entry of French vessels. The recent naval preparations by France ought to be met by correspondent preparations on our part. No array of military force, however formidable, will, he trusts, have any influence to make us deviate from the path of duty. He concludes with referring to the resolution of the House at the last session, that the treaty of 1831 should be maintained, and its execution insisted on; and says it is due to the welfare of the human race, no less than to our own interests and honor, that this resolution should, at all hazards, be adhered to.

Besides the other correspondence, the President also sent a letter from Mr. Livingston to the Duke de Broglie, dated the twenty-ninth of January, 1835, which, by oversight, was omitted in his former communications. This letter maintains the ground formerly taken by him, that the President was justified in his message to Congress, and in complaining that the French Government had not done all which he had reason to expect they would do.

In reply to a call of the Senate, a report was made by Mr. Forsyth to the Secretary of State, in which he communicated such despatches and correspondence as had not been transmitted by the President. They essentially go over the same ground that the parties had previously occupied. The Government of the United States complaining of France first for delay and neglect of claims; and France, of the menacing and offensive language used by the United States, and of some complaints that were not well-founded.

After the papers were read, Mr. Buchanan expressed his entire satisfaction with the President's message, which, he said, was all he desired it to be. Mr. Calhoun followed, taking opposite ground, and condemning with

severity some things which had occurred in the negotiation; and he showed that, from the first, the French Government had stated to our Minister, Mr. Rives, that the difficulty would be, not with them, but with the Chambers.

While this controversy was thus prolonged upon a point of etiquette, and two civilized and populous nations were threatened with war, which both of them deprecated, Great Britain seasonably stepped in to remove the difficulty which neither of the parties seemed inclined to obviate.

In December, after the American Chargé d'Affaires had left Paris, an offer was made by the British Ministry to mediate between the United States and France, which offer was promptly accepted by France. This mediation was communicated by the President to Congress on the eighth of February, with the information that he had also cheerfully accepted the offer, and that it would be improper to act on his recommendation of non-intercourse until it was known whether France also accepted the mediation. He, however, repeats his recommendation to put the seaboard in a state of defence.

On the twenty-second of February, another message was received from the President, in which he states the determination of the French Government to execute the treaty with the United States, and sends the correspondence between the British Chargé d'Affaires and the Secretary of State relative to the offer of mediation, and also that the same offer had been accepted by France. He takes occasion to state the want of preparation in which the country would have been found, if hostilities had broken out during the recess of Congress; and recommending such provision, by law, as may prevent the recurrence of the like danger.

In the letter from Mr. Bankhead to Mr. Forsyth, it is properly remarked, that there was "no question of national interest at issue between France and the United States." Mr. Forsyth's reply gives a qualified acceptance, since he states, after a review of the whole case, that the condition prescribed by the act of the Chambers could never be complied with: and the President feels that "he may rely on the intelligence and liberality of His Britannic Majesty's Government for a correct estimation of the imperative obligations which leave him no power to subject the point to the control of any foreign State, whatever may be his confidence in its justice and impartiality." He adds that, after his frank reservation of this point, His Britannic Majesty thinks his mediation can be effectual, and he is informed that it is cheerfully accepted.

The British Chargé d'Affaires replies, on the fifteenth of February, that the British Government has received a communication from the French Government, stating that "the frank and honorable manner in which the President has, in his recent message, expressed himself with regard to the points of difference between the Government of France and the United States, has removed those difficulties upon the score of national honor which have hitherto stood in the way;" and that, consequently, the French Government is now ready to pay the instalments. This communication it makes to Great Britain, not as the mediator, but as the common friend of both parties. To which a very proper reply was returned by Mr. Forsyth, expressing the President's satisfaction, as well as high sense of the elevated motives of the British Government; and his anticipations that its benevolent and magnanimous wishes for the restoration of harmony will be realized.

Mr. Clay expressed his satisfaction at the termination of this controversy, and congratulated the Senate on its agency in bringing about this happy result, both by the resolution it passed, and its refusal of the three millions of dollars.

On the doctrine that foreign Governments have no right to take offence at the communications made from one department of our Government to another, he showed that this principle was disregarded in Mr. Van Buren's instructions to the American Minister to Great Britain; that it was violated in Mr. Rives's explanation to Prince Polignac; and it was violated by Mr. Livingston, when he undertook to explain the President's message of December, 1834. It was violated in June last, when the Secretary of State approved of the former's explanation; and again in the message of December last, when the President, almost in the very language, made the expla nations suggested by the Duke de Broglio to Mr. Rives. The message was prepared, "to obtain with France the merit of a satisfactory explanation, and with the people of the United States the merit of refusing all explanation. The President, in saying he would never explain, made an explanation. He rejoiced that France had the wisdom to receive it. She had, however, taken a false position. The best vindication of her good faith would have been to pay the debt she acknowledged to be just, and, when paid, she would have been in the proper attitude for demanding satisfaction for her insulted honor. He, however, congratulates the country on our escape from a war with France, in which neither civil liberty, nor maritime nor territorial rights, nor national independence, nor true national honor, was involved-a war, the cause of which was an unfortunate message, the object of which, an inconsiderable debt, cancelled by the very act

of declaring it a message regretted by the Senate, regretted by the House of Representatives, and regretted by the whole country; and which, whatever might have been the patriotism that dictated it, all regarded as rash, intemperate, and dangerous to the peace of the country. He compliments Great Britain on her generous and disinterested course.

He then adds, playfully, that our good old President has hardly terminated the French war, before he declares a new one against the surplus fund. He hoped that he, or at least his friends, would turn their thoughts on peace, and unite in an equitable distribution of this fund and thus what, from a mere speck on the horizon, had suddenly become a threatening cloud, had yet more suddenly dissipated, and left the United States apparently in the enjoyment of unexampled and substantial prosperity.

The internal affairs of the country now engrossing the attention of the leading politicians, found more than usual occupation in the Legislature.

On the fourth of February, Mr. Calhoun, from the select Committee of the Senate concerning that part of the President's message which referred to inflammatory appeals to slaves, made a report.

The Committee think that Congress has not the power to pass a law prohibiting the circulation of incendiary publications; but they think the power possessed by the States amply sufficient for their protection.

They then examine the constitutional question in full, and consider that such a law would be liable to the same objections as the sedition law, and would, moreover, infringe the reserved rights of the States.

They think that, under the mutual obligations of the States to each other, the slaveholding portion have the