London, June 1. If Gladstone deceives by his air of profundity, 
Palmerston deceives by his air of superficiality. He knows how to 
conceal his real intention with true artistry beneath loosely 
connected phrases meant for effect and commonplace concessions 
to the opinion of the day. His Cabinet speech has now lain before 
the public for a week.* The daily and weekly press has ventilated, 
scrutinised and criticised it. His enemies say that after keeping to 
the language of old Aberdeen for many months he has now found 
it appropriate to speak the language of old Palmerston again 
for an evening. They say: the noble lord is witness for himself, but 
who will be witness for the noble lord”? They regard his speech as 
a clever feat since he manages to avoid giving any definite account 
of his policies, and adopts such an elastic, airy form that it is 
impossible to pin him down anywhere. His friends, on the other 
hand, do not hesitate to hail the wind he expended on_ his 
rhetorical organ-playing as the music itself. From the beginning he 
correctly grasped the situation in which he had to present himself 
to the House and to the country. Who confronts me? 

“ .There are those who think, on the one hand, that we have not been 
sufficiently vigorous in the prosecution of the war while there are those who wish, 
on the other hand, to drive the country to a peace upon ignominious terms; on 
the one hand, there are those who reproach us for having opened negotiations 
with Austria that are pointless and only paralyse the war, but, on the other, those 

“A report on Palmerston’s, Disraeli’s,and Layard’s speeches in the House of 
Commons on May 25, 1855 was published in The Times, No. 22064, May 26, 
1855.— Ed. 

A quotation from Disraeli’s speech in the House of Commons on May 24, 
1855 (see this volume, p. 230).— Ed. 

who think that we have not gone far enough in these negotiations and have 
wrecked them by making extravagant demands.” 

Thus he took up the stance of a man of the true centre. He 
repulsed the attacks of the war men by referring them to the 
peace men and the attacks of the peace men by referring them 
back to the war men. The about-turn against the committed peace 
men then gave him the opportunity to indulge in well-calculated 
outbursts of patriotic fervour, loud protestation of energy and all 
the brave words which he has so often used to bamboozle the 
ninnies. He flattered national pride by listing the great resources 
that England has at its disposal—his sole reply to the accusation 
that he is incapable of handling large resources. 

“The noble lord,” said Disraeli, “reminds me {..J of that parvenu who used to 
recommend himself to his mistress’s good graces by enumerating his possessions. ‘I 
have a house in the country, a house in town, a gallery of pictures, a fine cellar of 
wines.” 

Thus England has a Baltic fleet and a fleet in the Black Sea, and 
an annual national income of £80 million, etc. However, among all 
the rhetorical trivialities in which Palmerston’s speech petered out, 
she succeeded in throwing in one definite statement, to which he can 
return later at a suitable opportunity and which he can proclaim 
as the principle of his policy, sanctioned by the House. No English 
newspaper has emphasised it, but the art of Palmerstonian oratory 
has always consisted of concealing its own point and sweeping it 
away from the memory of his listeners in the smooth, shallow flow 
of his phraseology. But as it is not simply a question of momentary 
success for Palmerston, as it is for Russell, because he plans ahead, 
he does not merely content himself with the oratorical expedients 
of the moment but carefully lays the foundation for his 
subsequent operations. The statement mentioned above says 
literally: 

“We are engaged in a great operation in the Black Sea. We trust and hope that 
we shall be successful in that operation. We think success in that operation will lead 
to the obtaining those conditions which [...] we have thought, in the present state of 
the conflict, Britain, France and Austria have a right to demand.” 

In other words, however protracted the operations in the Black 
Sea may be, the diplomatic basis of the war remains the same. 
However great the military success may be, final success is 
determined in adyance, and limited to what are called the Four 
Points.'”? And Palmerston makes this declaration when only a few 
hours earlier Layard had stripped the Four Points of their 
Russophile mask. But Palmerston diverted attention from Layard’s 

A Critique of Palmerston’s Latest Speech 239 

criticism, he avoided dealing with the real question, the value of 
the ostensible aims and objectives of the war, by defending the 
second half of the 3rd point* against Gladstone and advancing this 
half of the point as the entire thing. 

Palmerston’s speech was interrupted by an incident that is 
worthy of mention. An English bigot by the name of Lord Robert 
Grosvenor preached a penitential sermon at him because he had 
discussed military successes and the chances of war without taking 
into account the grace and favour of the Almighty, without even 
“mentioning the name of God”. So he called down divine 
judgment on his nation. Palmerston immediately did penance, 
beating his breast and proving that if necessary he, too, can preach 
and roll his eyes just as well as Lord Robert Grosvenor. But the 
parliamentary episode received a popular sequel. The citizens of 
Marylebone (a part of London) had called a large meeting in the 
School Room, Cowper Street, to protest against the “Bill for the 
Suppression of Trade on Sundays’. As their constituents were 
involved here, Lord Ebrington and Lord Robert Grosvenor 
appeared to defend the Bill, which they themselves had tabled in 
Parliament. Instead of relying on the protection and grace of God, 
however, they had taken pains to place a dozen paid clappers and 
trouble-makers at various spots in the meeting. The secret was 
soon discovered, and the hired agents of bigotry were immediately 
seized by the good citizens and thrown out into the street. 
Incapable of facing the hissing, booing and whistling that now 
broke out, the “noble lords” resumed their seats in a state of 
embarrassment. As soon as they left the meeting, an “unpaid” 
mob followed their carriage with unmistakable manifestations of 
sinful scorn and hardness of heart.