gave the note, to which he made no objection.  After all this you may judge of my surprise when last night about 10 o’clock I received the letter copy of which is inclosed, and which necessarily closes my mission.  In my reply I shall take care to throw the responsibility of breaking up the diplomatic intercourse between the countries where it ought to rest, and will not fail to expose the misstatements which you will observe are contained in the minister’s note, both as respects my Government and myself; but the late hour at which I received the Comte de Rigny’s note and the almost immediate departure of the packet may prevent my sending you a copy of my communication to him, which I shall use the utmost diligence in preparing.

The law, it is said, will be presented to-day, and I have very little doubt that it will pass.  The ministerial phalanx, reenforced by those of the opposition (and they are not a few) who will not take the responsibility of involving the country in the difficulties which they now see must ensue, will be sufficient to carry the vote.  The recall of Serurier and the notice to me are measures which are resorted to to save the pride of the Government and the nation.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your most obedient servant,

EDW.  LIVINGSTON.

From Count de Rigny to Mr. Livingston.

[Translation.]

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Paris, January 13, 1835.

Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, etc.

SIR:  You have well comprehended the nature of the impressions produced upon the King’s Government by the message which His Excellency President Jackson addressed on the 1st of December to the Congress of the United States.  Nothing certainly could have prepared us for it.  Even though the complaints expressed in it had been as just as they are in reality unjust, we should still have had a right to be astonished on receiving the first communication of them in such a form.

In the explanations which I am now about to make I can not enter upon the consideration of any facts other than those occurring subsequently to the vote by which the last Chamber of Deputies refused the appropriation necessary for the payment stipulated in the treaty of July 4.  However this vote may have been regarded by the Government of the United States, it is evident that by accepting (accueillant) the promise of the King’s Government to bring on a second deliberation before the new legislature it had in fact postponed all discussion and all recrimination on the subject of this first refusal until another decision should have either repealed or confirmed it.  This postponement therefore sets aside for the time all difficulties arising either justly or unjustly from the rejection of the treaty or from the delay by which it had been preceded; and although the message begins by enumerating them, I think proper, in order to confine myself to the matter in question, only to reply to the imputations made on account of subsequent occurrences.