to him your letter; he had scarcely read it when he said, “Mr Izard
has written me a very angry letter; please to tell him, that he
has only made use of general assertions of my having done wrong,
which I cannot otherwise answer than by denying. If I have given
him any causes of offence, he should let me know what they are.”
To this I replied, “that you had been kind enough to form so good
an opinion of me, as to admit me into a share of your confidence,
therefore I could take upon me to say, that you were persuaded you
had clearly stated, in the several letters he had received from you,
circumstances affording sufficient grounds of offence.” He said, “he
should be glad to know what those circumstances were.” I answered
in the first place, “that conceiving it your duty as a member of
the States, having a considerable fortune there, and intrusted with
a commission from Congress, to communicate as occasion offered all
the intelligence you could, you found this communication greatly
obstructed by a concealment on the part of Dr Franklin of proper
opportunities, when it was quite unnecessary, or when the end of
secrecy might be answered, though you had been intrusted with the
knowledge of them.” Upon which Dr Franklin told me, “that you
had only complained of this in the present letter, and as to the
particular opportunity you mentioned by Monsieur Gerard, or Mr Deane,
he had not himself looked upon it as a good or proper one, and had
not himself made use of it to write.”
As another ground of complaint I observed, “that while the commercial
treaty was on the carpet, you considered one article as highly
unreasonable and inexpedient, and therefore expressly objected to
it; you had in a letter fully specified the reasons upon which your
disapprobation was founded, and had sent this letter to Dr Franklin,
in hopes of his removing your scruples, and setting you right if you
were wrong, or letting your reasons and objections, if they were
just, produce some good effect before the conclusion of the treaty,
but you had never been favored with any answer on the subject, though
you had repeatedly requested it.” Dr Franklin alleged, “that he would
have given a full and satisfactory answer, but he had been prevented
by business and various avocations, that he was still willing to give
one, but could not conceive why you should be so impatient. Suppose
he could not give it for a month hence, what great inconvenience
would it occasion?” I observed, “that the sooner you had it, you
might be the better prepared to guard against any misrepresentation.”
Dr Franklin assured me, that he had not been, nor would he ever be,
guilty of any misrepresentation; so far from it, that he had not even
written anything concerning the matter. I told him, perhaps you might
choose to lay it before Congress, and his answer might enable you
to do it more fully and satisfactorily. Dr Franklin said you should
have an answer, but you must be patient, for he really was very much
engaged by other business, and interrupted by people continually
coming in upon him, though some upon frivolous errands, as was the
case with the two Frenchmen, just gone away, who came only to ask him
to buy cloth.
I suggested as a third ground of complaint, that you had been
directed by the Congress to propose to the Court of Tuscany a
commercial treaty similar to the one concluded with this Court, which
you therefore required as necessary for your regulation, in pursuance
of the instructions of Congress, who directed you should have, not
only the original treaty, but also the alterations which might be
proposed; both were nevertheless withheld from you by Dr Franklin
without the least regard to your applications. Dr Franklin replied,
“did he go into Tuscany? Has not the treaty been sent to him?” I
said, you had good reasons for staying; that the treaty was kept from
you till the other day, when perhaps it was necessary for you to have
had it as early as possible, even previous to your departure, to give
it the maturer consideration, and because there might be explanations
you would like to have made here, or observations might occur to you,
which you might think it advisable to communicate to Congress, to
have their further instructions as soon as you could.
I do not recollect, that Dr Franklin made any direct reply to this.
He observed, that he was clear he had not given you any just cause
of offence, or reasonable grounds of complaint, that he was studious
to avoid contention; he acknowledged that he owed you an answer, but
though he was in your debt he hoped you would be a merciful creditor;
he would say, as the debtor in the Scripture, “have patience and I
will pay thee all;” that you certainly ought to give him time, as you
had urged so much matter as would require a pamphlet in answer. I
told him, that I was sure it was far from your disposition to court
quarrels, that if the reasons he gave in his answer to you were just
and satisfactory, you would undoubtedly allow them their full weight;
that satisfaction you were desirous of having, and were anxious to
have the affair ended. He said he should endeavor to do it as soon
as possible; in the mean time, he hoped to have no more such angry
letters from you; his answer he promised should be a cool one, and
that people who wrote such angry letters should keep them, till they
sufficiently reflected on the contents, before they sent them.
