FRENCH GENEROSITY.

On the 27th of April last, there appeared, in the Philadelphia Gazette, an order, said to be is­sued by the French Convention (I lump the five kings and council of old ones and council of young ones all together) to the commanders of their privateers, concerning the papers of Mr. Spillard, the famous traveller. The person who sends this article to Mr. Brown, requests him to publish it, as ‘ it will be acceptable to every friend of the French na­tion, and of useful discoveries.’

Before we say any thing about the order itself, we ought to observe, that it is published to give [Page 209] pleasure to the friends of the French, by extolling French generosity. The friends of useful discoveries too are to be obliged, and the paragraphist seems to hint, that those who are friends of the latter must be of the former. I must allow that the French have made several new discoveries, as, for instance, forced-loans, assignats, the maximum, requisitions, revolutionary tribunals, festivals to Reason, drowning boats, shooting en masse, and the renowned guillotine. While Spillard has been employed in exploring the back parts of America, the French have been employed in exploring both back and belly parts of the human body: they have been cutting off the breasts of women and secrets of men; they have been tearing out the heart from the breast and the embryo from the womb. These are certainly discoveries; but, I imagine, the "friends of France" alone will think them "use­ful" ones.

Now to the generous order. After having run on a long while, in the usual bombastical cant of the Convention (but with less vaunting than former­ly) the order says:

The Convention could not, all at once, leave off their old style. We must yet be dunned with the formidableness of French courage; and poor Spil­lard must be called a philosopher, a name now sy­nonymous, with cut-throats. They must yet keep up their cant about a great republic, and their love of virtue and of the arts and sciences. We have, indeed, seen some few instances of the force of their genius, and of their application, in the discoveries above ennumerated; but how long is it, I would be glad to know, since they have become the pa­trons and protectors of the arts and sciences?

I have a book lying before me from which I shall here borrow a sact or two. The library at Aney was crammed into hogsheads; at Narbonne the books were sent to the Arsenal; at Fontaine le Di­jon the library of the Fuillants was thrown aside as waste paper. Many of the libraries of Monks contained editions printed in the first days of the art of printing; books, sold in France for a few crowns, were sold in London for 125 guineas. A clock en malachite was sold for a trifle, though the only one existing. They mutilated or destroyed all the famous statues, one in particular that cost 200,000 livres. At Pont Mousson, a large picture, which con­noisseurs offered to cover with guineas as its price, was sold for less than two. At Nancy, in the space of a few hours, they broke and burned to the value of 100,000 crowns in books and pictures. At Lyons 800 antique medals of gold were thrown in­to the crucible. The antiquities of Arles were de­stroyed to come at salt-petre.

[Page 211]One member of this Vandal Convention proposed to destroy the portal of St. Denis; another wanted to kill all the rare animals in the museum of Natu­ral History; a third said he did not like learned men, and that the term was synonymous with aristocrat; a fourth proposed, that soldiers might be promoted to generals, without being able to write; to con­clude, one of these monsters said, that all men of genius should be guillotined.

These are lovers of the arts and sciences! These are the representatives of that great republic to whose generous forbearance Spillard is to owe the recovery of his papers. Amazing change! These people, who burnt Horace and Virgil because they had been encouraged by kings, and who destroyed the royal library, merely because it was royal, are now using their utmost endeavours to preserve the papers of Spillard for the use of a king, and, oh, ye gods! for a king of England too! A "despot" with whom they were ‘never to make peace, 'till he begged it on his knees, with a halter about his neck!’

Kind, forgiving, generous fellows! how are they reformed! they who, in the beginning of the war, seized on the property, even to the very cloths, of all the British subjects who happened to be in France, and threw their persons into loathsome prisons, where hundreds of them perished; they who, in the days of their success, issued a decree for murdering every Briton taken in the field of action; they, whose cannibal agents dug the half rotten body of the brave General Dundas from the grave and hung it on a gibbet. Yes, these very people are now uncommonly solicious to save, for an En­glish [Page 212] gentleman, the little memorandums he may have made in his travels!

How shall we possibly account for all this? let us see if the closing sentence of the extract I have given from their order, will not throw some light on the matter. "This will," say they, ‘give a great lesson to our enemies; for a good action de­serves as much as a great victory.’ So, so! dad­dy Merlin is coming round, is he? a great lesson of generosity is to be given to their enemies, and this good action is to yield them as much as a great victory? this is what you may call coaxing. No, no; none of your good actions; keep them for your friends, and your great victories for your enemies.

