Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

e<i, with the view of coercing the British government Smo n «*niidh*nee T»iih our xcr, if pe.nibfe, hJUreHty, i» order to te- The nsmro sml ohjeerjut these ghre, if W'-Coufilffibt demands. The nets sire carefully i»vcrloi4o<l by Ir. Web- ,Ufod ill Ills nummary to which I bee leave to call your nttortiion. To compel the Bri tish government to give n|> their protect ing duties, alien or discriminating duties were imposodand kept up by u«, to the erqat dissatisfaction of G(eut Britaiu.— But *a these did' not accomplish"flits ob ject, the act of 1318, concerning naviga tion, and tliat of 1330, supplementary thereto, wore passed ; the effect of which was, to establish n iioit-iiitercourso m British vessels with all iho British Ameri ca! colonies, and to prohibit iho iutroduc linn into the United States of all articles, the product of those colonies, except that of. each colony imported directly from it self. Tilts state of tilings continued un til 1822, when tint ports were opened by virtue of acts of Congrbs* und of. Par liament, subject to certain restrictions— our discriminating duties being still retain ed, f though still Objected to on the other side,) with a view to the original deilgn of gettbu! rid of I lie protecting duties. With further reference to this end, the act of ific 1st of Mutch, 1823, was pass ed by (bongross. This act, amonpothor tilings] declared ill effect, tliat *0 long as those i vervdesir.tbloVo atraugo tho whoia mat- ‘ ‘ '4a me of our dels Into tho British "Islands for coll- tW&af, “ ster ; uod this W-abn naht material defect sumption, [Mr. Webstar menus by this, free of die protecting duties, 1 as well ns tho admission of our vessels.’' And lie goesjon to observe that this object had boen pursued*ever since the pence of 18t3; and tlpit Mr. Adams’ administraiion was not the first to lake this ground. 1 Itaru already stated when, by whom, and for what purpose, this ground had been taken. And it is only necessary, in order to dis pose of this Inst excuse, to remark, tbnt lung before the expiration Of site time lim ited for coming io under tile act of 1823, it hud been fully ascertained, that this'ob- jert toukl not ho effected. Ten years of fruitless negotiation hud shown that the scheme was utterly impracticable. To language he had quoted, is as nothing to 41 no, Mr. Canning.”) Mr. . Cennlng, what I amyiboui to mention. You will observe,, sir, that the quoted sentence, standing by itself, would seem to warrant the remark,(hat Mr. M’Lawe w»s author ised, whenever he thought proper, to vol unteer tlm statement—not that he and Mr. Van Boren “ had held with England in stead of their own country,” as Jlr, Web ster lias h—but to ftato ilso parts taken by the present administration on the subject in question. The propriety of nuiuor- iaing oor minister to spook of such a mat ter, except in the event of its becoming necessary that he should do so, might well ho questioned. But on reading tho sen tence which immediately precedes that quoted by Mr. Webster, you will find that no such unlimited authority was given.— On tlie contrary, 31 r. ftVLnne toas au- thoriserl to.peak of this matter only in a flinies wern kept up in theColonies,' our diicrlmipallitg dunes should bo exact- refj und it provided, in enso the trade td- . lowed by the British net of 1822, or miy part Of it, should he'proiiibtted to us by Groat Britain, that on the Piesidcnt’s proclaiming the fuel, the acts of 1318 afitl >820, before refcrild to, should be revi ved and iti full force. It Is evident from this notion of our legislation, dqrlng iho period' referred to, that it.involved a claim on our part (o ho allowed to participate in this trade, without'being subjected to the terms on which it was enjoyod by other nations, tmd which, in> the judgment of the. British government, were fundamen tal in their nature.—This claim was also brought forward by our Ministers, under the instruct ions of Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay; and it -is to (In's that Mr. Van Bu- ’ ten refers, whew he spoil Its of tho “claims” and “pretensions” set up un our purl, but afterwards abandoned by tho last admin istration. The next event referred to 'by Mr. Websier, is tho British, act of 5th of Ju ly, 1823,of which ho says that it offered " reciprocity .at far as the mere carrying trade teat concerned to nil uuiiups who might chonso within one your to nceopx the offer.” Without stopping to show that lids is not n very fair mode of stating tlto contents tnd ofleci of this act, let us .look lit tho excuses which no gives lor its non-acceptance by Mr. Adams' minimis- trut ton. Tho first is. “because it was novor of ficially cutnimininrtcd to it.” By this (lie sotmtor means the pn'.tlic shall utidctshind, that tho act was unknown to Mi. A.lams’ administration, hemuso not communica ted. If bo does not nicun this, then the excuse amounts to nothing; for if they knew of the act, it was not at all materi al that it should ho officially communica ted, But did not Mr. Webster know, that it Was not the practicq of tho two governments to commimicaln to each other, .tea of legislation t Did he ihTi recollect that it was niado known to Con gress in thu session of 1825-6 by the message of the President i That the Baltimore merchants presented a memo rial, in which they referred (0 this Ihw, and prayed Congress to act on it ? That Senator Smith introduced a bill on the euhjec.t, which was laid on the tnblo by tho vote, chiefly, of the administraiion senators f That a resolution was intro duced into the House of Roprentulives, by Mr. Cambroleng, of this State, coll ing oil tho commiiten on commerce, nt llie head of which wus Mr. Newton, n warm supporter of tho administration, to report, whether it was not expedient to come in under this act 1 If Mr. Web ster dots not knot) till- this, then .has he forgotten what passed uuderhisowQ eyes, dining the snssion of 1825 '6! If he doe's know all this, what shall we say of Ins lor aud regard to Irutlign making this excuse I Tho second excuse ho assigns is, “be cause only n few months before, a nego tiation on the same subject hud lieeu sus pended, with an understanding that it might he resumed." It is true that in Ju ly, .1324, (not a few mouths, bot within tinea weeks of a year before) a negotia tion on this subject, which had been fiu some ditto pending at London, betweeu M-. Kush on our part, aud Me, liuskissou and Mr. Stratford Canning on the oilier, was suspended. Bui it is au entire'min- . tnlte to say, that it had boon suspended with an understanding that it might be "resumed. 1 know this excuse Iihs been repeatedly set up by Mr. Cluy ; but I al so know, that the Inst protocols speak of the final Communications of fiio ministers to thotr respective governments ; ,md tlmt they sav not a syllable about resuming the negotiation. If this point is to he deci- •fied bv ibo record, then there is iio pre- ’ t-nce fur saying, that there was any un- doist,Hiding that tho negotiation wus to be resumed. After waiting very nearly a rear, without hearing a syllabic on the subject,' Parliament passed ilm act of the 3th July, 1825. *Thn passing of this act. was in itself the highest evidence, that ' the British Government were resolved uOt to depait from tho ground they had main tained ; and how man uf sense can' say, nod hope to be believed, that they sup posed the matter was still to he left opcu to negotiation, notwithstanding the enact- ‘ tueut of this law, passu my comprchcu sion. But there is a third renson for not ac cepting tho terms of this few. “It was or statesmanship. “Ill this state bf thing's,” snys Mr. Webster, “ Mr. M Lane whs sent to Eng land.” This, sir, [ deny, lie was not sent under the stole of firings sketched by Mr. Webster. Tfii honorable senator has not only, as I have i howu, given an erro neous coloring to allthnt lie has stated, but he has ontirelv omitted iho most material portions of tlie case. ' Ho has omitted to state when and Amo the direct trade was cut off, and the events which abroad and m homo followed tlvat event. It was cut off by nn order in Council, dated tho 27lh July, 1820, which took effect on the 1st December, 1826, nearly two yearn after the commencement of Mr. Adams’ ad ministration. Tito order was issued, in consequenco of tho otnistkin of our Go vernment to avail itself of the offer held out in tho British act of July, 1825.