coming the nation he represents, and by whom he is justly venerated.

In speaking of his regret, you excite my own, when duty imperiously requires me to resume a discussion ren dered necessary by your answer and the reflections it contains, rendered necessary still more by the recent persecutions which the French are made to suffer by the servile submission of the subaltern agents of the Executive of the United States to the requisitions of those of George 111. Unfortunately I cannot but be embarrassed in the choice of facts which occur to support this last assertion. Before I cite them, it is necessary for me to correct an important errour which has slipped into your despatch. You tell me "If your construction of the treaty of commerce be accurate," &c. This expression, sir, implies two facts, which I equally oppose. The first is, that the article, which I have cited, may be susceptible of several constructions; the second is, that I have given an arbitrary meaning to this article. You forsake these two suppositions, to construe in a manner favourable to our enemies a part of the treaty which it is necessary totally to retrench, if your interpretation is adopted.

The example of candour you have given induces me to avow, that I observe with pain the efforts you have made to demonstrate to me, that the import literally expressed is not the true import, and to substitute an ambiguity for a very clear and positive stipulation.

I recur to your reasoning.

"The first part of the 17th article relates to French ships of war and privateers, entering our ports with their prizes; the second presents a precise contrast. The connexion of the contrast which exists between these two clauses, therefore intimates that the vessels forbidden are those which bring their prizes with them."

The best answer I can give to this paragraph is to request you to read the same 17th article over again. You will thereby sce at once, that the said vessels (capturing) or their prizes, (which proves, that both have an equal right to this privilege) cannot be arrested or seized, whether, &c. and in the second part of the article you will find, "That on the contrary, no shelter, &c. shall be given, to such as shall have made prize," (not to such alone as shall bring in their prizes, as you seem to think; but to such as

capture.) It may be well to observe to you, sir, that by capturing vessels, is always understood the whole fleet, and not the particular vessels of that fleet which may have manned the prizes. The matter then is not alone, as you seem desirous of understanding it, to refuse all succour to prizes; but also to such as shall have made them. If you pursue the reading you will see, "That if they should come in, being forced by stress of weather, or the danger of the sea, all proper means shall be used that they go out and retire from thence as soon as possible." Hence the want of repairs after a battle, of which a prize might be supposed to be the consequence, a desire to take in provisions, in order to prolong a cruise without returning to the ports of their own nation, are not, as you esteem them, sufficient titles for our enemies to obtain an entry into your ports. Hence the principal advantage which the allied nations wished mutually to assure to each other by this article, was not so much to make the difficulty of disembarrassing themselves of or selling their prizes felt by their enemies, as of taking from them the facility of putting speedily to sea after an engagement, and obliging them to return to their own country to victual and supply themselves with provisions and water. This consequence naturally follows from the foregoing propositions, which would otherwise be without meaning; and therefore would discover nothing but folly in the framers of the treaty, which is not supposable. If their object was only to prohibit vessels of war of the enemy to enter a port with their prizes, and if the intention of the contracting parties could have been what you suppose, they would have formally expressed it: they would not have said, "Such as shall have made prize," but the vessels with their prizes. For my part, I cannot see in a treaty what it does not contain, and I cannot help seeing in it what it clearly expresses. I closely adhere to the letter, when it has an obvious and determinate meaning. I understand, that the captors of French property should be driven from your ports. Now English ships have made prizes: I thence conclude, that English ships should not find shelter in your ports: I thence conclude, that the asylum granted to them is a violation of our treaties. If it be true, as you wrote me, that the French functionaries and my predecessors never complained of this violation, it was because, far from hunting for causes of

complaint, when we had reason, we have always respected the situation of the American government; it was because the audacity and vexations, practised by the English against your commerce and the law of nations, increase in proportion as they give you assurances of peace. It is far from my thoughts to censure the long patience with which your government supports the perfidies of England. I respect both its motives and its secrecy, and the means, in fine, which its prudence suggests to obtain justice: but I am grieved to see the commercial connexions of the French Republick and the United States entirely dissolved by so many harassings: I am grieved to see the seizures which the British ships at this time make of American vessels sailing for France, or even returning thence, or which are supposed to be bound for a French port: I am grieved to see the United States suffer in silence the insolence of English proclamations, which are executed even upon their coasts: I am grieved, that even at this moment an alliance between a free people and a Machiavelian government is talked of. In supposing this rumour to be true, however monstrous such an alliance may be, I rely so much on the sincerity with which the Executive of the United States keeps its engagements, as still to demand with confidence their execution.

