Papers of John Adams, volume 15
e.Dec. 1783
Je satisferai de mon mieux à votre desir dans l’honorée votre du 4e. court., concernant ce qui se passe sur les frontieres. Vous vous rappellerez d’abord, que l’Empereur avoit révoqué le Traité de Barriere. Selon ce Traité, qui n’a jamais été observé dans tous ses points ni d’un côté ni de l’autre, certains petits Territoires étoient cedés à la rep. près de ses Forts en Flandres en 1715 & 1718. Si vous regardez la Carte, vous trouverez l’embouchure de l’Escaut, & par conséquent la Navigation d’Anvers, fermée par les deux Forts hollandois, de Lillo au N. Est & Liefkenshoek au S. Ouest de la riviere. En suivant le rivage du coté de ce dernier fort vers le N. Ouest, vous verrez la miserable village & terre marécageuse de Doel, le tout ne valant pas, dit-on, 1000 Ducats, & qui est dans le cas de ces territoires de la Barriere. Autre fois la Garnison de Liefkenshoek enterroit ses morts dans le cimetiere de l’Eglise de ce village: Mais, depuis plusieurs années, elle enterroit dans les fossés du Fort. Au mois d’Octobre passé, un Soldat meurt à Liefkenshoek, &, sous prétexte qu’il étoit Catholique, & devoit pourrir en terre benite, le 418Com̃andant le fait enterrer à Doel avec un Cortege de 30 hom̃es armés dit-on à cartouches & bayonettes. Le Bailli Autrichien allegue l’ordre de l’Empereur qui défend à touts Militaires étrangers de marcher sous les armes sur son territoire, verbalise, met arrêt sur la troupe hollandoise, qui, ne se laissant pas arrêter, retourne au Fort. Peu de jours après, Mille, tant fantassins que cavaliers de Gand, par ordre de la Cour de Bruxelles, marchent, par le territoire de la rep. c’est-à-dire, par un chemin plus long, afin de pouvoir user de représailles, & vont jetter le cadavre déterré dans les fossés de Liefkenshoek; quelques autres jours après, ils occupent aussi le fort St. Donat & quelques redoutes près de L’Ecluse en Flandres, situés Sur un semblable petit territoire en litige depuis la révocation arbitraire du Traité de Barriere.1 Ces voies de fait ont été suivies de Mémoires de la Cour de Bruxelles, remis au Ministre de la rep. à Bruxelles, d’autres présentés ici par Mr. De Reischach,2 où, entre autres, on demande satisfaction de l’insulte com̃ise par la garnison de Liefkenshoek, avec quelques insinuations doucereuses sur un accom̃odement amiable de toutes choses. Les républicains ici ne doutent pas, que cette noise n’ait été suscitée par le D—— de B. W. & par les mauvais Conseillers, tous ses créatures, qu’il a laissés au Pce. en quittant,3 & enfin par plusieurs Mines. étrangers tant ici qu’à Londres, qui forment, disent-ils, avec les Anglomanes de ce pays, une Cabale, pour détacher la Rep. de la Frce., & la rembarquer dans l’ancien systême Anglo-Autrichien.
On assure, que peu après l’occupation du fort St. Donat, &c. l’Envoyé de l’Empr. eut un Entretien avec le St——r, que celui-ci se pressa de noter par écrit, qu’il montra à quelques membres du Gouvernemt., mais qui ne fut point goûté, portant que l’Empr., dans sa réponse (encore à faire) aux propositions provisionelles de L. H. P. consentira sans doute avec plaisir à la Com̃ission proposée pour arranger les frontieres; mais que, com̃e la Gr. Br. avoit été garante du Tr. de Barre. annullé recem̃ent par l’Empr., sa M. desiroit que la rép. achevât la paix le plutôt le mieux, separémt. & sans la Fce., avec la Gr. Br., parce qu’il convenoit que celle-ci garantît aussi ces nouveaux arrangemens.— Cette anecdote a reçu depuis un degré de probabilité de plus, par la proposition du D. de Manchr. aux plenipes. de la rep. à Paris, de régler le Traité définitif séparément de la fce. soit à Lahaie ou à Londres.— Ces propositions, qui découvrent des vues hostiles dans les Cabinets de Londres & de Vienne contre la fce., n’étoient déjà nullement du goût des républicains d’ici, lorsque le 30 Nov. on reçut la nouvelle de la défaite des Angl. 419aux Ind.4 or., qui, jointe à celle que les Marates ont déjà violé la paix dont les Anglois se sont tant réjouis & vantés, doit faire conclure, que ces Repns. n’auront guere de peine à maintenir leur systême, contre la cabale qui voudroit les embarquer avec l’Empr. & les Angl. contre la fce. & la Pr.; car selon une autre anecdote, des plus accréditée, le R. de P. doit avoir écrit très-sérieusement à un gd. persge. ici, pour lui conseiller de se guérir de son Anglomanie, & de rétablir une boñe harmonie entre ces rep. & lui, pour son bien & intérêt & celui de sa maison; com̃e d’un autre côté il est clair que l’Empr., passionné pour s’agrandir du côté des Turcs, doit craindre, dès qu’il sera engagé avec eux, d’avoir le R. de Pr. & la Fce. sur les bras, & par conséquent aussi indirectement cette rep., Si elle n’est rengagée dans les liens de la Gr. Br.