The above is nearly, to the best of my recollection, the substance,
if not for the most part the words, of the conversation, which passed
between Dr Franklin and myself, upon delivering him your letter today.
I have the honor to be, &c.
JOHN JULIUS PRINGLE.
COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO RALPH IZARD.
York, May 14th, 1778.
Sir,
Your favor of December the 18th came to hand the 2d of this month,
with the despatches of our Commissioners at the Court of Versailles,
from whom we had received nothing regularly for about a whole year.
The decisive part, which His Most Christian Majesty has at length
taken in our cause, must greatly influence other crowned heads in
Europe, not immediately allied to Britain, to desire a portion in our
friendship and commerce, and must prepare the way for your welcome
reception at the Court of Tuscany. We are pleased to find, that you
have formed a connexion with one, who promises to be so friendly
to your Commission as your correspondent, the favorite Minister of
the Grand Duke, and we think you could not have done better than in
following his past advice.
The enclosed resolve of Congress of the 7th inst will remove any
doubts about your support, which may have arisen in your mind from an
omission on our part, which did not occur to us until we received a
hint of it from the gentlemen at Paris, in their letter of February
the 16th.
Other papers herewith sent will convey to you a general idea of
our affairs, and we hope you will be particularly industrious to
expose those attempts of our enemies, which are calculated to
lead Europe to think we are not thoroughly fixed in our plan of
independence. You may observe, that we proceeded on the draughts
only of two intended bills, which had been sent to America by the
British Ministry. We should not have done this, but from a conviction
of insidious intentions founded upon former attempts to hurt our
character abroad. We were so well satisfied of the spirit of these
States to persevere in a noble cause, that we should have waited
for the bills themselves, if we had not been anxiously attentive
to the good opinion of Europe and the rest of the world. We were
altogether strangers to the happy state of our affairs in France,
accident and knavery having suppressed the despatches of our friends,
as our former letters will prove, if any attempts shall be made to
attribute our late determined conduct to a knowledge of our new
alliance. Congress unanimously ratified the treaties on the 4th, and
the people have showed their satisfaction, wherever the knowledge of
the proceeding has reached. The army also, which is daily increasing
in strength, has expressed its joy, and is now prepared either for
honorable peace, or a continuation of the just war.
We shall endeavor to procure an enlargement of your powers, and
shall immediately forward them to you. There can be no danger of any
clashing of future treaties with those now made, provided the plain
principles of mutual benefit, without any exclusive privileges,
are made the basis. We send you the first volume of the Journals
of Congress, another will be out in a few days, and shall be
forwarded also. We recommend to you the frequent communication of
your proceedings, and we wish you every felicity, being, Sir, your
affectionate humble servants,
R. H. LEE,
JAMES LOVELL,
ROBERT MORRIS.
_P. S._ You are to have Plenipotentiary Commissions, with
instructions not limiting the terms of the proposed treaties of
amity and commerce.
TO ARTHUR LEE.
Paris, May 18th, 1778.
Dear Sir,
The fifth article of the treaty of alliance has given me a great
deal of uneasiness, as it seems to have been intended to exclude
the United States of America from possessing themselves of the two
Floridas. The article is as follows. “If the United States should
think fit to attempt the reduction of the British power remaining in
the _northern parts of America_, or the Islands of Bermudas, those
countries or islands, in case of success, shall be confederated with
or dependant upon the said United States.” I had the honor of stating
my apprehensions to you and the other Commissioners at Passy, on the
3d instant.
