Papers of John Adams, volume 14
th1783.
I have been now three weeks in this City, mixing with men of various characters & Parties in order to find out their Desposition towards our Country, the result of my Observations is that the people at large tho by no means having any real Friendship for the United States, are willing to Acquiesce in the present Situation of Things, & to serve themselves of the commerce, which America holds out to them, but that the Courtiers stil retain their malice against us, and that by consequence the true Interest of the nation will not be immediately pursued, but as a nibbling Kind of Politicks was long persisted in to the disgrace of the Kingdom, it will require so long a Time to get rid of its piddling Ideas of commerce that its Rivals in Europe will get to the Start and deprive it of those advantages, which ought to be seized on this moment.
Your Excellency has seen in the news Papers a Bill for the Provisional Establishment & regulation of Trade between G B & the United States, a measure, which the opposition called on the Minister to pursue, He was backward therein at first, however no sooner did He produce his Bill but almost every one clamoured agst It, as doing Some thing too much for America & are for proceeding no further therein than putting America on the same footing as other 331States are with respect to G B. the Times require something more to be done but G B will be in this, As she has been, in all other transactions for some time past, a year or two too late—1 Mr D Hartly mixd in the Debate on this Bill & opposed it as He had proposed to bring in a Bill to repeal the Prohibitory Acts; He lamented that the matter had not been provided for by an Article in the Provisional Treaty. & then read the Plan of a Treaty, which I will endeavour to get, & which He may perhaps send to Dr F.2
Mr Eden said He was for bringing in a Bill
1st to establish the Independancy of the Colonies
2dy to repeal the Acts, which prohibit Intercourse
3dy to Subject all imports in American Ships to the Same duties & regulations as are prescribed by Law in regard to the imports of European Nations
4th to pursue a Similar Principle as to exports.
The Lord Advocate3 threw out his Idea of a Bill to be brought in on this occasion, in which He was for retaining all the Sugar Words of the Preamble of the Bill before them, to treat The Americans not as aliens and to suffer them to Trade to West Indias— He particularly Objected to the first Article in Mr Edens Plan, ie the establishing the Independancy of America, because He said He wished above all things to leave out every word, that tended to remind the Americans they were independant, that is to say, He said to suggest to them, they were aliens. This Idea is curious & connected with what dropped from Mr Sheridan, the Friend of Mr Fox with respect to the Keeping the troops at New York until Something shoud be done for the Royallists, is alarming.
I see, that a Commission to empower your Excellency to make a Treaty of Commerce & the revocation thereof have been published in many of the Papers,4 I have been told that the people in Parliament imagine it was revoked because Congress have not a right to stipulate for the Commerce of the several Independant States, which have such Contradictory Interests you Sir will smile at this Ignorance, as the Gentleman who informed me of this Notion, was ashamed of it, when He was put in mind of treaties of Commerce having been made with France & Holland under the Authority of Congress. This did not occur to Him & yet I assure you Sir, He is one of the most enlightned Members of Parliament— I have hinted to Him, what might possibly have been the Causes of the revocation of the Commission and that G B was somewhat interested therein.
your Excellency cannot but Observe The Whimsical State of 332Affairs in G B, as General Conway calls it, and at the same time cannot but wonder, that an Englishman of the rank of this Gentleman, or indeed any other should make use of such a term in speaking of the Situation of Things. There has not been a responsible Minister for this fortnight & by consequence all Matters of Importance must be at a Stand, among the rest, the Definitive treaty, I should Think, is Kept back much to your Excellencys Regret. The Party, which appears the Compactest, & are prepared to enter into the strong posts of Government is considered by the Commander in Chief,5 as inimical to Him & to what is dearest to his Heart & not one of them has the perfect Confidence of the people, it is Natural therefore to imagine, that should it enter into office, it will not Continue long and indeed such is the Tempers of Men in this Kingdom & the State of Affairs that it is Impossible, I think there should be a Stable Administration for some time—the People in general appear to be humbled. They now feel their real Situation, & are by no means guilty of those Vain boastings, which made them so ridiculous a little while ago, to the whole world, but humbled or rather Confounded as they are, I see no signs of real Repentance for their past Conduct—they are in a State of political Reprobation of Hell or Heaven, of Liberty or Slavery they reak not & are yet capable of Horrid Deeds if they had the Power.
I have informed your Excellency, that I have mixed with Men of various Characters & Parties & I learn from them, that there is not a Man of public Virtue & possessing public Confidence in the Kingdom, but that all is Knavery & therefore that Each is to look to Himself—is this of men it is Evident, there must be some Strange Convulsion such as will drive Many a Man to America for shelter agst the Evils of bad Government & bad Principles. This more eses the Burthen of your Excellencys Duty to make your Country an Asylum to the Miserables of G B. it will be so if the Spirit & Principles of true Republicanism are adopted in the Education of Youth & in the Administration of the Governments now Established. your Excellency There is much to be done in America—in these & many other respects. the Good Man Dr Price with whom I have conversed feels it too for the sake of America & of Humanity & has I believe turned his thoughts to the Subject & may express them in print,6 Every thing from a Man so well intentioned & so enlighned, will tend to good, He is a real Cosmopolite and an Israelite in whom their is no Guile.7 it is possible too, that He will publish something About the Conduct of Opposition towards Lord Shelburne— Should 333your Excellency pass through Brussells & have an opportunity of sending thither, I beg that Monsieur L’Avocat Vander hoop de le rue de Rollebeek may be sent to, He has for your Excellency a book containing the Characters of many people in England, which perhaps may Afford some Amusement.