And do I live to see the Grande Convention Fran­coise wheedling "the nation of shop-keepers?" The people of that devoted Carthage, which they pro­mised us they would destroy? they may wheedle long enough: Billy Pitt has not forgotten that his head was to be brought before them, as a preli­minary to any peace they might grant to the "shop-keeping nation:" he has not forgotten that they guillotined him in effigy along with his royal Master. Billy's turn is come: he may now say to them, in one of Shakespeare's characters: ‘And thus, my lads, the whirligig of time brings in his revenges.’

When the reader compares their patronage of the arts and sciences, in their own country, and their generosity shown towards the English, in their prosperous days, with their pretended motives set forth in this generous order, I am persuaded he [Page 213] will attribute their change of conduct to the pro­per cause.

Pray then, Mr. Brown the gazette man, let us hear no more of your French generosity. For shame, Sir! how can you suffer your fine large gazette to talk about French virtue? tell your cor­respondent, if he should pester you with such ano­ther paragraph, that the bore is discovered. Tell him that the "friends of France" are very much reduced in numbers, and are daily and hourly de­creasing. Tell him, above all, that nothing can keep the sans-culotte cause alive but an immediate supply of the ready; that the "friends of France" are not to be satisfied with mere sounds of genero­sity; that fraternity and flattery go but little way at the shambles or the grog-shop, and that, in short, flour merchants or not flour merchants, they all prefer "solid pudding to empty praise."

REMARKS. On the poetical Works of John Swanwick af Phila­delphia.

In the last Censor I made my readers a sort of half promise to give them some account of the poe­tical works of Mr. Swanwick, and I am now pre­paring to fulfil it.

These works are, as yet, confined to a poem, which is to be found in the Gentleman's Magazine for June, 1795, published by Sylvanus Urban of the city of London. The reader will be surprised that a poem, written in Philadelphia, should be export­ed [Page 214] to England for publication: I was and am yet surprised at this; and still more, that Citizen Swanwick should send his works to the editor of a Gentlemen's Magazine. He had heard, I presume, that this is the repository of most of the little fugi­tive pieces written by men of learning and genius, and so he condescended to enrich it with a piece of his own. This was certainly generous in him, if we recollect what a hatred he has for all that is gentleman-like.

The poem is entitled: ‘The prospect of seeing the Fine Arts flourish in America.’—After hav­ing spoken of the epoch, when the artists of Ame­rica shall stay at home ‘to finish the glories of the risen day of Columbia,’ our author, by a hap­py transition, turns our eyes to what we already possess:

Thus, then, Schemes of charity, Visiting the Jail, and Ministering to the Sick are, by Mr. Swanwick called " flow'rets, the lovely harbingers of fame;" and hence are to spring the fine arts. Never did I before hear that poor-houses, jails and sick beds were places for cultivating or encouraging the fine arts. Mr. Swanwick may there practise fine arts, per­haps, [Page 215] such as are necessary to gain him votes at an election; these are very fine arts indeed.—But stop, there are more of these arts to come yet.

Our poet alludes to the negro society, or abolition society, as it is called; and, I am ready to allow it a place among the harbingers of the fine arts. This society is, indeed, a nursery for some of the finest arts ever practised either in Europe or Ame­rica. But, how comes our author to number farm­ing and manufacturing among his fine arts? Plough­ing and grubbing and making anchors and cables, or grinding snuff or boiling up sugar; these do not seem to me to be fine arts. After these come "humane establishments;" and, though these had been before enumerated, Mr. Swanwick must thus sum them up together and express them over again, for fear we should imagine that he did not look on them as mere tricks of art. Mercy on us! who ever heard before, that humane establishments were among the hot-beds of the fine arts!

So much for the vein of absurdity running through this metre: now to the Nonsense.

Ministering to woes may be a fine art, but, when we are told that these woes languish, what are we to think of the fine artist? to languish is to pine away, to droop, to sink under affliction. Now, can it be said that a woe pines and droops? let us change [Page 216] the principle words in this line for such as are sy­nonymous with them, but rather more familiar, and we shall be struck, nay, knocked down with the nonsense.

