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.

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.1 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

2

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

numerous cases, with proofs, and added: "It has become a practice for many of the privateers of the belligerent powers to send into port all American vessels they meet with, bound from any of the French ports in the West Indies to the United States; and though many of those vessels have been afterwards liberated, yet the loss by plunder, detention, and expense is so great as to render it ruinous to the American owner." The Secretary of State, Edmund Randolph, made a report to the President, March 2, 1794, on these proceedings. England, France, Spain, and Holland were the powers complained of, especially the first two. Their aggressions were committed under the authority of decrees promulgated by their governments and aimed at neutral carriers. The relations between the United States and Great Britain were improved not long after this time by Jay's treaty. Injuries suffered at the hands of the Spanish and Dutch were comparatively slight. The French, therefore, for a number of years to come, were the chief offenders.1

May 9, 1793, the National Convention of France issued a decree2 authorizing the seizure, on board a neutral vessel, of enemies' goods or of provisions bound to an enemy's port, the latter to be paid for and the vessel released upon the discharge of the cargo. The United States minister, Gouverneur

1 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 50, 494-499; Court of Claims Reports, vol. xxi, p. 355.

2 See Appendix III.

Morris, complained that this decree violated the twenty-third article of the treaty of commerce of 1778, according to which free ships made free goods. Thereupon American vessels were declared exempt from the regulations of May 9 by another decree, that of May 23, and Morris was assured that he would "find a new confirmation of the principles from which the French people will never depart with regard to their good friends and allies the United States of America." Yet on the 28th, through the corrupt influence of the owners of a privateer that had captured a rich American ship, this decree of the 23d was repealed. This was just at one of the crises of the French Revolution, and a few days later the Girondists were overthrown by the Jacobins. Upon continued complaints by Morris, the Convention, July 1, passed another decree, again declaring "that the vessels of the United States are not comprised in the regulations of the decree of the 9th of May"; but this was once more reversed, July 27, and the decree of May 9 was declared to be in full force. For a year and a half this state of things continued, and many captures of American vessels were made under the decree of May 9, 1793, until it was finally repealed, January 3, 1795, partial relief having been afforded by a decree of November 15, 1794. Then for the next year and a half American commerce was comparatively undisturbed; but on July 2, 1796, the French government enacted the first of a series of