further, as a balm for the wounded feelings of the French Directory and ministers and to facilitate negotiations, a “douceur for the pocket" of twelve hundred thousand livres was demanded. This proposal, however, was to come from the envoys. The envoys protested that they had no authority to make a loan, and that, as the neutrality of the United States would be compromised by such a measure, their government could not be expected to give them authority. In vain they begged for an opportunity to discuss the real questions at issue between the two countries, believing that a mutual understanding of these questions would lead to reconciliation. X said: "Gentlemen, you do not speak to the point; it is money; it is expected that you will offer money.' We said that we had spoken to that point very explicitly; we had given an answer. 'No,' said he, 'you have not. What is your answer?' We replied: It is no, no; not a sixpence.' . . . He said we ought to consider what men we had to treat with; that they disregarded the justice of our claims; . . . that we could only acquire an interest among them by a judicious application of money. . . . He said that all the members of the Directory were not disposed to receive our money; that Merlin, for instance, was paid from another quarter, and would touch no part of the douceur which was to come from us. We replied that we had understood that Merlin was paid by the owners of the privateers; and he nodded an

assent to the fact." 1 Gerry had two interviews with Talleyrand, on one occasion accompanied by Y and on the other by Z. The French minister alluded in unmistakable terms to the subject of a bribe to be offered by the envoys, and also said that information given by Y "might always be relied on." November 1 the envoys agreed to "hold no more indirect intercourse with the government." Six weeks later, however, X and Y again attempted to excite the Americans' interest in their financial schemes, and Pinckney was interviewed on the same subject by a lady said to be well acquainted with Talleyrand. Y threatened that if nothing were done the coasts of the United States would be ravaged by French frigates."

The envoys then wrote to Talleyrand a long letter, dated January 17, 1798, reviewing the relations of the two governments from the beginning. Early in March they had two interviews with him, in which he urged the loan. On the 18th he replied to their letter, rehearsing the old complaints and expressing dissatisfaction with the envoys themselves; two of them, he said, were not agreeable to the Directory, but with the third, Gerry, they were willing to treat. Pinckney and Marshall, as members of the Federalist party, were not acceptable ministers. The ascendency of this party in America was displeasing to the French, whose disappointment at the result of

2 Ibid. vol. iii, pp. 475–499, vol. iv, pp. 5–25.

the last presidential election was doubtless in part responsible for their unfriendly attitude at this time. Talleyrand's letter drew from the envoys another long communication, dated April 3, in which all his arguments were well met and the lack of authority of any one of them to treat alone was stated. They asked for passports and letters of safe conduct for their passage home. Pinckney and Marshall were now treated with marked discourtesy, and took their departure; Marshall soon returned to America. Instructions from the Secretary of State, dated March 23, arrived later, directing the envoys to leave Paris at once, if not duly received by the Directory, and in no case to listen to any suggestion of a loan. Gerry was induced to remain by a threat of immediate war if he did not.1

Gerry was approached by Talleyrand on the subject of negotiations, but he declined on the ground that he was unauthorized to treat alone; and in fact he soon received the positive orders of March 23 to return home. He remained, however, until midsummer, and during this time a correspondence was maintained in which Talleyrand endeavored to bring on a discussion of the issues. Gerry refused to be drawn into negotiations, and repeatedly demanded his passports. He has been severely censured for allowing his apprehension of war to detain him so long in France. At this period a published report of the American envoys' interviews with

1 St. Pap. vol. iv, pp. 26-142.

1

X, Y, and Z came to the attention of Talleyrand and excited his indignation. He absolutely denied any knowledge of X, Y, and Z, or of their negotiations, and insisted upon knowing their names, which, after some hesitation, Gerry weakly revealed. That the whole affair was engineered by Talleyrand, acting under orders of the Directory, admits of no doubt. Gerry's colleagues afterwards certified to the fact of the French minister's participation in the negotiations, and Marshall was " struck with the shameless effrontery of affecting to Mr. Gerry ignorance of the persons so designated." Gerry finally sailed for America in the United States brig Sophia about August 1, leaving the affairs of his country in charge of Consul-General Skipwith.3

Thus the attempts of the administration to accommodate matters with France came to nothing, and all that remained to be done was to adopt a policy of armed defense.

1 The names of Y and Z were Bellamy and Hautval; that of X, under promise of secrecy, was not published, but is given as Hottinguer in Narr. and Crit. Hist. vol. vii, p. 519.

2 Pickering [MSS.], vol. xxiii, 281, 320.

8 St. Pap. vol. iv, pp. 153–282; Adams, vol. viii, p. 610.

CHAPTER III

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS

Ir is now necessary to go back to the beginning of the war in Europe and follow the course of events resulting from the misunderstandings and abuses of treaty obligations, the harsh decrees of France, and the consequent ravages upon American shipping.

During the period of the French Revolution and European war, neutral commerce suffered severely at the hands of the different belligerents, and American foreign trade, just beginning to flourish and bring wealth to the country, received a serious check. And yet, being the most seafaring people among the neutral powers, the Americans should have had the largest share of the Atlantic carrying trade and have profited correspondingly.

In a message to Congress, December 5, 1793, President Washington called attention to these facts. Those who had suffered loss were requested to furnish proof, that measures might be taken to obtain redress. On the evidence thus called forth were based the earliest of the claims for indemnity which have been urged by the despoiled mariners and their descendants ever since. About the beginning of 1794 a committee of Philadelphia merchants reported