Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"We are a little ambitious too of your esteem; and as I think we have acquired some share of it, by our manner of making war with you, I trust we shall not hazard the loss of it by consenting meanly to a dishonourable peace.

though there can be but few things, in which | down their arms until the independence of I should venture to disobey their orders; yet, the United States shall have been formally or if it were possible for them to give me such tacitly assured, by the treaty or treaties that an order as this, I should certainly refuse to shall terminate the war,' was an article inact; I should instantly renounce their com-serted at our instance, being in our favour. mission, and banish myself for ever from so And you see, by the article itself, that your infamous a country. great difficulty may be easily got over, as a formal acknowledgment of our independence is not made necessary. But we hope by God's help to enjoy it; and I suppose we shall fight for it as long as we are able. I do not make any remarks upon the other propositions, because I think, that unless they were made by authority, the discussion of them is unnecessary, and may be inconvenient. The supposition of our being disposed to make a separate peace, I could not be silent upon, as it materially affected our reputation and its essential interests. If I have been a little warm on that offensive point, reflect on your repeatedly urging it, and endeavour to excuse me. Whatever may be the fate of our poor countries, let you and I die as we have lived, in peace with each other. B. FRANKLIN."

"Lord North was wise in demanding of you some authorized acknowledgment of the proposition from authorized persons. He justly thought it too improbable to be relied on, so as to lay it before the privy council. You can now inform him, that the whole has been a mistake, and that no such proposition, as that of a separate peace, has been, is, or is ever likely to be made by me; and I believe by no other authorized person whatever in behalf of America. You may farther, if you please, inform his lordship, that Mr. Adams, Mr. Laurens, Mr. Jay, and myself, have long since been impowered, by a special commission, to treat of peace, whenever a negotiation shall be opened for that purpose: but it must always be understood, that this is to be in conjunction with our allies, conformably to the solemn treaties made with them.

6

"You have, my dear friend, a strong desire to promote peace, and it is a most laudable and virtuous desire. Permit me then to wish, that you would, in order to succeed as a mediator, to avoid such invidious expressions as may have an effect in preventing your purpose. You tell me that no stipulation for our independence must be in the treaty, because you verily believe (so deep is the jealousy between England and France) that England would fight for a straw, to the last man and the last shilling, rather than be dictated to by France. And again, that, the nation would proceed to every extremity, rather than be brought to a formal recognition of independence at the haughty command of France.'My dear sir, if every proposition of terms for peace, that may be made by one of the parties at war, is to be called and considered by the other as dictating, and a haughty command, and for that reason rejected with a resolution of fighting to the last man, rather than agree to it; you see that in such case no treaty of peace is possible. In fact we began the war for independence on your government, which we found tyrannical, and this before France had any thing to do with our affairs; the article in our treaty whereby the two parties engage, that neither of them shall conclude either truce or peace with Great Britain, without the formal consent of the other first obtained; and mutually engage, not to lay

D. Hartley to Dr. Franklin.

"LONDON, Jan. 24, 1782.

[ocr errors]

"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 entitled 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 whilst 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

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 it 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 punctilios between two proud and belligerent nations, which might possibly involve America, for years, in a war totally unconnected with the objects of the al

point greatly. You say, 'a truce for ten | of faith or honour. I did conclude that 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 honour: 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 |liance. Besides, if any rubs should occur in upon the case itself. If America is farther 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 eight: and now I refer you to my letter to you, as long ago as April 10, 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 tuæ." 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 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 faderis, 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 6, 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 fœderis. This is the breviate of the argument, in which there is no thought or suggestion of any breach

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 assistance of America. I cannot conceive
that the minister of a great belligerent nation
could entertain such a thought, as affecting
their own sense of honour, or be so unreason-
able 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 controled in their heat by argu-
ments 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 God and nature.
I fear it is too deeply engraved in the passions
of man, and for that reason I would elude and
evade the contest with such passions. I
would strew the road to peace with flowers,
and not with thorns. Haughty, and dictat
ing, 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 eight, there are the following
words: By the treaty or treaties that shall
terminate the war.'
Let us have one treaty

