He then called the attention of the House to the portion of the
Queen’s speech relating to foreign affairs. Her Majesty’s Government
had for two or three years past mainly rested their claim to public
confidence on their foreign policy. They had abandoned the question
of Parliamentary Reform the moment it had served the purpose of
putting them in office. The fulfilment of the promises they had made
was defeated by Lord Russell, and when he was transferred to the more
serene atmosphere of the House of Lords, he pronounced the funeral
oration of Reform. He had told them ... “to rest and be thankful,”
and from that time their foreign policy had been the groundwork of
the claim of Her Majesty’s Government to public confidence. I think,
proceeded Lord Derby, that at the commencement the foreign policy
of the noble Earl opposite might be summed up in the affirmation of
the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other
countries, the extension of Liberal principles by the exercise of our
moral interference, and, above all, the maintenance of uninterrupted
and cordial relations with the Emperor of the French. We were told more
than once that the present Government was the only one to maintain
a good understanding with the Emperor of the French, or, at least,
that its predecessor could not possibly have done so, and that, if
the country desired to preserve cordial relations between itself and
France, Her Majesty’s present advisers, and especially the noble Earl
opposite, were the only persons qualified to secure that most desirable
object.
Now, my lords, as to non-intervention in the internal affairs of other
countries, when I look around me I fail to see what country there is,
in the internal affairs of which the noble Earl has not interfered.
“_Nihil intactum reliquit, nihil tetigit quod_”--I cannot say, “_non
ornavit_,” but “_non conturbavit_.” The foreign policy of the noble
Earl, as far as the principle of non-intervention is concerned, may be
summed up in two homely but expressive words--“meddle” and “muddle.”
During the whole course of his diplomatic correspondence, wherever
he has interfered--and he has interfered everywhere--he has been
lecturing, scolding, blustering, and retreating. Seriously--for though
there may be something ludicrous about it, the matter is of too great
importance to be treated only in a light and jocular manner--I cannot
but feel as an Englishman that I am lowered and humiliated in my own
estimation, and in that of other nations, by the result of the noble
Earl’s administration of foreign affairs. Thanks to the noble Earl
and the present Government, we have at this moment not one single
friend in Europe, and, more than that, this country, the chief fault
of which was that it went too direct and straightforward at what it
aimed, which never gave a promise without the intention of performing,
which never threatened without a full determination of striking, which
never made a demand without being prepared to enforce it, this country
is now in such a position, that its menaces are disregarded, its
magniloquent language is ridiculed, and its remonstrances are treated
with contemptuous indifference by the small as well as by the great
Powers of the Continent. With regard to the policy of keeping up a good
understanding with France, there is hardly a single question in which
Her Majesty’s Ministers have not thwarted the policy of the Emperor.
From the Mexican expedition it had withdrawn, and it had not supported
the Emperor’s policy in relation to the Confederate States of America.
It had also declined the Emperor’s proposition of a Congress.
ATTITUDE OF ENGLAND TOWARDS THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN ATTACK ON DENMARK
(1864).
=Source.=--_Ashley’s Life of Viscount Palmerston_, vol. ii., pp.
249–251. (Richard Bentley and Son.)