RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “His Excellency / John Adams Esquire— / Grosvenor-Square. / London.”; internal address: “John Adams Esquire.”; endorsed: “Mr Storer 30 Decr. 1785.”

Charles Storer and Cotton Tufts had written to JA on 23 and 24 Nov. (vol. 17:595–598, 604–605), respectively, regarding JA’s efforts in 1782 and 1783 to facilitate a correspondence between the Massachusetts Medical Society and the Société royale de médecine at Paris, for which see vol. 14:index. Félix Vicq d’Azyr, an anatomist and epidemiologist, was the secretary of the Société royale with whom JA corresponded (vol. 14:xii, 233). For the resolution of the issue raised by Storer here and in his earlier letter, see JA’s 11 March 1786 letter to Tufts ( AFC , 7:87–88) and that of 3 April to Edward Augustus Holyoke, below.

The source of Storer’s information about John Lamb has not been identified. But, for the commissioners’ initial appointment of Thomas Barclay to negotiate with Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli, and Tunis, and then, upon Lamb’s much belated arrival at Paris, their decision to send Barclay to Morocco and Lamb to Algiers, see vol. 17:432–434.

Not mentioned by JA at the time, the exchange between Mercator and “A Bostonian” appeared in the London Public Advertiser of 7, 9, 14, 19, and 25 July 1785 and was reprinted in the Boston American Herald of 26 Dec. 1785, 2 and 9 Jan. 1786. There were originally three letters by Mercator and two by “A Bostonian,” but the reprinting includes a reply by “A Bostonian” to Mercator’s 25 July 1785 letter that did not appear in the Public Advertiser, perhaps the “addition” referred to by Storer. Mercator, whose attitude toward the United States was little different from other critics writing in London newspapers at the time, opened with a series of questions directed to the “person who is said to be the Representative of the New States.” There, and in his succeeding pieces, Mercator questioned the legitimacy of Congress as a government and of JA as minister while condemning the failure to compensate loyalists for their confiscated property, American pretensions to trade with the East and West Indies, its failure to pay prewar debts, and its demand to be compensated for the removal of slaves. “A Bostonian” defended the legitimacy of Congress and JA, emphasized that American independence was not the gift of Britain in the peace treaty, and argued that the problems in Anglo-American relations were owing to British arrogance rather than 84 American hostility to Britain. Of particular interest in the exchange was Mercator’s condemnation of the institution of slavery in the United States and the rejoinder by “A Bostonian” that it was British merchants that controlled and profited from the slave trade.

It has been impossible to verify Storer’s identification of Jonathan Williams Jr., Benjamin Franklin’s grandnephew, as the author. However, “A Bostonian” appeared again in the 3 and 10 Aug. 1786 issues of the Boston Independent Chronicle as the author of a piece entitled “A View of the Federal Government of America.” There he strongly advocated that the central government be strengthened, particularly with regard to the conduct of foreign relations. In the course of his argument he wrote that “letters from Mr. A—— himself have been publicly shown in our capital cities, and we have there read, that the Americans, in the estimation of Englishmen, are sunk into the lowest pit of contempt.” The piece was later reprinted in the London Public Advertiser of 19 and 29 Jan. 1787, suggesting that the same author wrote both the 1785 and the 1786 pieces.

For the dispute between John Jay and Lewis Littlepage that resulted in an acrimonious exchange of pamphlets, and which Storer accurately describes, see Jay’s 2 Feb. letter, and note 1, below.

Storer refers to JA’s 6 Sept. 1785 letter to Arthur Lee and letters of 26 Aug. and 6 Sept. to Richard Henry Lee. Both letters to the latter were designated as private (vol. 17:365–367, 410–411, 412–413).

RC and enclosure (Adams Papers); internal address: “The Honorable John Adams Esquire.” Text lost due to wear at the edge has been supplied from a Tr (PCC, No. 121, f. 165–167).

In the enclosure, which Jay sent to Congress on 29 Dec. 1785, John Temple complained that loyalists seeking to recover property and outstanding debts had “met with great trouble and difficulty in Obtaining, and, in some instances, have been totally refused, such Office Copies from the Public Records,” including the files of Congress. In his report to Congress of 31 Dec., which Congress approved on 2 Jan. 1786, Jay included the proposed text of his 2 Jan. letter to JA ( JCC , 29:911, 30:2–5). For JA’s representations in response to Congress’ instructions, see his 6 Feb. letter to the Marquis of Carmarthen and the foreign minister’s response of the 28th, both below.

Compare this passage, concerning the need for Britain to appoint a minister to the United States, with JA’s similar comments in his 2 Sept. 1785 letter to Jay (vol. 17:385–386).

These letters centered on JA’s representations to the British government regarding the implementation of the peace treaty and Anglo-American trade, the British refusal to enter into negotiations with him, and his recommendation that the only means to resolve the situation was to empower Congress to regulate trade (vol. 17:512–514, 515–519, 524, 526–533, 541–551, 552). Jay laid the letters before Congress on 28 Dec. 1785, and on 31 Jan. 1786 he delivered a report, in which he recommended that Congress be authorized to regulate trade and be provided with a reliable source of revenue, that the country’s defenses be strengthened, and that JA’s letters be communicated to the states. With regard to the last, Congress formed a committee to draft a circular letter, but it apparently was never sent ( JCC , 29:909; 30:38–40, 78; PCC, No. 19, I, f. 39–43).