Star.
London, England, 1828-08-05 00:00:00

TIM UNITED SIAM Of ANZIJCA AND TUE Balling WIST DIDLA

cowries,
NO. 3.--EARL Or DODLET TO ALBERT GALLATIN, U.
• 'Foreign. Mee. October 1, 18t7.
The andersigued, &c. has the honour of acknow-
ledging the two Official Notes of the 4th of last June,
and the 17th of last August, addressed to him by Mr.
Gall /retie the subject of the intercourse between
the United States aad the Colonial possessions of Great
&judo.

The Note of the 4th of June, although it closed with
a profession of the acquiescence of the American Go-
vernment in the decision of Great Britain, that the in-
tercourse in question should be regulated by mutual
laws rather than by treaty, was yet directed chiefly to
an explanation of certain circumstances in the conduct
of the United States, and did not appear to tbe:uoder-
signed to call for any reply on his part.
In the succceding Note, however, of thel7th of Aug.
the statements and reasonings of the former are fol-
lowed out by Mr. Gallatin into a definite proposition,
undoubtedly requiring from the British Gove:nment a
direct answer. In this Note it is stared that thePreii.
dent of the United States is willing to recommend to
Congress The adoption of certain measures, tending to
re:az the restrictions imposed by the American Legis-
lature itv the intercourse of the United States with the
Britisb Colonies through the medium cf Britislp ships ;
which measures,gr. Gallatin shortly specifics ; and i t
is asked whether, if Congre.s.should, during its next
Session, pass a law to the effect," the Order in Council
of the 27th July, 1826, will be revoked, the discrimi-
nating duties on American vessels in the British Colo-
nies be abolished, and these vessels be allowed to enjoy
the privileges of trade and intercourse with those Colo-
nic., according to the Act of. Parliament of the sth
July, 1825 ?"

It is at the same time observed by Mr. Gallatin, that
tie Government of the United States would have had
no doubt, that on the enactment of such a law by Con-
gress, the interdict laid on American shipping, under
the Act of Parliament of 1825, would be removed as a
matter of coarse, bad not Mr. Canning, in his letter to
Mr. Gallatin of the 11 thSeptember, 1826, declared,
that after having been compelled to apply the interdict
to any country, the British Government cannot hold
itself bound to .remove that interdict as a matter of
course, whenever it may happen to suit the convenience
of the foreign Government to re-consider the measures.
by which the application of that interdict was occasioned.
Mr. Gallatin truly adds, that an Act of Parliament
was afterwards passed, .containing -provisions corre-
sponding with the declaration so made by Mr. Canning.
Thetwidersigned takes pleasure in recognizing, in
bothAtlet letters of Mr. G allatin, and especially in the
inquiry which claws the second if them, the same spi-
rit of good will add conciliation, which, in the midst of
discussions involving ea :marl difference of opinion, has
characterized Mr. Gallatin's correspondence with the
British Government. The undersigned hopes it is un-
necessary to observe that his Majesty's Government is
influenced by the same sentiments, and that although
he thinks himself bound to offer some observations on
topics of debateand conflicting interest, be presents
them with no feelings but such as ought to pervade
'discussions between two nations, allied in origin, and
be trusts he may add, allied also in desire to improve
and strengthen the relations of ancient kindred by mu-
tual offices diastases' and amity.
Connecting together the two notes of Mr. Gallatin,
the topics which they suggest for present consideration
seem to be three.

First, it may be expedient to observe on the declara-
tion which Mr. Gallatin has quoted from Mr. Cloning,
and which-appears to be segardsid .br the Government
of. the United States as a division from what might
hese been anticipated as the natural course of pro-
ceeding.
Secondly, some comment may be offered on the ex-
planation into which Mr. Gallatihz has entered, of the
conduct of the Government snd.the J.egislatuse' of the:
United States, in Wiling to ;he. intercourse with the

