Papers of John Adams, volume 16

John Adams to Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, 20 March 1785 Adams, John Franklin, Benjamin Jefferson, Thomas
To Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson
Gentlemen Auteuil March 20. 1785.1

According to your desire, I went early this Morning to Versailles, and finding the Count de Vergennes unembarassed with Company, and only attended by his private Secretaries, I soon obtained the Honour of a Conference, in which I told him that my Colleagues were very sorry, that Indisposition necessarily prevented their paying their respects to him in Person, & obliged them to request me alone to wait on him, and ask his Advice upon a thorny Question, we had with the Barbary Powers. He asked what it was, and I put into his Hand, all the Letters upon the Subject, in French, Spanish, Italian & English, all of which he read very attentively, and observed that it was obvious what was wanted, and what had piqued the Emperor of Morocco, viz that Congress had not written to him, nor sent him a Consul, with the Customary Presents, for that he was the most interested Man in the World, and the most greedy of Money. He asked whether we had written to Congress and obtained their Instructions. I answered that we had full Powers, to treat with Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and the rest, but that it was impossible for us to go there, and that we had not a Power of Substitution. He said then we should write to the Emperor. I asked if he would do us the favour to convey a Letter for us, through the french Consul? he said he could not do this himself, because it was not in his Department, but if we would make an office of it, he would communicate it to the Marquis de Castries and return us his answer.

I told him, that in looking over the Treaties between the several Christian Powers and the Barbary States, we found that the Treaty between the Crown of France, and Algiers of the 25. April 1684, was expired, or near expiring, and we were desirous of knowing, if the Question were not indiscreet, whether it had been renewed. He smiled upon this, and said, it was true that their Treaty was upon the point of expiring, but he could not tell me, whether it were renewed, as it was not in his Department, but if we would insert this Inquiry in our office, he would endeavour to obtain the Marshall de Castries’s Answer.

I told him, that in order to lay before Congress, all the Information we could, and to enable them to judge the better what orders to give us, or what other Course to take we had obtained authentic Information from Mr: Bisdom and Mr: Van der hope, concerning the 573 Presents, annually given by their High Mightinesses2 and that we should be very glad to know, if it was not improper, what was the annual Amount of the Presents made by his Majesty to each of those States, and in what Articles they consisted. He said the King never sent them any naval or military Stores, but he sent them glasses and other Things of Value: but that as it was not in his Department, he could not give me particular Information but that we might put this into our office, with the other Things.

I asked if there was not a considerable Trade, and frequent Intercourse, between some Ports of this Kingdom, and the Coast of Barbary. He said there was, from Marseilles and the other Ports upon the Mediterranean: but he thought if we had Presents to send it would be more convenient to send them from Cadiz.

I then asked the favour of his Advice, whether in our Letter to the Emperor of Morocco, we should leave it to his option to send a Minister here to treat with us, or to wait untill we could write to Congress and recommend it to them, to send a Consul. He said he would by no means advise us to invite the Emperor to send a Minister here to treat with us, because we must maintain him here and bear all the Expences of his Voyages and Journeys which would be much more costly than for Congress to send a consul.

But the Comte concluded the whole Conference by observing that every Thing relative to this Business was out of his Department, and that we must state to him in writing all we desired to know, or to have done, and he would convey it to the Minister of the Marine, and communicate to us, his answer, and that we might depend upon it, that whenever we thought proper to make any office to him, it should be carefully attended to.3

He added very particular Inquiries concerning the Health of Dr: Franklin and Mr: Jefferson, which I answered to the best of my Knowledge. & took my Leave.

With great Respect, I have the Honour to be &c

LbC in JQA’s hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “Their Excellencies. / Messrs: Franklin & Jefferson”; APM Reel 107.

1.

Immediately following his FC of the commissioners’ 18 March letter to John Jay, David Humphreys wrote, “at the moment of closing the preceding letter, the following addressed by Mr Carmichael to Dr Franklin, was put into the hands of the American Ministers” (PCC, No. 116, f. 260). William Carmichael’s letter, dated 27 Feb. [1785], concerned among other matters his efforts to obtain the release of the brig Betsy taken “by a corsair of the Emperor of Morocco” ( Dipl. Corr., 1783–1789 , 1:564–566). Carmichael included with his letter several enclosures regarding the matter, which the commissioners in turn enclosed with their 13 April letter to Jay but which have not been found 574 (Jefferson, Papers , 8:80–83). See also the 17 Jan. letter to JA from the Betsy’s captain, James Erwin, and Jay’s 11 March letter to the commissioners, and note 7, both above. Following his FC of Carmichael’s letter, Humphreys wrote that “upon receiving the Dispatch from Mr Carmichael the Ministers plenipotentiary convened at Passy March 19. 1785. and wishing to take the advice of the Court of Verssailles in all their transactions with the Barbary Powers, Mr Adams was requested to have a conferrence with the Cte. de Vergennes on the Subject—Dr Franklin & Mr Jefferson being too unwell to go to Versailles on that occasion” (PCC, No. 116, f. 267).

