Chapter VIII: Part 8

"But, Sir, we not only think it inconsistent with the dignity of the United States to treat with Britain in the humiliating manner proposed, but also that it would be repugnant to their interest.

"The respect of other nations is undoubtedly of importance to America; but, Sir, if she ceases to respect herself, how can she expect to respected by others?

"America has taken and published noble and manly resolutions to support her independence, at every hazard. She has hitherto done it, and would it be for her interest to quit the ground for which she has lost so much of her blood, merely to accommodate herself to the high-blown pride of an enemy? Sir, the very proposition carries with it insult, and therefore bears strong marks of _insincerity_.

"But suppose that the United States should descend from their present ground of equality, in order to treat with Mr Oswald, and that our negotiations should be _fruitless_. In what an awkward situation should we then be? We should find ourselves betrayed by our too great pliancy, and our too great desire of peace, to the ridicule of our enemies, the contempt of other nations, and the censure of our own minds. What a page would this make in history.

"As to Mr Oswald's offer to make an acknowledgment of our independence the first article of our treaty, and your Excellency's remark, that it is sufficient, and that _we are not to expect the effect before the cause_, permit us to observe, that by the _cause_, we suppose, is intended the _treaty_, and by the _effect_, an acknowledgment of our independence. We are sorry to differ from your Excellency, but, really, Sir, we cannot consider an acknowledgment of our independence as a subject to be treated about; for while we feel ourselves to be independent in fact, and know ourselves to be so of right, we can see but one cause from whence an acknowledgment of it can flow as an effect, viz. _the existence and truth of the fact_. This cause has long existed and still exists, and, therefore, we have a right to expect that Great Britain will treat with us being what we are, and not as what we are not. To treat about this matter, would be to suppose that our independence was incomplete until they pronounced it to be complete. But we hold it to be complete already, and that as it never did, so it never will, or must depend in the least degree, on their will and pleasure. To us there appears to be a wide distinction between their acknowledging the United States to be independent, and their renouncing their pretended, though troublesome claims; the former being a pre-existing fact, cannot depend upon, and, therefore, is not a proper subject for a treaty; but to renounce or not to renounce a claim, whether good or bad, depends on the will of him who makes and prosecutes it; and, therefore, like other matters of interest and convenience, is a proper subject for bargains and agreements between those who trouble their neighbors with such claims, and their neighbors who are troubled by them; and who, for peace sake, may choose to continue the law-suit, unless their future quiet is secured by a quit claim."

I think it was on the 24th of September, that I was informed of the intention of the British Court to give Mr Oswald such a new commission as had been recommended.

On the 26th of September, I went to pay a visit to the Count de Vergennes, at Versailles. I found the Marquis de Lafayette in the ante-chamber, and the Ambassador of Spain shortly after entered. After some common conversation, the Ambassador asked me when we should proceed to do business. I told him as soon as he should do me the honor of communicating his powers to treat. He asked me whether the Count de Florida Blanca had not informed me of his being authorised. I admitted that he had, but observed, that the usual mode of doing business, rendered it proper that we should exchange certified copies of our respective commissions. He said that could not be expected in our case; for that Spain had not yet acknowledged our independence. I replied, that we had declined it, and that France, Holland, and Britain, had acknowledged it. Here the Marquis de Lafayette took up the subject, and it continued between him and the Ambassador, till the Count de Vergennes came in. The Marquis told the Ambassador among other things, that it would not be consistent with the dignity of France, for her ally to treat otherwise than as independent. This remark appeared to me to pique the Count d'Aranda not a little.

The Count de Vergennes, on coming in, finding the conversation earnest, inquired whether we could not agree. The Ambassador stated my objections. The Count said I certainly ought to treat with the _Ambassador_, and that it was proper we should make a treaty with Spain in the same manner that we had done with France. I told him, I desired nothing more; and that the commission to M. Gerard, and the reason assigned by this Court to the King of Great Britain for entering into alliance with us, pointed out both the manner and the principles, which were observed and admitted on that occasion. The Count did not seem pleased with my allusion to the communication made of our alliance to England. He observed, that Spain did not deny our independence, and he could perceive no good reason for my declining to confer with the Ambassador about a treaty, without saying anything about our independence, an acknowledgment of which would naturally be the effect of the treaty proposed to be formed. I told the Count, that being independent, we should always insist on being treated as such, and, therefore, it was not sufficient for Spain to forbear denying our independence while she declined to admit it, and that notwithstanding my respect for the Ambassador, and my desire of a treaty with Spain, both the terms of my commission and the dignity of America forbid my treating on any other than an _equal footing_.

The Count carried the Ambassador into his cabinet, and when he retired, I was admitted.

The Count commenced the conversation, by explaining the reason of sending M. Rayneval to England, which he said was, that by conversing with Lord Shelburne about peace and matters connected with it, he might be able to judge whether a pacific disposition really prevailed in the British Court, and, therefore, whether any dependence might be placed in his Lordship's professions on that head; that he was satisfied with M. Rayneval's report, and that he believed that Lord Shelburne was sincerely desirous of peace.

