THE CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN JAY. (continued 4)

"We do not find ourselves described in this commission as the persons with whom Mr Oswald is authorised to treat.

"Nations, particularly corporations, mercantile companies, and indeed every private citizen, in every country, have their titles, their styles, their firms, and their additions, which are necessary to their being known in the law; that is to say, the law of nations requires, that national acts shall give to every sovereign and nation its proper political name or style, in the same manner as the municipal law of the land will only take notice of corporations, companies, and even private citizens by their proper names and legal descriptions.

"When the United States became one of the nations of the earth, they published the style or name, by which they were to be known and called, and as on the one hand they became subject to the law of nations, so on the other they have a right to claim and enjoy its protection, and all the privileges it affords.

"Mr Oswald's commission is a formal, national act, and no nation not mentioned or properly described in it can consider him properly authorised to treat with them. Neither the United States of America, nor Commissioners appointed by them, are mentioned in it, and, therefore, we as their servants can have no right to treat with him.

"We are apprised the word Colonies or Plantations of New Hampshire, &c. in North America, convey to the reader a geographical idea of the country intended by the commission, and of the manner of its first settlement, but it conveys no political idea of it, except perhaps a very false one, viz. as dependent on the British Crown; for it is to be observed, that the words Colonies or Plantations have constantly been used in British acts of Parliament, to describe those countries while they remained subject to that Crown, and the act holds up that idea in a strong point of light when it declares, that it is essential to the interest, welfare, and prosperity of the Colonies or Plantations of New Hampshire, &c. that peace, &c. should be restored, &c. For as independent States our interests, welfare, and prosperity, were improper objects for the Parliamentary discussion and provision of Great Britain.

"The United States cannot be known, at least to their Commissioners, by any other than their present, proper, political name, for in determining whether Mr Oswald's commission be such as that we ought to treat with him under it, we must read it with the eyes, and decide upon it with the judgment of American Ministers, and not of private individuals.

"But admitting that the studied ambiguity of this commission leaves every reader at liberty to suppose, that we are or are not comprehended in it, nay supposing it to be the better construction, that we are, still in our opinion it would ill become the dignity of Congress to treat with Mr Oswald under it.

"It is evident, that the design of the commission was, if possible, to describe the United States, the Congress, and their Commissioners, by such circumlocutory, equivocal, and undeterminate words and appellations, as should with equal propriety apply to the Thirteen States considered as British Colonies and territories, or as independent States, to the end, that Great Britain might remain in a capacity to say, that they either had the one or the other meaning, as circumstances and convenience might in future dictate.

"As Congress have no doubts of their own independence, they cannot with propriety sanctify the doubts of others, and, therefore, cannot admit the sufficiency or decency of any commission that contains them.

"It being well known, that the United States have vested in Congress the exclusive right to make peace, this commission, by authorising Mr Oswald to treat with them separately, and even with parts of them, and with any person or persons whatsoever, offers such open and direct violence to the honor and prerogatives of Congress, as to be better calculated to excite their resentment than their acquiescence. Nor can we conceive it very decent in Great Britain to expect that Congress, after having so long firmly and uniformly maintained the rights of independence, should now consent to deviate from that character by negotiating with her for peace, in any other capacity than the one in which they have carried on the war with her.

"It seems agreed on all hands, that the commission does not acknowledge us to be independent, and though the King of Great Britain consents to make it the first article of the proposed treaty, yet, as neither the first nor the last article of the treaty can be of validity till the conclusion of it, can it be reasonably expected, that we should consent to be viewed during all that interval as British subjects, there being no middle capacity or character between subjection and independence? Neither Congress nor their servants, if so inclined, have a right to suspend the independence of the United States for a single moment, nor can the States themselves adopt such a measure, while they remember the solemn manner in which they pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, to support their independence.

"It gives us pleasure to find that these inferences and conclusions from the general nature and rights of independence, stand confirmed by the express acts and declarations of Congress on the subject, and in whatever view these acts may be regarded by others, they must be considered as authoritative by their servants.

"So early as the 17th of July, 1776, Congress resolved, 'that General Washington, in refusing to receive a letter said to be sent by Lord Howe, addressed to "George Washington, Esq." acted with a dignity becoming his station, and, therefore, that this Congress do highly approve the same, and do direct that no letter or message be received on any occasion whatever from the enemy by the Commander in Chief, or others, the commanders of the American army, but such as shall be directed to them in the characters they respectively sustain.'

"We conceive that the reason of this resolution extends with at least equal force to civil officers, and particularly to Commissioners appointed to treat of peace with Great Britain.

"On the 5th of September, 1776, Congress resolved, 'that General Sullivan be requested to inform Lord Howe, that this Congress, being the representatives of the free and independent States of America, cannot with propriety send any of its members to confer with his Lordship in their private characters, but that ever desirous of establishing peace on reasonable terms, they will send a committee of their body to know whether he has any authority to treat with persons authorised by them for that purpose in behalf of America, and what that authority is; and to hear such propositions as he shall think fit to make respecting the same; that the President write to General Washington and acquaint him, that it is the opinion of Congress, no proposals for making peace between Great Britain and the United States of America ought to be received or attended to, unless the same be made in writing, and addressed to the representatives of the said States in Congress, or persons authorised by them, and if application be made to him by any of the commanders of the British forces on that subject, that he inform them, that these United States, who entered into the war only for the defence of their lives and liberties, will cheerfully agree to peace on reasonable terms, whenever such shall be proposed to them in MANNER AFORESAID.'

"These resolutions were passed at a time when the United States had formed no alliances, and when a formidable and hostile army had just arrived to invade their country. If such, therefore, were their sentiments, and such their resolutions at so early, so dangerous, and doubtful a period, there certainly is reason to presume, that the fortitude which influenced them has not been abated by the present aspect of their affairs.

"On the 22d of November, 1777, Congress resolved, 'that all proposals of a treaty between the King of Great Britain or any of his Commissioners and the United States, inconsistent with the independence of the said States, or with such treaties or alliances as may be formed under their authority, will be rejected by Congress.'

"We cannot consider the present proposals to treat with us in a character below independence to be consistent with it.

"Among other objections unanimously made by Congress, on the 22d of April, 1778, to certain bills of the British Parliament, then about to be passed into laws to enable the King of Great Britain to appoint Commissioners to treat, &c. is the following, viz.

'Because the said bill purports, that the Commissioners therein mentioned may treat with private individuals, a measure highly derogatory to national honor.'

"Mr Oswald's commission contains a similar clause, and, consequently, is liable to the same objection.

"The Congress did also, on the same day, unanimously declare, 'that these United States cannot with propriety hold any conference or treaty with any Commissioners on the part of Great Britain, unless they shall as a preliminary thereto, either withdraw their fleets and armies, or else in positive and express terms acknowledge the independence of the said States.' Neither of these alternatives have as yet been complied with.

"On the 6th of June, 1778, the Congress ordered their President to give an answer in the following words to the Commissioners appointed under the British acts of Parliament beforementioned, viz.

'My Lord,

'I have had the honor to lay your Lordship's letter of May the 27th, with the acts of the British Parliament enclosed, before Congress, and I am instructed to acquaint your Lordship, that they have already expressed their sentiments upon bills not essentially different from those acts, in a publication of the 22d of April last.

'Your Lordship may be assured, that when the King of Great Britain shall be seriously disposed to put an end to the unprovoked and cruel war waged against these United States, Congress will readily attend to such terms of peace as may consist with the honor of independent nations, the interest of their constituents, and the sacred regard they mean to pay to treaties.'

"The honor of an independent nation forbids their treating in a subordinate capacity.

"On the 17th of June, 1778, Congress in another letter to the same Commissioners, unanimously join in saying;

'Nothing but an earnest desire to spare the further effusion of human blood could have induced them to read a paper containing expressions so disrespectful to his Most Christian Majesty, the good and great ally of these States, or to consider propositions so derogatory to the honor of an independent nation.

'The acts of the British Parliament, the commission from your sovereign, and your letter, suppose the people of these States to be subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, and are founded on an idea of dependence, which is utterly inadmissible.

'I am further directed to inform your Excellencies, that Congress are inclined to peace, notwithstanding the unjust claims from which this war originated, and the savage manner in which it has been conducted. They will therefore be ready to enter upon the consideration of a treaty of peace and commerce, not inconsistent with treaties already subsisting, when the King of Great Britain shall demonstrate a sincere disposition for that purpose. The only solid proof of this disposition will be an explicit acknowledgment of the independence of these States, or the withdrawing his fleets and armies.'

