character, and to say what is most offensive to foreign nations. All
the practised acumen of anti-Government writers and speakers is sure
to be engaged in proving that England has been imposed upon--that,
as was said in one case, "The moral and the intellectual qualities
have been divided; that our negotiation had the moral, and the
negotiation on the other side the intellectual," and so on. The
whole pitch of party malice is then expended, because there is
nothing to check the party in opposition. The treaty has been made,
and though it may be censured, and the party which made it ousted,
yet the difficulty it was meant to cure is cured, and the opposing
party, if it takes office, will not have that difficulty to deal
with.

In abstract theory these defects in our present practice would seem
exceedingly great, but in practice they are not so. English
statesmen and English parties have really a great patriotism; they
can rarely be persuaded even by their passions or their interest to
do anything contrary to the real interest of England, or anything
which would lower England in the eyes of foreign nations. And they
would seriously hurt themselves if they did. But still these are the
real tendencies of our present practice, and these are only
prevented by qualities in the nation and qualities in our statesmen,
which will just as much exist if we change our practice.

It certainly would be in many ways advantageous to change it. If we
require that in some form the assent of Parliament shall be given to
such treaties, we should have a real discussion prior to the making
of such treaties. We should have the reasons for the treaty plainly
stated, and also the reasons against it. At present, as we have
seen, the discussion is unreal. The thing is done and cannot be