HOW LORD PALMERSTON FELL.

Lyttelton Times, 26 August 1858, Page 3

HOW LORD PALMERSTON FELL.

(From the ' Press.') The extremely sudden fall ot Lord Palmerston from power is one of the most curious incidents in modern Parliamentary history. Although the unwritten answer to Count Walewski's despatch deeply compromised Lord Palmerston's reputation as a diplomatist, it is evident that the noble viscount must on other grounds have completely lost the confidence of the House of Commons, else he would not have retired from power at the first hostile vote. He might have counted on the opposition of his avowed adversaries; but how did it happen that numbers of his former supporters declined any longer to give him their aid f We believe that the answer to that question may be found in the utter recklessness, and in the overbearing* manners, wantonly assumed by the late Prime Minister—a most painful subject, on which we have often commented in these columns.

There is no parallel in Parliamentary history for the arrogance assumed-by the Premier after he had obtained an.ephemeral majority. Grave, indeed, is the political: lesson taught by the Noble Viscount's want of proper respect for the gentlemen who are the representatives of the people. All the great Parliamentary leaders wore orators of the highest order—in which class no one could rank Lord Palmerston —-or else they have been men of admirable address. Walpole was genial and good humored; George Grenville, if formal and ceremonious, was a gentleman of the old school; Lord North had charming amenity and a temper that nothing could ruffle; the younger Pitt, if stately, solemn, and proud, was incapable of aught that could be confounded with low vulgarity ; the stinging satire of Mr. Canning was occasionally two poignant, but it was polished with classical refinement; Lord Castlereagh owed much to manners that were, admired b} r his most bitteiv detractors; and assuredly iLord Pa-«erston

could not find precedents in the demeanor of Sir Robert Peel, or of Lord John Russell, for those impetuous outbursts of grossness which tarnished his recent career. The delusion that he could play the part of Dictator completely turned Lord Palmerston's head, and he forgot the manners due to an assembly of the first gentlemen in the world. He fell into the same mistake as the great Irish demagogue, O'Connell. In the first reformed Parliament Mr. O'Connell had a large following, and his demeanour towards several of the leading English Liberals became actually intolerable, and alienated many even of the Radical party from the cause of justice to ' Ireland. Faults of manners that were natural in a democratic chief, bred up in the coarse turmoil of aggregate meetings, could never be tolerated in an English senator at.the head of the House of Commons. 'Never, certainly, did any leader of the Commons expose himself to such severe reproofs. The Noble Viscount sneered at Mr. Bright, as "the honorable and reverend gentleman," and, soon after, he had to endure from Mr. Bright the most scathing invective that has been heard since the days of Brougham; he told Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone " that he did not care what they thought;" the questions of a most accomplished mein- ! ber of the House (Mr. Stirling) he called | "very absurd;" and certainly Sir Bulwer Lytton gave the noble Viscount reason to recollect how "very absurd" such a style of sarcasm must ever prove in an assemblv of English gentlemen. Our readers will recollect that the ' Press' has called their repeated notice to the recklessness manifested by Lord Palmererston. Have not our views on the noble.Viscount's faults proved to be true? His own political friends rapidly became alienated from his affectation of autocracy; they were ready to follow a great chief, but they would" not cringe to a dictator, and they left the Parliamentary despot in a minority on the first legitimate opportunity. They knew well enough that the appointment of Lord Clanricarde was only the consequence of the utter I recklessness of Lord Palmerston, and that other acts of a similar kind were to be expected from the noble Lord.

The political lesson taught by the fall of Lord Palmerston is of the highest constitutional significance. Let a British Minister surround himself with; a devoted body guard of political adherents. Let him organise a majority without scruple, and lavish places without care, let him mesmerise n -.large' portion of the public press, and let him at the head of his great array mock at his adversaries, and laug-li to scorn the precedents of office, and the courtesies of Parliament, and then calculate upon ejection without sympathy, and a fall without dignity. The House of Commons will turn upon a defunct dictator. Greater men than ever Lord Palmerston has ever pretended to be—a Chatham and a Wellington—were tanght the tremendous power of the free Parliament of England; and no one knows better than Lord Palmerston that the Huskisson connection left the Wellington Cabinet chiefly because they thought tbat the Great Duke, then rather inexperienced in Parliamentary leadership, was not. continually conciliating in his demeanor. But the illustrious Wellesley, though stern in tone and laconic in phrase, was incapable of offering deliberate rudeness to any gentleman. His letters to persons who needlessly intruded on his valuable time were answered curtly but never coarsely; and even when his Grace was severely assailed in Parliament, that lofty nature never forgot what was due to his; own dignity, and to the rank of the Houses of Parliament.

We do not say that the coarseness of Lord Palmerston's demeanor was the chief cause of his fall from power, but it greatly aided that event. His deportment was universally felt to be personally offensive, and what added to its impropriety was the fact of his being rude without provocation. "Manners," says Burke, "are of more importance than laws, and upon them in a great degree the laws depend. " Manners corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarise or refine us by a steady insensible " operation like that of the air we breathe in." Our aristocracy and our English society has always been distinguished for a system of manners, in which ease and self-respect, with consideration for others, were united; and without proper courtesy it would be impossible to carry on the business of Parliament. Lord Palmerston violated the traditions of Parliament, while his talents were not so great as to atone for his faults; and a justlessori was given

to the world by the ease with w ich the vaunting Viscount was proved to be cott« querable even in the midst of his majority.