"On the 11th of July, 1778, the British Commissioners again endeavored to prevail upon Congress to treat with them on the humiliating idea of dependence. And on the 18th day of the same month, Congress came to the following resolution, viz.

'Whereas Congress, in a letter to the British Commissioners of the 17th of June last, did declare that they would be ready to enter into the consideration of a treaty of peace and commerce not inconsistent with treaties already subsisting, when the King of Great Britain should demonstrate a sincere disposition for that purpose, and that the only solid proof of this disposition would be an explicit acknowledgment of the independence of these States, or the withdrawing his fleets and armies; and whereas neither of these alternatives have been complied with, therefore resolved, that no answer be given to the letter of the 11th instant from the British Commissioners.'

"We find Congress still adhering to the same resolutions and principles, and in pursuance of them lately directing General Washington to refuse Sir Guy Carleton's request of a passport for one of his family to carry despatches from him to Congress. The late resolutions of the different States on that occasion show how exactly the sense of the people at large corresponds with that of their representatives in Congress on these important points.

"To our knowledge, there is not a single instance in which Congress have derogated from the practice and conduct of an independent nation. All their commissions, as well civil as military, are and always have been in that style. They have treated with France and the States-General of the United Provinces, and those powers have treated with them on an equal footing. What right, therefore, can Britain have to demand, that we should treat in a different manner with her? Or with what propriety can we pay marks of respect and reverence to our enemies, which we never have paid to our friends; friends too, who are at least equal to her in power and consideration; nor can we forbear observing, that the second article of our treaty of alliance with his Most Christian Majesty declares, 'That the essential and direct end of the present defensive alliance is, to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, of the said United States, as well in matters of government as of commerce.'

"Hence it appears, that not only the regard due to our own dignity, but also to the dignity of our great ally, and the faith of treaties, forbid our receding in the least from the rights of that sovereignty and independence, the support of which forms the direct end of our alliance.

"But although the United States as an independent nation can regard Great Britain in no other light, than they would any other Kingdom or State with whom they may be at war, yet we can easily perceive that Great Britain has stronger objections than other nations can have to treating with us as independent. But these objections, however strong, are more proper subjects for their deliberations whom they affect, than for ours, whom they do not respect. Britain may amuse herself with, and therefore be embarrassed by doubts of our title to independence, but we have no such doubts, and therefore cannot be perplexed or influenced by them.

"Other nations owe their origin to causes similar to those which gave birth to ours, and it may not be useless to inquire how they conducted themselves under similar circumstances.

"The tyranny of Philip II of Spain made his subjects in the Low Countries declare themselves independent; a long and cruel war ensued, which was suspended by a truce for twelve years, and afterwards concluded by a definitive treaty of peace.

"History bears honorable testimony to the wisdom and fortitude of that nation during that interval, and we think the following detail is so interesting, and so applicable to the case of our country in general, and particularly to the point in question, that we cannot forbear requesting your Excellency to peruse it.

"On the 26th of July, 1581, the United Provinces, by a formal act, declared that Philip II had forfeited his right to the sovereignty of those Provinces, and that consequently they were independent.

"On the last of June, 1584, the King of France sent an Ambassador (le Sieur Pruneaul) to Holland, and he in writing represented to the States assembled at Delft, that his Majesty had understood that they desired to treat with him, and that he had thought proper to inform them, that they should let him know on what terms they proposed to do it, with many reasons to induce the Provinces to come into such treaty.

"Queen Elizabeth did nearly the same thing by her letter of the last of October, 1584, which she sent to her Ambassador Davidson.

"The Deputies of the States soon after, by their order, returned thanks to the Queen and informed her, that they had resolved to accept the King of France for Prince of the country in the same manner as Charles V had been, but on condition to retain their rights and privileges.

"On the 3d of January, 1585, the States despatched Deputies to make this offer to the King of France. Spain remonstrated against their being admitted to an audience, calling them rebels, &c.

"To this remonstrance the King of France gave an answer, which does the highest honor to his magnanimity.

"On the 13th of February, 1585, the deputies had an audience of the King, and afterwards of the Queen Mother.