I could say something about the raging illness of sorrow, and sorrow stretched upon a bed too, but I hasten on to the living altars of freedom. The poet tells us, that the slave society raise living altars to freedom, and then bid the negroes celebrate her praise. Now, what are these living altars? why, the persons freed, the negroes themselves; and so, these kind gentlemen bid the altars praise the god­dess!—They will stand in no need of priests at any rate.

With respect to the farmer, I will leave it to the experience and good sense of the reader to deter­mine, whether it be either usual or fitting to pay homage to the race of him whom we have taken un­der our care and patronage.—Our poet often makes use of figures of rhetoric, but that of the galimati­as is the only one he has perfectly at command. It requires neither learning nor taste to discover that he has a plentiful lack of both.

Butler, in remarking on the verses of the would-be poets of his time, says they made one line for sense and one for rhyme. It is certain that this is a most sure mark of sterility; but our little man goes a step further, or rather falls a step short, of this: he has one line for rhyme and the other for nonsense.

This piece of rhyming prose I do not scruple to pronounce the most miserable attempt at versifica­tion, [Page 217] that ever appeared in the Gentleman's Ma­gazine: nor can I persuade myself that the Editor would ever have admitted it without a douceur. It appeared, indeed, to have experienced some consi­derable delay; for, it is dated in 1788. Certain I am that if old Sylvanus Urban had been acquaint­ed with our little author's principles in politics, he never would have suffered his chiming to enter his repository.

Had this been a piece scratched out in a hurry and sent away to the news-paper, one might have winked at its faults, one might have yawned over its insipidity and thrown it aside; but here is a stu­died trap for fame; this poor dull morsel had been copied over a hundred times, perhaps, before it was sent all the way to Old England. I think I see the little poet now, scratching his head and gnawing his pen, telling his fingers and searching his rhyme book. Alas! Mr. Swanwick, people do not make poetry this way. They may hammer out lines 'till they clink, but as to poetry it never was hammered out of a dull brain.

What is most laughable, is, to hear the little man calling out upon the Muse.—"But cease the Muse!" as much as to say that the Muse had inspired the small-beer verses we have above extracted! It is with rapture I hear Milton invoke the heavenly Muse, or Shakespear wishing for a Muse of fire; but when, at the end of fifty lines of vapid metre, I hear the little whiffling poetastor calling on his Muse to cease her course, a sneer contracts the muscles of my nose, in spite of all my complaisance and compassion.

[Page 218]If Mr. Swanwick reckons the noble art, taught by the famous Martinus Scriblerius, I mean the art of sinking in poetry; if he reckons this among the fine arts, I congratulate him on having brought it to perfection, for he has certainly rolled from the very bottommost step of the Bathos.

Thus it is to be a pretender to universal genius without having any genius at all. Instead of get­ting renown a man gets himself laughed at. It is a real misfortune: Mr. Swanwick might have been happy all his days as a Tide Waiter; but, from his dabbling in a variety of arts for which he is not calculated, he will most probably preserve through life that character so despicable among partizans; ‘a Jack of all trades and master of none.’

FRENCH FRATERNITY.

Since the autumn of 1793, we have heard talk about little else than British depredations on the American commerce. Most of the news-papers have been crammed with phillipics against the Bri­tish government on this account; the nation have been called thieves and their king the great sea-robber. This was not very decent language, but even this was surpassed by certain members of Con­gress, who seemed to vie with each other in the use of that sort of rhetoric usually called Billings­gate. I have their speeches now before me, but the extracts I would wish to give from them are too lengthy, and I should be sorry to mutilate such elegant compositions.

[Page 219]I am the last on earth that would attempt to ju­stify injustice, I cannot therefore be thought to ap­prove of the depredations of the British: but, at the same time I know they have been a thousand times falsly accused, that every art has been made use of to exaggerate their violences, that the num­ber of vessels taken by them has been counted fifty times over, and that language has been imput­ed to them which they never held.

