vessels, public and private, within the waters of the United States, both English and French, kept the cabinet in constant agitation. Besides these occurrences, French privateers, which had the right by treaty to come in, waylaid and captured American vessels, in some instances, within two hours after pilots had left them, and carried them to the West Indies for consular condemnation. Controversies arose, also, on the construction to be given to shipments of merchandise, by the law of nations, and by the existing treaties, which were closely argued in diplomatic intercourse with the French minister. He was sustained throughout, by the French Americans, who considered all he said and did to be right, and that all their own government did was entirely British, and intended to be so. But impartial history will show, that never did any executive government struggle harder, and with good temper too, to adhere to the principles of strict neutrality, and to keep out of the war which was overwhelming Europe. As to the complaints made by the French minister, and the manner in which they were answered, these may be found (among public documents accompanying a message to Congress, January 17, 1797) in the very able letter of the Secretary of State to Mr. Pinckney, at that time minister to France.

When the treaty with Great Britain took effect, by the interchange of ratifications, the whole country rung with renewed clamor, in which Washington's public services were remembered only as matters of reproach. At the session of Congress which commenced December, 1795, and continued into the summer of 1796, Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, moved a general proposition for making the laws, necessary for carrying the treaties into effect made with Algiers, the Indians, Spain, and Great Britain. The latter was soon separated from all the others, and the most ardent and most eloquent, and at the same time, most acrimonious debate ensued, ever known in the House of Representatives. Mr. Livingston, then of New York, and afterwards minister to France, began by moving, that the President should be called on for all the papers relating to the negotiation of the treaty.

This motion was vehemently debated, and, after some days, carried by a majority of fifty-seven to thirty-five. The President answered, with his accustomed coolness and dignity, stating his reasons why the House of Representatives, which has no part in the treaty-making power, cannot be constitutionally entitled to the papers called for; and concluded with saying, "a just regard to the constitution, and to the duties of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request." This refusal was received with an indignation which the majority were at no pains to conceal. The same spirit was widely disseminated through the country, and everybody felt wise enough to settle the constitutional question, whether the President was right or wrong, in this refusal.

Most fortunately for the United States, as afterwards appeared from the operation of the treaty, public opinion had undergone an important change. Popular meetings were again held, and though many of the provisions of the treaty were thought to be objectionable, and though omissions were thought to be apparent, yet it could not be doubted that a majority, composed of the most respectable and intelligent citizens, were in favor of carrying the treaty into effect, with entire good faith. It is worthy of remark that Mr. Fox, in the British Parliament, complained that the treaty was very unfavorable to England. It is known, from Mr. Jay's, and from Mr. Pinckney's communications, that the treaty was as favorable to this country, as could have been obtained.

The popular sentiment was felt in the House of Representatives, and probably had an important influence on the final result. The debate necessarily took the widest range. Europe-the belligerents the character of the war-our condition—inevitable consequences dissension among the branches of the government -popular enthusiasm-interest-duty-honor-inflamed partyspirit-war-means wholly inadequate confusion and anarchyall figure in this memorable debate, and with the full glow of party excitement, which seemed to have been gathering from the first institution of the government, to storm forth on this occasion.

All this may be seen in the mere printed skeleton of debate, which is silent as to tones, looks, and gestures. In a former page, the part which Mr. Ames took, on this occasion, has been noticed. Notwithstanding the state of his health, his speech comprises thirty-five closely printed octavo pages in Dr. Kirkland's compilation. This extract will give some idea of the character of the discussion: "Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been left unexplored? It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments; and when that failed, to awaken the sensibility that would require none. Every prejudice and feeling has been summoned to listen to some peculiar style of address; and yet we seem to consider a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that of unbiassed reason."

man.

In committee of the whole, the question on making laws to carry the treaty into effect, rested on the casting vote of the chairThe final question in the House was carried by a majority of three only, fifty-one to forty-eight. It may gratify curiosity to mention some of the individuals who were then members of this branch of the legislature. Among those who voted, that it was expedient to make laws for carrying the treaty into effect, were, Fisher Ames, Theophilus Bradbury, Nicholas Gilman, Roger Griswold, R. G. Harper, James Hillhouse, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith. Among those who voted in the negative were, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Thomas Claiborne, Henry Dearborn, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, Wade Hampton, Edward Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph B. Varnum. In all, fifty-one for, forty-eight against the

measure.

With a view to make known to France the true state of the country, and to remove all erroneous impressions, the President contemplated a special mission thither. He had the further inducement, that he was not satisfied with the ministry of Mr. Monroe. But finding that he was not authorized, as he considered, to create an office, without the assent of the Senate, but only to

fill vacancies in an existing office, the design was relinquished. Mr. Monroe was recalled, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was appointed in September, 1796. Mr. Monroe took offence at being displaced, came home, and published a volume of justification, which probably aided him in attaining to the presidency. He therein assumes to say, that if a rupture should happen with France, it would not be occasioned by the misconduct of France, but by Washington's policy, which Monroe calls "short-sighted and bad."

LETTER XIX.

MARCH 22, 1833.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress, (June 1, 1796,) the President engaged himself in attempting the liberation of Lafayette. It will be remembered, that Lafayette, in the early part of the revolution, considering himself unsafe in France, retired from it, intending to find safety on neutral ground; and that he was taken by an Austrian patrol, and detained in a dungeon several years, first in the Prussian dominions, and afterwards within those of Austria. The President directed Mr. Pinckney, minister in London, to speak to the ministers from Prussia and Austria, concerning the interest felt by him in the fate of Lafayette. Finding that the object of his compassion had been transferred to the Emperor of Austria, he wrote a letter to him on the subject. What effect this measure had, does not appear. In 1796, Dr. Bollman was in this country. He had made a gallant attempt to free Lafayette, together with a young gentleman of South Carolina, (since known as Colonel Huger,) which was nearly successful. Bollman was a German; he had nothing in his common deportment, of the zeal and enterprise which such an attempt would

imply. He was a tranquil, quiet gentleman; with the air, nevertheless, of a very determined man. In the same year, the present Lord Lyndhurst was in the United States, by the name of Copley. He was a tranquil, quiet gentleman, also. He had the reputation of being a good scholar, but he gave no indication, at that time, that he was thereafter to be Lord Chancellor. He was rather above common stature-of thin person, light complexion, and large blue eyes; and of very courteous manners. He was born in Boston, and was carried to England when about two years old, before the revolution. He made many friends here, and in other places at the South; and was much esteemed.

Towards the close of the year, the third election of president engaged the national attention. Washington was earnestly solicited to be a candidate again. All who had opposed his administration, were still more earnest that he should not. Every measure that party feeling and malice could resort to, was taken to render him odious. It is painful to recur to any of these measures, but the character of the times cannot be understood without doing it.

Thomas Paine, an Englishman by birth, came to this country in 1774, and was here during the war. He was a powerful writer for the popular eye. A pamphlet called "Common Sense," gave him some celebrity. The legislature of Pennsylvania voted him £500 for this production. He was secretary to the committee of foreign affairs; but was dismissed for misconduct. In 1787 he went to France, and thence to England, where he wrote "The Rights of Man," in answer to Burke's Reflections on the Erench Revolution; for which he was indicted, but escaped to France. He was a member of the convention which voted for the death of the king. He voted for banishment. In 1793 he wrote "The Age of Reason," in derision of Christianity; and in the same year, having fallen under the displeasure of the rulers in France, he was imprisoned; and so continued to be, till the fall of Robespierre, in 1795. He returned to the United States, and died near the city of New York, in 1809, at the age of seventy-three. His