An occasion now presents itself. Even adopting your construction of the treaty, it has just been violated at Norfolk. The English frigate Terpsichore anchored there with a French privateer, called La Montagne, which she had taken. The consul of the Republick complained in writing to the governour of Virginia against this infraction, and a length of time elapsed without the governour's deigning to give him an answer. I expect one from you, whose principles I know, more speedy no doubt and conformable with justice. This delay gives rise to a very painful reflection; it is, that there is the greatest fervour to satisfy the unjust demands of our enemies, and the greatest coldness to satisfy our lawful demands. Norfolk will furnish the two proofs of what I advance; the execu tion of our treaties was claimed; but no answer was given. A vessel whose mast was broken in her passage to Guadaloupe, where she was carrying provisions, was obliged to return to Norfolk. It was immediately wished to arrest her on the assertion of some Englishmen, and the pro

ceedings which were to be employed, were so odious, so insulting to the publick officers of the Republick, that I am obliged to enter into some details relative to this affair.

A Frenchman learned at Charleston the recapture of Guadaloupe; his first feelings excited him to go to the assistance of his newly arrived brethren; he purchased a schooner, which he loaded with provisions; intending to avail himself of the American papers belonging to the ves sel he had bought, it was justly observed to him, that agreeably to the laws of the United States, the transfer of a vessel to a foreigner made it necessary to give up the papers; he was then obliged, agreeably to the laws of France, to take out from the consulate a certificate of the purchase, to serve him until his arrival at the first French port.-For the defence of his property he put on board thirteen cannon, which he possessed before the purchase of the vessel. He notified the governour of South Carolina of it, who, finding him armed simply for his own defence and not for a cruise, made no objection. He sailed: an accident obliged him to go to Norfolk. He had hardly arrived, when it was wished to arrest him. I leave you to judge of the indignation of a man, who, impatient at the space which separated him from his fellow citizens dying with hunger, found himself treated as a criminal amongst an allied nation. He esteemed every moment of delay which he experienced, as so many assassinations of the Frenchmen who were threatened with approaching famine. To put the finishing stroke to this inhospitable conduct, the consul of the Republick was solicited to arrest the captain, without giving the grounds of the suit instituted against him, as if it was desired to make the consul act the part of a constable. I send you the documents, which establish this fact. I know, sir, that you will answer me, that a superior court will determine upon the legality of these persecutions, and that justice will finally be done. an unjust prosecution, which they may have raised, I have already remarked to you, it is of little consequence to theEnglish agents, how the suit shall be determined; if they have contravened an operation which was to save a French colony, they have attained the object they proposed; and if in the present case, for example, they should be obliged to pay heavy damages, heavier even than the value of the vessel. they will pay them with pleasure. If they shall

But in

have prevented the supplies of one of our colonies, it must be to them as grateful, as it is grievous to us, to render those the instruments of the ruin of one of our possessions in the islands, who have guarantied their safe possession by their treaties with us.

However disagreeable it may be to me to fatigue the federal government with my complaints, I must again recur to the capture of the English brigantine Perseverance. I shall content myself with submitting the facts, and shall leave to you the reflections to which they may give rise.

The English brigantine Perseverance, captured by the privateer le Sans Pareil, commissioned at Cape Francois in the island of St. Domingo, arrived at New York* the 13th of last August. The English vice-consul immediately suggested, that the Sans Parcil had been commissioned at Charleston. The collector of the customs at once caused the prize to be seized, the captors to be expelled, possession to be taken, and all her papers to be carried away.

The French prize master wished to object to two Engish sailors, who, being improperly influenced, declared under oath, that this officer had killed a man at Charleston: and he was finally imprisoned.

Happily, the consul of the Republick at Boston, being informed of this strange persecution, sent his chancellor to Newport.

The chancellor found that, from just suspicions conceived against the two English sailors, and the impossibility of their giving security to appear at the criminal suit commenced against the prize master, they had been themselves committed to prison, that seeing themselves abandoned, uneasy about the consequences, perhaps repentant, they had confessed that their deposition was false, that finally they had retracted judicially, by confessing that they had been actuated only by malice, and had been set at liberty; that in the mean time nobody was prosecuted but the two perjurers; and that the final enlargement of the prize master was delayed.

The chancellor on his arrival requested from the collector a communication of the papers of the prize: he requested him to send her to Providence for the sake of greater

*Newport.