There were incidents where he was seen to be reckless. Acting reckless could be classed as jeopardising Britain’s position of risking things unnecessarily. There were time where he risked war to get his own way and where he so obviously exploited other countries that it was a wonder that no-one other than his government protested. He risked war with a number of countries but he annoyed none more so than the United States over the ‘Alabama’ and ‘Trent’ affairs. He was clearly and knowingly breaking international law which enraged the North Americans as they had enough to deal with while fighting with the South over the slave trade and then they had the South being given outside help by a ‘neutral’ country. He not only risked war with the United States over the Civil War but also over South America. He refused the Americans claims that the South American land was the United States to expand into. Palmerston was worried about the United States continued strength and expansion and discussions got heated over the rights over South America. Britain also wanted South American land to enhance their huge empire and to aid the trade situation around the area. He also risks war with the Portuguese over his involvement in the Donna Maria throne claim. Donna Maria was the rightful Queen but her uncle had seized power. Palmerston was keen to get Maria back on the throne as she was fairly liberal in her ideals. However to achieve this he had to get Marias uncle, Miguel, off the throne. He tried to threaten Miguel who ignored him so he sent in the troops. The troops were strictly told that they were not to fight unless fought but this was a high risk strategy as the Portuguese could have taken this as an aggressive act, which it was. However they could not retaliate as Britain was to strong. This strategy not only risked war with the Portuguese but also other countries whom disliked Palmerston and his policy of interventionism. He was also reckless during the ‘Don Pacifico’ affair. The ‘Don Pacifico’ affair was where a Portuguese Jew was anti-semitically abused. He had a British passport which compelled Palmerston to stand up for him and claim damages against the Greek government. The Greeks refused and so Palmerston sent in the gunboats, knowing that the Greek navy was tiny and destroyed houses and killed people on the Greek islands. This was very reckless as he risked war with Greece’s allies and a backlash from his government. However Palmerston maintained that he was only protecting a British citizen. The whole affair was a strange thing to get involved in as only a few years before, Palmerston had fought for Greek independence from the ailing Ottoman Empire.
You could say that the ‘Don Pacifico Affair’ was immoral and the Chinese opium wars were definitely immoral. He broke both British and Chinese law in fighting for the British ‘right’ to be able to sell opium to the Chinese. Palmerston knew the Chinese were not strong enough to stop the British using force to get their way so he did use force. This force was called ‘gunboat diplomacy’. This was used on a whim over the years by Palmerston and quickly became his crowning political move He was also immoral when he provided boats for the Italian revolutionist Garibaldi to get to the mainland. This was immoral as Palmerston was supposed to support the monarchies of Europe to consolidate Britain’s own monarchy. Garibaldi himself was against the idea of a monarchy and wanted to overthrow the Italian monarchy, He was immoral again over Poland by not following through his promises. He said to Poland that he would support them in their revolt, however when the Polish did revolt Palmerston did nothing which meant that the revolt was brutally put down and the Polish were massacred. The ‘Haynau Affair’ was a terrible chapter in Palmerston’s era which ruined the Anglo-Hungarian relations by completely disowning the General Haynau, this greatly annoyed the Queen as one of her state guests had been badly treated and this reflected on her as the leader as one of the greatest countries in the world.
An expectation of a foreign secretary is to fulfil his role and to do nothing that would jeopardise his or the countries positions. However there were a couple of occasions where he did act outside of his job. One of these occasions was the infamous ‘Haynau Affair’. The Hungarian diplomat General Haynau was on a state visit and was a guest of the Queen. However he was attacked by mobs and instead of protecting his British subjects with the subtlety a foreign secretary would be expected to use he instead fanned the flames by portraying Haynau as the criminal and suggested that ‘if he had not come the situation would not have happened.’ This not only enraged the Hungarians but also the Queen who demanded that Palmerston follow up with a full apology. Palmerston did respond but the apology was far from what the Queen and the Hungarians expected. This episode seriously damaged Anglo-Hungarian relations for years to come. Another time he acted outside his job was over Napoleons coup d’etat. After Napoleons coup he was one of very few countries to actually acknowledge him as the rightful leader, however it was hardly his place to do so and it would have been the Queens responsibility. Acknowledging a leader which took power illegally made Britain look immoral and so for Palmerston to do this it affected the way other countries looked upon Britain. The situation was made worse with the fact that Napoleon had actually overthrown the French monarchy and, Britain being a monarchy, Britain was supposed to stand up for the French monarchy so they would have support in international affairs. Britain was also slightly worried as Napoleon quickly made clear that his foreign policy was one of great expansion and the building of an empire. This would again threaten Britain and her position of world dominance both through the empires and the trade routes that Britain held which France may well challenge. The whole episode of Napoleons coup ended in Palmerston being dismissed from his post by the Prime Minister Russell.