British Colonies, under the operation of the Act of
Parliament of July, 11125. •
And this course of observation will naturally intro-
duce into view, in the third place, the proposition
which forms the more immediate subject of the note of
the .17th of August.
1. With regard, to the declaration of Mr. Canning,
the undersigned thinks it not unimportant to remark,
that the sehtiment, which in that declaration Mr. Can-
ning so pointedly expresses, is, in fact, exactly consis-
tent with the general principles always professed by the
British Government on the subject of colonial inter-
course, which principles are expounded in the argument
of Mr. Canning.
The leading position contended for by Mr. Canning
is this, that the exclusion of foreigners from a direct
intercourse with the British colonies, is altogether agree-
able to the received and ordinary doctrines of the colo-
nial policy of modern times.
The established usage of nations possessing colonies
interdicts that intercourse to all.but their own subjects.
If such interdict be in any case relaxed, the case is one
of exception, and if, having once been relaxed, it is re-
enforced, this is but a restoration of the received rule.
Tbe necessary consequence is, that in any instance, not
governed.by special regulation, it would be the conti-
nuance, and not the suspension of the interdict, that
would alone be contemplated as a Witter of course.
In re-asserting these principles, and immediately con-
necting them with the declaration cited from Mr. Can-
ning, it is by no means, the object of the undersigned to
revive a discussion which is already exhausted. He is
desirous only of showing that the reservation which
Mr. Canning for his Government makes, of a discre-
tionary continuance of the interdict in question, in every
case in which it has • been once imposed, is in entire
harmony with the general maxims of colonial policy,
and consequently that the application of the rule, in
any given instance, ought not to be regarded as a pro-
ceeding of a singular, and still less of an unfriendly,
character. • •

2. In this connection, however, the question may
seem to arise, whether the, proceedings of the United
Suites were such as fairly to incur the application of
the interdict in the first instance? The question is, in
fact, involved in the explanations, into which Mr. Gal-
latin has at some length entered, respecting the con-
duct of the United States during the Utile that elapsed
between the passing of the Act of Parliament of July,
1825, and the issuing of the Order in Council of July,
1826. To those explanations the undersigned will next
briar advert.'

The effect of. Mr. Gallatin's argument may perhaps
be thus exhibited.

Admitting that, after the British .Statute of Jll7,
1825, was passed, the United States ought to have done
certain acts to bring themselves within the benefit of
that Statute, yet the omission by the United States to
do those acts was not (as she risish Government sup-
posed, when it issued the Ord* in Council of 1826), an
advised and deliberate proceeding, but was the result
of an erron-ous impression respecting the views and in-
tendons ache British Government; and hence there
may appear some ground-for a revision of the British
Order in Council, that measure having, in truth, been
resorted to under the influence of a reciprocal mistake.
•In commenting on this argument, it is not necelsary
to inquire whether, on the supposition that the error or
inadvertence of the United States had been occasioned
lay some default on the part of the British Government,
that Government would have been under an equitable
obligation to reconsider the steps it bad taken, in igno-
rance of such error or inadvertence. There is, in fact,
no room fit any such supposition.
Deeply as Great Britain must regret the misappre-
hensions, whatever they might he, under which the
United States acted, she cannot in justice charge herself
with having occasioned them. She cannot but think
that a fair opportunity was afforded to the American
Government and people to avail themselves, if they
thought fit, of the provisions of the Act of July, 1825,
and the term ot that option having expired, she cannot
conceive herselt called upon to retract, as a matter of
course, the measures which, under the actual circum-
stances in which she foural herself placed, she was led
to adopt, on a matter so peculiarlz within her exclusive
contrcul as the trade of her own Colonies.
It may be proper, however, to examine this object a
little more particularly. From the statement of Mr.
Gallatin, it appears that the omission of the United
States to comply with the conditions prescribed by the
Act of July 1825, is resolvable into two causes: First,
neither the Government nor the Congress rightly un-
derstood those conditions, the interpretation of which,
indeed, is represented to be matter of much difficulty:
secondly, the Government; and probably the. ongress
also, entertained an opinion, that Great Britain did net
mean, to affect the United States by the Act of July
1825, but intended to arrange the intercourse of that
country with the British Colonies by negotiation.
Mr. Gallatin is also at pains, on t :is part of the sub-
ject, to explain the proceedings in the American House
of Representatives, respecting the Bill for the repeal of
' the discriminating duties on goods imported in British
vessels from the British colonies. The Bill, he observes,
was not, as Mr. Canning had supposed, rejected ; it was,
by a majority of two votes, ordered to lie on the table,
which would not have the effect of preventing the House
from proceeding with it on any future day; though,
either on account of the lateness of the Session, or what
is more probable, from reliance on the succes tul issue
of negotiations, the consideration of it was not, in fact,
resumed.
To begin with the point last mentioned. Mr.
Gallatin, on the nature and effect of the proceedings in
the House of Representatives, is, of course, an authority,
beyond exception. Even op that authority, however; it
appears that the Bill in question was dropped delibe-
rately; for it was disposed of after a keen contest, and
was never revived ; a mode of treating it, which, judging
from analogous proceedings in the Legislative Assem-
blies of this country, can hardly be 'regarded otherwise
than as an effectual, though an indirect, rejection.
But whatever construction may be put on the fate of
that abortive measure, this, at least, may be asserted,
that the Copra', having during a whole Session bad
the subject under consideration, designedly omitted to
legislate in reference to the British Act of July, 1825.
The teasoas assigned for that omission are next to be
.considered.

