KARL MARX
THE ENGLISH ELECTION
London,  March 20, 1857
The coming  historian who  is
to write the history of Europe from 1848 to 1858, will be
struck by  the similarity of the appeal made to France by
Bonaparte in 1851 and the appeal to the United Kingdom
made by  Palmerston in 1857. Both  pretended to appeal
from Parliament to the nation, from treacherous party
coalition to the unsophisticated public mind. Both  set forth
analogous pleas. If Bonaparte was to save France from a
social, Palmerston is to save England from an international
crisis. Palmerston, like Bonaparte, is to vindicate the necessity of a strong  executive against the empty  talk and the
intermeddling importunity  of the legislative power. Bonaparte addressed himself at once to the conservatives124 and
the revolutionists; to the former as the enemy  of the aristocrats, to the latter as the enemy  of middle-class usurpation.
Palmerston, has he not  insulted every despotic Government?
Can he be obnoxious  to any liberal? On  the other hand, has
he not  betrayed every revolution? Must  he not  be the chosen
of the conservatives? He  opposed  every reform, and the
conservatives should not  stand by  him! He  keeps the Tories
out  of office, and the liberal place-hunters should desert
him! Bonaparte bears a name terrible to the foreigner, and
identical with French glory. And  does not  Palmerston do
the same with respect to the United Kingdom?  At  least, save
some  slight interruptions, he has kept the Foreign Office

since 1830, since the days of reformed England, and, therefore, since the beginning  of its modern history. Conse quently, the international existence of England, however
“terrible” or “glorious ” it may happen to appear to foreign
eyes, centres in the person  of Lord Palmerston. Bonaparte
by  one stroke set at naught all the official great men  of
France, and does Palmerston not  “kick into atoms” the
Russells, the Grahams, the Gladstones, the Roebucks,  the
Cobdens,  the Disraelis, and tutti quanti? Bonaparte stood
on  no  principle, he had no  impediment, but  he promised to
give the country  what it wanted, a man. And so  does
Palmerston. He  is a man. His  worst  enemies dare not  accuse
him  of being a principle.
The regime of the Assemblee Legislative— was it not  the
regime of a coalition composed of Legitimists and Orlean-
ists,125 with a sprinkling of bourgeois  Republicans? Their
very coalition proved the dissolution of the parties they
represented, while the old party traditions did not  allow
them to merge in any but  a negative unity. Such a negative
unit is unfit for action; its acts can only  be negative; it can
only  stop  the way; hence the power  of Bonaparte. Is the
case not  the same with Palmerston? The Parliament that
has sat since 1852, was it not  a coalition Parliament? and
was it, therefore, from the outset, not  incarnated in a Coalition Cabinet? The Assemblee Nationale, when  it was forcibly shut up  by  Bonaparte, ceased to possess  a working
majority. So  did the House  of Commons  when  Palmerston
proclaimed its final dissolution. But  here the simile ends.
Bonaparte made his coup d’etat before he appealed to the
nation. Restrained by  constitutional fetters, Palmerston
must  appeal to the nation before he attempts a coup d’etat.
In this respect it cannot be denied all the odds are on  the
side of Bonaparte. The massacres of Paris, the dragonnades
in the provinces, the general state of siege, the proscriptions and deportations en masse, the bayonet placed behind
and the cannon placed before the electoral urn,  gave to the
argumentations of the Bonapartist press (the only  one not
swept  away by  the December deluge) a sinister eloquence
which its shallow sophistry, its abominable logic, and its
nauseous floridness of adulation, were unable to deprive of

persuasive force. Palmerston’s case, on  the contrary, grows
the weaker the more  his myrmidons  inflate their lungs. Great
diplomatist as he is, he has forgotten to bid his slaves be
aware of the prescript of the lame who  liked to lead the
blind, to impress upon  them Talleyrand’s “pas de zele”.
And, indeed, they have overdone their part. Take, for
instance, the following diphyrambic uttered by  a metropolitan
organ:
“Palmerston for ever! is a cry which we  hope  to hear resounded from
every hustings. .. .The most  devoted allegiance to Lord Palmerston is the
first tenet to be insisted upon  in the profession of faith of every candidate. ... It is indispensable that liberal candidates will be compelled to
admit that Lord Palmerston as Premier is a political necessity of the hour.
It is requisite that he should be recognised as the man of the time, not
only  as the coming  man, but  as the man that has come; not  only  as the
man for the crisis, but  as the man and the only  living man for those conjunctures which are evidently impending upon  our  country.. . . He  is the
idol of the hour,  the pet of the people, the ascending as well as the risen
sun.” 126
No  wonder  that John  Bull should prove  reluctant to stand
this, and that a reaction against the Palmerstonian fever
should have set in.
Palmerston’s person  being proclaimed a policy, nP
wonder  that his adversaries have made it a policy to sift
his person. Indeed, we  find that Palmerston, as if by  magic,
has worked the revival from the dead of all the fallen
grandeurs of parliamentary England. In proof of this assertion, the spectacle of Lord John  Russell’s (the Whig ’s)
appearance before the metropolitan electors assembled at
the London  Tavern; the exhibition made by  Sir James
Graham, the Peelite, before his Carlisle constituency; and
lastly, the performance of Richard Cobden,  the representative of the Manchester School, before the crowded meeting
in the Free-Trade Hall at Manchester. Palmerston has not
acted like Hercules. He  has not  killed a giant by  lifting
him up  to the air,127 but  he has reinvigorated dwarfs by
throwing  them back upon  the earth. If any man had sunk
in public estimation, it was certainly Lord John  Russell,
the father of all legislative abortions, the hero of expediency, the negotiator of Vienna,128 the man in whose  hand
everything fatally dwindled to nothingness. Now  look at

