the government were very badly understood." Yet even in these steps the Directory could not restrain their habitual insolence. The very preamble of the decree which revoked the embargo, declared it to be done in consideration "that, notwithstanding the hostile manifestations of the government of the United States, which had occasioned a momentary embargo upon their vessels, it must be believed that, unless abandoned to the passions of the British cabinet, that government, faithful to the interests of the American nation, would take measures conformable to the pacific dispositions of the French republic, after it should receive a confirmation of them."

Mr. Gerry arrived in the United States on the 1st of October, and was received with open arms by the opposition. His final despatch to the Secretary of State, which accompanied the correspondence, was a lame attempt to justify his conduct and gloss over his failure. The circumstances under which he originally permitted himself to be detained, have been already noticed. The inducements to his subsequent stay, the validity of his defence, the facts on which he based his private representations to Mr. Adams of the intentions and wishes of France, now require consideration; that the measures of the President may hereafter be duly appreciated, and his certificate of the value of Mr. Gerry's services rightly estimated."

It will have been seen that Mr. Gerry, after the arrival of the Sophia, a vessel despatched by the department of State to bring back him and his colleagues, and which carried peremptory instructions, that if not received, or not in treaty with persons duly authorized by the Directory, with full and equal powers, they were to demand their passports and return; as suspense was ruinous to the essential interests of their country"-lingered in France nearly three months without being received; though

66

a In this review, Col. Pickering's report ted States and France," of January 18th, "on the transactions relating to the Uni- 1799, furnishes a principal authority.

he himself asserted that he had no powers to treat alone, and refused to treat. During all this time, he was engaged in a controversy with Talleyrand, in which every manner of insult was heaped by that functionary upon himself and his country; in which his credulity was ridiculed, his understanding derided, and even his veracity impugned; a controversy in which his only object seemed to be, to obtain the last word, or to get the better of his adversary in florid professions of the amicable disposition of their respective governments. Conduct of this kind in a national representative, required some sort of apology. Mr. Gerry sought it in his expectation of obtaining from Talleyrand, definite proposals of conciliation and peace. Mr. Adams indulgently found it in a supposed retraction of demands for a loan, and of apologies for his speeches; in the declaration that France did not wish to break the British treaty, and the empty professions of a desire to "negotiate."

Mr. Gerry stated, that "before the arrival of the despatches of the envoys, the minister appeared to him sincere, and anxious to obtain a reconciliation." The grounds upon which he founded his supposition were slight enough. The conduct of the French secretary, before the departure of Mr. Gerry's colleagues has been already reviewed. Up to that time, at least, there had been no evidence of sincerity. What were his subsequent demonstrations? On the 3d of April, addressing Mr. Gerry as "Envoy Extraordinary of the United States," he invited him to resume their "reciprocal communications." Mr. Gerry, apprehending, as he says, that it was intended to draw him into negotiations, replied on the next day, that he could only confer informally, and unaccredited; but that every measure in his power should be zealously pursued to restore harmony between the two republics. To this, he received no answer. On the 20th, he again wrote to the minister, urging him to bring forward his own propositions.

Still no answer was deigned him. On the 28th, he sought a personal interview, and was told that Talleyrand could make no propositions, because he did not know the views of the United States. These Mr. Gerry immediately furnished him. He promised in return, a project of a treaty to be delivered in a few days-a promise he did not perform. On the 12th of May, the vessel arrived with instructions, and Mr. Gerry informed him of his intention to return home at once. It was not till the 24th, that he received even a message, and then, only to the effect that France did not wish to break the British treaty. On the 26th, Mr. Gerry obtained another interview, and received the assurance that an envoy should be sent to the United States with the treaty, an assurance which Talleyrand afterwards explained away. No renunciations of inadmissible demands, had yet been made. Six weeks had been spent without even an overture, and this was what Mr. Gerry imagined to be appearances of sincerity on the part of the French Minister.

It was not until after the reception of the despatches, when Mr. Gerry appeared determined, at length, to leave France, that the slightest disposition even to a negotiation, was manifested. The publication of those papers, so far from causing a discontinuance of any friendly communications previously established, for the first time, compelled some show of anxiety towards such an object. Still, the conduct of Talleyrand was consistent. He knew his man. He knew the weakness, the morbid fears, the irresolution of the envoy he had selected for his “greater impartiality" and his greater credulity. He detained him three months longer, occasionally baiting him with a hope; at other times entangling him in an argument, or holding over him a threat; never once offering a project, or bringing forward a proposition that could be met.