A few words then passed about Mr Oswald's new commission; the Count observing in general terms, that as it removed our former objections, we might now go on to prepare our preliminaries.

The conversation next turned to our negotiation with Spain, and to her claims east of the Mississippi. Nothing new passed on the first topic; as to the latter, the Count made only some very general remarks, such as that he hoped we should, on conferring further about the matter, approach nearer to each other; that those limits ought to be settled, and while they remained in contest, a treaty with Spain could not reasonably be expected; that as soon as we should agree upon those points, Count d'Aranda would have a further or more formal commission to conclude the treaty, &c.

I remarked, that these claims of Spain were of recent date, for that on my first arriving in Spain, the Count de Florida Blanca told me, that the success of my mission would probably turn upon one single point, viz. the cession of our rights to the navigation of the river Mississippi; from which, as well as from their subsequent and uniform demands on that head, it was evident, that they then considered that river as our boundary; for it would have been very strange indeed, that they should insist on our forbearing to navigate a river, whose waters washed no part of our country, and to which we could not, of consequence, have any pretence of claim.

The Count smiled, but avoided making any direct reply; he hoped we should, nevertheless, agree, and that we must endeavor to approach and meet each other. I told him I could not flatter myself with such expectations, while Spain continued her claims to those countries, for that we should be content with no boundary short of the Mississippi.

I went from the Count's to M. Rayneval's chamber, for I had not seen him since his return from England. He gave me the same reason for his journey, which I had just received from the Count. We then talked of his memoir and the Spanish negotiation. He said much in favor of the conciliatory line he had proposed, and of the advantages of placing the Indian nations on the _west_ side of it, under the _protection_ of Spain, and those on the _east_, under that of the United States; that the rights of those nations would be thereby secured, and future disputes between us and Spain avoided. I replied, that so far as our claims might affect those Indian nations, it was a matter solely between us and them; and that admitting them to be independent, they certainly had a right to choose their own protectors; and, therefore, that we could have no right, without their knowledge or consent, to choose for them. I also made the same remark to him respecting the recency of these Spanish claims, which I had just before done to Count de Vergennes. He said it was a subject which Count de Florida Blanca had not understood, and imputed their former ideas of our extending to the Mississippi, to their ignorance respecting those matters; hence it became evident, from whom they had borrowed their present ideas.

On the 27th of September, Mr Vaughan returned here from England with the courier that brought Mr Oswald's new commission, and very happy were we to see it. Copies of it have already been sent to you, so that I will not lengthen this letter by inserting it here; nor will I add anything further on this head at present, than to assure you, that Mr Vaughan greatly merits our acknowledgments.

The next thing to be done, was to prepare and draw up the proposed articles. They were soon completed and settled between us and Mr Oswald, by whom they were sent to his Court, with letters declaring his opinion, that they ought to be accepted and agreed to; but they differed with him in opinion.[6]

These articles, for very obvious reasons, were not communicated to the Count de Vergennes.

Mr Oswald did not receive any opinion from his Court relating to our articles until the 23d of October, when letters from the Minister informed him, that the extent of our boundaries, and the situation of the tories, &c. caused some objections, and the Minister's Secretary was on the way here to confer with us on those subjects.

On the 24th of October, I dined at Passy with Dr Franklin, where I found M. Rayneval. After dinner, we were in private with him a considerable time. He desired to know the state of our negotiation with Mr Oswald. We told him, that difficulties had arisen about our boundaries, and that one of the Minister's Secretaries was coming here with papers and documents on that subject. He asked us what boundaries we claimed. We told him, the river St John to the east, and ancient Canada, as described in the proclamation, to the north. He contested our right to such an extent to the north, and entered into several arguments to show our claim to be ill founded. These arguments were chiefly drawn from the ancient French claims, and from a clause in the proclamation restraining governors from making grants in the Indian country, &c.

He inquired what we demanded as to the fisheries. We answered, that we insisted on enjoying a right in common to them with Great Britain. He intimated that our views should not extend further than a coast fishery, and insinuated that pains had lately been taken in the eastern States to excite their apprehensions, and increase their demands on that head. We told him that such a right was essential to us, and that our people would not be content to make peace without it; and Dr Franklin explained very fully, their great importance to the eastern States in particular. He then softened his manner and observed, that it was natural for France to wish better to us than to England; but as the fisheries were a great nursery for seamen, we might suppose that England would be disinclined to admit others to share in it, and that for his part he wished there might be as few obstacles to a peace as possible. He reminded us, also, that Mr Oswald's new commission had been issued posterior to his arrival at London.

On the 26th of October, Mr Adams arrived here, and in him I have found a very able and agreeable coadjutor.

When I began this letter, I did not flatter myself with being able to write this much before Captain Barney would leave us; and I now find myself too much exhausted to proceed with further details, and must therefore refer you to the letters you will receive from Mr Adams and Dr Franklin.