— The trade enjoyed by us prior to Decem ber, 1826, though unequal add restricted, was extensive and valuublo. 11 Was much better than a nun-intcrcoursc; and a large proportion of tho capita! aud enterprise of the country was inlercsted in it. Thu loss of this trade occasioned grant com plaint. Mr. Adams aud his cabinet felt the pressure of the case. Mr. Gallatin -H-who had been sent outio'lho beginning of 1826, tJilli a set of flimsy excuses lor not accepting tho law of 1823—Mr. Gal latin, I say, was instructed in 1827 to beg anew of Lord Dudley (who had Come in to the Foreign Office after tho death of Mi. Canning,) to bo let in on the terms of tho act‘of 1825. Mr. Gallatin did ail that a minister situated us ho wa* v could do; but without success; und io tho begin ning of 1S23, he returned in despair.— —Mr. Baihour was then sent with direc tions to suo again for tho same privilege. In tho mean time, tho subject had been fully brought helote the American people; the documents were called for nod road; Mr. Adams and Ills Secretary of Statu worn charged with tlto loss of this trade, by uegluci and mismanagement; they wore vindicated by their friends in tho best way which tho subject admitted ; hut in the judgment of tho People, the vin dication was iinpet fact. How much the popular dissatisfaction upon this point contributed to tho ovorlhtow of Mr. Ad ams’ administration, it is now impossible to loll. That it was one of the causes which contributed to that result, Mr. Web ster himself does nor venture entirely to 1 deny; though he tiuggests tlmt o'Iter caus es had a greater inflence in producing it. However that may he, no man can deny that the loss pf the West India trade by the late administration, was distinctly marie, at every poll in the Union, one of the principal topics of accusation and de fence ; and so long as this fact shall he admitted, it will be difficult to prove that this point was not included in the verdict rendciod'hy the-pcople. This, theb, was “ the stain of things” under which Mr. M’Lune was sent to England, and rveeiv- prcstsi in pressing ir, after the passage! particular state of things. What that uf tho law of ’23, evinced great want oi l was, tho omitted sentence w/ll show. Ir judgment, and n singular passion for dipto-1 Is us follows: u If the Omission of this mney; but very little either uf good sense I Government to accept of the terms pro posed, when heretofore odived, be Urged as an objection to their adoption now, it will be-yonr duty to make thojfriush Go verument sensible of (be injustice and in expediency of such a course.” “The op portunities which you have derived,” See. dtc. • I will not now stop to inquire,, whether it was proper to aaihurieu Mi. M'Lnne to hold this language, in case the anticipated objection should he made. That ques tion, I wilt by and bv consider; hut at present I ask,is it true-that Mr. M’Lanu wns authorised, whenever he should think proper, to tell the Biitiib minister,” dtc, dtc. Oil the contrary, is not his author ity to speak of this subject at nil, spe cially limited to tho event of its being ob jected, that Iho former ntliniitisIrHliou had omitted to accept of’ the terms proposed ? Why then was the qualifying sentence omitted? I ask you, sjr, if this be fair dealing ? Is this justice^ nr is it gross in justice? Is it a proof pf a high regard to truth nnd fairness ? Or is it evidence of a disposition to mislead I In' public mind; to place tiic question on false grounds; and to destroy a political opponent, by any and ovoty means? I protest loyou,sir, I am sorry—truly sorry—to say, that in my humlilo judgment, it Is conclusive ev idence of such a disposition, Mt. Van But en goes oi tu sat: “ Their views (these of the pinout administra tion,) upon that