The Sun.
London, England, 1827-01-11 00:00:00

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.

(From the National latelligewer.)

OFFICIAL PAPERS 07 OUR attATtoxeYelTH (MEAT BRITAIN.

LOC umEN'TS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (ACCOMPANYING

•
THE PRESIDENT'S 3tESSAOT►.)
MR. GALLATIN. TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
• LONDON, 22d 11/PM:MICR, 1826.
I havt.the_lionour to enclose the copy Of my answer to Mr.
Canning's note of the 11-th inst., relating to the Order in Council
if 27th.of July last • •

-MR. GALLATIN TO MR, CANNING.
...,
The undersigned, 'Envoy Extraordinary intl Minister .Pleni-
potentiary of the. United States of America, has the honour to
acknowledge the receipt of the note of the 11th instant, addressed
to him ;by Mr. Canning, his Majesty's principal. Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, in answer to that of the undersigned of
the 26th 'ultimo-, 'on the subject of the Order.in Council of the
27th of, July. -
.. . -
The undersigned 'apprehends that the object of his note of the-
26th ultimii, May not have been altogether understood. It was
not his .intention to make on that occasion a full exposition,
much less to argue in Support-of either his own opinions or those
of his GOvernment, upon the whole matter to which the Order in
Council relates.
.. , „ •
of .
..
His opinion of the character the colonial trade did not enter
into tbe.view he was taking of the subject. He is not aware to
have expresied that of his 'Government upon any other point than
that of thipreference it gave to an arrangement by treaty, to re-
gulations respectively enacted by each country.
The arguments ascribed to him Seem' to he rather inferences to
which he might not have obicted, did be not feel bound to dis-
claim -any intention
.on his part to have suggested what the
British Government ought to have done; an expression applicable
only to the case of:an alleged iiiolaticer of a positive or -implied
obligation. -
. .
The...object drthe note of the undersigned was simply what it
purported to be : to express his regret that, under existing cir-
cumstances,
the Order in Council should have been issued ; and
to avow his inability td discover its motive. . Thit has now been
frankly and distinctly explained by Mr. Canning. And the prin-
cipal error which pervades the note of the undersigned, is, that he
had supposed that the intercourse between the United States and
I the Coionles of Great Britaiewaii still considered as beneficial to
her; thiehe was wholly- unaware that the interdict on that inter-
course in''' American -vessels was founded in considerations of a
general nature, and connected with an intention not to renew, at
I least for the present, the negociations on this subject.
It is true, that the undersigned had overlooked the fact, that,
since the sth January, 1826, the indirect intercourse was allowed
in American, and forbidden in. British vessels ; and to that extent
his assertion of a perfect equality existing between the vessels of
both nations was erroneous ; though in reality the want of equality
in that respect May have been-compensated by other restrictions
are! charges imposed nn American vessels.
The undersigned has it not in his power to assign the reasons
why the provisions of the Act of Congress, of 1823, relating to
that indirect intercourse, have been continued in force, after the
corresponding restrictione.of Great Britain had been removed, so
far as related to foreign countries. It is not improbable that the
attention of the Government of the United States having been
principally turned to the general question, whether it was not most
eligible,that the trade should be regulated by treaty, or by the re-
spective Imei-of the tWo countries, the fact that -this particular
restriction had been thus itevoked by the Act of Parliament of
1825, rnay, have escaped its notice.
The communication made in the latter part of Mr. Canning.*
Note of the intentions of the British Government, would not seem,
considered alone, to impose any other duty on the undersigned,
than to transmit it to his own. Brit it is accompanied by various
observations, one of which, at least, has almost the appearance of
a charge against the Government of the United States, and it may
not be improper far the undersigned to avail himself of the oppor-
tunity thus afforded, once more to state the view of the whole
subject, which is entertained by the United States.
Great Britain laserts, as clear and undoubted the right to give
to the United States, or to withhold from them, the privilege of
trading with her West India colonies,, to reserve to herself that
tradec-and.generally to open _the ports. o 1 those colonies to Foreign
Powers, or- keep„them. closed; as may twit her own convenience,
wholly or -partially; nnt'onditionally or Conditionally, and if con--
, ditionally, on what conditions she pleases. • •
Atan abstract andsfneral pfnifOsitiOn;• the right is not denied;
but considered purely .as a matter of right, this, which is ari- attri-
bute of sovereign+y,- applies 'to `all' other territories as well as to:
colonies.
Every nation-has the abstract right generally, and not in refer-
we to her colonies alone, ,to tio- or open her ports to foreign
vessels or merchandixei and 'to grant the indulgence wholly or
partially, conditionally:or unconditionally. This right has been,
andmintinties to be, exetcised occasionally by every nation, in the