"On the 8th of March, 1585, the King gave for answer to the Deputies, that he could not at present accept their offer nor assist them; complained greatly of the violence done him by the Spaniards and Guises, and desired them, to provide for their own defence, until such time as he should be in quiet with his own subjects, and promised to recommend them to the Queen of England.

"On the 6th of June, 1585, the States-General resolved to transfer the sovereignty to the Queen of England, on lawful and reasonable conditions, or to treat with her to take them under her protection, or to obtain more aid and assistance from her.

"On the 9th of July, 1585, they had an audience of the Queen at Greenwich, and offered to her the sovereignty, &c.

"The Queen declined to accept the sovereignty or undertake the perpetual protection of the United Provinces, but on the 10th of August, 1585, she entered into a formal treaty with them to afford aid, &c.

"On the 16th of October, 1587, the States made a declaration to their Governor Leicester on the subject of some differences between them, in which they say, 'And as by divers acts, and particularly by a certain letter, which he wrote on the 10th of July to his secretary Junius, (as is said) the authority of these States is drawn into doubt; they think it proper to make a more ample declaration, containing a deduction of the rights of the States, which they are bound by oath to maintain. For in case they had not been well founded in the sovereignty of the Provinces, they could not have deposed the King of Spain, nor have defended themselves against his power. Nor would they have been able to treat with their Majesties of France and England, nor to have transferred the government to your Excellency,' &c. &c.

"On the 3d of September, 1587, the Earl of Leicester by order of the Queen intimated to them the propriety of negotiating for peace, for it seems the King of Denmark had privately sounded the King of Spain on that subject.

"The States answered, 'That they had never given any such commission to the King of Denmark, nor ever thought of it; but on the contrary, they had observed to the Earl of Leicester, in the year 1586, on his leaving Holland, and on his speaking to them about making peace, that there was nothing so dangerous and injurious in their condition as to speak or treat of peace, and that it was one of the old finesses of Spain; that neither a long war, the damages suffered, nor force, nor the unexpected deaths of their chiefs had been able to hinder their doing their duty, nor make them recede one step from that foundation of constancy on which they were fixed; but that seeing the honorable weapons which were left them, viz. firmness and resolution, they were sufficiently powerful to surmount their difficulties, in the same manner as the virtue of the Romans had made them triumph over Carthage.' They also reminded the Earl, that by pretext of treating of peace on a former occasion, they had lost Artois, Hainault, and other countries. That the treaties at Ghent and Bruges, which were prior to their independence, had cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand persons; that negligence and false security were always the consequences of such negotiations.

"On the 30th of October, 1588, the Queen again proposed their entering into negotiations for peace, and they again refused.

"In 1590 and 1591, the Emperor endeavored to persuade the United Provinces to enter into negotiations by the mediation of his good offices for a reconciliation with the King of Spain. And on the 7th of April, 1592, they gave a formal answer to the Emperor, containing their reasons for declining his proposal; on this occasion they struck a medal representing a Spaniard offering peace to a Zealander, who points to a snake in the grass, with these words, 'latet anguis in herba.'

"On the 6th of May, 1594, the Archduke of Austria sent a letter to the States on the same subject, and received the like answer, accompanied with a full state of their reasons for it.

"In the same year the United Provinces sent Ambassadors to Denmark, and received others from King James of Scotland, who desired them to send some persons on their behalf to assist at the baptism of his son, and to renew ancient treaties, &c.

"On the 31st of October, 1596, the King of France entered into a treaty of alliance with the United Provinces against Spain.

"On the 9th of August, 1597, the Emperor by his Ambassador, then at the Hague, proposed to the States to treat of peace. They refused, alleging that they had been lawfully separated from the dominion of the King of Spain, and had formed alliances with England, France, &c.

"On the 15th of October, 1597, Ambassadors from the King of Denmark arrived at the Hague, among other things to dispose the States to peace. On the 24th of October, the States gave them a long answer, recapitulating their reasons for refusing to negotiate.

"On the 2d of November, 1597, the King of France, having been offered advantageous terms of peace by Spain, hinted his pacific inclinations to the States. They earnestly dissuaded him from making either peace or truce. The King nevertheless began to treat under the mediation of the Pope, &c.

"The States sent Ambassadors to France with instructions dated 13th of January, 1598, to dissuade the King from peace, and to take measures with France against Spain for the ensuing campaign.

"On the 2d of May, 1598, peace was concluded between France and Spain, at Vervins.

