most cordial agreement with the principles advanced in them, and then acted in diametrical opposition to everything which they advocated. Far more serious, however, than Palmerston's mdifference to the influence of the Court, was his impatience of restraint on the part of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet He conducted the affairs of his Department with an extreme of mdependence and insubordination which necessitated, and more than justified, his dismissal in 1851 Few, indeed except Lord John Russell, would have tolerated his intractïbility*) so long. It was all the more indefensible because no man was more stern and inflexible than Palmerston himself m exacting complete obedience from his own subordinates. His constant recommendation of Constitutional government to foreign potentates failed to make him at home either submissive to his superiors, or regardful of his inferiors. He had the instincts of an autocrat.
The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy.
Volume II. 1923.
Lord Palmerston's speech was indeed a masterpiece of parliamentary argument and address. It was in part a complete exposition and defence of the whole course of the foreign policy
J; T°wf<* the end of that year Palmerston was curtly dismissed from
^ ^°hn RuSSe" for havinS wlthout authorisation expressed approval of Louis Napoleon's coup (Tétat of December 2
wishes"'of IS.'' StUbb0rn"esS °f a « wh° "»< "ot consider the