I am with the greatest Consideration / Sir / Your Excellencys / Most Obedient / Humble Servant
RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “His Excellency John Adams Esqr.”; internal address: “His Excellency Mr Adams.”; endorsed: “Mr. Jennings March 14. / ansd 24.”
Jenings refers to the “Short Abstract of a Bill for the Provisional Establishment and Regulation of Trade and Intercourse between the Subjects of Great Britain, and those of the United States of North America.” William Pitt introduced the bill on 3 March and the abstract appeared in various London newspapers, including the Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser of 5 March and the London Chronicle of 6–8 March. A printed copy of the original bill is in the Adams Papers, filmed at [1783]. For two later printed versions of the bill as amended and sent to Congress by Henry Laurens on 16 March and 5 April (Laurens, Papers
, 16:162–165, 174–179), see PCC, No. 89, f. 261–266, 273–278.
The American Intercourse Bill was a legacy of the Shelburne ministry and reflected to at least some degree the earl's patronage of Adam Smith because it essentially sought to establish free trade between the two nations by restoring Anglo-American trade to its prewar state despite the independence of the United States. In its original form on 3 March, all statutes intended to “regulate or prohibit the Intercourse and Commerce between Great Britain and the Territories now composing the said United States of America” were to be repealed. More importantly, until an Anglo-American commercial treaty or convention was negotiated, American ships were to be admitted to British ports and their cargoes—“the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of the said United States”— were to “be liable to the same Duties and Charges only, as the same Merchandizes and Goods would be subject to, if they were the Property of British Subjects, and imported in British-built Ships or Vessels, navigated by British natural-born Subjects.” Coming in the wake of the earlier debates over the preliminary Anglo-American peace treaty, those on 7 and 10 March over the “American Intercourse Bill” exhibited a growing opposition to the regulation of Anglo-American trade as contemplated in the original bill and the amended versions (which were never debated) and narrowed the distinction between British trade with America and that with other countries. Ultimately, on 9 April Charles James Fox caused the bill to be tabled and on the 11th introduced bills to repeal the Prohibitory Acts and eliminate documentation requirements for American shipping (
Parliamentary Hist.
, 23:602–615, 640–646, 724–730). The nature and tone of the debates over both the peace treaty and the trade bill made it unlikely that an Anglo-American commercial treaty, whether done in conjunction with the definitive peace treaty or separately, could be concluded on terms acceptable to JA, his colleagues, or Congress.
Here and elsewhere in the letter, Jenings refers to comments made on 10 March, the second day of debate over the trade bill. Of particular significance were the remarks of David Hartley, who had long been sympathetic to the American cause and declared that the American Intercourse Bill was “wholly inadequate to its avowed object, and would lead to infinite mischief and inconvenience.” Recalling that five weeks earlier he had introduced a bill to repeal the Prohibitory Acts, Hartley “reasoned, for a considerable time, on the subject, and produced the heads of a treaty, calculated to lead to the establishment of such commercial regulations, between Great Britain and the United States, as should answer the ends of each” (
Parliamentary Hist.
, 23:640). That Hartley contemplated a commercial treaty is significant because he would soon be appointed to settle the definitive peace treaty. Of equal significance was his decision to 334write to Benjamin Franklin on 12 and 31 March, enclosing with the two letters specific proposals and articles for an Anglo-American commercial agreement. For Hartley's letters to Franklin, see Henry Laurens’ letter of 26 March, note 5, below.
Henry Dundas, Lord Advocate of Scotland.
The commission's appearance in the Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser of 11 March was likely owing to Jenings’ efforts. See
JA's letter to Jenings of 28 Jan., and note 1, above; and Henry Laurens’ to JA of 26 March, and note 2, below.
George III.
Richard Price, a dissenting minister sympathetic to the American cause, later became a close friend of JA. In 1784 he wrote Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, and the Means of Making It a Benefit to the World, London. Price's inclusion of a 1778 letter from Anne Robert Jacques Turgot criticizing American state constitutions spurred JA to write his three-volume Defence of the Const. (
DNB
;
AFC
, 6:197, 7:365–366; JA, D&A
, 2:297).