Voilà, pour le coup, assez de politique. Vous trouverez, Monsieur, une continuation désagréable de Stagnation dans l’Emprunt, causée surtout par celui que la Hollde. vient de résoudre en faveur de la Compe. des Indes or. de 8 millions de florins.
Agréez, Monsieur, les respects de ma famille, & permettez que nous présentions ici nos amitiés à Mr. votre fils.
Je suis avec grand respect, / De Votre Excellence / Le très-humble & très-obéissant / serviteur
Translation
I will do my best to satisfy your desire expressed in your esteemed letter of the 4th of this month concerning what is happening on the frontiers. You will recall, first of all, that the emperor revoked the Barrier Treaty. According to this treaty, which was never observed in all its provisions by one side or the other, certain small territories were ceded to the republic near its fortresses in Flanders in 1715 and 1718. If you look at the map, you will find the mouth of the Scheldt, and thus navigation to Antwerp, shut by two Dutch fortresses: Lillo northeast and Liefkenshoek southwest of the river. If you follow the bank on the side of the latter fortress to the northwest, you will see the wretched village and swampy terrain of Doel, the whole of which, they say, is not worth 1,000 ducats and lies within one of those barrier territories. Formerly the Liefkenshoek garrison buried its dead in the cemetery of this village’s church but for several years has used the fortress’ ditches for burials. Last October a soldier died at Liefkenshoek, and under the pretext of his being a Catholic who had to be buried in sanctified ground, the commander had him buried at Doel by a cortege of thirty armed men, who, they say, had cartridges and bayonets. The Austrian bailiff, citing the emperor’s order forbidding all foreign military personnel 420from marching under arms in his territory, placed under arrest the Dutch troops, who, refusing to be arrested, returned to the fortress. A few days later a thousand troops from Ghent, as many infantrymen as cavalry, marched by order of the Court of Brussels through the territory of the republic, that is to say, by a roundabout route, in order to retaliate, and threw the disinterred body into the ditches of the Liefkenshoek fortress. Several days later they also occupied the St. Donat fortress and several redoubts near the canal locks in Flanders, situated on a similar small territory under dispute since the arbitrary revocation of the Barrier Treaty.1 Those assaults were followed by memorials from the Court of Brussels, delivered to the minister of the republic at Brussels, and others presented here by Baron von Reischach,2 in which, among other points, they demanded satisfaction for the insult committed by the Liefkenshoek garrison, along with several honeyed insinuations about an amicable accommodation of all matters. The republicans here have no doubt that this quarrel was instigated by the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and by the bad advisors, all his creatures, whom he bequeathed to the prince when he left,3 and also by several foreign ministers, both here and at London, who, it is said, are forming a cabal with the Anglomanes of this country to detach the republic from France and return it to the old Anglo-Austrian system.
