149 



But Mr. Russell did not say, that he had understood the applica 

 tion from Mr. Brent to him, to know whether he could furnish the 

 duplicate of the letter called for by the House, had been made 

 with my privity, or by my authority. He did not say that it had not 

 been his intention to deliver it as a duplicate. He did not say that 

 he had purposely dated it &quot;Paris, llth February, 1822,&quot; to give 

 notice that it was not the letter written by him in 1815, called for 

 by the resolution of the House. He did not say that it was at my 

 option whether to communicate it to the House or not, nor did he 

 insinuate that the alteration at the Department of the date from. 

 1822, tirst to 1816, and then to 1815, had been made without his 

 approbation or consent. To all this he knew the refutation was 

 too near at hand to admit of its being said at that time and place. 

 As to his giving explanations to me, what explanation could he 

 give ? What explanation has he given to the public ? The call of 

 the House was for a specitical paper written by him he had fur 

 nished a paper as a duplicate of it, in his own hand-writing. It 

 had been detected as a paper, so much the same, and yet so differ 

 ent, that it was susceptible of no explanation consistent with fair 

 dealing : and the expedients to which ;Vlr. Russell is reduced, in 

 attempting to account for it now, afford the most unanswerable 

 proof, that he has for it no honest explanation to give. He despe 

 rately seeks an apology for it, by imputing to me a design to entrap 

 him, by the alteration of the date of his duplicate, from 1822 to 

 1816, and then to 1815, made at the Department. These alterations 

 were made like the application of Mr. Brent to Mr. Russell, for 

 the duplicate without my knowledge, and happened thus. 



After comparing the two papers together, I gave the duplicate 

 to Mr. Bailey, for a copy of it to be made, to be reported to the 

 President, for communication to the House. Mr. Bailey gave it to 

 be copied to Mr. Thomas Thruston, a Clerk in the Department, 

 a young man of a fair and honourable mind. Perceiving the date 

 of the letter to be &quot;Paris, 11 February, 1822,&quot; and knowing that 

 Mr. Russell had been through the whole of that month attending 

 Congress in this city ; not suspecting for a moment that this date 

 had been designedly assumed by Mr. Russell, he consulted Mr. 

 Brent, who, concluding with him that the date of the year was an 

 inadvertency, authorized him to rectify it in the copy. Mr. Thrug- 

 ton thought that he might extend that kindness to Mr. Russell fur 

 ther, by making the same change in the paper itself. He passed 

 his pen therefore through the figures 1822, and wrote over them 

 1816, thinking that was the year in which the letter was written. 

 This change was not only made without my knowledge ; but when, 

 made known to me was disapproved by me. Mr. Brent supposed 

 that all would be set right by making known the alteration to Mr. 

 Russell himself, and obtaining his consent to the rectification of the 

 date of the year. He did so ; and Mr. Russell not only approved 

 of the change, but brought his original draft to the Department, 

 and showed the date of it to Mr. Brent, to confirm the second cor 

 rection. I only askjhow intense must be the pressure of that con- 



19 



