Newspaper Page Text
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.