i •• '^iii i. iiSiW Wt^V\l.K\\J!« :iP^ l'V1K.)!Iv>^1 WM^ Qass. Book. ALBANY ARGUS EXTRA. THE ^. ^CJ VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE • / ^ FACTS, IN RELATION TO THE REJECTION OF MARTIN VAN BUREN, BY THE U. S. SENATE. ^of W ^ALBANY: PRINTED BY PACKARD AND VAN BENTHUYSEN, 1832. :^. • ^ % «4\ ^■^^ TMK VOICE OF JTEW-YORIC. At a meeting of the republican members of the Legislature of the State of New- York, convened in tti^ Assembly chamber, on Friday evening, February 3, 18^2, the Hon. EDWARD P. LIVINGSTON i Lieut. Governor and President of the Senate, was called to the chair, and the Hon. CHARLES L. LIVINGSTON, Speaker of the Assembly, and Hon. EDWARD HOWELL of Steuben, appointed <^><», secretaries. v- Mr. N. P. Tallmadge, of the Senate, chairman of the committee appointed to call legislative ■-. meetings, offered the following resolutions on behalf of the committee, viz : l. Resolved, That we look upon the rejection of the nomination of MARTIN VAN BUREN as Mini3- T\ ter Plenipotentiary to Great Britain, as an act calculated in tlie highest degree, to reflect dishonor upon („, the nation in the eyes of foreign states, and to degrade the Senate of the United States in the eyes of "li, our own citizens : i- That it is, at this time, the more to be deprecated, as its tendency is to draw into doubt and Uncer- tainty with the British government, the policy of our own, by stamping with condemnation an appoint-* ment made by. the Chief Magistrate, for the purpose of 'concluding a negotiation, for the settlement of questions involving principles of the highest national importance; a negotiation, of winch the failure might possibly lead to an interruption of our friendly relations with a power, between w^hom and our- selves, it is of vital interest to both parties, that a mutual good understanding should be maintained: That it is an indignity offered to the Chief Magistrate of the nation, and an insult to his loi^, devoted and patriotic services; that it is worthy of being a concluding scene to the drama, which opened by ar- raigning his military character on the lloor of Congress, and continued by waging a vindictive warfare against his late cabinet, and by invading with ruthless violence, the sanctuary of his domestic peace: That it is an outrage to the unblemished private character, eminent talents and distinguished public services of the individual whose nomination has been rejected ; carrying with it the disheartening mo- ral, that no purity of reputation is a safeguard against the envy and malice which are constantly seeldng to bring down to their own level in the scale of opinion, all who .succeed, by disinterestedness and virtue, in rising above it: That in the rejection of his nomination, the public expectation has been disappointed, the public honor tarnished, and the public interests put at hazard, by a corrupt combination for political objects. Resolved, That we have the highest confidence in the integrity, patriotism, talents and virtue of MARTIN VAN BUREN ; that we regret his rejection only in its relation to the public interests, and in its tendency to degrade the character of the Senate of the United States in the eyes of the nation^ and the character of the nation in the eyes of the W'Orld: — confident in the belief that corrupt condem- nations, by whatever tribunal pronounced, always hare the effect of elevating those whom they are in- tended to destroy. Resolved, That in turning our attention from the authors of this foul disgrace to the People of the State of New-York, we recognize the proper tribunal for reversing this unrighteous judgment; that we have unbounded confidence in theirrntelligence, their virtue and their justice; and that we look to them for suitable manifestations of their abhon-ence of the wanton injury visited upon an illustrious citizen^ and, through him, the dishonor visited upon the country. Resolved, That the thanks of the nation are due to those members of the Senate of the United States,- who, faithful to the public interests and to their own honor, firmly, though fruitlessly, resisted the sa- crifice of an individual, distinguished for public and private virtues, at the altar of personal hostility. Resolved, That considering the rejection of Mr. VAN BUREN as a blow aimed at the President of the United States, thi-ough an individual high in his confidence, we deem it proper on this occasion, to express our entire confidence in his character, talenis and the principles of his administration; that the successive attempts to impair his standing and embarrass his public course, have had the effect of ele- vating him in our estimation, and confirming his claims to our respect and gratitude; and that we pledo-e ourselves to rally around and sustain him against a combination of political aspirants, whose success would be as disieputable to the character of the country, and as desolating to its prosperity, as his civil and military services have been glorious to the one and invaluable to the other. Mr. Tali.madge, having read the resolutions, addressed tlie meeting v.-ith great eloquence and effect. He depicted the life and services of MARTIN VAN BUREN— his devotion to the democra- cy — his career, as brilliant as it had been useful, in the maintenance of great constitutional and republi- can principles — the ardent attachment of the people of New-York to him who under all circumstances had consulted their interests and devoted himself to their welfare — the eminence to which, under the confidence of a republican people, he had raised himself, without the adventitious aids of v,'ealth and rank — the ability and fidelity with which he had discharged these high functions, acquiring a just re-' nown for himself, and honor and glory for his native state — the envy and hostility with which the aris-- tocracy had pursued him, from his first and humblest effai-ts, to the last and crowning act of infamy and malice on their part in his rejection by the casting vote of an aristocratic personal and political riVal the double blow which was thus aimed at the President of the United States, in this assault upon his friend, and upon a leading and successful measure of his administration, and at the State of New-York,- thi'ough a citizen who has no superior in her afi'ections, and for whom on this occasion, she will speak with a tone that will vindicate her honor, and sustain her favorite son. Messrs. Edmoivds and Foster, of the Senate, and Mr. Otis, of the Assembly, also addressed the meeting, pertinently and eloquently. The resolutions were then unanimously adopted. On motion of Mr. Edmonds, it was resolved, that the resolutioits relative to the rejection of the' nomination of the Hon. Martin Van Bi-rkn besigned bytli* rc-publirian memter* of the Legislature ,. and that a committee be appointed to transmit copies thereof to the President of the United States to Mr. Van Buren and to the Senators and Representatives of this State in the congr^ of the u' S Thereupon, the chairman appointed the committee, as follows:— ^""grebt, oi me u. &. Messrs. Tallmadge Armstrong, Beardsley, Hubbard and Edmonds, of the Senate- and Messrs Liv ;h?As"'eSS;!"' '''''''''' ^^'"'' ^''^''' '''''''''''''' '^''^''' «"S'^^«"' Wm-£>n and SeymouJ^. ol OF THE SENATE. First District. STEPHEN ALLEN, ALPHEUS SHERMAN, JONATHAN S. CONKLIN, HARMAN B. CROPSEY. Second District. SAMUEL REXFORD, NATHANIEL P.TALLMADCE, DAVID M. WESTCOTT, ALLAN MACDONALD. Third District. LEWIS EATON, WILLIAM DIETZ, HERMAN I. QUACKENBOSS, JOHN W. EDMONDS. Fourth District. JOHN McLEAN, Jr. ISAAC GERE, WILLIAM I. DODGE, JOSIAH FISK. Fifth District. ALVIN BRONSON. HENRY A FOSTER, ROBERT LANSING. Sixth District. JOHN F. HUBBARD, LEVI BEARDSLEY, JOHN G. M' DO WELL. Seventh District. THOMAS ARMSTRONG. JEHIEL H. HALSEY. OF THE ASSEMBLY. Albany county. WILLIAM SEYMOUR, PHILIP LENNEBECKER, ABIJAH C. DISBROW. Cayuga co. GEORGE II. BRINKERHOFF, JOHN W. SAWYER, JOHN BEARDSLEY, GEORGE S. TILFORD. Columbia co. LEONARD W. TEN BROECK, MEDAD BUTLER, TOBIAS L. HOGEBOOM. Cortland co. ANDREW DICKSON, JONATHAN L. WOODS. Delaioare co. JAMES HUGHSTON, JAMES COULTER. Dutchess CO. ROBERT COFFIN, ELI HAMBLIN, MICHAEL S. MARTIN, ISRAEL SHADBOLT. Essex CO. ISAAC VANDERWARKER. Fratiklin co. JAMES B. SPENCER. Greene co. DUMAH TUTTLE, ERASTUS HAMILTON. Herkimer co. WILLIAM C. GRAIN, DAVID THORP, DANIEL DYGERT. Jefferson co. WILLIAM H. ANGEL, PHILIP MAXVVELL, NATHAN STRONG. agings CO. COE S. DOWNING. Lewis CO. ANDREW W. DOIG. Montgomery co. PETER WOOD, SILAS PHILIPS, JACOB VAN ARNUM. New-York co. SILAS M. STILWELL, PHILIP E. MILLEDOLER, MORDECAI MYERS, MYNDERT VAN SCHAICK, CHARLES L. LIVINGSTON, JAMES MORGAN, JUDAH HAMMOND, GIDEON OSTRANDER, ISAAC L. VARIAN, JOHN M'KEON, NATHAN T. ARNOLD. Oneida co. DANIEL TWITCHELL, DAVID MOULTON, LEMUEL HOUGH, NATHANIEL FITCH, RUTGER B. MILLER. Onondaga co. ELISHA LITCHFIELD, ELIJAH W. CURTIS, MILES W. BENNETT, ICHABOD ROSS. Orange co. ISAAC R. VAN DUZER, CHARLES WINFIELD, JOHN BARKER. Osivego CO. AVERY SKINNER. Otsego CO. AM AS A THOMPSOxV, GILBERT CONE, WILLIAM KIRBY, SAMUEL COLWELL. Putnam co. REUBEN D. BARNUM. Rensselae7- CO. JOHN C. KEMBLE, NICHOLAS M. MASTERS. HOSEA BENNETT HENRY J. GENET. Richmond co. JACOB MERCEREAU. Rockland co. ISAAC I. BLAU VELT. Schenectady co. ABRAHAM DORN. Saratoga co. ORAN G. OTIS, JAMES BRISBIN, Jr. EBENEZER COUCH. St. DaiV7~ence co. WILLIAM ALLEN, EDWIN DODGE. Schoharie co. ALEXANDER CROOKSHANK. Seneca co. REUBEN D. DODGE, ERASTUS WOODWORTH. Steuben co. EDWARD HOWELL, JOHN M'BURNEY. Suffolk CO. JOHN M. WILLIAMSON, SAMUEL L'HOMMEDIEU, Jr. Tioga CO. NATHANIEL SMITH, JOEL TALLMADGE, Jr. Tompkins co. HORACE MACK, JOHN JAMES SPEED, Jr. Ulster CO. I-EONARD HARDENBERtiH. HEMAN LANDON. Warren co. ALLEN ANDERSON. JVashington co. ISAAC W. BISHOP. IVayne co. AMBROSE SALISBURY, JAMES HUMESTON. Westchester co. ISRAEL H. WATSON. Yates CO. AARON REMER. CHARLES L. LIVINGSTON, EDWARD HOWELL, EDWARD p. LIVINGSTON, Chairman. Secretaries. REMARKS OF Hon. N. P. TALLMADGE, In the Republican Legislative Meeting, on moving the adoption of the resolutions expressing the sentiments of the representatives of the Democracy of Nevv^-York, in relation to the rejection of Mr. VAN BUREN'S nomination. Mr. President: The resolutions which I have had the honor to submit for the consideration of this meeting, but faintly express the indignant feelings which pervade this whole community. The rejec- tion, by the Senate of the U. S. of Maktijv Van BuREN, as Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Brit- ain, is an event unparalleled in the history of our go- vernment. Wherever the news has reached, the public indignation has been manifested, by the spoH- taneous assemblage of the people, who have pro- nounced, in the severest terms their judgment of condemnation upon the authors of this daring out- rage. These manifestations of public sentiment, on this subject, will continue to be made, as the infor- mation spreads through this widely extended state. Amidst these demonsti-ations of the people's will, we, their representatives, cannot fail to respond to the popular voice, and to express our sentiments at tlais unequalled insult offered to the honor of our state. In doing this, let us not be embarrassed by the measured language in which they shall be con- veyed. Those who have had neither regard for their country, nor respect for themselves, can claim from us no other language than that which is best suited to the occasion. The people o( this State and of this Union have heretofore looked with becoming reve- rence on the Senate of the U. S. — they have view- ed it as the most dignifiod body under the govern- ment. By its recent transactions, it has descended from that high elevation. It is degraded in the eyes of the nation, and the nation in the eves of the world. When men deliberately convert the senate chamber into an arena, and themselves consent to become political gladiators, it is high time that the people knew the character of their servants, and the manner in which tlie public interests are sacrificed to promote their own private views. It is high time that the unholy combination to disgrace or destroy a distinguished individual, should be exposed to pub- lic scorn and detestation — and that the hypocritical pretence of a nice and sensitive regard for the ho- nor of the nation, should g'.ve place to the real cau- ses of the outrage, an unnatural alliance for the pro- motion of personal and political objects. Who, let me ask, is this distinguished individual whf)m these political aspirants have thus attempted to disgrace and destroy.' He is well known to us all. The people of this state are familiar with his name, and with the services he has rendered to his country. His reputation is dear to them, and they will be the last to suffer it to be tarnished by foul aspersions, however high or however low their ori- gin. He is Uterally one of the people. He is not of that class, which, in the early stages of the gov- ernment, were denominated "the rich and well born" — an odious distinction, which has been at- tempted to be preserved to the present day, and which has often been claimed, with an air of tri- umph, on the part of those who have looked with a jealous eye on the success of favored individuals whom the people have delighted to honor. No sir: he is of humble origin. He is the artificer of his own fortunes; and often, in the course of his politi- cal career, has he been reproached with the humility of his birth. The pride of wealth and of family distinction has sneered at his advancement, and has attempted to frown into retirement the man, whose native energies rose superior to its own exertions. The attempt has been in vain. It was contrary to the spirit of our free institutions. In this country, the road to promotion, in the honors of the govern- ment, is open to all. Every individual is free to travel it — no ettbrts of the aristocracy shall be suf- fered to impede his progress. We all have the deepest interest in preserving this principle invio- late, and of cherishing the fair fame of those who have, unaided and alone, worked their own way to distinction. Once suffer such a proscription, and the youthful aspirations of our own children may hereafter be stilled by this overgrown and over- bearing asistocracy. As we value the future wel- fare and success of our own sons in life, let us rally round the man who has been the pioneer in the peo- ple's cause, and teach the enemies of equal rights, that " Honor and shame from no condition rise ; " Act well your part, tliere all the honor lies " What, sir, is the history of this persecuted states- man? When he attained to manhood, he was found engaged in the arduous duties of an honorable pro- fession, and successfully combatting, with veterans at the bar, for those honors and distinctions which are the results of unwea^Ted industry and persever- ance, and the rewards of talent and genius. His brilliant efforts soon acquired for him a reputation which placed him beyond the reach even of envy,and advanced him to tlie high and honorable station of Attorney General of this state. He discharged the duties of this station with equal credit to himself and to the government. No man madt farther progress in legal attainments. The late Mr. Henry, who held the highest rank in his profession, was proud to call him his friend, and to accord to him an equal standing with himself, amongst that host of giant minds by which the Bench and the Bar were then adorned. The war in 1812, between the United States and Great Britain, found him in the senate of this state. It was here that his talents shone most conspicuous. Beset by foes without and enemies within, the coun- try presented to the eye of the patiiot a most gloomy prospect. Unaided, or but partially aided, by the general government, we were called upon to pro- vide the means to repel the invader, both by sea and by land. The patriotic Tompkins was then at the head of this state; and with an eye that never slept and a zeal that never tired, he devoted himself to the service of his country. No man rendered him more efficient aid than Mr. Van Buren. In yonder senate chamber, his eloquence was often heard in favor of providing means and of granting supplies to carry on the war— to feed and clothe our half starved and half clad soldiery; while some of his present persecutors were openly rejoicing at the defeat of our arms, and secretly imploring success on those of the e^emy. After tlio close of the war, and when peace was once more restored to our distracted countiy, you at length see him in the convention to revise the Constitution. Here he was again surrounded by the collected wisdom and talent of tlie state — a con- stellation of genius, in which none appeared more brilliant than himself Here it was, that he contended against the aristocracy of the land, in favor of the people in the extension of the right of suffrage. — Here it was, that, with others of the democratic school, he prevailed over those who were unwilling to enti-ust more power to the people, and happily established the principle that in a government like ours, the people are capable of governing them- selves. We next behold him in the Senate of the United States, that dignified body, which was adorned by his presence, and which has been degraded in his absence. Here he scarcely found an equal, and ac- knowledged no sunerior. No man discussed with more ability the important subjects that came be- fore them. With a thorough knovdedge of the his- tory of the government, and its various relations, he grasped all matters with a force and comprehension, which astonished, whilst it commanded the admira- tion of all who witnessed his giant efibrts. His speech on the Judiciary will be remembered as long as the judicial department of the government shall exist, and his splendid effort in favor of the survi- ving officers and soldiers of the Revolution will not be forgotteen as long as the Almightv spares the honored remnant of that heroic race", and whilst tlieir descendants cherish the principles of their im- mortal sires. Here, he maintained the true princi- ples of the constitution, and the long established practice of the government, to permit the President to choose his own Cabinet—his confidential advi- sers—and to select his own agents — the foreign ministers — to conduct our negociations at foreign courts — and tohold him rcs'i,„iisible forthe acts of the administration. It was at this period that the nomination of Henry Clay, by President Adams came before the Senate for their consideration. Mr. Clay secured Mr. Adams's election as President, when the question came before the House of Re- presentatives, of which Mr. Clay was a conspicuous member. It was well known throughout the coun- try, that they had been bitter rivals during the Pre- sidential canvass, and it will not soon be forgotten, that during this period, such was their bitterness that each threatened to expose the other, and thus satisfy the people that neither was worthy of the suffrage or confidence of the nation. No sooner was the election determined, and ]\Ir. Adams de- clared President, than he nominated Mr. Clay, his former bitter enemy and rival, to the high and re- sponsible office of Secretary of State. It is not for me to say, that there was any thing improper in this nomination. But it was at the time publiciv alleged, and by a great portion of the people believed, that it was the result of a corrupt bargain between them. Such was the public indignation on the subiect,that the Senate of the United "States, and Mr. Van Bu- ron in particular, as the most prominent member of it, would have been fully justified by the people in rejecting that nomination.' But, true to the spirit of the constitution and the usage of the government, he declined to interpose objections, and voted for the confirmation. Mr. Clay is now a member of that Senate, and is one of that desperate triumvirate who caused Mr. Van Eurcn's rejection! From this high and exalted station, rendered still higher and more exalted by his integrity and his talents, Mr. Van Buren was called by the democra- cy of New- York to preside, as chief magistrate, overf the destinies of his native state." His execu- tive career was short but brilliant. He rose to that eminence, soon after the setting of that splendid lu- minary that preceded him, and was surrounded by the light that still lingered on his path. None but talents of the highest order could have been brought into such palpable comparison, without suffering by the contrast. But, it is no disparagement to his dis- tinguished predecessor to say, that Mr. Van Buren fully sustained the high character of the station, which his genius and attainments had imparted to it. From this place he was soon called by gen. Jack- son, on assuming the administration of the general government, to the honorable and responsible office of Secretary of State. But he left the impress of his genius upon our local institutions, and gave to our banking system a safety and s^urity which can- not but be felt by generations yet to come. It was at the seat of the national government, in his new situation, that he was destined to add to a reputation already beyond the reach of envy or of rival ambi- tion. He was now seen moving in a more extended sphere. He seemed to grasp, as by intuition, the whole range, both of the domestic and foreign rela- tions of the country; and it may with trutlr be said, that, from the days of Jefferson to the present time, tlie arduous duties of that department were never discharged with more distinguished ability than by him. Our foreign negotiations, which had lingered and languished under the preceding administration, were revived and invigorated by the " master spirit" which now directed, under the guidance of an upright and single-minded President, the affairs ol'the nation. That miserable system of diplomacy, the offspring of intrigue and corruption in foreign courts, now gave place to plain and manly dealing. That which others had attempted to accomplish by indirection, was now accomplished by proceeding di- rectly to the object in view. The claims of our citi- zens on foreign Kovernments had, before this, been suffered to linger along till those citizens had almost relinquished, in despair, the hope of ever bringing them to a successful termination. No sooner did he assume the direction of them, than their hopes revived, and in a short period, they had tire proud satisfaction to see their rights asserted and their claims allowed in a manner surpassing their most sanguine expectations. The prompt settlement of our differences with Denmark and Brazil evinces the energy which had thus been infused into the state department. France too, that had so long withstood our demands for redress, for spoliations on our commerce under another dynasty, now yielded to the reasonableness of our claims, when presented in the plain and simple garb of truth and justice. The amount which our government ob- tained far exceeded the hopes of the claimants them- selves, and far exceeded the amount at which our minister at the French court, under the preceding administration, had been authorised to settle. Un- der Mr. Van Buren's auspices too, a treaty with tlie Sublime Porte has been concluded, by which our commerce is extended to places where it never reached before. The American flag, which had been fanned by every breeze in almost every sea, is now proudly waving in ports where it was previ- ously unknovs'n. Our vessels now float on the sea of Marmora, and spread their broad canvass on the dark waters of the Euxine. Not toweary you, sir, with the repetition of what is well known to all who hear me, I pass over many questions between us and foreign governments, which received the prompt attention of the Secreta*- ry, and the President under whom he acted, and which wero adjusted during his continuance in of- fice, or which were in a successful train of adjust- ment. I come, now, sir, to our relations with Great Britain, in reference to which, his instructions to Mr. McLane, our late minister at the court of St. James, have been called in question; and have been made the pretended groundwork for his rejection. — For years, Messrs. Adams and Clay had been en- deavoring to secure the trade of the West Indies; but, by their. over-management and diplomatic arts, they had utterly failed to accomplish this great ob- ject, so important to the commercial interests of the country. They had superciliously refused fair and honorable propositions from the British government. And it was not until that government, disgusted with their chicanery, declined all farther negotia- tion, that they were compelled to abandon their vain pretensions, and humbly ask the very privileges which had once been offered and declined. Our late minister, Mr. Gallatin, was instructed by Mr. Clay, then secretary of state, to accede to the for- mer proposition of the British government. But, that government, tired of such a vascillating, time- serving policy, rigidly adhered to its former stand, and would not even entertain the negotiation. It was for this, among other reasons, that the prece- ding administration was hurled from power by an in- dignant people, and gen. Jackson placed at tlie head of the government. On entering upon the duties of liis office, Mr. Van Buren forthwith set about reco- vering this important branch of trade, v^'hich had been lost by Mr. Clay. With characteristic frank- ness, he met the question. He commenced the ne- gotiation in a plain business-like manner, as if he meant what he said, and said what he meant. Unacquainted with the dissimulation, and despising the hypocrisy, of courts, like an honest farmer, in making a bargain, he came right to the point. In respectful and proper terms, he told the British gov- ernment what we wished and what we would do. In his instructions to Mr. M'Lane, he said, it was not necessary to " enter into a particular defence of the omission on the part of the U. S. , seasonably to embrace the offer of the direct trade made by Great Britain in the year 1825. and to which allusion has so frequently been made. Whether it be a subject more of regret or of censure, it ought to be enough that the claims advanced in justification of it J«ve since been abandoned by those who made them — have received no sanction from the people of the U. S. ; and that they are not now revived. " What else could he say? What less could he say, to satisfy that government, that, when we were asking them to open a negotiation which our own folly had clos- ed, we did not intend again to trifre with them as they had been trifled with before .' This frankness on our part was met by a corresponding frankness on theirs. The result is known to the American people. The country has been vastly benefitted by the success of this negotiation. The senate of the U. States has confirmed the arrangement by which these benefits were obtained — has confirmed the nomination of Mr. M'Lane, as Secretary of the Treasury, who was the negotiator in this matter, with discretionary power, under the instructions of Mr. Van Buren; and yet, unparalleled injustice! has rejected the nomination of the man, through whose instrumentality, and under whose direction, these advantages were secured! But, we are told the wounded honor of the coun- try required this sacrifice — And garbled extracts from Mr. Van Buren's instructions, and mis-state- ment of facts, are put forth to the community, as a justification of this outrage upon tlie feelings of the people, and upon the character of the nation. If time permitted me to go into a detailed history of this whole transaction, I would tear from these vain pre- tenders the " tattered mantle of hj"pocrisy" that has been interposed to cover them. They talk of the wounded honor of the country! How comes it, that this nice sense of national honor has just been roused ? Where has it slept for two years past .' In 1830, a copy of these very instructions, about wliich so much is said, together with the communi- cations which passed between Mr. McLane and the British government, was submitted to both houses of congress — this very Senate then added its sanc- tion to these instiuctions, by passing an act autho- rising the President to accept the " trade" and to open the ports, pursuant to the terms offered by the instructions, and in the manner in which they had been executed. Why did not these patriots then speak out? Why slumber upon this humiliating at- tempt, "to propitiate," in the language of Mr. Clay, "the favor of the British King"? Where then was Mr. Webster's sense of "duty"? — Why did he not then set upon these instruc- tions, his "mark of disapprobation"? No, Sir, it is an after thought — disguise it as they will, they cannot give it credence. They did not then antici- pate, that Mr. Van Buren would retire from the De- partment of State, and accept a mission to that court, where his fame had already pieceded him. — They did not then anticipate the opportunity to wreck their vengeance on a man, whose only fault was, the possession of talents inferior to none, and tlie prospect of promotion superior to all. Regard- less alike of private reputation, and of public inter- est, they have recalled a minister from a foreign court, vt^hose character is above reproach, and whose life has been devoted to the public service — whose mission was one of the most delicate and responsi- ble nature — and the interruption of which may e- ventually lead to the most embarrassing relations be- tween the two governments. I mean the i-ight of search and the impressment ofseaiyien. This claim on the part of Great Britain was one of the causes of the late war. And although in that contest, the na- tional honor was siistained both on the ocean and the land, yet this cause of difference was left unset- tled by the negotiators at Ghent, and still remains an open question, either for amicable adjustment, or for future controversy. The President, desirous of establishing the most pacific relations with Great Britain, and of fixing the peace of this country on the firmest basis, selected Mr. Van Buren as the man, of ail t thers, the best calculated to effect this grand object. No one possessed, in a more eminent degree, the qualifications for such a place. No one knew better how to broach so delicate a subject. — His negotiation, however, is broken off by an act of the most aggravated and wanton character, and the great and paramount interests of the nation put in jeopardy, to gratify the personal malice of political rivals. Who, let me ask, are the leaders of this crusade against private reputation and public honor? They are men, differing on other subjects of the deepest interest to the country, and as wide asunder as the poles. On the other hand is Mr. Clay, maintaining doctrines in relation to the protection of domestic in- dustry, wholly at war with \i\e nullifying diocXnnes of Mr. Calhoun. And yet these men, themselves aspirants for the highest office in the gift of the peo- ple, are found uniting to destroy the private as well as political standing of one, whom they both hale 8 and fear. Whilst these gentlemen have thus leagued together to destroy a common rival, there is yet an- other party to the deed, of more sagacity than either, who intends by " one fell swoop" to destroy them all: I allude to a gentleman " from down east" — this " second Daniel that has come to judgment:" the advocate and apologist of the Hartford Conven- tion: the violent opponent of the late war: and one of those who thought it " unbecoming a moral and religious people" to celebrate our victories. He too, is looking to the succession, after the expiration of the next Presidential term. How important to him then, that these rival candidates should be dis- posed of? By this act, he hoped to disgrace Van Buren, M«eT«/) Clay, and nullify Calhoun. With regard to the two latter, he has been successful — but the disgrace intended for the former, has fallen on himself— and thus ends the most unprincipled combination ever known in the histoiy of this govern- ment. But, sir, this stab was not aimed at Mr. Van Buren alone. It was intended to reach the Presi- dent himself, through one high in his confidence.— It was intended to embarrass and defeat one of the most important measures of his administration — a measure, the success of which would have thrown for into the shade the temporising policy of his pre- decessor, and would have added a civic wreath to that brow, already crowned with military glory. — Nay, it did not stop here. It was a blow aimed at New- York. Yes, sir, at the " great state" — the " empire state" — an attempt to prostrate the democ- racy of the state, by prostrating her favorite son. — Let us then, as the representatives of that democra- cy, speak in a language not to be misunderstood. — Let the voice of New York be heard afar — let us rally all as one man — let all minor differences be hushed in one mighty effort to sustain her dignity, and vindicate her insulted honor — let her voice be heard from Maine to Louisiana: let it echo along the valley ot the Mississippi and the Missouri. By this perversion of constitutional power, our dearest rights, nay, our very liberties are invaded. Let us then rally round the standard of democracy, and say with the bi-ave Gustavus Vasa, " Here will we lake our stand '. " Here, on tlie brink, the very verge of liberty : " Allhougli coutealion rise upon the clouds, " Mix heaven with earth, and roll the ruin onward, " Here will we fix, and breast us to the shock." GREAT PUBLIC MEETING IN THE CITY OF ALBANY. At the request of the Democratic Republican General Committee, together with the call of several of our most distinguished fellow-citizens, one of the largest and most respectable meetmgs ever before wit- nessed in this city, was held in the new City-Hall, on Saturday evening, the 4th Feb. mst. The meeting was called to order bv the Hon. Nathan Sanford, who nominated the venerable SIMEON DE WlTT, Survevor-General of this State, as chairman of the meeting. Anthony Blanch- ard, esq. nominated JOHN N. QUACKENBUSH and PETER WENDELL, as secretaries to the ™S^4.MUEL Cheever, esq. briefly and pertinently explained the object of the meeting, and moved the appointment ofa committee of seven, to prepare and otler suitable resolutions tor the consideration of the meetine. Whereupon the chairman nominated the following committee:— Benjamin Knower, Isaac H. Bogart, Edward Livingston, Benj. Van Benthuisen, Barent P. Staats, Samuel Cheever, An- *^Tfter Tshort period, the committee returned and reported, through Mr. Edward Livingston, the fol- lowing resolutions: — The Republican citizens of Albanv, feeling themselves peculiarly called upon to ex-press their senti- ments in re^^ard to the course taken"by the majority of the Senate of the United States, upon the nomi- nation of their fellow-citizen, MARTIN VAN BUREN, as Minister to the British Court— and havmg considered the same, do resolve as follows: ,.,..,, , . . . 1 That we deem the rejection of that nomination, an act unjust to the individual concerned, injuri- ous to the best interests of the country, and particularly insulting to the people of New- Y ork. 2 That when we consider the persons by whom, and the manner in wliich that measure was accona- plisiied, we cannot resist the conclusion, that it wa5 instigated by a desire to gratify personal and politi- cal enmity; to wound the feelings of the President; to defeat the great objects of the mission to Great Britain; and to impair the influence of New- York in the councils of the nation. . , at 3 That the reason assigned for this unprecedented step, to wit, that the instructions given by Mr. Van Buren, a.s Secretarv of State, in relation to the West India trade, were derogatory to the honor of the nation,— is not, in the opinion of tliis meeting, well founded in point of fact, nor can we believe that it constituted the real motive of the measure referred to. ,,,.,, , ■ ■ ^ .■ ■ „_„„♦ 4 That after the full discussion had upon the acts and omissions of the late adminisfa-ation in respect to that trade, and in view of the decision made thereon by the American people, the Secretary ot State was fully warranted in endeavoring to rescue the United States from the consequences of those acts and omissions, on the ground assumed by him in those instructions. . 5 That in the judgment of this meeting, it is more dishonorable to persist in erroneous pretensions, than to retract them; and that the frankness which characterized the instructions referred to, w^as not only proper in itself, but eminently calculated to effect the important ends in reference to which they were framed, and which were ultimately secured upon terms honorable to both nations, and highly ben- eficial to ourselves. , •»*:«<, 6 That our confidence in the patriotism, integrity and talents of the statesman by whose mstructions that result was principallv produced, is undiminished; and that whilst we deeply lament the national degradation involved in Ihe recent display of partv rancor and personal hostility towards him, w« conn- 9 dently rely on the intelligence and virtue of the American people, and especially of the people of New- York, for "his defence and vindication. ... , . ^i. r. j ^ r ^.i tt •♦ a Resolved, That copies of the Ibregoing resolutions be transmitted to the President of the United States and the Hon. Martin Van Buren, and that a committee of thirteen persons be appointed for that Dix, James King, James M'Kown, Recorder of the city, Benj. purpose. After which. Adjutant Gen F. Butler and John L. Viele, addressed the meeting. The resolutions were then adopted with acclamation and immense cheering John I. Burton, esq. then moved that a committee be appointed to transmit copies of the proceedings of this meeting to the President of the United States, and to the Hon. JVIartin Van Buren. the chairman nominated the following committee, viz: Silas Wright, jr., Erastus Corning, Peter Gansevoort, James King, James Porter, James Campbell, jr. Samuel S. Fowler, Henry, Alexander Marvin, John I. Burton, Garret Gates, Albert Ryckman. Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting, with such sketches of the addresses as can be obtain- ed, be published in the Albany Argus and in pamphlets. Resolved, That these proceedings be signed by the chairman and secretaries. SIMEON DE WITT, Ch'n. Whereupon Wm. Gould, Peter Seton JOHN N. QUACKENBUSH,) o_vv^ PETER WENDELL, > ^ ^ REMARKS OF Gen. DIX. Mr. Chairman: I am sure I do not mistake the feelings of this audience, when I say that the rejec- tion ot Mr. Van Buren by the Senate of tlie Uni- ted States, as Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Bri- tain, has excited among us a universal sentiment ot indignation on account of the personal outrage visi- ted upon that distinguished citizen, and of shame, fur the violated dignity of the country. Knowing as I do the deep sensibility which pervades all classes of citi- zens,excepting those whose prejudices or hostility are too powerful for their sense of justice, I should have been better satisfied il the responsibiUty of opening this meeting had fallen to other and abler hands. — Participating, however, as I do strongly, in the gen- eral sentiment, I did not feel at liberty to decline the task; and in undertaking it, I only hope that I may be followed by others wlio will supply what I may omit. Others, at least there are, who, from longer and more laniiliar intercourse with Mr. Van Buren, have a better claim than myself to bear testimony to the upriglitness and purity of his private life. Of his public acts and character, no citizen of this state — no citizen of the United Slates— however remote from the theatre of his usefulness, can be ignorant. His services, those particularly which were render- ed while he was Secretary of State, are emphatical- ly the propel ty of the country; and if it were in the power of his political adversaries toobhterate in the public mind, the sense of their value, it is too late, thank Heaven! to turn aside the rich current of benefits which has llowed from them. It will de- tract from th.e just claims of no individual to say that Mr. Van Buren was, in the late cabinet of gen. Jackson, his most able and inrtuential adviser: to him are in no inconsiderable degree to be ascribed that wise, provident and successfal policy in our ne- gotiations with foreign countries, under which the country has risen, and is still continuing to rise in the scale of prosperity; and nothing but an over- whelming sense of his superiority, reflected from all sides in the testimonials of public opinion, could have arrayed against him a combination of political opponents, numbering as many creeds as men, dif- fering with each other on almost every leading ques- tion of public policy, at war with each other in their personal relations — united in nothing but a common interest to overthrow a dangerous rival in the confi- dence of the people. It is well known that this is the first instance lA the history of the government, in which the nomi- nation of a minister by the President has been re- jected by the Senate, after entering on tire du- ties of his office. The President is charged by the constitution with the management of our rela- tions with foreign States; and it has always been deemed proper Ihat he should, as the responsible person, have the selection of his agents. So novel and extraordinary was this case, that it was confi- dently expected by many that a removal of the in- junct.on of secresy would exliibit suflicient eviden- ces of the necessity of making it an exception to the general rule. Sir, Ithasexhibitedno such thing: it has disclosed nothing of which the public were not already apprised— nothing which has not already been pronounced upon by the judgment of the peo- ple. It is true, we are informed by private letters, that imputations derogatory to the moral character of Mr. Van Buren, were introduced into the Senate — imputations contradicted by the whole tenor of his life— imputations sustained by n© proof— disrepu- table in their grossness to the individuals who gave countenance to them, and insulting, beyond mea- sure insulting, to the body to which they were ad- dressed. If "they shall ever see the light, they will be indignantly resented by all parties, whatever may be their political predilections, as an outrage to jus- tice and truth. Sir, the only reason, either of a public or private nature, which is relied on as a justification for re- jecting Mr. Van Buren, is the tenor of his instruc- tions to Mr. McLane upon the negotiation of the lat- ter with Great Br. tain, in relation to the West In- dia Trade. For months this reason had been urged by the opponents of the administration as a cause for adopting that measure; and it had been shown, on uur side, to be a ground of opposition not to be main- tained. These instructions have been published, and in the hands of the people, more than twelve months; they have been approved by the public judgment: nay, sir, they have been virtually sanc- tioned by the senate itself, in the ratification of all the arrangements entered into by the two countries in pursuance of them; and it may be confidently as- serted, that no imputation derogatory to the charac- ter of Mr. Van Buren, as a statesman, can be drawn [ from them, which is not susceptibl* of a triumphant 10 refutation. But as this is the sole ground of his re- jection, it will be proper buiefly to enquire into its merits. There is, perhaps, no subject, which has excited more diseussiou during the last six yenrs, than our negotiations with Great Britain on the subject of our commercial intercourse with her West India Colonies. The unexpected interdiction on the part of that power in the year 1S26, of all direct commu- nication with them, gave to the subject a degree ot importance fully equal to the magnitude of the inter- ests at stake. It was the constant aim of Mr. Ad- ams and ills political friends to make that interdic- tion appear as a measure of wanton and unprovoked hostiUty to the United States. He had been charg- ed with the direction of that negotiation as secretary of state from the year 1S17 to 1825; its failure was calculated to reflect discredit upon his talents as a statesman and diplomatist, and to hivolve in the same reproach the character of those who had sustained him and given countenance to his measures. The only complete defence for them was to set up the imputation of hostility on the part of Great Britain. There was much in a review ot the previous rela- tions of the tft-o countries, which was calculated to produce unfriendly impressions with regard to the intentions of the "other. On our side there was more cause for sensitiveness than on hers. We had been for years engaged in angry collisions with her, in every one of which she was the aggressor. We had finally appealed to asms, and obtained by force the redress which had been denied to reason and justice. In all this we had done what was becom- ing a spirited and determined people. The de- cision pronounced by us upon the immediate causes which led to an interruption of our intercourse with the British West India Colonics in 1826, after full consideration, was not less honorable to our justice and magnanimity, than our previous course had been to our resolution and firmness. A review of the history of her colonial regulations proved, that any imputation to her of hostility on this point was groundless. She had applied to us the same restric- tions which she had applied to other countries. In- deed, the nature of the case was such as to repel such an imputation. In the regulation of their com- mercial intercourse, nations are guided by views, often narrow and mistaken, of their own interest: and in this case, if her colonial policy had been framed with a view to impair our interests, she could only have reached our prosperity through a deeper wound inflicted on her own. But it appear- ed that there had been, from the close of tlic revo- lutionary war, a gradual course of relaxation of the rules, which had governed our commercial inter- course with her colonies. At the close of that con- test, when our separation from the dominion of Great Britam was rendered complete by a formal acknowl- edgement of our independence, her attention was immediately directed to the regulation of the inter- course between her former colonies thus separated from her, and those which still acknowledged her sovereignty. In efi'ecting this object, the establish- ed principles of her colonial system were enforced against us as thev were against otlier nations. Ac- cordingly the enactments of the British parliament resulted in the following restrictions: Certain enu- merated articles, the productions of the United States, were allowed to be imported into the Bri- tish West India Islands in British bottoms. The United States could not carry their own produce to those islands. Even the enumerated articles allow- ed to be imported in her own bottoms, were speci- fied by proclamations, which were hmited in their duration to a single year. The proclan>ation, as a measure was not obligatory on the British King. It wa» discretionary with him to renew or wi-thhold it. The law only empowered, but did not require, him to issue it. 'lire effect of this system was to sub- ject owr intercourse with those colonies, to the dis- cretion of the King. The system had not even the security ol a legislative act, of which the operation could only be varied by a concurrence of the three branches of the British legislature. The first relaxation of this system was by the act of 28, Geo. III. ch. 6, by virtue of which the con- ditions of our intercourse with the British W. I. islands, previously announced by shmual proclama- tions, were engi-afted into a standing law. Circuitous intercourse between us and those islands was not aflected by this statute, but remained subject to the same restrictions. The effect of this change was to give permanence to a system, which was liable to be varied or annulled at the discretion of an individual. It was, however, deemed at the time a material point by us; and the previous insecurity of the system was a subject of communication between the legis- lative and executive branches of our government sub- sequently to the enactment by the British Pariia- ment of the law, which gave it a more fixed and settled foundation. [See" Report of the Secretary of State of 16" Dec. 179-3, and a similar report of the 30th of the same month.] Time will not allow me to enter in detail into the whole history of that in- tercourse: but it will appear that negotiation was generally declined by Great Britain, and successive relaxations temporary and permanent, were intro- duced on her part, and met on ours, by reciprocal legislation of the parties; that the refusal of Messrs. Adams and Clay to accept highly advantegeous terms, under the expectation of obtaining (in what manner will be seen) others still more so, forced the British Government into the position referred to. — It will appear also that a new principle (at all events a principle never before avowed) governed our policy on tha tquestion while it was under the management of Messrs. Clay and Adams. It is a remarkable circumstance, that on the 9th Feb. 1818 the committee of Foreign Relations in the House of Representatives (the first Congress af- ter tlie organization of Mr. Monroe's Cabinet) re- ported in favor of additional restrictions upon the colonial intercourse of Great Britain with us; and, in assigning the grounds of tlieir recommendation, they referred to a document marked F. which had been furnished to them by Mr. Adams as Secretary of State. Mr. Adams also referred to it himself in a letfe- to Mr. Rush, dated 23d June 1828, while the latter was minister to Great Britain, and distinctly pointed his attention to it as a guide. The position assumed by that paper and sought to be maintained by a long and elaborate argument is contained in the following query: "Can Great Britain support "her West India Colonies in comfort, or even in "safety, without supplies from the United States.'" to which it is confidently answered, and the grounds of the opinion assigned, that "she cannot;" and the conclusion is very legitimately drawn that we could prescribe our own terms with her. This position affords a clue to the whole course of policy pursued by Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay on tliat sub- ject. Believing that those colonies were dependent on an intercourse with us, they were willing to gain credit for ability as statesmen and negotiators by availing themselves of the necessitif '^f Great Bri- tain, and insisting on advantages wh ^^.cy should have seen could never be obtained. / ■^ °""" ''= *'^ ' policy, cf which that paper was the 11 was understood, it became tlie subject of an anima- ted discussion in the British Parliament. Mr. Huslcisson on the floor of the house of com- mons in the year 1825, said he was persuaded an impression existed on our part that Great Britaiu had yielded that intercourse to necessity, and tnat, as her colonies could not subsist without it, we might prescribe the conditions under which it should be carried on; and he concluded by reconnnending counteracting measures. This was the language of the man, who of all others in Great Britain had most ardently and ably advocated a relaxation of her colo- nial restrictions, who was reproached by the monop- o'ists with the design of overthrowing the establish- ed order of things, and of setting up a system of en- tire freedom in commerce. When the most liberal, if not the most enlightened statesman in Great Bri- tain spoke in language so unequivocal, it is not sur- prising that the act of interdiction referred to, was resorted to during the following year. That Mr. Clay was a party to the course of policy which that measure was designed to counteract, is apparent from the fact that he was a member of Mr. Adams' cabinet for more than a year while it was steadily persisted in, and that he had unilbrmly sustained it on the floor of Congress. Such was the character of the policy, by means of which these giants in diplomacy proposed, not to gain by reasoning and argument, but to coerce a power on friendly terms with us, to concede what could only be obtained on the ground of her neces- sities. That the gi'ounds on which they had placed their demands were in their own estimation untena- ble, is apparent from the fact that Mr. Gallatin was sent out in the year 1826 with instructions to aban- don them and to accede to certain propositions made by the British government in the year 1824 — the most favorable ever offered for our acceptance — but declined until that time, either from a culpable neg- lect of the public interests, or, what is more proba- ble, an expectation of obtaining greater advantages. It is not to be doubted that this change of policy was the result of a conviction on their part, at which they had however arrived too late, that the posit on assumed in document F could not be maintained, and that if they would not agree to share with Great Britain the trade with her West India colonies on rea- sonable termSj she^would find means to dispense altogether with our direct agency in supplying ihem. If the position were founded in reason and justice, it ought not to have been abandoned; if it liad not such a foundation, then had Messrs. Clay and Ad- ams been insisting for years on concessions which could not be obtained , " Mr. Van Buren tells Mr. M'Lane, ' The op- portmiities which you have derived from a partici- pation in our public councils, as well as other sources of information, will enable you to speak with confidence (as far as you may deem it proper and useful so to do,) of the respective parts taken by those to whom the administration of this Go- vernment is now committed, in relation to the course heretofore pursued upon the subject of the colonial trade.' " On this sentence he makes the following com- ment: «■' Now this is neither more nor less than saying, * you will be able to tell the British mimster, when- ever you think piojjer, that you, and I, and the leading persons in this administration, have opposed the course heretofore pursued by the Government, and the country, on the subject of the colonial trade. Be sure to let him know, that on that subject, we have held with England, and not with our own Go- vernment.' Now I ask you, sir, if tliis be dignified diplomacy.' Is this statesmanship .' Is it patriotism, or is it mere party .' Is it a proof of a high regard to the honor and renown of the whole country, or is it evidence of a disposition to make a merit of belong- ing to one of its political divisions.'" "Now, sir, if this sentence stood alone, without any thing to qualify or restrict it, it v.'ould not bear the version which the senator has given it. It would not have authorised Mr. M'Lane to say, that the members of the present administration had " opposed the course" theretofore pursued by "the /.«./.,/r,/ " and " held with England," instead of country, their own Government. But this perversion of the language he had quoted, is as nothing to v.hat I am about to mention. You will observe, sir, that the quoted sentence, standing by itself, would seem to warrant the remark, that Mr. M'Lane v,-as au- thorised, whenever he thought proper, to volunteer the statement— not tliat he and Mr. Van Buren *' had held with England instead of their own coun- try," as Mr. AVebsterhas it — but to state the parts taken by the present administration on the subject in question. The propriety of authorising our mi- nister to speak of such a matter, except in the event of its becoming necessary that he should do so, might well be questioned. But on reading the sentence which immediately precedes that quoted by Mr. Webster, you will find that no such un- limited authority was given. On the contrary, Mr. M'Lane was authorised to speak of this mat- ter only in a jjarticular state of things. What that was, the omitted sentence will show. It is as follows: " If the omission of this Government to accept of the terms j^roposed, when heretofore of- fered, be urged as an objection to their adoption now, it will be your duty to make the British Go- vernment sensible of the injustice and inexpediency of such a course." " The opportunities whichyou have derived," &c. &.c. I will not now stop to inquire, whether it was proper to authorise Mr, M'Lane to hold tliis lan- guage, in case the anticipated objection should be made. That question, I will by and by consi- der; but at present I ask. Is it tr^ie that Mr. M'Lane was authorised, " ichejiever he should think proper, to tell the British minister," &c.&c. ? On the contrary, is not his authority to speak of this subject at all, specially limited to the event of its being objected, that the former administration had omitted to accept the terms proposed ? Why then was the qualifying sentence omitted? I ask you, sir, if tliis be fair dealing.' Is this justice, or is it gross injustice .' Is it a proof of a high regard to truth and fairness .' Or is it evidence of a disposition to mislead the public mind ; to place the question on false grounds ; and to destroy a political oppo- nent, by any and every means? I protest to you, sir, I am sorry — truly sorry — to say, that in my humble judgment, it is conclusive evidence of such a disposition. Mr. Van Buren goes on to say: "Their views (those of the present administration,) upon that point have been submitted to the people of the United States; and the councils by which j'our con- duct is now directed, are the result of the judgment expressed by the only earthly tribunal to wliicli the late administration -was amenable for its acts. It should be sufficient that the claims set up by them, and wliich caused the interruption of the trade in question, have been explicitly abandoned by those who first asserted them, and are not revived by their successors." I have already alluded to Mr. Webster's observations on the first part of tliis par- agraph. On the assertion contained in the lat- ter part of it, he remarks: "It is manifestly quite wide of the facts. Mr. Adams' administra- tion did not bring forward this claim. I have stated already, that it had been a subject, both of negotia- tion and legislation through the whole eight years of i\Ir. Monroe's administration ; this the Secretary knew, or was bound to know. AVhy then does he speak of it as set up by the late administration, and afterwards abandoned by them, and not now re- vived?" The charge here made, of a departure from the facts, is quite gratuitous. It is not denied that the claims referred to Vi'ere set up by the late adminis- tration, nor that they were abandoned by them; the imputed departure i'rom truth consists in the sup- posed assertion that these claims were first set up by the late administration. But Mr. Van Buren does not assert that they were the first administra- tion which had set them up. He knew, as well as Mr, "Webster, that they were first set up under Mr. Monroe's administratifn, and if Mr. Web- ster's accustomed accuracy had not been lost to him, he would have recollected that in a former part of the instructions, (p. 6,) the Secretary had expressly stated, that the claims referred to were put forth in the act of Congress of the 1st of March, 1823, and that they " had been previously advan- ced by us in our negotiations on the subject." But who 'were the persons who first set up those claims? Every man acquainted with the history of the subject knows, and at least every Senator in Congress ought to know, that they were John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. And will it be denied that Mey had explicitly abandoned them? Where then is the departure from fact in tliis part of the instructions? But, says Mr. Webster, " the most humiliating part of the whole follows: ' To set up the acts of the late administration as the cause of forfeiture ot privileo-es, which would otherwise be extended to the^pcople of the United States, would, under 21 existing circumstances, be unjust in itself, and could not fail to excite their deepest sensibility.' " Here then, we have the " h&ad and front" of the Secretary's offending, as well as the fullest display of Mr. Webster's patriotism. It exudes from eve- ry pore in the following exclamation: " So, then, Mr. President, we are reduced, are we, to the poor condition, that we see a Minister of this great Re- public instructed to argue, or to intercede, with the British Minister, lest he should tind us to have forfeited our privileges; and lest these privileges should no longer be extended to us ! And we have forfeited those privileges by our misbehaviour, in choosing rulers, who thought better of our oivn claim than of the British '. Why, sir, tliis is pa- tiently submitting to the domineering tone of the Britislr Minister,^ I believe Mr. Iluskisson — [Mr. Clay said "no, Mr. Canning."] — Mr. Canning, then, sir, who told us that all our trade with the West Indies was a boon, granted to us by the in- dulgence of England. The British Minister calls it 2^ boon, and our Minister admits it is 2l privilege, and hopes that his Royal Majesty will be too gra- cious to decide that we have forfeited tliis privilege by our misbehaviour, in the choice of our rulers ! Sir, for one, I reject all idea of holding any right of trade, or any other riglrts, a. 2nivilege, or a boon, from the British government, or any other govern- ment." The point of tliis efliision consists in the changes which are rung upon the word "jjrivilege." Mr. Van Buren, recreant that he is, speaks of the offer held out in the British act of Parliament as a "pri- vilege.'" And tlris is patiently submitting to the domineering tone of Mr. Canning, who had called it a boon ! And on tliis theme we have a commen- tary, in wliich this horrible word "privilege" is treated as if it involved the utter abandonment of all principle and honor. Sir, in uttering this ti- rade, Mr. Webster has either displayed very great want of information himself, or counted very lai'ge- ly on the want of it in others. Ever since she has had Colonies, Great Britain has maintained, with inflexible perseverance, in common witli other powers having such possessions, the ancient policy of treating the trade with her colonies as a thing belonging exclusively to herself — a thing not to be enjoyed by other nations, save at such times and on such terms as she pleased. As to tlie wisdom of this policy; its inlluence on the Colonies tliem- selves; and its justice or liberality towards other nations; I have nothing to say; I speak only of the fact; and that it is as Lhave asserted, no man who has the least pretensions to general knowledge will venture to deny. It is on this principle that she has so uniformly persisted in the course of regula- ting the Colonial trade by acts of Parliament and orders in Council, which she could change at plea- sure, instead of forming treaties on the suliject which could not be so changed. Now, though our government was extremely desirous to place this matter on a more liberal and permanent footing, and to do so by treaty, rather than by separate legislation, yet until after we had lost the benefits held out by the British act of '25, we never pre- tended to deny the right of Great Britain to do as she pleased on the subject. The endeavor was, to convince her by argument and by retaliatory laws, that it was her interest to place this branch of her commerce on the same footing as the trade be- tween us and the mother country. In this we had not succeeded, and in the mean time, we had been content to take what we could get of tliis com- merce, as a privilege — I say as a privilege; be-- cause all the British statutes on this subject in(o which I have looked, speak of the permission gi\en to foreign nations to trade with the British colonies, as a privilege granted to such nations. The act of June, 1822, under which we enjojed a restricted intercourse until 1S2S, called it a privilege, and Mr. Monroe's administration did not consider it derogatory to the national honor to take the bene- fits oticred by that law as ^. privilege. On the con- trary, you will find, sir, that IMr. Adams, in one of his instructions to Mr. Rush, spends half a dozen pages in an attempt to settle the true construction of the phrase " the privileges granted by this act;" without once dreaming, with all his Bunker-Hill temperament, that there was any thing in the word "privileges" at which an American was to take fire. More than this: The famous act of July, 1825, uses the same language. It provides "that the ^^ir/yi/eges granted by the law of navigation to foreign ships, shall be limited to the ships of those countries, which, having colonial possessions, shall grant the Wke privileges of trading with those pos- sessions to British ships, or wlrich, not having colo- nial possessions, shall ])lace the commerce and navi- gation of Great Britain and its possessions abroad, upon the footing of the most favored nation." — Now it was in reference to the advantages held out by this act, that Mr. Van Buren used the obnoxious language, which forms, in the judgment of Mr. Webster, the most culpable part of his instructions; yet we see that he spoke of them in the very terms of the act itself. But there is yet something fur- ther on this point. Mr. Clay himself, in his'letter to Mr. Gallatin of the llth of April, 1827, uses, in reference to this very point, the same language as Mr. Van Buren. He says, " we can hardly sup- pose, under these circumstances, that the British government after tiie passage of such an act of congress as you are now authorised to state that the President is willing to recommend, would re- fuse to remove the interdict which has applied only to the navigation of