No one who did not appreciate the man and the occasion would have dreamed that he was confronting a crisis which might lead to a change in the Ministry, and might array the two Houses of Parliament in angry hostility against each other.  But here lay the consummate skill of the Premier.  He was playing a most difficult role, and he played it to perfection.  He could not rely on the support of the Radicals.  He must therefore make amends for their possible defection by drawing largely on the Conservative strength.  The great danger was, that, while conciliating the Conservatives by a show of concession, he should alienate his own party by seeming to concede too much.  Now, that the effect which he aimed to produce excluded all declamation, all attempt at eloquence, anything like flights of oratory or striking figures of rhetoric, nobody understood better than Lord Palmerston.

In view of all these circumstances, the adroitness, the ability, the sagacity, and the success of his speech were most wonderful.  Gladstone was more philosophical, statesmanlike, and eloquent; Whiteside more impassioned and vehement; Disraeli more witty, sarcastic, and telling; but Lord Palmerston displayed more of those qualities without which no one can be a successful leader of the House of Commons.  The result was, that two of the resolutions passed without a division, and the third was carried by an immense majority.  The Prime Minister had understood the temper of the House, and had shaped his course accordingly.  As we have seen, he succeeded to a marvel.  But was it such a triumph as a great and far-reaching statesman would have desired?  And this brings us to the other side of the picture.

Dexterous, facile, adroit, politic, versatile,—­as Lord Palmerston certainly is,—­fertile in resources, prompt to seize and use to the utmost every advantage, endowed with unusual popular gifts, and blessed with imperturbable good-humor, it cannot be denied that in many of the best and noblest attributes of a statesman he is sadly deficient.  His fondness for political power and his anxiety to achieve immediate success inevitably lead him to resort to temporary and often unworthy expedients.  A manly reliance on general principles, and a firm faith in the ultimate triumph of right and justice, constitute no part of his character.  He lives only in the present.  That he is making history seems never to occur to him.  He does not aspire to direct, but only aims to follow, or at best to keep pace with public opinion.  What course he will pursue on a given question can never be safely predicted, until you ascertain, as correctly as he can, what is the prevailing temper of the House or the nation.  That he will try to “make things pleasant,” to conciliate the Opposition without weakening the strength of his own party, you may be sure; but for, any further clue to his policy you must consult the press, study the spirit of Parliament, and hear the voice of the people.