shape of navigation, prohibitory, 'scut restrictive laws, operating_
waequally'On different nations. * - , . .
The real distinction between-the:trade of foreigners with co-
lonies, and that With other territories, seems to consist-not-in a
greater or lss complete right, but in a difference in the usage and
' practice. It has long since been found; that if commerce with
, foreign nations %cal advantageous, it was necessary, in order to
', enjoy it, to suffer them to participate in it.
That an exclusive monopoly of the colonial trade was not the
• };fit mode of preserving colonies, or of prompting their prosperity,
,•is a resent discovery : but since the late final separation of the
~ greater part 91 the continent of America from the mother cont.
tries, and now that more enlightened views prevail, as respects
the remaining colonies; the former peculiar character of the co-
lonial trade is almost lost. The abstract right being the same,
and the ancient system of colonial policy having been nearly aban-
doned; it is difficult to perceiVe any striking difference between
the trade with the colonies, and that with the mother country.
' 'Thtsie are general observations; draw 4 from the undersigned
by the repeated referencia to- an abstract right, which is not ques-
i. .
ooned, and by the effort to oonsider still the commerce with co-
'x, 1 ors;:es as essentially differing- from every other. But the inter-
: entusel-mtween - the United States e.,nd the British West Indies,
has, in fact, always been considered hy-Liagt parties as of a pe-
''. mbar character, which diStinguished it from every ogler species
.1
of colonial trade ; and the declarations of the United Stales to
t participate in that commeree, are of a much earlier date than
Mr. Canning seems to have been awat'a of.
As early as the year 1783, the Governmeet of Great Britain,
;4,
, deviating from thatpriociple of the colonial system, eeeerding to
it' which her colonies were prohibited from trading directly with any
o' other country, allowed her West India Colonies to trade directly
r with the United States of Anierica, in British vessels, This per-
'. rili*siOn. had been -continued almost without any interruption till
, the yeii 1822, when a more extensive change in the colonial policy
superseded-that partial measure. 'And timing the European war,
Great Britain found it convenient [not] occasionally, hut repeat-
edly, to open her West India ports to American Vessels; at the
-.'l said, time that.she was asserting- the principle, uniformly denied
i; /,,,
.the Uni.ted States, that a neutral was not authorised by the
i'llis.,f, nations to carry ottin time of war a trade with a colony
it, wele,t, he was not
Had great
I
the intercourse h. permitted to participate iri time of peace. ,
Britain; adhering to-her colonial system, interdicted.
,together, andalWays, in war as in poace; in Bri-
tish as well as in An.:,"ie•ao veSsels.,ne claim:on AU subject would
or could have been adv,:tlc. by-the United" States. But that
trade having been allowed is Great Britain; it may be said, from
the beginning, and at all times; ne:;,itne thereby so far assimilated
tcrthat with her European don inioni,s,at the Ueited States did.
, thittli" that they haft the same claim to a parilripation in both.—
-, The serious difficulties in which they were invelved more than
. pretensions of ' Great Britain to adhere t'a what hart
once; by the ' Years' War, rendered 4' alto
t been called the rule of the Seven
.; questionable whether it might not be better policy_tu reject, in
, . time of war, a trade which Was not allowed in time "pf peace ; or
to claim iii time of peace, that which was allowed in time of war...
The United States always dill believe thst the compensation for
as 4 boon, was found
what Great Britain considers as a corti:essig.Th
, in the advantages resulting to her front the trade itself, . And
tt
must not be forgotten that sh,,. as well as all other nations, parti-
cipates gratuitouly in- the 'trade of countries Which, as colonies,
were till lately closed
to foreigners, which, had they (Allen into.
V`
'ter hands, would.have still been 'considered as such, and whifht
Vs by their incorporation with the United States, have been thrown
$ open to the world. Indeed, had Louisiana he' longed .to any other
I; country, and been its only colony, the admission therein of 13460
vessels and commerce, as contemplated by the Act of Parliament
of 1825, would alonehave been sufficient to extend to such country
the privileges offered on certain conditions by that Act. - .
' ' Taking all the facts and circernstanceswhich have been stated
: into consideration, the United Statee• have been of opinion 'that
they might, without violating the regard due to the usages and
•', opinions of others, claim to treat on that subject a, is, that of any
other commercial iutercourse, awl On the basis of equal and reels
proeal conditions.
The claim "has accordingly been brought forward, and con-
e- sidered by both parties as • a fit subject for negotiation, 40tn the
'. time v-hen any intercourse of a commercial nature first commenced
between the two countries.
" An'article on that subject Made part of the Treaty of 179*,
i " hut was found so inadequate, and-was accompanied by such rer.
. striefient and conditiOlie, 'as, to lance the United States to reject
it, at the risk of losin; the whole Treaty.
The 6th article of the unratified Treaty of 1806 stated, that