Dr Franklin did not think they were well founded, nor that any such
construction could possibly be put upon the article. North America,
he said, strictly speaking, comprised all parts of the Continent
north of the Equator, and the Floridas being in the latitude of
thirty degrees north, would be comprehended within the meaning of
the words “northern parts of America.” I thought it would be best
to put it out of all doubt by getting that explanation of the words
under the hands of the French Ministry, especially as they would at
least admit of dispute, and might in future produce disagreeable
consequences. Dr Franklin said, that Congress had given some
instructions respecting the cession of part of Florida to Spain,
and objected to making any application on the subject to the French
Ministry, as it might be taken ill, and added, if my apprehensions
were ever so just, it was too late for any remedy in France, but that
the Commissioner for the Court of Madrid might guard against any bad
consequences in the treaty, which he had to conclude with that Court.
The resolution of Congress of the 30th of December, 1776, to which Dr
Franklin alluded, extends only to the town and harbor of Pensacola,
and circumstances are much changed in America since that resolution
was made. It declares, “that if His Catholic Majesty will join with
the United States in a war against Great Britain, they will assist
in reducing to the possession of Spain, the town and harbor of
Pensacola.” Had Spain complied with the request, had she stood forth
our friend in the day of distress, the offer made by Congress might
with propriety have been claimed. She did not declare war against
Great Britain, and I do not know, that she has done anything yet to
entitle her to any great share of our regard. It appeared to me,
that if the French Ministry understood the words, as explained by Dr
Franklin, they could not take it ill, that such an explanation should
be required of them, but if they intended to have them understood
as I feared they did, this was the proper place to have the doubts
cleared up. If the words were meant to exclude the United States
of America from the acquisition of the Floridas, it must have been
intended for the benefit of Spain, and therefore the less likely was
it to obtain any satisfaction from that quarter.
North America, strictly speaking, according to Dr Franklin, comprises
all parts of the Continent north of the Equator. By the same rule it
may be said to extend to the ninetieth degree of latitude. Considered
in this point of view, no parts to the southward of fortyfive degrees
can with propriety be called the _northern parts of America_. But the
article seems to have no relation to so extensive a signification,
and expresses the intentions of the framers of it very clearly. “_If
the United States should think fit to attempt the reduction of_,” not
the northern parts of America, but “the _British power_ remaining in
the northern parts of America.” This power, without taking notice of
an inconsiderable settlement on the Mosquito shore, or of Hudson’s
Bay, may be said to have extended from the most southern point of
Florida to the most northern part of Canada, and I am of opinion,
that the United States of America will not be satisfied if any
attempts are made to circumscribe their possessions within narrower
limits.
The 9th article of the original treaty approved of by Congress
in September, 1776, and transmitted by them to the Commissioners
at this Court, not only confirms me in this opinion, but throws
great light upon the intentions of the French Ministry. It is as
follows; “The Most Christian King shall never invade, nor under any
pretence attempt to possess himself of Labrador, New Britain, Nova
Scotia, Acadia, Florida, nor any of the countries, cities, or towns
on the Continent of North America; nor of any of the Islands of
Newfoundland, Cape Breton, St Johns, Anticosti, nor any other island
lying near to the said Continent in the seas, or in any gulf, bay,
or river, it being the true intent and meaning of this treaty, that
the said United States shall have the sole, exclusive, undivided, and
perpetual possession of all the countries, cities, and towns on said
continent, and of all islands near to it, which now are, or lately
were under the jurisdiction of, or subject to the King or Crown of
Great Britain, whenever they shall be united or confederated with
the said United States.” These words admit of no mistake, no hidden
meaning is concealed under them, nor could there be any possibility
of contentions respecting the countries therein described, had they
been inserted in the treaty.
