considered crucial for national security.[158][159]
However, the budget was hailed as the greatest "free trade budget" sinceSir Robert Peel's time. During this period, exports of home produce surged from £113 million in 1842 to £363 million in 1865 while imports grew from £65 million to £181 million. The import of essential goods like butter, bacon, and rice which were negligible at 8,355 cwts in 1842, surged to an 713,346 cwts high by 1865. Similarly, egg imports soared from under one million to nearly four million. The export of foreign and colonial produce experienced an equal increase, from £18 million in 1842 to £52 million by1865. The expansion of exports in manufactured goods also so an increase with cotton exports almost tripling, while machinery exports growing by tenfold, woollen yarn exports increasing eightfold, and items like linen, silk, hardware, leather, and iron and steel showed exponential growth, with many of these sectors seeing four to sixfold increases. Haberdashery also exports multiplied sevenfold. These advancements were bolstered by the repeal of the navigation laws, which facilitated a threefold increase in British shipping tonnage entered with cargo, from 5.4 million tons in 1842 to 17.4 million in 1865. Foreign tonnage also surged, growing from 1.9 million to 7.5 million tons during the same period. The steamship industry, a testament to technological progress, saw tonnage rise from 186,687 in 1851 to 823,533 by 1865, more than quadrupling.[160]
Gladstone, however, increasingly found it difficult to reconcile his role as Chancellor with the pressure to fund Palmerston's defence initiatives. The growing defence budget, including proposed expenditures for the military, led to frequent clashes between the two. Gladstone felt that the increasing military costs were excessive and detrimental to the nation's finances. At one point, he even threatened to resign on multiple occasions over the issue, expressing his frustration with Palmerston's disregard for fiscal discipline. Despite these tensions, Palmerston remained steadfast in his belief that military preparedness was paramount, going so far as to tell the Queen that it would be better to lose Gladstone than to compromise Britain's defence capabilities.[159]
During the advent and occurrence of theAmerican Civil War, the British Ambassador to the United States was Palmerston's close friend and allyRichard Lyons, 2nd Baron Lyons. Palmerston had first appointed Richard Lyons to the Foreign Service in 1839, and was a close friend of his father,Edmund Lyons, 1st Baron Lyons, with whom he had vehemently advocated increased aggression in theCrimean War. Palmerston and Lyons both had similar sociopolitical sympathies: both advocated monarchy and foreign interventionism. Throughout the American Civil War, Palmerston and Richard Lyons maintained an extensive confidential correspondence. Their actions were responsible for the peaceful resolution of theTrent Affair. When Lyons resigned from the position of American Ambassador, Palmerston attempted to persuade him to return, but Lyons declined the offer.[161]
Palmerston's sympathies in theAmerican Civil War (1861–65) were with the secessionistConfederate States of America. Although a professed opponent of theAtlantic slave trade andslavery, he held a lifelong hostility towards the United States, and believed a dissolution of the Union would enhance British power. Additionally, the Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures".[162][163]
Britain issued aproclamation of neutrality at the beginning of the Civil War on 13 May 1861. The Confederacy was recognised as abelligerent but it was too premature to recognise it as a sovereign state. TheUnited States Secretary of State,William Seward, threatened to treat as hostile any country which recognised the Confederacy. Britain depended more on American corn than Confederate cotton, and a war with the U.S. would not be in Britain's economic interest.[164] Palmerston ordered reinforcements sent to theProvince of Canada because he was convinced theNorth would make peace with the South and then invade Canada. He was very pleased with the Confederate victory at theFirst Battle of Bull Run in July 1861, but 15 months later he felt:
"...the American 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."[165]
TheTrent Affair in November 1861 produced public outrage in Britain and a diplomatic crisis. A U.S. Navy warship stopped the British steamerTrent and seized two Confederate envoysen route to Europe. Palmerston called the action "a declared and gross insult", demanded the release of the two diplomats and ordered 3,000 troops to Canada. In a letter to Queen Victoria on 5 December 1861 he said that if his demands were not met:
"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."[166]
In another letter to his foreign secretary, he predicted war between Britain and the Union:
"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."[166]
In fact, Irishmen did not control any major newspapers in the North, and the U.S. decided to release the prisoners rather than risk war. Palmerston was convinced the presence of troops in Canada persuaded the U.S. to acquiesce.[167]
