I received the letter your Excellency did me the honor of writing to me this day enclosing a Memorial,[28] which relates to the interests of some subjects of the Emperor, residing at Ostend, who allege that a ship of theirs has been taken by an American privateer, and carried into Boston, on pretence that the property was English, &c. I shall immediately transmit the Memorial to Congress, as desired. But there being Courts of Admiralty established in each of the United States, I conceive, that the regular steps to be taken by the complainants would be an application for justice to those Courts by some person on the spot, duly authorised by them as their agents, and in case the judgment of the Court is not satisfactory, that then they appeal to the Congress, which cannot well take cognisance of such matters in the first instance.
[28] See this Memorial in Franklin"s Works, Vol. V p. 122
The merchants of Ostend may possibly not have as yet correspondents established in all the States, but any merchant of credit in the country would transact such business on receiving their request, with the proper power of attorney; or if His Imperial Majesty should think fit to appoint a Consul General to reside in those States, such an officer might at all times a.s.sist his compatriots with his counsels and protection, in any affairs that they might have in that country. I am the more particular in mentioning this to your Excellency, because I apprehend these cases may hereafter be frequent, and if the complaints are to be addressed to you and me, we are likely to have a great deal of trouble, as I am informed that it is become a daily practice for outward bound English ships to put into Ostend, make a formal pretended sale of ship and cargo to a merchant of the place, who furnishes imperial papers for the voyage under his own name, and receives a certain sum per cent for the operation.
This is said to be a branch of great profit to the Flemish merchants, and that a very great number of English ships are now at sea with such papers, and I suspect even from their own manner of stating the transaction, that the ship and cargo reclaimed by the complainants are of that kind. This seems to me an abuse of the neutrality, as these fict.i.tious profits are added to the advantage of real carriage for the belligerent nations, they make it too much the interest of neutral neighbors to foment wars and obstruct peace, that such profits may continue. And if it is to be understood as a settled point, that such papers are to protect English property, the fitters out of privateers from France, Spain, Holland, and America, will in another year be all ruined, for they will find none but Flemish ships upon the ocean.
With the greatest respect, &c.
B. FRANKLIN.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.
Philadelphia, January 23d, 1782.
Dear Sir,
An express just going to the Chesapeake, gives me an opportunity of sending by the Hermione, a resolution pa.s.sed yesterday. My letters by this conveyance are so long, that they leave me nothing to add, unless it be, that we have just received letters from Mr Deane, (copies are enclosed) which confirm the authenticity of those published in his name by Mr Rivington, mentioned in my former letters. In one of those publications he expressly advises a return to the government of Great Britain; and, as this could not be effected through Congress, that it should be done by committees, which the people should choose for that express purpose. These, of which I now send you copies, were delivered here by the person to whom Mr Deane gave them, so that there can be no doubt of their authenticity.
We have nothing new except what you will learn from the papers herewith transmitted. As I doubt not you are upon the most confidential terms with the Marquis de Lafayette, I could wish him to see my last letter. You will observe, that I have omitted (for reasons, that you will easily conceive) to make use of the arguments, which may be derived from the 11th and 12th articles of our treaty with France. The Commissioners will exercise their own discretion in applying them, when a negotiation shall be opened.
We were much surprised at not receiving a single line by the frigate, which lately arrived at the Chesapeake, from any one of our foreign Ministers. It is upwards of three months since we have had a letter of intelligence from Europe. Congress complains of these neglects, (for such they consider them) and I flatter myself, that in future, as a channel is now open through this office for a regular correspondence, this cause of complaint will be removed, and that letters and papers will be lodged with our consuls to go by every conveyance.
Be persuaded, Sir, that I shall omit no opportunity to give you every information, which may contribute to your private amus.e.m.e.nts or the public benefit.
I have the honor to be, &c.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
_P. S._ I have this moment received resolutions from Congress, (copies of which I enclose), which serve to show their sense of the importance of the fisheries and their western extent, and add new weight to the arguments which I had the honor to urge. You will be pleased to transmit copies of them to Mr Jay and Mr Adams.
DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.
London, January 24th, 1782.
