In reply to your question _whether the King's Government would name any fixed and determinate period at which it would be disposed to pay the twenty-five millions_ you make me say: "To-morrow, if necessary. When the Government of the United States shall by a written official communication have expressed its regret at the misunderstanding which has taken place between the two Governments, assuring us that this misunderstanding is founded on an error--that it did not intend to call in question the good faith of His Majesty's Government," etc. Now, this is what I really said: "To-morrow, to-day, immediately, if the Government of the United States is ready on its part to declare to us, by addressing its claim (_réclamation_) to us officially in writing that it regrets the misunderstanding which has arisen between the two countries; that this misunderstanding is founded upon a mistake, and that it never entered into its intention (_pensée_) to call in question the good faith of the French Government nor to take a menacing attitude toward France." By the terms of your report I am made to have continued thus: "In the dispatch to M. Pageot we gave the views of our Government on this question. Mr. Forsyth not having thought proper to accept a copy of that dispatch, and having said that the Government of the United States could not receive the communication in that form," etc. That was not what I said, because such was not the language of Mr. Forsyth to M. Pageot. On refusing the copy offered to him by that chargé d'affaires Mr. Forsyth gave as the only reason _that it was a document of which he could make no use_, and that was the phrase repeated by me. Mr. Forsyth made no objection to the form which I had adopted to communicate to the Federal Government the views of the King's Government; in fact, not only is there nothing unusual in that form, not only is it employed in the intercourse between one government and another whenever there is a desire to avoid the irritation which might involuntarily arise from an exchange of contradictory notes in a direct controversy, but reflection on the circumstances and the respective positions of the two countries will clearly show that it was chosen precisely in a spirit of conciliation and regard for the Federal Government. Finally, sir, after having said, "If the Government of the United States does not give this assurance we shall be obliged to think that this misunderstanding is not the result of an error," I did not add, "and the business will stop there." This last error is, however, of so little importance that I hesitated to notice it. Receive, sir, the assurances of my high consideration. V. BROGLIE. No. 5. _Mr. Barton to the Duke de Broglie_. F. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, _Paris, November 6, 1835_. His Excellency the DUKE DE BROGLIE, _Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc._