Papers of John Adams, volume 18

From John Adams to Rufus King, 22 January 1786 Adams, John King, Rufus
To Rufus King
Sir Grosvenor Square Jan. 22. 1786

Yesterday I was honoured with your Letters of the 4. and 10. Decr.— The Act of Congress respecting the British Consul General, is wise, and well guarded: Nevertheless I think that We Should not be So inattentive to Ettiquette, as to omit a Proposition for Sending a Minister Plenipotentiary. We give up, a Point, by receiving a Consul in return for a Minister, which, although it may appear of little Consequence in America, is really of some Weight among our own People, and of much more in Europe. Republicks, have in all Ages been quite as attentive to the respect due to their Ambassadors as crowned Heads. Holland, Venice and Genoa, are at this day more Studious of this, than any Kings in Europe, whose Dominions are not larger.

The last publick Entry and Audience of Ambassadors in this Country was insisted on by the Republick of Genoa at the Accession of his present Majesty: and I conjecture that the true Reason why We have no Answer from Venice and Genoa is that they think Ettiquette required that We should have Sent Ministers to them or at least that Congress should have written a Letter to them, announcing their Independence and desire to live in Amity.1

I See with Pleasure that the States are advancing towards Unanimity, in Commercial Regulations. They may depend upon it they have no other Resource. They will be obliged to come into it, and the sooner the better. The Stocks are mounted up, and Mr Pitt is about adopting a Plan of Dr Price, for a sinking Fund.2 This will prove an Illusion, but its Brillancy will dazzle this People.

Your Picture of the Prosperity of our Country, its Agriculture and Fisheries is a charming one. The Acts of Mass. for encouraging the Whale Trade, and the Alterations of their navigation Act, I hope will have good Effects. inclosed are Some Letters from the Marquis De la Fayette and Mr Barrett which I pray you to send to some Friend in Boston as I have not time to copy them.—3 Surely We need not want a Markett for Oil.

Will you please to present my affectionate Respects to Mr Hancock and your other Colleagues. I am extreamly sorry that the 115 senate of Massachusetts had less Magnanimity than the House. What Reasons they could have against the Return of the Refugees I cannot comprehend.— at home they would be impotent, abroad they are mischievous. The News of the Vote of the House had apparently an happy Effect here. In the Vindication of the Principles of Right, and of great Interests We should be as decided as Fate: but angry Passions and especially personall Resentments We should Sacrifice like Men. great Questions should never be perplexed with unnecessary little ones.— a generous sailor would never puzzle himself to save a Keg of Rum, when he ought to exert himself to save the ship, altho a Hingham farmer is reported to have once done it—

Mr Pitt intends to pay the Tories their Losses and dismiss them. They will then be obliged to go to Canada or Nova scotia, unless they can return to the states, which many of them desire. Why We should continue them Spightful and troublesome, when they might be made quiet and harmless I dont know.

I have not received from Mr Jay, the Commission you or Mr Gerry mentioned, as Consul General.4 I wish that Congress had been pleased rather to have appointed Coll Smith.— However When my Authority arrives I shall do the best I can.— I promise myself much from your future Correspondence, as I have recd much Pleasure & Information from the past. With great / Esteem, yours

John Adams

RC (NHi:Rufus King Papers); internal address: “The Hon Rufus King. Esq.”; endorsed: “Mr. Adams Jan. 22. 86.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 113.

1.

JA’s views reflect, to some degree, the Chevalier de Pinto’s reasoning for the Portuguese reluctance to send a minister to the United States without a treaty in place. Three years earlier, seeking to prevent such concerns, JA pressed Congress to send an official notification of American independence to the nations of Europe, but it never did (vols. 15:186–187; 17:572–573).

2.

