free, and, this being the period of the guillotine's greatest activity, prudently decided not to return to France.

It may be said for Genet that many of his doings were in accordance with his instructions, which, however, were issued before England and Spain had become involved in the war against France and before the American proclamation of neutrality. Moreover, his attempts to carry out his instructions were marked by an entire absence of the circumspection and tact essential in diplomacy, and by a total want of respect for the government to which he was accredited. In the French department of foreign affairs Genet was considered to have had his head turned by the adulation heaped upon him in America by the extreme partisans of France, and was blamed for antagonizing the United States government by persisting in his course against the wishes of the administration.1 Robespierre is quoted as expressing the opinion that a "man of the name of Genet has made use of the most unaccountable means to irritate the American government

against us." 2

While Genet's republican sentiments are estimable, his sincerity in declaring "that I love passionately my country, that I adore the cause of liberty, that I am always ready to sacrifice my life to it,"

1 Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, p. 283.

2 Washington, vol. xii, p. 403.

8 St. Pap. vol. i, p. 162.

3

is open to suspicion, from the fact that he never returned to France, even after the perils of the reign of terror were over, but left her to fight her way to liberty without his aid. Having married a daughter of Governor Clinton of New York, he settled in that state, and lived there in peace and quiet during the remainder of his long life.

CHAPTER II

NEGOTIATIONS

THE administration, while relieved from the embarrassments brought upon it by Genet, was nevertheless for the next four years subjected to the annoyance of incessant complaints on the part of the French department of foreign affairs and its ministers, Fauchet and his successor, Adet. These complaints were made a pretext for hostile acts which bore heavily upon American commerce.

Jefferson, having resigned the office of secretary of state, was succeeded in January, 1794, by Edmund Randolph, and he in turn by Timothy Pickering in December, 1795. Gouverneur Morris, United States minister to France, whose republican principles were not sufficiently radical to suit the French, was recalled in May, 1794, and James Monroe was sent to take his place. Monroe administered American affairs until the arrival in Paris, in December, 1796, of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who was sent to relieve him. Fauchet, the French minister to the United States, was succeeded in June, 1795, by Adet, who was recalled in October, 1796, and six months later left the affairs of his nation in the hands of the consul-general, Letombe.

In the mean time our relations with England

had long been unsatisfactory, as many of the provisions of the treaty of peace of 1783 had not been carried out. Moreover, the European war had subjected American commerce to British as well as to French aggressions. In view of the danger of still further estrangement, it was deemed of vital importance to negotiate a new treaty with Great Britain, and for this purpose John Jay was sent to England in April, 1794. His mission was so far successful that a treaty was concluded November 19, which was finally proclaimed in February, 1796. This treaty was far from satisfactory; it was sharply and justly criticised at the time, and has been ever since. Yet it relieved some of the most pressing matters in dispute, contained the most favorable terms that England could possibly have been induced to yield at that time, and with little doubt prevented war between the two countries. It secured compensation for injuries already inflicted upon American commerce, which was now, for a time at least, free from spoliation at the hands of British cruisers. Jay was unable to provide in the treaty for the protection of American seamen against impressment into the British naval service. This practice, which ultimately led to war between the two nations, was just beginning at this time.

After Genet's recall the complaints of France against the United States continued, but at first grew less acrimonious, and for a time better feeling prevailed between the two governments. Then with

the promulgation of Jay's treaty with England conditions changed again for the worse. This treaty conflicted in some of its provisions with the treaties of 1778 with France, and for this reason it was very offensive to the French, who, moreover, were irritated that the Americans should have been willing to establish amicable relations with their old enemies. The sources of French discontent, repeatedly urged in the course of the correspondence between the two republics from 1794 to 1798, may be summarized under two heads: first, complaints based on alleged inexecution of the treaties of 1778 and the convention of 1788; and second, those arising from provisions of the late treaty with England supposed to be unfriendly to France or prejudicial to her interests.1

Under the first head the French complained that United States courts took cognizance of prizes brought into American ports by French cruisers and privateers; but it was shown that in every case alleged there was evidence that the prize had been taken in American territorial waters or by a privateer fitted out in an American port. A case which brought forth loud and long-continued protests from the French was that of the Cassius, which had been originally armed in Philadelphia, had sailed under another name, refitted in the West

1 St. Pap. vol. ii, pp. 113-499, vol. iii, pp. 5-36, vol. iv, pp. 93137. See, also, report of Adet, March 21, 1796, to the French minister of foreign affairs, on Franco-American relations since 1793, Amer. Hist. Assoc. vol. ii, pp. 846-881.