payment. But that a man should have a right to put his hand into his neighbour's pocket, and take out of it such a sum as will enable him to send his boy to a school which teaches opinion to which that neighbour has a conscientious objection, is unjust. It would be better to abolish compulsion in the matter of education altogether, than to inflict such injustice. The fact is, that the Church of Rome and the Protestant Dissenters of England have practices totally distinct on the subject of religion. The Church of Rome indulges in absolutions and dispensations; she declares it is wrong for a man to marry his niece, or his first cousin, and then she grants a special dispensation for the purpose. At the beginning of Lent a proclamation is made that on certain days the strictest fast is to be observed. Not only meat and fowls, but butter, milk, and cream are prohibited. But then both men and women of weak constitution can easily obtain a licence dispensing with these severe rules.

The Protestant Dissenters of England have a totally different view. I can give an instance of the scruples they entertain. I asked Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, whether his father had acted as a magistrate during the time the Corporation and Test Acts had been in force. His answer was, 'No,' his father haul

take the Sacre

i

of England, but be a ne :
which by the law was proditioned

The late Mr. Hezzy Drmnoni al
of Commons, that two rears
governed by the word

century the governing word wie thing
is thus that at the present time the
affects the consciences of I

most powerful can of the pri

CHAPTER XII.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

It is a painful part of my task to discuss the foreign policy of the late British Ministry, and especially the Treaty of Washington, with its antecedents and accompaniments. But this task cannot be avoided.

I shall in the first place refer to the opinions recorded by Baron de Hübner. Baron de Hübner is an intelligent traveller, who has been more than once in the United States. But besides this, he has had great diplomatic experience, having been for some time the Ambassador of Austria in France, and is universally esteemed for his good sense and sagacity. He thus puts on record the opinions he gathered from Englishmen and citizens of the United States on his last voyage to America. The English regret unanimously that there was any necessity to make concessions, but in their opinion the satisfaction outweighs the discontent. If I am not much mistaken, that is the feeling which predominates in England. American statesmen appear uncertain as to the value they ought to attach

to the Treaty. . . . In the opinion of the public at large, the Treaty of Washington is on the part of the English Government an act of deference-the acknowledgment of the superiority of the power of the United States. England has submitted-she has capitulated; neither more nor less. If this erroneous interpretation is spread throughout the Union, and takes root in the conviction of the masses, the conciliatory dispositions which have animated the English negotiators are illunderstood, and this Treaty, while removing present difficulties, will have prepared the minds of men for future complications.'1

This last remark of Baron Hübner is of great im portance. If it is believed, in the opinion of the public at large in America, that the Treaty of Washington is, on the part of the people of England, 'an acknowledgment of the superiority of the power of the United States: England has submitted and has capitulated; such a conviction in the mind of a nation so proud and self-sufficient as the Republic of the United States is no doubt a bad preparation for peace. It is a great mistake to suppose that a concession, even the most abject to a foreign nation, is certain to conciliate their goodwill. The power which conceives that a great empire has confessed its inferiority, is apt to make demands which a nation having a lively sense of honour is certain to reject. For instance, the present 1 'Promenade Autour du Monde,' vol. ii.

Government of the United States might ask from the present Government of England the annexation of Canada to the States of the Union. Some members of the late Cabinet might think this a cheap mode of securing peace. But Lord Palmerston always considered the retention of Canada essential to the maintenance of British honour, and the nation at large would assuredly agree with Lord Palmerston in this opinion. Thus the danger of war would not be averted, but increased by the proposal of this concession.

It remains to be considered, however, whether there are any just grounds for the opinion, that the concessions made in and by the Treaty of Washington, or in consequence of that Treaty, were an act of deference and an acknowledgment of the superiority of the power of the United States.' If not, the opinion is a mere bravado on the part of the American people, but the following points may be quoted in support of the American opinion:

I. That instead of subjecting the conduct of the British Government, during the Civil War in the United States, to the known rules of International Law and the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, an ex post facto law was invented, by which, and by the arbitrary interpretation of which, the conduct of the British Government was tried many years after the event.

II. That that part of the Treaty of 1846 which