This is a substantial book about a substantial figure. Rejecting simplistic assessments, David Brown paints a fascinating picture of a statesman who continues to defy easy categorization. The treatment is fair and, on the whole, favorable to Palmerston. Brown’s stated design is to “make sense” (4) of Palmerston—above all by investigating what he thought and did and how contemporaries viewed him. Beyond this, Brown seeks insights into nineteenth-century Britain. He declares more than once that Palmerston was not behind or ahead of his times but of them. Had he been merely a backward-looking anachronism, he would not have seen a need for improving legislation; had he been primarily a forward-looking progressive, he would not have had such a limited concept of democracy (480). Chapters 4 and 5, on the “making” of Palmerston, are possibly the best in the whole book, for they explain how he became who he was, with particular emphasis on his intellectual make-up. From his student days in Edinburgh, he was deeply influenced by Enlightenment thought, and this created within him a liberal idealism. Brown admits that political pragmatism could prevent clear adherence to principle. Nevertheless, a commitment to liberty broke through, and this was a core commitment, one that shaped Palmerston’s attitudes and his notion of his role as statesman.

In his lifetime, and ever since, observers have wondered what to make of Palmerston. He was a fun-loving dandy, philanderer, and socialite but also a workaholic minister whose personal code prioritized service and efficiency. A child of the eighteenth century, his Victorian heyday saw massive changes at home and abroad, not least those wrought by industrialization and imperialism. He was not a straightforward party man in a period when parties became more formal and identifiable. He became immensely popular, despite his lack of respect for the working classes. As has often been noted (e.g., Muriel Chamberlain, Lord Palmerston [Cardiff, 1987], 1), he was a man of contradictions. Brown does not regard this as a discouragement but contends that Palmerston’s inconsistencies and adaptability make him all the more interesting and facilitate a better understanding of the Victorian age: a great deal was new, but much that was old was never really left behind.

Brown traces the main, and sometimes conflicting, trends in the relevant historiography, from the “official” biography by H. L. Bulwer and Evelyn Ashley, published in the 1870s, through to more recent (and better) contributions by Kenneth Bourne (1982) and E. D. Steele (1991). Clearly, interpretations have changed over time. Bulwer and Ashley offered only a selective account, and although subsequent writers had access to a widening array of sources, they also failed to present a full picture. Bourne was able to consult Palmerston’s papers but died before he could complete his study. Brown builds on the work of Bourne and Steele, commending them for their attention to domestic issues, personal qualities, and political principles.

Prime minister for nine years, foreign secretary for fifteen, home secretary for two, and secretary at war for almost nineteen years, Palmerston was never short of detractors. Yet he proved them wrong on many counts. Questions were raised about his political talents and—perhaps inevitably for a man who was in his seventies when prime minister—his physical strength, but he rose above the challenges and, as Brown demonstrates, repeatedly outclassed those who underestimated him. Some have suggested that this was simply a matter of good luck. Brown disagrees. Circumstances did go his way more often than not (as with the balance of power in Europe or the lack of unity among his political rivals at home), but how could he have accomplished anything had he not had clear purposes and real ability?

Similarly, Brown rejects the crude dismissals of Palmerston as superficial, opportunistic, flamboyant, and cynical, arguing that he must have had something about him—otherwise he could not have had so many years in government. By itself, force of personality could not have sustained his career. True, he liked to mock his opponents rather than best them with coherent argument and command of the facts, but this does not mean that he failed to take politics seriously. Certainly he realized the importance of public support. Deploying humor and projecting the right image were vital in this context. Palmerston’s links with the press, moreover, helped him to “manipulate the narrative of politics” (404) and understand middle-class opinion. Brown successfully rebuts the charge that Palmerston lacked substance.

There was more to Palmerston’s foreign policy than bullying and gunboats. Disputes with China, for example, were about an important principle, “the doctrine of free trade” (402), and the Don Pacifico affair was really a test of Britain’s international status and a means of “saving Palmerston’s career” (322). In domestic affairs, too, Brown issues correctives. Palmerston was not an enemy of reform and active government but interested in constructive policies and eager to do good. Brown takes a dim view of any interpretation that “risks exaggerating, at Palmerston’s expense, the influence of later Victorian politicians in the process of making Britain more modern” (479).

The most important events in Palmerston’s career are dealt with carefully and thoroughly. David Brown has clearly benefited from his time as a fellow at the University of Southampton, building up an impressive knowledge of the Broadlands Archive (the key source for Palmerston, which many earlier biographers have been either unwilling or unable to consult). Brown’s book is very long, packed with detail, and the endnotes cover more than sixty pages. Some readers (especially students) might find all this somewhat daunting. They should persevere; the book is well written and effectively organized. It represents a major contribution to scholarship.