After PresidentAbraham Lincoln's announcement in September 1862 that he would issue anEmancipation Proclamation in ninety days, the cabinet debated intervention as a humanitarian move to stop a likely race war. At the same time however there was a cabinet crisis in France over theoverthrow of the Greek king and the growingEastern question with regard to Russia. The British Government had to determine whether the situation in North America or the containment of Russia was more urgent. The decision was to give priority to threats closer to home and to decline France's suggestion of a joint intervention in America; the threatened race war over slavery never happened.[168] Palmerston rejected all further efforts of the Confederacy to gain British recognition.[165]
The raiding shipCSSAlabama, built in the British port ofBirkenhead, was another difficulty for Palmerston. On 29 July 1862, a law officer's report he had commissioned advised him to detainAlabama, as its construction was a breach of Britain's neutrality. Palmerston orderedAlabama detained on 31 July, but it had already put to sea before the order reached Birkenhead. In her subsequent cruise,Alabama captured or destroyed many Union merchant ships, as did other raiders fitted out in Britain. This was the basis of the postwarAlabama claims for damages against Britain, which Palmerston refused to pay. After his death, Gladstone acknowledged the U.S. claim and agreed to arbitration, paying out $15,500,000 in damages. However, no compensation for damages done to the U.S. by British-built blockade runners carrying arms supplies to the Confederacy was offered.[169]
ThePrussian Prime MinisterOtto von Bismarck wanted to annex the DanishDuchy of Schleswig and the neighboring GermanDuchy of Holstein, whose Duke was theKing of Denmark, chiefly for its port ofKiel, and had an alliance with Austria for this purpose. This was part of the longstandingSchleswig–Holstein question. In a speech to the Commons on 23 July 1863, Palmerston said the British government, like those of France and Russia, wished that "the independence, the integrity, and the rights of Denmark may be maintained. We are convinced—I am convinced at least—that if any violent attempt were made to overthrow those rights and interfere with that independence, those who made the attempt would find in the result that it would not be Denmark alone with which they would have to contend".[170] Palmerston's stance derived from the traditional belief that France was the greater threat to Britain and was much stronger than Austria and Prussia.[171] In any case, France and Britain were at odds over Poland, and Paris refused to cooperate with London on the Danish crisis.[172] Public opinion in Britain was strongly pro-Danish, thanks especially tothe Danish princess who married thePrince of Wales. However Queen Victoria was intensely pro-German and strongly urged against threatening war.[173] Palmerston himself favoured Denmark but he also had long been pacifistic in this matter and did not want Britain to become militarily involved.[174]
For five months Bismarck did nothing. However, in November the Danish government instituted a new constitution whereby Schleswig was bound closer to Denmark. By the year's end, the Prussian and Austrian armies had occupied Holstein and were massing on theRiver Eider, the border with Schleswig. On 1 February 1864, the Prussian-Austrian armiesinvaded Schleswig, and ten days afterwards the Danish government requested British help to resist this. Russell urged Palmerston to send a fleet to Copenhagen and persuade Napoleon III that he should mobilise his French soldiers on the borders of Prussia.
Palmerston replied that the fleet could not do much to assist the Danes in Copenhagen and that nothing should be done to persuade Napoleon to cross the Rhine. Britain had a small army and it had no powerful ally to help.[171] Bismarck remarked that the Royal Navy lacked wheels—it was powerless on land where the war would be fought.[175] In AprilAustria's navy was on its way to attack Copenhagen. Palmerston told the Austrian ambassador that if his fleet entered the Baltic to attack Denmark the result would be war with Britain. The ambassador replied that the Austrian navy would not enter the Baltic and it did not do so.[176]
Palmerston accepted Russell's suggestion that the war should be settled at a conference, but at the ensuingLondon Conference of 1864 in May and June the Danes refused to accept their loss of Schleswig-Holstein. The armistice ended on 26 June and Prussian-Austrian troops quickly invaded more of Denmark. On 25 June the Cabinet was against going to war to save Denmark, and Russell's suggestion to send the Royal Navy to defend Copenhagen was only carried by Palmerston's vote. Palmerston, however, said the fleet could not be sent in view of the deep division in the Cabinet.[176]
On 27 June, Palmerston gave his statement to the Commons and said Britain would not go to war with the German powers unless the existence of Denmark as an independent power was at stake or Denmark's capital was threatened. The Conservatives replied that Palmerston had betrayed the Danes and a vote of censure in the House of Lords was carried by nine votes. In the debate in the Commons the Conservative MP GeneralJonathan Peel said: "It is come to this, that the words of the Prime Minister of England, uttered in the Parliament of England, are to be regarded as mere idle menaces to be laughed at and despised by foreign powers." Palmerston replied in the last night of the debate: "I say that England stands as high as she ever did and those who say she had fallen in the estimation of the world are not the men to whom the honour and dignity of England should be confided".[177]
