Grover, Hamlin, Hampton, Haralson, Harmanson, Harper, Healey, Herrick, Hilliard, Hoge, Elias B. Holmes, Isaac E. Holmes, Hopkins, Hough, John W. Houston, Geo. S. Houston, Hungerford, Jas. B. Hunt, Hunter, Charles J. Ingersoll, Joseph R. Ingersoll, Joseph Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Geo. W. Jones, Kennedy, P. King, Thos. Butler King, Leib, La Sere, Lewis, Levin, Ligon, Lumpkin, Maclay, McClean, McClelland, McClernand. McConnell, Joseph J. McDowell, James McDowell, McGaughey, McHenry, McKay, Marsh, J.P.Martin, Barclay Martin, Miller, Morris, Moseley, Morse, Moulton, Niven, Norris, Owen, Parish, Payne, Pendleton, Perrill, Pettit, Phelps, Pollock, Price, Ramsey, Rathbun, Reid, Relfe, Rhett, Ritter, Roberts, J. A. Rockwell, Sawtelle, Sawyer, Scammon, Schenck, Seddon, Alexander D. Sims, Leonard H. Sims, Simpson, Truman Smith, Albert Smith, Thomas Smith, Robert Smith, Stanton. Starkweather, Stewart, St. John, Strong, Thibodeaux, Thomasson, Jacob Thompson, Thurman, Tibbatts, Toombs, Towns, Tredway, Trumbo, Vinton, Wentworth, Wheaton. Wick, Winthrop, Woodruff, Woodward, Yancey, Yell, and Young.— 173.

NAYS.-Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Ashmun, Cranston, Culver, Delano, Giddings, Grinnell, Hudson, D. P. King, Root, Severance, Strohm, Tilden, and Vance-14.

In the Senate the vote stood as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Allen, Archer. Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Barrow, Benton, Bruese, Bright, Cameron, Cass, John M. Clayton, Colquitt, Corwin, Crittenden, Dayton, Dickinson, Houston, Jarnagin, Jenness, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Lewis, McDuffie, Mangum, Morehead, Niles, Pennybacker, Rusk, Semple, Sevier, Simmons, Speight, Sturgeon, Turney, Upham, Westcott, Woodbridge and Yulee-40.

NAYS.-Messrs. Thomas Clayton and Davis-2. Present-not voting.-John M. P. Berrien, Geo. Evans, John C. Calhoun.

Absent.-J. W. Chalmers, A. C. Greene, W. H. Haywood, John Fairfield. S. S. Phelps, Daniel Webster, Jabez W. Huntington, J. W. Miller, J. A. Pearce, Ed. A. Hannegan, John A. Dix.

In the course of the paper, communicated to the Democratic Review of March last, on the subject of the existing Anglo-Gallic intervention in the affairs of the Argentine Republics, some doubt is expressed by the writer, as to the exact nature of the informal relation of the British Government to the Convention of 1828, between the Argentine Confederation and the Empire of Brazil.

He has now ascertained the true state of the facts; and as the point is a fundamental one in the whole controversy, he desires that an explanation of it may appear in the Review, by way of supplement to the above mentioned pa

per.

The British Plenipotentiary, it is to be remembered, claims for his Government the right of intervening as the guarantor of that Convention; and he does not allege or pretend any other lawful ground of interposition.

Great Britain, it is apparent on the face of the Convention, was not one of the contracting parties to it: she was mediatrix merely and the only question is, whether, in virtue of any secret condition or reservation then made, she is now entitled to assume to enforce the execution of it, as against the Argentine Confederation.

The Convention was signed by the

Argentine and Brazilian Plenipotentiaries on the 27th of August, 1828, at Rio de Janeiro.

On the 19th of August, eight days before the signature of the Convention, and in the midst of the negotiations, the Argentine Plenipotentiaries, Generals Guido and Balcarce, addressed a note to Lord Ponsonby, who represented Great Britain in the business, inquiring whether he was authorised to guaranty, in his official capacity, the contemplated treaty of peace between the Confederation and Brazil.

To which Lord Ponsonby replied, under date of the 20th, that he was not authorised by his Government to enter into any engagement for the guaranty of any preliminary convention or definitive treaty of peace whatever, as he had previously made known to General Balcarce at Buenos Ayres.

This positive and express refusal of the British Government, cotemporaneously with the signature of the Convention, to undertake any obligations of guaranty in the matter of it, contradicts, of course, absolutely and conclusively, the only claim of right, by which the late belligerent proceedings of England, on the Rio de la Plata, are sought to be justified by the British Plenipotentiary.

C. C.