There is much to be regretted in the general policy of Europe since 1815. Many faults have been committed which might have been avoided, many improvements which might have been made have been miscalculated or have passed as dreams. But throughout this age, and for more than half a century, rising above all faults and blunders, royal or popular, diplomatic or parliamentary, one great and novel fact has dominated the policy of Europe--there has been no question of a war of ambition and of conquest; no State has attempted to aggrandise itself by force at the expense of other States; [Footnote: Guizot's enthusiasm or patriotism here led him into a somewhat reckless assertion. In point of fact, there was not one of the great Continental Powers which, during the previous fifty years, had not 'attempted to aggrandise itself by force,' and, necessarily, 'at the expense of other States.' With the exception of Austria, they had done more than 'attempt'--they had effected the aggrandisement.] respect for peace and the law of nations has become a ruling maxim of international policy. When internal revolution in any State has rendered territorial changes necessary, these changes have been recognised and accepted only after the examination and consent of Europe. Belgium and Greece have taken rank as European States only by the putting on one side all the yearnings of French, Russian, or English ambition. And when, in 1844 and 1848, the Emperor Nicholas, in his familiar interviews with your ambassador at St. Petersburg, proposed that Russia and England should act in concert, and by joint conquest, as he said, put an end to the decrepitude of the Ottoman Empire, two English ministers, Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell, to their great honour, rejected any such idea, as an outrage on the law of nations, and the peace of Europe.