point ham been submit ted to the people of the United States; and the councils by widen your conduct is now directed, are the reiol' of the judge ment t.xpiesscd by the only earthly tri bunal to which llteluio administration was ainoHablo for rts acts. It should be suffi cient that the claims set up by them, mid which caused tho interruption of the trade ill question, have been explicitly aban doned by those who first asserted them, and are not revived by their successors.” I have utreudy alluded to Mr. Webster’s observations ori the first part ofthrS para graph. On the assertion contained in the latter part of it, lie temarks: “ It is man ifestly quite wide of the facts. Mr. Ad ams’ administration did not bring fotwaid (his claim. 1 Itavo stated already,'tlmt it had been u subject, both of negotiation and legislation through the whole eight years of Mr. Monroe’s ndminisirniiou; this tho Secretary knew, or was hound to know. W by then does he speak of it as set up by tlto late administration, and af terwards abandoned by them, and not now revived?" The/fiittrgc boro made, of a departure from the facts, is quite gratuitous. It i» not denied that tho claims refcired to were set up by tire late administration, not that they were abandoned by them; the impu ted departure from truth consists in the suppesttri assert inn that these claims wore litst set up by the late administration, Lint Mr. Van Ilmen does not assert that they were the first administnlion which had set them up. He knew, its well us etl hit itistructions from the Secretary of: Mr. Webster, that they" were first set up State. “ lu these instructions,” snvs Mr. I under 31 r. Monroe’s administration, ami Webster, “are found tho sentiments of if Mr. Webster’s uncustomed arenraev which I complain,” What are they ? Let ns examine aud see. “ Mr. Vim Uuroti tolls Mr. M’-Lnno, | ’The opportunities which you havoderi-, ved frum a participation in ottr public councils, as well as other .outcos of in formation, will cnablo you to speak with confidence (us far as you may deem it proper and useful so to do,) of tho respec tive purls taken by those to whom the ud- ministration of this Government is now committed, iu relation to the course here tofore pursued upon the subject of the colonial trade." ' • On this sentence, lie makes the follow ing (Eminent: " Now this is neither trioro nor less than saying, ‘you will bo ablo to loll tlto Bri tish minister, whenever you think proper, that you, and I, nnd the ieuding persons in this administration,havoopposedtlte course 'heretofore pursued by the Government, aud the cottony, on tho subject of the colouiul trade. Be sure to let him know, fiiut on tlmt subject, we Itavo held with Enghiod, and not with our own Govorn- nivm.’ Now I ask you sir", if this be dig nified diplomacy ? Is this statesmanship? Is it patriotism, oris it mere party? Is it a proul of a high regard *o the honor and renown of the whole country, or is it ev idence of a disposition to niuka ti merit of belonging to ooe of its political divis ions ?’’ Now, sir, if this sentence stood alone, without any tiling to qualify or rcsIricUil, it would iio: hear iho version which the senator has given it. |i would not have authorised Mr. M’Liine to say, tlmt the members of the present administration had “ opposed the course" theretofore pursued bv “ the country," nnd “ held with England," instead of their own Go vernment- But this |icrv«rsion of the had not been lost to linn, ho would have re collected that in a termer part of tho in structions,^). 6,) the Secretary hadoxpress- ly staled, that tlto claims referred to iveie pm forth m tho net of Cougiess of the 1st .March, 1823, and that they “ had been previously advanced by us ip,our negotia tions ou tho subject.” But who were tlto persons w ho first set up those claims?