A series of fortunate events followed his accession to power. In March 1855 the death of the emperor Nicholas removed his chief antagonist. In September Sevastopol was taken. The administration of the British army was reformed by a consolidation of offices. In the following spring peace was signed in Paris. Never since Pitt had a minister enjoyed a greater share of popularity and power, and, unlike Pitt, Palmerston had the prestige of victory in war. He was assailed in parliament by the eloquence of Gladstone, the sarcasms of Disraeli, and the animosity of the Manchester Radicals, but the country was with him. Defeated by a hostile combination of parties in the House of Commons on the question of the Chinese war in 1857 and the alleged insult to the British flag in the seizure of the lorcha "Arrow," he dissolved parliament and appealed to the nation. The result was the utter defeat of the extreme Radical party and the return of a more compact Liberal majority. The great events of the succeeding years, the Indian Mutiny, and the invasion of Italy by Napoleon III., belong rather to the general history of the times than to the life of Palmerston; but it was fortunate that a strong and able government was at the head of affairs. Lord Derby's second administration of 1858 lasted but a single year, Palmerston having casually been defeated on a measure for removing conspiracies to murder abroad from the class of misdemeanour to that of felony, which was introduced in consequence of Orsini's attempt on the life of the emperor of the French. But in June 1859 Palmerston returned to power, and it was on this occasion that he proposed to Cobden, one of his most constant opponents, to take office ; on his refusal Milner Gibson was appointed to the board of trade, although he had been the prime mover of the defeat of the government on the Conspiracy Bill. Palmerston had learnt that it was wiser to con ciliate an opponent than to attempt to crush him. Although Palmerston approved the objects of the French invasion of Italy in so far as they went to establish Italian independence, the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France revived his old suspicions of the good faith of Napoleon III. He believed that war with France was a contingency to be provided against and he induced the House of Commons to vote nine millions for the fortification of British ports and arsenals.
Palmerston resisted the Suez canal project of Lesseps. He did not foresee the advantages to be derived by British commerce from this great work, and he was strongly opposed to the estab lishment of a powerful French company on the soil of Egypt. He also believed that England would be drawn by her interest, as a great commercial power, in the canal traffic, into a more direct interference in Egypt, which it was desirable to avoid.
Upon the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, Palm erston acknowledged that it
the duty of the British govern ment to remain neutral; but his own opinion led him rather to desire than to avert the rupture of the Union which might have been the result of a refusal on the part of England and France to recognize a blockade of the Southern ports, which was notor iously imperfect, and extremely prejudicial to the interests of Europe. The cabinet was not of this opinion, and, although the
belligerent rights of the South were promptly recognized, the neutrality of the Government was observed. When, however, the Southern envoys were taken by force from the "Trent," a British packet, Palmerston insisted upon a full and complete reparation. But the difficulty with the American government over the "Ala bama" and other vessels, fitted out in British ports to help the Southern cause, was only settled at last (see ALABAMA ARBITRA TION) by an award extremely onerous to England.
The last transaction in which Palmerston engaged arose out of the attack by the Germanic Confederation, and its leading States Austria and Prussia, on the kingdom of Denmark and the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. There was but one feeling in the British public and the nation as to the dishonest character of that unprovoked aggression, and it was foreseen that Austria would ere long have reason to repent her share in it. Palmerston endeavoured to induce France and Russia to concur with England in maintaining the Treaty of London, which had guaranteed the integrity of the Danish dominions. But those powers, for reasons of their own, stood aloof, and the conference held in London in 1864 was without effect. A proposal to send the British fleet into the Baltic was overruled and the result was that Denmark was left to her own resources against her formidable opponents. In the following year, on Oct. 18, 1865, Palmerston expired at Brocket Hall, after a short illness, in the eighty-first year of his age. His remains were laid in Westminster Abbey.
Although there was much in the official life of Palmerston which inspired distrust and alarm to men of a less ardent and contentious temperament, he had a lofty conception of the strength and the duties of England, he was the irreconcil able enemy of slavery, injustice and oppression; and he laboured with inexhaustible energy for the dignity and security of the Empire. In private life his gaiety, his buoyancy, his high breeding, made even his political opponents forget their differences; and even the warmest altercations on public affairs were merged in his large hospitality and cordial social relations. In this respect he was aided with consummate ability by the tact and grace of Lady Palmerston, the widow of the 5th Earl Cowper, whom he married at the close of 1839, and who died in 1869.
The Life of Lord Palmerston, by Lord Dalling (2 vols., 187o), with valuable selections from the minister's autobiographical diaries and private correspondence, only came down to 1847, and was completed by Evelyn Ashley (vol. iii., 1874 ; iv., v., 1876). The whole was re-edited by Mr. Ashley, in two volumes (1879), the standard biography. The Life by Lloyd Sanders (1888) is an excellent shorter work. See also B. K. Martin, The Triumph of Lord Palmerston. A study of public opinion in England before the Crimean war (1926).