RC (Adams Papers); docketed by John Thaxter: “Dr Gordon May 8.” The bottom of the page has been cut off, resulting in the loss of a portion of the docketing.

The date and the docketing in Thaxter's hand are indications that JA did not receive this letter until his return to France in 1780.

In so many words.

Professor John Winthrop, JA's former teacher and friend, died on 3 May. In AA's letter to JA of 8 June, she paid tribute to his memory ( Adams Family Correspondence , 3:200–201).

“An Act for Confiscating the Estates of Certain Persons Commonly Called Absentees” was adopted on 30 April. The sentence largely follows the text of the first section of the act (Mass., Province Laws , 5:968–971; Mass., House Jour. , 1778–1779, 2d sess., p. 203).

Presumably Gordon is referring to the king's proclamation for “Supressing Rebellion and Sedition” of 23 Aug. 1775.

Gordon is alluding to the debate then going on in the congress over the American peace ultimata, in which the question of American access to the Newfoundland fisheries was a major issue. He was not alone in his concern about the possibility of an Anglo-French division of the fisheries, for James Lovell wrote Gen. Horatio Gates on 5 April that “two European Powers have fancied that they could claim the Fishery of the Banks and Gulphs of America not only against their european Nations but against all weaker People ever bordering on their Sease” 58(Burnett, ed., Letters of Members , 4:142). For a more detailed treatment of the fisheries issue and its implications for JA's appointment to negotiate treaties of peace and commerce with Great Britain, see James Lovell to JA, 27 Sept., note 2 (below).

No letters from Gordon since JA's departure from America in Feb. 1778 have been found.

Probably a reference to John Hancock. In letters to James Warren on 7 July and to Elbridge Gerry of 9 Dec. 1777, JA had indicated his belief that Hancock sought the governorship (vol. 5:242–243, 352–353).

RC (Adams Papers); docketed: “Dr Franklin May 10. ansd 17th. 1779.”

François Barbé-Marbois had acted as La Luzerne's secretary during his service at the Court of Bavaria between 1775 and 1778 (Stinchcombe, Amer. Rev. and the French Alliance , p. 77). With his arrival in America, Barbé-Marbois began a long association with American affairs that culminated in the sale of Louisiana in 1804 (see E. Wilson Lyon, The Man Who Sold Louisiana ..., Norman, Okla., 1942). In the course of JA's passage to America on La Sensible in company with La Luzerne and Barbé-Marbois, JA and the latter engaged in extensive conversa-59tions on American affairs and formed a close and cordial relationship (JA, Diary and Autobiography , 2:383–384, 386–394 386, 386–389, 389–390, 390–392, 392–395 , 396–397. For JA's sketch of Barbé-Marbois, see his letter to the president of the congress of 3 Aug. (below).

Franklin was mistaken about JA's intentions; see JA's reply of 17 May (below).

Franklin is probably referring to the Virginia Gazette (Dixon and Nicolson) of 5 March, which reported that “the cheerfulness which existed in the company upon the happy occasion of their being assembled, was not to be exceeded; and a thousand brilliances alluding to the alliance were uttered.”

The memorial of 9 April was a protest against the Dutch failure to contest effectively the French order of January that denied all privileges previously granted to Dutch ships in French ports until measures were taken to protect Dutch trade, particularly in ships timbers and other naval stores, from British warships and privateers. The removal of Amsterdam and Haarlem from the effects of the order, following their protests against the States General's refusal to undertake convoys, led Yorke to warn that continued indifference to French interference in Dutch internal affairs would bring British retaliation. Yorke saw the French order as a ploy to provoke an Anglo-Dutch war by forcing the Netherlands to provide unlimited convoys to protect its French trade in the midst of an Anglo-French naval war, while at the same time demanding that the provisions of the Anglo-Dutch treaties of 1674 establishing naval stores as noncontraband be strictly observed. This was unacceptable to the British because compliance would permit the Dutch, under the guise of neutrality, to supply France with the naval stores that its own merchant fleet was incapable of carrying and that would be otherwise unobtainable. Yorke's memorial was too late, for protests by other cities against the favored treatment of Amsterdam and Haarlem, as well as the absence of action by the States General that would restore all the Dutch cities to an equal footing, led to the secret resolution of 26 April to outfit 32 ships (Miller, Sir Joseph Yorke , p. 76; Edler, Dutch Republic and the American Revolution , p. 125–126; for the text of Yorke's memorial, see vol. 2 of John Almon's Remembrancer for 1778, p. 358–359; or the Annual Register for 1779, p. 425–427; for the French order concerning Dutch ships, see Dumas' letters to the Commissioners of 16 and 19 Jan., above).

Franklin received the news from C. W. F. Dumas in a letter of 3 May ( Cal. Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , 2:72). Dumas presented a more detailed account of the resolution, including the number of ships that each city was to outfit, in a letter to the Committee for Foreign Affairs of 15 May (French text, PCC, No. 93, I, f. 276–279; translation, Wharton, ed., Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 3:166–168). There Dumas intimated that the resolution might be less significant than it seemed, for by failing specifically to state that naval stores were to be protected by the convoys, it was unlikely that the resolution would be accepted by France as justification for lifting its restrictions.