The Express.
London, England, 1864-10-18 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18.

MR. GLADSTONE observed last Friday, at Man-
chester, that of late years the foreign policy of this
country, as a standing subject of debate in the
legislature and of discussion in the press, had as-
sumed an importance almost unknown to our fore-
fathers. This is because foreign policy means for us
something larger and higher than it did for them.
" It is," Mr. GLADSTONE remarked, "au undoubted
"and indisputable tact that one of the character-
" istics of our time is the mutual feeling of concern
"of every nation in the affairs and destinies and
"prospects of every other nation." This, of course,
is only true in a general sense, for in the worst of
times there was a spiritof generosity struggling to ex-
press itself in the foreign policy of our country. Fifty
years ago, when MACKINTOSH was making his great
speeches against the violence done to national sen-
timent by the treaties which followed the downfall
of NAPoLEON, even CurLERMAGII was condemning
the principles of the Holy Alliance. But still, it
is substantially true that our fathers regarded
foreign affairs principally from the point of view of
their own interests. England, the freest country
on earth, and the only one in Europe which the foot
of the invader had not trod, was for them the
centre of the political universe ; and whatever
was for the advantage of England must be for the
good of the world. This was not • sentiment to
travel with, but it was pre-eminently national and
popular, the true British spirit. Its voice is still
beard hero sod there, notably at agricultural meet-
ings, where the toast of the Army and Navy is
drunk with that of Church and Queen. Before
we condemn it as too exclusive, let us re-
member that it grew up under the teaching of
that great war when Great Britain was really
looked to by the people and monarchs of Europe
as the centre and stay of their efforts for liberty
and independence. Wholly different from this is
the modern feeling which Mr. Gtensrone has cha-
racterised in the words just quoted. There never
was a time when, as a people, we were more de-
termined than we are now to keep our place
among the nations of the earth, as the Volunteer
movement and the readiness with which we accept
the burden of an unexampled military expenditure
may show. There never was a time when we bad
higher conceptions of our duties and responsibi-
lities. Nevertheless, we do not—that is to
say, our best and most influential men do
not—regard the rest of the world as made
for the inhabitants of these islands, and
measure all that is done abroad by its
immediate bearing on ourselves. We honestly try
to judge of foreign events primarily as they affect
the interests and happiness of those whom they
immediately concern. In our foreign policy for
many years past we have more and more reccg-
nised the truth, that every nation must be regarded
as existing first of all for its own sake. It is true
that sometimes events of vast importance, affecting
the interests of whole continents, and calculated
to fix the character and destiny of populations far
exceeding those of the greatest states of Europe,
are discussed in a spirit of national jealousy which
blinds the subjects of it to the great issues in-
volved ; we meet with politicians for whom the en-
franchisement of • race or the determination of a
type of civilization for hundreds of millions of men
and women yet unborn have no interest to be com-
pared with the gratification of seeing au imposing
state broken up and ruined. But this is the un-
mistakeable note of vulgarity which marks all the
difference between the demagogue and the
statesman, between a ROEBUCK and a GLADSTONE.
The essential characteristic of • liberal foreign
policy is that it considers and does justice to
all, and not to a part only, of the interests in-
volved. Thus the CHANcELLOII of the EXCHEQUER
could say, when referring to the lamentable
war in America, "We have no jealousy of
" American greatness, we have no reason to
" fear them or any other nation."

These two things—a calm and dignified attitude,
and a liberal temper and policy on the one hand,
and thorough confidence in onr own position on
the other—belong to one another and should go
together. A people whose national safety, or even
existence, is insecure can with difficulty be libe-
ral. When we were in danger we seized the
Danish fleet without a declaration of war, the great
law of nature, the instinct of self-preservation, im-
pelling us to an act which under similar circum-
stances we should perhaps repeat, but which has
never been justified. Now, in the consciousness
of a well-centred power, we give the lonian
Islands to Greece, and feel stronger for the cession.
A return of relative weakness would sooner or later
subject us again to the dominion of natural neces-
sity, and make the distinction between a liberal
and illiberal foreign policy untimely and un-
availing.

It is, however, one of the consequences of the
nobler interests we feel in the concerns of other
people that we are liable to be betrayed into mis-
conceptions as to the extent of our power to do

them good. Daring the last few yams, men's minds
have been led to attach increased importance to ma-
terial force as a means or impediment of progress.
Five years ago Italy was freed by the sword, and
we have since seen Polish nationality extinguished,
the Circasaians exiled, and two provinces torn from
Denmark by war. As spectators of these events
we are apt to consult only our emotions when
the question arisen—What is the duty of
this country towards the wronged and
oppressed I We should have been glad if Mr.
GLADSTONE had developed his views on this point
with some fulness; the subject is worthy of his great
powers, and it is one upon which public opinion
is far from being well defined. His remark, how-
ever, that we can look back without mortification
to the great Parliamentary debate on Denmark,
and that at this moment " we have a high influence
" with regard to all questions that in the least affect
" the policy of Europe," shows that he does not
hold that successful war is the sole or chief means
of obtaining political power. He might have ob-
served with truth, that if influence in Europe or
ability to resist aggressive war be taken as the
test of position, none among the five Great Powers
' stand lower at this moment than the two which
joined to despoil Denmark.
The character Mr. GLADSTONE wishes England to
maintain, the happy position to which he sees we
are called by Providence, is that of "the friend of
" each and every European nation." Accepting
this vocation, he observes, we can recognise no
nation as our " natural enemies." This is very
plain ; but, though we have outlived the spirit of
that phrase, our lot is cast in a time when
" causes and " questions " abound, and it is
from these that our difficulties occasionally arise.
Some of these appeal strongly to our sense of
justice, and come very near to our hearts. Mr.
GLAnsroNE's speech supplies no principle to
guide us in reference to them. He justified
our neutrality in the American war on the
solid ground of international duty, sad ascribed
our attitude to a disposition to respect the right
of every country in dealing with its own affairs.
This is non-intervention in its original and proper
sense. But the case of Germany and Denmark,
to which he also referred, was a strife between
States having respectively an acknowledged
independence, and the war was carried
on by Austria, and Prussia in defiance
of the wholesome rule of non-interven-
tion. Our neutrality in that struggle Mr. GLAD-
STONE justifies on a very different ground:—" I
" think the temper with which the war was viewed
" by the nation was a temper of great wisdom and
" growing caution and circumspection, and that
"it was due to an opinion consolidating itself in
" the country that although the strength and re-
" sources which England possesses are, as we
" firmly believe, sufficient to enable her to dis-
" charge every duty, yet it would not be wise for
" her to overlook a regard to the proportion of
" means and ends, or to entangle herself in
" engagements which she might ultimately find
" herself incompetent to fulfil." We take this to
mean that the relations which Great Britain sus-
tains outside of the system of European States, re-
quire that we should resign that active part in con-
tinental affairs to which our national power might
otherwise entitle us. In other words, that with from
60,000 to 80,000 British soldiers in India, 16,000
in Canada, and 10,000 in New Zealand, and with
the obligation of protecting our most distant de-
pendencies, we are under especial obligations to
refrain from European wars. This is at least
good sense, and it may serve us instead of a
theory. We can only hope that the limitation of
our means of active intervention will be present
whenever we are tempted by our sympathies with
the oppressed to use in our public assemblies
language inconsistent with the pleasing character
of everybody's friend.