JA’s Diary entry for 19 March describes the meeting at Passy. There he read Carmichael’s letter and its enclosures and “asked for Books and Collections of Treaties” where he found and examined “a Multitude of Treaties between Algiers and Morroco and the Christian States as France, Holland, England, &c.” “We came to no Resolution, but that I should go, Tomorrow to Versailles and ask the Advice of the C de V.—Dr. F. being confined by his Stone, could not go, and Mr. Jefferson being worse with his Disorder cannot go. I was for writing a Letter to the C.—but my Colleagues were not.” In his Diary entry for the 20th, JA describes his meeting with the Comte de Vergennes in substantially the same terms as in this letter (JA, D&A , 3:173–175). See also JQA’s account of his father’s visit to Vergennes on the 20th, JQA, Diary , 1:237, and AA’s comments on the Moroccan capture in her 20 March letter to John Thaxter, AFC , 6:80.

2.

See the enclosure to C. W. F. Dumas’ letter of 25 Feb., above.

3.

See the commissioners’ 28 March letter to Vergennes, and note 1, below.

Charles Storer to John Adams, 22 March 1785 Storer, Charles Adams, John
From Charles Storer
Dear Sir, London. [22]1 March. 1785.

Pardon me if I again trouble you with a letter. I plead for my apology that the occasion does not relate entirely to myself—but in a degree concerns you.—

Yesterday, upon the Exchange, Mr: Burgess, of whom I have made mention before, desired Mr: Atkinson, my Brother-in-law, to acquaint me that a Mr: Petree, one of the Committee of Merchants respecting American Affairs, wished to have some Conversation with me upon the Subject of a Treaty of Commerce with the United-States.—2 In the evening I called upon Mr: Jackson, acquainted him with the matter & enquired if he knew either of the above Gentlemen— Mr: Petree had had a Conversation upon the same subject with him, but a few days before, and had given him to understand that the reason of a Treaty Commerce’s not bing made was owing to a disinclination to treat on the part of the American Commissioners: at least that Government had so given it out to the Merchants here; and that in consequence of this information they wished to know where was the obstacle to treating, that, if possible, it might be removed.— This morning Mr: Petree called upon me— He asked me if the American Commissr: were not authorised to make a Treaty with this Country—& if so why they did not come over here— a: I told him that I was not authorised to talk with him upon these matters, & 575 that therefore he must take what came from me, as originating with me: that so far as I knew anything it should be at his service— I told him then, that you were authorised to treat with this Country, & that I was surprised he should put the question to me—since the Ministry had been well acquainted with it ever since last Fall—and that, so far the disinclination to treat being upon your side, I believed it laid entirely here— I told him that Mr: Hartley had been recalled just when you were empowered to treat—and that you had been since amused with having an invitation from this Court, to come here—but that you had never had any— He hoped you wd. not stand upon any etiquette, & ceremony when the business was so important— I told him I was sure you would never suffer any unnecessary etiquette to be any obstacle to you—nor that you would act either unless upon an equal footing & with proper formality: that, however, I knew of no particular objection you had to treat—except the not having an invitation from this Court— He told me that he had waited upon Ld. Carmarthen, the last week, who told him that the only difficulty rested with you, as he had sent the American Commissioners an invitation abt: a month ago, thru’ the D. of Dorset, which you did not incline to accept of: he wondered that you had not been here before this, & said he really wished you would come.— I told him I equally wondered at this intelligence being given by Ld. Carmarthen—since he knew that, if he sent a proper invitation, you would come here— I asked Mr: Petree if there was any person to treat with you here, if you came. He said that Ld. Carmarthen he believed was authorised—but asked, in his turn, if Congress had power to treat, was this Court inclined to meet them— I told him that other Treaties had been made—but that this wd. be known when the full powers of each should be exchanged— Upon parting, Mr: Petree said he was glad to hear that the difficulty did not rest with you—and, being convinced of this, the Merchants would immediately remonstrance to the Ministry that a proper invitation should be sent to you, in order that Business should be begun— Mr: P. said the Merchts: had been alarmed at the appointment of a Consul General, supposing that some Convention had been made— Upon their application to Ld. C. he told them there was no Convention made, & that why a Consul had been appointed he did not know— The Merchants have objected to the man—

