Early in the day, the party who conducted the controversy for the other side began to make frequent allusions to certain Americans—­“plusieurs honorables Americains” was the favourite expression—­who, he alleged, had furnished him with information that went to corroborate the truth of his positions, and, as a matter of course, to invalidate the truth of ours.  Secret information reached me, also, that a part, at least, of our own legation was busy for the other side.  At one period, M. Perier, the Premier of France, publicly cited the name of the minister, himself, at the tribune, as having given an opinion against those who conducted the controversy on the side of the American system, and in favour of our opponents.  I understand Mr. Rives declares that M. Perier had no authority either for using his name, or for attributing such sentiments to him; although the statement, as yet, stands uncontradicted before the world.  You will probably be startled, when I tell you, that this is the third instance, within a few months, in which the public agents of America have been openly quoted as giving evidence against the action of the American system.  The two other cases occurred in the British parliament, and, in one of them, as in this of Mr. Rives, the agent was quoted by name!  It is not in my power to say whether these gentlemen have or have not been wrongfully quoted; but all cannot be right, when they are quoted at all.  Figure to yourself, for a moment, what would be the effect of a member of congress quoting the minister of a foreign government, at Washington, as giving an opinion against a material feature of the polity he represented, and the disclaimers and discussions, not to say quarrels, that would succeed.  How is it, that the representatives of exclusion are so much more faithful to the interests of their principals, than the representatives of liberal institutions?

Some will tell you that the condition of Europe is critical; that our own relations with certain countries are delicate, and that it is expedient to temporize.  In the first place, judging from my own observations, I do not believe there is any of the much-talked-of temporizing spirit about all this compliance, but that in most of the cases in which the agents of the government disown the distinguishing principles of the institutions (and these cases have got to be so numerous as to attract general attention, and to become the subject of sneering newspaper comments) it is “out of the fulness of the heart that the mouth speaketh.”  But, allowing that the first position is true, and that these gentlemen actually acquiesce for the sake of quiet, and with a view to advance what they conceive to be the interests of America, I shall maintain that the course is to the last degree impolitic and unworthy.  Our motto is to “ask nothing but what is right, and to submit to nothing that is wrong.”  Apart from the sound morality of this sentiment, the wisdom of Solomon could not better express the true