RC (Adams Papers).

The last extant issue of Le politique hollandais is of 12 Jan. 1784. Antoine Marie Cerisier’s role as the paper’s editor, however, likely ended much earlier, with the issue of 11 Aug. 1783, the result of his struggle over control of the journal with the paper’s publisher, Amsterdam bookseller Jacobus Adrianus Crajenschot (vol. 14:300–301). Crajenschot’s assumption of control is evident from the notice appearing at the end of the 18 Aug. issue: “J. A. Crajenschot, Editeur & seul propriétaire de cette feuille”; and the signed “Lettre du Libraire, Editeur & Propriétaire de cette Feuille à ses Confreres” that appeared in the issue of 25 August. That letter denied Cerisier’s claim to be sole editor and declared that Crajenschot’s role had been at least as important, if not more so. Cerisier’s ouster as editor may explain his 3 Sept. 1783 letter to JA requesting his assistance in obtaining a position in the French foreign ministry (vol. 15:244–245). Nothing is known of the Mercure hollandais beyond what Chavannes de la Giraudière says in this letter, and the copy sent to JA has not been found.

The reference to Chantre de l’Amérique remains obscure, but that to the Gazette de Leyde, edited by Jean Luzac, is of some interest. Until the latter part of 1781, Luzac’s Gazette had been JA’s principal means for 56 disseminating news from and about America. That role ended only when JA sought the wider audience offered by the Gazette d’Amsterdam and Le politique hollandais. For Luzac’s complaint about JA’s shift to other papers, see vol. 12:125–127, 128–130. It is also worthy of note that C. W. F. Dumas obtained a position for Cerisier with the Gazette de Leyde (from Cerisier, 10 Aug. 1786, MB).

Having learned from JA of the land office that Joseph Ward had opened in Boston (vol. 15:350–352), Chavannes de la Giraudière wrote on 26 Jan. 1784 to propose opening a branch in Europe and to ask for assistance in setting up a partnership with Ward and his associates (Adams Papers). In his reply of 30 Jan. (LbC, APM Reel 107), JA enclosed a copy of Ward’s brochure but declared that he could give no more aid to such a private venture. In his reply of 4 March (LbC, APM Reel 107), JA referred to his earlier letter and repeated that he was unable to help further. By the time Chavannes de la Giraudière wrote again, on 9 Aug. (Adams Papers), he was residing in Amsterdam and intended to move to the United States. Having been promised land in Virginia and passage across the Atlantic, he sought from JA money and letters of recommendation. In a last letter to JA, dated 23 Sept. (Adams Papers), Chavannes de la Giraudière reported that he and his family had been stranded in Amsterdam after the vessel that was to carry them to the United States had been seized by the owner’s creditors, and he expressed his resolve to take his children to London and seek free passage across the ocean there. JA apparently made no reply to either of these later letters. For a full account of Chavannes de la Giraudière’s flight from France and removal to the United States, see his letter to George Washington of 10 July 1787 in Washington, Papers, Confederation Series , 5:252–256.

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams Esqr.”; endorsed: “Mr Jennings / Feb. 24. 1784.”

Jenings may have seen this resolution republished in the London newspapers. An act to the same effect was adopted by the Va. house of delegates on 9 Dec. 1783 and 59 approved by the Va. senate on the 12th. The act was then sent to Congress, which referred it to a committee on 26 Jan. 1784. On 22 April the committee reported, offering a resolution that was amended and adopted on the 30th (PCC, No. 75, f. 391–394; JCC , 26:50, 269–271, 317–319, 321–322). For further information on the act, Massachusetts’ response, and Congress’ resolution of 30 April, see Tristram Dalton’s 6 April letter, and note 10, below.

That is, it was adopted with no opposition. This phrase was not included in the copy sent to Congress.

Like Virginia, Maryland was responding to Britain’s 2 July 1783 Order in Council prohibiting the export of American produce to the West Indies in American vessels (vol. 15:112–113). Maryland, like Virginia, authorized its delegates to agree to Congress’ regulation of trade, but unlike Virginia, Maryland imposed “a duty of five shillings … on every tun of British shipping” and enacted “an additional duty of two per centum … upon all merchandise, manufactures and commodities, the growth or produce of Great-Britain, or any colony or other place under the dominion of Great-Britain, brought or imported in any British ship” (Laws of Maryland, Made since M,DCC,LXIII, Annapolis, 1787, ch. 29, 1783, Evans, No. 20483).

Jenings refers to John Baker Holroyd, Lord Sheffield’s Observations on the Commerce of the American States with Europe and the West Indies, London, 1783. It was the most influential publication in defense of the Navigation Act and the denial of American access to the West Indian trade (vol. 15:15). The British publications refuting Sheffield’s arguments cannot be identified with certainty but may have included one by Edward Long, a Jamaican planter, entitled A Free and Candid Review of a Tract, Entitled, “Observations on the Commerce of the American States;” Shewing the Pernicious Consequences, Both to Great Britain, and to the British Sugar Islands, of the Systems Recommended in That Tract, London, 1784; or one by Bryan Edwards, a West Indian merchant, entitled Thoughts on the Late Proceedings of Government, Respecting the Trade of the West India Islands with the United States of North America, London, 1784 ( DNB ). Another may have been the anonymous Remarks on Lord Sheffield’s Observations on the Commerce of the American States; by an American, London, 1784, which was published by JA’s friend John Stockdale. Thomas Paine’s pamphlet was entitled A Supernumerary Crisis, addressed “To the People of America” and dated 9 Dec. 1783 (Life and Works of Thomas Paine, ed. William M. Van der Weyde, 10 vols., New Rochelle, N.Y., 1925, 3:249–255).

This was a “Bill for declaring the children of British mothers natural-born subjects, though born abroad” introduced by George Dempster on 6 Feb. 1784. In opening debate William Eden declared that “there was much reason to doubt whether the inhabitants of the United States having renounced their allegiance to the King, and their renunciation having been accepted and ratified by the Sovereign and by Parliament, were not under every construction of law to be considered at this hour as [aliens]; and yet their children, through the whole continent of North-America, and their childrens children, would, by the present Bill … be declared natural-born subjects, and would be entitled to all the rights and claims belonging to that description. This might be wise and expedient as an interchange of privileges between the two countries; but it ought not to be done gratuitously and precipitately; it ought to be matter of treaty and negociation” (Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser, 7, 9 Feb.). Compare Eden’s comments on 6 Feb. with those on 24 Feb., when the bill was debated further and finally dropped, same, 25 February.

The address to George III, adopted by the House of Commons by a twenty-vote margin on 20 Feb., called on the king to “take such measures as, by removing any obstacle to the formation of such an administration as this House has declared to be requisite in the present critical and arduous situation of public affairs, may tend to give effect to the wishes of his faithful Commons.” That is, the minority ministry of William Pitt should be dismissed and replaced with one led presumably by Charles James Fox, who enjoyed a parliamentary majority. In his 27 Feb. reply, the king refused the Commons’ request ( Parliamentary Hist. , 24:667–668, 677–678). For an account of the constitutional issues at stake, see vol. 15:466.