The Marquis of Normanby to Colonel Phipps.[6]
PALMERSTON'S DISCOMFITURE
St George's Hotel, 5th February 1852.
My dear Charles,—Yesterday morning I got a note from John Russell, saying that all had gone off so well the night before, and Palmerston had been so flat that he thought it better I should not revive the subject in the other House, as he had said nothing about me which in the least required that I should do so. I yielded, of course, to such an appeal, though there are several points in his speech on which I could have exposed inaccuracies. The fact is, John has never shown any consideration for me in the whole of these affairs; but I do not mean in any way to complain, and am very grateful to him for the very successful way in which he executed his task on Tuesday. Nothing can be more universal than the feeling of the utter discomfiture of Palmerston.[7] I am convinced that what floored him at starting was that letter of the Queen's,[8] because every one felt that such a letter would never have been written unless every point in it could have been proved like a bill of indictment; and then came the question, how could any man, even feeling he deserved it, go on under such a marked want of confidence?...[9]
Aberdeen, whom I saw at Granville's last night, told me that Cardwell had said to him, that often as he had felt indignant at the arrogance of "that man," he really pitied him, so complete was his overthrow. Disraeli said that he had watched him during Johnny's speech, and doubted whether the hanging of the head, etc., was merely acting; but before he had spoken two sentences he saw he was a beaten fox. Many said that the extreme flippancy and insolence of his manner was more remarkable than ever, from their being evidently assumed with difficulty. I have always thought Palmerston very much overrated as a speaker; his great power arose from his not only knowing his subject better than any one else, but being the only man who knew anything about it, and using that exclusive knowledge unscrupulously for the purposes of misrepresentation.
Thiers was at Lady Granville's last night, and was enchanted with the spectacle of the Opening. He said that he had been endeavouring for thirty years to support the cause of Constitutional Monarchy, as the best Government in the world, and there he saw it in perfection, not only in its intrinsic attributes, but in the universal respect and adhesion with which it was received. He said, though he did not understand a word of English, he could have cried at the Queen's voice in reading the Speech. He is very "impressionable," and I am convinced at the time he was quite sincere in his appreciation.
I am vexed at not having been able to say anything publicly about all this, as I believe I could have dispelled many misrepresentations; but it cannot be helped. I have endeavoured throughout not to be selfish, and I may as well keep up that feeling to the last. Ever, etc.
Normanby.
I told John Russell last night I regretted that he had vouched for the intentions of Louis Napoleon. He said he had not done that, but owned that he had said more than he ought. "The fact is, I did not know what to say next. I stopped as one sometimes does, so I said that; I had better have said something else!" Candid and characteristic!
[Footnote 6:] Submitted to the Queen by Colonel Phipps.