vernment wherein the administrators are chosen annually by the free voice of the governed, and may also be recalled at any time if their conduct displeases their constituents, cannot be a tyrannical one, as your loyalists represent it; who at the same time inconsistently desire to return and live under it. And among an intelligent enlightened people as ours is, there must always be too numerous and too strong a party for supporting good government and the laws, to suffer what is called anarchy. This better account of our situation must be pleasing to your humanity, and therefore I give it you. But we differ a little in our sentiments respecting the loyalists (as they call themselves) and the conduct of America towards them, which you think "seems actuated by a spirit of revenge; and that it would have been more agreeable to policy, as well as justice, to have restored their estates upon their taking the oaths of allegiance to the new governments." That there should still be some resentment against them in the breasts of those who have had their houses, farms, and towns so lately destroyed, and relations scalped under the conduct of these royalists, is not wonderful; though I believe the opposition given by many to their re-establishing among us is owing to a firm persuasion, that there could be no reliance on their oaths; and that the effect of receiving those people again would be an introduction of that very anarchy and confusion they falsely reproach us with. Even the example you propose of the English commonwealth's restoring the estates of the royalists after their being subdued, seems rather to countenance and encourage our acting differently, as probably if the power, which always accompanies property, had not been restored to the royalists; if their estates had remained confiscated, and their persons had been banished, they could not have so much contributed to the restoration of kingly power, and the new government of the republic might have been more durable. The majority of examples in your history are on the other side of the question. All the estates in England and south of Scotland, and most of those possessed by the descendants of the English in Ireland, are held from ancient confiscations made of the estates of Caledonians and Britons, the original possessors in your island, or the native Irish, in the last century only. It is but a few months since that your parliament has, in a few instances, given up confiscations incurred by a rebellion suppressed forty years ago. The war against us was begun by a general act of parliament declaring all our estates confiscated, and probably one great motive to the loyalty of the royalists was the hope of sharing in these confiscations. They have played a deep game, staking their estates against ours; and they have been unsuccessful. But it is a surer game, since they had promises to rely on from your government of indemnification in case of loss; and I see your parliament is about to fulfil those promises. To this I have no objection, because though still our enemies, they are men; they are in necessity; and I think even an hired assassin has a right to his pay from his employer: it seems too more reasonable that the expense of paying these should fall upon the government who encouraged the mischief done, rather than upon us who suffered it; the confiscated estates making amends but for a very small part of that mischief: it is not therefore clear that our retaining them is chargeable with injustice. I have hinted above, that the name loyalists was improperly assumed by these people. Royalists they may perhaps be called: but the true loyalists were the people of America against whom they acted. No people were ever known more truly loyal, and universally so, to their sovereigns: the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover was their idol. Not a Jacobite was to be found from one end of the colonies to the other. They were affectionate to the people of England, zealous and forward to assist in her wars, by voluntary contributions of men and money, even beyond their proportion. The king and parliament had frequently acknowledged this by public messages, resolutions, and reimbursements. But they were equally fond of what they esteemed their rights; and if they resisted when those were attacked, it was a resistance in favor of a British constitution, which every Englishman might share in enjoying who should come to live among them: it was resisting arbitrary impositions that were contrary to common right and to their fundamental constitutions, and to constant ancient usage. It was indeed a resistance in favor of the liberties of England, which might have been endangered by success in the attempt against ours; and therefore a great man in your parliament* did not scruple to declare, he rejoiced that America had resisted! I, for the same reason, may add this very resistance to the other instances of their loyalty. I have already said, that I think it just you should reward those Americans who joined your troops in the war against their own The first Lord Chatham. country but if ever honesty could be inconsistent with policy, it is so in this instance. SIR, B. FRANKLIN. TO THE HON. JOHN JAY, ESQ. MINISTER FOR Philadelphia, Sept. 19, 1785. I have the honor to acquaint you that I left Paris the 12th of July, and, agreeable to the permission of Congress, am returned to my country. Mr. Jefferson had recovered his health, and was much esteemed and respected there. Our joint letters have already informed you of our late proceedings, to which I have nothing to add except that the last act I did as minister plenipotentiary for making treaties, was to sign with him, two days before I came away, the treaty of friendship and commerce that had been agreed on with Prussia, and which was to be carried to the Hague by Mr. Short, there to be signed by Baron Thulemeyer on the part of the king, who, without the least hesitation, had approved and conceded to the new humane articles proposed by Congress,* which articles are considered as doing that body great honor. Mr. Short was also to go to London with the treaty, for the signature of Mr. Adams, who, I learnt, (when at Southampton,) is well received at the British court. The Captain Lamb, who, in a letter of yours to Mr. Adams, was said to be coming to us with instructions respecting Morocco, had not appeared, nor had we heard any thing of him; so nothing has been done by us in that treaty. I left the court of France in the same Against privateering. friendly disposition towards the United States that we have all along experienced, though concerned to find our credit is not better supported in the payment of the interest money due on our loans, which in case of another war must be, they think, extremely prejudicial to us, and indeed may contribute to draw on a war the sooner, by affording our enemies the encouraging confidence that a people who take so little care to pay, will not again find it easy to borrow. I received from the king, at my departure, the present of his picture set round with diamonds, usually given to ministers plenipotentiary who have signed any treaties with that court, and is at the disposition of Congress, to whom be pleased to present my dutiful respects. I am, Sir, with great esteem, your most obedient and most humble servant, B. FRANKLIN. P.S.-Not caring to trust them to a common conveyance, I send by my late secretary, W. Temple Franklin, who will have the honor of delivering them to you, all the original treaties I have been concerned in negotiating, that were completed. Those with Portugal and Denmark continue in suspense. SIR, TO M. DUPONT DE NEMOURS, AT PARIS. Philadelphia, June 9, 1788. I have received your favor of December 31, with the extract of a letter which you wish to have translated and published here. But seven states having, before it arrived, ratified the new constitution, and others being daily expected to do the same, after the fullest discussion in convention, and in all the public papers, till every body was tired of the argument, it seemed too late to propose delay, and |