e 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:

"It is referred to, I presume, in order to shew that it was produced by
a desire on the part of H