Mr. Gallatin very clearly states, that the conditions
on which it was intended, by the Act of July, 1825, to
open the Colonial trade to American ♦essels, were not
,disiactlY uuderstood the Uaited States ; but wbat

was the precise nature of the difficulty experienced in
construing those conditions, the undersigned has not
been able to collect. For, with regard to the specific
doubts which Mr. Gallatin mentions as attaching to the
meaning of the Act, these he seems to state, ratheras
suggesting themselves to his own mind, on a ♦iew of the
provisions of the Act, than as the recorded grounds of
the perplexity felt by the American Government or
Legislature.
A full exposition of those doubts V 7114, in fact, given
by Mr. Gallatin, in his note to Mr. Canning of the 28th
December, 1826, and that exposition is, by reference,
embodied in the note now under consideration, of the
4th June, in which last note Mr. Gallatin observes, that
no explanation in respect to those doubts has ever been
given by his Majesty's Government.
The portion of the Act to which the remarks of Mr.
Gallatin apply, is the condition on which the intercourse
with the British Colonies is opened to other countries
possessing colonies of their own—namely, that they
shall place the commerce and navigation of this coun-
try, and of its pssessions abroad, upon the footing of
the most favoured nation.

Without meaning to admit or to deny the justice of
Mr. Gallasi s's criticism on that clause, the undersigned
bears a willing tribute to its force and ability; but the
question, after all, is, whether the clause referred to,
threw such a practical difficulty in the way of A raericaq
Legislation on the subject, as to account for the OW
inaction of the Congreis of the. United States? And to
this question the last note of Mr. Gallatin (that is the
no'e of the 17th August,) presents a conclusive. answer.
It there appears that, notwithstanding those un-
explained.doubts, the American Government has,fuund
no difficulty in tendering to the. British Government
the passing of certain specific enactments by Congress
as the condition contemplated by the Act of July, 1252.5,
that is, as the very condition which appeared so ince-
plicable.

Not only so, but it is observed in that note (as has
already been mentioned), that had it not been f.ir Mr.
Canning's decimation to the contrary effect, rr the Go-
vernment of the United States would have had no doubt
that, upon the passage of any ACt of Congress of that
tenour, the interdict laid on American shipping under
the Act of Parliament of 1825 would be removed as a
matter of course." It is unnecessary to remark, 18at
the conditions on which, under. iltat Act of Parliament,
the interdict on. American shipping would be revocable,
are the veil conditioos on which.the Acts makes foreign
shipping admissible to the ifritith col, Pies; the passage,
consequently, jirst cited by Mr. Gallatin, shows, that
whatever doubts might attach to those conditions, on
the principles of severe construction,' they seemed to the
Government of the United States so perfectly clear Ear
all practical purposes as to be susceptible only of one
interpretation. .
Even admitting, however, up to any required extent;
the difficulty of construing the Act, still it.seems not so
easy to account fir the iaaction of the American Le-
gislature, and still less fa that of the American Go-
vernment. The Legislature might be unable to deter-
mine what was precisely meant by the condition• of
placing the shipping of Great Britain and her posses-
sions abroad on the footing of the most favoured nations,
but there could be no doubt that the condition, in any
construction of it, could never be fulfilled, so long as
the discriminating duties remained unrepealed ; that the
abolition of 'hose duties was, therefore, an essential term
in the condition;
,and that this term could be supplied
only by an
,Act of Congress. If, howeier, the Legisla-
ture could not thus proceed, at least the Government,
Li which must havelelt with it, had an effectual remedy
for every difficulty—that of reference to Great Britain
for explanation; and the undersigned is really at a loss
to' conceive why the whole Session of 1825-26 was
suffered to pass away, without any resort to anexpedient
so obvious and decisive.

