wherefore it has been connected with the public administration of the affairs of the nation.” He had gone as far as a man of honor could go, to promote harmony in the cabinet; but he had been expected to go still farther, and not having done so, it had been held good cause for his dismissal.

The public anxiety was soon relieved. The United States Telegraph, which had become the organ of Mr. Calhoun and his friends, anticipated forthcoming disclosures by the following among other significant questions: “Will the Globe deny that Mr. Ingham, Gov. Branch, and Mr. Berrien were dismissed because they refused to compel their families to associate with that of Major Eaton ?” There had been unfavorable reports in circulation respecting Mrs. Eaton, who, though she may have been as chaste as the wife of Cæsar, was unfortunately not, like her, above suspicion. As these reports had seriously affected her standing in society at Washington, the three gentlemen above named had interdicted social intercourse between their families and Mr. Eaton's. Mr. Eaton and his wife being favorites of the president, this regulation of the two secretaries and the attorney-general excited his resentment; and Col. Johnson, a member of congress, it was alleged, had previously waited on them, and informed them that it was the president's determi. nation to remove them unless they conformed to his wishes in this matter.

A few days before Mr. Ingham left Washington for his residence in Pennsylvania, he received a letter from Mr. Eaton, saying that the Telegraph contained the remark, that "the families of the secretaries of the treasury and of the navy and of the attorney-general refused to associate with her,” (Mrs. Eaton ;) and as that paper was friendly to Mr. Ingham, he desired to know whether he (Mr. I.) sanctioned or would disavow this publication. Mr. Ingham, in a brief reply, considers the demand too absurd to merit an answer; and concludes by saying: “I take the occasion to say, that you must be not a little deranged to iniagine, that any blustering of yours could induce me to disavow what all the inhabitants of this city know, and perhaps half the people of the United States believe to be true." The answer charges Mr. Ingham with having added insult to injury, and demands "satisfaction for the wrong." In his reply Mr. I. says: “I perfectly understand the part you are made to play in the farce you are made to act before the American people. I am not to be intimidated by threats, or provoked by abuse, to any act inconsistent with the pity and contempt which your condition and conduct inspire.” Mr. Eaton closes the correspondence-calls Mr. I. a " great coward"-a "contemptible fellow"-and says: “Nothing more will be received short of an acceptance of my demand of Saturday, and nothing more be said to me until face to face we meet. It is not my nature to brook your insults, nor will they be submitted to."

The threats uttered in this letter, with certain movements by Mr. Eaton and his friends, excited apprehensions in the mind of Mr. I., who, the next day, (June 21), addressed to the president a letter, expressing the belief, that certain “ officers of the government supposed to be in the special confidence of the president, had attempted to waylay him, (Mr. Ingham,) for the purpose of assassination." The officers suspected of this design severally denied, in letters to the president, all knowledge of any such purpose as that with which they had been charged. These letters were forwarded by the president to Mr. Ing. ham, who, in reply, mentioned facts and circumstances upon which his apprehensions were founded, and challenged a legal investigation of the affair. The president directed an answer by N. P. Trist, informing Mr. Ingham that he does not consider the facts stated by him sufficient to sustain his charge; but assures him protection, if he will come to the seat of government, and prosecute the supposed offenders in the courts of the district.

But to return to the main question. The Globe editor, in his paper of the 19th of July, 1831, said he had received a letter from Col. Johnson, in which he says: “ Gen. Jackson never authorized me to require social intercourse, &c. &c. He always dislcaimed it. I told the parties so." Here, then, was a question of veracity to be settled between the parties. And in a letter to Mr. Berrien the next day, Mr. Blair, of the Globe, says it was in consequence of a supposed combination " to disgrace Major Eaton and coerce his dismission from the cabinet," that he had taken the attitude he had assumed in relation to the circumstances which affected the harmony of his cabinet; and that he (Blair) had before him the identical paper which the president had read to him (Berrien) and the two secretaries, Branch and Ingham, and in which he expressly says: “I do not claim the right to interfere, in any manner, in the domestic relations or personal intercourse of any member of my cabinet; nor have I in any manner attempted it."

Mr. Berrien, after a farther interchange of letters with Mr. Blair, addressed “the public” through the National Intelligencer. He disclaimed having had any part in an attempt to coerce Mr. Eaton to retire from the cabinet; and he endeavored to show that it was not in reference to this that Col. Johnson called on him. It was shortly after he had given an evening party, to which Mrs. Eaton had not been invited. He was surprised at the message of Col. Johnson. He says: “ I could make no mistake as to its character, for there was a repeated reference to the large parties which had been then recently given by

а

Messrs. Branch and Ingham and myself. Such a mistake, if it had been one, would have been instantly corrected from the nature of my reply. If the complaint had been of a combination to evict Major Eaton from office, and not to exclude his family from society, the refer. ence to these evening parties would have been idle; and my declaration that I would not permit the president to control the social intercourse of myself and family, would have been instantly met by an explanation, which would have removed the impression from the minds of Messrs. Branch and Ingham and myself. Yet we all parted with Col. Johnson, with a clear conviction that such a proposition had been made; and feeling as we all did, that an indignity had been offered to us, there was, as I believe, no difference of opinion between us as to the course we ought to pursue, if this proposition should be avowed and pressed by the president.

