Lord Broughamsaid, he was anxious to state what the fact really was with respect to the American negotiations upon the Right of Search, because the matter still appeared to be misunderstood on the other side of the Channel. Those who at first argued that France ought to resist all right of search, because America would not endure it, now said that England refused to ratify the American treaty because America made an alteration in it, by which America was exempted from its operation. Now, the only alteration made in the treaty was one which exempted the American coast from the right of search, in the same way that the coast of Eng land, Scotland, and Ireland were exempted, observing, because no slave-trading existed there; but American vessels were to be searched, and America herself proposed that they should be searched in Africa, the West Indies, and every where except the few degree of the coast of North America. Nothing, therefore, could be more preposterous than the allegation now made as to the reason why England refused to ratify the treaty. Whilst upon the subject, he would take that opportunity of stating that he was wrong in saying, on a previous evening, that the American Senate joined in the preliminary proceedings on which the American proposition of the right of search was founded. It was, however, only by accident that the Senate did not join in those proceedings; but the proposition was founded upon a vote, an almost unanimous vote of the House of Representatives, the representatives of the American people. He was sorry to find that in consequence of a mistranslation of what had fallen from him, he had given some offence in France. He had been represented to have said, that not above a million of people in France were the friends of the slave-trade; what he really did say was, that not one person in a million in France was friendly to that execrable traffic.