William Pitt, who served as chancellor of the exchequer throughout his tenure as prime minister, had received Richard Price’s proposal to establish a sinking fund in 1784. Pitt’s revised version, which he introduced in the House of Commons on 29 March 1786, promised a £1 million annual payment to redeem the national debt at a high compound interest rate, with funds to be supplied by the existing surplus, Britain’s post-Revolutionary trade boom, and new taxes on spirits and hair powder. Pitt recommended that independent commissioners supervise the sinking fund, which he predicted would eradicate the national debt in less than forty years. As JA suggested, Pitt’s bill easily passed Parliament, and it was accepted by George III on 26 May (Hague, Pitt , p. 194; Carl B. Cone, “Richard Price and Pitt’s Sinking Fund of 1786,” Economic History Review, 4:243–251 [1951]).

3.

The RC’s enclosed by JA have not been found. For the first see the extract from the Marquis de Lafayette’s 9 Jan. letter, above. Nathaniel Barrett’s last extant letter to JA was of 10 Dec. 1785 (Adams Papers), for which see JA’s 24 Dec. letter to Barrett, note 1, above. Barrett’s next letter to JA is of 29 Jan. 1786, below. This suggests that Barrett sent another letter to JA, probably dated around 9 Jan., that has been lost, since RC’s of both of Barrett’s other letters are in the Adams Papers. In a 22 April letter to Jonathan 116 Jackson, King indicated that he was sending the enclosures he had received from JA to the Newburyport merchant Nathaniel Tracy (Smith, Letters of Delegates , 23:249–250).

4.

On this day, JA also received Elbridge Gerry’s 8 Nov. 1785 letter with news of Congress’ 28 Oct. resolution empowering JA, along with Thomas Jefferson and William Carmichael, to act as consuls general (vol. 17:386, 574–577). A formal commission, however, never arrived. John Jay originally planned to send copies of the act to JA in early December, but presumably he delayed doing so in hope of receiving clarification from Congress regarding the powers and duties of the post. Specifically, Jay inquired if a consul general’s authority extended to appointing vice-consuls or agents; whether Thomas Barclay and Jefferson would enjoy “concurrent Jurisdiction” in France; and if formal commissions were needed. Jay’s queries apparently went unanswered by the congressional committee, which included King, as members debated instead the credentials of Britain’s consul general, John Temple ( JCC , 29:888, 896–897).

To John Adams from Tristram Dalton, 23 January 1786 Dalton, Tristram Adams, John
From Tristram Dalton
Dear Sir Newburyport Januy 23d. 1786

Under the 18th of last October I did myself the honor and pleasure of addressing you, com̃itting the Letter to the Care of Doctor Gordon, who since tells me that He put the same into a safe Channel of Conveyance— I hope you received it in due time—as I therein acknowledged the Satisfaction given to me and my family, by your good & worthy Son, who had passed a day with us—and was the bearer of your favor of the 26th April—the last letter I am honored with from Yourself—1

The General Court of this Commonwealth did very little business in their late fall session— Several important bills were brought forward, and, after some time spent on them, referred to the next session—

A new Valuation, reported by a Committee, not being compleated, served as a pretext for not issuing any tax—either for the Services of Government—or in compliance with the recommendations of Congress, passed in September—2

Our Navigation bill, was struck at, by the French Interest—the British Interest—and by Self Interest: for we have all these Interests in our small Body Politic— It had nearly suffered a total repeal in the house— every part, however, that related to the British, was retained, but nothing respecting all other foreigners, excepting a little extra Light Money. Esteeming this bill as the Corner Stone of all our commercial importance, every aim to remove it, affects me most sensibly— New Hampshire & Rhode Island have passed similar laws—and, I believe, Pennsylvania a much better digested one New York and the other States have it in Contemplation—and, after recommending the measure to them, as Governor Bowdoin has done, 117 in consequence of a request of the Legislature, to take off the restraints laid on the British, would render this Government truly ridiculous—and make vain every future attempt to unite the States in any commercial Affairs— Some distinctions would have been preserved with respect to different Nations, had any of the Court been well informed of the Spirit of their laws so far as they may affect American Ships—but not only Gentlemen of the Court were uninformed of them, Even the Merchants of Boston could give no satisfactory Account— As the British Navigation was the principal Object of the Law, it was thought better to relax too far as to other Nations, than retain, as was asserted, unjustifiable or at least impolitic impositions—