" the high contracting parties, not haring been able to arrange at
present, by treaty, any commercial intercourse between the ter-
ritories of the United States and hii Majesty's islands and ports in
the West Indies,.agree, that, until that subject shall be regulated
in'asatisfactory manner, each of the parties shall remain in the
complete possesscon of its rights in respect to such an intercourse."
A similar reservation of rights made part of the Convention of
1815, renewed and prolonged in 1818.
In the negotiation of 1818, and in a very subsequent one re-
lating to the-colonial intercourse, the determination of the United
States to conclude no arrangement, unless founded on a fair reci-
procity, has been distinctly avowed. The undersigned had always
understood, that, Lawyer differing as to the extent of the inter-
course and other important points, that basis had not been objected
to on the part of Great Britain.
Every article, indeed, proposed then or since by her-bas the
appearance of that character ; and the preamble of the counter-
project offered on the 4th of June, 1824, by the British Plenipo-
tentiaries, states,. that .4 his Britannic Majesty and the United
States of America being desirous to regulate, by mutual agree-
ment, and on principles of just reciprocity, the trade now open
under their respective laws, between the tufted States and.the
British Colonies in North America and the' West Indies, have,"
&c. &c.

The ad. proposed article again declares it to be " the desire and
intention of the high contracting parties to place the trade in
question on. a footing
.ofjust reciprocity."
It is believed that the_ difficulties which have prevented an ar-
rangement satisfactory to both parties, have been wholly uncon-
nected with questions of abstract right ; that they may, espe-
cially at first, have arisen, in part, from a reluctance, on the part
of Great Britain,-to depart too widely from her colonial policy;
that so far from being due to any objection to the principle of re-
ciprocity, they had lately originated principally in a mutual ap-
prehension thidthespropOsals of the other party were a departure
from that principle. The failure of an attempt to make an,ami-
cable arrangement, left each party to pursue its .:own.
-- course.
'And the natural consequence has been„ that the measures
adopted by either may not have been always satisfactory.to the
other; that occasionally they may have been carried beyond
what the occasion required. A discussion of all that 'his been'
done in that respeet, on both sides, would, at present, be unpro-
fitable. The undersigned will. confine his observation,' to those
enactment's which appear to have been most 'obnoxious to Great
Britain, and are Co be foUnd in the Act of Congress of 1823.
The first is the provision of that Act, whereby discriminating
duties on British vessels and merchandise, coming from the
British Colonies, were not to cease until it was ascertained that
no higher duties were levied in the said colonies, on American
vessels'and merchandise, than upon British vessels and like mer-
chandise imported from elsewhere, that is to say, from other
British territories, as well as from other countries. That provi-
sion might appear unusual and objectionable, but might have been
expected.
The principle was implied in the article proposed by the Ame-
rican Plenipotentiaries in 1818, at which time the object was ex-
plicitly stated and discussed; and it was distinctly expressed in
another article proposed by the United States, as supplementary
to the Convention of 1818, and delivered on the 15th Juxe, 1819,
to Lord Castlereagh, by Mr. Rush.
Prior to the time when protecting duties were laid upon Ame-