— Every man acquainted with thu history of tho subject knows, and at least every Sen ator in Congress ought to know, that they were John Quincy Adams and Henry •Clay. And will it ho denied that fiiev had explicitely abandoned them? Where tin'll is lint departure from feet ill this pull of file instiunions? .Brit, says Mr. Webster, “the must humiliating part of thu whole follows:— 1 To set up thu acts of the late adminis tration as tiio cause of forfeiture of privi leges, which would othorwise he extended to the people of the United States, would, under existing cirrumstnncos, bo .unjust in itself, and could not foil to excite their deepest Sensibility.” Here then, wo have the “ head an.I fiont" of the Secretary’s offending, as well ns tho fullest display of Mr. Webster’s patriotism. It exudes from every poroiu tho following exclama tion: “ So, then, Mr. President, >vo are reduced, are we, to tho pour condition, thniwcnee n Minister of this great Re public instructed to urgue, or io intercede, with the British Minister, lest lie should find us to have forfeited our privileges; and lest these privileges should no longer be extended to us! And we have forfeit ed those privileges by our misbnhaviur in choosing rulers, who thought better of our own claim than of the British! Why, sir, this is patiently submitting to the dotniu- cering mao of the British Minister, I bo- liovo Mr. Huskisspn—[Mr. Clay said then, sir, who told us lhal all pur, trade with the Wetfi Tndies was a boon, granted to us by the indulgence of England. The British Minister calls it a boon, and’our Ministor admits it is a privilege, and hopes that his Royal. Majesty will be too gra cious to decide that we have forfeited this 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 rights, a privilege or a boon, from (ho British government, or any other government.” The point of this effusion consists in the changes tyirich ore rung, upon the word “privileges.” Air. yan Buren, recreant that he is, speaks of (Jio offer held out in the British act of Parliament ns n “privilege/" And this is putiently submitting to the do mineering tone of Mr. Cnqning, who had called it n boon! And on this theme we have a commentary, in which this horrible word “ piivilege” is treated ns if it invol ved the utter abandonment of alt piineipnt and honor. Sir, in uttering this tirade, Mr. Webster Inis oifiier. displayed very groat want ql information himself, or count ed very largely on the want Pf it in oth- eta. Ever sinco she has hud Colonies, Great Uritain has maintained, with inflex ible perseverance, in common with other powers having such possessions, the an cient policy of treating tbe trade with her colonies as n thing belonging exclusively to htrsoll—a thing uot to be enjoyed by oth er uationi, save at such times and oil such terms ns she pleased. As to the wisdom of this policy; its influence on the Colo- nies themselves; and its justice or liberal ity towards other nations; I have nothing to say; l speak only of tbe (act: end tlwit it is us I have asserted, no man who has the least pretensions to general knowledge will venture to deny, it is on this princi ple that she lins so uniformly persisted in the ceurso uf regulating file Colonial trade by acts rtf Parliament nnd orders iu Coun cil, which she could change at pleasure, instead of terming treaties on tile subject which could not be so changed. Now, though our government was extremely desirous to place this mailer on a more lib eral and permanent footing, and. to do so by treaty, rather than by seperate legis lation, yet until after we had Inst the ben efits livid out by the British acr of ’g.i, wo never protended to deny itio right of Great Britaiu to. do as site pleased ou the sub ject. The eodeavor Was, to convince her by argument ami by retaliatory laws, tliat it Wus tier interest to place this branch of her commerce on tho.samo fooling ns the trade between us and iho mothei cnnntry. Iu this we had not succeedod, and in tho mean time we had baen con tent to take what wo could get' of this commeice, as ,tt privilege—1 soy as, a pri vilege ; because all fira British statutes on this subjoct iuto which I have looked, speak of the permission given to foreign nations to trudo wjth (lie British colonies ns n privilege granted to'sucfi notions.