[5] Edmond Charles Genest, born 1765, died 1834. He possessed remarkable abilities from his youth, and early entered the diplomatic service. After four years in Russia as _Chargé d’Affaires_, he was sent to America, as related in the text; and, having been eventually superseded, he elected to remain and become naturalized. His life was thenceforth occupied in promoting improvements in agriculture and in the arts and sciences. (Vide “Biog. Universelle,” also Drake’s “American Biography.”) [6] For full details of this curious episode, see Jefferson, “Writings,” iv., pp. 32-46; Cobbett, “P. P. Works,” x. 101, _et seq._; also the “Annual Register,” for 1793-94. [7] Vide “Annual Register,” 1794, for the interesting state papers on these topics. [8] Mr. Jay was a genuine patriot. He was moderate in politics, but no trimmer. After his retirement he devoted himself to questions of social improvement, especially the abolition of slavery. [9] For a complete analysis of the opposition views on the British Treaty, _vide_ “Life of A. J. Dallas,” pp. 160 _et seq._ As a specimen of the mad and vindictive feelings then current, see a letter to the editor of the New York _Argus_, signed “An Individual,” and dated Jan. 17, 1796, in which he informs the editor that the Treaty meets with his entire disapprobation; and continues, “I have come to a solemn resolution, that I will not hereafter import, sell, or consume any goods, wares, or merchandise, the produce or manufacture of Great Britain and her dependencies. I leave others to act as they please, but this is my firm determination with respect to myself whilst the said Treaty continues in force.” [10] “The Political Progress of Britain; or, An Impartial History of Abuses in the Government of the British Empire, in Europe, Asia, and America. From the Revolution in 1688 to the present time: the whole tending to prove the ruinous Consequences of the popular System of Taxation, War, and Conquest.” It was a little too violent for its purpose; and, although it contained a good deal of truth, the tract was malevolent and unpatriotic, and the author deserved to be prosecuted (from a ministerial point of view).