fore the adminiftration of Roberfpierre. The appeals were made to the directory, which appointed commiflioners to examine and decide of their validity: but thefe abufed the powers committed to them in fo glaring and fcandalous a manner, and the directory appeared fo remifs in calling them to account for their criminal behaviour, that the legislature thought itfelt bound to take the cognizance of these matters from the executive power, which, either through want of time or of inclination, did not pay them fufficient attention, and to appoint, for their investigation, a committee of its own members. The public were not diffatisfied at the fcrupulous vigilance of the councils over the directory, and at the spirit with which they animadverted upon their conduct, and reftrained their powers when it was neceffary for the fafety of individuals. The number of which the directory confifted, though feemingly calculated to keep the active rulers of the ftate fufficiently divided among themselves, to prevent any one of them from engroffing the fupreme authority, had not, however, in the opinion of many, provided against the combination of the members collectively, to grafp at fovereign power, and to overrule, through the weight and dignity attached to their office, the proceedings of the other departments of the ftate. It was therefore no lefs incumbent on these to repress the first attempts of that body, to exceed the limits of their conftitutional powers, than upon the parliaments of Great Britain to keep a vigilant eye on the conduct of the monarch and his ministers, and on the statesgeneral of Holland, to watch the fteps of an afpiring stadtholder. Such were the opinions of the difcerning part of the public; nor did many fcruple to avow their ap prehenfions, that in confequence of the numerous appointments to places of trust and profit, confided to the directory, it would foon or late arrive at fo great a power, as to form a party ftrong enough to controul the legislature itself. Whether this were effected through influence, or through force, the refult would be the fame: and the nation would be obliged to fubmit to abfolute fway, like others that are governed difpotically, by the crown and its agents, through the purchased and fervile acquiefcence of its reprefentatives. Thefe furmifes were not without foundation. The ftatelinefs affumed by the directory in its intercourse with foreign ftates, fufficiently indicated the lofty ideas they entertained of their importance, and how readily they would raise themselves to the fummit of perfonal grandeur and uncontrouled power, in the management of all public affairs, unless their ambition were obviated by timely checks, which could not be too expeditioufly employed against men who exhibited fo early a difpo fition to afpire at an undue extenfion of their authority. This loftinefs of the directory had fuffered no fmall degree of humiliation from the fpirited conduct of the government of the united states of America. Full of the idea, that these owed their indepedence to France, the French bore with impatience and indignation that fo great a benefit fhould be overlooked, and that, in this ftruggle for liberty with fo many powers combined again them from every quarter in Europe, they fhould be forfaken by that people, in whofe caufe they had had acted with fo much zeal and and fuccefs. But that which principally exafperated the French government, was the treaty that had been lately negociated between England and the American ftates, by their envoy in London, Mr. Jay. It was reprefented as fo contrary to the treaties in force between them and France, as to amount almoft to a denunciation of the amity subfifting between thofe two powers. The refentment of the French hardly knew any bounds. The language held at Paris portended nothing lefs than the moft fignal revenge for what was termed an act of the bafeft ingratitude and perfidy. Inftead of that cordiality which had taken place between the French and American governments, a diftant and fufpicious intercourfe fucceeded; and if the public voice of the people of France had been liftened to, a rupture could not have failed to enfue. It was retorted, on the part of the Americans, that as foon as the French republic had been established, it began to entertain a defign to introduce a fyftem perfectly fimilar to its own, into the United States, without confulting them, and in defiance of the conftitution already fettled among them. To this end,they commitioned their refident, Genet, to use all manner of artifice and intrigue, in order to pervert the difpofitions of the commonalty, and to feduce them from their attachment and obedience to the exifting government. He had carried his misconduct fo far, as perfonally to infult the prefident of the congrefs, and endeavoured to fet him and that body at variance with the people. This agent, of the French republic, had indeed been recalled by his employers, but the feeds of mifchief he had fown had produced their intended effect, in the divifions that had embroiled the Americans, and deftroyed that unanimity of fentiments from which they had derived fuch internal tranquillity. To thefe complaints the French replied, that the treaty of commerce with England had cancelled all pretenfions of amity from America to France. It violated, in a positive and hoftile manner, the treaty entered into by the French, in favour of the Americans, in the year 1778, by which the fiates agreed to guarantee the poffeffions of France in the Weft Indies: whereas, by the prefent treaty with England, the very furnishing of provifions to the French iflands, was allowed to be an illegal trade. Such a falling off from their profeflions of friendship and attachment to France, at a time when they ought to have been realifed by actions, after having been fo reiteratedly exprefled in words, difplayed in glaring colours the con temptible intereftednefs of the Ame ricans, and proved them to be void of all principles but thofe of avarice and gain, and that to thefe they would facrifice all confideration of honour and magnanimity, Recriminations of this nature grew louder and more rancorous than ever, on the intelligence that the government of the united flates had formally ratified this treaty. But fresh motives of inveteracy arofe from the difcoveries contained in a letter, written by the prefident of the congrels to the American ambaffador at Paris. This letter, which was dated from Philadelphia, the 22d of December, 1795, had been difpatched in a veffel that was wrecked on the coaft of France. It was preferved with other papers, and and carried to the directory, by whom it was confidered as indubitable proof of the inimical difpofition of the American government to the French republic. This letter, on a cool perufal, contained however, no hoftile defigns against France. Its contents were chiefly complaints of the arbitrary proceedings of the British miniftry refpecting the trade of the United States. He directed Mr. Morris, who had quitted his embafly at Paris, and acted as American agent at London, to lay before the English miniftry the imprudence, as well as the unjustifiablenefs of thofe proceedings, at a time when Great Britain ought to be particularly folicitous to retain the good will