the United States. • A denial to them, alone, of the PRIVILEGES of the act of parliament of 1825, offered to all nations, could not be easily reconcilable with those friend- ly relations, which it is the interest of both nations, as it is the anxious endeavor of the government of the United States, to cultivate and maintain." I admit. Sir, that I am but a tyro in the science of diplomacy; but after tliis last reference, I tliink that without going beyond the spelling-book, I may safely ask the great lawyer of New-England; Whose bull it is that has gored the ox now ? Seri- ously, Mr. Chairman, can you imagine any position more pitiable than that in which the Senator has placed himself? He selects at leisure, the subjects of liis animadversions; he brings them out with great form and circumstance; he places himself on a particular passage, as one which admitted of no defence; and then, from this fancied vantage ground, he talks loudly of the insulted honor of his country — his country thus humbled at the feet of the British king! But lo! when we come to scruti- nize tills " most humiliating paragraph," we find in it nothing to justify this noise and bluster — no- thing to call for animadversion or remark — nothing which others had not said, and properly said before — we find it notliing — literallv" nothing ! Vox etpre- terea nihil! And yet. Sir, after all, the honorable Senator is more than half right. This famous peis- sage is really as " humiliating" as any other — per- haps more so than any other in tlie whole despatch. How " humiliating" this is, we have already seen; and from the character of this passage, you may judge as to the rest. 34 Mr. Webster proceeds to say, " At the conclusion of the paragraph, the secretaiy says, ' Vou can 7iot press this view of the subject too earnestly upon the consideration of the British ministry. It has bear- ings and relations that reach beyond the immediate question mider discussion.'" Here also I have to complahi that by ornitthig the sentence immediate- ly before it, theeliect of the sentence quoted is en- tirely destroyed. Spealdng of tlie feeling which was" likely to be produced in this country by a re- fusal on the part of Great Britain to permit us to participate in a trade \vhicli was opened to other nations, Mr. Van Buren had remarked. " The tone of feeling which a course so unwise and untenable is calculated to produce, would doubtless be great- ly aggravated, by the consciousness that Great Britain, by order in council, opened her colonial ports to Russia and France, notwithstanding a simi- lar omission on their part to accept the terms otler- ed by the act of July 1825." He then says, " You can not press this view of the subject too earnestly, ^f."_that is— you can not too earnestly press the consideration, that if Great Britain persists in a course so unwise and untenable, she will excite a most unfavorable tone of feeling in the United States, &c. &c. This, Sir, is obviously the true sense of the passage, when taken in connection with what preceded it; and this is not only proper, but strong, language. And yet, by omitting the prece- ding sentence, the cited passage is made to mean that Mr. McLane could not " press too earnestly on the British ministry," the course which the present ad- ministration had taken in the Ibrrncr controversy. It is due, however, to Mr. Webster to say, that he rather insinuates than alleges that this is the mean- ing of the secretary; but one of his associates, Mr. Chambers, gives it this version, and dwells on it at length. Its injustice is palpable and glaring. The last quotation made by Mr. Webster for the purpose of sustaining the charges he had made, is from the close of thc^despatch, and is in the follow- ing words: '^ I will add nothing; as to the impro- priety of suffering any feelings that find their ori- gin in the past pretensions of this government, to have an adverse ififluencc upon thepre.'sent conduct of Great Britain." On this he asks whether it be statesmanship.' or dignity.' or elevated regard to countrv.' And ho sums "up his judgment of the whole 'document, in the following enquiry: " Can any man read this whole despatch, with candor, and not admit that it is plainly and manifestly the writer's object to gain credit with the British minis- try for the present" administration, at the expense'of the past.'" And he submits, in conclusion, that the pervading topic through the whole is, " not Anieri- can rights, not American interests, not American defence, but denunciation of past pretensions of our own country, rellections on the past adminis- tration, and exultation, and loud clainr of merit, for the administration now in power." I have now read to you all the proofs adduced by Mr. Webster, and every passage of his comments, which is material to a proper understanding of the grounds of his decision. The remainder of kis re- remarks— with the single exception of the sickly manner, in which he talks of Ww.'Uluty," the "wn- plea-^ant duty," the " most unpleasant duty of his public life" is precisely what it should have been, if the statements made and the cen- sures bestowed, in the former part of his address, had been correct and just. I have proved, by ev- idence which can neither be repelled nor evaded, in respect to all the special circumstances relied upon by the honorable Senator, Uiat his statements are palpably incorrect, and his censures as palpa- bly unjust. And I confess, sir, that it is to me, mat- ter both of astonishment and regret, that a Senator whose talents and reputation are even among his compeers so " proudly eminent," should have perverted his splendid powers, to a work so wisk- ed and so weak. The general tone of the whole document, and the propriety of autliorising Mr. McLane to speak, in a given event, of our political history and of the acts of our public men, remain to be considered. I wish, sir, that every person who takes an inte- rest in this subject, would read the whole of these celebrated instructions. As they occupy about a dozen large octavo pages, such a perusal is indis- pensable, if we would form an accurate judgment as to their general character and purpose. He who shall read them with but a moderate degree of impartiality, will tind that with a just regard to the rights and interests of our ovv-n country, there is btended throughout a manly frankness, which is calculated to inspire confidence and to command respect. So far from " holding with England," and " denouncing the past pretensions of Iris own country," the Secretary commences witli the de- claration that " the policy of the United States in relation to their commercial intercourse with oth- er nations, is founded on principles of perfect equa- lity and reciprocity ;" — that these principles "have been adhered to with scrupulous fidelity ;" — that the convention with Great Britain in 1815, esta- blished the intercourse between us and their pos- sessions in Europe " on just and equal terms ;" — that we then desired to put our trade to the Amer- ican colonies, on the same footing of equality and justice ; — and that to establish it on fair terms had- "■ always been the sincere object of this country." The various steps by which the unfortunate state of things, existing at the date of the instructions, had been produced, are detailed with fidelity ; the grounds on which we were liable to be assailed, in consequence of the acts and omissions of a former administration, are then frankly stated ; the in- jurious consi^quences, to both countries, of keep- ing up the British interdict, are strongly insisted on ; the wishes of the President, and the precise terms on which he is willing to settle the matter, are clearly expressed ; and Mr. McLane is direct- ed to make them loiown in such a plain and direct manner as to secure a prompt and explicit reply. This, sir, is the general tone of the instructions ; and I confess that I find in it nothing inconsistent with a vigilant regard to the jionor of the nation. But the applic'ation wlrich ]\Ir. McLane was di- rected to make, had been twice made by Mr. Gal- latin, and once by Mr. Barbour, during a former administration. On these occasions, it had not on- ly been denied, but the British government had re- fused to treat upon the subject, because of a previ- ous omission to take the privilege applied for, when iVanldy otiered by the act of July , 1825. That Mr. McLane would also be met by this objection ; and that unless it could be anticipated and removed, it would again interpose an insuperable bar to the success of the negotiation ; was not only Icnown to those who gave him his instructions, but to tlie whole people. If this objection were brought for- ward, then,— and then only— he was to make the other party " sensible of the injustice and inexpe- diency of 'such a course," by saying to them, in substance, " although you have a right to hold our constituents to the consequences of the acts and omissions of their former servants, our predeces- sors, if you choose to do so— because they had a ge- 23 neral authority to act for our constituents, and you could only know their sentiments by the acts of their agents — yet in truth the American people did not approve of their conduct in this matter ; on the contrary, the moment they became acquainted with the subject, they removed their former agents from the stations they had tilled, and put us in their place, for the express purpose, among other things, of settling this very atl'air on the ternis before pro- posed by you." Was it proper to instruct Mr. iVIcLane to hold tliis language i Under the circumstances of this case, considering the interest which the people had taken in the matter, — the decision they had pro- nounced — the importance of the particular object in view — and the still greater importance of pla- cing the relations of the two countries on a friend- ly footing — I cannot doubt that it was so. It is undoubtedly making a distinction between the country and a former administration — not, how- ever, for the purpose of " making interest for a jiart]], rather than for the country" — nor with the view of" making favor for o/ie party at home,a- gainst another" — but evidently from a sincere and anxious desne to secui-e to the country — aye, sir, to the " whole coni\{vy''' — the advantages in ques- tion. In making this distinction no injury is done to the nation — there is nothing in it, derogatory to the honor of the country. I grant that it implies, to some extent, a reflection on the conduct — perhaps on the capacity and fairness — of the former admin- istration. And I do not wonder that the members of that administration should feel somewhat res- tive under an implication of this sort. But an im- plication of the same character — though infinitely stronger and more humiliating — was contained in the result of the election of 1828 ; and those who, by that election were brought into the administra- tion, were not only authorized, but bound, to take this course, for the purpose of accomplishing the wishes of their constituents. To say that it ought not to have been taken, because it involved a re- flection — or if you please, a reproach — on the for- mer administration, is to place the character and interests of the public agent above those of the pub- lic themselves — a theory, which, however, it may suit the meridian of some governments, is, in my judgment, utterly repugnant to the principle of ours. With us, sir, the people the " whole" people are the parties really interested in all the affairs of government, as well as the sources of all political power ; and the particular admin- istration which may at any time be in office, arc merely the instruments by which they act — the organs by which they speak. In their intercourse with foreign powers, as well as on all othersubjects, they arc bound to express the sentiments, and to obey the will, of those who have commissioned them. I do not profess, sir, to be deeply read in the history of diplomacy ; but unless I am greatly mistaken, these principles have generally been acted on, for the last century, even by the govern- ments of Europe. But however tliis may be, they spring so naturally from the character of our politi- cal institutions, and are so congenial to justice and common sense, that in reference to ourselves, I entertain a confident persuasion of their truth. I trust, sir, I have shown that the honor of the republic has not been tarnished by these in- structions. I wish I could say as much in refe- rence to all the negotiations on this subject. — This, however, cannot be said of that part of them which was conducted by the late administration. The general tone of the instructions transmitted by Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin, ui the years 1826 and '27, is that of a culprit who luiowsthat he deserves, and fears that he shall feel, the rod; but who, in the very act of deprecating the consequences of his misconduct, aggravates his offence, and seals his condemnation, by resorting to quibbles and sub- terfuges. It is the only page in the history of American diplomacy, of which we have reason to be ashamed. In the perusal of this page, the pa- triot will