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

begun, and I think the rest would follow. I
fear when contending passions are raised, lest
we should lose all by grasping at too much.
January 25. I have just seen Mr. Alex-
ander, and have talked the matter over with
him. I send you a copy of his sentiments
upon it, which, for the sake of avoiding farther
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
authorized 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 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 pro-
bability 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 deli-
cate 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 entertain-
ing, or that I should be capable of suggesting,
any unworthy or dishonourable propositions.
If there has been any misunderstanding, it is
now cleared up and the ground for negotia-
tion remains open as before. I therefore still
entertain my hopes.-I am ever, your affec-
tionate,
D. HARTLEY."

Explanatory letter of Mr. Alexander to
Mr. Hartley.

66

"LONDON, Jan. 25, 1782.

that the business shall go on in one, two, or
three separate deeds, as shall be most palata-
ble here: and to doubt that our friends are
desirous of finishing the contest, with the ap-
probation of their allies, is to doubt their un-
derstanding.-I am, with the greatest es-
teem, yours, &c.
"W. ALEXANDER."

"Robert R. Livingston, Secretary for Foreign Affairs..

"PASSY, January 28, 1782. "SIR,-I received at the same time, your several letters of October 20th, 24th, and November 26th, which I purpose to answer fully by the return of the Alliance. Having just had a very short notice of the departure of this ship, I can only at present mention the great pleasure your appointment gives me, and my intention of corresponding with you regularly and frequently as you desire. The information contained in your letters is full and clear; I shall endeavour that mine, of the state of affairs here, may be as satisfactory. With great esteem, &c.

"B. FRANKLIN."

To the same.

"PASSY, January 28, 1782. "SIR,-I wrote to you this morning. Having just learnt that the courier is not gone, I have time to enclose and forward two letters* from Holland, by which you will see something of the state of affairs in that country.

"Be pleased to present my dutiful respects to congress, and assure them of my faithful services.-I have the honour to be, &c. 66 'B. FRANKLIN.”

From David Hartley to Dr. Franklin.
"LONDON, Feb. 1, 1782.
"MY DEAR FRIEND,-I write to you one

seen the minister since I last wrote to you,

DEAR SIR, AS I had not the opportunity line by this mail, only to tell you, that I have 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

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 honour 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 endeavoured to enforce. I should not do him wishes are for peace, and that he gives the justice if I did not add that I believe his

*Written by M. Dumas, a public agent of the United States, in Holland.

most serious attention to every argument, Calais, and now hold Gibraltar? Or, on re

and to the suggestion of every practicable means on that subject. I have stated many things for his consideration, and for consultation with others, after which I shall see him again. I heartily wish the result may be favourable to the prospect of peace. I am ever, your affectionate, D. HARTLEY."

"David Hartley, Esq.

"PASSY, Feb. 16, 1782.

you

"DEAR SIR,-I received your favour 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 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 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 principles. "I cannot however forbear endeavouring 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

storing 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 in

sult.

"My dear friend, the true pains you are taking to restore peace, whatever may be the success, entitle 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 receive 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.

[ocr errors]

"With great regard and affection, I am ever, dear sir, your most obedient and most humble servant, "B. FRANKLIN."

Count de Vergennes to Dr. Franklin. "February 24, 1782 "SIR,-You will find enclosed an official despatch which has been sent me from the court of Copenhagen, respecting some excesses that are said to have been committed near the coast of Norway by three American vessels. I make no doubt but that you will take the earliest opportunity to transmit it to congress, that they may decide agreeably to the prin ciples of the law of nations upon the claim of his Danish majesty.-I have the honour, &c.

"DE VERGENNES."

[blocks in formation]

brig Elliot, captain David Ray, of Kirkaldy, near Leith; which Americans not only pillaged the English vessels and set them on fire, so as to consume them, but likewise chased on shore the English captains and their crews in their boats, who have arrived here at the appellants, who has therefore appeared this day to obtain a juridical deposition, in order to explain this circumstance.

For this purpose the Sieur Giertsen, has presented the two English captains with their crews, to wit; Charles Lines, captain, Royal Simonds, pilot, William Goldsmith, William Fairweather, William Urquhart and Thomas Reiley, sailors; next David Ray, captain, Francis Banks, pilot, Robert Swain, carpenter, William Nackles, boatswain, William Abercrombie, Alexander Benny, Alexander Pearson, David Forresdale, John Harper, and James Stark, seamen; when the said English captains Lines and Ray, presented their reports respecting the violence committed against them, set forth in the English language, and translated into the Danish as follows:

"THREE American vessels, one of which was three masted, and called the Norfolk, captain Lines, and two brigs, the Ariel, captain Maller, and the Virginia, captain Hodsheadson, all three armed in Philadelphia, committed a most grievous outrage on the second December last, on the coast of Norway, where they seized two English merchantmen and burnt them, after plundering them and sending away their crews. The circumstances are more particularly detailed in the protest enclosed, made on the spot. It has moreover been proved by the report of his Danish majesty's grand bailiff at Christiansand, that the aforesaid American vessels having anchored in the port of Fleckeroe, before their meeting with the Englishmen, and displayed French colours, he had asked of the French consul information respecting their sea papers, and that the latter, on examining their contents, declared that they were not furnished with any letters of marque on the REPORT of what passed on board the brig part of congress. Their conduct proves this Elliot, belonging to Kirkaldy, commanded by also in having burnt their prizes, notwith-captain David Ray, coming from Petersburg, standing the offers of ransom made them by loaded with hemp, flax, iron, tallow, plank, the English captains. It therefore follows, and other merchandise, destined for Leith. that they can only be considered as pirates, whose crimes are greatly aggravated by a manifest infraction of his Danish majesty's territorial rights.

"The undersigned, his envoy extraordinary, has received precise orders to communicate these particulars to his excellency, the count de Vergennes, requesting with every possible confidence the intervention of his most christian majesty with the United States of America, to effect not only the punishment of the guilty persons, but also to obtain an indemnification for the vessels and cargoes that were burnt, of which an exact statement shall be furnished; and this satisfaction is due to repair the excesses committed on his majesty's territory.

DE BLOOME.

[ocr errors]

"On the 2d December, 1781, at half past 11 o'clock in the morning, we left the port of Kleven, near Mandahl, and set sail with fine weather; wind at north east, accompanied by the brig the Constant Ann, of Yarmouth, Charles Lines, captain; bound on her way from Stockholm home. Being without the shoals, we sent off the coasting pilot about half past twelve. In about three quarters of an hour after the pilot left us, we saw three vessels coming towards us with a pressing sail, the brig Constant Ann was then about an English mile astern of us. These three vessels endeavoured all that lay in their power to run close in with the shoals, in order to prevent our gaining the port. We saw that one of them was a vessel with three masts, and the two others brigs. As soon as they came near us they furled their small sails; one of the brigs run along side, and hailing us, asked from "I Frederick Fridrick, royal judge of the whence we came, and ordered us follow them bailiwick of Mandahl, declare that on the 4th immediately; after which they sent a boat on day of December, 1781, was held at the house board of us with people and a prize-officer, of madam Benl Biornsen, at Mandahl, an ex- who told us that our vessel and cargo was a traordinary tribunal, consisting of a sufficient lawful prize to the American congress. Our number of justices, were appeared the Sieur captain was afterwards ordered to go into the Frederic Giertsen, the English vice consul of boat, to go on board the privateer, which carthis place, who declared, that in consequence ried eighteen guns. The captain of the priof the extraordinary violence committed on vateer having examined my papers, immediSunday last, the 2d December, on the coasts ately ordered me, David Ray, to return on of this place near the shoals, by three Ame- board my vessel the Elliot. I repeatedly rerican vessels, on two English vessels, to wit;quested him to ransom the vessel and cargo, the brig Constant Ann, commanded by cap- but he positively refused, saying that he would tain Charles Lines, of Yarmouth, and the not on any account. VOL. I... 3 F 35

“Paris, February 6, 1782.”

COPY.

« AnteriorContinuar »