issue, hoping "that the country may escape being involved in the war."

Events' were fast crystallizing the opposing elements in congress, into definitely organized political parties, in avowed opposition to each other. It is perhaps impossible to reproduce for ourselves any conception of the partisan bitterness which was successively occasioned by the nomination of Mr. Jay as minister to England, by his confirmation after a close struggle,3 and by the disclosure of the treaty which he had negotiated. The treaty was finally confirmed, and received the signature of President Washington. It is a significant indication of the state of feeling at this time, that this action by the man who was "first in the hearts of his countrymen" exposed him to attacks upon his motives, of the most malicious nature. The position of the Federalist party was, at this time, and for some years to come, a strikingly patriotic one. In the face of a popular and turbulent opposition, it steadfastly urged those measures which appeared to be the essential and vital ones. The strength of the Federalist party in Rhode Island is not a little singular when one considers how recently the hottest opposition" to all the foundation principles of this party had kept this state outside the union. Even the wild indignation aroused by the

(1) One event which very noticeably hastened this tendency was the issue by Great Britain, in November, 1793, of the well-known "Order in council,' relative to neutral vessels. (Hildreth's United States," IV. 486).

(5) It was at this time that Washington was led to declare that he "would rather be in his grave than in the presidency."

(6) As pointed out elsewhere by the present editor, (Foster's "Stephen Hopkins," II. 154), "it would almost seem as if the opposing forces had worn themselves out in the contest; for it is a very significant fact that, from this time [1790] on, so long as there was any active federalist party, Rhode Island was a federalist state."

negotiation of Jay's treaty with Great Britain did not succeed in shaking its soundness in this regard.1

2

Jay's treaty, however, was a very serious matter; and thus early in the history of the government, was the occasion of putting its endurance to a severe strain. It can hardly be wondered at that there was dissatisfaction with it. "England," says a recent writer, "was still at liberty to impress American seamen, to harass American commerce, and to shut it out from the West India trade." Yet those who with Washington, felt that it must be sustained, while regretting its inadaquacy, were well assured that far worse consequences would follow its rejection. There are few more impressive instances of deliberative oratory on record, than the justly celebrated speech of Fisher Ames, on the question of ratifying the treaty.3 Senator Foster, writing to his friend, Dr. Drowne, Jan. 22, 1796, remarked:

"The treaty with the British is strongly threatened with a severe attack in the House of Representatives. Should a vote be obtained, disapproving it, probably the final result would be a war with Great Britain."

* * *

Most of the Federalists at this time 'were favorable, on the whole, to Mr. Adams, as a successor to President Washington, who now insisted on retiring permanently from public life. Senator Foster, writing Dec. 18, 1796, to Dr. Drowne, declares with evident satisfaction: "I congratulate you on the election of Mr. Adams. There is a prospect of our country being respectable and happy, under, his administration." Un

(1) Fisher Ames, who spent several days in Rhode Island in the early autumn of 1795, wrote as follows to his friend, Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury "At Providence the anti-federal party is very inconsiderable, and I was happy to see in that state (Rhode Island) symptoms of a just pride in their present state." "I made conversation at all the country taverns, and I think the yeomanry are yet right." (Printed in Wolcott's "Memoirs of the administrations of Washington and John Adams," I. 229).

(2) Johnston's "History of American politics,” p. 35.

(3) April 28, 1796. (Printed in the "Works" of Fisher Ames, II. 37-71; Benton's "Abridgment of debates," I. 743-48).

fortunately, this prospect was soon clouded; and the succeeding four years witnessed the most serious misunderstandings and entanglements in the conduct of home affairs.

3

The ten years of Senator Foster's stay in Philadelphia' were full of interest to him. It was at that time the chief city of the country, and in his correspondence will be found frequent references to the life of the city at that period, and to the eminent men in its society. Memoranda are occasionally found, also, of the additions made to his private library, from the bookstores of that city; to his attendance on public lectures and addresses; and to occasional dramatic performances.* During the year 1796, as appears in one of his letters to Dr. Drowne, he took up his residence in a French family, for the purpose as he says, "of making greater proficiency in the French language,” which he had already studied in college and by himself. A familiar acquaintance with the officers among the French allies during the war had also been of service. He farther says, in the letter just cited: "I find it of great