The same reason also prevents my writing to you and Mr Morris on other subjects by Captain Barney, and I hope the length of this letter, and the disagreeable state of my health will apologise for my not writing even to my own family by this opportunity.

I am sensible of the impression which this letter will make upon you and upon Congress, and how it will affect the confidence they have in this Court. These are critical times, and great necessity there is for prudence and secrecy.

So far, and in such matters as this Court may think it their interest to support us, they certainly will, but no further, in my opinion.

They are interested in separating us from Great Britain, and, on that point we may, I believe, depend upon them; but it is not their interest that we should become a great and formidable people, and therefore they will not help us to become so.

It is not their interest that such a treaty should be formed between us and Britain, as would produce cordiality and mutual confidence. They will, therefore, endeavor to plant such seeds of jealousy, discontent, and discord in it as may naturally and perpetually keep our eyes fixed on France for security. This consideration must induce them to wish to render Britain formidable in our neighborhood, and to leave us as few resources of wealth and power as possible.

It is their interest to keep some point or other in contest between us and Britain to the end of the war, to prevent the possibility of our sooner agreeing, and thereby keep us employed in the war, and dependent on them for supplies. Hence they have favored, and will continue to favor, the British demands as to matters of boundary and the tories.

The same views will render them desirous to continue the war in our country as long as possible, nor do I believe they will take any measures for our repossession of New York, unless the certainty of its evacuation should render such an attempt advisable. The Count de Vergennes lately said, that there could be no great use in expeditions to take places, which must be given up to us at a peace.

Such being our situation, it appears to me advisable to keep up our army to the end of the war, even if the enemy should evacuate our country; nor does it appear to me prudent to listen to any overtures for carrying a part of it to the West Indies, in case of such an event.

I think we have no rational dependence except on God and ourselves, nor can I yet be persuaded that Great Britain has either wisdom, virtue, or magnanimity enough to adopt a perfect and liberal system of conciliation. If they again thought they could conquer us, they would again attempt it.

We are, nevertheless, thank God, in a better situation than we have been. As our independence is acknowledged by Britain, every obstacle to our forming treaties with neutral powers, and receiving their merchant ships, is at an end, so that we may carry on the war with greater advantage than before, in case our negotiations for peace should be fruitless.

It is not my meaning, and therefore I hope I shall not be understood to mean, that we should deviate in the least from our treaty with France; our honor, and our interest are concerned in inviolably adhering to it. I mean only to say, that if we lean on her love of liberty, her affection for America, or her disinterested magnanimity, we shall lean on a broken reed, that will sooner or later pierce our hands, and Geneva as well as Corsica justifies this observation.

I have written many disagreeable things in this letter, but I thought it my duty. I have also deviated from my instructions, which though not to be justified, will, I hope, be excused on account of the singular and unforeseen circumstances which occasioned it.

Let me again recommend secrecy, and believe me to be, Dear Sir, &c.

JOHN JAY.

_P. S._ I have neither seen nor heard anything of Mr Laurens, nor of the cypher you mention to have sent by him.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] Afterwards Sir William Jones.

[4] See this warrant in the Correspondence of the Commissioners for making Peace, under the date here mentioned.

[5] When the Treaty was made with France, M. Gerard, who negotiated it on the part of the French Court, did not show his commission to treat till the Commissioners met him for the last time, and just before the signing of the Treaty. Mr Jay was more particular, however, on this point, and seemed disinclined to commence the negotiation in any form, till the powers had been exchanged.

[6] See these articles in the Correspondence of the Commissioners for Peace.

* * * * *

_Observations on the above Letter by the Editor._

Although in the present work I have carefully refrained from expressing any opinions on the contents of the letters, or views of the writers, not feeling authorised by the resolution of Congress, under which these papers are published, to assume the task of a commentator or critic, yet in regard to the preceding letter I cannot hesitate to make an exception to this rule, and for reasons which I trust will appear obvious and satisfactory.

On the main topics of the above letter, I have read in the office of Foreign Affairs in London the confidential correspondence of the British Ministers with their Commissioners for negotiating peace in Paris. I have also read in the French office of Foreign Affairs the entire correspondence of the Count de Vergennes, during the whole war, with the French Ministers in this country, developing the policy and designs of the French Court in regard to the war, and the objects to be attained by the peace. I have moreover read the instructions of the Count de Vergennes to M. de Rayneval, when he went to London, and the correspondence which passed between them while he remained there, containing notes of conversations with Lord Shelburne on one part, and Count de Vergennes' opinions on the other. After examining the subject with all the care and accuracy, which these means of information have enabled me to give to it, I am prepared to express my belief most fully, that Mr Jay was mistaken both in regard to the aims of the French Court, and the plans pursued by them to gain their supposed ends.

