CHAPTER VII.

Commentary on the mission to France, and strictures on colonel Pickering's publications in relation to it.

THE most obvious subject of remark, on a review of this extraordinary mission, is the submission of the envoys to communications with individuals producing no evidence of official rank; the affected secrecy of these intrusive agents; and the great consequence given to the affair, by the minute recapitulation of every trifling circumstance, in official despatches to the American government.

If the conduct of the envoys in these undignified conferences was evidence of their anxiety for peace, the detailed communication, which they made of it, was not less calculated for war.. It is a single instance in the history of public missions that so much should be recounted, where so little was performed; although it cannot be believed that the republican envoys were indeed the first on whom the arts of European diplomacy were essayed.

But the censure, if deserved, is divisible among all the members of the embassy. In the report of the secretary of state, the dissent of one of them is no where intimated, although he was

aware that on the 20th October Mr. Gerry proposed to his colleagues that they should put an end to all informal negotiation.

It was so determined; and the only subject of regret, for which all of them are to account, is found in their departure from this judicious resolution.

The preference and selection of Mr. Gerry from his colleagues, by the minister of the directory, is the next subject of remark, and has been most adroitly used to the injury of his fame."

To be selected by an enemy implies treachery to a friend. It has been said with sarcastic imputation, that if the French government could treat with him and not with his colleagues, he must have been less attached to America than they were, or more subservient than they would be to the interests of France. The insinuation is made with something of temper in the journal of one of the envoys, it is brought forward in the report of the American secretary, and alleged in plainer terms in his subsequent review.

Could the inference be well drawn the fact would indeed be disgraceful; but it is not perceived why, if any dependence is to be placed on the allegations of the French minister, his whole statement should not be received with equal credit, and why therefore his refusal to receive Messrs. Marshall and Pinckney as envoys of the United States, on the pretence that they were English

men in their principles and policy, does not as well establish that position, as his readiness to receive Mr. Gerry proves him to have been French? The truth is that no fair deduction, except a desire to sow discord in the embassy and the country, can justly be made from the conduct of this artful diplomatist.*

Neither his language nor his conduct should be. received as evidence against the agents of the United States. It was not what he thought, but what they did; not his imputations but their conduct, which establishes their character. The two honourable men, on whom his offensive neglect and pretended suspicion would fasten the traitorous charge of being Englishmen at heart, refuted the slander by the patriotism of their lives; and the other, whom his insidious flattery chose to indicate as devoted to France, held the same shield against his disreputable imputation. The rejection of the two envoys, on the pretence of their

* Mons. Talleyrand's own reasons for his preference of Mr. Gerry, and rejection of his colleagues, were thus subsequently stated.

"The advantages that I prized in him, are common to all Americans who have not manifested a predilection for England. Can it be believed that a man who should profess a hatred or contempt of the French republic, or should manifest himself the advocate for royalty, can inspire the directory with a favourable opinion of the government of the United States. I should have disguised the truth if I had left this matter ambiguous. It is not to wound the independence of that government to point out to a sincere friend of peace the shoals he ought to avoid.”—Talleyrand to Pichon, 28th August 1798.

affiliation with English politics, was in accordance with the language of intemperate passion, with which a party in their own country charged a whole class of their fellow citizens; the selection of the other, on the suggestion that he was more attached to the schemes of the directory, was another form of perpetuating those libels, with which another class of the American public was assailed at home. They are solemn warnings of the effect produced abroad by internal dissension. In other respects they are entitled to no regard. They are equally unfounded and despicable. The triumvirate had but one heart, and that was American to its core.

The minister of foreign affairs, in the name of the directory, announced, "that they were disposed to treat with that one of the three, whose opinions, presumed to be more impartial, promise in the course of the explanations more of that reciprocal confidence which is indispensable."

What were those opinions? The secretary of state infers that they regarded points in connexion with the embassy, and would imply some willingness to yield in negotiation what the others would withhold. This imputation is unfair and gratuitous. Mr. Gerry, in a commentary on this part of the secretary's report presented to the president, remarks:

"Whatever was presumed of my opinions, no person at that time knew any thing of them in

regard to the embassy, except the envoys, and therefore no comparison could possibly be made between our opinions, if different in this respect. But Talleyrand was informed of some opinions of my colleagues, as he said, not relating to the embassy, which had produced embarrassment and dissatisfaction. I carefully avoided uttering or writing any thing in regard to France, that might offend either the government or people. When I mixed with French citizens, I treated them with attention and civility. If this conduct of mine led the French government to think that my opinions were more impartial than my colleagues it is not a matter, which Mr. Pickering was authorized to censure. "As to the prince to whom he is sent, the ambassador should remember that his ministry is a ministry of peace, and that on this footing alone he is received; this reason interdicts every evil practice to him. Speaking ill of the French government or nation would have been an evil practice. I was justified in avoiding it. Civility required a return of courtesies and attention; I could not dispense with the claims of decorum. Some letters of the other envoys were intercepted; what they contained I know not, but we were all alarmed on the occasion, and thought it best to conceal our papers, lest a general order for seizing them should be the consequence. It was generally understood that the opinions, which rendered the other envoys obnoxious in France,