The vote of censure was defeated by 313 votes to 295, with Palmerston's old enemies in the pacifist camp, Cobden and Bright, voting for him. The result of the vote was announced at 2:30 in the morning, and when Palmerston heard the news he ran up the stairs to the Ladies' Gallery and embraced his wife. Disraeli wrote: "What pluck to mount those dreadful stairs at three o'clock in the morning, and eighty years of age!"[178]
In a speech at his constituency atTiverton in August, Palmerston told his constituents:
I am sure every Englishman who has a heart in his breast and a feeling of justice in his mind, sympathizes with those unfortunate Danes (cheers), and wishes that this country could have been able to draw the sword successfully in their defence (continued cheers); but I am satisfied that those who reflect on the season of the year when that war broke out, on the means which this country could have applied for deciding in one sense that issue, I am satisfied that those who make these reflections will think that we acted wisely in not embarking in that dispute. (Cheers.) To have sent a fleet in midwinter to the Baltic every sailor would tell you was an impossibility, but if it could have gone it would have been attended by no effectual result. Ships sailing on the sea cannot stop armies on land, and to have attempted to stop the progress of an army by sending a fleet to the Baltic would have been attempting to do that which it was not possible to accomplish. (Hear, hear.) If England could have sent an army, and although we all know how admirable that army is on the peace establishment, we must acknowledge that we have no means of sending out a force at all equal to cope with the 300,000 or 400,000 men whom the 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 of Germany could have pitted against us, and that such an attempt would only have insured a disgraceful discomfiture—not to the army, indeed, but to the Government which sent out an inferior force and expected it to cope successfully with a force so vastly superior. (Cheers.) ... we did not think that the Danish cause would be considered as sufficiently British, and as sufficiently bearing on the interests and the security and the honour of England, as to make it justifiable to ask the country to make those exertions which such a war would render necessary.[179]
Europe's leaders were unable to settle the matter by peaceful compromise. Palmerston's biographer William Baring Pemberton argued that his "failure to understand Bismarck lies at the root of his misunderstanding of the Schleswig-Holstein question, and it derived from an old man's inability to adapt himself to a changing world".[180] Thus Britain was militarily unable to stop Bismarck's armies and misunderstood Bismarck's ambitions. Russian historian V. N. Vinogradov writes: "In place of the former insight came bias in judgments and stubbornness in defending outdated views. Palmerston continued to consider Prussia 'an instrument in the hands of Austria', its army weak and doomed to defeat, and its public to consist of romantically minded students and dreamy professors. And Otto von Bismarck quietly annexed the two Duchies to Prussia, and at the same time theCounty of Lauenburg".[181][verification needed]
Palmerston won anothergeneral election in July 1865, increasing his majority. The leadership of Palmerston was a great electoral asset to the Liberal Party.[182] He then had to deal with the outbreak ofFenian violence in Ireland. Palmerston ordered theViceroy of Ireland,Lord Wodehouse, to take measures against this, 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.[183]
He advised that more armaments be sent to Canada and more troops be sent to Ireland. During these last few weeks of his life, Palmerston pondered on developments in foreign affairs. He began thinking of a new friendship with France as "a sort of preliminary defensive alliance" against the United States 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 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."[184]
At eighty, Palmerston continued leading the country, though despite being acutely aware of the changing tides that would define the coming age. Reflecting on his eventual successor, Palmerston predicted that Gladstone would soon take over, saying "Gladstone will soon have it all his own way; and whenever he gets my place, we shall have strange doings".[185] In July, he gave his last formal speech regarding the services provided by members of private businesses. Palmerston traveled to his constituency of Tiverton, where he engaged in a "one more brush" with theChartist butcher Mr. Rowcliffe. Concerns over a weak voice quickly disintegrated following his performance.[186]
Palmerston enjoyed robust health in old age,[187] living at Romsey in his home Foxhills, built in about 1840. On 12 October 1865, he caught a chill. Instead of retiring immediately to bed, Palmerston spent an hour and a half dawdling. He then had a violent fever but his condition stabilised for the next few days. However, on the night of 17 October, his health worsened, and when his doctor asked him if he believed in regeneration of the world throughJesus Christ, Palmerston replied: "Oh, surely."[188] His last words were, "That's Article 98; now go on to the next." (He was thinking about diplomatic treaties.)[188] An 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 Palmerston wanted to be buried atRomsey Abbey, the Cabinet insisted that he should have astate funeral and be buried atWestminster Abbey, which he was, on 27 October 1865.[189] He was the fifth person not of royalty to be granted a state funeral (afterRobert Blake, SirIsaac Newton,Lord Nelson, and theDuke of Wellington).