rican produce, imported into the British West Indies, the United
States had made proposals, intended either to prevent that contin-
gency, or tcr'reserve the right of countervailing the protecting by
discriminating duties. After the protecting duties had been ac-
tually laid by the Act.. of Parliament of 1822, they did, on the
same ground, continue those alien duties, which, on at-count of
the other provisions of that Act, would otherwise have been re-
voked.

That claim, on their part, was at all times considered as inad-
missible by the British Government. It was always said that
every country had a right to protect its own produce—that Great
Britain would-protect that of her colonies—that the demand of
America was more founded in reasnn or usage than if the Bri-
tish Government should ask that the sugar of her colonies should
he placed- by the:United States, as respected duties, on the same
footing as that of Louisiana.
To this it was answered, that.the general principle advanced by
Great Britain was unquestionable ;
.hut that, so long as she regu-
lated the colonial trade on principles 'different from those WhiCh
she applied to the commerce with her. European territories, so long
as she did not treat them.as integral. parts, but as dependencies of
her empire, the United States...mint necessarily consider them, in a
commercial point of view as distinct countries.
Mr. Canning .has deemed it necessary to say, that it cannot be
.supposed that; ,Great Biitain had precluded herself from extend=
ing to other nations the privilege of trading with the British
West Indies, in.the first instance granted in effect exclusively to
the United 'Stites ; a supposition which certainly never was
made; .and he had added, that the question was now no longer
as in 1820 oi 10.2, between.the United states and Giest-Britain
but between her and all the :nations of the ~ Old and New World
tO all of whom she bad tendered access to her Celpniee. Whether
this last measure Should produce any change in the policy of
Gieat Britain towards the United States, is, of course, a ques-
tion for her to decide. .As-respects them, so far from thinking
themselves affected by the opening of the British Colonies to
other foreign nations, so far from considering this as interfering
with their commerce, or, in any way, as a subject of apprehen-
sion, they have bailed that measure as an important step towards
that entire freedom of trade, which it is their interest and their
avowed wish should become universal. And •censidering that
the British Colonies had been thus, in a commercial point of
view, nearly aSsitailited•to the mother country, and might no
longer be viewed as distinct countries, it became one of the prin-
cipal motives for authorising the undersigned to desist from the
ground heretofore assumed, on the subject of the protecting
duties laid by Great Britain on the produce of the United States,
imported into her COlonies, and thereby to remove the principal
obstacle which had, till then, prevented an amicable arrangement
on the subject of the Colonial Trcde. It is hardly necessary to
add, that the instructions which gave that authority were drawn
at a time when there was not the least expectation, on the part of
the GOvernment of the United States, that it was intended by that
of his Majesty's to interdict the intercourse, and to decline the re-
newal of the negotiations pp that point.
The other enactment of the Act of Congress of 1823, on which

Mr. Canning has especially animadverted is; that which forbids

. .
apy British vessel, unless having come directly from the British
West India Colonies, to clear from a port of the United States to