hang his head; for he will find in every line the windings of the serpent, but not a trace of his wisdom — tlie weakness of the dove, but none of her simplicity or innocence. Take a single in- stance. When the negotiation was suspended at London, in July, 1824, Mr. Rush wrote to Wash- ington for further directions. None were sent to him; and tliough Mr. King was sent out in June, 1825, and remained nearly a year, he was unin- structed on this point. Not a line was written on the subject from the State Department, until the 19th of June, 1826, when Mr. Clay gave his in- structions to Mr. Gallatin, who was then about taking the place of Mr. King, and the special object of whose mission was to prevent the British act of July, 1825, from being closed upon us. To avoid this result, Mr. Clay instructs him that it had al- ways been the intention of our government to re- sume at London the negotiation which had been suspended in 1824, and that it would have been done by Mr. King, had not the state of his health and various other circumstances prevented him from entering on the subject. Mr. Gallatin, in his first letter to Mr. Canning, under date of the 26th of August, 1826, brought forward this statement, supposing, undoubtedly, that it was true. Sir, it was not only no/ true, but Mr. Cannuig had it in his power to prove that it was not. In his reply of the 11th of September, '26, he thus sweeps away, with a single dash of his pen, this — the only excuse then set up for our previous delay: "Mr. Gallatin in his note of the 26th of August states, 'it is well known that the delay in renewing the negotiation upon the subject of the colonial intercourse, on principles of mutual accommodation, is due to causes not under the control of the United States., principally to the state of health of Mr. King.' Upon this point, the undersigned has only to ob- serve, that no intimation that Mr. King had re- ceived instructions which icould have enabled him to resume the tiegotiation, was ever before com- municated to the British government. On the contrary, the only communication at all relating to this matter, which has ever reached him in any au- thentic shape, was in a despatch from Mr. Vaugh- an, dated the 22d of March last, (1826,) wherein that Minister states: that ' Mr. Clay had informed him that he should not be able to furnish Mr. King with his instructions before the end of the month of May, (May, 1826,) to enable him to re- commence the negotiation.' " Judge, sir, what must have been the mortification of our Minister when he received this response! Retransmitted it to Wasliington, and subsequently received from Mr. Clay, in his despatch of the 11th of Novem- ber, 1826, a new set of excuses, (the same which have been made by Mr. Webster,) which were just as easily demolished by the Britisli secretary as that which had preceded them. This last commu- nication contained a reluctant admission of the fact, that no instructions on this point were ever given or sent to Mr. King; with a laboured but lame attempt to prove that the former statement was consistent with, the truth. This attempted ex- ^4 planation was, however, so entirely insufficient, that Mr. Gallatin did not venture to suggest it to Mr. Canning; and to this hour the original state- ment lies among the archives of the British court, without the semblance of vindication or excuse! I will not detain you by any comments on this transaction, further than to say, that a-s " this is the fiist instance in Our liistory" in which a Secre- tary of State has ever dared to put an untruth in- to the mouth of a minister abroad, so I fervently pray that in all future time, it may ever be consid- ered *' a negative example, to be shunned and a- voided" by all his successors. Sir, it urns " shun- ned and avoided" by his immediate successor. — You will find in the instructions to Mr. McLane, none of that sort of " statesmanship," with wliich the last administration seemed to be so familiar. — On the contrary, they are marked by that integri- ty and singleness of purpose — that candor and plain dealing — which adorn the character of the Pres- ident, and which, under his influence and direction, have distinguished all our recent negotiations. But whatever may have been the course of Mr. Clay whilst Secretary of State, it must be admitted, that noio he almost rivals Mr. Webster, in a tender regard for the honor of the country and the charac- ter of our diplomacy. He thinks too, with his dis- tinguished associate, that both have come to harm in the hands of his successor. And if we are to credit their assertions, all the Senators who oppos- ed the nomination — and I suppose also the presi- ding officer who gave the casting vote — have been exclusively influenced by this elevated motive and the duties\vhich flowed from.it. Sir, it is always a harsh thing, to say of public men, that we do not confide in their solemn asseverations. That ma- ny of the Senators who voted against this nomina- tion, may have been brought to believe, that its re- jection was due to the character of the nation, I am not disposed to doubt. Undue confidence in politi- cal leaders, and that obliquity of understanding which is the natural result of prejudice and passion, of personal interest and, party zeal, will oftentimes induce unright and intelligent men, to believe, what if left to themselves they would never have suspected ; and to make that belief the foundation of their acts. But that the leaders of tiiis new and strangely assorted coalition — and more especially the thi-ee distinguished individuals whom the pub- lic have designated as its heads — were induced to take for thenriselves, and to urge upon their follow- ers, this unprecedented step, from an impressive sense of public duty, growing out of a sacred re- gard to the honor of the country, and from no other motive, is what will never be believed by the in- telligent people of the United States. The com- mon sense of mankind will repudiate the idea that such coiddhTive been the motive. I will not go into the evidence on which this conclusion will be founded. It is needless that I should do so — the thing is palpable — it speaks for itself, in terms so plain and unambiguous, that " he who runs, may read." A formidable rival — a powerful opponent — was to be p>it out of tire way ; the measures of the administration were to be thwarted and de- ranged ; and the feelings of the President were to be wounded in the tenderest point, by the sacrifice of his friend. Those who reared the altar on which the victim was immolated, will not only be held ac- countable for the injustice of the act itself, but for [lolluting with savage rites, what has hitherto been deemed consecrated ground. One word more, and I shall trespass no longer on your patience. It seems from the reported speech of Mr. Clay, that he deemed it consistent with the dignity of the Senate, and pertinent to the question before them, to assail the character of New- York. " An odious system of proscription," says the honorable .Senator, " draiim from the worst periods of the Roman republic, is constantly acted on in that State." My friend, col. M'Kown, with indignant eloquence, has adverted to this at- tack. I allude to it for another purpose. I am happy to avail myself of the reference of i\Ir. Cla}'; for whatever may be its application to any thing" which now exists, or has ever existed, in New- York, it is peculiarly appropriate to the measure we are considering. If I have rightly read the liistory of that far famed republic, its worst period was when the higlily gifted, but licentious and despe- rate Antony, and that arch dissembler, Octavius Ceesar, formed, with the restless and aspiring Lepi- dus, the Second Triumvirate. You recol- lect, sir, the history of that infamous coalition. — Each of its members aimed at the sovereign power; each hated the other; though at the moment, Oc- tavius was professedly the friend and supporter of Antony. The immediate object was, to combine a force sufficiently powerful to put down their com- petitors and opponents. For this purpose, Lepi- dus, who was despised by both his coadjutors, wza brought into the Triumvirate; and by his vote the " black proscription" was decreed. The first ora- tor in Rome was the chief object of their hate, and one of their earliest victims; though on this point, Octavius affected to yield a reluctant assent to the wishes of his associates. Whether, in the end, he ascribed that assent to a solemn conviction oi duty to the republic, is not recorded by the historians; but it is recorded, that his pretended reluctance in the case of Cicero, was the merest aflectation. — After having served the turn for which he had been used, the miserable Lepidus was abandoned to ob- scurity and contempt. In the fate of liis prototype, the Lepidus of this Seco^-d Coalitiox may read, with unerring certainty, his own approaching doom; and in the sentence which impartial pos- terity has passed on the motives and conduct of that, I anticipate, with confidence, the judgment of the American people, on the acts and motives of this Triumvirate. Note. — The preceding remarks were delivered ^ and a great part of them written out, before the speeches of Senators Smith, Forsyth, and Marcy, and the second speech of Mr. AVebster were received at Albany. Some of the points might have been strengthened, if the author had had the benefit of the facts resting within the person- al knowledge of Messrs. Smith and Forsyth, and which are stated in their respective speeches. To prevent misapprehension, it is proper to observe, that the bill to which Mr. Forsyth refers, as having been lost, in consequence of a disagree- ment between the two houses as to certain amend- ments made in the House of Representatives, was introduced in the session of 1826-7 ; whereas the ocecdings referred to above, all took place in 1825-6, and before the mission of the session of Mr. Gallatin. As Mr. Webster has not, in his second speech, corrected any of the errors contained in his former remarks, I find no occasion for altering what I had said and written out. But there are two points, in his last remarks, which deserve notice. Mr. Webster has attempted to show, that the "pretension" spoken of by Mr. VanBuren, asha- ving been " abandoned by those v,ho first setitup," @6 had in truth originated with General "Washington ; and to prove this he quotes a paragrapli from the instructions of President Washington to Mr. Mor- ris, dated in October, 1789. In this passage, Mr. Morris is directed to insist " on the privilege'" [an- other instance of the use of this offensiN-s term, and by the father of liis country too,] " of carrying our productions, in our vessels, to their Islands, and of bringing in return the productions of those Islands, to our own ports and markets," as one of the high- est importance. On the supposition, that this was the identical pretension which had been spoken of by Mr. Van Burcn, Mr. W. indulges himself in a fancied triumph, which would be of extremely short duration if he would condescend to give his at- tention to the precise character of the ^'preten- sion" referred to by Mr. V. B. It was not a claim to be allowed " to carry our own productio7is, in our vessels to the West India Islands, and to bring in return the productions of those Islands to ovr own ports," which was the privilege claimed by President Washington ; but a claim to be permit- ted to carry our productions to those Islands, and to enter th?m there free of the protecting duties im- posed on our produce. This is the pretension re- ferred to by Mr. Van Buren, as will be seen on re- ference to his instructions; and of tliis, not a word is said in the extract from Gen. Washington. Again. Mr. Webster refers to our act of the 1st of March, 1823, to show that " Congress itself has sanctioned this same pretensio7i." This act, he in- forms us, was passed 2 years before the commence- ment of Mr. Adams' administration, and in a note he adds that Mr. Van Buren was himself a mem- ber of the Senate and Mr. McLane of the House, at the time cf its passage — and upon this, he asks various questions, all founded on the supposition that tiiislaw was " overlooked or forgotten" when the instructions were penned ; and tending to as- cribe this fact to the want of any '■'tolerable acquain- tance imtJi the history of the negotiaticns of fJie U. States, or their legislation, Sfc." Now I have already explained a\>ove, what Mr. Van Buren had said on this point ; and to prove that he was ac- quainted with the fact that the pretension referred to was brought forward whilst Mr. Monroe was President, i referred to this very Imo of 1823, as one in which it was embodied, and which was also stated at length in the instructions. In page 5 of the instructions, Mr. V. B. introduces this law, as " the next material step in the move- ments of the two governments." And on account of " the influence which it had obviously had on the course of affairs, in relation to the trade in question," he proceeds to state its contents, which he sums up in four particulars, the second of which is as follows : " 2d'ly. It put forth a claim which had been previously advanced by us in our nego- tiations upon the subject, but always resitted by Great Britain, viz : that no higher duties should be imposed upon the productions of the United States in the British Colonial ports, than upon those of Great Britain herself, or her other colonies, and which had been levied for the protection of their mvnprodnce. This was done by giving an autho- ritjr to 1;he President to suspend the payment of our discrimin'iting dutias by British vessels, coming from the colonies, upon being satisfied that no such duties were levied in the colonies on our produce, and by decbring that, until such evidence was given, payment should continue to be exacted." — [Instructions, p. 6.] And yet Mr. Webster would really wish the peo- ple of the United States to believe, that tlie in- structions were written in utter ignorance of this law, thus spread out upon their face ! Is it possi- ble that Delias not yet read those instructions 1 If he has not read them, what is his judgment on them worth ? If he A as read them, vrhat is the value of his candor .