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 of Mr. Alexander, 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 more convinced, than that, "Nothing can be Wh concurrence of allies." But, as the chief ob struction towards an accommodation seemed to me to lie iu 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. London, Jan. 25, 1782. From David Hartley, Esq., M. P., to Dr. Franklin. MY DEAR FRIEND, I WRITE to you one line by this mail, only to tell you, that I have seen the minister since I last wrote to you, and that he never did entertain the idea one moment of any propositions being thrown out on your part in the least degree inconsistent with the strictest honor and faith to the allies. I had no occasion to guard against or to explain any such thought, having at all times conveyed the contrary to him in the most explicit terms. I transmit this to you for your full satisfaction. We have had much conversation on the subject of peace, which you may be sure I have most zealously endeavored to enforce. I should not do him justice if I did not add that I believe his wishes are for peace, and that he gives the most serious attention to every argument, and to the suggestion of every practicable means on that subject. I have stated many things for his consideration, and for con sultation with others, after which I shall see him again. I heartily wish the result may be favorable to the prospect of peace. I am ever, your affectionate, D. HARTLEY. DEAR SIR, To David Hartley, Esq., M. P. Passy, Feb. 16, 1782. I RECEIVED your favor of the 24th past. You have taken pains to rectify a mistake of mine relating to the aim of your letters. I accept kindly your replication, and I hope you will excuse my error, when you reflect that I knew of no consent given by France to our treating separately of peace, and that there has been mixed in some of your conversations and letters various reasonings, to show that if France should require something of us that was unreasonable, we then should not be obliged by our treaty to join with her in continuing the war. As there had never been such requisition, what could I think of such discourses? I thought as I suppose an honest woman would think, if a gallant should entertain her with suppositions of cases, in which infidelity to her husband would be justifiable. Would not she naturally imagine, seeing no other foundation or motive for such conversation, that if he could once get her to admit the general principle, his intended next step would be to persuade her that such a case actually existed. Thus knowing your dislike of France, and your strong desire of recovering America to England, I was impressed with the idea that such an infidelity on our part would not be disagreeable to you; and that you were therefore aiming to lessen in my mind the horror I conceived at the idea of it. But we will finish here by mutually agreeing that neither you were capable of proposing nor I of acting on such princples. I cannot however forbear endeavoring to give a little possible utility to this letter, by saying something on your case of Dunkirk. You do not see why two nations should be deemed natural enemies to each other. Nor do I, unless one or both of them are naturally mischievous and insolent. But I can see how enmities long continued, even during a peace, tend to shorten that peace, and to rekindle a war. That is, when either party, having an advantage in war, shall exact conditions in the treaty of peace, that are goading and constantly mortifying to the other. I take this to be the case of your "commissioner at Dunkirk." What would be your feelings, if France should take, and hold possession of Portsmouth, or Spain of Plymouth, after a peace, as you formerly held Calais, and now hold Gibraltar? Or on restoring your ports, should insist on having an insolent commissioner stationed there, to forbid your placing one stone upon another by way of fortification? You would probably not be very easy under such a stipulation. If therefore you desire a peace that may be firm and durable, think no more of such extravagant demands. It is not necessary to give my opinion farther on that point, yet I may add frankly, as this is mere private conversation between you and me, that I do think a faithful ally, especially when under obligations for such great and generous assistance as we have received, should fight as long as he is able, to prevent (as far as his continuing to fight may prevent) his friends being compelled again to suffer such an insult. My dear friend, the true pains you are taking to restore peace, whatever may be the success, intitle you to the esteem of all good men. If your ministers really desire peace, methinks they would do well to impower some person to make propositions for that purpose. One or other of the parties at war must take the first step. To do this belongs properly to the wisest. America being a novice in such affairs, has no pretence to that character; and indeed, after the answer given by lord Stormont (when we proposed to him something relative to the mutual treatment of prisoners with humanity) that “the King's ministers receives no applications from rebels, unless when they come to implore his majesty's clemency," it cannot be expected that we should hazard the exposing ourselves again to such insolence. All I can say farther at present is, that in my opinion your enemies do not aim at your destruction, and that if you propose a treaty you will find them reasonable in their demands, provided that on your side they meet with the same good dispositions. But do not dream of dividing us: you will certainly never be able to effect it. With great regard and affection, I am ever, dear sir, your most obedient and most humble servant, B. FRANKLIN. From David Hartley, Esq., M. P., to Dr. Franklin. MY DEAR FRIEND, I HAVE not as yet any thing to communicate to you. I have upon many occasions recommended the road to peace in the most earnest way. I am not without hopes. I think I may venture to say that the arguments which I have stated have made an impression. I have not expected to receive the final answer from lord North till after the parliamentary arrangements of the year are settled. I am just for three or four days in the country, upon a little business, but upon a furlough, as I may say, with the knowlege of lord North, who, during the budget week, cannot possibly want to see me. I have therefore taken that week for a little private business in the country, and if lord North, should happen to wish to see me, my brother keeps watch, and is to send express for me. Public report will tell you, that on Friday last there was a division in the house, on an American question, of one hundred and ninety-four to one hundred and ninety-three. I cannot answer for the dispositions of ministers, but in point of justice I ought to say, that I think, and as far as I can judge from the conferences which I have had, that I have found good dispositions towards peace. I do not pledge myself, because I may be deceived; however that is my opinion; and I say thus much lest my silence should appear suspicious and create |