But they subsist on an independent footing of their own, and imply that civilised States have towards each other, or (what for this purpose is the same) are generally believed to have, moral relationships, which are an exact reproduction of the relationships that every citizen of a State has to every other. In approaching, then, the question of the moral right and duty of Intervention, it must be assumed at the outset that moral relationships exist between State and State, which must be taken as the basis of interference, quite as much as the special and one-sided interest of a particular State, or particular States.

undetermined.

But, even with the help of this assumption, which regards civilised States, and pre-emi- Points still nently those of Europe and America, as bound together by ties of moral right and obligation of the most enduring kind, the problem has yet to be solved, as to when and how Intervention may properly take place. In all moral enquiries it is quite as perplexing an investigation to ascertain what is right and wrong, as to determine whether there is any right or wrong at all.

But the preliminary question, as to whether a State can be morally justified in wholly isolating itself, and in exhibiting no public concern whatever in transactions in which only other States

L

Constant
Intervention of
England until
recent years.

seem to be concerned, even though these transactions may involve the most serious issues to the relative political situation of States, and even to humanity, must be answered first. England, in her history up to the last twenty years, has seemed to answer the question in the sense that Intervention is to be the rule, rather than the exception. But this opinion was due to circumstances peculiar to the position of England at different stages of her fortunes. First, her Feudal and Dynastical relations with France, then her Protestant sympathies as against Spain, then her implication in the Dutch policy in opposition to France, then her Hanoverian and German connections and alliances, hardly left England any choice as to whether she would, or would not, hold herself involved, for all purposes whatever, in the mesh of European politics.

The result was, a sort of traditional diplomatic habit, on the part of English Statesmen, of stepping forward in all emergencies, rather than holding back. This habit was, of course, a good deal exercised and stimulated by the actual military and naval successes of England, by her ever widening Colonial Empire, and by her social and mercantile communications with all parts of the world. War and Peace meant, on the whole, perhaps, more for England of loss and gain, than for any other country.

party.

One result of these different tendencies and influences has been to generate a new party in England, which would directly reverse the whole previous policy of the country, and altogether forbid Intervention, either in the internal affairs of Foreign States, or in disputes Growth of Nonand Wars between such States. The general principle of non-interference in the affairs of Foreign States was first practically asserted by Mr. Canning in 1826, especially as against the doctrines of the Holy Alliance. The Free Trade Movement, and his innate pacific disposition, stimulated Mr. Cobden to go still further in the same direction, and to prepare the way for "Non-Intervention" being erected into a dogma, advocated by a distinct party, and having no inconsiderable influence in the domain of practical politics.

principles.

The tenets of this party have, no doubt, been expressed or represented in many exaggerated forms, which, if true, would have properly implicated the party in the charges of cruelty and inhuman avarice and selfishness, as well as of Its true national disloyalty. But the utmost these tenets really mean, when carefully examined, as they appear in the language of their most competent supporters, is, that henceforward Intervention is to be the exception and not the rule; that all forcible Intervention in the purely internal affairs of Foreign States, whether by England

Lord Derby on
Intervention:

or by other States, is to be strenuously discountenanced, and that England is only to intervene in disputes or conflicts between Foreign States when a sufficiently strong case seems to present itself,-in weighing the merits of which case, not only the immediate and remote interests of England herself, but the interests of all other States, and the general establishment of permanent Peace and order, on the basis of free and independent national existence, must be taken into the estimate.

The following language of Lord Derby, in answer to a deputation on July 14th, 1876 (see Times for July 15th), probably expresses, fairly enough, the modern doctrine of Intervention, as held in England by practical statesmen, especially by way of limit to the extreme doctrine of Non-Intervention, in the form in which it is attributed to a certain party in England:

"The doctrine of absolute indifference is not one which this country ever has professed, and I do not think it is one which would be popular with the nation at large. We have a great position in Europe, and with nations, as with individuals, a great position involves great responsibilities. We cannot absolutely decline to accept our responsibilities, for, if every nation that had reached a certain stage of civilisation were to accept the

principle of Non-Intervention in its absolute and extreme form, and say, 'we will never meddle in any international questions unless our own interests are touched,' the effect of that would be to leave the regulation of all international affairs to nations which have not reached that state of civilisation. If the voice of England, in questions such as those we are now discussing, were to be silenced altogether, there would be one voice less heard on the side of Peace. No one is more strongly in favour of Non-Intervention, within reasonable limits, than I am; but we must push no doctrine to extremes; and an absolute declaration of Non-Intervention on all occasions, would be a proclamation of international apathy, and I need not tell you that international apathy does not mean either Peace or progress."

This exposition of doctrine, even if it be valid as an expression of the current tendency of politics in England, is, at best, only negative, and leaves the question of the time, the occasion, and the manner of the Intervention of any sort to be settled in reference to some general principle, if such a principle, or such principles, could be found.

in internal affairs.

It may be considered that, so far as direct Intervention and forcible Intervention in the internal affairs of a Foreign State is concerned, the positive,