1. Mr Jay conceived, that one motive of M. de Rayneval's journey was to cause the acknowledgment of independence by Great Britain to be deferred, till France and England should have arranged their treaty. But in reality, M. de Rayneval was instructed to insist on the independence of the United States as a _preliminary measure_. In a letter to the Count de Vergennes, dated September 28th, 1782, he writes, that Lord Shelburne said, "he had always been opposed to independence, but that he perceived the necessity of ceding it, and that this object should be granted _without condition_." And in reporting the result of his conversations with the British Minister, M. de Rayneval states the points discussed in their order, the first of which is as follows.--"_Independence, this article is agreed upon; it shall be without restriction_;" (il sera sans restriction.) So far from recommending, therefore, to defer the recognition of American independence, M. de Rayneval insisted on an agreement to it as _a preliminary step_ to further discussions.

2. Mr Jay supposed again, that another purpose of M. de Rayneval's visit to London was to interfere with the claims of the United States respecting the fisheries and boundaries. But this supposition is contradicted by the following extract from his instructions, viz. "As it is possible, that the English Ministers may speak to M. de Rayneval concerning the affairs of America and of the United Provinces, he will declare, _that he has no authority to treat on these topics_." Accordingly we find him writing to the Count de Vergennes in the letter quoted above, that after discussing the subject of the fisheries with reference to the interests of England and France, Lord Shelburne said to him, "without doubt the Americans will also form pretensions to the fisheries, but he trusted the king (of France) would not sustain them." To which M. de Rayneval replied,--"that he was ignorant of the views of Congress concerning the object in question, but thought he might venture to say, that the king would never support unjust demands; that he was not able to judge whether those of the Americans were such or not; and that, besides, _he was without authority in this respect_." Again, in the same letter, M. de Rayneval adds; "Lord Shelburne said he had foreseen that there would be a great deal of difficulty with the Americans, as well in regard to boundaries, as to the fishery of Newfoundland; but he hoped that the king would not sustain them in their demands. I answered, that I did not doubt the earnest desire of the king to do all in his power to restrain them within the bounds of justice and reason. As to the extent of the boundaries, I supposed the Americans would regulate it by their charts; but the discussion was not continued far, _because it did not pertain to me either to uphold or weaken the pretension of America_, with which I was unacquainted. I added only, that the English Ministry ought to find in the negotiations of 1754, relative to the Ohio, the limits which England, then the sovereign of America, believed it proper to assign."

The above extracts, it must be kept in mind, are from the confidential letters written at the time between M. de Rayneval and Count de Vergennes. The purport of them is corroborated by testimony that might be drawn from other sources. They show most clearly, that Mr Jay's suspicions were in reality erroneous, on whatever grounds he might at the time suppose them to rest. M. de Rayneval's visit to London had nothing to do with American affairs, except to insist on unconditional independence.

Nor is it improbable, that the change in Mr Oswald's commission was effected in consequence of M. de Rayneval's representations; for the agreement on the part of the British Minister to cede independence "_without restriction_" was made before Mr Vaughan's arrival in London, as a messenger from Mr Jay.

These facts go far to rescue the French Ministry from the censure, which it has been usual to cast on them, respecting their supposed policy in the negotiations for peace. Whoever will examine all the testimony that exists on the subject will be convinced, that some grave particulars have crept into our history, which have a slender foundation in fact, and which bestow but scanty justice on the motives, conduct, and policy of the first ally of the United States.[7]

JARED SPARKS.

FOOTNOTES:

[7] For a further elucidation of this subject see the North American Review for January, 1830, No. LXVI, p. 15. Also Mr Livingston's letter to Mr Jay, dated January 4th, 1783, in the present volume.

* * * * *

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO JOHN JAY.

Philadelphia, November 23d, 1782.

Dear Sir,

I have before me your letters of the 25th and 28th of June. I congratulate you on your safe arrival at Paris, where I venture to hope your residence will on many accounts be more agreeable than it was at Madrid. Nothing can be more pleasing to us than your determination to write very frequently, since I am sorry to say, that we have not yet been favored with such minute information on many points of importance, as we have reason to expect. Both Dr Franklin and yourself dwell so much in generals in your last letters, that had it not been for a private letter of the Marquis to me, Congress would have remained ignorant of points, which they have thought sufficiently important to make them the foundation of those resolutions, which are herewith transmitted to you.

You need be under no apprehensions, that Commissioners from the Court of Great Britain will be allowed to negotiate with Congress; their sentiments on this subject are sufficiently manifested in the resolutions, that are sent to you and Dr Franklin with this. And the case of Mr Burgess, which you will find in one of the papers of last week, and in my letter to Dr Franklin,[8] will afford you some evidence of the extreme caution of particular States on this head.

