151 



tuearit. I also saw, in a great measure, what its writer was, which 

 I had never seen before, and the discovery of the original letter, 

 two days after, disclosed him to me in all his glory. In the private 

 relations between us, I remembered what he had been to me, and 

 what 1 had been to him, for more than twelve years before, until, 

 and including that very morning. I saw that he was now to be, in 

 substance and in intent, my accuser, and that of the colleagues with 

 whom I had acted, before the House, of which he was a member, 

 and before the nation. In the original he had been a secret ac 

 cuser, under the mask of self-vindication. In the duplicate he had 

 laid aside the mask, though not the professions of unfeigned re 

 spect ; and to all the secret discoJourings of the conduct and opi 

 nions of his colleagues, had added the new and direct charge of a 

 wanton and wilful violation of their instructions, as understood by 

 themselves. To have shrunk from these charges would, in my es 

 timation, have been equivalent to an admission of their truth. To 

 have suppressed them, after the prying curiosity, which had long 

 been stimulated, to see this mysterious and fearful letter, would 

 have been impossible. No honourable course was left me but thai; 

 of meeting the ADVERSE PARTY on the scene which he himself had 

 selected for his operations ; and I knew that little more would be 

 necessary for my own vindication, and that of my colleagues, in the 

 minds of all impartial men, than from the materials furnished by 

 Mr. Russell himself, to expose to the House at once the character 

 of the accusation and of the accuser. I did, therefore, desire that 

 both the letters of Mr. Russell, and my remarks upon them, should 

 be communicated to the House ; but even then, if Mr. Russell, in 

 stead of affectiog indifference, had fairly acknowledged his error, 

 and requested that the papers might not be communicated, I would 

 have joined him in that request to the President. 



Both the letters were communicated to the House ; both were 

 strictly within the call of their resolutiou, which was for &quot; any 

 letter which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, in con 

 formity with the indications contained in his letter of the 25th De 

 cember, 1814.&quot; 1 remarked upon both; and if that has proved 

 a mortification to Mr. Russell, he should recollect that he brought 

 it upon himself. It was his fault there was any difference between 

 them to remark upon. He should also remember, that if the ori 

 ginal alone had been communicated, he would have been deprived 

 of the benefit of &quot; those corrections of the copy in possession, which 

 appeared to him proper to exhibit his case most advantageously be 

 fore the tribunal of the public.&quot; 



Mr. Russell is mistaken in supposing that I attach any importance 

 to his protest, as adding authentication to his professions, or prov 

 ing his sincerity. What difference can there be between the word 

 of a man, with or without protest, who, after writing the word du 

 plicate upon a letter written and signed by himself, to be communi 

 cated as a public document to a legislative body, tells the public 

 that he gave no further intimation, much less an assurance, thai it 



