Part 23

_P. S._ I have this moment received resolutions from Congress, (copies of which I enclose), which serve to show their sense of the importance of the fisheries and their western extent, and add new weight to the arguments which I had the honor to urge. You will be pleased to transmit copies of them to Mr Jay and Mr Adams.

* * * * *

DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.

London, January 24th, 1782.

My Dear Sir,

I received yours of the 15th instant this day. I must take the earliest opportunity of setting you right in one mistake, which runs through your whole letter, and which to you, under that mistake, must be a very delicate point. You seem to apprehend that America has been stated in the proposition to Lord North, as "disposed to enter into a separate treaty with Great Britain;" but you meet the condition, viz. in the words immediately following, "_and that their allies were disposed to consent to it_." There cannot possibly be any supposition of treachery to allies, in any proposition to which they may _consent_. A separate treaty, with the _consent_ of the allies of America, was the proposition communicated to me by Mr Alexander, and which I laid before the Minister, and which I reported back again to Mr Alexander in writing, when I showed him the paper entitled "Conciliatory Propositions," which I took care to reduce to writing, with a view of avoiding mistakes; therefore, I have not _misunderstood_ Mr Alexander. I have since seen Mr A. many times, and he has always stated one and the same proposition, viz. that America was disposed to enter into a separate treaty, because their _allies were disposed to consent that they should_; therefore there cannot exist a suspicion of treachery. It occurred to me once while I was writing, to bar against that misconstruction, but having specified the _consent of the allies of America_ in the same sentence, I could not conceive such a misconstruction to have been possible.

You have mistaken another point greatly. You say, "a truce for _ten_ years." There is not in the bill any such disposition or thought; on the contrary, it is specified in the enclosed paper that it is kept _indefinite_, for the sole purpose of avoiding the suspicion which you have suggested. The truce may be for twenty, or fifty, or one hundred years; in my opinion the longer the better. But in any case, what I mean now to state is the _indefinite_ term in the bill. The articles of intercourse are only proposed for ten years certain, just to strew the way with inviting and conciliatory facilities, in the hope that _a little time given for cooling_ would confirm a perpetual peace. If I were permitted to be the mediator, I should certainly propose the truce for twenty years; but if no more than ten years could be obtained, I would certainly not refuse such a ground of pacification and treaty. I refer you to several of my letters two or three years ago, for the justification of my sentiments on that head.

Another point; look at all my letters since 1778, and see if I have at any time suggested any breach of treaty or of honor; on the contrary, I think a faithless nation, if exterminated, would not deserve the pity of mankind. I speak of all I know in the treaty between America and France, and what I think reasonable upon the case itself. If America is further bound than we know of, they must abide by it. I speak to the apparent and public foundation of the treaty, article second, with the provision of _tacitly_, from article eighth; and now I refer you to my letter to you, as long ago as April 10th, 1779; "If beyond this essential and directed end, and upon grounds totally unconnected with that alliance, not upon motives of magnanimity _for the relief of an innocent people_, but from distinct and unconnected motives of private European sentiments, America should be dragged into the consequence of a general European war, she may apply to France the apostrophe of the poet, speaking in the person of Helen to Paris, _non hoc pollicitus tuæ_." You see, therefore, that our sentiments have been uniform, and as I think, reasonable, because I still remain in those sentiments.

Suppose, for instance, (and you may call it the case of a straw if you please) that Great Britain and France should continue the war for ten years, on the point of a commissary at Dunkirk, aye or no;--would it be _reasonable_, or a _casus foederis_, that America should be precluded from a separate treaty for ten years, and therefore involved in the consequential war, after the _essential and direct ends_ of the treaty of February 6th, 1778, were accomplished? As far as my judgment goes, upon the knowledge of such facts as are public, I should think it was neither _reasonable_ nor a _casus foederis_. This is the breviate of the argument, in which there is no thought or suggestion of any breach of faith or honor. I did conclude that France was disposed to give their _consent_, because Mr Alexander informed me so, and because I thought it reasonable that France should consent, and reasonable that America should enjoy the benefit of that consent. I transmitted it to Lord North, as a proposition temperate and pacific on the part of America, and consented to by their allies, and on no other ground did I transmit or propose it. All that your letter tells me, is, "that America will not break with her allies, and that her Commissioners will not entertain such a thought;" but give me leave to add, that they, as honest men, cannot disdain such a thought more than I do; every honest man ought to disdain the office, or the thought of proposing a breach of faith to them. I have often told you, that such an office or such a thought shall never be mine.