"In treating of the articles of this peace, the Deputies of France declared, that they could not proceed to conclude it unless the Queen of England and the United Provinces, who were allied with his Christian Majesty, were received and admitted to the treaty. To which the Deputies of the King of Spain answered, that from the commencement of the conferences, they had declared that they were ready and content to receive and treat with the Deputies of the said Queen and Provinces, and that they had resided long enough in that place to give them time to come there if they had been so pleased; and it was concluded and agreed, that if in six months the Deputies of the said Queen and United Provinces should come with sufficient powers, and declare themselves willing to treat of peace, they should there be received, and for that purpose the Deputies of the King of Spain should be at Vervins, or such other place as by common consent of parties should be agreed upon; and at the instance of the Deputies of his Christian Majesty, it was further agreed, that there should be a cessation of arms and hostilities between his Catholic Majesty, the Queen of England, and the United Provinces for two months, to be computed from the day on which the said Queen and Provinces should inform the Archduke of Austria, that they accepted the said cessation, &c.

"On the 6th of May, 1598, the King of Spain conveyed the Low Countries and Burgundy to his daughter Isabella Clara Eugenia on certain conditions, the first of which was to marry Albert, the Archduke of Austria.

"On the 29th of June, 1598, the Queen of England, by her Ambassador Sir Francis Veer, addressed the States on the subject of the late peace between France and Spain, and left it to their choice to accede or continue the war. They resolved not to treat of peace.

"The Archduke expressed his astonishment, that the Queen should assist his rebellious subjects, on which she desired the King of France to tell him, that alliances with the States of the Low Countries was not a new thing; that they had not recognised him for their sovereign, and that though she respected him as the brother of the Emperor and Archduke of Austria, yet as the Lieutenant of the King of Spain she held him as an enemy.

"On the 16th of August, 1598, the Queen of England entered into a new convention with the United Provinces, confirming the treaty of 1585, with certain other stipulations.

"On the 28th of August, 1598, the Archduke wrote a letter to the States-General, to persuade them to accept him for their sovereign. To this letter they resolved not to give any answer.

"On the 13th of September, 1598, Philip II, King of Spain, died. In the year 1599, the Emperor again commissioned Ambassadors to persuade the United Provinces to treat of peace, &c. The States, in their answer of the 2d of December, 1599, refuse to treat, because among other reasons, 'the insolence of the Archduke and Infanta was such that although they knew very well that they could claim no right to the said United Provinces under the beforementioned donation, or by any other title, yet so it was, that by placards, by public and notorious libels, and by indecent and unjust acts, which they could never excuse, they held them for rebels.'

"On the 7th of June, 1600, the States, in their answer to another application to the Emperor, say among other things that the Archduke had 'treated the inhabitants barbarously, proclaiming those to be rebels who had nothing to do with him, and that well considering all these things, they had good reason to judge, that it would neither be consistent with their honor nor their interest to acknowledge the Archduke, or treat either with him or with Spain.'

"On the 3d of April, 1602, the Queen of England died.

"On the accession of James, the Archduke immediately sent Nicholas Schossy to sound the King on the subject of peace, and the next year sent Count Arembergh there for the same purpose. King James sent Rudolph Winwood to inform the States, that the Archduke had proposed to him to treat of peace, but that he would do nothing till he had informed them of it, and should be advised of their inclinations.

"On the 30th of July, 1603, the Kings of France and England concluded a treaty of confederation, principally for the defence of the United Provinces against the King of Spain. This treaty was secret.

"In May, 1604, conferences for a peace were opened at London between the Deputies of Spain and the Archduke on the one part, and those of England on the other.

"The Spaniards requested the King to mediate a peace between the Archduke and the United Provinces on reasonable and equal terms. The English answered, that it was not their business, and that they could treat together, without saying anything of the United Provinces.

"On the 28th of August, 1604, peace was concluded between Spain and the Archduke on the one part, and England on the other.

"On the last of May, 1605, the States, in answer to the propositions for peace made by the Emperor, Electors, Princes, and States of the empire say, 'that they had been legally discharged from their oaths to the late King of Spain; insomuch that all impartial Kings, Princes, and States did at present acknowledge and hold the Low Countries for a free State, qualified of right to govern itself in form of a republic, or to choose another Prince.