his triumphal appearance before the London  electors.
Whence this change? It resulted simply  from the circumstances in which Palmerston had put  him. I, he said, am
the father of the Test and Corporation  Act, of the parliamentary Reform  Bill, of the municipal corporation reform,
of the tithes-question’s settlement,129 of some  liberal acts
with respect to the Dissenters, of others with respect to
Ireland. In one word,  I engross  the substance of whatever
was progressive in Whig  policy. Are you  to sacrifice me to
a man who  represents Whigism  Minus  its popular elements,
who  represents Whigism  not  as a political party, but  only  as
a place-hunting faction? And then he turned his very
shortcomings  to his advantage. I have always been an
adversary of the ballot. Do  you  expect me now,  because I
am proscribed by  Palmerston, to degrade myself by  recanting my  convictions and by  pledging myself to radical
reforms? No,  shouted his auditory. Lord John  ought  at this
moment  not  to be pledged to the ballot. It is greatness in the
little man to confess himself, under present circumstances,
a bit-by-bit reformer. Three cheers, and one more  for
John  Russell without  the ballot! And  then he gave the last
turn  to the scale, by  asking his audience whethei' they
would  allow a small coterie of opium  dealers, at the bidding
of Palmerston, to constitute themselves into an electioneering body  to impose  their government-hatched conclusions on
the free electors of the metropolis, and to proscribe himself,
Lord John  Russell, their friend of 16  years’ standing, at the
bidding of Palmerston! No,  no,  shouted the auditory—
down  with the Coterie! Long  life to Lord John  Russell!
And  he is now  likely not  only  to be returned, but  to head
the poll in London.
The case of Sir James Graham was still more  curious. If
Lord John  Russell had become ridiculous, Graham had become contemptible. But,  said he to his Carlisle constituents,
shall I be snuffed out  like a candle that is burned down  to the
socket, or shall I slink sway like a dog hunted off a racecourse, because, once in my  life, I acted conscientiously, and
risked rather my  political position than stoop  to the dictation
of a man? You  have returned me as your  representative in
spite of all my  infamies. Are you  to dismiss me for one

single good  action 1 have committed? Certainly not, reechoed the Carlisle electors.
In contradistinction to Russell and Graham, Mr. Cobden
had, at Manchester, not  to confront his own  electors,
but  the electors of Bright and Gibson. He  spoke not  for
himself, but  for the Manchester School. His  position waxed
from this circumstance. The Palmerstonian cry at Man chester was more  factitious than at any other place. The
interests of the industrial capitalists differ essentially from
those of the opium-smuggling  merchants of London  and
Liverpool. The opposition  raised at Manchester against Bright
and Gibson  was not  founded upon  the material interests of the
community,  while the cry raised for Palmerston was antagonistic to all its traditions. It proceded from two  sources—
from the high-priced press, endeavouring to revenge itself
for the abolition of the newspaper stamp and the reduction
of the advertisement duty,130 and from that portion  of rich
and snobbish  manufacturers who,  jealous of the political
eminency of Bright, try at playing the bourgeois  gentil-
hommes,  and think that it would  be fashionable and bon ton
to rally under the aristocratic banner of Palmerston rather
than under the sober  programme  of Bright. This peculiar
character of the Palmerstonian coterie at Manchester
enabled Cobden,  for the first time since the Anti-Corn  Law
League agitation, to take up  again the position  of a plebeian
leader and to summon  again the labouring classes to his
banners. Masterly he impoved that circumstance. The high
ground  he took  up  in his attack upon  Palmerston may be
judged from the following extract:
“Well, now  there is a great question  involved in this, which I think
the people of this country  ought  to take very much  to heart. Do  you
want the members  of the House  of Commons  to look after your  interests, and watch the expenditure— [yes, yes]— and to guard you  from
getting into needless and expensive wars? [Yes.] Well, but  you  are not
going  the right way to work,  if what I learn in your  newspapers is going
to be verified in the course of the election, for I am told that those
members  who  joined in that vigilant care of your  interests, and voted
according to the evidence before us  on  the question  of that war are all
to be ostracised— sent into private life— and that you  are going  to send
up  other men — [no, no]— to do what? to look after your  interests? No!
to go  and do the humble  dirty work  of the minister of the hour. [Loud
cheers.] In fact, that you  are going  to constitute Lord Palmerston the

despotic ruler of this country. [No,  no.] Well, but  if he is not  checked
by  Parliament— if the moment  Parliament does check him he dissolves
Parliament, and instead of sending up  men  who  are independent enough
to assert their and your  rights, you  send up  mere creatures of his will,
what is that but  investing him with the powers  of a despot? Ay,  and let
me tell you  that it is a despotism of the clumsiest, most  expensive kind,
and at the same time the most  irresponsible on  the face of the earth;
because you  surround  the minister with the sham appearance of a representative form of government; you  cannot get at him while he has got
a Parliament beneath whose  shield he can shelter himself; and if you
don’t do your  duty in your  elections in sending men  up  to the House  of
Commons  who  will vigilantly watch the minister of the day, then, I
say, you  are in a worse  plight, because governed in a more  irresponsible
way than if under the King  of Prussia or the Emperor  of the French.
[Loud cheers.}”
It will now  be understood why  Palmerston hurries on  the
elections. He  can only  vanquish by  surprise, and time baffles
surprise.
on  March 20, 1857
Published in the New-York Printed according
Daily Tribune No.  4980, to the newspaper text
April 6, 1857