uld be pure credulity to place much confidence in
the expressions of a statesman who within two months boldly censured and
then as boldly favored the designs of Victor Emmanuel on Venice,
officially and unblushingly before all Europe. Both these noble lords,
however, are fortunate in a keen appreciation of the national
prejudices, and know how to make use of the existing tone of public
feeling. A long vicissitude of successes and failures has taught both a
lesson which is every day a practical benefit; and after finding that
they were powerless when mutually opposed, they have succeeded in
swallowing the hatred of half a century, that they may join and divide
the power. The fact that there has been for some time a Tory majority in
the House of Commons shows the cunning with which Palmerston
manoeuvres his machinery. If we could conclude at all from his acts
what his sentiments are toward America, there is little love wasted on
us from that quarter; and Lord Russell, even while addressing the House
of Lords in terms favorable to us, never lets the occasion pass without
slipping in a sneer between his praises.

Selfishness, national or individual, is ever cautious and ever
suspicious. It seldom rashly grasps the thing coveted: it oftener lets
the apt occasion pass without improvement. The diplomatic intercourse
between Lord Palmerston's government and our own for the last year or
two amply illustrates this. He had in the first place no prepossession
in favor of the United States. We believe that he was not at all
unwilling to see the Union dissolved. It was natural for a statesman
hardened by fifty years of intrigue and devotion to politics to look
with absolute gratification upon what seemed the dissolution of a great,
and, because a near, a hated rival. We do not think it too much to
assume, that, as far as Palmerston's personal feelings were concerned,
he was ready for the chance of Southern recognition at the outset. In
such a sentiment, he had the sympathy of the aristocracy, and of all
others who take the low standard of self-aggrandizement in determining
opinions. Two circumstances, however, were a restraint upon him, and
appealed with controlling force to his caution. He was not only an
aristocrat and a hater of republics, he was also the Prime-Minister of
_all_ England. He was absolutely dependent to a great degree upon the
lower orders for the permanence of his present dignity. Was it wise in
him to disregard th