With all due deference to Dr Franklin, I cannot help declaring,
that I am firmly persuaded that the Court of France would not have
substituted the 5th article in the place of the above, if they had
not had some designs contrary to the intentions of Congress, so
clearly expressed in their 9th article. His Most Christian Majesty,
in the 11th article of the Treaty of Alliance, does not guaranty
_generally_ to the United States their possessions, and the additions
or conquests that their confederation may obtain during the war,
from any of the dominions now, or heretofore possessed by Great
Britain in North America, but stipulates that the guaranty shall
only be _conformable to the 5th and 6th articles_. The latter of
these contains nothing but a renunciation on the part of France of
the Islands of the Bermudas, and of the whole continent of North
America. As France does not pretend to any claim upon the Floridas,
this renunciation can in no respect affect those Provinces. Spain,
who was at the peace in 1763 obliged to cede them to Great Britain,
may be desirous of resuming them, and the 5th article in the Treaty
of Alliance seems to lay the foundation of such a claim. Should that
event ever take place, it would prove extremely prejudicial to the
interests of the United States in general, but particularly to those
of the South. Spain would by that means have a direct communication
with the Indians on our frontiers, and have it in her power to
disturb our settlements whenever she pleased.
Lieutenant Governor Moultrie, in his letter from Augustine, of the
4th of October, 1775, to General Grant, which was intercepted and
published by Congress, among other reasons why General Gage should
protect Florida, gives the following; “Consider, says he, that this
is the best and only immediate communication between Great Britain
and our red brothers,” the Indians. What a horrid use our enemies
have made of this communication, you are well acquainted with.
Florida was never of any advantage to Spain when in her possession,
nor is it probable it ever would be, were it so again; but it will
be of the greatest importance to the States of America, on account
of security, which in all negotiations has been thought a sufficient
reason for a claim, though no right existed, which is not the case
in the present instance. In the 11th article, France guaranties
to the United States, “their possessions and the additions or
conquests, that their confederation may obtain during the war from
any of the dominions now, or heretofore possessed by Great Britain
in North America, conformable to the 5th and 6th articles.” In the
6th article, I observe, that “The Most Christian King renounces
forever the possession of the Islands of Bermudas, as well as of
any part of the continent of North America.” Nothing is said about
Newfoundland, St Johns, Cape Breton, and the other islands on our
coasts. Were they understood to be included in the renunciation
and guarantee? Congress, in their original treaty, did not choose
to trust to any future constructions, but mentioned each of these
islands particularly by name. Whatever power may be in possession of
them will in a great measure command the fishery.
This is a matter of great consequence, but, however just my
apprehensions may be on this point also, I fear it is now too late
to receive any satisfactory explanation respecting it at this Court,
and we must again turn eyes towards you for relief. If the Court of
Madrid could be prevailed upon to guaranty the Floridas, and these
islands also to the United States, you would render an essential
service to your country. I have upon many occasions experienced, that
whenever her welfare has stood in need of your exertions, you have
been ready to afford them, and, therefore, I cannot doubt but you
will also do it in the business, which I have just laid before you.
I have the honor to be, &c.
RALPH IZARD.
ARTHUR LEE TO RALPH IZARD.
Chaillot, May 23d, 1778.
Dear Sir,
I have received your favor of the 18th, and remember well the
conversation you mention. The 5th article stood originally thus. “Si
les Etats Unis jugent à propos de tenter la conquête de la Canada, de
la Nouvelle Ecosse, de Terrenueve, de St Jean, et des Bermudes, ces
conquêtes en cas de succès appartiendront aux dits Etats Unis.” Even
this did not appear to me adequate to the intentions of Congress;
I therefore proposed that it should be as extensive and explicit,
as was marked out to us in the 9th article of the plan proposed
by Congress. My colleagues did not agree with me, and I remember
perfectly Dr Franklin’s answer was, that Congress had receded from
those claims since, by the concessions directed to be made to Spain.
I submitted mine to the opinion of my colleagues.