— ■The act of Jono, t822, under which we enjoyed a restricted intercourse unfit 1826, called it a privilege, and Mr. Monrot’s ad ministration did not cotuiidi r it derogatory to the national honor to tako tho benefits offered by tliat law us a privilege On file contrary, you will find, sir, tlmt Mr. Ad onis,in one of his instructions to Mr. Rush, spends Imlf n dozen pages in nn attempt to settle tbe true construction of the phrase "thatthe privileges granted by this net;” without once dreaming, with all Ins Bunker-Hill temperament, tliat there was any tiling ill file word “privileges' which tut American was to take ftte.— More than this: The famous act of July, 1825, uses the same language. It pro vides “ the privileges granted by the law uf navigation to foreign ships, shall ho limited to tlto ships of tlioso countries, which having colonial possessions, shall grant the like privileges of trading wills those po sessions tu British ships, or which not having Colonial possessions, shall place the commerce aqd navigation • ef Great Britain awl its possessions abroad, upon the fi-Diing of tlto most favored nation.” Nuwit was in reference to the atlvintages held otu by (his act, that Mr. Van Bureu used the otnotioiis language, which forms in the judgement or Mr. Websier the most culpiiblo part of his instructions; yet we see that Ire spoke of them in tho very terms of the very act itself. But there is yet something further bn this point. Mr. Clay hiniself, in hi(iette.r to Mr. Gallatiu of the 11th April, 1827, us es, in reference to this very point, tho snino k.ngungn as Mr. Van Burun. He says, we can hardly suppose, under jltese circumstances, that tho British govern ment, after the passage of such an act of congress as your are now authorised to state that the 1‘rcsiriont. is willing to re commend, would refuse to remove (he interdict which Ims applied only to the navigation of the United States. A de nial to them, alone, of the pkivileues of tiro net of piirli.-tiues.it of 1825, offered to all nations, ccnld not be easily reconciled with those friendly tclalions, which it is the iutrrest of bulii nations, ns it is tbe ■anxious endeavor of the 'government of the United Stales^ to cultivate aud main tain." I admit sir, that I am but o tyro in the science of diplomacy; hut after ibis*last reference, I think that without going be yond tho spelling book, I may safely ask the great lawyor of New- England: Whose bull it is that has gored the ox now/— Seriously, Mr. Chairman, cuu you ima gine any position more pitiable than that in which the Senator has placed himself? He selects at leisure, tho subjects of his animadversions; lie brings tliem out with great iornifnnd circumstance; lie places him self on a particular passage, as one which admitted of uo defence ; mid then, from his fancied vantage ground, ho talks louj- ilf of the.msoltefi honor of his country— bis country’thus humbled at tbe feet of ihfrBmisbrKing! But Io! when we come *to scrutinize this “ most humiliating para- Tlipjila«'Co|crrie eul, trustees, *84* Sparks and Co. - 1^36 _ Benjnniil Hqjwood, • j,' graph" we find in it nothing .to justify Jonathan Austin, • • 1 tliis noise and bluster—nothing to calf fur The most Hon. Francis C. S. Coo- a • madversion ot remark—nothing which] way, Marquis of Hulift, • . others had hot <nid, nhd properly said be- j James Drake, HaVaima- • l 001 fore—vke find it nothing—literally nothing! • Abel Smith, , Vox et preterea nihil! And yet, Sir, uf- John Martin nnd Co ter all, the honerable Senator is more tlinn half right. This famous passage is real ly as." hum.ilia.tivg" /is any other—per haps more so than any oilier in tho tvltulo despatch. How *• humiliating* this is, wo Imvri already socn; and from thff char- aeter of this pussttge, you may judge us to tlie rest. Mr. VVobstor proceods to say, “ At the conclusion of the paragraph, the secretary says, * Yyu cannot press this vilto of the subjoct too earnestly upon the considera tion of the British ministry. It has bear ings and relations that reach beyond the immediate question