It is certain that not long after the occupation of the St. Donat fortress, etc., the emperor’s envoy had a meeting with the stadholder, which the latter hurried to put down in writing, and which he showed to several members of the government, but which was not to their liking. It stated that the emperor, in his response (still to come) to the provisional propositions of Their High Mightinesses, would undoubtedly consent with pleasure to the proposed commission to set the borders. But as Great Britain was the guarantor of the Barrier Treaty recently annulled by the emperor, His Majesty desired the republic to make peace with Britain as soon as possible, and without France, because it was suitable for Britain to also guarantee the new arrangements. This anecdote has since become somewhat more plausible with the Duke of Manchester’s proposal to the republic’s plenipotentiaries at Paris to settle the definitive treaty separate from France, at either The Hague or London. These proposals, which reveal the hostile views of the governments at London and Vienna toward France, were already not to the liking of the republicans here, when on 30 November news was received of the English defeat in the East Indies4 and that the Mahrattas had already violated the peace that the English so rejoiced in and boasted of. This news leads us to conclude that these republicans will not have much difficulty maintaining their position against the cabal that is trying to align them with the emperor and the English against France and Prussia. According to another anecdote from the most credible sources, the king of Prussia has written very seriously to a great personage here to counsel him to cure himself of his Anglomania and to reestablish a good harmony between this republic and himself, for his own good and 421self-interest as well as that of his house. On the other hand it is clear that the emperor, passionate about expanding in the direction of the Turks, must fear, once entangled with them, having the king of Prussia and France on his hands and by consequence and indirectly also this republic, if it has not resumed its ties with Great Britain.
So, for the moment, enough politics. You will find, sir, a disagreeable continuation of the stagnation in lending, caused above all by the loan that Holland just undertook on behalf of the East India Company in the amount of eight million florins.
Please accept, sir, the respects of my family, and permit us to extend here our friendly greetings to your son.
I am with great respect, your excellency’s very humble and very obedient servant
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Londres à S. E. M. Adams Min. Plenip.”; endorsed: “Mr Dumas / 12. Dec. 1783.”
Dumas’ account of the October events at the fortresses of Lillo and Liefkenshoek and the town of Doel, all within the boundaries of the Austrian Netherlands, is accurate and may have been derived from newspaper reports. His analysis of the origins of the conflict, particularly his assigning a role to the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, is less so. Among Joseph II’s objectives upon assuming the throne was an end to the Dutch occupation of the barrier fortresses provided for in the 1715 Barrier Treaty and the reopening of the port of Antwerp on the Scheldt River, the navigation of which had been closed by the 1648 Treaty of Münster. In 1781—with France, Britain, and the Netherlands distracted by the ongoing war—Joseph II accomplished his first objective by unilaterally abrogating the Barrier Treaty, for which see vol. 11:308. The effort to reopen the Scheldt, however, had to await the war’s end because Joseph sought and expected French support for the undertaking. The incident at Liefkenshoek provided a pretext for Austrian action, and in the immediate aftermath the Dutch removed the officer responsible and relaxed its enforcement of its rights respecting the navigation of the Scheldt. But when the Austrians in May 1784 presented new demands and in October sought to sail their vessels to and from Antwerp, the Dutch position hardened. With an Austro-Dutch war appearing almost certain, France intervened in favor of the Netherlands. The French action, and the subsequent 8 Nov. 1785 Treaty of Fontainebleau, resolved the crisis. Although the Scheldt remained closed, the treaty confirmed the abrogation of the Barrier Treaty, returned the fortresses of Lillo and Liefkenshoek to Austrian control, and compensated Austria through additional enhancements to its sovereignty over the Austrian Netherlands (Walter W. Davis, Joseph II: An Imperial Reformer for the Austrian Netherlands, The Hague, 1974, p. 120–133).
Hendrik van Hop was the Dutch minister to the Austrian Netherlands. Baron Franz von Reischach was the Austrian minister to the Netherlands (
Repertorium
, 3:82, 266).
For the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, formerly William V’s chief advisor and bête noire of the Patriot Party, see vol. 11:395. He was forced to leave The Hague in 1782 and the country in 1784.