'That as to what they had been advised, viz. to enter into any treaty, contrary to the free government right, which they had obtained, and which they still enjoyed, they considered it as contrary to God, their honor, and their safety.'

"About the end of February, 1607, there came from Brussels to Holland, as Deputy from the Archduke, the Commissary-General of the minor brothers, whose father had formerly been well acquainted with the Prince of Orange.

"He came to learn the reasons, which had prevented the propositions of the Sieur Horst from being successful. After speaking often in private with Prince Maurice, he came to the Hague, where he also had an audience of Prince Maurice, to whom he said, that it was not the intention of his Highness either to better or to lessen his right by any treaty of truce, but to treat with the States in the state in which they were. And on being given to understand, that the Archduke must acknowledge the State for a free State before they would enter into any treaty, he undertook to bring the Archduke to consent to it, in order to avoid the effusion of blood. On the 9th, he went in Prince Maurice's boat to Antwerp, and returned on the 17th of March to the Hague, and did so much, that both parties finally agreed to come to some mutual treaty, agreeable to the conditions of the following Declaration, viz.

'The Archdukes have found it proper to make the following declaration, offer, and presentation to the States-General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries.

'That the Archdukes having nothing more at heart than to see the Low Countries and the inhabitants thereof delivered from the miseries of war, declare, by these presents, and with mature deliberation, that they are content to treat with the States-General of the United Provinces, in quality, and as holding them for free Countries, Provinces, and States, to which their Highnesses pretend nothing, either by way perpetual peace, or truce, or cessation of arms for twelve, fifteen, or twenty years, at the election of the said States, and on reasonable conditions;' then follow certain propositions for a truce, &c. and afterwards a condition, 'That the States agree to the aforesaid provisional truce in eight days after the delivery of these presents, and shall make a declaration to their Highnesses in writing, before the 1st of September next ensuing, touching the principal treaty aforesaid of truce or cessation of arms, with the time and place which they may have chosen. Done at Brussels, under the signatures and the seal of their Highnesses, the 13th of March, 1607.'

"To this declaration and offer, the States answered, 'That the States-General in quality of, and as free States, Countries, and Provinces, over which their Highnesses have nothing to pretend, and being equally desirous of nothing more than to consent to a Christian, honorable, and sure issue to, and deliverance from the miseries of this war, after mature deliberation, and with the advice of his Excellency, and of the Council of State, have accepted the said declaration of the Archdukes to regard their United Provinces as free Countries, to which their Highnesses have nothing to pretend, and also a truce for eight months, &c. &c. Their Highnesses further promising to obtain and deliver to the said States-General within three months next ensuing, the agreement of the King of Spain touching the treaty, under all the necessary renunciations and obligations, as well general as special.'

"On the last of June, 1607, the King of Spain ratified the truce, but omitted an acknowledgment of their independence.

"The States-General, on the 9th and 11th of August, 'declared these ratifications to be imperfect both in substance and in form.' The Archduke promised to procure a more complete one.

"On the 18th of September, 1607, the King of Spain made a new ratification containing the acknowledgment in question, but declaring that the said ratification should be void, unless the peace or truce in contemplation should take place.

"To this condition the States made strong objections.

"On the 2d of November, 1607, the States made various remarks on the ratification. They absolutely refused to accept, and protested against the condition contained in it, but offered to proceed on the footing of the declaration, provided the States should be firmly assured that nothing would be proposed either on the part of the Archduke or of the King contrary to the same, or prejudicial to the State or government of the United Provinces, and provided also, that the Archduke did send his Deputies to the Hague fully authorised, &c. within ten days after the receipt of that answer.

"On the 10th of November, the States-General adjourned to take the sense of their constituents on the subject of the ratification, and agreed to meet again on the 10th of December.

"On the 24th of December, 1607, they wrote to the Archduke, that under the protest and declaration contained in the answer of the 2d of November, they were content to enter into conferences with his Deputies at the Hague, and proposed to prolong the truce a month or six weeks.

"On the 7th of January, the answer of the Archduke arrived, in which he calls the States, 'très chers et bons amis.' He observed, that he had learnt from their letter of the 24th of December, the resolution they had taken to enter into conferences with his Deputies about peace, and, in the meantime, to prolong the truce for a month or six weeks.

