ired? 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. I know no better illustration to prove the justice of this
view of the Premier's political failing than his bearing in the debate
which I am attempting to describe. Here was a grave constitutional
question. The issue was a simple and clear one. Had the Lords the
right to reject a Money Bill which had passed the House? If historical
precedents settled the question clearly, then there was no difficulty
in determining the matter at once, and almost without discussion. If,
however, there were no precedents bearing precisely on this case, then
it was all the more important that this should be made the occasion of a
settlement of the question so unequivocal and positive as effectually
to guard against future complication and embarrassment. Now how did the
Premier deal with this issue? He disregarded the homely wisdom contained
in the pithy bull of Sir Boyle Roche, that "the best way to avoid a
dilemma is to meet it plump." He dodged the dilemma. His resolutions,
worded with ingenious obscurity, skilfully evaded the important aspect
of the controversy, and two of them, the second and third, gave equal
consolation to t