It seems the Ministry have industriously given it about that the American Commissrs: were averse to treating with this Country—wishing to throw all the blame upon them— Whether from a fear of 576 engaging upon an unpopular business, as they must make some concessions—whether from a wish to proffit from the monopoly of our carrying Trade to the W. Indies, or whether to give time to strengthen the Adventurers in the Whale-fishery, is not for me to say—perhaps they each have weight with them—

What I have said, Sir, I wish you may not disapprove, as I hope I have not exceeded the bounds of discretion— If you can make use of me any way here, I shall not only be very happy, but think myself highly honored & flattered by your Confidence— You may say I am too young—to wh: I can only say, that I wish I was older & more steady— If you shd. chuse to write me in answer to this, for safety, you had better enclose your letter to Mr: Jno: Appleton, No: 11. Spring-Gardens, or to Mr: John Harwood, No: 18. Cullum street

Excuse my troubling you with this long letter: the occasion I hope will be a sufficient apology—and I would beg your advice upon it.—

With best respects to the family, I have the honor to be, with much esteem, / dear Sir, / Yr: Most oblig’d, humle: servt:

Chas: Storer.

RC (Adams Papers); endorsed: “Mr Storer / 22 March / ansd 28. 1785.”

1.

This date is taken from JA’s endorsement, but JA likely obtained the date from Storer’s 25 March letter to JQA (Adams Papers). There Storer indicated that “I wrote your father by the last Post, the 22d, informing him of a Conversation I had had with a Mr: Petree.” In his reply of 2 April (Adams Papers), JQA reported that he had shown his father the letter on 1 April.

2.

“Mr. Atkinson” was John Atkinson, a London merchant and husband of Storer’s half-sister Elizabeth ( AFC , 7:115; JQA, Diary , 1:388). “Mr. Petree” remains unidentified, as does “Mr. Burgess.” Storer did not mention his conversations with Burgess in any extant letter to JA, but he did in his letters to JQA of 8 and 15 Feb. (both Adams Papers). Just as this letter to JA does, Storer’s February letters and that of 25 March to JQA, mentioned in note 1, center on the questions of whether the American commissioners had the power or willingness to negotiate an Anglo-American commercial agreement or were willing to come to London to do so. For the persistence of these issues, see the Duke of Dorset’s 26 March letter to the commissioners, below.

In his letter to JA, Storer is somewhat diffident regarding his conversation with Petree and the implications of the British position. He is much less so in his letter to JQA of 25 March. There he indicated that JA’s 17 Feb. letter to Charles Sigourney, above, may have been partly responsible for the apparent British uncertainty. According to Storer a report that the commissioners refused to negotiate at all “has been industriously spread abt:—(tho’ I am persuaded it to be false) has been strengthened by a misconstruction of a certain letter fm. yr: father, to a Gent: whose initials are the same as mine, dated the 17th. or 27th. ulto:— This Gent: […]red in a large Company, where were Silas Deane […] Franklin […] number of Refugees, that America wd. not now treat with this Country, & that, as a voucher, he had recd. the same intelligence fm. yr: father— Mr: J. told me this, who was present; but was sure he had either mistated the matter, or misunderstood it— I called upon the Gent: a few days ago, on purpose to see it, & am surprised how he cod. torture such a meaning fm. it, as it expressed direct contrary sentiments. I refer it to yourself— This intelligence, souvenez-vous-en, must not go abroad fm. ourselves— Should your father see this letter, wt: a young politician Charles is, he wd. say—but I wish he wd. instruct me & make me a better 577 one—” Some words were lost from this passage due to the removal of the seal. “Franklin” was probably William Franklin, son of Benjamin Franklin and loyalist governor of New Jersey, while “Mr. J.” and the “Mr: Jackson” mentioned by Storer in his letter to JA are likely the same person, presumably JA’s friend and correspondent Jonathan Jackson, who had mentioned Storer in the postscript to his letter of 25 Feb., above.

In his reply of 2 April (Adams Papers), JQA wrote that “I received yesterday your favour of the 25th: instt: and shew it immediately to my father: I was afraid it would raise his indignation, to see, his expressions had been so grossly misconstrued: but it had not that effect; he only smiled, and said he was not surprized: but I assure you I was.”