him, "Mr. Jay was instructed not to weaken our engagements with France."

It is not now necessary to discuss the question whether a commercial treaty with England would not ipso facto weaken our engagements with France; nor whether the stipulations in the treaty of London could be executed without such consequence; or however these might be, whether when a minister had been directed to negotiate a commercial treaty, the admitted language of the secretary was any thing else than equivocation, to conceal the real design.

The intimacy of the connexion between France and the United States, if weakened by recent causes of complaint, treaties and popular feeling still supposed to exist; and it therefore required, in the opinion of the former, as evidence of the sincerity of the latter, that a frank and full disclosure of its intentions should be made; and some countenance is undesignedly given to this expectation by the fact, that before the conclusion of the treaty a communication of some kind was made to the French minister, and before its ratification the treaty was submitted to him for his commentaries and opinion.

France thereupon complains, "It was a little matter only to allow the English to avail themselves of the advantages of our treaty, it was necessary to assure these to them by the means of a contract, which might serve at once as a reply to

the claims of France and as peremptory motives for refusals, the true motive of which it was requisite incessantly to disguise to her under specious pretexts. Such was the object of Mr. Jay's mission to London, such was the object of a negotiation enveloped from its origin in the shadow of mystery and covered with the veil of dissimulation."'*

The American answer maintains that the right to form these treaties has been so universally asserted and admitted that it seems to be the inseparable attribute of sovereignty, to be questioned only by those who question the right of a nation to govern itself, and to be ceded only by those who are prepared to cede their independence.

The complaint as to what should not be done in a specific case is thus answered by an allegation of abstract right. Hence the replication of the French minister in very strong terms, "When the agents of the republic complained of this mysterious conduct, they were answered by an appeal to the independence of the United States, solemnly sanctioned in the treaties of 1778-a strange manner of contesting a grievance, the reality of which was demonstrated by the dissimulation, to which recourse was had an insidious subterfuge, which substitutes for the true point of the question a general principle, which the republic can

* Mons. Adet to secretary of state.

not be supposed to dispute, and which destroys by aid of a sophism that intimate confidence, which ought to exist between two allies, and which above all ought to exist between the French republic and the United States."

Again the French government complained of the abusive language of certain public journals of the United States, and were answered with the abstract propositions that "the genius of the constitution and the opinion of the people of the United States cannot be overruled by those who administer the government," and "that among those deemed most sacred is the liberty of the press."

Now the real subject of complaint was not that the administration did not put down these offensive journals by force of law, but that they were known to encourage them by personal patronage, and thus under colour of a professed inability to control the public press, aided and abetted its conductors in disseminating opinions injurious to the cause of France.

The French minister further commenting on the insincerity of the American government, alleges that it was thought proper to send to the French republic persons whose opinions and connexions are too well known to hope from them dispositions sincerely conciliatory, and contrasts that conduct with the eagerness to send to London ministers well known for sentiments corresponding with the object of their mission.

Stripped of the thin veil, which diplomatic forms throw on this subject, the French minister asserts, "The people of the United States are divided into two great parties, differing in their views of the correct policy of the country. One of these is desirous of a more intimate union with England, the other with France. In negotiations with the former power the compliment of selecting negotiators from the party, which deemed its duty to the United States to consist in friendship with England, was paid to her, and the consequence was successful negotiation. No such compliment is paid to France and no such consequence can ensue."

The Americans could only reaffirm their conciliatory temper without denying the facts, from which a different conclusion had been drawn.

CHAPTER VI.

History of the joint mission of Messrs. Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry, to the French republie.......Messrs. Marshall and Pinckney Leave France.........Mr. Gerry remains.. ....His conduet.

THE American envoys met in Paris on the 4th October 1797, and the next day announced their arrival to the minister of foreign affairs, assuring him that the United States were desirous of terminating all differences between themselves and the French republic, and of restoring that harmony and good understanding, and that commercial and friendly intercourse, which from the commencement of their political existence until lately had happily subsisted; and that the president had appointed them jointly and severally envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to the French republic, for the purpose of accomplishing these great objects. They requested an opportunity to present their letter of credence, and assured him of their ardent desire for the speedy restoration of harmony and friendship between the two republics.

On the 8th the envoys had an interview with the minister of foreign relations. The letter of credence was delivered and cards of hospitality received. They were informed that "the direc