My Dear Sir,
I received yours of the 15th instant this day. I must take the earliest opportunity of setting you right in one mistake, which runs through your whole letter, and which to you, under that mistake, must be a very delicate point. You seem to apprehend that America has been stated in the proposition to Lord North, as "disposed to enter into a separate treaty with Great Britain;" but you meet the condition, viz.
in the words immediately following, "_and that their allies were disposed to consent to it_." There cannot possibly be any supposition of treachery to allies, in any proposition to which they may _consent_. A separate treaty, with the _consent_ of the allies of America, was the proposition communicated to me by Mr Alexander, and which I laid before the Minister, and which I reported back again to Mr Alexander in writing, when I showed him the paper ent.i.tled "Conciliatory Propositions," which I took care to reduce to writing, with a view of avoiding mistakes; therefore, I have not _misunderstood_ Mr Alexander. I have since seen Mr A. many times, and he has always stated one and the same proposition, viz. that America was disposed to enter into a separate treaty, because their _allies were disposed to consent that they should_; therefore there cannot exist a suspicion of treachery. It occurred to me once while I was writing, to bar against that misconstruction, but having specified the _consent of the allies of America_ in the same sentence, I could not conceive such a misconstruction to have been possible.
You have mistaken another point greatly. You say, "a truce for _ten_ years." There is not in the bill any such disposition or thought; on the contrary, it is specified in the enclosed paper that it is kept _indefinite_, for the sole purpose of avoiding the suspicion which you have suggested. The truce may be for twenty, or fifty, or one hundred years; in my opinion the longer the better. But in any case, what I mean now to state is the _indefinite_ term in the bill. The articles of intercourse are only proposed for ten years certain, just to strew the way with inviting and conciliatory facilities, in the hope that _a little time given for cooling_ would confirm a perpetual peace. If I were permitted to be the mediator, I should certainly propose the truce for twenty years; but if no more than ten years could be obtained, I would certainly not refuse such a ground of pacification and treaty. I refer you to several of my letters two or three years ago, for the justification of my sentiments on that head.
Another point; look at all my letters since 1778, and see if I have at any time suggested any breach of treaty or of honor; on the contrary, I think a faithless nation, if exterminated, would not deserve the pity of mankind. I speak of all I know in the treaty between America and France, and what I think reasonable upon the case itself. If America is further bound than we know of, they must abide by it. I speak to the apparent and public foundation of the treaty, article second, with the provision of _tacitly_, from article eighth; and now I refer you to my letter to you, as long ago as April 10th, 1779; "If beyond this essential and directed end, and upon grounds totally unconnected with that alliance, not upon motives of magnanimity _for the relief of an innocent people_, but from distinct and unconnected motives of private European sentiments, America should be dragged into the consequence of a general European war, she may apply to France the apostrophe of the poet, speaking in the person of Helen to Paris, _non hoc pollicitus tuae_." You see, therefore, that our sentiments have been uniform, and as I think, reasonable, because I still remain in those sentiments.
Suppose, for instance, (and you may call it the case of a straw if you please) that Great Britain and France should continue the war for ten years, on the point of a commissary at Dunkirk, aye or no;--would it be _reasonable_, or a _casus foederis_, that America should be precluded from a separate treaty for ten years, and therefore involved in the consequential war, after the _essential and direct ends_ of the treaty of February 6th, 1778, were accomplished? As far as my judgment goes, upon the knowledge of such facts as are public, I should think it was neither _reasonable_ nor a _casus foederis_. This is the breviate of the argument, in which there is no thought or suggestion of any breach of faith or honor. I did conclude that France was disposed to give their _consent_, because Mr Alexander informed me so, and because I thought it reasonable that France should consent, and reasonable that America should enjoy the benefit of that consent.
I transmitted it to Lord North, as a proposition temperate and pacific on the part of America, and consented to by their allies, and on no other ground did I transmit or propose it. All that your letter tells me, is, "that America will not break with her allies, and that her Commissioners will not entertain such a thought;" but give me leave to add, that they, as honest men, cannot disdain such a thought more than I do; every honest man ought to disdain the office, or the thought of proposing a breach of faith to them. I have often told you, that such an office or such a thought shall never be mine.
But you have not told me that France would not be disposed to consent to a separate treaty of peace, for that ally whose peace was the original declared object of the alliance, in the case supposed, viz.
of certain supposed or real punctillios between two proud and belligerent nations, which might possibly involve America for years in a war totally unconnected with the objects of the alliance. Besides, if any rubs should occur in the road to a general peace, France is too proud a nation to say, that beyond the _policy_ of contributing to the separation of America from Great Britain in any contest of rivalship, they cannot meet their rivals in war, without the a.s.sistance of America. I cannot conceive that the Minister of a great belligerent nation could entertain such a thought, as affecting their own sense of honor, or be so unreasonable to their allies, as to withhold consent to their peace, when _the essential and direct ends_ of the alliance were satisfied. Observe, I do not contend against a general peace; on the contrary, I mean to recommend the most prudent means for producing it. But, as an anxious lover of peace, I feel terrors which dismay me, and I consider the dangers which may obstruct a general peace, arising from the pride and prejudices of nations, which are not to be controlled in their heat by arguments of reason or philosophy.
Can any man in reason and philosophy tell me, why any two nations in the world are called natural enemies, as if it were the ordinance of G.o.d and nature? I fear it is too deeply engraved in the pa.s.sions of man, and for that reason I would elude and evade the contest with such pa.s.sions. I would strew the road to peace with flowers, and not with thorns. _Haughty_, and _dictating_, and _commands_, are no words of mine; I abhor them, and I fear them. I would elude their force by gentle means, and step by step. In article eighth, there are the following words; "By the treaty or treaties that shall terminate the war." Let us have one treaty begun, and I think the rest would follow.
I fear when contending pa.s.sions are raised, lest we should lose all by grasping at too much.
_January 25th._ I have just seen Mr Alexander, and have talked the matter over with him. I send you a copy of his sentiments upon it, which, for the sake of avoiding further mistakes, he committed to paper, and which, I think, justify me in saying, that I understood from him, that France was _disposed to give their consent_, as he _explained_ it to me, and as I explained it to the Minister. He did not say, nor did I understand him to say, that he was _authorised_ by the French Ministry, or by any one else, to declare that France had bound herself to consent, or that any such requisition had been made to her; but that it was his opinion that France would consent, and that I might proceed upon that presumption, so far as to recommend overtures of negotiation. Accordingly, the phrase of my letter to you is, that he _explained_ to me, _that their allies were disposed to consent_. You see what his opinion is on this day; and as you have not told me that France will consent, the _reasonable_ probability which still remains with me, for the hopes of opening an amicable treaty, remains as it did.
I could not delay saying thus by the very first mail, upon a point equally delicate to me as well as to yourself. My dear friend, I beg of you not to think, either that you can be considered as capable of entertaining, or that I should be capable of suggesting any unworthy or dishonorable propositions. If there has been any misunderstanding, it is now cleared up; and the ground for negotiation remains open as before. I therefore still entertain my hopes.
I am ever your affectionate, D. HARTLEY.
_Explanatory Letter to Mr Hartley, referred to in the preceding._
Dear Sir,
As I had not the opportunity of seeing your correspondence at this time, I was unable to prevent the misunderstanding that seems to have arisen. There is no proposition of which I am more convinced, than that, "Nothing can be done without the concurrence of allies." But, as the chief obstruction towards an accommodation seemed to me to lie in the personal character of some, who have great weight in this matter, and as the object of the war (the independence of America) seems, in the opinion of all men, to be secured, my own opinion was, and still is, that there was so much wisdom and moderation where prejudice prevents us from seeing it, that, provided the ends of the war are accomplished to the satisfaction of all parties, they will be very ready to let us out of it in the most gentle manner, by consenting equally that the business shall go on in one, two, or three separate deeds, as shall be most palatable here; and to doubt that our friends are desirous of finishing the contest, with the approbation of their allies, is to doubt their understanding.
I am, with the greatest esteem, yours, &c.
W. ALEXANDER.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.
Philadelphia, January 26th, 1782.
Dear Sir,
I do myself the honor to enclose you a convention for the establishment of Consul, which has just pa.s.sed Congress. You will find that you are empowered either to sign it in France, or if any alterations are made to send it here to be executed.
Nothing new since I wrote you; we are still in the dark with respect to European intelligence, not having heard from any gentleman in public character since the 5th of October, when we had a short letter from Mr Carmichael.
I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect and esteem, your most obedient humble servant.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Pa.s.sy, January 28th, 1782.
Sir,