EARLY BELGIAN COLONIAL EFFORTS - The University of Texas at ...

attempt in Rio Nunez are good examples. Palmerston was immensely proud of his
contribution to Belgian existence and the choice of Leopold as king. His relationship
with Leopold was better then Leopold’s relationship with him. Palmerston never really
became concerned with Leopold’s overseas ventures unless they came in competition
with what Palmerston considered were British vital interests. It was certainly in
Britain’s best interests to keep Belgium healthy and neutral against Palmerston’s fear of
a resurgent France. Leopold clearly used his relationship with Palmerston to avoid
mistakes in terms of colonial adventures. This was the likely purpose of keeping
Sylvain van de Weyer in London for almost thirty years. Neither individual wanted to
lose his input into the other’s movements. In Leopold’s imperialistic efforts the
relationship acted more as a censor than as a conscience. Palmerston often let Leopold
know of his displeasures but rarely, if ever, did this result in overt British action or
condemnation. Leopold’s actions were acceptable if he could simply show what
Palmerston considered a legitimate colonial or commercial adventure with potential for
Belgian success. Palmerston was probably the reason Leopold and Belgium did not get
in over their heads in colonial adventures such as a canal project or protectorate in
Central America.
Leopold’s relationship with Stockmar seems to have been the least utilized and
effective of Leopold’s contacts in Britain. There are probably three reasons for this. The
first is that Stockmar, despite his pledge of loyalty to Leopold, clearly began to favor
his loyalty to Victoria, and especially Albert, over Leopold. Secondly, Stockmar was
clearly more interested in the German unification question than the situation in either
196