The Anglo-French conflict in India ended in June 1783 when news arrived of the signing of the preliminary peace treaty in February. In the months previous, the French naval forces in the area, commanded by Chevalier Bailli de Suffren, managed in a series of battles to wrest control of the seas from the British admiral Sir Edward Hughes. This permitted Suffren to capture the British base at Trincomalee and land substantial forces at Cuddalore, thus threatening all of southern India (Mackesy, War for America
, p. 494–501). Complicating the situation for Britain was the continuation of the Second Mysore War by Tipu Sahib, following the death of his father, Haidar Ali, Sultan of Mysore, in 1782. That conflict would not end until the 1784 Treaty of Mangalore, which 422restored the status quo ante bellum (Karl J. Schmidt, An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History, Armonk, N.Y., 1995, p. 62). For the British the cessation of hostilities with both the French and Tipu Sahib came at an opportune time and preserved their nascent empire in India.
r.12 1783
On my return into the City after doing myself the pleasure of paying you my respects, I found some engagements on my hands in the line of business which will oblige me to make our excursion on Thursday or Friday instead of Wednesday. which I had mentioned to your son this Morning: If convenient & I do not hear further from you I hope I shall have the pleasure of seeing you & your Son to breakfast on Thursday or Friday about 10 Clock that we may sally forth all the Morning & to expect the pleasure of your company to dinner after the fatigues of the day.1 I could have put the questeon to you at Mr Copleys had you been less engaged: I am with great respect / Dear Sir / Your most obedt. / humble Servant.
RC (Adams Papers).
Neither JA nor JQA mention an excursion with William Vaughan in mid-December. However, Vaughan’s letter was of Friday, 12 December. A week later, on the 19th, JQA wrote Peter Jay Munro that “this morning I went and saw the Tower” and saw some “very rich things among which is the Imperial Crown of Great Britain; which is valued at a million Sterling.” Afterwards, JQA’s party “went to Bedlam [Bethlehem Hospital], and saw there a great Number of Fools and Madmen, but as, that is no more than what we see every day in the Street, and in Society, there is no Necessity of my giving you a detailed account of the poor wretches I saw there” (NNMus).
Permit me to congratulate you, on your Election to the Chair, and to wish you and the Members of Congress in general much Satisfaction at Anapolis.2
on the Fifth of this Month, Captn Jones arrived at my Lodgings in Piccadilly, with Dispatches from the late President Mr Boudinot.— The Letters addressed to “the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States” I opened, And found a Set of Instructions but no Commission. Probably there is a Commission, under Cover to Dr Franklin.— Captain Jones went on to Paris the Same night.
on the Eleventh, Mr Boudinot arrived, with other Dispatches of 423an older date; but these were in the Same Situation with the former. Those Letters addressed to “The Ministers[”] contained nothing but duplicates of Information recd long ago respecting the Mutiny at Philadelphia3 Wereas a larger Packet addressed to Dr Franklin, leaves room to Suppose that it contains a Commission or other Papers for Us all.— Upon Several former Occasions, Papers of Great Importance, which belonged to all “the Ministers for Peace” have been inclosed to the Address of Dr Franklin alone, and Several Inconveniences have happened in Consequence of this Irregularity, upon former Occasions. Upon this there is reason to fear, that a greater Evil may be caused by it.— I would therefore request that in future, Papers intended for “the Ministers” may be addressed to them, that when they Arrive to the Hands of one, he may open them, peruse the Contents and Send them forward to his Colleagues or go and carry them as the Circumstances may require. I shall Send off, by a private Hand the last Dispatch to Dr Franklin this day.— But must wait the return of Post, or a Courier to know the Contents. Mr Jay is at Bath waiting also returns from Paris. The Anxiety caused by this Suspence is not the worst Thing.— much prescious Time in very critical moments is lost by it.
I rejoice that I ventured over to this Island, for many Reasons— I have recovered my Health, gratified my Curiosity, and resolved Several Doubts.— I wish I could give an Account, of what I see, and hear, which would be more pleasing to my own Feelings, and more Satisfactory to Congress.— But I can find no Traces, of that Principle which was professed by Mr Oswald very Sincerely I beleive, and by the Ministry who imployed him in making Peace.— the Principle I allude to was to cede to America every Thing she could reasonably wish, in order to obliterate past Unkindnesses, and restore mutual Friendship.— Mr Fox and Mr Burke have quite as little good will to America as my Lord North or my Lord Mansfield.— And all Parties still listen to the Same kind of Councillers which has misled this deluded and devoted Kingdom these twenty Years.— A Galloway a Deane an Arnold, are not to this moment without an Influence, and I need not Say to Congress what is the Tendency of their Councils.