I have already asked the commands of Congress, relative to conceding
anything to Spain agreeably to the instruction of the 30th of
December, 1776, which you mention, and you may be assured that I will
never subscribe the cession of one inch of what Congress has claimed
in the 9th article of their plan, without their express orders. I
shall make no observations respecting the degree of gratitude to
which Spain may be entitled, but the leaving of articles so loose
as to occasion disputes, or making cessions which may plant a thorn
in the side of any of the United States, is not the manner I should
choose of showing it. How the 5th article came changed so much from
what it was at first I never could learn. In my own justification
I must observe, that from the conduct of one of my colleagues, and
the intrigues of the other, I was furnished with a kind of half
information, and secretly counteracted, so as to render it very
difficult for me to be of any utility whatever in this negotiation.
I have the honor to be, &c.
ARTHUR LEE.
TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
Paris, June 17th, 1778.
Sir,
Mr Pringle, who was the bearer of my last letter, has given me an
account of his conversation with you on the subject of it. It would
have been much more satisfactory to me, if, instead of speaking to
him about the contents of it, you had done me the honor of writing
an answer to it. Words which pass in conversation are sometimes
forgotten and sometimes misunderstood. Misrepresentations are
sometimes the consequence, which though produced by mistake, to a
mind affected by ill treatment, of which neither the occasion can be
learned nor the progress stopped, may pass from effects proceeding
from either causes. I enclose you a copy of Mr Pringle’s letter. You
will be so good as to correct any mistakes that may be found in it.
Some there probably are; I do not, for instance, think it likely
you could have said that you did not know what I complained of, at
the same time that my complaints appear so numerous, that it would
require a pamphlet to answer them. It is impossible that both these
assertions can be true; and though I cannot agree with you in either,
I shall not dispute about them, but refer you to the several letters
which I have written since the receipt of your favor of the 29th of
January.
I have requested to be informed of your reasons for withholding
from me all communications respecting the treaty of commerce during
the negotiation, contrary to an express instruction of Congress.
You have constantly, in spite of every endeavor on my part to get
your reasons in writing, wrapped yourself up with caution, and
notwithstanding the repeated breach of your engagement with me,
have not been ashamed to make promises of the same kind and break
them again, to amuse me till Mr Deane had an opportunity of going
privately away. I shall not examine your inducements for so carefully
avoiding to commit yourself to paper on this subject, but only
observe that this determination compels me to mention the reasons
given by Dr Bancroft and your grandson, which it would have been more
agreeable to me to have had under your own hand. Those gentlemen have
informed me, that some proposals which Mr Lee had made to you and Mr
Deane, respecting his brother and me, made you apprehensive, that it
was intended to have us admitted into all consultations, and that
every question should be carried by a plurality of voices; that this
had determined your conduct with respect to communications to me; but
that if you had been ever so well inclined to communicate anything
relative to the treaty, you lay under such strong injunctions of
secrecy from the French Ministry, that it was out of your power to do
it.
With respect to the first of these reasons I shall observe, that if
Mr Lee ever made any such proposal, it was entirely unknown to me.
I have spoken to him on the subject, and he declares that he never
said anything that could in the least justify such an apprehension.
There does not indeed seem the least probability that such a proposal
could have been made. The unfortunate dispute in which he was engaged
with you and Mr Deane, and the decided majority of which you were
possessed, would have made such an attempt on his part too weak
for a man of common understanding. With regard to the injunctions
of secrecy, which the French Ministry are said to have laid you
under, I answer, that you had no right to lay yourself under any
such injunctions. Before you can avail yourself of that excuse,
you should show that you had reminded the French Ministry of there
being at that time in Paris two other Commissioners of Congress, to
whom your duty required you to communicate not only a copy of the
treaty originally proposed by Congress, but also whatever subsequent
alterations might be proposed on either side. Had this been done,
and had they expressed a desire that those Commissioners also should
be unacquainted with the transaction, rather than the smallest
obstruction should have been thrown in the way of the negotiation, I
should have been contented to have had it kept from me as long as you
thought proper.