This conversation, Mr. Berrien said, took place on Wednesday evening, January 27. On Friday, his colleagues had their interview with the president, and on Saturday he had his. The president's personal friends having interposed, he had become sensible of the impropriety of his projected course. He referred to the parties that had been given, and said if he had been convinced that there had been a combination to exclude Mrs. Eaton from society, he would have required the resignations of himself and his colleagues. But he had become satisfied that there had been no such combination. Mr. B. says: “He showed me no paper-spoke to me of none-intimated to me no terms which he would hereafter require. By his declaration that he did not intend to press the requisition made through Col. Johnson, I considered the object of the interview to be, to explain to me the motives under which he had acted, and to announce the change of his determination.”

Mr. Ingbam, who had taken full of the conversation with Col. Johnson, corroborated the statement of Mr. Berrien, and gave a still more minute detail of that conversation. Col. J. said the president had hoped that their families would have been willing to invite Mrs. Eaton to their large parties, to give the appearance of an ostensible intercourse, adding that he was so much excited that he was like a roaring lion. He had heard that the lady of a foreign minister had joined in the conspiracy against Mrs. Eaton, and that he had sworn that he would send her and her husband home, if he could not put an end to such doings. This was said at an interview between Col. J. and Mr. Ingham alone. In the evening of the same day was the meeting at Mr. Berrien's, at which the conversation related by him took place. They attended a party the same evening at Col. Towson's, where a report was already current that they were to be removed. Col. Johnson called on him (Mr. Ingham) the next morning, and said he ought perhaps to have been more frank last evening, and to have told them positively that the president would remove them, unless they agreed that their families should visit Mrs. Eaton, and invite her to their large parties. And the colonel mentioned the names of persons whom the president had designated for the two secretaryships. In the evening he called again, and said the president had drawn up a paper explanatory of what he expected of them; that some of his Tennessee friends had been with him ; that his passion had subsided, and he had changed his ground; he only wished that they should assist in putting down the slanders against Mrs. Eaton, whom he believed to be innocent. On the next day they had the interview with the president which has been alluded to by Mr. Berrien. Mr. Ingham had no recollection, nor had he taken any note, of any paper read to them by the president.

The statements of Messrs. Ingham and Berrien are confirmed by Mr. Branch, who, writing to Mr. Berrien, says: "You can very well imagine my surprise, on reading the colonel's letter, from what you yourself experienced. My recollections of the interview will most abundantly corroborate all that you have said.” Mr. Branch also positively declares that no paper was read to them by Gen. Jackson at the interview with the president.

Col. Johnson, in letters to Messrs. Berrien and Ingham, in July, 1831, reiterates his former statement, that the president had disclaimed, in the paper before referred to, all intention to regulate the social intercourse of the members of his cabinet; and that he (Col. J.) had, on his own responsibility, made the inquiry whether they could not, at those large and promiscuous parties, invite Maj. Eaton and his family.

We have thus sketched all that was deemed essential to an understand. ing of this cabinet controversy-more, perhaps, than every one will think the subject deserves. Different readers will regard the affair with different degrees of interest; and its prominence, if not its importance, as an item of political history, seemed to claim for it a place in our record. In judging of its comparative influence as a cause of the disruption of the cabinet, it is to be borne in mind, that the difficulties between the parties preceded the Calhoun controversy, although the explosion did not occur until some time after the publication of his “correspondence.”

Mr. M'Lane having been appointed secretary of the treasury in president Jackson's new cabinet, in the summer of 1831, Mr. Van Buren was appointed to take his place as minister at London. The appointment was made during the recess of the senate and the nomination was made to that body at the next session. An excited debate of several days' continuance, and exhibiting a strong personal dislike to Mr. Van Buren, took place on this nomination, which was finally rejected by the casting vote of the vice president. The principal ground of opposition to the nomination, was the character of his instructions to Mr. M'Lane, respecting the West India negotiation.

Mr. Holmes said he was against him because he had humbled us in the eyes of foreign nations. He had surrendered the rights of his country to Great Britian to sustain his party. He had also been appointed to fill a vacancy created in the recess of the senate. This he disapproved, except for the most imperative reasons. It was compelling the senate to approve the appointment, or subject us to the loss of the outfit. Suspicion also rested on the nominee as having contrived, or contributed to bring about, the dissolution of the cabinet.

Mr. Marcy challenged an inquiry into the causes of that event. Mr. Van Buren had denied all agency in the matter, and had challenged the world for proof.

Mr. Chambers resisted the nomination exclusively on the ground of Mr. Van Buren's instructions to Mr. M'Lane, in which he had violated the honor of the nation, and insulted the American people in the person of their government; and had disclosed a total ignorance of the principles and feelings which should adorn the diplomatist. He had instructed our minister to press upon a foreign government the misconduct of one part of the American family in the relations of our government with that foreign power, and the more amiable and kind feelings of another division of it. A most revolting and unheard of experiment was to be made, (other supplications having failed to move the royal sympathy,) how far a condemnation of ourselves would disarm a British throne of its haughty, supercilious disdain of a just and honest demand.

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, said the secretary was not responsible for the instructions: they had been given by order of the president, who was the only responsible person known to the constitution. The secretary was under oath, "well and faithfully to execute the trust cor,mitted to him.” The senator from Maine (Mr. Holmes) had said, “Mr.M'Lane had been sent to bow and cringe at the feet of the British minister." Mr. M'Lane was not made of such suppliant materials. He had asked only what was right, and what his country required. He had convinced the British ministry that they had departed from the rigid construction of the act of parliament of July, 1825, in the cases of France, Russia and Spain ; and that they could not, therefore, in justice, refuse a similar departure, in the demand of equal justice to the United States. The great offense was, that the negotiation had succeeded under the instruc

a

a