Nor can the British be justified by saying that they have done no more than imitate the French; but, we must be permitted to wonder that the de­predations of one nation should excite such a live­ly resentment as to push the country within a hair's breadth of a war, while equal depredations on the part of France should excite not the least discon­tent, except among the merchants immediately feeling the loss. At the very moment that the members of Congress were execrating the sea-rob­bers of Britain, and ordering General Confiscation and Admiral Embargo to take up arms against them; at this very moment the depredations of our dear, generous, humane and pure fingered allies had committed greater havock and acts of dishonesty than "the king of pirates" (to use a legislative ex­pression) or his subjects, had ever done. I have in another work quoted the report delivered to the House of Representatives on this subject, stating ‘that the French had not only been guilty of de­predations equal to those of the British, but that they had, besides, violated the treaty between the two countries, and had, moreover, cheated the American merchants by discharging in de­preciated assignats a contract which should have been discharged in coin.’

[Page 220]When this report came to be examined, every uncorrupted man was astonished to hear members fall upon the British tooth and nail, while they were ready to give the baises fraternel to the robb­ing Garmagnoles. One said that, as to the depre­dations of France, ‘ some allowance must be made for a great nation combatting in the cause of li­berty, and that he made no doubt that magnani­mous people would be ready to make every just compensation.’ This was the reasoning of those times, and so an Envoy was sent to obtain redress from Britain and which by the treaty is obtain­ed; but some allowance was made for the great nation who was fighting in the cause of liberty, and therefore all account against her died away.

The merchants, however, though generally par­tial enough towards the grande republique, still re­collected the loss, which has been ever since in­creasing. These men are too well acquainted with book-keeping to be real good republicans à la fran­çoise. They were as ready as any body ‘to make some allowances’ of the excesses of the French, pro­vided always that those allowances did not come out of their pockets. Their excesses in the low countries, their robbing of the merchants at Am­sterdam, set the bells to ringing at Philadelphia; but when they came to lay their fraternal fingers on the Philadelphians themselves, oh! then they were sad rogues, and so the merchants send a me­morial to Congress.—Now we shall hear their own history of the affair.

Some people will pity and others will laugh at these memorialists; the French republicans will be among the latter. Upon my word, it was very cruel of our dear allies, after having received such proofs of our "so decided affection," to cheat and insult us even more than the "great sea-robber" [Page 223] did I after the patriotic and affectionate captains had run the gauntlet, as it were, to get in to the ports of their dear friends and allies to save them from starv­ing, how silly they must look to have their cargoes seized, and be themselves thrown into a dungeon! this was often the case. I have once before said, that the Carmagnoles called them, les capitaines à coup de bâton, or caned captains; just as their Con­vention called the Prussians, les soldats à coup de bâ­ton, or caned soldiers. Indeed, they did often kick and beat these captains, and, though the poet tells us that such kind of blows wound honour more than any other, yet we have never heard this called a na­tional disgrace: on the contrary, the more these fellows were kicked, the louder did they cry long live the Republic, and the more lies did they bring us in her favour.

The hearts of the patriots at home partook of the insensibility of the backs and posteriors of the gal­lant mariners, and, had it not been for this after-clap memorial of the merchants, the whole would have sunk into oblivion.

Some persons of extraordinary patriotism went so far as to apologize for the conduct of the French; as thus: ‘The mother country engaged in com­bating despotism at home, and endeavouring to calm those troubles which exist in her bosom, cannot pay sufficient attention to the filling the offices in the island with honest and upright cha­racters, otherwise they certainly would not suf­fer the conduct pursued. This is proved by the honourable and very ample payment for damages and demurage made to Americans detained in their ports. They are therefore not implicated in the [Page 224] charge of depredation.’ (See the Aurora of 28th. May 1795.)

Now, Great Britain was at war in Europe as well as France was, why then was not the same apology applicable to her? but, this apologist says, that ample payment was made for damages, &c. If this be true the memorialists are mistaken, for they say there are two millions of dollars yet unpaid in May 1796. I know very well that the French promised to pay amply: I recollect that, when Mr. Randolph's report (the substance of which I have above noticed) was published, it was accom­panied with a note from his intimate friend Fauchet, declaring the readiness of the French Republic to make immediate compensation. This had the de­sired effect, for, though a single farthing will ne­ver be paid, the declaration was looked upon as an acknowledgement of the debt and as a security for the future; while the English minister, not dar­ing to make a promise which he was not sure would be fulfilled, was obliged to remain silent, and his silence was considered as a proof that his court not only authorized, but was resolved to continue its depredations. But, how deceitful are appearances! he that promises every thing pays nothing, and he that promises nothing pays every thing.