But you have not told me that France would not be disposed to consent to a separate treaty of peace, for that ally whose peace was the original declared object of the alliance, in the case supposed, viz. of certain supposed or real punctillios between two proud and belligerent nations, which might possibly involve America for years in a war totally unconnected with the objects of the alliance. Besides, if any rubs should occur in the road to a general peace, France is too proud a nation to say, that beyond the _policy_ of contributing to the separation of America from Great Britain in any contest of rivalship, they cannot meet their rivals in war, without the assistance of America. I cannot conceive that the Minister of a great belligerent nation could entertain such a thought, as affecting their own sense of honor, or be so unreasonable to their allies, as to withhold consent to their peace, when _the essential and direct ends_ of the alliance were satisfied. Observe, I do not contend against a general peace; on the contrary, I mean to recommend the most prudent means for producing it. But, as an anxious lover of peace, I feel terrors which dismay me, and I consider the dangers which may obstruct a general peace, arising from the pride and prejudices of nations, which are not to be controlled in their heat by arguments of reason or philosophy.

Can any man in reason and philosophy tell me, why any two nations in the world are called natural enemies, as if it were the ordinance of God and nature? I fear it is too deeply engraved in the passions of man, and for that reason I would elude and evade the contest with such passions. I would strew the road to peace with flowers, and not with thorns. _Haughty_, and _dictating_, and _commands_, are no words of mine; I abhor them, and I fear them. I would elude their force by gentle means, and step by step. In article eighth, there are the following words; "By the treaty or treaties that shall terminate the war." Let us have one treaty begun, and I think the rest would follow. I fear when contending passions are raised, lest we should lose all by grasping at too much.

_January 25th._ I have just seen Mr Alexander, and have talked the matter over with him. I send you a copy of his sentiments upon it, which, for the sake of avoiding further mistakes, he committed to paper, and which, I think, justify me in saying, that I understood from him, that France was _disposed to give their consent_, as he _explained_ it to me, and as I explained it to the Minister. He did not say, nor did I understand him to say, that he was _authorised_ by the French Ministry, or by any one else, to declare that France had bound herself to consent, or that any such requisition had been made to her; but that it was his opinion that France would consent, and that I might proceed upon that presumption, so far as to recommend overtures of negotiation. Accordingly, the phrase of my letter to you is, that he _explained_ to me, _that their allies were disposed to consent_. You see what his opinion is on this day; and as you have not told me that France will consent, the _reasonable_ probability which still remains with me, for the hopes of opening an amicable treaty, remains as it did.

I could not delay saying thus by the very first mail, upon a point equally delicate to me as well as to yourself. My dear friend, I beg of you not to think, either that you can be considered as capable of entertaining, or that I should be capable of suggesting any unworthy or dishonorable propositions. If there has been any misunderstanding, it is now cleared up; and the ground for negotiation remains open as before. I therefore still entertain my hopes.

I am ever your affectionate, D. HARTLEY.

* * * * *

_Explanatory Letter to Mr Hartley, referred to in the preceding._

Dear Sir,

As I had not the opportunity of seeing your correspondence at this time, I was unable to prevent the misunderstanding that seems to have arisen. There is no proposition of which I am more convinced, than that, "Nothing can be done without the concurrence of allies." But, as the chief obstruction towards an accommodation seemed to me to lie in the personal character of some, who have great weight in this matter, and as the object of the war (the independence of America) seems, in the opinion of all men, to be secured, my own opinion was, and still is, that there was so much wisdom and moderation where prejudice prevents us from seeing it, that, provided the ends of the war are accomplished to the satisfaction of all parties, they will be very ready to let us out of it in the most gentle manner, by consenting equally that the business shall go on in one, two, or three separate deeds, as shall be most palatable here; and to doubt that our friends are desirous of finishing the contest, with the approbation of their allies, is to doubt their understanding.

I am, with the greatest esteem, yours, &c.

W. ALEXANDER.

* * * * *

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.

Philadelphia, January 26th, 1782.

Dear Sir,

I do myself the honor to enclose you a convention for the establishment of Consul, which has just passed Congress. You will find that you are empowered either to sign it in France, or if any alterations are made to send it here to be executed.

