od for us all!" prevailed, it is true, over that of
Alexander's "Confederation of Europe"; yet, as one outcome of the
congresses, every diplomatic agent, though he represents the interests
of his own state, has behind him the whole body of the treaties which
constitute the public law of the world, of which he is in some sort the
interpreter and the guardian.

Parallel with this development runs the second process making for
change: the increasing responsibility of diplomacy to public opinion. To
discuss all the momentous issues involved in this is impossible; but the
subject is too important to be altogether passed over, since it is one
of the main problems of modern international intercourse, and concerns
every one who by his vote may influence the policy of the state to which
he belongs. The question, broadly speaking, is: how far has the public
discussion of international affairs affected the legitimate functions of
diplomacy for better or for worse? To the diplomatist of the old school
the answer seems clear. For him diplomacy was too delicate and too
personal an art to survive the glare and confusion of publicity.
Metternich, the last representative of the old _haute diplomatie_, lived
to moralize over the ruin caused by the first manifestations of the "new
diplomacy," the outcome of the rise of the power of public opinion. He
had early, from his own point of view, unfavourably contrasted the
"limited" constitutional monarchies of the west with the "free"
autocracies of the east of Europe, free because they were under no
obligation to give a public account of their actions. He himself was a
master of the old diplomatic art, of intrigue, of veiling his purpose
under a cloud of magniloquence, above all, of the art of personal
fascination. But public opinion was for him only a dangerous force to be
kept under control; and, even had he realized the necessity for
appealing to it, he had none of the qualities that would have made the
appeal successful. In direct antagonism to him was George Canning, who
may be called the great prototype of the "new diplomacy," and to
Metternich was a "malevolent meteor hurled by divine providence upon
Europe." Canning saw clearly the immense force that would be added to
his diplomatic action if he had behind him the force of public opinion.
In answer to Metternich's complaint of the tone of speeches in
parliament and of the popular support given in England to revolutionary
movements, he