Besides, however, the alleged ambiguity of the British
enactment, there was a concurrent cause which pre-
vented the Government and Legislature of the United
States from taking any steps relating to it. They were
satisfied that the British Government either considered
the United States as exempt, or meant to take special
'means of exempting tbem, from the operations ki the
enactment; and that the commercial relations between
the United States and the British colonies were, after
all, to be arranged by treaty, and not by reciprocal laws.
The groundkon which this persuasion was entertained
are very fully set forth and discuised in the correspon-
dence between Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Corning, and the
subject appears so nearly exhausted, that the under.
signed sees no occasir n for.entering into it at large. ,
ft is indeed self evident, that the Government of the
.United States set nut with a very mistaken optr.ion • f
the views of Great Britain, respecting her colonies, and,
more especially, respectipg the .impart.ince of those
colonies of a direct intercourse with the ports of the
United States. This at least Wall the only principle
which would account for what is otherwise difficult of
explanation, namely, that from the very few, and at the
best, eloubrful indications alluded to in the correspon-
dence, the Government of the United States should not
only have inferred intentions on the pate of the British,Ministry, which prima facie at least, were in direct ci3u-
trariety to an elaborate Act of Parliament recent4.ln.
traduced by that very Ministry ; but should dive
deduced such inference so confijently, as to act Upoit it
for months together implicitly, although durikg'ill that'
period it received no support or confirmation -of any
kind from the British Government, and alth6o.lo it was'
more than once, in official cemmunicatioti' with the
American Government, strongly discountenanced
the British-Minister at Washington.

Tnc supposition entertained- by the United States
istoos sled of two alternative members, thellrstefilihTch
was, that the British GoVernment did'por .rdein so to
construe the Act cf July, 1825, as to: minehend die ,
United States within it at all. That isusgswenactment
professedly regulating the intercourse- of the British
Colonies with all foreign countrieg!tlie- description
a countries not having colonial isossestltnits,"'elid tut in-
clude the United States, although it is. admitted that ao
other expression in the Act can possibly apply to the .
United States; although this very negotiation int tts,
the pre-eminent interest 'of the United States in the sub-
jecc of the enactment; and, although Mr. G4ll.itin him-
self observes, that, " with the exception of some of the..
German States, the terms (of the enactment) apply to
no other Maritime Power." •
But if the Act could net be so constsited, then it was::l'
believed that the British Government must be intending;.
to exclude the United States from the sphere of it, by
speetal Order in Council. This supposition is. indeed less

..
~..., •t•. :rye.
,~~

r

violent than the former ; the enactment being expresdy
subject to the exception, ar unlit, his Majesty, by his'
Order in Craned, shall in any case deem it expedient to
grant the whole or any of such privileges to the Alps of
any foreign country, although the conditions aforesaid
shall not in all respects be fulfilled by such foreiga
country."
Yet surely it was a little premature to assume that
Great Britain would gratuitously step forward to r arty
the important rule which she had just enacted, in the
very case to which (on this supposition) it pre-eminently
applied. 'Still more, that she should, without reason
shown or asked, deviate from those principles or reci-
procity for which she had been so strenuously contend-
ing. and 'deviate from them in the case of that very
nation to which she had, in regard to those very prin-
ciples, been making frequent and unsuccessful remon-
strances. And, most of all. does it seem remarkable
that this persuasion, adopted by Mr. Clay. in December,
1823. when he felt satisfied that the expected Order in
Ci mien was already on its way to America, Should have
been left wholly unshaken by the lapse of six months,
during which no such Order arrived, nor the remotest
intimation of its being passed or intended.
ft will not for a moment be imagined that, by these
observations, the undersigned intends to cast any doubt
on the explanation which has been given of the proceed-
ings of the United States on the occasion alluded to, or
to question the motives which dictated those proceed-
ings. But he deems it due to his own country—due,
indeed, to both the countries involved in these discus-
sions, that each pd.:, should state its opinions and
lintsessions with perfect ft ankness.--a frankness, indeed,
of which Mr. Gallatin himself has very honourably
furnished an exam' le, and which the undersigned deems
'not o ly consistel t with friendly feelings, but even es-
se..tial to a mutual good understanding and confidence.
It is, then, in the ju.igment of the undersigned, int-
ro tont to show, and with all proper deference he con-
ceives himself to liars in fact shown, that the misappre•
liensions with regard to the views and intentions of
Meat Britain, by which the Government and the Le-
gilituie of the United States appeal, in the present
instance, to have been misled, were not warranted by'
any part of the conduct or language of the British
Government; and that thii country, therefore, is not
tor those misapprehensions, nor obliged, as
of course, to reconsider any =mutes on her.own pelt,
nr to repair any ill consequences on the part of other's,
to which they may have given rise.
And hence the undersigned is naturaUy led to the
third, and only remaining topic of the present Note.
* Mr. Gallatin asks, whether, in the event of such a
law as he describes being passed by Congress. the Bri-
tish Government would revoke the Order in Council of
the 27,11 of July, 1826. and talopt the other measures'
'tallith he concurrently nier.tions ?
• The undersigned does full justice to the frank and
friendly time in which this inquiry is made, and he feels
that the answer of the British Government ought intbn
same proportion to be explicit.
• Without commenting on the particular previsions of
the law which, according to the supposition of Mr.
Gallatin, is to be enacted by Congress, it is proper to
say, that the British Government cannot prospectively
commit itself to the adoption of any particular line of
conduct in the event of such law being enacted.
With whatever conf, rmity to the suggestions of Mr.
Gallatin the proppsed law may. as to its general prin-
eiples, be flamed, still those general principles are
liable to be accompanied by details which no anticipa-
tion can embrace.
Much also may torn on the position and circum.
st ince% both of this country, of the United States, and
of the commercial commonwealth in general, at the
time when such law shall come inns 'elf ct. This last
consideration is indeed conclusive, for it has relation to
the very essence of the ptinciples Which the British
Government entertains on the present subject. Strictly
asserting her right to pioltibit or to regulate the inter.
,kourse of foreigners a ith her Colonies according to her
conctinion of her own Unwed. and without explanation
nr apology to other States, it would be impossible for
Great lad itai ~ without a compromise of her principles,
to pledge herself by advance, and with reference to cit.
etsinstincn yet unknown or is:tidally forevevii, to the
establishment of any particular system of policy in
gelation to such intercourse.
Oa anither and distinct ground, the mode of proceed.
lag suggested by Mr. Gallatin seems liable to exception.
to adjusting her colonial relations with foreigners this
country has pteferted the method of municipal legisla-
tion to that of. treaty, and the Linked States have 'at
length atirnfesced in that preference, though not them.
*bee ipptoving it. The peocessrecommended by Mr.
Gallatin (And which. if adopted, must become a prece.
dienty, would seem' to comtiihe the disadvantages of
blab latethenk, Without psoportionably scatting Vic be.
'Witt Of eithet.
lithe terms of colonial inteicourst ate to be adjusted
issistell 'NW.; but those laws' themselves ate*to be
feinder* on intoimal agreements, previously entered
into between the Governmeuts, it is manifest that a
course of pis:needing Is lassurid. Which fully insures
sea r the' certainty and doiciiiety of international
conientiOn, nor the facility and independence of domes-
tit Itlislatioa. • •
On the whole, his Majetty's Ministers feel themselves
Under the necessity of 'declining to give the pledge in-
vited by Mr.. Gallatin, and this with no special or
exclusive reference. to the peculiar measure in question.
TheirtisoluiiOn is the resultof considerations, general
inaffinir instate, and conclusive against a prospective
plOgnar aq.desctittion respecting the colonial policy
of (hem Ofitain, Whether of relOzation or restriction.
formation of this decision, the undersigned is
persuaded that it is unnecessary to disclaim the influence
of any unfriendly feelings towards the United States. He
'can only repeat, that the English Government cherishes
foi the thutanl•Atattet sentiments only of sincere amity.
_ • The noderaened, *a ate.
Allyn fikalatin, Harp &a ace. (Signed) D DLZ