Queen Victoria wrote after his death that though she regretted his passing, she had never liked or respected him: "Strange, and solemn to think of that strong, determined man, with so much worldly ambition – gone! He had often worried and distressed us, though as Pr. Minister he had behavedvery well."[190]Florence Nightingale reacted differently upon hearing of his death: "He will be a great loss to us. Tho' he made a joke when asked to do the right thing, he always did it. No one else will be able to carry things thro' the Cabinet as he did. I shall lose a powerful protector...He was so much more in earnest than he appeared. He did not do himself justice."[190]
Having no male heir, his Irish viscountcy became extinct upon his death, but his property was inherited by his stepsonWilliam Cowper-Temple (later created the 1stBaron Mount Temple), whose inheritance included a 10,000-acre (4,000-hectare) estate in the north ofCounty Sligo in the west ofIreland, on which his stepfather had commissioned the building of the incompleteClassiebawn Castle.[191]
As the exemplar of British nationalism, he was "the defining political personality of his age."[192]
HistorianNorman Gash endorses Jasper Ridley's characterisation of Palmerston:
Fundamentally he was a professional politician, shrewd, cynical, resilient; tough and sometimes unscrupulous; quick to seize opportunities; always ready either to abandon an impossible cause or bide his time for a more favourable opportunity. He liked power, he needed his salary, he enjoyed office, he worked hard. In later life he took an increasing pleasure in the game of politics, and ultimately became an adroit and successful prime minister.... in the end he became one of the great Victorian public personalities, a legend in his own lifetime, the personification of an England that was already passing away.[193]
Historian Algernon Cecil summed up his greatness:
Palmerston placed his trust... in the Press which he was at pains to manipulate; in Parliament, which he learnt better than any man then living to manage; and the Country, whose temper he knew how to catch and the weight of his name and resources he brought to bear upon every negotiation with a patriotic effrontry that has never been excelled.[194]
Palmerston has traditionally been viewed as "a Conservative at home and a Liberal abroad".[195] He believed that the British constitution as secured by theGlorious Revolution of 1688 was the best which human hands had made, with a constitutional monarchy subject to the laws of the land but retaining some political power. He supported the rule of law and opposed further democratisation after theReform Act 1832. He wished to see this liberal system of a mixed constitution in-between the two extremes of absolute monarchy and republican democracy replace the absolute monarchies on the Continent.[196] More recently some historians have seen his domestic policies as prime minister as not merely liberal but genuinely progressive by the standards of his era.[197]
It is in foreign affairs that Palmerston is chiefly remembered. Palmerston's principal aim in foreign policy was to advance British national interests.[198] Palmerston is famous for his patriotism.Lord John Russell said that "his heart always beat for the honour of England".[199] Palmerston believed it was in Britain's interests that liberal governments be established on the Continent. He also practised brinkmanship and bluff in that he was prepared to threaten war to achieve Britain's interests.[198]
When in 1886Lord Rosebery became foreign secretary in theThird Gladstone ministry,John Bright, a longstanding radical critic of Palmerston, asked Rosebery if he had read about Palmerston's policies as foreign secretary. Rosebery replied that he had. "Then", said Bright, "you know what to avoid. Do the exact opposite of what he did. His administration at the Foreign Office was one long crime."[200]
In contrast theMarquess of Lorne, a son-in-law of Queen Victoria, said of Palmerston in 1866: "He loved his country and his country loved him. He lived for her honour, and she will cherish his memory."[201]
In 1889, Gladstone recounted a story of when "a Frenchman, thinking to be highly complimentary, said to Palmerston: 'If I were not a Frenchman, I should wish to be an Englishman'; to which Pam coolly replied: 'If I were not an Englishman, I should wish to be an Englishman.'"[198] WhenWinston Churchill campaigned for rearmament in the 1930s, he was compared to Palmerston in warning the nation to look to its defences.[202] The policy ofappeasement led GeneralJan Smuts to write in 1936 that "we are afraid of our shadows. I sometimes long for a ruffian like Palmerston or any man who would be more than a string of platitudes and apologies."[203]