Either the apologist tells us a falsehood or the merchants tell us one. I have no great inclination to interfere with the matter: I leave them to settle it between themselves; or if they should be obliged to call in an umpire, none is so proper as the dear nation for whom they both have ‘shown so de­cided an affection.’

NEW DISCOVERIES IN The Regions of Corruption.

In the introduction to this work, I promised the public ‘to give an account of every democratic trick, whether of native growth or imported from abroad; to unravel all the windings of the pre­tended patriots, and more particularly those of the flour-merchants.’ Under this engagement, I should think myself inexcusable, were I to remain silent at a time, when, if new plots are not absolute­ly discovered, such are talked of in a manner cal­culated to excite general curiosity.

Satisfied in my own mind, as I have long been in the habit of declaring, that there is a numerous faction in this country acting under French influ­ence, and even in French pay, I must naturally re­joice at the discovery of whatever promises to be more successful, than any thing I have hitherto been able to say, in convincing the people of the existence of this faction. Under this impression it is, that I publish the following article from the Minerva of New York, and that I add such obser­vations as appear to me pertinent.

This intelligence, if true, at once decides the question of French influence and corruption; it is therefore of the utmost importance to form a cor­rect opinion concerning it. Let us first see what claims the letter itself has to authenticity, and then, whether the alarming information it contains be corroberated by facts already known.

[Page 227]The gazette in which this extract first appeared is remarkable for its impartiality. The Editor is a man of much experience in his business, and en­joys a high reputation for candour and understand­ing. It is not probable that such a man should be deceived with respect the authenticity of the let­ter, and it is still less probable, that he should be prevailed on to print it, not believing it authentic. The manner, too, in which he introduces it to the public, seems to me to be a strong proof of his persuasion, that it would be soon followed up with a more explicit account. Indeed, had he not be­lieved that the whole affair must finally come to light, it is hardly credible that he would have haz­arded a piece of intelligence reflecting such indeli­ble dishonour on a portion of his countrymen, and not capable of answering any good purpose what­ever.

The Editor has never shown himself the enemy of France. He has not indeed, like hundreds of others, approved of the massacres in that country; but the instant those massacres ceased, he contri­buted his dole of praise to the triumphant moderates. He was among the first to oppose the principles of the present constitution in France to those of our Ja­cobins; and though he was mistaken here, though he was opposing mischief to mischief, the mistake proves, that the present French government had his appro­bation, and as it still continues the same it must still have that approbation. There is then, no reason to suppose that he would lend his hand to a fabri­cation tending to discredit the French government. In truth, he is over cautious in speaking of it: if the intelligence be true, the hardest terms he has for conduct of such an infamous and treacherous nature are, "unkindness and imprudence." A man [Page 228] who could so far get the better of the feelings he must entertain upon the sight of this intelligence, is rather to be suspected of a partiality for, than against the French government.

The Editor of the Minerva has, 'tis true, been a bold and able defender of the British treaty; he might therefore be supposed to be anxious for its success, as all men are zealous in a cause they have decidedly espoused; but, this cause stood no long­er in need of support when the extract appeared, the treaty having passed the House of Representa­tives sixteen days before. Had this intelligence been a mere invention to stir the people up against the opposition, or rather against their destructrive projects, it should have made its appearance at the time when petitions were handing about for and against the treaty. At that time such a battery might have been opened to good purpose; but, af­ter the treaty was sanctioned, it would have been playing it off upon the defeated and the dead.

In short, there is no reason whatever to suppose, that the Editor would have published the extract, believing it a fabrication; and as it is almost im­possible he should be duped by any fabricator, we must believe it authentic, especially when we see the intelligence contained in it strongly corroborated by facts already most clearly and unequivocally ascer­tained.

It is certain that every American who loves his country, and who consequently feels a deep con­cern for its honour, must be fired with indignation upon hearing, that ‘certain influential men on this side of the water had invited the French govern­ment [Page 229] to force the government of America to set aside the treaty, and that the French rulers had listened to the proposal;’ but the Editor of the Minerva must excuse me, if I think it rather sur­prising, that he should imagine either one or the other "impossible." Says he, ‘it seems impossi­ble that any American citizens could be so lost to all sense of virtue and duty, as to endeavour to bring upon their country so great an evil, and it seems less probable, that the government of France should so far forget our rights as an in­dependant nation, and be so unmindful of the spirit and genius of freedom as to be disposed to follow the pernicious advice.’ Now, the truth is, that what is here represented as next to impos­sible is no more than a continuation of what we have been witnesses of during four successive years.

