The Sun.
London, England, 1865-10-19 00:00:00

deemed it better to maintain, his independence. It
was in this independent etiaracter that he made two
very able speeches—the first (June 1, 1829) on
our foreign relations generally, the second (March
10, 1830), on the affairs of Portugal in particular
—which at once marked him out as the exponent
of a Liberal foreign policy. - Before the year in
which the latter speech was delivered had expired,
the Whigs, with Lord Grey at their head, found
themselves ureexpectedly in power—and to whom
should the F:seals of the Foreign-office be intrusted
but to Lord Palmerston ? He stepped into the
post as unquestionably the right man in
one right place, and during that 10 years' run
of power which the •Reform Bill gave to the Whigs
he stood forth as the most brilliant member of
the Cabinet, the man of men, the Minister of
Ministers, the type and the glory of England. No
English Minister ever attained to more world-wide
fame than he acquired in these and subsequent
years of office. All over the globe his name was
invoked as the symbol of English generosity and
English omnipotence. The Bedouin of the Desert
recognised in Palmerston Pasha a being whom
Allah had endowed with more than mortal power.
The negro on the Guinea Coast knew that Palmer-
ston was his friend, and worked day and night
against slavery. Brown in the backwoods of
America, or in the gardens of Siam, felt that he
had an infallible safeguard if he had Palmerston's
passport to show. Palmerston, it was imagined,
would move the whole force of the British empire
in order that this Brown—Civis Romanus—might
not be defrauded of his Worcester sauce amid the
ice of Siberia, or of his pale ale on the Mountains
of the Moon. He could do anything, and he would
do everything. Nothing great was accomplished
without being attributed to him. He was supposed
to have his pocket full of constitutions, to have a
voice in half the Cabinets of Europe, to have
monarchs past reckoning under his thumb. He
humbled the Shah, he patronised the Sultan, he
abolished the Mogul, he conquered the Brother of
the Sun, he opened to the world the empire which
had been walled round for centuries by impregnable
barriers, he defied the Czar, and the Emperor of the
French felt safe when he received the assurances of
the British Foreign Secretary.
The foreign policy of Lord Palmerston has given
rise to much controversy. Many a fierce debate has
it kindled in both Houses of Parliament. Its
author was said to be the firebrand of Europe, the
destroyer of peace, a luckless lucifer match, the
plague of the world, the Jonah of England, which
was always in a storm when he was in the Cabinet.
The qastion has been so stirred by political pas-
sions, and has been whipt into such a froth by the
eloquence of interminable discussions, that there are
very few of us indeed who know what is the real
point at issue. And the perplexity is heightened
by the fact that, after 20 years of opposition to his
policy, Lord- Aberdeen, his great rival, coalesced
with him in 1853, and defended the coalition with
the memorable statement " that, though there may
have been differences in the execution, according to
the different hands intrusted with the direction of
affairs, the principles of the foreign policy of the
country have for the last 30 years been the same."
The cardinal doctrine of our foreign policy in those
years was, as it is now, the principle of non-interfe-
rence. There was not one of our statesmen who did
not give his adhesion to this principle—and where,
then, it may be asked, was the ground of dispute ?
In order to understood this fully from Lord Palmer-
ston's point of view we must grasp his ruling idea in
politics. If anybody will take the trouble to read
his speeches from beginning to end he will be struck
with the prevalence of one great idea running
through them all like a thread of gold, and serving
as a clue to every inconsistency. He saw in Public
Opinion a force and a meaning which no statesman
before him had realised, and which Peel only of his
contemporories acknowledged with anythinglike the
same clearness. On two great occasions Peel sacri-
ficed to Public Opinion. But all through his political
life Palmerston bowed to this deity, recognised its
power, and used it as he could. He saw that opi-
nion often creates a right where no right previously
existed—that it not seldom makes good evil and
evil good. It has this peculiarity, too, that ex-
erting an enormous power, it acts informally,
beyond control and beyond rebuke. All the
armies in the world cannot put down an opinion,
which is a silent influence that remains even
when the holder of the opinion is down in the dust.
We may compel our neighbours to change their
tactics, but .we cannot compel them to alter their
estimate of us ; we cannot even quarrel with them
for thinking as they do. We must submit to
opinion, and though there are men who do not care
for what other people say, yet those in whom the
social instinct is strong are powerfully moved by it.
The sociable nature of Lord Palmerston felt this
deeply. The force of Public Opinion was a great
fact, and he raised it into a great doctrine. Opinions
in his view were more than opinions—they were
deeds—they were title-deeds. All through his
speeches we find - him insisting on opinion as the
source of political power, a moral influence which
survives every physical force, and which, although
more formidable than armies, we can bring into
action without danger of hotilities. People said—
" What is the use of his expressing sympathy for
oppressed nationalities when he declines to fight for
his opinions ? He is a sham ; he has only words to
offer ; he says one thing and does another ; his talk
is in favour of liberty, but his inaction is in favour
of tyranny." Lord Palmerston, in effect, said—
" No, our principle is non-interference with foreign
Governments ; we have no right to appeal to the
arbitrament of the sword ; it is no business of ours
to dictate to others. But we cannot help having
our opinions ; I express mine frankly ; let it go for
what it is worth ; I believe that the opinion of an
English Minister is worth something—is more than
words, and, giving my voice to the side of freedom
and justice, I leave the despots to their own intelli-
gence, to conscience, and to God."
And while thus, on the one hand, he was attacked
by those who saw an inconsistency between his
words and his work, and who wished him not only
to sympathize with freedom, but also to undertake
a crusade in behalf of it, he was attacked, on the
other hand, by those who, like Lord Aberdeen and
Sir Robert Peel, agreed in the policy of non-inter-
ference, but thought that he was not consistent, that
he was not honest in carrying out that policy, since
he did not abstain from the expression of opinion as
well as from the declaration of war. The expression
of opinion, the offer of advice, they said, is in effect
dictation and interference. There is no middle course.
We have no right to interfere with the domestic
affairs of other countries unless some clear and unde-
niable necessity arises from circumstances affecting
the interests of our own country, and the attitude of
non-interference is that of interested, it may be, but
silent spectators. "Itis my firm belief," said Peel,
in the last speech which he delivered, " that you
will not advance the cause of constitutional govern-
ment by attempting to dictate to other nations. If
you do, your intentions will be mistaken, you will
rouse feelings upon which you do not calculate, you
will invite opposition to Government; and beware
that the time does not arrive when, frightened by
your own interference, you withdraw your counte-
nance from those whom you have excited, and leave
upon their minds the bitter recollection that you
have betrayed them. If you succeed I doubt whether
or no the institutions that take root under your pa-
ronage will be lasting. Constitutional liberty will
be best worked out by those who aspire to freedom
by their efforts. You will only overload it by your
help." It was in this speech, delivered the day before
he fell from his hoise, that Sir Robert Peel, in spite
of so emphatic a condemnation of Lord Palmerston's
policy, passed upon him, or rather upon the speech
in which Lord Palmerston defended his policy, the
cordial eulogium—" We are all proud of the man
who delivered it." The House of Commons, by a
majority of 46, pronounced against Sir Robert Peel,
and in favour of the foreign policy which he con-
demned.

Lord Palmerston insisted upon it that there is a
middle course between interference and absolute
silence. We are not stocks and stones—our non-in-
terference is not that of lifeless blocks. Let the
foreign States have the liberty of acting, but surely
we have the liberty of thinking. If it is criminal to
have our opinions, it is the crime of possessing in-