He was an avowedabolitionist 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 South American countries and the United States over his insistence that the Royal Navy had the right to search the vessels of any country if they suspected the vessels were being used in theAtlantic slave trade.[204][205]
HistorianA. J. P. Taylor has summarised his career by emphasising the paradoxes:
For twenty years junior minister in a Tory government, he became the most successful of Whig Foreign Secretaries; though always a Conservative, he ended his life by presiding over the transition from Whiggism to Liberalism. He was the exponent of British strength, yet was driven from office for truckling to a foreign despot; he preached the Balance of Power, yet helped to inaugurate the policy of isolation and of British withdrawal from Europe. Irresponsible and flippant, he became the first hero of the serious middle-class electorate. He reached high office solely through an irregular family connection; he retained it through skilful use of the press—the only Prime Minister to become an accomplished leader-writer.[206]
Palmerston is also remembered for his light-hearted approach to government. He is once said to have claimed of a particularly intractable problem relating toSchleswig-Holstein, that only three people had ever understood the problem: one wasPrince Albert, who was dead; the second was a German professor, who had gone insane; and the third was himself, who had forgotten it.[207]
The Life of Lord Palmerston up to 1847 was written byHenry Bulwer, 1st Baron Dalling and Bulwer, volumes I and II (1870), volume III edited and partly written byEvelyn Ashley (1874), after the author's death. Ashley completed the biography in two more volumes (1876). The whole work was reissued in a revised and slightly abridged form by Ashley in 2 volumes in 1879, with the titleThe Life and Correspondence of Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston; the letters are judiciously curtailed, but unfortunately without indicating where the excisions occur; the appendices of the original work are omitted, but much fresh matter is added, and this edition is undoubtedly the standard biography.[208]
The popular Victorian novelistAnthony Trollope published a biography of Palmerston, one of his political heroes, in 1882.
Palmerston Lodge, Fairburn, North Yorkshire, hunting lodge built by Lord Palmerston in Fairburn, Yorkshire.
Palmerston's Memorial in Southampton
The Town ofPalmerston located in Southwestern Ontario, Canada was founded and named after Palmerston in 1875. Palmerston is now part of the amalgamated town of Minto.
The former township of Palmerston inFrontenac County in Eastern Ontario, now part of the amalgamated township ofNorth Frontenac
The Australian city ofDarwin was previously named Palmerston in honour of the Viscount. A satellite city calledPalmerston was established adjacent to Darwin in 1971.
Palmerston Atoll is the most northerly of the Southern Group of the Cook Islands in the South Pacific Ocean. Amongst the 15 or so islands of the atoll, Palmerston Island is the only one which is inhabited.
In theRathmines area ofDublin 6 in the southern suburbs, villas are named after Palmerston, as well as Temple Road and Palmerston Road. Both are quasi-translated variously as Bóthar an Stiguaire, Bóthar P(h)almerston, Bóthar Baile an Phámar and Bóthar an Teampaill.
Palmerston Park,Southampton was named after him, as was nearby Palmerston Road. A seven-foot high marble statue of Palmerston was erected in the park and unveiled on 2 June 1869.[209] Temple street in Sligo is also called after him
The Cantos - In Canto LII,Ezra Pound references "Lord Palmerston / draining swamps in Sligo / Fought smoke nuisance in London. Dredged harbour in Sligo."
July 1855 – Sir William Molesworth succeeds Russell as Colonial Secretary. Molesworth's successor asFirst Commissioner of Works is not in the Cabinet.
November 1855 –Henry Labouchere succeeds Molesworth as Colonial Secretary
December 1855 – The Duke of Argyll succeeds Lord Canning as Postmaster-General. Lord Harrowby succeeds Argyll as Lord Privy Seal. Harrowby's successor as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not in the Cabinet
1857 –Matthew Talbot Baines, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, enters the Cabinet.
July 1861 – Sir George Cornewall Lewis succeeds Herbert as Secretary for War. Sir George Grey succeeds Lewis as Home Secretary. Edward Cardwell succeeds Grey as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Cardwell's successor as Chief Secretary for Ireland is not in the Cabinet.
April 1863 –Lord de Grey becomes Secretary for War following Sir George Lewis's death.
