New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-11-04
THE CHARACTER OF PALMEB
STON.

v
have been greater Englishmen than either, men
with more genius and fre-but these were
RULERS. Walpole crushed the Jacobites and Sc
Icured the HanoverS upon their throne; Pitt
fought Jacobinism and the rising power of Ma
boleon; Palmerston carried England through
thalf century Of peace, and profting by the
Lerors Of Pitt, controlled Napoleonism instead Of
lantagonizing it. PalmerstOn was unlike either
Iof his illustrious predecessors. He did not have
the stern task of Walpole, nOrwas he tormented
lby the mean jealousy which made that Minister
Idrive from his side every statesman Of genius,
land control Parliament by the baseSt and
Imost degrading means. Nor had he the difficult
tiles of Pitt-whose master bordering on insanity,
Twas crazy about every important event Of his
lreign, crafty hating Fox, and the French and
the Catholics, and admiring in Pitt, not the
lsplendor Of his genius, but that spirit Of uncom-
Iplaining and unresisting acquiescence which
has. dimmed his fame. Palmerston would have
left the coarse, vulgar society of George IL. with
his mistresseS. his brutal harsh temper, his
apathy to everything English, and his constant
laundering for Hanover with disgust, and gone
of with contemptuous laugh to his foxes and
hounds. Nor could he have brooked the dog
matism of George III. Whatever PalmeYston
may have been with the people or the pOliti-
clans, he ruled in the royal closet, and he would
have treated the crazy George with as much
GOODNESS as he showed toward Victoria during
| the coup detdt Of 1851 This arose partly from
his nature and partly from the great changes
that had come over England. The En-
gland of PalmerSton was UNLIKE that
of Walpole or Pitt. in this, that
it was free-untrammeled by direct court infu-
ence-and by reason Of its great press the Gov
eminent came near to the country. If Walpole
offended his German master he had no refuge
but to buy up the House of Commons, and this
failed him in the end, for other purses were
longer, and his majority vanished. The
strength of George III. was the dread of Che
middle classes toward John Wilkes and the
radicals; and by reason of this dread the mean-
est of English Kings became the most despouc.
Palmerston lived near the people. He early
learned that after all he must be one with
| Englishmen or his power would be evanescent.
If he had their strength he was strong indeed.
The Queen might scold, bat if lie heard, on his
way from the royal closet to Downing ST.,
the cheers of crowd of butchers, he might
afford TO smile at her Majesty's wrath. The
House of Commons under some temporary
spell, might defy the Minister and censure him
the Minister had only TO send the Gentlemen
Of the Commons home and appeal to the cOun-
try.
Here was Palmerstons strength. He was The
Englshman of the nineteenth century. He
was no wiser, no more fooliSh-no stronger, no
weaker, b. one of the English people-shar-
ling in their joys and sorrows partner in
ttheir sports-what we in America best express
lby the phrase, "Hal-.ellow well-met." Pal
merston in America would have been such
"a politician as the late Mr.. Douglas.
He went among the people and was of them.
His broad, genial, English face was never I'M
IwelcOme in the theater, nor on the platform,
nor at the Derby. His genius was not of the
kind TO bother them. Reversing the old with
jcism, we might say he never did foolish thing
and never said wise one. He chafied them.
Whether on the hastings amid Drawing
mob, or restraining an angry minority IN the
lCommons or making his annual speech at
1.-The Lord Mayors dinner, or addressing a
few words Of comic suggestion or hali-serous
advice to a company Of university students:
wherever PalmerstOn's face appeared to the eye
of England il was the face that Punch hadmade
11amous-the twinkling eye, the jolly face, the
crisp side-whiskers, suggesting Bond-st. and
Rotten-row in earlier days. When scandal crept
around the old mans grey forehead England
was delighted; not the morbid delight OF
wickedness, bat rollicking jolly sympathy
with the manhood that at fJurScOre was sup
posed to be still susceptible to the sins of
Younger days. They understood him. Disraeli
was great with his rich oriental rhetoric, and
the imprisoned sarcastic, almost sardonic, ap-
peals to the fox-hunting Tories. Gladstone
was sublime, with his majestic periods, his
Hellenics, and his sudden bursts Of liberalism.
Bright was plucky but obstinate. Derby
was magnificent, and wrote good translation
of Homer-but who was Homer; did he fight
in the war against Bonapartel Russell was
saucy. and wrote some sublime letters TO the
Chinese and Polynesian heathens but allowed
France and Russia to bully him and, BESIDES he
was little morsei, this Johnny Russell, and
couldn't ride TO the hounds without falling into
the ditch. PalmerstOn was their man-lOlly
IN one of the most gifted