That in the mass of our people, there is a great number, who though resolved on independence, prefer an alliance with England to one with France, must be a mere speculative opinion, which can be reduced to no kind of certainty. If we form our judgment from acts of government, we would suppose that no such sentiment prevailed; they all speak a different language. If from the declarations of individuals, we must entertain the same opinion, since independence and the alliance with France, connect themselves so closely together, that we never speak of them separately. The mass of the people here are not so ignorant of the common principles of policy as to prefer an alliance with a nation whose recent pretensions, and whose vicinity renders them mutual enemies, to that of a Prince who has no claims upon them, and no territory in their neighborhood, at least till the principles of his government shall be changed, and he gives evident proofs of the want of justice and moderation.

I think it unnecessary to repeat to you what I have already written to Dr Franklin, presuming that you communicate with freedom to each other. Mr Jefferson will afford, I dare say, a very acceptable aid to your commission; I have not yet learned from him whether he will take the duties upon him.[9]

Mr Barlow, a poet of New England, has requested me to transmit you his proposals for printing, by subscription, a poem of which he is the author. I can give no character of the work, but what you will get from the specimen enclosed, which is all I have seen of it. The enclosed resolution informs you of Mr Boudinot's advancement to the Presidentship. For other intelligence I refer you to my letter to Dr Franklin, and the papers that accompany this.

I am, Dear Sir, &c.

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] See Franklin's Correspondence. Vol. IV. p. 34.

[9] Mr Jefferson did not join the Commissioners for Peace.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

Paris, December 12th, 1782.

Dear Sir,

I have already written a long letter to you by this vessel, and should have continued the details of our subsequent proceedings, had my health admitted of the necessary application.

You will receive from us a joint letter with a copy of the preliminaries. I shall therefore omit making any remarks on them.

Before I left Spain, and by letters since my arrival here, I desired Mr Carmichael to make out and transmit the public accounts. Our negotiations with that Court are at a stand. The Count d'Aranda either has not, or does not choose to show me a commission to treat. He is exceedingly civil, and frequent visits pass between us.

It gives me pleasure to inform you, that perfect unanimity has hitherto prevailed among your Commissioners here; and I do not recollect, that since we began to negotiate with Mr Oswald, there has been the least division or opposition between us. Mr Adams was particularly useful respecting the eastern boundary, and Dr Franklin's firmness and exertions on the subject of the tories did us much service. I enclose herewith a copy of a letter he wrote about that matter to Mr Oswald.[10] It had much weight, and is written with a degree of acuteness and spirit seldom to be met with in persons of his age.

I have the honor to be, with great regard and esteem, Dear Sir, &c.

JOHN JAY.

FOOTNOTES:

[10] See Franklin's Correspondence. Vol. IV. p. 36.

* * * * *

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO JOHN JAY.

Philadelphia, January 4th, 1783.

Dear Sir,

I have before me your despatches of the 4th and 18th of September last, and the 13th of October. It gives me much uneasiness to find by them, that your health is not yet confirmed, particularly as the extreme shortness of your letters, compared with the importance of the matter, gives me reason to fear, that it has suffered more than you would have us believe.

I am under some anxiety relative to the fate of your letter of the 18th of September, as only the duplicate copy has arrived, and I find by that you have risked it without a cypher. Should it get into improper hands, it might be attended with disagreeable consequences.

It is of so much importance, that both you and we should judge rightly of the designs of the Court, to whom we have intrusted such extensive powers, that I most earnestly wish you had enlarged on the reasons which have induced you to form the opinion you intimate; an opinion, which, if well founded, must render your negotiations extremely painful, and the issue of them very uncertain. If on the other hand, it should have been taken up too hastily, it is to be feared, that in defiance of all that prudence and self-possession, for which you are happily distinguished, it will discover itself in a reserve and want of confidence, which may afford hopes to our artful antagonists of exciting jealousies between us and our friends. I so sincerely wish that your conjectures on this head may not be well founded, that I am led to hope you carry your suspicions too far, and the more so as Dr Franklin, to whom I dare say you have communicated them freely, does not (as you say) agree in sentiment with you. But I pretend not to judge, since I have not the advantage of seeing from the same ground. Perhaps some light may be thrown upon the subject by such facts as I have been able to collect here, and with which it is impossible you should be acquainted.

The policy you suppose to influence the measures of France, can only be founded in a distrust, which I persuade myself she can hardly entertain of those who have put their dearest interest into her hands. She is too well informed of the state of this country, to believe there is the least reason to suppose, that we could have the most distant idea of a separate peace. If such distrust really exists, it would, in my opinion, dictate to them, to let Great Britain acknowledge our independence at once, rather than make it the subject of subsequent negotiation. When satisfied on that point, we can with more advantage contend for those our allies have at heart. Whereas by withholding it, and making it the price of concessions on the part of France, which she may not choose to make, an opportunity would be afforded, to embroil and incline us to listen to separate proposals. Upon this principle, France seems to have acted in all the answers, which she has hitherto given, as well to the direct proposals of Great Britain as to those made by the imperial Courts. When Mr Grenville proposed to treat of the independence of the United States with his Most Christian Majesty, an opportunity was afforded to take the lead in the negotiation, and to suspend that part of it; yet we find the reply of the Court of Versailles led to a direct negotiation between Great Britain and us, and ended in the offer of unconditional independence. The reply of the Court of France to that of London, communicated to Mr Grenville on the 21st of June, speaks the same language.