John, 1:47: “Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”
th.1783—
Yours of the 9th. is just put into my hands. In answr: to your question, respecting the particular desire of the K. of Sweden to make a Treaty with Dr. Franklin, I can give you no other satisfaction than by sending you the words of the Dr's: letter to Congress, as sent me by your Brother, vizt. “The Ambassador, fm. Sweden to this Court, applied to me lately, to know if I had Powers that wd. authorise my making a Treaty with his Master, in behalf of the U: S:. Recollecting a general one, that was formerly given to me, with the other Commissioners, I answd. in the affermative. He seemed much pleased & said, the K. had directed him to ask the Question & had charged him to tell me, that he had so great an esteem for me, that it would be a very particular satisfaction to him to have such a transaction with me. I have, perhaps, some vanity in repeating this; but, I think too, it is right the Congress should know it, & judge if any use can be made of the reputation of a Citizen for the public Service.”—1
Dr: F. knew that Mr: Dana had power in his Commission to treat with the K. of Sweden, & that, consequently, the old Resolution of Congress was quo ad hoc superceded, & consequently the answr: to the Ambassador should have been, “I have not power, but Mr: Dana has”— But the feelings, if not the rights of every American Minister in Europe have been wantonly sacrificed to Dr: F.’s vanity—
You know the old acquaintance of the C. de V. at the Swedish Court, from whence, as I conjecture, this mænuvre originated.2 It seems to have been the policy to prevent any other American than Dr: F.—from obtaining reputation in Europe—that, when he shd. die, all opinion of American wisdom & virtue should die with 335him: or, more probably, Dr: F. was thought to be more pliable than some others. il sçavoit mieux se donner aux convenances et bien seances—3
Congress have been much of yr: opinion, wn: left to their own good Sense, of the propriety of having Ministers at the several principal Courts; but great pains have been taken to baffle it, by secretly counteracting their designs, and even by procuring Instructions to Ministers wh: have defeated their missions. I have long & severely smarted under the anguish, occasioned by such means, but by patience, perseverance, & obstinacy, if you will, I broke thro’ all the Snares, fm. every quarter in Holland & exhibited to the world a demonstration in practice of the error of their Theory: But this has thrown a Ridicule on some Characters that will never be forgiven me—
Dr: F. has given his whole weight to the System, wh. you & I, have tho’t wrong. Mr: Dana has a letter, under his hand, in which he says boldly, “that Congress were wrong in sending a Minister to Berlin, Vienna, Tuscany, Madrid, Holland, & Petersburg & the Neutral Courts.”4 Endeavors of a thousand sorts have been made to ridicule such missions, by calling them begging Embassies, “political forlorn hopes”5 &ca:— The Missions to Holland & Petersburg, however in my opinion, have done more towards bringing the war to an end, & towards the handsome terms obtained by the Peace, than any battle or seige, by land or Sea, during the whole war— The world & posterity must judge whether our system or theirs was right: But they ought not to make such personal attacks upon us because we differed fm. them in System—
We shd. not be too much irritated by what has been done wrong in such great affairs; but we shd. learn wisdom by experience— Mr: Dana will take it kindly if you write him yr: tho’ts of a Treaty with the Emperor, & the variations fm. the French, wh: ought to be made—6
With esteem I am, &c:—
LbC in Charles Storer's hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “Willm: Lee Esqr:—”; APM Reel 108.
This quotation is from Franklin's letter to Robert R. Livingston of 25 June 1782, but JA is quoting the text as supplied to him by Arthur Lee in a letter of 1 Oct. 1782 (Franklin, Papers
, 37:535–539; JA, Papers
, 13:508–510).
The Comte de Vergennes served as France's ambassador to Sweden from 1771 to 1774, but see Lee's reply of 27 March, and note 7, below.
JA refers to an anonymous report sent by Edmund Jenings in a letter of 14 Nov. 1781 that the French (i.e., Vergennes) lacked full confidence in JA because of his rigidity and refusal to accommodate himself to 336diplomatic proprieties. Instead, they placed their confidence in Benjamin Franklin, finding him much more complaisant (vol. 12:66–67). For JA's initial reaction to the report in his reply to Jenings of 29 Nov. and for a later more detailed response in the Boston Patriot of 17 Nov. 1810, see same, p. 96–98, 259.
This is Franklin's 7 April 1781 letter to Francis Dana offering advice on Dana's mission to Russia (Franklin, Papers
, 34:517–519). For Franklin's comments and JA's thoughts regarding them, see Dana's letter of 18 April and
JA's reply of the same date (vol. 11:266–270). For additional remarks by JA on the wisdom of sending American diplomats to European courts, this time in a 6 Sept. 1782 letter to Robert R. Livingston, see vol. 13:431–432, 435.
This phrase may have been taken from the Marquis de Lafayette's 20 Jan. 1783 letter to William Carmichael. There Lafayette wrote that “Dignity forbade our sending abroad Political forlorn hopes, & I ever objected to the Condescention; the more so, as a French treaty had secured their Allies to you & because America is more likely to receive advances than to need throwing herself at other People's feet” (PCC, No. 156, f. 308–311). The marquis enclosed a copy of the letter with his to John Jay of 15 Feb. (Lafayette, Papers
, 5:94–97). Since Jay knew of JA's views regarding American diplomatic representation in Europe, it is likely that he showed his colleague the copy of Lafayette's letter.
For Lee's initial decision to write to Dana concerning negotiations with Austria and then his judgment that such a letter was unnecessary, see his letters of 27 March and 24 April, both below.