The intimation I have conceived myself authorized to make of the serious consequences that may be expected from another rejection of the law, and of the firm determination of our Government to admit of no reduction or change in the treaty, I think has had an effect.  On the whole, I repeat that without being at all confident I now entertain better hopes than I have for some time past done.

Mr. Livingston to the Secretary of State.

[Extracts.]

PARIS, December 22, 1834.

Hon. JOHN FORSYTH,

Secretary of State, etc.

SIR:  Our diplomatic relations with this Government are on the most extraordinary footing.  With the executive branch I have little to discuss, for they agree with me in every material point on the subject of the treaty.  With the legislature, where the great difficulty arises, I can have no official communication.  Yet, deeply impressed with the importance to my fellow-citizens of securing the indemnity to which they are entitled, and to the country of enforcing the execution of engagements solemnly made to it, as well as of preventing a rupture, which must infallibly follow the final refusal to execute the convention, I have felt it a duty to use every proper endeavor to avoid this evil.  This has been and continues to be a subject of much embarrassment.

* * * * *

My last dispatch (6th December) was written immediately after the vote of the Chamber of Deputies had, as it was thought, secured a majority to the administration, and it naturally excited hopes which that supposition was calculated to inspire.  I soon found, however, both from the tone of the administration press and from the language of the King and all the ministers with whom I conferred on the subject, that they were not willing to put their popularity to the test on our question.

It will not be made one on the determination of which the ministers are willing to risk their portfolios.  The very next day after the debate the ministerial gazette (Les Debats) declared that, satisfied with the approbation the Chamber had given to their system, it was at perfect liberty to exercise its discretion as to particular measures which do not form an essential part of that system; and the communications I subsequently had with the King and the ministers confirmed me in the opinion that the law for executing our convention was to be considered as one of those free questions.  I combated this opinion, and asked whether the faithful observance of treaties was not an essential part of their system, and, if so, whether it did not come within their rule.  Without answering this argument, I was told of the endeavors they were making to secure the passage of the law by preparing the statement[12] mentioned in my former dispatch.  This, it is said, is nearly finished, and from what I know of its tenor it will produce all the effect that truth and justice can be expected to have on prejudice and party spirit.