From these and the following facts you will, when you have compared them with those within your own knowledge, draw your inferences with more judgment than I can pretend to do without those you possess.

Before your letters were received, the Chevalier de la Luzerne showed me a letter from the Count de Vergennes of the 14th of August, in which he speaks of Mr Grenville's commission, and the ground it gave him to hope, that negotiations would open with an express and unconditional acknowledgment of independence. He mentions the change in the British administration; their assurances, that it should occasion no alteration in the plan of their negotiation, and concludes, by expressing his surprise at the alteration, which afterwards took place in this essential article in the propositions offered by Mr Fitzherbert, and infers from thence, that Lord Shelburne had no other design than to divide and deceive. In a letter of the 7th of September, he mentions Mr Oswald's commission, your objections to it, and his doubts of the manner in which these objections will be received. "If," says he, "Mr Oswald is right in his conjecture, that they will be favorably received and removed, then everything _is said_. If they reject them, because they will not begin where they propose to end, I conceive the negotiations should still go on. We may judge of the intentions of the Court of London by their first propositions. If they have independence for their basis, we may proceed; _if not, we must break off_." In his letter of the 14th of October, he mentions with great apparent satisfaction, the alterations in Mr Oswald's commission. From the general tenor of these letters, I can discover nothing but an anxious desire for peace, which might very naturally lead him to wish that objections, which he did not conceive essential in the first instance, after having declared to Great Britain that no peace could be made till our independence was acknowledged, should not break off a negotiation, which must end in the attainment of an object, which they have as much at heart as we.

Whatever the sentiments of the Count de Vergennes may be, as to the claim of Spain, in a letter which I have seen, he treats them as well as ours, as chimerical and extravagant, and declares, that he does not mean to interfere in them. You can best judge of the sincerity of this declaration. If insincere, I cannot conceive for what purpose it was made, or the subject treated so lightly, or why this should be confided to me. For my own part, I believe their situation with respect to Spain is very delicate, and that they are embarrassed by her demands. I mention these things, that you may, by comparing them with facts within your reach, draw useful inferences from them, and I wish to give you everything that may _possibly_ be of use to you.

As to the letter of Marbois, I am by no means surprised at it, since he always endeavored to persuade us that our claim to the fisheries was not well founded. Yet one thing is very remarkable, and I hope evinces the determination of France to serve us on this point. The advice given to discourage the hope is certainly judicious, and yet we find no steps taken in consequence of it. On the contrary, we have been repeatedly told in formal communications since that period, "that the King would do everything for us that circumstances will admit, and that nothing but dire necessity shall induce him to relinquish any of the objects we have at heart, and that he does not imagine that such necessity will exist." This communication was made on the 21st of last November, from letters of the 7th of September, _previous to our_ success at Yorktown, and has been renewed at different periods since. You will undoubtedly avail yourself of this engagement if necessary. Congress relying upon it, have made no alteration in their instructions since the change in their affairs, by the blow the enemy received at Yorktown.

This letter of Marbois, and the conduct of the Court of France, evince the difference between a great politician and a little one. France can, by prohibiting the importation of fish, supply herself; she cannot do more. Our exclusion from the fishery, would only be beneficial to England. The enmity it would excite, the disputes it would give rise to, would, in the course of a few years, obliterate the memory of the favors we have received. England, by sacrificing a part of her fisheries, and protecting us in the enjoyment of them, would render herself necessary to us, our friendship would be transferred to her, and France would in the end be considered as a natural enemy. I am persuaded, she has wisdom enough to see this in its true light.

I know not how far the Marquis may deserve your confidence; you are the best judge of his conduct. I ought, however, in justice to him to mention, that he has steadily, in all his letters, recommended an adherence to our claims, and assured us that both might be obtained if insisted upon.

You see, Sir, I have purposely leaned to the opposite side from that which you appear in some measure to have taken; not because I think you _are_ wrong in the opinion you have adopted, but because you _may possibly_ be so. Such essential injuries may flow from the slightest jealousies, that I wish you to examine yours with all the coolness you are master of. I am persuaded, the last hope of Britain is founded on the distrusts they may sow among their enemies. I wish you had in a private letter in cypher informed me how you got at the letter of Marbois, and why it was copied in English. I more particularly wish to know whether it passed through the hands of either of the British Commissioners. If it has, it will be of some consequence to see the original, not that I doubt its authenticity, but it may possibly have undergone some alterations. That which follows what is said of the great bank, is nonsense, or if it conveys any meaning, I think it is not such as a man of common sense would speak.[11]

Count de Vergennes, in his letters dated a day later than yours, gives no account of your propositions. I should conclude from this circumstance, that they had not been communicated. If I were not convinced, that acting under the instructions you do, you would not withhold them, except for the most weighty reasons, and that if such reasons existed you would have assigned them in your letters, and presuming, therefore, that you had communicated them, I have made no secret of them to the Count de la Luzerne, who appeared much pleased with them, though a little surprised at the article, which relates to commerce, which I cannot suppose perfectly agreeable to them in all its extent; since it will render a revolution necessary in the commercial system of France, if they wish to have an extensive trade with us. I am extremely pleased, that in freeing ourselves, we have a prospect of unfettering the consciences and the commerce of the world.