April 1864 – Edward Cardwell succeeds the Duke of Newcastle as Colonial Secretary.George Villiers, 4th Earl of Clarendon succeeds Cardwell as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Coat of arms of Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
Crest
A talbot sejant Sable plain collared Or.
Escutcheon
Quarterly 1st & 4th Or an eagle displayed Sable (Leofric, Saxon Earl of Mercia), 2nd & 3rd Argent two bars Sable each charged with three martlets Or (Temple).
Supporters
Dexter a lion reguardant poean sinister a horse reguardant Argent mane tail and hoofs Or.
^Little, Tony."Viscount Palmerston (Henry John Temple), 1784–1865".Liberal Democrat History Group. Archived fromthe original on 17 September 2021. Retrieved17 September 2021.If we date the modern Liberal Party from the 1859 meeting in Willis' Tea Rooms, we must accord Palmerston the honour of being the first Liberal Prime Minister, though he would have thought himself the Queen's minister and the nation's leader rather than a party's.
^Brain, Jessica."Lord Palmerston".Historic UK. Archived fromthe original on 23 January 2025. Retrieved7 December 2024.In the years that followed, political infighting and international affairs would continue to dominate Palmerston's time in office. He would end up resigning and then serving as Prime Minister again, this time as the first Liberal leader in 1859.
^Although peers ofEngland,Great Britain, and theUnited Kingdom sat in the House of Lords and were not able to sit as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, the Viscountcy of Palmerston was in thePeerage of Ireland which did not automatically grant the right to sit in the Lords. Palmerston was thus able to serve as an MP.
^David Brown,Palmerston: a biography (2011) p. 57.
^George Henry Francis,Opinions and Policy of the Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B., M.P., &c. as Minister, Diplomatist, and Statesman, During More Than Forty Years of Public Life (1852), pp. 1–3.
^Kenneth Bourne (ed.),The Letters of the Third Viscount Palmerston to Laurence and Elizabeth Sulivan. 1804–1863. London: TheRoyal Historical Society, 1979. p. 97.
^Dick Leonard,Nineteenth Century British Premiers: Pitt to Rosebery (2008) pp. 249–51
^Lewis, Donald (2014).The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury And Evangelical Support for a Jewish Homeland. Cambridge University Press. p. 380.ISBN9781107631960.
^Glenn Melancon, "Peaceful intentions: the first British trade commission in China, 1833–5."Historical Research 73.180 (2000): pp. 33-47.
^May Caroline Chan, "Canton, 1857"Victorian Review (2010), 36#1 pp. 31-35.
^John K. Derden, "The British Foreign Office and Policy Formation: The 1840s,"Proceedings & Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians (1981) pp. 64–79.
^Laurence Fenton, "Origins of Animosity: Lord Palmerston and The Times, 1830–41."Media History 16.4 (2010): pp. 365–378; Fenton,Palmerston and The Times: foreign policy, the press and public opinion in mid-Victorian Britain (2013).
^K D Reynolds,Oxford DNB, 'Temple, Emily'. Palmerston left his family seatBroadlands to her fourth, but 2nd surviving son Rt. Hon.Evelyn Melbourne Ashley (24 July 1836 – 15 November 1907)
^David Brown,Palmerston: A Biography(2010), pp. 474-78.
^Bolton, Sarah (1891).Famous English Statesmen of Queen Victoria's Reign. Boston: C.J. Peter's and Sons. p. 85.
^Gillian Gill,We Two: Victoria and Albert: Rulers, Partners, Rivals (2008) p. 263.
^Robert Remini,Daniel Webster (W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1997) pp. 538–565.
^David Brown.,Palmerston: A Biography (2010) pp. 279–333.
^Hicks, Geoffrey (2004). "Don Pacifico, Democracy, and Danger: The Protectionist Party Critique of British Foreign Policy, 1850–1852".International History Review.26 (3):515–540.doi:10.1080/07075332.2004.9641038.S2CID154617613.
^Brown, David (2001). "The power of public opinion: Palmerston and the crisis of December 1851".Parliamentary History.20 (3):333–358.doi:10.1111/j.1750-0206.2001.tb00381.x.
^Arnold, Guy (16 April 2002).Historical Dictionary of the Crimean War. Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest, No. 19. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press (published 2002). p. 119.ISBN9780810866133. Retrieved18 June 2021.As war came closer the bulk of the British fleet was committed to the Mediterranean and on 13 June 1853, as tensions mounted, the British and French Mediterranean fleets were moved to Besika Bay, close to the Dardanelles, and ready to move to the support of Turkey.