In order to form a correct opinion as to the pro­bability of the truth of the intelligence from Paris, we must go back to the epoch when the ruinous and ruined French nation was first called a Repub­lic, ^* and trace down the chain of the machinati­ons of its tyrants to the moment, when the hostile determination, the ne plus ultra of impudence and of perfidy is said to have been formed.

When Brissot and his colleagues declared war against Great Britain, Holland and Spain they form­ed the plan of forcing this country to make a com­mon cause with them. For this purpose Citizen Genet was sent out to replace Mr. Ternant, bring­ing with him the necessary instructions, and the [Page 230] still more necessary rouleaux of Louis d'ors. ^* As it was foreseen that the Executive of the United States would resolutely oppose the overtures for war, Ge­net was to effect by force what could not be effect­ed by persuasion. If the government of America was ready to aid the cause of France it was to be respected, but if not it was to be destroyed by stirr­ing up the people to opposition.

Instead, therefore, of coming directly to the seat of government, the Citizen landed at one of the ports the most distant from it, and in a part of the Union the most likely to be led astray by his seductive and seditious arts. On his arrival he found a pro­clamation of neutrality, strictly forbidding the peo­ple of these States to do any thing contrary to their duty as a nation at peace with all the world; but, in place of acknowledging this right of a neutral nation, what did he do? He issued Letters of Mar­que and military Commissions: by sea he sent Ame­ricans to cruise on the British, and by land to in­vade the Spanish dominions. His journey through the Southern States was a kind of triumphal pro­cession, and he at last made his public entry at Phi­ladelphia more like a viceroy or a conqueror than a foreign minister.

His introductory letter to the Secretary of State was a clear declaration of his intensions. "When," say he, ‘the emissaries of our common enemies are making useless efforts to neutralise the gratitude of your fellow citizens, &c.’ This language was [Page 231] an unequivocal proof that he despised the President and his proclamation of neutrality, and that he depended on the people for support. Accordingly his endeavours were all directed towards this one object, exciting discontent and disobedience.

Those who had succeeded in destroying one go­vernment by the infernal agency of Jacobin clubs, knew their utility, too well to neglect employing them against another. The Jacobins had hurled the king of France from his throne, and the De­mocrats might hurl General Washington from his chair. It is something truely singular, that a cele­brated atronomer and a secretary of state should be the president and secretary of the mother-club in each country; it is, however, a fact: Bailly and Dumouriez once filled those honourable posts in France, as David Rittenhouse and A. J. Dallas did in the first club that was formed in America.

On the plan, and at the recommendation, of the mother-club at Philadelphia, others were formed all over the Union. Their affiliations were as per­fect in their nature as those of the Jacobins in France, or of the Reformers in England and Scot­land, and the principles and object of all were the same. It would be tedious to enter into a detail of their manoeuvres, and disagreeable also, as it would not fail to bring to mind the conduct of ma­ny persons who now wish their folly to be forgotten.

When the Citizen saw that the clubs were be­come numerous, and thought that things were ripe, he made an open avowal of his intentions of ‘ap­pealing from the President to the people.’ This precipitant avowal, dictated by French vanity, hap­pily disconcerted all his plans. The hectoring mi­nister [Page 232] was mistaken; he thought he had the poor doltish Parisians to deal with; but he was soon con­vinced of the contrary. The people of America, though their partiality for the French nation, and their still greater partiality for what they then ima­gined to be the cause of freedom, had led them into innumerable fooleries, and distinctors as unwise as unjust, showed, when it came to the trial, that they had too much love for their country, and for their friend and father to espouse the cause of a man who aimed at the destruction of both. ^*

From the moment the insolent Brissotonian found himself baffled, his myrmidons began to cry havock. They attacked the citizens of Charleston at the door of their play-house, cut the traces of their coach-horses, wounded several persons, and if I am not mistaken killed one or two. The militia were call­ed out, and the city was struck with terror. Not long after an American had his skull cleft on board of one of their vessels, for a pretended insult to their tricolored cockade. Many persons of this city of Philadelphia had the mortification to see their peace officers hacked with swords in the middle of the street. ^† And yet we are now told that ‘it seems impossible that the government of France should attempt any thing against our neutrality.’

