In the absence of any provision for the unity of policy between the executive and legislative authorities of the United States, it is impossible for any nation to have a positive guarantee that a treaty it may negotiate with the former can be ratified.  The sovereign of Great Britain enters into treaties with foreign powers with the advice and assistance of his constitutional advisers, who are immediately responsible to parliament for their counsel in such matters.  In theory it is the prerogative of the Crown to make a treaty; in practice it is that of the ministry.  It is not constitutionally imperative to refer such treaties to parliament for its approval—­the consent of the Crown is sufficient; but it is sometimes done under exceptional circumstances, as in the case of the cession of Heligoland.  In any event the action of the ministry in the matter is invariably open to the review of parliament, and the ministry may be censured by an adverse vote for the advice given to the sovereign, and forced to retire from office.  In the United States the senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote, but unless there is a majority in that House of the same political complexion as the president the treaty may be refused.  No cabinet minister is present, to lead the House, as in England, and assume all the responsibility of the president’s action.  It is almost impossible to suppose that an English ministry would consent to a treaty that would be unpopular in parliament and the country.  The existence of the government would depend on its action.  In the United States both president and senate have divided responsibilities.  The constitution makes no provision for unity in such important matters of national obligation.

The great advantages of the English, or Canadian, system lie in the interest created among all classes of the people by the discussions of the different legislative bodies.  Parliamentary debate involves the fate of cabinets, and the public mind is consequently led to study all issues of importance.  The people know and feel that they must be called upon sooner or later to decide between the parties contending on the floor of the legislature, and consequently are obliged to give an intelligent consideration to public affairs.  Let us see what Bagehot, ablest of critics, says on this point:—­

“At present there is business in their attention (that is to say, of the English or Canadian people).  They assist at the determining crisis; they assist or help it.  Whether the government will go out or remain is determined by the debate and by the division in parliament And the opinion out of doors, the secret pervading disposition of society, has a great influence on that division.  The nation feels that its judgment is important, and it strives to judge.  It succeeds in deciding because the debates and the discussions give it the facts and arguments.  But under the presidential government the nation has, except