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.

therefore, can be admitted.

No general rule of that kind,

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

command, will be more than a match for such disjointed and faint resistance as can be opposed to them by nations whose collective will is paralyzed by internal disunion.

Alliance with Prussia.

England, then, should not only have a foreign policy well defined and well supported, but foreign alliances calculated to ensure that support, and should be willing not only to rejoice in the good, but to submit to the evil which may result from such alliances. Europe throughout its whole extent is now divided between two antagonist principles, that of absolutism, upheld solely by armies, and now generally triumphant, on the one hand, and that of anarchical democracy on the other, crushed for the moment, but still full of life, and even in its extravagances representing the eternal and irrepressible rebellion of the human mind against the dominion of brute force. The present ascendancy of military governments cannot be permanent. Sooner or later they will find the ground crack and yawn beneath their feet, as it has so often done before, and the old chaos will again threaten to engulf them; but for the best interests of mankind there seems as little to hope from unqualified democracy as from unqualified despotism. Some constitutional compromise and adjustment is indispensable to give any security for individual freedom and permanent tranquillity. It is to the strengthening of the constitutional principle in Europe that the foreign policy of England ought to be directed. The adverse forces have been so long softened and harmonised amongst ourselves, as to be scarcely distinguishable in the working of our mixed Government, but] any such reconcilement in other countries must assume different forms, and be attended with far greater difficulties. All that can be done by England is, to strengthen constitutional forms abroad where they already exist, and to promote constitutional tendencies where they show themselves. Three countries, all very important from their position, but secondary in influence, may be said to enjoy con