^Mason, Roger (30 June 2018).Prime Ministerial Anecdotes. Fonthill Media.Lord Palmerston started his career as a Tory, became a Whig and is generally recognised as the first Liberal Prime Minister.
^Philip Guedalla (ed.),Gladstone and Palmerston, being the Correspondence of Lord Palmerston with Mr. Gladstone 1851–1865 (London: Victor Gollancz, 1928), p. 279.
^Kenneth Bourne, "British Preparations for War with the North, 1861–1862,"The English Historical Review Vol 76 No 301 (Oct 1961) pp. 600–632JSTOR558199
^Eichhorn, Niels (2014). "The Intervention Crisis of 1862: A British Diplomatic Dilemma?".American Nineteenth Century History.15 (3):287–310.doi:10.1080/14664658.2014.959819.S2CID143983887.
^Martin Gilbert,Winston Churchill. The Wilderness Years (London: Book Club Associates, 1981), pp. 106–107.
^W. K. Hancock,Smuts. Volume II: The Fields of Force. 1919–1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 281.
^J. R. Oldfield, "Palmerston and Anti-Slavery"Palmerston Studies 2 (2007): 24-38.
^Leslie M. Bethell, "Britain, Portugal and the suppression of the Brazilian slave trade: the origins of Lord Palmerston's Act of 1839."English historical review 80.317 (1965): 761-784online.
^A. J. P. Taylor, "Lord Palmerston,"History Today January 1991, Vol. 41#1 p. 1
Argyll, John Douglas Sutherland Campbell, Duke of (1892).Viscount Palmerston. New York: HarperCollins.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Bourne, Kenneth (1961). "The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and the Decline of British Opposition to the Territorial Expansion of the United States, 1857–60".Journal of Modern History.33 (3):287–291.doi:10.1086/238848.JSTOR1876138.S2CID154863763.
Brown, David.Palmerston and the politics of foreign policy, 1846-55 (2002)online PhD dissertation
Brown, David. "Palmerston and Anglo–French Relations, 1846–1865."Diplomacy and Statecraft 17.4 (2006): 675–692.
Brown, David (2001). "Compelling but not Controlling?: Palmerston and the Press, 1846–1855".History. 86#201 (281):41–61.doi:10.1111/1468-229X.00176.
Brown, David (2001). "The Power of Public Opinion: Palmerston and the Crisis of December 1851".Parliamentary History.20 (3):333–358.doi:10.1111/j.1750-0206.2001.tb00381.x.
Brown, David and Miles Taylor, eds.Palmerston Studies I and II (Southampton: Harrley Institute, 2007); pp. 203, 207; essays by scholars
Cecil, Algernon.British Foreign Secretaries 1807-1916 (1927) pp. 131–226.online
Chamberlain, Muriel Evelyn.British Foreign Policy in the Age of Palmerston (Longman, 1980).
Chambers, James.Palmerston. 'The People's Darling' (John Murray, 2004).ISBN978-0-7195-5452-0
Eichhorn, Niels. "The Intervention Crisis of 1862: A British Diplomatic Dilemma?."American Nineteenth Century History 15.3 (2014): 287-310.
Fenton, Laurence (2013).Palmerston and The Times: Foreign Policy, the Press and Public Opinion in Mid-Victorian Britain. IB Tauris.description
Fenton, L. "Palmerston and The Times - a study of foreign policy, the press and public opinion, 1846-51" (PhD Dissertation, University College Cork (Ireland); ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2003. U187638), Available online.
Friedman, Isaiah. "Lord Palmerston and the protection of Jews in Palestine 1839-1851."Jewish Social Studies (1968): 23–41.JSTOR4466386
Fuller, Howard J. (2014).Technology and the Mid-Victorian Royal Navy Ironclad: Royal Navy Crisis in the Age of Palmerston. Routledge.Excerpt
Golicz, Roman. "Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston and the Entente Cordiale."History Today 50.12 (2000): 10–17.
Guedalla, Philip (1927).Palmerston, 1784-1865. New York, London, G. P. Putnam's sons.
Henderson, Gavin B. "The Foreign Policy of Lord Palmerston"History 22#88 (1938), pp. 335–344,JSTOR24401363
Hicks, Geoffrey (2007).Peace, War and party politics: the Conservatives and Europe, 1846–59. Manchester University Press.