of the Americans, in order to induce them to receive favourably the treaty of commerce juft concluded, but which met with a multitude of opponents, on account of the harsh meatures that had been fo unfeafonably taken against the commerce and navigation of the united states. It was with difficulty he had ftemmed the torrent of difcontent and refentment that had arifen on this occafion, and prevented the party,, that favoured the French, from carrying matters to extremities. His own views, in which he was feconded by the better fort, were peace and neutrality. Thefe would, in the courfe of a few years, raife the United States to a condition of profperity and power, that would render them formidable to all the world, and fecure to them tranquillity at home, and respect from abroad. Such was the general tenour of this famous letter, the interception of which was looked upon as fo timely an occurrence for the intereft of France, by, admonishing it to place no confidence in the Americans. But without the medium of this letter, the moft judicious of the French were convinced that the intereft of the Americans would lead them to act a neutral part in the contest between France and England, and that it would he highly impolitic in either of thele, to infift upon their acting any other. The French government did not however relinquifh the hope of a future connection with the united ftates. They grounded this expecta tion on the numbers of people there, who teftified an averfion to all political ties with England, and whole republican difpofition inclined them to efpoufe the cause of all who oppofed the government of kings. They alfo relied on a change of men and measures in the American adminiftration. The prefidency, it was intimated to them by their American partifans, would, on a new election, be filled by another incumbent, lefs averfe to an alliance with France than the prefent. Thefe and other representations of a fimilar tendency, from the fame quarter, induced the French government to diffemble the refentment it bore to the American for its partiality to England, and to extend it no farther than to treat the fubjects of the united ftates, employed in their commerce and navigation, in the fame manner in which thefe were treated by the English. Thefe mifunderftandings, between France and the ftates of America, had, in fome degree, been fufpended by the recall of Mr. Morris from his French embafly, and replacing him by a man whole principles were more conformable to their own, and his perion, therefore, more accepta ble. ble. This was Mr. Monroe, who was received with great refpect and cordiality. But when this gentleman was recalled, and Mr. Pinkney appointed his fucceffor, which was in November, 1796, the directory refufed to admit him in that capacity, and fufpended, at the fame time, their own ambassador in America, Mr. Adet, who was ordered to lay before that government the complaints of the republic againft its proceedings, and the determination to iffue orders to the French fhips of war to act towards the trading veflels of neutral ftates in the fame manner that thofe ftates permitted themfelves to be treated by the British navy. In fupport of this determination, the directory alleged the feizure of French property, by the English, on board of American veffels in the very ports of the United States, and through the connivance of their government. Such had been the regard paid to America, by the convention, at the commencement of this war, that while it declared lawful prize all English property found in neutral veffels, the thipping of the United States was excepted from this declaration. But the conduct of the English, in feizing the American fhips laden with provifiens on French account, had compelled the convention, through mere neceflity, to refcind this act of indulgence and to ufe the right of retaliation, by feizing English property in American veffels. It was farther ftated by Mr. Adet, that American failors were prefed into the fervice of the English, without reclamations being made, or even marks of difapprobation being manifefted on the part of the American government." Thefe and other acts of partiality, amply juftified the meafures taken by the directory. When the United States thought proper to enforce the refpect due to their flag by the English, the French would alfo treat it with the fame degree of refpect. Thefe remonftrances of the French refident were anfwered by stating, to him, that according to the ternis of the treaty of 1778, neutral property had been declared fecure in American veffels: but that no fuch ftipulations were contained in the prefent treaty between England and America. But the propriety of this aufwer was pronounced inadmiffible by the French. It was abfurd, they faid, that any ftate fhould affent to the continuance of a treaty, when they found it was to be converted into an inftrument of the deepest injury to their interefts. For the Americans to infift on the validity' of fuch a treaty was an infult to the understanding of the French, to which it could not be expected they were either fo unwife, or fo pufillanimous, to fubmit; nor could the Americans reconcile to any principle of juftice, or of honour, the breach of that article in the treaty with France, by which they had bound themfelves to guarantee the French colonies, in the Weft Indies, against the attempts of the English. The reciprocal jealoufies excited by thefe various tranfactions were greatly heightened by the motives which were underflood in France to have influenced the recall of Mr. Monroc from his embaffy, and the nomination of Mr. Pinkney in his ftead. Thefe were the reputed partiality of the one to the French, and the contrary difpofition of the other. When the former took leave of the directory, they did not omit this opportunity of declaring their fentiments on the fituation of affairs between France and America. They affured him, that whatever differences had arisen between the ruling powers of both countries, the French ftill retained their efteem for the people of the United Provinces, of whofe warmth and good will to the republic of France they were thoroughly convinced, as well as of their difinclination to coincide with the measures adopted by their government. They were not lefs careful in teftifying their higheft regard for his perfonal merit, and their warmeft gratitude for the attachment he had unvariably displayed to the cause of liberty and the profperity of France. Such, however, was their refentment of the connection between the English and the American govern ments, that they determined to gratify it, by treating the American minifter with rudeness, if not with indignity. Not fatisfied with hav ing denied him the affumption of that character, they would not fuffer him to remain at Paris as a private one. Herein they were, by many of their own people, feverely cenfured, as having, without neceffity, affronted an individual, come to them on a refpectable miffion, and widened thereby the breach between them and the ftate which he reprefented. Prudence, it was laid, ought to have enjoined a contrary behaviour. They fhould have fought to have kept the door of reconciliation open, instead of striving to fhut it in this arrogant and contemptuous manner. CHAP. |