Mr Fox has leave to bring in a Bill, to Support another Proclamation like that which has already done So much Mischief to their own West India Islands, and Things will not be put on a better Footing, uless by Treaty. if a Commission has arrived in either of the Packets to Dr Franklin We shall soon see. But if not, and it is expected that We treat by Virtue of the Instructions We shall be 424disappointed, for that will not be received as a Commission, not having any seal.
There are Rumours of a Change of Ministry. The K. is Said to be dissatisfied with the East India Bills. Tomorrow, when one of the Bills is to have a Second Reading in the House of Peers, the matter will he decided. if it fails, there will be a Change of Ministry and a dissolution perhaps of Parliament. But I think the Ministry So Strong, that unless the King is determined against it they will carry it by a great Majority.—4 In this Case, I look upon the Rubicon to be past against the East Indies as much as it ever was against America: and France & Spain have nothing to do but whet their Scissars for the favourable Moment to clip the other Wing.— if Oppression and Extorsion, Rapacity and Violence are lessened, by taking that immense Country into the Hands of Ministers, I am much mistaken. it is natural, that the King Should be allarmed. his Ministers for twenty Years, have proved So unsuccessfull and therefore so unskillfull, in conducting the Administration of his Dominions abroad, that it is no Wonder he should be afraid of this new Experiment.
LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 107.
The absence of a copy of this letter in the PCC and its abrupt end in the Letterbook make it unlikely that it was sent.
Thomas Mifflin. The previous president, Elias Boudinot, had indicated in a 3 Nov. postscript to his 27 Oct. letter to the commissioners, above, that Mifflin had been chosen president that morning.
This is Elias Boudinot’s younger brother, Lewis. But the younger Boudinot had already, on 29 Sept., sent Benjamin Franklin the 15 July letter from the president of Congress to the commissioners in which the events of the mutiny were recounted, for which see note 12 to that letter, above. JA’s comment seems to indicate that Boudinot brought another copy of the 15 July letter.
JQA and presumably JA attended at least a portion of the 15 Dec. debate in the House of Lords on the India Bill—one of two bills drafted by paymaster Edmund Burke and introduced by foreign secretary Charles James Fox in a controversial effort to reform the administration of India (JQA to Peter Jay Munro, 19 Dec., NNMus). The India Bill proposed a reorganization of the East India Company. It called for the appointment of seven commissioners, initially named by Parliament but subsequently chosen by the king, to oversee the company’s political activities. It also provided for the appointment of nine assistant commissioners to supervise the company’s commercial ventures.
The India Bill aroused resistance in and out of Parliament. The opposition in both houses denounced the bill for violating the charter of the company and infringing the prerogatives of the crown. They charged that Fox only wanted patronage and that he intended to seize India for his own ends. The shareholders of the company objected to the bill as an expropriation of their property, while the directors insisted that the company’s financial difficulties had been overstated. Newspapers disseminated and enlarged the arguments and accusations. Caricaturists, too, played a significant role in the attack.
The controversy generated in response to the India Bill presented an opportunity not only to defeat the legislation but to topple the governing coalition led by Fox and home secretary Frederick, Lord North. In the House of Commons, where the coalition had a substantial majority, the bill passed by a comfortable margin on 3 December. But in 425the House of Lords, where passage normally would have been a foregone conclusion, the bill failed in a narrow though stunning upset. Resentful of Fox for his efforts to increase ministerial authority at the expense of royal prerogatives, George III conspired with the opposition to kill the India Bill and unseat the coalition ministry. In an extraordinary maneuver, the king acted to influence the debate in the Lords by making it known, through Lord Temple, that “whoever voted for the India Bill were not only not his friends, but he should consider them as his enemies.” The king’s intervention proved decisive, swaying in particular several bishops. When on 16 Dec. the opposition moved to cut off debate on the bill and adjourn, the measure carried by eight votes, sealing the fate of the Fox-North coalition. A day later the bill itself was rejected by nineteen votes. Having made it appear that the coalition ministry could no longer command the support of Parliament, George III brought the intrigue to a close on the 18th, serenely requiring Fox and North to surrender their seals of office. A new ministry headed by William Pitt took over the next day (Cannon, Fox-North Coalition
, p. 106–145). For a caricature that helped to foment resistance to the India Bill, see Descriptive List of Illustrations, No. 9, above.