Nothing new since I wrote you; we are still in the dark with respect to European intelligence, not having heard from any gentleman in public character since the 5th of October, when we had a short letter from Mr Carmichael.

I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect and esteem, your most obedient humble servant.

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

* * * * *

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Passy, January 28th, 1782.

Sir,

I received at the same time, your several letters of October 20th, 24th, and November 26th, which I purpose to answer fully by the return of the Alliance. Having just had a very short notice of the departure of this ship, I can only at present mention the great pleasure your appointment gives me, and my intention of corresponding with you regularly and frequently, as you desire. The information contained in your letters is full and clear; I shall endeavor that mine, of the state of affairs here, may be as satisfactory.

With great esteem, &c.

B. FRANKLIN.

* * * * *

DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.

London, February 1st, 1782.

My Dear Friend,

I write to you one line by this mail, only to tell you that I have seen the Minister since I last wrote to you, and that he never did entertain the idea one moment of any propositions being thrown out on your part, in the least degree inconsistent with the strictest honor and faith to the allies. I had no occasion to guard against, or to explain any such thought, having at all times conveyed the contrary to him in the most explicit terms. I transmit this to you for your full satisfaction. We have had much conversation on the subject of peace, which you may be sure I have most zealously endeavored to enforce. I should not do him justice, if I did not add that I believe his wishes are for peace, and that he gives the most serious attention to every argument, and to the suggestion of every practicable means on that subject. I have stated many things for his consideration, and for consultation with others, after which I shall see him again. I heartily wish the result may be favorable to the prospect of peace.

I am ever your affectionate, DAVID HARTLEY.

* * * * *

THE DANISH MINISTER TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.

Translation.

Paris, February 6th, 1782.

Three American vessels, one of which was three masted, and called the Norfolk, Captain Lines, and two brigs, the Ariel, Captain Maller, and the Virginia, Captain Hodsheadson, all three armed in Philadelphia, committed a most grievous outrage on the 2d of December last on the coast of Norway, where they seized two English merchantmen and burnt them, after plundering them and sending away their crews. The circumstances are more particularly detailed in the protest enclosed, made on the spot.[29] It has moreover been proved by the report of his Danish Majesty's grand bailiff at Christiansand, that the aforesaid American vessels having anchored in the port of Fleckeroe, before their meeting with the Englishmen, and displayed French colors, he had asked of the French Consul information respecting their sea papers, and that the latter, on examining their contents, declared that they were not furnished with any letters of marque on the part of Congress. Their conduct proves this also in having burnt their prizes, notwithstanding the offers of ransom made them by the English captains. It therefore follows, that they can only be considered as pirates, whose crimes are greatly aggravated by a manifest infraction of his Danish Majesty's territorial rights.

[29] See this protest in Franklin's Works, Vol. V. p. 129.

The undersigned, his Envoy Extraordinary, has received precise orders to communicate these particulars to his Excellency, the Count de Vergennes, requesting with every possible confidence the intervention of his Most Christian Majesty with the United States of America, to effect not only the punishment of the guilty persons, but also to obtain an indemnification for the vessels and cargoes that were burnt, of which an exact statement shall be furnished; and this satisfaction is due to repair the excesses committed on his Majesty's territory.

DE BLOME.

* * * * *

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.

Philadelphia, February 13th, 1782.

Dear Sir,

We have been extremely alarmed at some communications, which the Minister of France made me from his last letters. They look extremely as if the Count de Vergennes imagined, that neither Spain nor Holland was anxious for our success. They discourage the idea of a loan from them, or even from France. Our letters from Holland confirm these conjectures, so far as they relate to that State. Mr Adams seems almost to despair of doing anything with respect to an alliance or loan, and from Mr Jay we have heard nothing in a very long time, and are ignorant of any steps he may have taken since the appointment of M. Del Campo to treat with him.

These mortifying disappointments oblige us, though reluctantly, to call upon France for further assistance. Your solicitations will be infinitely useful to your country, if they procure for it what I will venture to pronounce essential to their safety. In this spirit, the instruction, which I do myself the honor to enclose, has passed Congress, and a second resolution, which I also enclose, which leads to such information as will enable you to convince the Court of France, that their navy can nowhere be more effectually employed to distress the common enemy than in America. I own this consideration is a great relief to my feelings, when we make these importunate demands for money; and I hope it will enable you to press them with some degree of dignity.