, . .
any of those colonies. It is said that this right has been denied

to Great Britainhy. the United States, not perhaps in contrad
tion to the letter, but undoubtedly in deviatson from the spirit, of
the frgaty,of 1815. Such wious charge the undersigned-is bound
to repel,
The argument adduced in support of that assertion, rests on the
gratuitous supposition that the privilege which, before the Con-
vention: of 1815, British vessels, coming from other ports than
the British West.lodis Colonies, enjoyed, to clear from a port of
the United. States to those colonies, was a right instead of a per-
-mission; which, indeed, was not granted to them especially, but
which they-had, in. common with all other vessels, from whatever
port they mighthave
come, The United States bad the undoubted
right to grant or to withhold that permission ; and, in that,-as in
every other case where the right was not restricted by treaty, to
regulate the intercourse in foreign vessels between their ,qwn and
foreign territories, of every description, as inited their' 'conve-
nience. AO this general right, which existed before 'the Con-
vention of 1815; was, by that compact, preserved expressly, and
without exception, as respected the intercourse between the tnited
States and the British West Indies.
The indirect intercourse alluded to, is so intimately connected
with the trade in general, that a reservation, whereby the United
States, whilst allowed to forbid the direct intercourse, would have
been bound to permit it to be carried on indirectly in British yes:.
sell, lOW haVe been useless and nugatory. Since -British
-having, lifthia'resipt, a decided advantage over American vessels,
voyages which they may make from
on account of the ctrcuitnnl
nOarl to the United States and thence tp the West IDdia Colo.-
flies, i; was precisely the branch of the trade against which it was
most important for the United States to preserve the right.
That right was actually enforced under the American Naviga-
ticn Art of 1813, without being objected to, or being made a bar
to negociation.s, When the general restrictions of thiT. Act were
repealed by the Act pf -1823, this particular provision was in
sabstance retained; and the undersigned understands that his
Majesty's Minister at Washipgtop objected to it, not as being a
deviation frnin the Convention, but because he erroneously be-
lieved that it had opt- its' ponnterpart in the Acts of Parliament
then in force. • In 1821 the provision appears to have been ad-
verted tp by the British Plenipotentiaries, only for the purpose of
remarking that it confined British vessels to a direct trade, in the
same manner as.
American vessels were restricted by the Act pf
Thirliament, and'even to a greater degree.
It may be here observed, that neither this, nor any other pro-
vision of the Act of Congress of 1823, would, at this time, have
intei.mg, any obstacle to the favourable issue of a negotiation
between the United States and the British
But, as the preliminary condition, without
urolontiehse.
Which the British Government cannot consent to. enter intp any
Feriewfrd peioc iation on that subject, the undersigned is at a hots
how to construe it. 4 cannot seriously be expected by his Ma-
jesty's Geyernment that the Pr4,tetl Stites, even if it had pot been
mentioned as a preliminary condition, should repeal their restric=
tinns on British vessels, when not only the intercourse is altoge-
ther prohibited in American shipping, but when they are with

frankness informed that a removal of that interdict will not, as a
matter of course, follow such repeal on their part. What renders
that allusion to a repeal of the enactments of the Act of 1828,
still less intelligible (it perhaps only affords au additional proof
that both Governments may occasionally overlook some of the
provisions contained in the laws of the other), is, that it is provided
by the 6th section of that Act, that it shall cease to operate if at
any time the intercourse in American vessels should be prohibited
by a British Order in Council,"or Act of Parliament, and that, in
such case, the Acts of Congress of 1812 and 1820 shall revive and
he in full force. That contingency has actually taken place. As
a natural consequence of the Order ire Council, the Act of 1823
ceases to be the law of the United States after the Ist of Decem-
ber next ; and the Act which Mr. Canning allows to have been
justified will again revive.
The intercourse, direct and indirect, will then he prohibited
by the laws of both countries. Where there is no commerce,
there can be no discriminating or other duties. The two coun-
tries will again be placed, as respects that intercourse, in the
same situation in which they were before the Act of Parliament
of 1822, and that of Congress of 1823.
If there is any difference, it Will consist in this ; the right of
Great Britain, both to decline to negociite, and to continue her
interdict of the intercourse, even if the United States should ac-
cede to the conditions of the Act of Parliament in 1825, is incon-
testible. The undersigned begs leave, however, to suggest, that
an• Act excluding the United States from a trade open to the rest
of the world, is, as a permanent measure, of adifferent character
from a general exclusion, of all foreign nations.
The undersigned requests Mr. Canning to accept the assurance
of his high consideration. ALBERT GALLATIN.
Upper Seymour-street, Sept. 22; 1826.