under discussion.' v Here also ( have to complain that by o- niittirig the sentence immediately before it, fife'effect of the sentenco quoted is en tirely destroyed. Speaking of the feeling which was likely to he produced in this country by a refusal on tho part of Great Britain- to permit us to participate in n trade which was openod to other'nations, Mr. Vim Buren had remarked:' “'The tone of feeling which a course so unwise and untenable is calculated to produce, would doubtless be greatly aggravated, by the consciousness that Great Britain, by ortlor in council, qpened her colonial ports to Russia aud Franco, no: Ythstanding a similar omission en their part to accept thu terms offered by the act of July 1825.”— He then says, “ You cannot ptess this view of the subject too earnestly, <$■<:.— lOOO 924 i 900 , 875 864 815 800 722 716 " 649 637 600 VJ-wn- Dott Joso Xafre, Samuel Slierweed, > Jiimt^J’ciisoui, • ... Cropper, Beusou aud Co. Robert Phitipr, Gen. Sir Wrn. Keppel, Ann Redfcen, . - Mnj. Gen. Macdonald, . Mis. Condelnriji itell, f-ord Erie Reery, John Vim Harzo, James H. William l*. and Wm. H. An derson, ' . . . 550 Thus. P. Acklamf, . . 540 Thomas Sexton, . . 538 James Brown, Leeds, -. . 537 Edward Ball Hughes, . 510 Sir Edwntd Tucker, 502 J. L. Lane, 500 E. Stoth, 500 Lt. Gen. Sir MurmcduKe W. Pcn- cqcke floo John Overend, 500 Hudson Gurney,' 500 R. and J. T. Barclay, 600 Sir Culin and Sir Richard II. Camp bell, ' 371 Rov. George Gordon, D. D. Dean of Lincoln, 3H James Dunlap, 000 There are 30 or 40 others, besides those we have enumerated, holding from 300 to 500 shares. The whole number j of foreign stockholders is 470. is—you cannot ton earnestly press the The amount of hills diseoont- consideraiiou, that if Gicut Britain per sists in 11 course so unwiso and untenable, she will excite 11 most unfavorable tone uf feeling in The United Stales, tte. Sc.c.— This,Sir., is obviously tiro true senso of tlto pussttge, jvheii taken in toitnewion ed by the Bank and its branches on personal se- corilics, is $43,758,570 34 Bills discounted on funded debt 18,830 00 Do. on'Bank stock, 731,137 5‘3 villi what preceded it ; tntrl litis is not on- | Domestic bills uf lax ly proper, but strong language. And yet i change, by omitting tlto preceding sentence, tlto | Mortgages, cited passage is mailo to mean that Mr. i McLane could not “ press 100 earnestly t Total, on the British ministry,” the coarse which j Doe from Stale Banks, (lie present administration bail taken iu j 16,691,129 34 205,396 66 $66,405,103 87 3,944.847 74 Tl/o domestic stockholders of the Bank the former controversy. Ilfs ilttc,. how- J arfe, ns wo count them, 3602 in number, over, to Mr.. Webster to s:iv, that lie rath or insinuates than alleges fiitt this is the meaning of the secretary; but one of tiis associates, Mr. Chambers, gives it this, version, nnd dwells on it nt length. Its injustice is palpable and gluring. The last quotation made by Mr. Web ster for the purpose of sustaining the char ges ho hud made, is from the close of the despatch, and is in the following <vords: “ I will add nothing as to the impropriety of suffering any feelings Heat find their or igin in the past pretensions of this gov ernment, to have an adverse influence u- pon the present conduct of Great Britain." On (hit lie asks whether it be statesman ship? or digait}/ or elevated regard country? And ho sums up his judgement of tlto whole document, in the following enquiry: “ Can any man tend this whole, despath, with candor, nnd not admit that it is plainly und manifestly the writer’s object to gam credit with the Btitish min istry for the present administration, at the expense of tho past?” And he submits in conclusion, tlmt tlto pervading topic through the whole is, “ not American rights, not American interests, not Ameri can defence, hut denunciation of past pxi- leusioos of our own country, icflectioits en tho past administration, and exulta tion, mid loutl claim of merit, fur thu ad ministration now in power." I have now read 10 you nil fire proofs adduced by