(1) The sessions of congress were held at Philadelphia from December 6, 1790, until the year 1800. In November of the latter year the seat of government was removed to the city of Washington. Philadelphia had in 1800 a population of 69,403. ("Compendium of 7th U. S. census," p. 192). (2) May 13, 1796, he writes of being at Dr. Shippen's, whose well preserved mansion still stands, near Fairmount Park. June 29, 1797, he speaks not only of dining with President Adams, within a few days, but also at Dr. Casper Wistar's. The receptions at Dr. Wistar's soon afterwards developed into a somewhat permanent institution. Watson, in his "Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania," (II. 497), remarks: "These evening parties, for which Philadelphia society is remarkable, were begun by Dr. Casper Wistar in 1799, by his call of all the members of the Philosophical Society to his house, once a week, during the winter." (3) December 18, 1796, he writes of having listened that day to Dr. Benjamin Rush's eulogium on Dr. Rittenhouse, late president of the American Philosophical Society.

(4) April 5, 1798, he writes of having attended a performance of Shakespeare's "King Lear."

(5) Among those with whom he had a familiar acquaintance was Lafayette, as appears from Stone's "Our French allies," p. 30. In the assignment of officers' quarters in 1780, Major de Béville was his guest; and in 1778 the Marquis de Fleury. (Stone's "Our French allies," p. 321, 35-36).

advantage to me. I have now a considerable acquaintance among the French in this city." Possibly it was his proficiency in this connection which caused him to be appointed,' Dec. 19, 1800, on a committee "to prepare a translation of so much of the journal of the late envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, of the United States, to the French republic, as is communicated in the French language." It does not appear that his connection with his French friends, or his wide acquaintance among them, in any way warped his judgment in the Gallic infatuation of 1796.2

In 1797, so threatening was the aspect of affairs that an extra session of congress was called. May 18, 1797, Mr. Foster writes from his seat in the senate: "I think an envoy extraordinary will be appointed to France, more perhaps because one was sent to England than for any good reason besides." Of the president's foreign policy he writes, a few weeks later: "His policy is firm, steady, and right forward; the Jeffersonian policy more compliant to the views of France." 4 In the interval between the adjournment of this session of congress and the re-assembling of that body in November, events in France had forced Pinckney, the American minister, to his determined declaration :-" Millions for defence, not one cent for tribute." Senator Foster, writing, April 27,

(1) Annals of congress. 7th congress, p. 767.

(2) June 29, 1797, Senator Foster writes of a toast being given by Thomas Jefferson, in these words: "General Buonaparte; he seems to be one of our best friends;" and mentions the fact in a by no means approving tone. (3) June 29, 1797.

(4) In this same letter Senator Foster objects to Mr. Jefferson's policy as being "less determined in support of so strict a neutrality as the late President Washington undertook to establish." The principles of Washington's "Farewell address" (delivered scarcely a year before this), in warning against foreign entanglements, were still fresh in mind.

There is a letter of Senator Foster to John Howland, dated April 16, 1798, in which he refers to the "threatening storm" resulting from the foreign relations of the country. (Printed in Stone's "John Howland," p. 168-69).

(5) Bradford's "History of federal government,” p. 96.

1798, to Dr. Drowne, said: "The dispatches from our envoys to France too plainly indicate what is coming." "We have once contended successfully against one nation, for our independence. We must not give it up to another, when we have done so much to obtain and establish it."

The remainder of President Adams's administration is little. more than a record of mistakes, misunderstandings, and almost inexcusable blunders on the part of all parties. In June, 1798, the "alien law" and the almost equally ill-considered "sedition law" came up for their final action, and were passed in the senate by the full vote of the New England Federalists, (Senator Foster included). Congress adjourned in July, after animated discussion on the question of raising an army, and the appointment of a commander-in-chief; and after the president had announced that there was now an end to negotiations with the French republic. In the months which followed the adjournment of congress, a deep-seated feeling of resentment and indignation began to manifest itself throughout the country, particularly in the strongly Republican districts; and culminated late in this year and in the beginning of the next, in the passage of the momentous Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. In February, 1799, President Adams took the step which has been variously characterized as the most praiseworthy and the most blameworthy of his career, the nomination of three envoys to France. The envoys were successful in their mission, but from this time onward the break between the president and the majority of the Federalist party was an irremediable one.

When in 1800 the time drew near for the selection of presidential candidates, the Federalist leaders found themselves in a most perplexing situation. On the one hand, the candidate most prominently urged was Thomas Jefferson,—a man who stood in their minds for the most objectionable of political principles, and in whom they had no confidence. On the other was John Adams, -a man who had gradually but very completely alienated their confidence by his course since 1797. The outcome of their action is well known. The result of