Privileges which appertain to such Powers by the Laws of Nature and Nations.

Resolved that it is the indispensible Duty of Congress to claim and maintain the Dignities and Privileges aforesaid in their fullest Latitude and Comprehension.

Resolved that no Person can have Authority or be authorized or admitted to treat with or make Propositions to any Prince or State on Behalf of the King or Kingdom of Great Britain unless by Powers derived from the said King in the Manner and Form customary and acknowledged among Nations.

Resolved that neither of the Commissioners above mentioned appear to be duly impowered either as an Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary Resident or otherwise to represent the King of Great Britain to these united States. Wherefore

Resolved that Congress can by no Means hold any Treaty with or answer any Proposition which may be made by the Said Commissioners or either of them.2

421. SAMUEL ADAMS TO JAMES WARREN.1

PHILADA. July 20, 1778.

My dear Sir,
Last Saturday a Letter was brought into Congress from the British
Commissioners. You have it in the inclosd News Paper with a short

2 This document, which is in the writing of Henry Laurens, is endorsed, "Mr. Morris's Move for Ansr. to Commiss'rs". It is without date, but the tone and contents of the resolves suggest that they were probably prepared as a response to the letter of July II from the British commissioners, which was read in Congress July 18. It seems less probable that they could have been intended as a reply to the commissioners' letter of June 9, particularly in view of the fact that Morris prepared the response that was actually sent. Moreover, if the resolves had been prepared on that occasion, it seems probable that Morris's letter to Jay June 23 (no. 378, ante) would have contained some intimation of them. The word Remonstrance' suggests the communication of Aug. 7, read in Congress Aug. 12, but that remonstrance pertained to the convention troops, which are not mentioned in these resolves. Cf. no. 443, post.

The Journals of July 18 would seem to indicate that the resolution there recorded was taken immediately upon the receipt of the communication and without the intervention of a committee; nevertheless there may have been much intervening discussion of which the Journals give no intimation. That part of the letter of the commissioners which more particularly appears to have suggested these resolves is this:

"We likewise think ourselves entitled to a full_Communication of the Powers by which you conceive yourselves Authorized to make Treaties with Foreign Nations. "And we are led to ask Satisfaction on this point because we have observed in your proposed Articles of Confederation Nos. 6 and 9 it is stated that you should have the Power of entering into Treaties and Alliances under certain Restrictions therein specified Yet we do not find promulgated any Act or Resolution of the Assembly's of particular States conferring this Power on you" (Library of Congress, U. S. Revolution). Inasmuch as the commissioners raised the question of the authority of Congress to make treaties, these resolutions propose to raise a similar question with regard to the powers of the British commissioners. In the address to the Earl of Carlisle by "An American", presumably Gouverneur Morris (see no. 421, note 2, post), this language is found: "It is a most diverting circumstance to hear you ask Congress what power they have to treat, after offering to enter into a treaty with them, and being refused. But I shall be glad to know by what authority you call on them for this discovery. The Count de Vergennes had a right to it, but the Earl of Carlisle certainly has not." [421]1 Mass. Hist. Soc., Warren MSS., vol. 3, p. 218; Writings (ed. Cushing), IV. 45 (dated July -, printed from the draft, showing considerable variations).

Resolution upon it. This shuts the Door and it will remain shut till they will be pleasd to open it again. Governor Johnston has acted so base a Part as to hint the offer of Bribes to the President and every other Member of Congress, as well as the General, as you will see in the printed Letter to Mr. R Morris. By this he has in my Opinion forfeited the Character of an honest Man and exposd himself to the just Contempt of the World. I hope some Strictures will be made in the News Papers on this, as well as the disrespectful and even insolent Language in the Commissioners' Letter, not so proper to be noticed by Congress. I have lately been well assured that a Bribe of ten thousand Guineas has been offerd to a Gentleman of Station and Character here. He refusd it, as you might well suppose, with proper Resentment, telling the Lady who negotiated this dirty Business, that the British King was not rich enough to purchase him.3

Mr. D. of whom I may hereafter have much to say to you, is arrivd with the Sieur Gerard. I have long ago made up my opinion of the American Commissioner, and have not yet alterd it. That of the french Minister is a sensible prudent Man, not wanting in political Finesse, and therefore not to be listend to, too implicitly. The french Squadron lies off Sandy Hook. . . . . Mr. D's political and commercial Friends, some of whom I suppose are in Boston, are disposd to give him great Eclat, on Account of the Aid afforded us in sending this Squadron. His Interest is represented as having been very forceable in procuring it, and the News Papers mention the Tokens of great Respect shown to him by the King and his Ministers at Versailes. The Truth, as I conceive it is, The total Overthrow of Burgoyne's Army was an Event which, it was thought, would produce Overtures from Britain, and France was apprehensive of our listening to Terms and compromising Matters. Hence it was, more than from any other Cause or the Interest of any Individual, that a Treaty was facilitated and agreed to; and to secure us in their Alliance and suport us in our Independence was, I suppose, their Intent in sending this Squadron as well as the Purpose of Mr. Gerard's Mission.

I have not yet answerd your Letter of the 26th of June. I declind it, until I could assure you that the Sum you wishd for, for the Use of your Department, was granted. I now have the Pleasure of acquainting you,

2 In the Pennsylvania Packet of July 21 are found: the letter of Carlisle, Clinton, Eden, and Johnstone to Congress July 11, Johnstone to Dana June 10 (with omissions), Johnstone to Reed Apr. 11, Johnstone to Morris June 16, “Ăn American (Gouverneur Morris? cf. no. 378, ante) to the Earl of Carlisle, and W. H. D. (William Henry Drayton) to the commissioners July 18. Drayton's address includes an extract of Johnstone's letter to Robert Morris and also a statement of Joseph Reed, the latter being essentially the same as that included in the "Declaration of Congress Aug. 12. These letters are in Almon's Remembrancer, 1778-1779, pp. 8-12, 19-22. See nos. 360, 373, ante; cf. no. 514, post.

3 Joseph Reed. Cf. no. 373, ante, and nos. 422, 429, post. The lady was Mrs. Elizabeth Ferguson. An account of the episode by Joseph Reed, bearing the date Sept. 8, 1779, was printed by Francis Bailey in the same year, with the title, Remarks on Governor Johnstone's Speech in Parliament; with a Collection of all the Letters and Authentic Papers relative to his Proposition, etc. It includes a statement of Mrs. Ferguson "To the Public", dated Feb. 16, 1779, relating her part in the affair.

4 Deane. See no. 401, note 2, ante.

that it is done and the Money will be orderd on as soon as it arrives here from York Town, which is every hour expected." The Marine Committee have agreed that the Navy Board shall appoint Commanders for Vessels of War under Twenty Guns.

I find Mr. Dana' an excellent Member of Congress. He is a thorough Republican, and an able Supporter of our great Cause. I am satisfied it would be for the great Benefit of our Country if you and he were to form an intimate Connection with each other. This I am the more desirous of, because I have no Idea of your being long secluded from the publick Councils. He will go home shortly.

422. JOSIAH BARTLETT TO WILLIAM WHIPPLE.1

My Dear Sir,

PHILADELPHIA July 20th. 1778.

Since I wrote you last week nothing very material has happened. Mons Girard has informed Congress that the King his master, has left it to Congress to receive him as Minister Plenipotentiary or as a simple resident; that he had two commissions and would produce that which would be most agreeable; that it was expected our Ministers at their Court would be entrusted with the same commission we should choose to receive Mr Girard in: signifying at the same time, that it was the wish of the French Court he should be received as Minister Plenipotentiary, as it would be doing more honor to these States, and would be entrusted with greater powers, which would be a great advantage at the distance the two States were from each other and he likewise requested a public audience as soon as convenient. The Congress have agreed to receive him as Minister Plenipotentiary but the adjusting the ceremonial, has taken some time and is not yet agreed on, nor the day appointed. Beside he will be rec'd in the State House which was left by the enemy in a most filthy situation and the inside torn much to pieces and is now cleansing and repairing for the purpose. . . . .

3

Last Saturday we rec'd another letter from the British Commissioners dated at New York the 11th. inst.: they seem much dissatisfied with our answer to their former letter, dispute our authority to make treaties, demand to know the nature of the treaties we have entered into, intimate that we are not the representatives of the people and threaten to submit to the people at large to judge between the Congress and them. The Congress resolved that as the Commissioners had not complied with the terms

5 See no. 409, ante, and the Journals, July 15, 16. Cf. the draft in Writings, IV. 45. 6 The marine committee's letter dated July 24, is in Paullin, Out-Letters of the Marine Committee, I. 270. Cf. no. 440, post.

7 In the draft the name is left blank. Adams is doubtless writing anent a remark of Warren in his letter of May 31 (Warren-Adams Letters, II. 13): “I suppose my Cousin will be an Influential Member."

[422] Library of Congress, Force Trans., Whipple, p. 519; Harvard Univ. Lib., Sparks MSS., no. 52, vol. II., p. 213; N. Y. Pub. Lib., Bancroft Coll., Langdon-Elwyn Papers (copy of part).

2 Cf. no. 411, note 3, ante, and nos. 438, 443, 449, post.

3 The Sparks copy has " condition". Cf. nos. 404, 411, ante.

we had laid down in our answer to their last, no answer ought to be given to this and ordered it to be published. If it comes out before the post goes out, I will try to send it for your perusal. Sundry letters rec'd by private members from the Commissioners are ordered to be printed, which will I think convince the world (if it is not already convinced) of the meanness and depravity of the Commissioners. They have not only in a polite manner in some of their letters hinted at bribes to be given to bring their purposes to pass, but have actually (by means of a woman in this City) offered ten thousand guineas to one of the members of Congress and any office he should choose, for his assistance in carrying their plan of reconciliation into effect. Probably similar offers have been made other persons who may not yet have informed of it.*

423. JOSIAH BARTLETT TO THE PRESIDENT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (MESHECH Weare).1

Hon'd Sir:

PHILADELPHIA, July 20th 1778.