Monday evening two Gentleman and a Lady. sup-
so be strangers, passed the farm of Cobble.hill, to the east-
ald it nabs, in a gig ; and about an hour thereafter they were
Bias et tie foot of a precipice near the road. the Lady an.
happily guise dead. and the Gentlemen se seriously injured, that,
*angle medical old was linnsecitately procured. no hopes An enter.
tabled ed their recovery; the 0g was broken to pieces, and the
tone bad escaped.—/isesroess Journal.
Tile Boston Statesman says, that the Tariff is a con..
trieanceof the New Eadand Aristocracy, to produce a separation
between the Northern and Southern States Tin Tasirr
Pape.—Every one can see at a glance, that the cealklen got up this
*Mg as an electioneering hobby so ride into power spin, end to
good the Southern States, where the operation of the measure is
very uppressive,lntu injudicious and violent nseurres. The fathers
of the Woollen plot were the fathers of the Hartford Convention
Pint, aim the Missouri Plot. The object of all these plots is the
same, to produce A Dissolution of the Union: Ever since the
defeat of the bra Adams. the leaders of the Monarchical Party'
(thellatAtee Nobility), have been &idling at' A Separation of the
States.' If they cannot rule the country; they mean to rule New
Eogianai, and oppress the people here with their yoke of aristocracy.
'Den knew Isist !inter well enough, that thesseond.Adams would,
14te bislarher, be driven Inas ignominious Statement by au tussled,
etsdigawat, and feet peoples"

, oto

THE 14VViNING STAR..

Lo:4lm*:''

TUESDAY. AUGUST 5. IRS
•-• s •
STOCK RXCHANGh., TWRLVIE O'CLOC K.

Consoli opened this morning at 863 fee the Acconnt, and soon
after went up to 86j to 87, at which they at present remain steady,
with scarcely any business doing.
CITY, HALF-PAST ONE O'CLOCK.

Consols have been. during the whole of the morrang, at nhi, al
ternately buyers and sellers, with no speculatioh if any conse-
quence. The Commissioners purchased at 87.
In the Foreign matket scarcely a bargain it doing, and the
market is almost deserted.

PRICK OF STOCKS AT FOUR O'CLOCK.
Batik Stock 213 114 156 India Bonds 114
3 per Cent. Red. 871 1 I I South Sea Stuck
3 per Ct. Cons. 861 7 61 f Old Annuities
3i per Cent. P 5/ f New Ditto
31 per Cent. Red. 951 * 1 £lOOO F..tclieq. Bills 72 i
4 per Ct. New,lol i 1 I I 4500 Ditto 72 3
4 per Cent. 1826, 1041 I 4100 and .11100 Ditto 71 2
Long Ann. 19 15.16 20 Bank for Acct.
India Stock 244 Cwisois for Acct. 86; i 61
FORRIGN FUNDS. TWO 0171.tiCK
Brasillanßds. 5 pet. 621 Prow. Bonds.s p Ct 1021
' DOAcct 624 Spanidt lids 5p Cr. iO/
Greek 80nd5.1825, 3 pCt.lB Frencb Rentes. 3, Ct. 72f 7be
Porteg.lids.spC. Exchange. iist 30c
110 Acct. 54 81.4 I De. Acct.
BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHARKS. TWO O'CLOCK.

; SHAWL PAIN
Anglo'Nleaican 100 9S
frazillan • 33 20
Colombian 100 25
United Me:lean 40 38
Alliance British and Foreign 100 10

'7l
17

111 22
21 YO!
94

The Leveret sloop of war his arrived from Oporto,
left 23d•ult. at which period there was an embargo on
all descriptions of shipping. This measure of Don
Micueea was for the fn•pose of getting hold of Por-
tuguese property embarking to leave the country. The
private letters from Oporto this morning give a deplo-
rable account of the gate of affairs there ; consternation
prevails to thehighest degree,and no busi nest transacting

The Paris Papers of Saturday contain scarcely a word
of news. The accounts from' the theatre of war refer
to the same rencontre between the Russians and the
Turks in advance of Bazardjik. of which we gave an
account yesterday, but, contrary to that account, the
Turks are said to have been the victors: until other-
wise confirmed, however, this news must be received
with much hesitation. The following letter from
an it.telligene correspondent at Paris, details some cir-
cumstances relative to the late and present Ministry of
France, which will belound interesting:

PARIS, AUGUST 2.