Mr. Webster; and every pas sage of his comments, which is material to u proper understanding of the grounds of his decision The remainder of his re marks— with lite single exception of the sickly nmnner, in which ho talks of the "duty" the “unpleasant duty," the “ most unpleasant duty of his publi —is precisely what it should have been, if tlto statements made and the censures be stowed, in the former part of his address, had been correct nnd just. I have proved by evidence which can neither he icpcllcd nor evaded, in respect to all the special circumstances relied upon by the honorable Senator, that his statements are palpably incorrect, mid his censures as palpably un just. 1 confess, sir, (hat it is to me mujl- tnr both of astonishment tint) regret, tlmt a Senator whoso tiifiurts nnd reputation are even among his compeers so “ juoudlv residing in the following States. Tho given in the second column. Smtes. No. of No. of Stochholder*. Shines. Maine, 14 498 Vermont, 2 27 New Hampshire, 24 *301 f Besides Bos- 1 Mass. J ton, 53 > 11,173 ( Boston, 158 j Connecticut, 60 1,539 Rhode Island, 36 1,218 l Besides tho 1 N. York, ( city, 69 } 30,881 t Citv, 373 ) Neiv Jersey, 75 .2,787 Penntylvniiia, 872 51,028 Delaware, 42 1,531 t Besides ) Maty land, / Balt. 119 V 34,235 1 Ball. 505 J District of Coluuib). 61 2,725 V irginin, 263 11,617 North Carolina, 36 2,391 ( Besides Charles 1 S. Car. ^ ton. 176 / 40,242 f Charleston , 354) G eorgin, 42 1,981 Ohio, 14 55 6 Kentucky, 22 , 252 Tennessee, r> 258 Indiana, 2 50 1 Hindis, 2 167 Louisiana, 17 119 Arkansas, , 1 42 Dorn. Shareholders,3602 slimes, 195,620 For. Shareholders 470 United States, 70,000 In transitu between the differ- ent Transfer Offices, 325 Total, 350,000 These, nt $100 each, make the amount of capital, viz : $35,000,000. Present premium per share, $122 1-8 to $124 1-4.. Some of the largest domestic stockhol ders arc us fullutvs: Sharps. Stephen Girard, 6331 Cbmles Carroll, of Carrollton, 2683 Robert Ralston, of Philadelphia, 2026 Wm. J. Barksdale, Virginia-,. Bernard 'M. Carter, Pa. eminent,” should ' liavo perverted his ( Jiiltn Potter, South Carolina, splendid powers, to a work so wicked and j so woak< Wm. (J. Buckuor, New York, Don Francis Layzoir, do. Peior Harmony, do. Lewis Kershaw & Co. S. C. John G. Coster, Now York v Mills Smith, do. From tire New York Journal of Commerce. UNITED STATES BANK. We have before us a repoit from the Secretary of the Treasury, dated Jan. 23d, j Lemuel Taylor, MJ. in compliartce with a resolution ol’tho Sen- | Uendeninp, N. Y. ate, directing him to cmnitiiinicnlo, if'able, j Don Francis do L»zua, do. a list of the foreign stork-holders in said ~ Bank—-the amount of debts duo the Bank nod its Branches from individuals anil bo dies corporate—a list of the Directors of lire Bank tint! its several Branches—the names of domestic stockholders, with the amount held by each and their places of residence. Tho Secretary of iho Treasu ry uot having in his possession thu means of answering these inquiries, addressed a note to the President of the Bank, solici ting the information, which was promptly furnished. It appears that the amount of stock held hy foreigners is 84,055 shares; equal to $8,405,500, without including the premi um. The heaviest foreign stockholders are as follows. Baring, Brothers'& Co, Johu Marshall, Charles Dixon, shares 7915 3078 2500 It. & J. Bohicii, S. C. DHuiel C. Verplank, N. Y-. Stephen Itnlklcy, S. C. II. Brown, N. C. Wm. Patterson, Md. Robert Gilmore, do. Mrs. Ann Dontieii, do. Prime, Ward & Ktug, N. Y. Win. Coleman, Pa. John Gibbs, do. Brown, Brothers & Co. N. Y- Thomns C. Vandorhout, S. C. Janies Do Wolf, Wm. Brown, Pa. Gardner Greene, Boston, Col. Wm. Alston, S. C. 1500 1417 1400 116S 1150 957 942 900 875 860 850 850 839 805 800 787 730 : 703 700 683 680 650 650 638 632 630 Jbo - ^600 [* There appears to bo a mistake imfne nnm- berof shares owned in Now Ilnmpsfire. which shoald be bit instead of 301, and rfconns the footing would be aflbeted accordingly—leaving tv hrssatumrp. in transitu.—F.its, J/ur. of Cum.