sensitive to its criticisms. What if a remonstrance should be addressed to England on the subject? It would not be the first time that such a thing has happened. A greater man than the present ruler of France was stung almost to madness by the attacks of the English journals, which continued even after the peace of Amiens. But when Napoleon demanded, with anger, that such licence should be put down, the English minister calmly replied that it could not be done, because to do so would be contrary to the custom of England. Why was he able to give that calm answer to the master of four hundred thousand bayonets? Only because the ships of the Nile were at hand, and the flag of Nelson ready to go to the masthead.

Right of Asylum.

If the custom should again be challenged, no doubt it will be again maintained. A right so necessary as that of free discussion will be maintained as long as any spark of the old life of England survives; but what is to be said of the right of asylum? Are there connected with the exercise of this right no possibilities of sudden and serious danger? This is a question of extreme delicacy. But it is one quite certain to be forced upon the public attention sooner or later, and had better be considered while it can be considered calmly, and sifted to the bottom. There is no need to excite disturbing prejudices by referring to such cases as those of Mazzini or Kossuth. It will be admitted that those distinguished exiles are to be treated like others. There is to be one rule for all. None, for instance, can be suffered to break the law which prohibits warlike preparations against a Power with which we are at peace. So far the case is clear. But a case not quite so clear might easily arise in connection with some of the eminent persons now excluded from France. If any of them choose to reside in England, they will of course be as free to write, talk, and choose their company, as the French ambassador. But events might occur in France to render the presence and move

ments of such individuals matters of great anxiety to the French Government. Is England prepared to maintain her old freedom of hospitality in spite of any demands which that anxiety might press upon her?

After the changes that have already taken place in France, few can be desirous of seeing another French revolution; for, excepting the first memorable change, which produced some great reforms, each revolution in succession is a lottery, giving a certainty of nothing, except that the people always draw blanks. The thing most to be desired for France is, that she should become settled under some Government; but it can hardly be imagined that a people of such quick impulses, and so much mental activity, will continue to endure a system which represses all freedom of thought as rigidly as the Inquisition. Unless that system be relaxed, which seems an event not likely to take place, it will provoke reaction; and whenever the Government feels that there is any extensive movement amongst its foes, it will not look for precedents in Grotius or Vattel for the measures which it may take to counteract them. If England shall then be in a position to invite the process of putting on the screw, she will certainly be made to feel it. If the French Government shall at any time become seriously apprehensive about the movements of French refugees in England, it will not rest content with the observance of the Foreign Enlistment Act. It might demand the expulsion of the person of some individual supposed to be dangerous, or it might ask for the inspection of his correspondence. What should be the answer? Unquestionably a flat negative is the only answer which the English people would permit to be returned to either demand. But, then, to give due weight to such a reply, troops, artillery, and channel fleet should all be in perfect order.

Treaty Obligations.

For the mere defence of England, therefore, it is essential that her armaments should be both large and efficient; but

there are other objects, also, which must be kept in view, unless it is to be held that nations are under no moral obligations whatever. There is nothing upon which opinions are more unsettled than upon the question as to the relations in which nations ought to stand to each other. Theorists, as usual, take extreme and opposite views, between which the practice of mankind steers a middle course. Of the two extreme views, namely, that, on the one hand, which holds nations bound to render to each other the same services which private men are bound to render to their fellow citizens; and that, on the other hand, which considers each nation free to do, at any moment, only what will promote its own immediate interest; the more generous notion is, unfortunately, the more impracticable of the two. That a strong nation should step in with her aid whenever a weak one is struggling against oppression, is a course which recommends itself to our best feelings; but it may often be impossible to resist the injustice successfully, or without giving rise to an amount of disorder and misery so vast that the risk is too great to be voluntarily incurred by the limited human intelligence. No general rule of that kind, therefore, can be admitted. Each special case, as it arises, must be dealt with upon its own merits; but the best security for a right decision in the cases where the national obligation is doubtful, will be sure to exist when a nation is habitually prepared to discharge those obligations towards other nations, of the extent and force of which there can be no doubt whatever.

Now, by the consent of all ages, there are cases in which interference is both right and practicable, and nations have bound themselves to each other by treaties in which such cases are provided for. It is, however, a question with some, whether such treaties ought to be observed. It is true they have been repeatedly broken. But are we advancing towards a better state of things, or declining towards a worse, by laying down the rule that no treaty stipulations are to be observed any more? The law of nations is a loose, defective, and, in some

respects, wholly indeterminate rule of action, but, if it is ever to become clear, and adequate, and binding-if, in a word, we are ever to realize that grand conception, the "Federation of the World," which is presented to us not only by the imagination of Tennyson, but by the practical sense of Cobden-it would seem natural to begin by giving all possible sacredness and validity to those parts of the law the obligation of which is universally admitted. There are some very refined moral questions which an individual may meditate respecting the use of property, but it would not help him, in the establishment of a perfect moral standard, to begin with a doubt as to his obligation to pay his tradesmen's bills. Now the tradesmen's bills of England are the treaties which she has deliberately signed, binding her to aid in maintaining the independence of certain foreign nations. She has contracted an obligation of this sort with respect to Belgium. It appears to me that England, in doing her part to bring about the universal federation of nations, ought to be ready to perform this particular duty of going to war, if it were necessary, to prevent a French occupation of Belgium. The attempt at such occupation it is to be earnestly hoped will never be made, but a man must be blind who does not see that the possibility of such a thing must be contemplated by statesmen, and cannot be overlooked in the regulation of armaments.

England connected with the Continent.

Here, then, is a case in which, upon grounds distinct from those of mere self-defence, England should have the means of speaking and acting with authority and effect in her intercourse with foreign nations. She ought to be able to do this as a matter of duty, but, in truth, she would in doing so promote her own security. The conversion of Antwerp into a French port, to speak of nothing else, would greatly increase the means of annoyance existing immediately near the English coast, and, to

Q

speak of a matter of very inferior importance, the inclusion of Belgium within the tariff of France would by no means improve the commercial relations between England and the former country. In resisting any attempt to annex Belgium to France, England, too, might count upon the firm support of Prussia, whose interest in the matter would be even stronger than her own. The strengthening of that alliance, it may be added, is suggested and recommended by the whole state of European opinion; and England, even if she would, cannot separate herself from the general concerns of Europe.

From the great

A brilliant writer of the present day has happily embodied in a fiction the important truth, that, however favourable circumstances may seem for making the experiment, no man can live long in refined and luxurious isolation. With all possible care and sacrifice to avoid social entanglements, he is quite certain to get entangled at last, and to find upon his shoulders the very responsibilities of which he had the greatest dread. It is exactly the same with nations. England cannot play the part of the "Bachelor of the Albany." movement of society in Europe she cannot stand aloof. As a nation she has duties to perform, and woe to her if she neglect them. She ought to have, therefore, both a foreign policy and foreign alliances. She ought to have a policy so distinct and well-sustained by public opinion, that the minister who represents her should both find the main line of his position marked out for him and feel, in maintaining it, that he has a nation at his back. No minister, however bold, energetic, or sagacious, can speak with effect in diplomatic intercourse if he does not know that in the last resort fleets and armies will be ready at his call. Towards weak nations, indeed, the policy of England should always be mercy and tolerance, even to the verge of laxity; but, whenever the cause of justice requires it, she ought to be both able and resolute to impose her will upon the strong. If the national force cannot be thus wielded under a popular constitution, the result must be the growing ascendancy of despotic governments. Their power, perfectly organized and at