FOREIGN 'INTELLIGENCE.

FR F,NC H PAPERS.

(From the. Etat'le, dated gruesday, Jana 9.)
" MADRID. DEC. 29.,--The drought during the autumn, and
:he intense cold we have had since the beginning of the winter,

have caused a great, number of disorders, chiefly fluxions, diar-
rhceas, and measles. , For these three months past the mortality
has 'been terrible. The Count de Puebla del Maestre, formerly
Ambassador at Paris, has just lost his sister, at the age of twenty-
four years ; and..the young Marchioness de Villa Franca, daughter
of the Marchioness of Santa Cruz, equally distinguished by. her
beauty and amiable disposition, is in the greatest danger.
" It is said that the Count d'Ofalia, who was intended to go
as Ambassador from Spain to London, has declined that post,
which is now of such importance, declaring that he would rather
return to Grenada, to continue the superintendence of the Royal
road from Andalusia to Madrid, and the canal from Motril to
Grenada, as he has been ordered, to do by a Royal Commission.
" His Eminence the Bishop of Chile, the capital of Chili, has
just arrived in this capital, having been taken out of his bed and
his palace at midnight about eleven months ago, placed with his
secretary and an attendant in a carriage, and conducted to the
port of Valparaiso. He was embarked on board a crazy dis-.
masled vessel, and conveyed to Acapulco : he was conveyed from
Acapulco to, the extremity of the Mexican States, without pass-
ing through Mexico or any other town, then sent to New York,
and then embarked for Havre, whence he proceeded to Rouen,
Paris, and Madrid, where he arrived a few days ago. This ve-
nerable Prelate is seventy-three years, of age, and has been a
Bishop twelve years. He was born, brought up, and passed his
whole life in Chili, but the revolutionists would not let him die
there.

" Our correspondent at Grenada informs us, that on the 14th
there were several shocks of an earthquake, the first of which (a
very violent one) took place between four and five in the morning,
threw several of the inhabitants out of their beds, awakened them
all, and made them leave their houses. This shock was followed
at short intervals by five others legs violent, and tranquillity was
restored ; but at eight in the evening there was a terrible one,
which threw the whole city into consternation, and induced many
persons to leave it.
PARIS, JAN. 8. —The English journals of the 6th, received by
express, bring the news of the death of the Duke of York. This
event, though long anticipated, hae yet caused a great sensation in
England.. . , , • .
-" The post from-Lyons, whick,ought to haye arrived at Paris
.on the 7th, at five o'clock in the rpgrning, did riot arrive till the
Sth, at 1 L o'clock in the mornjng, . It was stopped' between
Painhouchinand St. Semphorien.de-Laye by such a great falt of
snow, that it was 26 hours in proceeding three leagues.
" The Aristarque announces to :its subscribns, that it will
cease to appear to-morrow. The subscribers may receive their
:money hack by applying before the 1 stof February.
(From the Constitutionnel.)
(PRIVATE MR.RESPONUENCE.)
" MAnein, DEc. 28:—The negociations hitherto have been
confined to' requiring our Government to agree that the Portu-
guese 'refugees shall tio longer be- received- in the Spanish territo-
ries, and that those who are Already there shaU be disarmed, and
sent to the left banlcutthe Ebro. In the mean time England ap-
pears satisfied witioth6restilt of. the negociations, for Mr. Lamb,
her Ambassador, has again appeared atCourt, *here his presence
on Christmas-day excited considerable surprise.
" The Swiss troops at Madrid have already received three pair
of shoes each man, in order to be ready to march, and the baggage
of this brigade is already packed up.
" As to the corps of observation destined for the frontiers, it is
much more numerous than was believed, for instead of 7,000 men
which were at first spoken of, it will be raised to 16,000 men of
all arms. Although General Rodil has already set out for the
head quarters at Valencia d'Alcantara, his appointment is only pro-
visional, at least he is named ad interim in the decree ; but we
are in the habit of seeing public functionaries appointed ad interim
continue to hold their places for several years. However, it may
be right to remark that General Sarsfield, who it is said is des-
tined to command the corps of observation, has been sent for by
express to Madrid.
" The troops for the division of observation continue in move-
ment ; six pieces of artillery of The guard were sent off yesterday,
and a battalion of artillery of the line left Segovia on the 25th.

