The Press.
London, England, 1854-05-20 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1854.

minont part in directing national affairs. If
we except those calamities which may be re-
ferred to the dispensations of Providence, the
misfortunes of States may be directly traced '
to the weakness or criminality of those few indi-
viduals who in one way or other have had a
large share in directing the destinies of their
respective countries. In modern times the
world has been mainly ruled by diplomacy.
Our people have often been reproached with
their indifference to the management of their
foreign relations. It is not, as some pretend,
that our minds are narrowed by our insular
position, and that we feel no interest in the
affairs of other countries. On the contrary,
we aro often keenly alive to their movements,
and are never more excited than when any
state of the Continent is violently agitated by
political contests, or when a weak but gallant
nation is stoutly maintaining its rights and
independence against the aggression of a
powerful neighbour. On such occasions pub-
lic feeling is usually in advance of Ministerial
action ; and the difficulty is, not to rouse our
sympathies, but to restrain them. In quiet
times we are indifferent to our foreign rela-
tions, because we cannot comprehend that our
whole internal state and the peace of the world
may depend upon the personal character of
the Minister charged with their direction.
We are accustomed to regard diplomacy as a
kind of red-tape and despatch-box routine,
limited to the exchange of bows, and compli-
ments, and purely courtly intercourse, with
which we have no sort of concern. It is an
article of popular belief that all our important
business must be transacted in Parliament;
and it does not seem credible that, while a
bill for making a sewer or laying down a few
miles of railway must be fully discussed and
pass through many stages in both Houses of
the Legislature, negotiations may be secretly
carried on with foreign Courts for partitioning
an empire or overthrowing the political system
of Europe.
It is absurd to suppose that the character
of our Foreign Minister can over be without
influence on the policy of other States. What
tempted the Russian Government to assume
its offensive attitude against Turkey as soon
as the formation of the existing Cabinet was
announced but a belief that the opportunity
for carrying out its traditional policy had
arrived? Does any one suppose that those
confidential conversations on the condition of
the " sick man " would have been held with
Sir HAMILTON SEYMOUR had our Foreign-office
been under the direction of Lord MALMRSBURY
or Lord PALMERSTON? Our law holds that, in
many cases, not to actively resist is to abet.
The Czar was not to be discouraged by tem-
porising remonstrances. He made but one
mistake. He had formed a just estimate of
the temper of our Premier, but he mistook the
temper of our people. That was the one
great error in his calculations which defeated
his designs. He estimated the clamour of Man-
chester at more than it was worth, and
thought that our ancient spirit had departed
while it was but slumbering.
A like mistake is conspicuous in former
periods of our history. The maintenance of
peace has always depended on the idea which
foreign Powers entertained of the vigour of
our Administration. Why was the rule of
CROMWRLL respected through Europe and that
of Cusaucs 11. despised? The one secured

PRICE SIXPENCE.

for us a long period of tranquillity—the other,
by the impression it conveyed of our degene-
racy, laid the foundation of those long and
desperate Wars which terminated at last;
through mutual exhaustion,—in an inglorious
peace. War was forced upon the feeble
Administration of NEWCASTLE by the haughty
pretensions of the Bourbons in France and
Spain, and how long it might have lingered on
under his timid rule, or to what reverses it
might have led, we can only conjecture
from the disasters which attended its com-
mencement. When the nation transferred the
reins of Government from his trembling hands
to the nervous grasp of Prrr, the determined
genius of the great War Minister changed as if
by magic purposeless expeditions into con-
quering fleets and armies, and triumphed over
his adversaries in three quarters of the globe
at once. The confidence felt in his principle
and character was the secret of his success.
While the name of NEWCASTLE was ridiculed,
and his pusillanimity invited aggression, the
reputation of Prrr inspired ardour at home and
terror abroad.
As if to show in the strongest light the im-
portance which must attach to the conduct of
our foreign affairs, we are now experiencing
in a supreme degree the benefit derivable from
the sagacity of one Administration, and the
injury resulting from the mismanagement of
another. Had not Lord MALMESBURY, during
his short term of office, established an inti-
mate and cordial understanding with France,
is it likely that we should be at this present
time in nearly so good a position as we are—
that our funds would be at 88, and our com-
merce comparatively uninterrupted ? Had
not the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND and Mr.

STAFFORD distinguished their administration of
the Admiralty by unprecedented activity in
increasing our navy, and bringing it into the
highest state of efficiency, would it have been
possible to equip so speedily those noble fleets
which now command the Euxino and the
Baltic ? We do not underrate the talents of
the present First Lord ; but, could he afford to
be just, he would be the first to acknowledge
how greatly our naval strength is due to the
efforts of his predecessor. The policy of the
French alliance was vehemently assailed by
the men who are now but, too glad to profit
by its success. A happier instance of sagacity
is not on record. It proceeded from such a
combination of just views as even the highest
statesmanship rarely exhibits—from a true
appreciation of the real character of the Em.
peror NAPOLEON—from a most accurate per-
ception of the sentiments of the French
people—and from a prescient knowledge of
the quarter whence disturbance to the peace
of Europe was to be apprehended. Had that
vulgar clamour against the firm Government
which preserved France from further disorders
prevailed amongst us—as it certainly would
have done under Whig sway—we might at
this moment (had the justice of the French
Emperor not proved superior to natural feel-
ings of resentment) have seen the forces of
France and Russia arrayed against us, with
the other Powers of Europe ready to join the
stronger side. Should we then have heard
with as much complacency as we do now of
the formation at St. Omer of a camp of 100,000
men ? To the foresight of Lord MALMESBURY
it is owing that the strength of the civilised
world is arrayed on the side of right. If his
policy was not appreciated at the time, it is
I only because his views extended beyond