himself against the
opposition in Parliament, on account of the scarcity of corn, said (see
his speech at the opening of the Parliament that met October 29, 1795)
that _the supplies for the Quiberon expedition were furnished out of the
American ships_, and all the accounts received at that time from
England stated that those seizures were made under the treaty. After the
supplies for the Quiberon expedition had been procured, and the expected
success had failed, the seizures were countermanded; and had the French
seized provision vessels going to England, it is probable that the
Quiberon expedition could not have been attempted.

In one point of view, the treaty with England operates as a loan to
the English government. It gives permission to that government to take
American property at sea, to any amount, and pay for it when it suits
her; and besides this, the treaty is in every point of view a surrender
of the rights of American commerce and navigation, and a refusal to
France of the rights of neutrality. The American flag is not now a
neutral flag to France; Jay's treaty of surrender gives a monopoly of it
to England.

On the contrary, the treaty of commerce between America and France
was formed on the most liberal principles, and calculated to give the
greatest encouragement to the infant commerce of America. France was
neither a carrier nor an exporter of naval stores or of provisions.
Those articles belonged wholly to America, and they had all the
protection in that treaty which a treaty could give. But so much has
that treaty been perverted, that the liberality of it on the part
of France, has served to encourage Jay to form a counter-treaty with
England; for he must have supposed the hands of France tied up by her
treaty with America, when he was making such large concessions in favour
of England. The injury which Mr. Washington's administration has done to
the character as well as to the commerce of America, is too great to be
repaired by him. Foreign nations will be shy of making treaties with
a government that has given the faithless example of perverting the
liberality of a former treaty to the injury of the party with whom it
was made.(1)

1 For an analysis of the British Treaty see Wharton's
"Digest of the International Law of the United States," vol.
it, Sec. 150 a. Paine's analysis is perfectly correct.--
_Editor._.

In what a fraudulent light must Mr. Washington's character appe