We are far from regretting that the Marquis d'Aranda has no powers to treat. We think, with you, that it is time to adopt the Spanish system. We may treat at any time with more advantage than at present. You had received your instructions on this subject before you wrote your last letters. By your saying nothing of them, I suppose you had not decyphered them. Mr Jefferson being the bearer of this, it is unnecessary to enlarge.[12] News and general politics will be contained in my letter to Dr Franklin, to whom I also send an instruction on the subject of your commercial proposition. I enclose you a new cypher, which I pray you to make use of. You will find it very easy on a little practice. I must again entreat you to write more fully to us. I have received _from the Count de Vergennes' letters_, the whole progress of the negotiation. Information of this kind it would give me more pleasure to receive through another channel.

I have the honor to be, Dear Sir, with great respect and esteem, &c.

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

FOOTNOTES:

[11] M. de Marbois' letter here alluded to, was very long, and written in cypher. It was intercepted by the English, taken to London, there decyphered, translated into English, and sent to the British Commissioners in Paris, (while the negotiations for peace were in progress.) The sense of the writer would be very likely to suffer by this process of decyphering and translating. But M. de Marbois never complained that the letter was not in the main correctly translated. As soon as the British Commissioners received it in Paris, they put a copy of it into the hands of the American Commissioners. M. de Marbois was at that time only a Secretary of Legation, and wrote the letter while the Minister, M. de la Luzerne, was absent from Philadelphia, and without his knowledge. The sentiments of the letter were never avowed by the French Ministry.

[12] Mr Jefferson did not go till some time afterwards.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

Paris, April 7th, 1783.

Dear Sir,

After the preliminaries had been settled and ratified, the Spanish Ambassador informed me that his Court was ready to receive me, not only in form, but "_très honnêtement_." He _then_ expected full instructions relative to the proposed treaty.

The Marquis de Lafayette, in his journey through Madrid, manifested great zeal to serve us there. A copy of a letter from him to the Minister, will be sent you by another opportunity, though I imagine he has already forwarded it.

On the 29th ult. the Spanish Ambassador communicated to me the desire of his Court that I would return to Madrid, and there complete the treaty, for that in their opinion, it ought to be concluded either at _Madrid_ or at Philadelphia.

You will have this communication at large in another letter.

No Ministry yet in England, nor any news of Barney, nor from you, since the 3d of January.

The definitive treaties must be concluded, and the heats of summer abated, before either my business here, or the very delicate state of my health will admit of a journey to Spain. Be assured of my esteem and regard.

I am, Dear Sir, &c.

JOHN JAY.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

Paris, April 11th, 1783.

Dear Sir,

I wrote you a short letter on the seventh instant. Certain intelligence has since arrived from England, that the Duke of Portland is first Lord of the Treasury, Mr Fox and Lord North Secretaries of State, and Lord John Cavendish Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is also said, that Lord Stormont is President of the Council, and the Duke of Manchester Ambassador to Versailles. I hear that Mr David Hartley is appointed to conclude a definitive treaty with us.

The Emperor and Russia have been requested in their mediatorial capacity, to send Plenipotentiaries to assist at the definitive treaties. The due motives to this measure can as yet be only conjectured. The ostensible one is, a mark of respect to their offered, but not accepted mediation. The proposition originated here. Their answer is expected daily. It is whispered that Russia consents. Safe opportunities of sending important letters from hence to Madrid are so very rare, that I think yours for that place had better be always conveyed directly to Cadiz or other ports in Spain, where some American of confidence may be settled.

Numberless applications for consulships continue to be made, and some will probably reach you. In my opinion Americans only should be employed to serve America. I early entertained this opinion, and it has been almost daily gathering strength since my arrival in Europe.

I have the honor to be, &c.

JOHN JAY.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

Paris, April 22d, 1783.

Dear Sir,

I wrote to you so lately by Mr Mason, and there is such a dearth of news, that I now write less to give you information than as a mark of attention.

There are several of your letters, which on account of their length, the importance of their subjects, and the manner in which those subjects were treated, demanded of me more minute answers than my situation admitted of. Mr Hartley is not yet arrived, but is daily expected. I am told by Mr Laurens, that he will propose that the people of the two countries shall have all the rights of citizens in each. The instruction of Congress on this important point is much to be desired. For my part I think a temporary stipulation of that sort might be expedient. They mean to court us and in my opinion we should avoid being either too forward or too coy. I have no faith in any Court in Europe, but it would be improper to discover that sentiment. There are circumstances which induce me to believe, that Spain is turning her eyes to England for a more intimate connexion. They are the only two European powers, which have continental possessions on our side of the water, and Spain I think wishes for a league between them for mutual security against us. Perhaps this consideration should lead us to regard the present fervor of the British advances with the less indifference.

