, however,
he indulged the hope that these delays would be abandoned, and that the
rights of our citizens, which had been urged for so many years, would at
length be taken up for examination, he learned with surprise and regret
that His Majesty's Government had determined to insist that they should
be discussed in connection with the question of the construction of
the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty of cession. Against this
determination he strongly but ineffectually remonstrated in a letter
to Mr. De Villele, dated the 12th November, 1822.

It is notorious that the Government of the United States, whenever
requested by that of His Majesty, have uniformly agreed to discuss any
subject presented for their consideration, whether the object has been
to obtain the redress of public or private injuries. Acting upon this
principle, the question of the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty
was, upon the suggestion of the minister of France, made the subject of
a voluminous correspondence, in the course of which all the arguments
of the parties respectively were fully made known to each other and
examined. The result of this discussion has been a thorough conviction
on the part of the Government of the United States that the construction
of that article of the treaty contended for by France is destitute of
any solid foundation and wholly inadmissible. After a discussion so
full as to exhaust every argument on that question, the attempt to
renew it in connection with the question of the claims of our citizens
appeared to the Government of the United States to be a measure so
contrary to the fair and regular course of examining controverted
points between nations that they instructed Mr, Sheldon, their charge
d'affaires, to prepare and present a note explaining their views of the
proceeding, which he delivered on the 11th of October, 1823. To this
note no answer has ever been received.

I have the express instructions of the Government again to call the
attention of that of His Majesty to this subject, and to insist that
the claims of our citizens may continue to be discussed as a distinct
question, without connecting it in any way with the construction of the
Louisiana treaty. The two subjects are in every respect dissimilar. The
difference in the nature and character of the two interests is such as
to prevent them from being blended in the same discussion. The claims
against France are of reparation to individuals for