"That as to the first point, he had appointed for the said conferences the same persons whom he had before employed, and that they should set out the 15th of January, and that as to the truce, he was content to prolong it for six weeks.

"On the 6th of February, 1608, the Deputies of the States, and those of the Archduke, had their first meeting to exhibit their respective credentials. The Deputies of the Archduke produced two, one from him, and the other from the King of Spain.

"On the 8th of February, 1608, the Deputies of both parties had their second meeting. Those of the States asked the others if they were fully instructed (enchargés) to acknowledge the United Provinces to be free Provinces and countries, and to treat with them in that capacity, to which they explicitly (rondement) answered, yes. The Dutch Deputies thereupon asked, why then the Archduke retained the arms and name of the said Provinces? They then replied, that it ought not to seem strange, for that the King of Spain retained the title of King of Jerusalem; the King of France that of King of Navarre, and the King of England retained the arms and title of France.

"On the 11th of February, 1608, they met again; the Deputies of the States presented to the others an article, which they had drawn up, by which the 'Provinces were declared to be free, and that the King of Spain and the Archdukes relinquished all their pretensions to the sovereignty of the said Provinces, &c. as well for themselves as for their successors and heirs, with the name and arms.'

"The others received the article and took time to consider of it, on which the meeting was adjourned. They immediately despatched a courier with a copy of it to Brussels, and received an answer on the 13th. They complained, however, to the Ambassadors of France and Great Britain, &c. of the States being so precise in that article.

"On the 13th of February, 1608, in the afternoon, the Deputies again assembled, and those of the Archduke consented to the article as it was drawn up, with reserve, nevertheless, that in case all the other points should be agreed upon, they hoped the States would do something for the King of Spain and the Archduke respecting the Indies, &c.

"On the 15th of February they again met; they agreed on the points of amnesty and oblivion; but on treating of reciprocal free trade and navigation to each other's ports and countries, the Deputies of the Archduke declared, that they did not mean to comprehend in that free trade, the navigation to the Indies and all the fortresses there, but, on the contrary, that all the subjects of these countries should forthwith desist therefrom. The Dutch Deputies opposed this strongly and firmly, saying, that it would prejudice the liberty of the Provinces and the free use of the sea, and, therefore, that they were not authorised to relinquish it. The others continued firm in their demand, and after long debates the Deputies separated.

"On the 19th, 23d, and 27th of February, and 4th of March, 1608, the Deputies met, but, except debating, did nothing, both parties continuing firm and resolved not to cede anything.

"The Deputies of Spain, finding they could not carry the point as to the Indies, declared, at length, that they would consult together on a proposition to make a truce for some years respecting the navigation, and that they were ready to go on to the other points, and try to agree upon some of them.

"On the 7th of March, they exchanged heads of articles for consideration. On the 11th and 12th of March they again met, and had fruitless debates about a free navigation to the Indies, &c. The Marquis Spinola proposed that the subject should be divided, and that two sets of propositions should be prepared, one for the navigation in Europe and the other for the Indies.

"On the 17th of March they again met, and the Dutch Deputies offered to the others two sets of propositions as had been proposed; they received them for consideration; but, after debate, they declared that they could not agree to them, and that they must make a journey to Spain for further instructions; for this reason the truce was prolonged to the end of May.

"The truce was continued from time to time, and sundry fruitless meetings held; but, on the 20th of August, 1608, the Deputies assembled; 'the Spanish ones declared, that they had lately received full instructions on the several points in question, viz. that the King and Archduke were content to quit the sovereignty of the United Provinces; but that he required two points to be yielded by the States by way of compensation, viz. the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in every place in the Provinces, and that they should immediately desist from all navigation both to the East and West Indies.'

"The Dutch Deputies reported this to the States-General. On the 25th of August, the States-General made a long and spirited declaration on the subject of this report, resolving against negotiating any longer, and they ordered a copy of it to be delivered to the Spanish Deputies.

"On the 27th of August 1608, the Ambassadors of France and England, &c. came to the States-General and endeavored to prevail upon them to agree to a long truce.

"On the 30th of August, the States expressed their readiness to agree to a long truce, provided, the adverse party 'would so absolutely acknowledge them for free countries, as that it should not be questioned after the expiration of the truce, that otherwise they could not listen to a truce.'

