Papers of John Adams, volume 18

From John Adams to the Marquis de Lafayette, 13 December 1785 Adams, John Lafayette, Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de

To the Marquis de Lafayette

Dear Sir— Grosvenor square Decr. 13. 1785—

I have received your favour of the 30th. Ulto. and thank you for the extract enclosed—1 The Commerce of new England will follow their oil, wherever it may go and therefore I think it good Policy, in the Controller General to take of the duty— But there is another object of Importance I mean the sperma Cæti Chandles— Will you be so good as to inform me whether these are prohibited in france? or what duties they are subject to on Importation? whether these duties can be taken off,? Whether they are at all used or known in france? Whether they cannot be brought into fashion in private families, or even in Churches? they are certainly cheaper & more beautiful than wax, & emit a purer, brighter flame— Pot ash, too: I want to know, what quaintity of Pot ash & Purl ash, is annually consumed in France? from what Country imported? in what it is paid for? whether in Cash, Bills or Goods? & at what Prices ordinarily? This is another article, by which france may draw to herself a great share of the Trade of New England— Our Merchants will be obliged to alienate their Commerce from this Country, and transfer it in a great measure to France.— They are awkward and unskilful, at present, how to effect it, and every aid you can afford them will be gratefully acknowledged—

I hope that Mr. Boylston and Mr. Barrett, will be able to compleat a Contract, with Monsieur Tourtille De Sangrain for the Illumination of your Cities— Boylston’s Capital will enable him to do what he pleases, but you may depend upon it, he will do nothing but what is profitable— No Man understands more intuitively, every thing relating to these subjects, and no man is more attached to his Interest— You sent your Letter by the post I suppose, in hopes it would be opened in the Post Office and sent to Court to assist me a Little in my negotiation— I have the Pleasure to inform you, that your intentions were probably fulfilled, for although they conceal their art with more care in the post offices here, then they think it necessary to make use of in Paris, yet I assure you there is not less Curiosity: And your Letter upon an attentive inspection may be plainly 40 perceived to have been opened— I am glad of it, because altho’ it will not assist me much, nor make any great impression I shall at least have the Pleasure to think we teaze them a little— my best respects to Madam La fayette & Love to Anastasie & George— Yours

J. A—

LbC in WSS’s hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “Marquis Lafayette—”; APM Reel 113.

Neither Lafayette’s 30 Nov. letter nor its enclosure has been found. The extract, however, was likely from a 17 Nov. letter from Charles Alexandre de Calonne and was similar, if not the same, as that which Lafayette enclosed with his 20 Nov. letter to Thomas Boylston (Lafayette, Papers , 5:352–353).

From John Adams to Wilhem & Jan Willink and Nicolaas & Jacob van Staphorst, 13 December 1785 Adams, John Willink, Wilhem & Jan (business) Staphorst, Nicolaas & Jacob van (business)

To Wilhem & Jan Willink and Nicolaas & Jacob van Staphorst

Gentlemen Grosvenor square Decr. 13. 1785—

I have now to acquaint you that on the 29 Novr. I accepted a Bill of Mr. Thos. Barclay. No. 6. (by mistake I suppose it ought to be Number 8) for 200 £ st dated Paris 24 Novr. 1785 at usance first of the sett in favour of Mr. Grand

This 13th. Day of Decr. I have accepted Two Bills of 200 £ st each drawn by Mr. Barclay dated Paris 1 Decr. 1785. at usance 1st. of the sett in favour of the order of Mr. Nicholas Darcell— these three bills ammount to 600£ st. to be paid at the House of C. & R. Puller— these three are towards an important Purpose—1

on the 1st. of December 1785. I accepted a Bill of Dr. Tufts in favour of Samuel Elliot on order, indorsed to Messrs Harrison, Ansley & Co. for 100£ stg. at 30 Day’s sight— this is to be charged to the United states as part of my salary—2

According to your Desire in your Letter of Novr. 8th. 3 I have desired Collonel Smith since his arrival, which is only within a few Day’s, to write you, in what manner he has disposed of 400£ furnished him on account of the United States and he has wrote you accordingly—

I could not certainly have given you Notice of a Credit which I never gave, I think you must have made some mistake in your figures, I drew once for 6 or 7000 thousand Guilders for Mr. Jefferson & gave a Credit to Coll Humphry’s for 1000£ stg: to pay for honorary swords & medals for our Generals &c But I have never given any other Credit— Mr. Jefferson may have received orders from 41 Congress or the Navy Board to Draw, but you should have been informed of it4

I mean to be very exact in advising you of all my tranactions in Money matters— I dont indeed alway’s advise you of the draughts I make for my own subsistance on account of my salary & little disbursements for the United states—but as this is a pretty regular thing, as you must have observed, it is the less necessary—

I have the honor to be &c &c &c

J A Decr. 13th. 1785

Since the foregoing was written other Bills have been presented & accepted—vizt.—No. 11. from Mr. Barclay in favour of Mr. Grands order for £100 st: at usance, first of the sett dated at Paris Decr. 7th. 1785—No. 12. for 200£ st. in all other respects like No. 11.5

J. A—

LbC in WSS’s hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “Missrs. Wilhem & Jan Willink / Nicholas & Jacob Van Staphorst”; APM Reel 111.

Although Thomas Barclay informed JA of the bill drawn on Ferdinand Grand in a 23 Nov. letter (Adams Papers), it was probably, as JA indicates here, dated 24 Nov., but see also Barclay’s letter of the 24th (vol. 17:603–604). On 2 Dec. Barclay informed JA of the bills numbered 9 and 10 in favor of Nicholas Darcel, Matthew Ridley’s clerk, and stated that his bill No. 6 was in fact No. 8 (Adams Papers). JA wrote to Richard & Charles Puller on 13 Dec. regarding the three bills (LbC, APM Reel 111).

For Cotton Tufts’ bill, see AFC , 6:411.

Vol. 17:578–579.

JA was responding to the consortium’s [1]8 Nov. letter wherein it queried him about a credit of £1,000 in favor of Thomas Jefferson of which they knew nothing (vol. 17:586–587). JA gave a reasonably accurate account of the transaction, but see also note 4 to the consortium’s [1]8 Nov. letter, and the consortium’s 23 Dec. reply, below.

JA was referring to Barclay’s 7 Dec. letter in which these bills were reported (Adams Papers). JA added a postscript to his letter of this date to the Pullers referring to Barclay’s bills.