The Senate, on the other hand, repudiated this doctrine, and rejected the bill with the preamble containing it as it came from the House of Representatives. {302} The bill then went to a conference committee of the two Houses, and this committee invented a preamble which read: "Whereas the President has entered into a treaty with the Emperor of Russia, and the Senate thereafter gave its advice and consent to said treaty, and whereas said stipulations cannot be carried into full force and effect, except by legislation to which the consent of both Houses of Congress is necessary; therefore be it resolved," etc. Both Houses adopted the bill in this form and it became law July 27th, 1868. The contention of the House was good political science, but it is still doubtful whether it is the constitutional law of the United States or not. The more recent constitutions of even the European states, such as those of Germany and France, make the consent of both houses of the legislature necessary to the validity of all treaties involving the appropriation of money, or the assumption of any financial obligation. This is as it should be; and the Constitution of the United States ought to be so amended as to establish clearly the same principle. [Sidenote: Irritation of the American people against Great Britain.] [Sidenote: Change of Ministry and Parliamentary majority in 1867.] We have, in the preceding volume of this series, followed the history of the relations of the United States with Great Britain down to the close of the rebellion, and have referred to the general irritation on the part of the loyal people of the United States against the British government for its attitude in regard to the acts of its subjects in furnishing warships and munitions to the Confederates. There were many who favored turning the great military power with which the United States emerged from the Civil War against Great Britain, and forcing a settlement of those difficulties by the trial of arms; but Seward remained in the direction of the foreign affairs of the Union, and he had had enough of war. Moreover, he {303} foresaw a change of government in Great Britain, and with it he hoped for a change of sentiment on the part of the new government on the international question. This event happened in consequence of the parliamentary election of 1867. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in Mr. Gladstone's cabinet was first Lord Stanley, and then the Earl of Clarendon, both of them very different in character from Lord John Russell. From the outset each of them manifested a sincere desire to reach an amicable settlement of all differences with the United States. The trouble at this juncture seems to have been the extravagance of the claims of the United States. Mr. Adams, whose patience had become much worn, talked about private damages, national damages and an apology. The British Ministers thought this too preposterous to be seriously meant.