From the details that have here been given, Col. Pickering's inference was irresistible, "that by the exclusive

attentions of the minister to Mr. Gerry, the French government intended to excite the jealousy of his colleagues, to promote dissensions between them, to separate him from them, and induce him to remain in France, expecting either to seduce him into a formal negotiation of a treaty on terms exclusively advantageous to France, and injurious and dishonorable to the United States; or, failing in this, to hold the United States in suspense, and prevent any measures for their security in the event of a war; while they, amused and deluded by warm, but empty professions of the pacific views and wishes of France, and by informal conferences, might wait in spiritless torpor, hoping for a peaceful result; and that by this course of proceeding, this ostentatious display of zeal to adjust differences, and restore harmony, and a friendly intercourse between the United States and France, the French government intended in case of a rupture, to throw the blame on the former."

But there is further evidence of the "sincerity" of Talleyrand, under Mr. Gerry's own hand. A letter from the French Secretary to Mr. Pichon, which will be noticed in a succeeding chapter, was forwarded to the American government during this fall, and comunicated to Congress. That letter contained some satirical allusions to Mr. Gerry, which, though passed over at the time, afterwards, on its incidental republication by Mr. Adams, ten years after, provoked a reply, which forms so amusing a contrast to his representations on the subject at this time, that a portion of it is here extracted.

In reply to an assertion of Talleyrand's, that he had used his endeavors to enter on a negotiation with Mr. Gerry, "in the spirit of substituting calmness for passion, and confidence for suspicion, from a conviction that distrust alone was the cause of the misunderstanding between the two republics," the latter says:

Admitting the fact, you will readily grant, sir, that the distrust on the part of the United States, existed long before the date of my commission to negotiate with France, and resulted from a series of measures on her part, highly injurious, and as the United States conceived, unjust towards them. And have not the despatches of the three envoys to their government proved to a demonstration, that the dark and crooked policy of negotiating with them by secret agents, whom you recognized to me as having acted under your authority, increased that distrust, and finally defeated the negotiation.' * *After the rupture of the negotiation, by the dismission of my colleagues, and the publication throughout all Europe of our despatches, then indeed you used,' and it might be stated, you repeated your endeavours to enter on a negotiation with myself;' not because it was practicable, or promising success, but because it was necessary to allay the indignation of the French nation and Directory against yourself, as the sole cause of the rupture of the negotiation with the three envoys. Can these facts, sir, be controverted? Are they not fully proved by the despatches of the envoys, and by your correspondence with myself?

Your letter next states, that your correspondence with Mr. Gerry, until the day of his departure, is a curious monument of advances on your part, and of evasions on his.' That it is a curious monument of advances, or a monument of curious advances on your part, made with a conviction of the impossibility of their being accepted by him, is readily admitted; and permit him to enquire, whether you urged him to enter on a negotiation which was warranted by, or one which was directly repugnant to the powers given him by his government? You advocated his right to treat separately from his colleagues, because the government of the United States had commissioned jointly and severally, these Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary, of whom he was one, to that with the French republic.' Had his colleagues, by any other means than the agency of that republic, been disqualified from acting, then indeed he would have had a separate authority, and would have exercised it; but, sir, your political abilities require no arguments to prove, that a separate power was not by his commission given to one envoy to treat, when two others were by the French government officially charged with misconduct, and dismissed from the embassy. If solid reasons did actually exist for the dismission, was it not incumbent on the French Directory to have stated them to the government of the United States, that the latter might have corrected the evil. Was it your object, by urging that envoy to negotiate separately, to induce him to a measure which would have terminated beneficially to the two republics, and honourably to the negotiators, or to one, which by his admitting the rights of the French government to select one of the three envoys to proceed in the negotiation, would have sacrificed, on his part, the rights, honour, and independence of his government, and disgraced himself? Let him enquire further, sir, whether you was authorized by the government of the United States (for your own government could not authorize you) to construe for their minister the powers which they had delegated to him? Was it not, to say the least, indelicate to make the attempt, and unjust to refuse him the right of being governed in his construction by his own judgment? Could he have met the advances, of which you boast, with a due regard to the