The importance of an American Navigation Act appears to me so great as to be the only means whereby we can arrive to a degree of respectability, &, I am almost tempted to add, whereby the Independence of these States may be fully enjoyed—

A Bill, for repealing the restrictive Law against the Refugees’ Admittance, passed in the House—141 to 18— it was nonconcurred by the Senate— In the House it was said that the 6th Article of the Treaty of Peace with G Britain, ensured to every British Subject, without exception, the rights of Aliens, and that not one of them, of any description, could, consistent with the said Article, be deprived thereof, on Account of the part he had taken in the war—that the present Law did not allow the Refugees the liberty of coming and tarrying as other Aliens—therefore &c—

As to the 5th of the Articles, called the recommendatory, nothing more could be meant, than that such of the Refugees, (all of whom, by the construction of the 6th, had rights as Aliens) who had had any Estates confiscated, might enjoy the priveledge of Citizens, for twelve month, so far as related to the purchasing their confiscated Estates—which priviledge they could not enjoy as Aliens—

The Senate construed these Articles differently—asserting that the recommendatory Article alone respected the Refugees—and that the admission of any of them, for a day, depended upon a Compliance with the recommendation—

This business will be taken up again the ensuing session, & I beleive some relaxation of our present absurd indiscrimination will be adopted— I am sensible of the Trouble the framing of this Article cost you—and fear lest our present Conduct thereon may give you more in your Negotiations— Pardon my giving you this further interruption on so disagreeable a Subject—

118

The Cod fishery of this Government increases fast, and amounts already to one third of whatever it was previous to the late War.—Their success the past fall has been abundant—

The Whalefishery is encouraged by the Countenance of Government, which has granted bounties on Oyle, caught by the Vessells belonging to their Citizens—and by the prospect of a lucrative Barter of that Commodity in France—

The Climate and Air of Shelburne, in Nova Scotia, proves so unsuitable for the curing of fish, that the settlers are discouraged & the fishermen wishing to have free Liberty to return to our Ports, but—say some of our warm Patriots, and, as such, of the first Rank too, that the breaking up that fishery—nay the total Loss of our own—and the retention of our Western Posts, are not of so much Consequence, as to balance the danger arising from the free admission of the Refugees— Infatuated Zeal! Inglorious and dangerous Resentment!—

The Earnestness of some ambitious restless Persons in the late Province of Main, to erect that district into a seperate independent State, which I took occasion to hint at in my last, seems to Slacken, as it has not awakened like sentiments in any considerable Number— Enclosed you have a Gazettee, giving an Acct of the proceedings of their late Convention, held at Falmouth—wherein are mentioned the Grievances which they think they labor under—or would induce the people at large to think—3 If the General Court acts with prudence, sound policy, and spirited resolution, it appears to me, that this Bustle, which the British here boast of as tending to our ruin, will end in nothing of Evil Consequence—

It is with pleasure we find that Ambassadors are gone to Morocco and Algiers, for the purpose of concluding treaties with those powers— We wait anxiously the Event, as our trade up the Levant and even to Cadiz, is totally stopped, by the danger apprehended from these piratical rovers—

I will detain you no longer than to add that my best respects, with those of my family, attend You & yours—being, with all possible regards— / Dear Sir your obliged Friend & / most obdt hble Servant

Tristram Dalton

Miss D. asks permission to enclose a Letter for your esteemed Daughter4

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams &c”; endorsed: “Mr Dalton. / Newbury Port. / ansd 26. May. 1786.”

119 1.

Vol. 17:48–49, 519–521.

2.

Massachusetts’ portion of the congressional requisition, $448,854, was approved by the General Court on 23 March, for which see Stephen Higginson’s letter of 30 Dec. 1785, note 6, above.

3.

Delegates from York, Cumberland, and Lincoln counties convened in Falmouth, Maine, to debate secession from Massachusetts, but the resulting committee took no definitive action (vol. 17:541). Dalton likely enclosed the summary, printed in the Massachusetts Gazette on 23 Jan. 1786, not found.

4.

Not found.