However, against all of the criticism Palmerston did do well for Britain. One of the major criticisms of Palmerston was that he constantly acted outside of his job However it could be argued that he was only acting within his job when he committed the crimes during the ‘Don Pacifico Affair’ and in the Chinese opium wars. The foreign secretary’s job was to preserve Britain’s interests and to make sure that Britain was not compromised in any way. However during both of these incidents where he is said to have broken laws of both Britain but also of the countries involved. The ‘Don Pacifico Affair’ was all about Palmerston standing up for a British citizen which was, after all, part of his job. He did try to negotiate with the Greek government however they refused his demands of compensation and an official apology. Some may argue that Palmerston should have just accepted this, after all, Don Pacifico was just a Portuguese Jew with a questionable British claim. However as Britain was such a respected and feared nation across the globe Palmerston could not just stand and do nothing. This would have sent out a message of weakness to the rival countries and one of uncaring to other British citizens around the world. Therefore Palmerston had to act so he sent in the gunboats and bombarded the Greek islands until the Greeks gave in. Many argue that this was an unacceptable show of power against such a weak nation. However, Palmerston’s actions sent out a clear message, and this was the message that he laid out during his ‘Civus Romanus Sum’ speech where he declared that he would and should protect all of the British citizens around the globe, wherever they were and however small their British claim. Again he was said to be acting out of his job during both Chinese opium wars. During the first war the Chinese had confiscated the British opium and were stopping the sale of British opium all over the Chinese ports. Again, the role of the secretary was to make sure that Britain wasn’t compromised in any way. However with the confiscation of the opium was compromising the British in a big way. Palmerston demanded huge compensation due to the loss of income that the opium would have bought in. The Chinese refused and Palmerston again had to act. He again sent in the gunboats and bombarded the port of Nanking causing loss of life and causing damage to Chinese property. Eventually the Chinese gave in and were made to pay the compensation. Added to this, due to the time taken for the Chinese to give in, Palmerston also demanded that the sale of opium in the Chinese ports was made legal and that British consorts were allowed into the Chinese capital. On top of all this Hong Kong was ceded to the British as a base for trade and as a strategic location. All of his actions in both of these incidents were perfectly justifiable as he was only doing his job. He was upholding British honour and making sure that Britain was not compromised.
Another criticism of Palmerston is the he constantly broke laws. It is true that he did break international and national laws on a number of occasions however Palmerston always though it was necessary to break the law to uphold Britain’s honour and his own as a well known British statesman. The major time that he breaks international law with a clear purpose of upholding Britain’s reputation is in the first Chinese opium war. After the Chinese stopped the hugely profitable opium trade Palmerston had to act to either overturn the ban or get compensation and Britain was losing huge amounts of money during this time. He was forced into action and he did try to negotiate with the Chinese asking for the release of the opium and for the ban to be overturned however the Chinese refused which forced Palmerston to use force as Britain was being compromised. He sent in the gunboats and, admittedly, he did break the law but he did get the ban overturned and huge compensation from the Chinese. This means that his actions were justified as he was only doing his job. He knew he was going to break the law but this was necessary to fulfil his job and to make sure Britain was not negatively affected.
In conclusion Palmerston did commit many crimes during his time in office as both Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, however he strongly believed that to keep Britain in its place in European and World standings these crimes and risks had to be committed. His gunboat diplomacy was often against the legal law but it was often for causes that would aid Britain in the long run, therefore the good outweigh the bad in this argument and the only conclusion anyone could come to is that Palmerstons foreign policy from 1830 to 1865 was not just one big crime. His policies did have criminal elements, however his aims were always for the good of the country this can be demonstrated by the fact the throughout Palmerstons reign Britain was never really threatened in its position on top of Europe if not the World. Britain remained respected in political affairs and when Palmerston spoke he was taken seriously. This can be shown as during the short time where he was not in office Britain quickly found itself in a war which would turn wrong for it as it was up against a country with far superior man power. However when Palmerston came back peace was quickly restored and Britain did manage to prevent Russian expansion. Because of all of theses reasons I think that Palmerston’s foreign policy for 1830 to 1865 was not one long crime.