It seems now to be pretty well understood, that the
charges against M. Villele's Ministry will come to
nothing—father than the excitement of the put)* mind
which the sagitation of the subject has caused. The
question is adjourned to next Session; and whether the
accusation is then renewed or not, the greet ohject of The
liberal party has been gained—namely, the Opposing
an effectual impediment to the return of the late
Ministers to power for the present, of which some
fears had existed. Attacks were made the other
night in the Chamber of Peers against M. Villele,
for prodigality in the charges of negociation, and for
levying oppressive duties on the &holm and on certa.n
Manufactured goods. The Ex-Mini.tet's reply was,
m might be expected, not very satisfactory to an
Indifferent observer, though it was to the Chamber,
in which he still commands the majority, since
his creation of the batch of new Peers, which futms one
of the main charges against him.
The new Ministry have the Chamber cf Deputies
almost entirely with them, and use every meas.' to
retain its good opinion. An instance of this occurred
yesterday, when—the Commission upon our of the
branches of the Budget having estimated the wind wee of
the duties for 1829, at considetahly mire than the
Minister of Finance bed calculated them—Ml.ltobwith
the best possible grace, give up the point, reclaiming,
Gs Well. then, Gentlemen, there will be a deficit next
,ear of seventeen millions, at hick I shall rely upon you,
then, to make up. I wish on all occasions that a
good understanding and mutual confidence should exist
between the Ministry and the Chamber; it is the only
way to insure the influence of the Ministers with foreign
Posers, and to make Plante a really powerful nation r
This lintiment drew lath shouts of applause from the
Chamber.
The discussions on the Budget have continued the last
two days; the "system here is not to bring forward the
whole finaricisl•statement at once, as in England, but
to refer each branch of the revenue and expenditthe to
a distinct commission, and to submit their reports in
turn to the Chamber. Great complaints have been made
by the Deputies from the wine.growing departments,
of the weight r f the wine duties. The octroi. or mu-
nicipal dues, are generally lei y high, and these not
being under the immediate controul of government,
DO drawback is allowed on exportation. This has had
so injurious an effect upon the wine trade, that the
department of the Upper Rhine, which used to export
,25,000 hectolitres annually. does not at present sell
one quarter of that quantity. The stock on hand. at
Bonrdeaux, and throughout the whole of France, is
unusually great a several vintages are un•old, and unless
some abatement of the octroi is made, great losses will
be sustained. The octroi of the city of Paris is sixty
,francs the barrel ; and it is a curious fact, that the
same wine may be drank outside the barriers for a
franc, sad a franc and a half the bade. less than in
she city.
Paris is thronged with English—we meet at every
turn, and in every quarter; but many of the Fsench
families have left town for their villas in the environs,
or for the baths. The weather bat changed for the
tttr, and is now extremely fine.; but the streets and
Boulevards are annoyingly dusty.

The Algatteine Zeilung and Ptanicrott Papas, each
to the 30th ult. were mated this moiniup. They are

.

silent with regard to the affairs in the East, and their
contents are altogetinir of minor interest. The follow-
ing sot eitracts t

*VIENNA, JuLT *5.

Rh Highness ibeltitvce.. of Itlue Hombarg lei out
icim Lemberg on thellth, on his mission to the Rus-
sian heaAriarters,.by way of Kischeneff, Jassy, and
Ismail, from shich last place he will perform the
journey on horseback.
Lord Heytesbury left this capital on the I4th, to
proceed to the Emperor of itussia's headquarters. It
is still affirmed that his Lordship is to ask some infor-
mation of the Rust.ian Cabinet respecting the nature and
the guarantee of the indemnity which Russia requires
of the Porte.
JULY 24.—Metallkire ,14 3.l6—Bank Shares, 1070.
FROM THE MAINE, JILT 20.

It is long since any thing has itzeited such an un-
favourable degree of attention. and so seriously oc-
cupied all the Governments of *Germany, as the com-
plaint against Hanover, presented to the Diet on the
put uf the Duke of Brunswick in the affair of the
Privy Counsellor Schmidt. Every body is impatient
for the farther progress of this affair in the Diet. Will
the complaint of Br unswick be discossed in the Diet in
the conuitutional form prescribed by the
,Act of the
Confederation, and that of the Congress of Vienna—or
will •superior political considerations interfere? This
questiqn is now the subject of animated discussions
in our higher circles. We hear of a special declaration
which the Engl'sh Charge d'Affaires is to present to the
Diet on this subject, and also of an embassy which the
two principal Courts of Germany will shortly send to
his Highness the Duke. Mear.time the Hanoverian
reply to the complaint of Brunswick is expected before
the beginning tsf the approaching vacation. It will
then appear whether the two great Powers alluded to
will, as it seems to be probable, advise that this affair
be carried no farther before the Diet.—Algemeixe
Zititung, July 29.