he lamented that in all ages she had been scurvily used, and that of late she had become such a ruining virtue that mankind seemed to be agreed to commend it and to avoid it.[1]
If we were asked to point to an illustration of the normal advice uttered for the general conduct of the weighty matters of international policy, we might instance the words of Palmerston to Malmesbury when the latter became Foreign Secretary. After warning him very impressively of the power which this country owes to her prestige, he continued: 'All the Foreign Ministers will try at first to get objects which they have been refused by successive Governments; so take care you yield nothing until you have well looked into every side of the question. When the diplomates call, do not be too reserved but preface your observations by stating that what you say is officious.'[2] Is it normal advice? In the sense that it enjoins a looking to right and to left and all round, the advice is normal.
In a less scant treatment of our subject, we should have attempted a more precise differentiation of diplomacy and analysis of its kinds, not after the manner of the international lawyer, but for historical study and political appreciation—such as the diplomacy of courtesy and of rudeness, the diplomacy of frankness, of cynicism and deceit, the diplomacy of forcefulness and of irresolution, of a weak benevolence and a slothful overtrust and inertia.
The diplomacy of courtesy we may illustrate from the letter written by President Tyler of the United States of America
- ↑ Ibid. (ed. 1699), 95.
- ↑ Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, under date March 11, 1852. An 'officious' conversation is 'the free interchange of opinions between the two Ministers, and compromises neither'; an 'official' correspondence would do so, and would bind their Governments. Lord Malmesbury tells us that when he was at the Foreign Office he always prefaced a conversation by saying on which footing it was to be understood. Memoirs, under date February 13, 1852, foot-note.