Hickson, G. F. "Palmerston and the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty".Cambridge Historical Journal 3#3 (1931), pp. 295–303.JSTOR3020744
Hoppen, K. Theodore (1998).The Mid-Victorian Generation, 1846–1886., wide-ranging scholarly survey
Judd, Denis.Palmerston (Bloomsbury, 2015).
Kingston, Klari. "Gunboat Liberalism? Palmerston, Europe and 1848"History Today 47#2 (1997) 37–43.
Krein, David Frederick. " Genesis of isolation: Palmerston, Russell and the Formation of British Foreign Policy, 1861–1864." (PhD dissertation, University of Iowa; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1974. 7501215), Available online at academic libraries; 2 vol. 600pp.
Leonard, DickNineteenth Century British Premieres: Pitt to Roseberry (2008) pp. 245–65.
Macknight, Thomas.Thirty Years of Foreign Policy, a History of the Secretaryships of the Earl of Aberdeen and Viscount Palmerston (1855),Online free
Roberts, David. "Lord Palmerston at the home office."Historian 21.1 (1958): 63-81.JSTOR24437747
Rodkey, Frederick Stanley. "Lord Palmerston and the rejuvenation of Turkey, 1830-41."Journal of Modern History 1.4 (1929): 570-593.online
Rodkey, Frederick Stanley. "Lord Palmerston and the Rejuvenation of Turkey, 1830-41: Part II, 1839-41."Journal of Modern History 2.2 (1930): 193-225.JSTOR1872311
Steele, David. "Three British Prime Ministers and the Survival of the Ottoman Empire, 1855–1902."Middle Eastern Studies 50.1 (2014): 43-60. Covers Palmerston, Gladstone, and Salisbury.
Taylor, A. J. P. "Lord Palmerston"History Today (July 1951) 1#7 pp. 35–41 online
Taylor, Antony. "Palmerston and Radicalism, 1847-1865."Journal of British Studies 33.2 (1994): 157-179.JSTOR175909
Temperley, Harold, and Gavin B. Henderson. "Disraeli and Palmerston in 1857, or, the Dangers of Explanations in Parliament."Cambridge Historical Journal 7.2 (1942): 115-126.JSTOR3020795
Vereté, Mayir. "Palmerston and the Levant Crisis, 1832."Journal of Modern History 24.2 (1952): 143-151.JSTOR1872562
Vyčichlo, Jiří.Palmerston and Metternich’s Austria, 1830‒1841: Clash of Ideas in the Balance of Power (Walter de Gruyter , 2025).
Walpole, Spencer.The History of Twenty-Five Years: Volume 1 1858 to 1865 (I904)online
Weber, Frank G. "Palmerston and Prussian Liberalism, 1848."Journal of Modern History 35.2 (1963): 125-136.JSTOR1899235
Webster, Charles.The Foreign Policy of Palmerston. 1830-1841 (2v. 1951) a major study;vol q11 online; also seevol 2 online
Weigall, David.Britain and the World, 1815–1986: A Dictionary of International relations (1989)
Ward, A.W. andG. P. Gooch, eds.The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (3 vol, 1921–23),Volume II: 1815–66
Williams, Chris, ed.A Companion to 19th-Century Britain (2006). Chapters 1 to 4, pp. 15–92;
Bourne, Kenneth (1979).The Letters of the Third Viscount Palmerston to Laurence and Elizabeth Sulivan. 1804–1863. London: The Royal Historical Society..online
Bourne, Kenneth, ed/ Foreign Policy of Victorian England, 1830-1902 (1970) Long introduction, +147 primary source documents, many by Palmerston.online
Francis, George Henry (1852).Opinions and Policy of The Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B., M.P., &c. as Minister, Diplomatist, and Statesman, During More Than Forty Years of Public Life. London: Colburn and Co.
Guedalla, Philip, ed.Gladstone and Palmerston, being the Correspondence of Lord Palmerston with Mr. Gladstone 1851–1865 (Victor Gollancz, 1928),online
Partridge, Michael ed.Lives of Victorian Political Figures Part 1: Volume I Lord Palmerston Pickering & Chatto. 2006) volume 1 reprints 19 original pamphlets on Palmerston.
Temperley, Harold and L.M. Penson, eds.Foundations of British Foreign Policy: From Pitt (1792) to Salisbury (1902) (1938), primary sources pp. 88–304online
_by_Thomas_Jones_Barker.jpg)
.svg)
.svg)