•" REMARKS OF Hon. Wm. L. MARCY, In the U. S. Senate, on tlie nomination of Mr. Van Buren. Mr. MARCY said, that he had intimated hereto- fore, more than once, that it was not his intention to offer to the senate any observai ions upon the main question now before them. AVhat regarded the public conduct of the present Minister to London, was better understood by other members, and wliat was to be said in explanation or vindication of it, would be better said and better received from mo.st of them, by reason of their great experience in pub- lic affairs, and their particular knowledge of the transactions which have been brought under review in this discussion. He had determined that it would be his duty to trouiDle the senate with re- marks, only in case topics should be introduced in- to the debate, with which he might well he suppos- ed, from his local situation, to be particularly ac- quainted. The occasion which rendered it proper, that he should say something, had arisen in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. senatcr from Ken- tucky, (Mr. Clay.) His attack was not confined to the nominee; it reached the state which he, (Mr. M.) represented in this body. One of the grounds of opposition to tlie Minister to London, taken by the senator from Kentucky, was the pernicious system of party politics adopted by the present administra- tion, by which the honors and otiices v.ere put up to be scrambled for by partizans, &c. A system which the minister to London, as the senator from Ken- tucky alleged, liad brought here from the state in which he formerly lived, and had for so long a time acted a conspicuous part in its political transactions. I Icnow, sir, said Mr, M., thaf it is the habit of some gentlemen to speak with censure or reproach of the politics of New- York. Like other states, vve have contests, and, as anecess-ary consequence, triumphs and defeats. The state is large, with great and di- vei'sitied intc>ests; in some parts of it, commerce is th*e object of general pursuit; in others, manufac- tures and agriculture are the chief concerns of its citizens. We have men of enterprise and talents, who aspire to public distinction. It is natural to ex- pect from these circumstances and others that might be alluded to, that her politics should excite more in- terest at home, and attract more attention abroad, than those of many other states in the confederacy. 26 It amy be, sir, that the politicians of New- York are not so fastidious as some gentlemen are aa to disclosing the principles ou which they act.— They boldly preach what they practise. When they are contending for victory, they avow their intention c.f enjoying the fruits of it. If they are defeated, they expect to retire from office ; if they are success- ful, they claim, as a matter of right, the advantages of success. They see nothing wrong in the rule, that to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy. But if there be any thing wrong in the policy which the senator from Kentucky has so strongly reprobated, he should know that this policy was not confined to the Minister to London and his friends in New York, but is practised by his [Mr. Clay's] own political friends in that State: he should know that if to one man, more than any other now living, the existence of that policy is to be ascribed, it is to one of the Senator's own political friends. The practice of making extensive changes in the offices, on the change of parties in that State, wast uo- croachmcnts, be driven to the necessity of retracing their legislative steps without know- ledge of its effect, and wholly dependent upon the indulgence of Great Britain," they Avere to be made sensible of the impracticability of tliat course, and to be taught to expect such measures on our part as would vindicate our national interest and honor. To announce 45 I distinctly to Great Britain that we would not submit to a continued injustice, on the g-round of any objection to the past conduct of the A- merican govermnent, whether it were right or wrong, was the obvious import of th whole instmctions. If the Executive had caused it to be stated to Great Britain, that tinding his predecessors to have been in error, as was implied by sub- sequently waiving the terms they had advoca- ted, and had, in expiation of those errors, abandoned the trade to the pleasure of the British government, the interests of the Uni- ted States would have sutfered, and their honor been reproached ; but in excluding such considerations, as inappropriate and un- just, and in clearly avowing his purpose not to submit to such treatment, he hoped to pro- mote the interests of his fellow citizens, and sustain the honor and dignity of the country. In all tliis, gentlemen, I have the approba- tion of my judgment and conscience. Act- ing upon the principle, early announced, of asldng nothing but what is right, and submit- ting to nothing that is wrong, I asked that on- ly of wliich the justice could not be denied. I asked a participation in the trade, upon terms just to the United States, and mutually advantageous to both countries. I directed a simple and distinct proposition, in conformity with these principles, to be submitted to the British govenunent ; and, resolving to be con- tent with nothing less, I ultimately arranged ihe trade upon the basis of that proposition, without retraction, modification or chang-e. — If the national lionor had not been thoutrht tarnished by retracing our steps, by claiming' more and ultimately consenting to take less, and in fact obtaining nothing ; I feel assured, that in reqiuring that wliich my predecessors had conceded to be enough, and obtaining all that was demanded, my countrymen Avill see no slain upon their dignity, their pride, or their honor. If I required greater satisfaction than I de- rive from a review of this subject, I should find it in the gratitude I feel for tlie success which has crowned my efforts. I shall always possess the gratifying recollection, that I havo not disajipointed the expectations of my coun- trj'men, who, under an arrangement depend- ing for its permanence upon our own wisdom, are participating in a vahial)le trade upon terms more advantageous than those which the illustrious Father of his Country was wil- ling to accept; upon terms as favorable as those which regulate the trade under our con- ventions with Great Britain, and which have been sought without success from the earliest periods of ourhistor}'. I pray you, gentlemen, to present to the republican members of the legislature of New- York, and to accept for yourselves indi- vidually, the assurance of my higliest regard and consideration. ANDREW JACKSON. Messrs. N. P. Tallmadge, Tliomas Arms- /ong, Levi Beardsley. John F. Hubbard, J. W. Ed mondii, Clias. L. Livina;sloii, Gideon Oslrander, John M. WilUanisoii, Peter Wood, E. Howell, Elisha Litthtield, William Seymour, Aarcui Reuier, James HughgtoD, "William H, Auael. Geiv. smith and Mr. CLAY. [From tlin ?\«tii.nal IhWUigencisr ] TO TPIE EDITORS. Gentlkme.v : Please to give a place in 3'our paper of to-morrow (if practicable) to the enclosed statement, and you w ill greatly oblige Your obedient servant, V2th February, 1832. S. SMITH. In a speech of Mr. Clay's, made in the Senate and reported in the Intelhgencer of the 30th January last, that gentleman sta- ted, " It (the bill for meeting the British act of Parliament) was brought before Con- gress in the session of 1S25-6, not at the instance of the American Executive, but upon the spontaneous and ill-judged motion of the gentleman from jVtaryland, (Mr. Smith,)" &c. In my reply, I made the following remarks: " Before I finish my remarks, Mr. President, I will notice what was passed between the then Se- cretary of State, (Mr. Clay,) and myself, in rela- tion to the act of Parliament of Jnly, 1825. I first saw a copy of that act in Baltimore, and mention- ed it to the Secretary. He said that he had the act in his possession , and handcd_it to me. I asked him, whether the terms proposed were satisfactory. He said that he considered they were all v.'e could a-sk. I then observed, why not issue a proclama- tion under our acts, and thus open the trade.' He replied, that he would prefer negotiation. I asked — why ? for what will you negotiate .' We have nothing to do, but to give om- a-ssent, and the trade J3 at once opened. I had the act printc:d,and hand- ed a copy to Mr. Adams, who had never seen it before. He agreed that the terms icere satisfacto- ry. I then pressed him to issue his proclamation, and told him that if he did not, I should be compel- led to introduce a bill. He remarked, that he wish- ed I would do so, and that he would not only sign it, but sign it with pleasure. I did prepare a bill, under the order of the Senate, and, doubtful whe- ther it might be correctly drawn, so as tocflcct m}' object, I sent it to the then Secretary of State (Mr. Clay,) with a request that ho would correct it if necessary. He replied in writing to this ellbct, " that the bill was drafted to meet my object, thai it was so doubtful whether it were best, to act by a law, or by negotiation, that it was indilVerent which course should be adopted." In answer to these, there appeared the following note, appended to a speech of Mr. Cl.\y, and published in the Intelligencer of the 9th instant : " There is a statement in the published speech of Gen. Smith, which if he made it in tlie Senate, did not attract my attention. He says he asked me whether the terms proposed by the British act of Parliament of July, 1825, were satisfactory"; and that 1 said I ' considered they were all we could as!v.' Now I am perfectly confident that the Sen- ator's recollection is inaccurate, and that I never did say to him that the terms proposed by the act were all we could ask. It is impossible I should have said so. For, by the terms of the act, to en- title Powers not colonial, (and of course the Uni- ted States) to its privileges, those Powers are re- quired to place the commerce and navigation of Great Britain (European as well as colonial) upon the footing of the most favored nation. That is, f v>"e had accepted the terms as tendered on the face of the act, we would have allowed British vessels all the privileges which we have granted by our treaties of reciprocity with Guatemala and other Powers. The vessels of Great Britain, therefore, v\' ould have been at liberty to import into the Uni- ted States, on an equal footing with our own, the productions of a7iy part of the globe, without a corresponding privilege on the part of our vessels, in the portii of Great Britain. It is true that the King; in Council was autliorized to dispense with some of the conditions of the act, in behalf of Povtors not possessing colonies. But whether the condition, embracing the principle of the most fa- vored nation, would have been dispensed with or not, was unknown to me at the time the Senator states the conversation to have happened. And, long after, Mr. Vaughan,the British Minister, was unable to atlord any information as to the act of Parliament. That very authority, vested in the King, dcm.onstrates the necessity there was for fur- ther explanation, if not negotiation. " AV^ith respect to the note from me to the Sena- tor, which he says he received accompanying the draft of the bill introduced by him, it would be more satisfactory if he would publish the note it- self, instead of what he represents to be an ex- tract. _ H. C." All my papers being in Baltimore, it has not been in my power to ascertain whether I have preserved the note alluded to, and the purport or " etiect" of which, I had undertaken to give from memor}-. I there- fore addressed a note to Mr. Cambreleng, wha was a member of the Committee of Comnierce in the House of Representatives at the time, to enquire whether he had had any commvmication, either verbal or writ- ten, with ]Mr. Ci.AY, on the subject. The following is his answer, which, as it appears to me, clearly, fully, and substantially sus- tains the statements made by me, front re- collection : Washingto^t, 11th Feb. 1832. Dear Sir : I have your note of this date inquir- in