On looking over one of my former letters, containing my propositions to Spain, I find that I had omitted to explain the reason of the one for a guarantee of our possessions in North America. That we should _so_ guaranty the Spanish possessions as to _fight_ for them, was as distant from my design, as it could be from that of Congress. A common guarantee means nothing more than a _quit claim_, to which we certainly could have had no objection. When more is intended, provisional and express stipulations become necessary. To any such I never would have consented. A confidant of the Minister (and I believe by his directions) had assured me, that unless a guarantee was offered any other propositions would not induce the minister to negotiate for a treaty. To meet that objection I made the offer in the general terms you have seen. I had no doubt but that the Minister was acquainted with my instructions; and I considered this objection as a pretext for delay. My opinion as to a certain proposed cession was known, and uses not advantageous to us or to me had been made of it. It appeared to me advisable, that the intention of Spain with respect to us should have a full trial, and such a one as would convince Congress that I was entirely guided by their views and wishes.

I therefore endeavored so to frame those propositions as that they should not afford the Minister any pretence for refusing to commence the negotiation. The issue you are acquainted with.

I hope nothing will be done by the States for the tories until the British forces shall be withdrawn, and then I confess it would be for our honor to forgive all except the perfidious and the cruel.

After the definitive treaties are finished, I hope I shall be excused in trying the waters of Spa and Bath (which are recommended to me) before I proceed to Spain. Whatever may be their effect, I shall not loiter at either place. After my business at Madrid shall be finished, I wish to devote my care to the recovery of my health, and the concerns of my family, which must greatly interfere with the duties of my commission. Besides, as my country has obtained her object, my motives for entering into public life are at an end.

The same principles which drew me from the private station I formerly occupied, bid me to return to it. Actions are the only proofs of professions, and if I live mine shall not want that evidence.

I am, Dear Sir, &c.

JOHN JAY.

_P. S._ I am told, that a vessel, which went last year from our country, on the Ohio, down that river, and through the Mississippi to the Havana, took passports from the Count de la Luzerne. This, if a fact, appears to me a singular one. I mention it merely as a matter of information.

J. J.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

Paris, May 30th, 1783.

Dear Sir,

It cannot in my opinion be long before Congress will think it expedient to name a Minister to the Court of London. Perhaps my friends may wish to add me to the number of candidates for that office. If that should be the case, I request the favor of you to declare in the most explicit terms, that I view the expectations of Mr Adams on that head as founded in equity and reason, and that I will not by any means stand in his way. Were I in Congress I should vote for him. He deserves well of his country, and is very able to serve her. It appears to me to be but fair that the disagreeable conclusions, which may be drawn from the abrupt repeal of his former commission should be obviated by its being restored to him. I do therefore in the most unequivocal manner decline and refuse to be a competitor with that faithful servant of the public, for the place in question.

As Mr Barclay has power to settle our accounts in Europe, I wish that orders may be sent to Mr Carmichael to come here with the books and documents necessary to enable Mr Barclay to examine and settle the public accounts in my department. I cannot learn that my repeated requests to him to send a state of those accounts to Philadelphia have as yet been complied with.

I am, Dear Sir, &c.

JOHN JAY.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

Paris, June 1st, 1783.

Dear Sir,

I have had the honor of receiving your favor of the 4th of January last. The cypher you mention to have enclosed is missing. My letter by Captain Barney affords an answer to the greater part of your inquiries. Business here goes on heavily. The Dutch and English are not yet agreed, and some points remain still to be adjusted between the latter and the French and Spaniards. Mr Hartley has an ample and proper commission to conclude with us. We are discussing the terms of a temporary commercial regulation, but as he is waiting for more full instructions, it may be a week or a fortnight before we shall be able to inform you of the real intentions of Britain on that subject.

Before I left Spain, and often since by letters, I desired Mr Carmichael to make out and transmit to Philadelphia a clear and full state of the public accounts; and also agreeably to Dr Franklin's request, to send him an account of the bills remaining to be paid. The Doctor has not received his account; and I have no reason to suppose that you or Mr Morris have received the other. I am not easy about this matter, for in case of the death or recall of Mr Carmichael, (by whom all these accounts were kept, and through whom I managed those transactions,) I might experience difficulties respecting those accounts, which may now be avoided.

I understood from Mr Barclay, that he is authorised to examine and settle these accounts, and as Mr Carmichael has not much to do at Madrid, I am very desirous that he should be ordered to bring here all the books and papers relative to these accounts, and with me to attend their settlement by Mr Barclay. Be so good as to lay this matter before Congress without delay.

I have the honor to be, &c.

JOHN JAY.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

Passy, July 20th, 1783.

Dear Sir,