Mansion, as they supposed for a private interview; but they were confronted by a meeting of the full Cabinet, at which the President interrogated and berated them so unmercifully, that they marched out in high indignation. When his niece, Mrs. Donelson, the mistress of his household, declined to call on Mrs. Eaton, he banished her to his home in Tennessee.

Mr. Van Buren, being a widower with no daughters, had no domestic embarrassments to prevent social courtesies to Mrs. Eaton, and his conduct, in marked contrast to that of his colleagues, greatly pleased and endeared him to the President. The diplomatic corps had taken sides with the wives of the Cabinet and other society ladies; but the Secretary of State applied his art of persuasion (being termed by his party opponents "the magician ") to the British and Russian ministers, who were bachelors, and they each gave a ball to which Mrs. Eaton was invited. When at the British legation she was led out to the cotillion, it instantly dissolved. At the Russian minister's ball, the Dutch minister's wife left the supper-room on the arm of her husband rather than be seated by Mrs. Eaton's side, which so angered the President that he threatened to have the minister sent home. The matter became the absorbing topic of the day. Affairs went from bad to worse; the Cabinet, torn by dissensions in which this social scandal had no inconsiderable part, went to pieces, all its members resigned, and a complete reorganization took place.1

Van Buren, who it was said had already been desig

1 3 Schouler's Hist. U. S. 491.

nated by the President as his choice for the succession, was nominated minister to England. Congress not being in session, he repaired to his post. When, on the reassembling of Congress, his name came before the Senate for confirmation, a strong opposition was developed against him, inspired, in great measure, by personal hostility to President Jackson and his minister. Three grounds of objection were urged against the confirmation: first, that he had been the chief instrument in breaking up the Cabinet; second, that he had inaugurated the vicious "spoils" system in New York politics; and third, that he had given improper instructions when Secretary of State to our minister in London; and this latter became the chief ground of opposition. These instructions were contained in a dispatch sent to Mr. McLane, our minister in London, during the negotiations which brought about the settlement of our commercial difficulties to which I have just alluded. In that dispatch, dated July 20, 1829, he was authorized to inform the British Ministry that our government would withdraw from the position taken by the Adams administration, and that it had been condemned on this question by the American people at the late election. As a matter of fact the question scarcely entered into the electoral campaign, and, even if it had, was not a fit subject for correspondence or consideration with a foreign government.

Mr. Webster led the opposition to the confirmation, and in his speech confined himself almost exclusively to the dispatch to Mr. McLane. He specially cited the following from Secretary Van Buren's instructions to

Mr. McLane: "You will be able to tell the British minister that you and I, and the leading persons in this administration, have opposed the course heretofore pursued by the government and the country on the subject of the colonial trade. Be sure to let him know that, on that subject, we have held with England and not with our own government. . . . Their views upon that point have been submitted to the people of the United States; and the counsels by which your conduct is now directed are the result of the judgment expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which the late administration was amenable for its acts."

. .

From Mr. Webster's criticism of the dispatch, I make the following extract: "I think these instructions derogatory, in a high degree, to the character and the honor of the country. I think they show a manifest disposition in the writer of them to establish a distinction between his country and his party; to place that party above the country; to make interest at a foreign court for that party rather than for the country; to persuade the English ministry, and the English monarch, that they have an interest in maintaining in the United States the ascendency of the party to which the writer belongs. . . . I cannot be of the opinion that the author of these instructions is a proper representative of the United States at that court.. . . In the presence of foreign courts, amidst the monarchies of Europe, the American minister is to stand up for his country; and far less is he himself to reproach either; that he is to have no objects in his eye but American objects, and no heart in his bosom but an American

heart; that he is to forget self, and forget party, to forget every sinister and narrow feeling, in his proud and lofty attachment to the republic whose commission he bears." ." The Senate rejected the nomination, and Mr. Van Buren returned to the United States, only to be received by his party with new honors, first being elected vice-president and afterwards president. Whatever may be the judgment of posterity as to his conduct in domestic politics, it must be conceded that as secretary of state and as minister to England, he discharged his duties with credit. Washington Irving, who was his secretary of legation, says: "His manners were most amiable and ingratiating." His dispatches show a welltrained mind and a familiarity with international law.

Van Buren was succeeded as secretary of state by Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, more distinguished for his code of civil law than diplomacy, whose service ended with Jackson's first term. He was followed by Louis McLane, who, as minister to Great Britain, had, under Van Buren's direction, brought about the adjustment of our commercial relations with the British colonies, and who, in Mr. Polk's term, was again minister to Great Britain during the Oregon boundary settlement. After a year's service he gave place to John Forsyth, so that during the presidency of Jackson the State Department was filled by four secretaries.

The only other diplomatic question of importance during this administration, not already noticed, was the French treaty for the payment of indemnity to American vessels for losses during the Napoleonic wars. This

1 3 Webster's Works (ed. 1851), 357; 1 Benton's View, chap. 59.

treaty of 1831, negotiated while Mr. Van Buren was secretary, provided for the payment to the United States of $5,000,000 on account of the losses mentioned, and contained other stipulations as to favored admission of certain products of the two countries. The United States Congress promptly passed the law necessary to carry the treaty into effect, but in 1834, after various delays, the French Chamber declined to make the appropriation required by the treaty. President Jackson thereupon sent a strong message to Congress, saying that further negotiations were out of the question; diplomatic relations were broken off by the withdrawal of the respective ministers; and for a time an unpleasant state of relations existed, but open hostilities for such a cause were scarcely contemplated. Both governments began to see that want of forbearance on each side had been conspicuous, and through the good offices of Great Britain a renewal of relations was brought about in 1836 and the indemnity paid.1 This event raised the question how far the treaty-making power may bind a government to stipulations which can only be carried into effect through the action of a legislative branch of the government not consulted as to the treaty.

During President Van Buren's entire term the post of secretary of state was filled by Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, who had occupied the office during the last two years of Jackson's presidency. He had previously been minister to Spain, during the important negotiations resulting in the acquisition of Florida.

14 Schouler's Hist. U. S. 184, 239.