" In general, it would appear' that the troops of the line must
be employed in very small numbers as part of the division, which
for the greater part will consist of corps of the guard and provin-
cial militia, to which this preference is given, because the troops of
the line are of the same opinion's as the Apostolicals. It is this
which make 4 Government fearful of concentrating a large body of
them on one point.
" The news of the disembarkiitien of the English troops at Lis-
bon
arrived here on the evening. of the 'sth, and was officially
communicated by Mr. Lamb"t6 M. Sairrion on the following day..
We are assured that when the fortner heard the circumstance, he
cried out They. will not reimbark so.speedily.'
" There are in circulation here manuscript copies of a letter
addressed, it is said, by the Princess Regent to the Queen her
mother, stating that she had been compelled by circumstances to
accept the Presidency of the Government; but that in a short
time the Marquis de Chaves wnidd deliver them- both from the
restraint in which they were placed. Although it has been
hawked about almost publicly, the 'police have done nothing to
hinder the ciiculation of this apocryphal writing, or 'to discover
its authors.
4, The folliiwing ritract from the Portuguese` Journal 1.11.4 pa-
r will serve to convey a just idea of the Apostolicals of whom
the Marquis de Chaves is the iflstrument :
" The rebels commit the greatest atrocities in Tras-os-pontes
they brutally violate wives an&daughters, in the presence of their
husbands and fathers, and afterwards assassinate the one and the
other, Several unfortunate beings have been impaled.'
" The officers and non-commissioned officers who have been
made prisoners in Tras-os-Montes, .have been conducted into
Spain, bound and fastened together like felOns.
" It appears, however, according to the letters which we re-
ceive from the Portuguese frontiers, that these crimes are about
to be concluded, for all the letters represent the army of the Mar-
quis de Chaves as in disorder, and as falling back on our frontiers.
" The composer Nlercandante was robbed after leaving Tolosa,
about seven leagues from France."
" Paats, JAN. B.—Our Apostolicals are very angry with
Prussia. They would have paidoned it the armed' invasion of
two or three towns, which mu-sitbelieve themselves French; hut
here is an act of hostility of a much more serious character. The
provincial states of Dusseldorf having been consulted on the ques-
tion, whether it would be proper to restore to the ecclesiastical
authority the keeping of the.registers relating to civil affairs; have
answered is the negative by a majority of 79 votes against one.—
Thus the system which a faction endeavours to introduce into
France is the object of public reprobation in every rational country.
" The petition addressed by the Count de Montlosier, to the
Chamber of Pters was this day published at the same time with
the justificatory memorial which precedes it. To the moment
when the Committee ,of the Chamber shall think proper to pub-
lish its report, we refrain from all remarks on these two produc-
tions. Our silence in this respect will be a proof of our respect
for, as well as our entire confidence in, the equity of this noble
and honourable Chamber."

(Prom the Quotidienne.)
PRIVATE CORILESEONDVNCE.
"MADRID, DEC. 29.--,4 Mr. Lamb continues at Madrid, and
potwithstanding his fruitless efforts to obtain a re-orkapization of
the Ministry, there is no reason to believe that he will.spealilf
withdraw from hence. The multiplied checks which this Minister