That France can aid us is not to be doubted, for it is certain she never carried on a war that distressed her finances less. She has no expensive subsidies to pay; her money is expended either at home, or in a country from which it returns. Her army is not greatly increased, and her commerce under the protection of her fleets enjoys a security, that it seldom has experienced before. I would not, however, have you suppose, that this is the language I hold here. I know too well the necessity of making every exertion, which in our present impoverished situation we are capable of; and I neglect no means, which my present station puts in my power to call forth.

Congress have taken every wise measure for that purpose, and I firmly persuade myself, that we shall be able to form the most vigorous co-operation with such force as his Majesty may please to send out. I am confident that the peace must be made in America. Every blow here is fatal to the grand object of the present war; to the hopes, to the wishes, and to the pride of Great Britain. Other conquests she expects to have restored upon a peace; what is lost here she knows to be lost forever.

The daily complaints that we receive from seamen confined in England concur with humanity, and the national honor, to render some expedient for their relief necessary. I need not, I am persuaded, recommend this to your particular care. We have not yet obtained, at least as far as I can learn, a compensation for the prisoners taken by Paul Jones and returned to England. Is it impossible, either to settle a cartel in Europe, or to have the Americans confined there sent to New York for exchange? The last proposition is so much in favor of England, that it would probably be acceded to, and yet such is the distress of the people who have been long confined, that it would be desirable to have the offer made. I am just now applied to by a Mrs Simmonds, whose husband is the mate of a vessel, and has been two years confined in Mill Prison; it would be an act of charity to attempt to procure his relief. You will do me the favor to collect and transmit a list of the numbers confined in England, and, as far as possible, for the satisfaction of their friends, of the names.

We have not a word of intelligence to communicate, unless it be some little disturbances in the country, which has been distinguished by the names of New Hampshire Grants, and Vermont; and which it may be proper to mention to you, since the facility with which the British deceive themselves, and the address with which they deceive others, may render it a matter of moment in Europe, though in fact it is none in America. The bulk of the people of that country are "_New England Presbyterian Whigs_." Some of those, in possession of the powers of government, have more address than principle. Finding themselves exposed to inroads from Canada, they have tampered with that government, and pretended to be willing to form a treaty of neutrality with them during the war, and to return to the obedience of Britain on a peace. This has had the effect they intended, and in some measure defeated an expedition, which the enemy made last year, and retained their main body in inaction at Ticonderoga, while the parties they sent to the westward were beaten and dispersed by our militia. The secret has been discovered, is disavowed by the people, and such measures are now taken, that by the time the King of Great Britain and his Council, (before whom the propositions now lie) have formed a plan in consequence of them, they will be made the means of drawing them into new difficulties.

I presume that you keep up a constant correspondence with Mr Jay and Mr Adams, and assist them with your information and advice. I must beg the favor of you to transmit them this intelligence, that they may be prepared to meet any assertions of the enemy on that head. I take leave to repeat to you my desire to have the papers and political publications sent regularly to this office.

I have the honor to be, &c.

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

* * * * *

TO DAVID HARTLEY.

Passy, February 16th, 1782.

Dear Sir,

I received your favor of the 24th past. You have taken pains to rectify a mistake of mine relating to the aim of your letters. I accept kindly your replication, and I hope you will excuse my error, when you reflect, that I knew of no consent given by France to our treating separately of peace, and that there has been mixed in some of your conversations and letters various reasonings, to show, that if France should require something of us that was unreasonable, we then should not be obliged by our treaty to join with her in continuing the war. As there had never been such requisition, what could I think of such discourses? I thought as I suppose an honest woman would think, if a gallant should entertain her with suppositions of cases, in which infidelity to her husband would be justifiable. Would not she naturally imagine, seeing no other foundation or motive for such conversation, that if he could once get her to admit the general principle, his intended next step would be to persuade her, that such a case actually existed. Thus knowing your dislike of France, and your strong desire of recovering America to England, I was impressed with the idea, that such an infidelity on our part would not be disagreeable to you; and that you were therefore aiming to lessen in my mind the horror I conceived at the idea of it. But we will finish here by mutually agreeing, that neither you were capable of proposing, nor I of acting on such principles.