"On the 3d of September, the Spanish Deputies said they had no instructions to treat of truce, in acknowledging the United Provinces to be absolutely free, and permitting the navigation to the Indies, but that they had sent the proposition to Brussels, in order to have further instructions.

"On the 7th of September, they received an answer from Brussels, and they declared, that they had no instruction to agree to a long truce with the States, on condition to acknowledge them to be States absolutely free, and without comprehending the re-establishment of the Roman religion, and the relinquishment of all navigation to the Indies, but that the Archduke would send the proposition to Spain, from whence he might expect an answer by the end of September.

"They then proposed either to wait for the answer of Spain, or continue the present truce for seven years, observing, that it had been made with an express declaration to hold the United Provinces for free countries, and that as to the trade to the Indies, the Archduke would promise to get it ratified by the King of Spain for that space of time.

"The States unanimously rejected this new proposition, but gave them the time they had demanded for the answer of Spain. On the 28th of September, the Spanish Deputies applied to the Ambassadors of France, &c. to ask ten days more from the States. The Ambassadors agreed to do it in the name of the Deputies, but they declined it.

"On the last of September they took their leave.

"The States-General became possessed by accident of the instructions given to Spinola, and the other Deputies; they were signed by the Archdukes, and dated at Brussels, the 6th of January, 1608. They were thereby instructed to insist on the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion.

"As to independence the instructions say;

'As to the subject of liberty, since you know what we have granted, make no difficulty of arranging it as they wish; doing or saying nothing in opposition, which may make them suspect that we desire to revoke our declaration on that point, as we are determined to abide by it in all respects.'

"These instructions also directed them to insist, that the States should renounce, and entirely and absolutely desist from the trade of the East and West Indies, and should agree to punish those who might undertake such voyages, &c. &c.

"On the departure of the Spanish Deputies, the Ambassadors of France and Great Britain endeavored to prevail upon the States-General to listen to a truce, and proposed to their consideration certain articles, which they had prepared. The States after much deliberation, agreed to enter into further negotiations on that subject.

"On the 25th of March, 1609, the Deputies of both parties met at Antwerp, and on the 9th of April following, a truce for twelve years was concluded upon. It was forthwith ratified by the States and the Archdukes, and published on the 14th of April.

"On the 7th of July, 1609, at Segovia, the King of Spain explicitly and without reserve ratified this truce, viz.

'His Majesty having seen the contents of the articles of truce and capitulation, which his dear and well beloved brothers, the Archdukes Albert and Isabella Clara Eugene have sent him, concerning the truce granted in the name of his Majesty, by his representative, and in that of their Highnesses by themselves, to the States-General of the United Provinces of the low countries, and having maturely considered it, declares that he applauds, approves, confirms, and ratifies the said truce, in so much as concerns him, &c.'

"The first article of this truce was in the words following.

'First, the abovementioned Archdukes declare, in their own name and in that of the King, that they are content to treat with the said States-General of the United Provinces, in the character of, and holding them for a free country, estates, and provinces, over which they have no claims, and to make a truce with them in the name and under the character above described; and this they do on the conditions hereinafter described and declared by these presents.'

"On the 30th of January, 1648, a treaty of peace was concluded between Spain and the United Provinces.

"The full powers or commission given by the King of Spain to his plenipotentiaries for making this peace, were dated near two years before, viz. 7th of June, 1646, and they show clearly, that he negotiated with those Provinces as with independent States, on that occasion.

"The tenor of this commission is very different from that of Mr Oswald. The following is an extract from it.

'All the powers, which are concerned in this war, having by common consent chosen the city of Munster as a place for holding the Congress and negotiations for the peace aforesaid; we have thought proper to name plenipotentiaries there to treat with the States of the free Provinces of the low countries, or with their Ambassadors and plenipotentiaries, authorised and deputed for this purpose, &c.'

"From this detail it appears, that the Dutch ever after their declaration of independence, in July, 1581, uniformly treated with the neighboring nations on an equal footing, and also that they constantly and firmly refused to negotiate either for truce or peace with Spain, until she consented to treat with them in like manner.

"We forbear engaging your Excellency's time and attention by the application of these facts and conclusions, to the case of our country. We are persuaded, that the similarity between the two will not escape your discernment, and that we shall not be thought singular in our opinion, that the example of the United Provinces merits at least in these respects the imitation as well as the approbation of the United States of America.

"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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.