ty, paid or compromised their debts, to the satisfaction of their British creditors.

The treaty of peace of 1783 recognized those debts ; and the United States stipulated, that no legal impediments should be opposed to their recovery: but such impediments were opposed; and that stipulation remained a dead letter. When, therefore, fresh causes of controversy arose, in 1793 and 1794, Washington, to prevent a war with Great-Britain, instituted a new mission to that government, and appointed Mr. Jay, the able and principal negotiator of the treaty of peace of 1783, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, to negotiate and by treaty to settle the new controversies, and those which had arisen from the nonexecution of some of the articles of the treaty of peace. In this negotiation, Mr. Jay honestly renewed, or rather provided for the due performance of, the original stipulation relative to British debts. This, unquestionably, was one thing which contributed to render his treaty unpopular, in some parts of the Union; while its terminating the recent controversies which hazarded our peace with Great-Britain-disappointing the vehement haters of that country and at the same time ardent lovers of France-raised up enemies to its ratification, in every part of the Union. It was ratified, however, and executed; and procured for our merchants, who had suffered by British spoliations, indemnities to the amount of more than five millions of dollars, paid to them by the British government. What did they obtain for ten fold more aggravated spoliations committed on their vessels and merchandise, and to ten times that amount, by the Republican and Imperial Governments of France? Not one cent.

Every independent American must, I presume, view this subject (our relations with France) in the light in which I have now placed it; and be willing, should it become necessary, to concur with the only great, free and independent nation on earth, besides our own, in measures which the interest and welfare of both may require, to prevent the re-establishment of despotism in the New World.

That France afforded assistance to the United States, in our revolutionary war, exclusively for her own interest, had long ago been manifested; and it seems impossible that with Mr. Jefferson it should ever have been a subject of doubt. But the PEOPLE of the United States having unwittingly entertained and steadily cherished the contrary opinion, their prejudice was too strong to yield even to the force of moral demonstration. And the leaders of the opponents of the federal administration seized on this honest prejudice in favour of France, to obtain popularity; while by every means they excited and promoted opposite sentiments towards Great-Britain, which the resentful passions engendered in the revolutionary war rendered it easy to propagate among the people. These prejudices, digently cultivated, were among the chief means by which Mr. Jefferson and his partisans acquired a predominance; and they may now safely abandon the scaffolding by which they rose to power. Still, however, for the purpose of enjoying, exclusively, all the benefits to be derived from its possession, they continue to arrogate to themselves the name of Republicans; willing and desirous that their federal opponents should, by the people, be deemed aristocrats and monarchists. Yet to the Federalists are they indebted for their republican constitution and republican government; both of which are now very good things, and in their hands quite unexceptionable. Many years ago, in the Senate of the United States, I heard the most frank, the most bold, and in my opinion the most able politician of the, so called, republican party, pronounce a eulogy on the Constitution, as strong and honourable as words could express. And even Mr. Jefferson must have entertained the like opinion; or, in conformity with his libellous remarks on it to his friend Mazzei, he would have proposed to change its features. And now he appears to desire only one alteration to destroy, as I have before remarked, the independence of the judges. And having three and twenty years ago pronounced the citizens of the Uni

ted States, composed of the different political parties, "all republicans, all federalists," it might have been expected that by this time, at least, he would be willing we should together form one people, one nation, equally entitled to, and equally enjoying the advantages to be derived from, the government of our common country; but it is not so. In his letter to Lieutenant Governor Barry, before mentioned, he affects to doubt (for if he really doubts he must be a blinder and more narrow minded politician than any of his intelligent followers) he, I say, affects to doubt whether it would be safe to admit federalists into the republican "camp!" that is, to admit to a participation of the public offices, the men whom he, before the representatives of the nation and a numerous assembly of citizens, pronounced, either honestly or deceitfully (he may choose which term he pleases) to be republicans! And he desires still to foster the spirit of party, by party names; and, assigning to his own the name of whigs-originally in Enggland designating the friends of liberty, in opposition to the partisans of the tyrannical race of the Stuarts, who were called tories-he would brand all federalists with the latter name, to induce a belief among the people, that federalists are enemies to liberty! What federalist can feel a shadow of respect for such a man? If they suppose him sincere in broaching such ideas, they must think lightly of his pretensions to wisdom as a statesman: insincere, I need not say what sentiment they will feel and express.

Wailings for the condition of the Catholics of Ireland, so long suffering under the Protestant oppression of the English government, have been heard throughout the United States. The Dissenters in England are also oppressed. Both pay tithes to support the Ecclesiastics of the Established Church. But what is the real condition of Federalists in the United States ? How does it differ from that of the Dissenters and Catholics in the United Kingdom of Great-Britain? Federalists have long been paying tithes to the established Political Clergy of the United States, who exclusively

1

enjoy all the benefices. Surely there are many high minded, liberal men, among the reigning class, who must see this injustice, and be willing to provide a remedy. One such man, elected the Executive Head of the NATION, and having in view only the "general welfare," and not the continuance of himself in power by a re-election, might remove the existing evil, and "set the people to rights." For the enjoyment of equal rights, Federal Emancipation is as necessary in the United States, as Catholic Emancipation is in Ireland.

In stating the preceding facts, and the reflections they suggested, in regard to Mr. Jefferson, I have written with the freedom which the occasion seemed to require, but without the consciousness of any personal animosity. Towards me his deportment has ever been marked with urbanity. It is in reference to his conduct and character as a public man, that he is presented as a just subject of reproach; such as, on a further and full investigation, he will, in my apprehension, appear to the future impartial historian of our country. The sentiments exhibited in his letter to Lieutenant Governor Barry, at this period, I confess I could not have expected. That they have excited in me a degree of indignation, I cannot, nor do I desire to, conceal.

SECTION II.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, AND MR. JEFFERSON'S EMBARGO.

THE first eight letters in the "Correspondence" were interchanged between Nov. 28, 1803, and March 15, 1804. After the lapse of four years and a half, appears No. IX, dated Sept. 19, 1808, from Cunningham; in which he mentions THE EMBARGO; and, after "la"menting that the bitterness of rebuke so often mani"fested towards his son (John Quincy Adams) had "been extended to Mr. Adams himself," asks his opinion "on that public measure, which had so agitated our country," and in producing which his son had acted so conspicuous a part. This unlucky question was the putting of a match to a mass of combustibles, which soon kindled to a flame, and threatened to burn me up.

66

John Q. Adams and myself were, in 1803, chosen by the Legislature of Massachusetts to represent that State in the Senate of the United States; and we took our seats there in the session which commenced in October of that year. He was then a federalist, and for a good while acted in that character. Some cases, however, occurred, in which he displayed a zeal in coincidence with the views and wishes of the President, Mr. Jefferson. He particularly distinguished himself in the attempt to expel from the Senate John Smith of Ohio, as one concerned in Aaron Burr's conspiracy, or project, whatever it was: for Burr and his accomplices were the marked objects of Mr. Jefferson's hatred and revenge. There were passages in Mr. Adams's report in Smith's case, which outraged, I believe, every distinguished lawyer in America. The process of law, with its "pace of snail," was too slow for his vengeance. But this by the by. It was the unfortunate question of the Embargo, which, in regard to myself, set the ink a-running through President Adams's pen;