I have Received your favor of the 3d Inst: This Day with the order of the Committee of Safety to Mr. Wentworth and my self to apply to Congress for Two Hundred Thousand Dollars in behalf of our State, and will take the Earliest Opportunity to lay the same before Congress.

The Enormous sums of money it takes to supply the army and navy, at the present advanced price [of] things, and the great Desire of Congress to avoid as much as possible the Emission of more bills of Credit, will I fear retard the Business, and perhaps lessen the sum granted. But I shall use my best Endeavors that the Requisition may be Complied with.2 The former Commissions and instructions for armed vessels being judged very Defective, The Congress sometime ago appointed a Committee to make a new Draft and lay it before the Congress for their approbation, but by reason of the multiplicity of Business, it has not yet been Done soon as any are printed, I will endeavor to send some forward to our state.3

as

I am sorry to inform you that Mr. Wentworth is not yet arrived here from York Town."

4 See the Journals, July 9, 16, 18, Aug. 11, 12. Cf. nos. 419-421, ante, 424, 429, 430, 432, 442, 443, post.

[423] Mass. Hist. Soc., C 81 A 37; Library of Congress, Force Trans., Weare, p. 128; Haverford College, Roberts Coll. (draft with variations); Hist. Mag., IV. 331.

2 See the Journals, Oct. 5. Cf. nos. 447, 507, post.

3 Such instructions were issued to the marine committee Mar. 5, but it cannot be discovered from the Journals when the committee made a report on the subject. Cf. no. 438, post.

The text of this paragraph as printed in Hist. Mag. varies somewhat from that here given. In that text the paragraph concludes with the following sentence: "Hope it will be soon, as many of the States are calling for them." There are several other variations. See note 5, below.

4 In a letter to President Weare July 11 Bartlett wrote: "Mr. Wentworth had a fever at York Town was pretty bad I tarried with him 4 days after the Congress adjourned left him better Thursday the 2nd Instant Have not heard from him since Hope he will be here the beginning of the week" (Library of Congress, Force Trans., Weare).

The Confederation is agreed to by all the States Except New Jersey, Deleware and Maryland, and I have signed it in Behalf of our State, but as the Power to Ratify was Given to the Delegates in Congress, I have some Doubt (as have some others) whether my signing it is a sufficient Ratification notwithstanding our appointment authorizes us severally to Represent the State in congress.5 and if Mr. Wentworth should not be able soon to come and Sign it, I Earnestly request the State to give some order about it.

Dear Sir,

424. RICHARD HENRY LEE TO THOMAS JEFFERSON."

PHILADELPHIA July 20th. 1778

With this Squadron [D'Estaing's] came Le Sieur Gerard Minister Plenipotentiary from his Most Christian Majesty. He is a sensible well bred Man, and perfectly well acquainted with the politics of Europe. From him I learn that the Court of France consider the Message of the King of England to his Parliament and their answer, upon the Count Noailles notification of our Alliance, as a denunciation of War on the part of G. Britain, and that they mean to Act accordingly, without an express declaration, leaving this last to England.

We are busied now in settling the Ceremonials for the reception of foreign Ministers of every denomination—And I assure you it is a work of no small difficulty. When this is finished, Monsr. Gerard will have his audience in Congress-I suppose this week.2.

The B. Commissioners have sent us a second letter, very silly, and equally insolent. The preliminaries insisted on by Congress (an acknowledgement of Independence or a withdrawing of their fleets and Armies) not having been either of them complied with, this letter is to receive no answer. We have detected and fully exposed Govr. Johnstone, who under the plausible guise of friendship and Virtue, has endeavored to bribe Members of Congress-The whole body indeed, as well as individual Members. The Confederation is ratified by 10 states, there remains only Jersey, Delaware and Maryland; but I suppose their obstinacy will e'er long submit to their interest, and a perfect coalition take place.*

5 The words "notwithstanding . . . . Congress" are not found in the text in Hist. Magazine. Cf. nos. 507, 560, post.

6 See the Journals, June 23, 27, and nos. 396, note 2, 403, 404,.405, ante, 424, post. [424]1 Library of Congress, Jefferson Papers, second ser., LI. 19; Letters (ed. Ballagh), I. 426; Lee, Memoir of Richard Henry Lee, II. 43.

2 Cf. nos. 408, 411, 422, ante, and no. 438, post.

8 See no. 422, note 4, ante.

4 Cf. nos. 396, note 2, 403-405, 410, 417, 423, ante, 456, 560, 567, 599, 612, 628, 630, 638, post. Strictly speaking, North Carolina and Georgia had not completed their acts of ratification, as the articles were not signed by the delegates of those states until July 21 and 24 respectively. For a movement by Virginia to confederate without Maryland, see a letter from the North Carolina delegates to Governor Caswell May 20, 1779, and one from the Virginia delegates to Governor Jefferson, May 22, in vol. IV.