[Page 233]I know I shall be told here, to make a distinction between the rulers in France and their ministers in this country; and I would do this, if I saw the least reason for so doing; if I were not well convinced that the latter have in no case surpassed their in­structions. The friends of the French government make this distinction, and tell us that Genet was recalled for his misconduct. The turbulent minister was, indeed, displaced; but the manner of doing this fully proves, that it was a matter of expedien­cy and not of choice. His masters, and the mast­ers of unhappy France, could not reject the Presi­dents' request, without disgusting the people of this country, who must have looked on such a step as a decided mark of approbation of Genets' insolence; nor could they call home without punishing him. Therefore, at once to preserve the good will of the Americans and avoid the punishment of a man whose conduct they did in reality approve of, they dis­missed him from his employment and left him qui­etly amongst us, where, besides, it was possible for him still to act, though unseen, as the show-man behind the canvass gives movement and volubility to his puppets. ^*

Let it be recollected, too, that Genet was dis­placed by Robespierre and his crew, and I leave any one to determine whether the merciful Robes­pierre, the very prince of cut-throats, could disap­prove of the plans of our Long-islander. The gentle Robospierre did, indeed, send us word that it pained his humane and generous soul, to think that the representative of a great and brave nation [Page 234] should so disobey its will; but we should have ask­ed this bloody villain, what he would have said if Genet had succeeded in his ‘appeal from the President to the people.’ Genet was displaced because he had failed, and not because he had at­tempted our destruction. Robespierre has been aptly termed the scape-goat of the Convention, in France, and Genet may with equal aptness be termed their scape-goat in America.

The insurrection in the Western Counties of Pennsylvania was undoubtedly a great evil, but much good has been derived from it. This insur­rection was imputed to the machinations of Great Britain, and as people's ears were all open to every thing, however absurd, that was advanced against that nation, it is not wonderful that many very well meaning men marched against the insurgents with a full expectation of finding them under the com­mand of the Governor of Upper-Canada. This was sinning against conviction certainly; but, what errors will not men plunge into, when blinded by prejudice and pricked on by revenge! most peo­ple ware heartily ashamed of having been the dupes of this trick, long before the appearance of Citizen Fauchet's intercepted letter; but that truly inesti­mable essay on bribery and corruption has placed the whole matter in a fair light, and, as the saying is, "clapped the saddle on the right horse."

Every man who seeks for truth and not for false­hood will regret, with me, that we are not in pos­session of the famous N ^o. 2 and N ^o. 6, mentioned in Citizen Fauchet's letter, and of the other dispatches preceding that letter. Had we the perusal of these precious pieces, we might enter into some detail not having them we must content ourselves with [Page 235] proceeding like mathematicians, from the known to the unknown.

We know, that the same man, who was Secretary to the first Jacobin society in this country, and who afterwards denied his report concerning the ‘ap­peal from the President to the people;’ we know that this man is named, in the intercepted letter, amongst the three or four who were balancing to decide on their party, when the overtures for money were made to the French minister.

We know, that all the leaders in the insurrection, as well as their partizans here, were then and are now the decided supporters of France in opposition to Great Britain. If we look back to the meetings of the insurgent committees, we shall there find the names of two members of the present House of Representatives, and if we turn to the yeas and nays of that House, we shall find them both voting against the British treaty, and opposing every mea­sure of the Federal government. ^*

We know, that poor Citizen Fauchet expressed his severe regret at the failure of the insurrection; and surely we know, that when a man expresses his regret at the failure of an enterprize, it is certain he wished it to succeed. After having justified the cause of the insurgents, and whined out their discomfit, he says: ‘Thus will the government acquire stability, for one complete cession at least! Who knows what will be the limits of this tri­umph! [Page 236] perhaps advantage will be taken of it to obtain some laws for strengthening the government!’— I was tempted to throw in an alas, or two here; nothing else is wanting to render the passage truly pathetic; as thus: ‘My dear Masters, in spite of my teeth this government will last one session longer at least! Alas! who knows what may be the limits of this triumph over our brothers! Per­haps, Oh hell! we shall never be able to knock it down.’

Let the reader well remember, that these dread­ful forebodings of Citizen Fauchet are to be found in a confidential dispatch, intended for the perusal of the Convention only. It is from documents like this, and not from public declarations, that we are to judge of the dispositions of a foreign go­vernment. Suppose, for instance, a letter from the British Minister had been intercepted, contain­ing expressions of his regret at the success of the government in quelling the insurrection, and justi­fying the conduct of the insurgents. What would then have been seen? need I ask this? Poor man! the Lord have mercy upon him, if he had re­mained here after the discovery. Our language is copious, and particularly in terms of execration; but I am mistaken if enough would have been found. Those who talk high-dutch would have had an advantage, as it is said, a man can curse harder in that language than in any other.

Fauchet was recalled, and, as no misconduct was imputed to him, he went home you see. But here is one circumstance that I must beg the good reader to attend to, and that is, that Citizen Joseph was [Page 237] called away after a defeat, just as his renowned pre­decessor was. As soon as it was known in France, that Father Joseph's fatal dispatch had fallen into the hands of the English Ministry, it was perceived that the writer would become odious here; that he would always be suspected by the government, and that his friends would be afraid to trust their pre­cious confessions to his ear. How kind was it, then, to recall him and send another, whom no mortal man could ever think of suspecting: no, certainly not; it would be hard, indeed, to suspect a third. The most unfortunate gamblers reckon with confi­dence upon a good throw out of three. ^*

The third (and I hope the last) fair trial of the strength of French influence was, the attempt to set aside the British Treaty. Here it failed also; but we are not to conclude that, because it failed, it never was made. For my part, I am confident the trial was made, and have not the least doubt that it would have succeeded, had it not been for a disappointment.

It would be useless to repeat here what has been so often said respecting the conduct of poor Mr. Randolph, at the time of the ratification, or to go over all the manoeuvres of the partizans of France, from the moment the treaty first arrived in the country till the meeting of Congress. Still less ne­cessary [Page 238] is it to enter into a detailed account of what has passed since that time, as it is fresh in every one's memory. One fact, however, I must relate here, as it is well worthy of attention.

In the Censor for April, page 145, it was re­marked, that ‘the petition against the treaty, said to be signed by fifteen hundred citizens of Philadelphia, was carried round for signature by a Frenchman;’ to this I have now to add, that, in the State of New Jersey, two Frenchmen went about soliciting signatures of another petition of the same import. The person, who was so obliging as to furnish this information, saw them at a pub­lic house pressing people to sign. He was himself prevailed on to do so; but, thinking, upon recol­lection, that he had done wrong, he returned to the house and scratched out his name. Would to God that numbers of his countrymen were as ready to correct their errors!

After having given this short sketch of the histo­ry of French influence down to the time when, as our Paris intelligence states, it was to break out in­to action, let us compare that intelligence with the situation of things on this side of the water. A few sentences will suffice.

The substance of the Paris intelligence is this: ‘that certain influential men in America had enter­ed into a negociation with the French government, the result of which was; France was to oblige the Executive of the United States to abandon the treaty with great Britain, by threatening it with a war in case of refusal; but that this pro­ject, the writer believed to be laid aside on the 14th of February.’ On the 24th of March, Mr. [Page 239] Livingston's motion passed by a majority of twenty five. This was only 38 days after France had given up the project. On the 28th of April, 35 days la­ter, this frightful majority changed into a minority, and the treaty passed very quietly. This was 63 days after France had given up the project. So that, it is possible that this might be known when the latter vote was taken, and not when the for­mer one was.

I by no means pretend to say, that any unfavour­able news from France had an influence on these votes; on the contrary, I am, alas! (as Citizen Fauchet says) too well convinced of the purity of the Opposition, to suppose that they, or any of them, could be the "influential men," hinted at in the extract. No, no, God forbid I should think any such thing; mercy on us all! they, poor men, changed their votes because their constituents chang­ed their notes. It is these constituents who are to blame then, and, of course, the "influential men" are to be found among them. Now, constituents are every body, and every body is nobody; and thus you see, reader, we all of us draw ourselves decently out of the scrape.