and deservedly disavowed, by the President.  It is happy, therefore, I repeat, that the good feeling of my country was evinced in the manner I have stated at the only time when it could be done with honor; and though present circumstances would forbid my making the communication I then did, they do not prevent my referring to it for the purpose of shewing that it contains, as I have stated it does, everything that ought to have been satisfactory.  Actual circumstances enable me to do this now.  Future events, which I need not explain, may hereafter render it improper, and it may be nugatory unless accepted as satisfactory before the occurrence of those events.  Let it be examined with the care which the importance of giving it a true construction requires.  The objections to the message, as far as I can understand, for they have never been specified, are: 

First.  That it impeaches the good faith of His Majesty’s Government.

Secondly.  That it contains a menace of enforcing the performance of the treaty by reprisals.

On the first head, were I now discussing the terms of the message itself, it would be easy to shew that it contains no such charge.  The allegation that the stipulations of a treaty have not been complied with, that engagements made by ministers have not been fulfilled, couched in respectful terms, can never be deemed offensive, even when expressly directed to the party whose infractions are complained of, and consequently can never give cause for a demand of explanation; otherwise it is evident that no consideration of national injuries could ever take place.  The message, critically examined on this point, contains nothing more than such an enumeration of the causes of complaint.  As to its terms, the most fastidious disposition can not fasten on one that could be excepted to.  The first refusal and subsequent delay are complained of, but no unworthy motives for either are charged or insinuated.  On the whole, if I were commissioned to explain and defend this part of the message, I should say with the conviction of truth that it is impossible to urge a complaint in milder or more temperate terms; but I am not so commissioned.  I am endeavoring to shew not only that every proper explanation is given in my letter to M. de Rigny of the 29th of January last, but that in express terms it declares that the sincerity of His Majesty’s Government in their desire to execute the treaty was not doubted.  Suffer me to draw your excellency’s attention to the passages alluded to.  In discussing the nature of M. Serurier’s engagement I say: 

“It is clear, therefore, that more was required than the expression of a desire on the part of His Majesty’s ministers to execute the treaty, a desire the sincerity of which was never doubted, but which might be unavailing, as its accomplishment depended on the vote of the Chambers.”

Again, in speaking of the delay which occurred in the month of December, I say: