Doubtless, therefore, Mr. Motley’s report of his conversation shows that some of his expressions might have been improved, and others might as well have been omitted.  A man does not change his temperament on taking office.  General Jackson still swore “by the Eternal,” and his illustrious military successor of a more recent period seems, by his own showing, to have been able to sudden impulses of excitement.  It might be said of Motley, as it was said of Shakespeare by Ben Jonson, “aliquando sufflaminandus erat.”  Yet not too much must be made of this concession.  Only a determination to make out a case could, as it seems to me, have framed such an indictment as that which the secretary constructed by stringing together a slender list of pretended peccadillos.  One instance will show the extreme slightness which characterizes many of the grounds of inculpation:—­

The instructions say, “The government, in rejecting the recent convention, abandons neither its own claims nor those of its citizens,” etc.

Mr. Motley said, in the course of his conversation, “At present, the United States government, while withdrawing neither its national claims nor the claims of its individual citizens against the British government,” etc.

Mr. Fish says, “The determination of this government not to abandon its claims nor those of its citizens was stated parenthetically, and in such a subordinate way as not necessarily to attract the attention of Lord Clarendon.”

What reported conversation can stand a captious criticism like this?  Are there not two versions of the ten commandments which were given out in the thunder and smoke of Sinai, and would the secretary hold that this would have been a sufficient reason to recall Moses from his “Divine Legation” at the court of the Almighty?

There are certain expressions which, as Mr. Fish shows them apart from their connection, do very certainly seem in bad taste, if not actually indiscreet and unjustifiable.  Let me give an example:—­

“Instead of expressing the hope entertained by this government that there would be an early, satisfactory, and friendly settlement of the questions at issue, he volunteered the unnecessary, and from the manner in which it was thrust in, the highly objectionable statement that the United States government had no insidious purposes,’” etc.

This sounds very badly as Mr. Fish puts it; let us see how it stands in its proper connection:—­

“He [Lord Clarendon] added with some feeling, that in his opinion it would be highly objectionable that the question should be hung up on a peg, to be taken down at some convenient moment for us, when it might be difficult for the British government to enter upon its solution, and when they might go into the debate at a disadvantage.  These were, as nearly as I can remember, his words, and I replied very earnestly that I had already