From John Jay to Benjamin Vaughan, 28 March 1783
To Benjamin Vaughan
Paris 28 March 1783
Dear Sir
Whence came the Idea that the moment a Minister loses a Question in Parli^a^ment, he must be disp^l^aced?1 That Kings should adopt such a maxim is it not very unnatural, but that a free Parliamt. should think an influential Dictator over them necessary to the Governmt. of the kingdom seems rather a new opinion. Parhaps it arose gradually from the Practices of the Court, and the Decay of public Virtue during the last hundred Years.2
So far as the Peace respects France and America, I am persuaded that it was wise in Britain to conclude it. The Cessions to France are not in my opinion extravagant, and the Termes settled with America by removing all Causes of future Variance, certainly lead to Conciliation and Friendship.3
It appears to me that the Discussion of this Subject might have been more ample and Satisfactory. Why was not Parliament told of our offers as to Commerce and the mutual Navigation of the american Waters? The word Reciprocity would not then have been deemed so nugatory.4
We have recd. particular Instructions on the Business of Commerce,5 and Mr Fitzherbert has been informed of our Readiness to add to the provisional Treaty an article for opening and regulating the Trade between us on Principles as liberal and reciprocal as you please.6 What more can be said or done? Mr Pit’s Bill was a good one, a wise one, and one that will forever do Honor to the Extent and Policy of his Views, and to those of the administration under ^whose^ auspices it was formed.7 For my own part however I think that America need not be exceedin^g^ly anxious about the Matter; for it will be in our power to derive from a navigation act of our own, full as many advantages as we should lose by the Restrictions of your Laws.
The Objections drawn from your Treaties with Russia &c. appears to me weak, and have been answered—but why not give them similar Terms on similar Conditions— They furnish you with raw materials chiefly, and you them with manufactures only—the Gain therefore must be yours—with respect to Carriage and navigation, they stand in a very different Predicament from us.8
As to the Tories who have recd. Damage ^from^ us, why so much noise about them and so little said or thought of Whigs who have suffered ten times as much from those same Tories, not to mention the Desolations of an unjust and licentious War— We forget our ^sufferers and^ sufferings, and even agree to recommend to favor a set of Men of whom very few would consider the having of their Deserts in ^the^ light of a Blessing— How does Reciprocity stand in this account?
Some it seems think that New York should ^be^ retained as a rod to drive us ^on^ in this business of the Tories—strange that the Idea of driving us should still be entertained. I pledge myself to you that should such a Design be adopted and become apparent the Refugees will get Nothing, and the progress of Reconci^li^ation will be as slow as the warmest Gallican could wish.
I hear there is to be a Congress here—that is, that Britain and France have requested the two imperial Courts to send mediatorial Embassadors here for the Purpose of being Witnesses to the Execution of the definitive Treaties—a very important Errand no Doubt, and very complimentary to those Sovereigns. Is it probable that a Congress should be called for that poor, single Simple purpose? Why your Court agreed to it, is hard to concieve—
I have written to my Countrymen that L. Shelburne’s System respecting them appeared to me to be liberal and conciliatory, but that that his Hesitations about avowing the Acknowledgmt. of our Independence discouraged extensive Confidence without further Facts—9 I always think it best to be candid and explicit— I hope we shall soon be in the full Possession of our Country and of Peace, and as we expect to have no further Cause of Quarrel with G. Britain, we can have no Inducement to wish or to do her an Injury. on
the Contrary we may become as sensible to her future good offices as we have been of ^to^ her ^former^ evil ones. a little good natured wisdom often does more good in politics than much slippery Craft. by the former the French acquired the Esteem and Gratitude of America and by the latter their Minister is impairing it—
Thus I have written you a hasty letter—since the Rect. of your’s10 untill this moment, I have been promising myself the Pleasure of Paying you a visit— I now find it probable that I shall be detained here some time longer.
Mrs Jay charges me to say civil things ^to^ you— You are a Favorite of her’s and deserve to be so of every body— Our little Girl is well and when able to speake shall be taught to send you her Compliments. I shall reply to certain parts of your letter in my next. at present I am pressed for Time. I must not however forget my worthy Friend Mr Oswald—he deserves well of his Country, and Posterity will not only approuve but commend his Conduct. assure ^him^ of ^my^ Esteem and Attachment, and believe me to be with the best wishes for the Health and Happiness of Mrs. Vaughan and your little Daughter. Dear Sir Your Sincere and afft Friend
Benjn. Vaughan Esqr.
FC, in Peter Jay Munro’s hand, with corrections in JJ’s hand, NNC (EJ: 8129). Endorsed: “ . . . copied by P.J.M. from / the original & cord by me”.
1. On Shelburne’s resignation, offered on 24 Feb. but not accepted by the king until a month later, see , 39: 208. On the new ministry headed by Lord North and Charles James Fox, see the editorial notes “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” and “Signing the Definitive Treaty” on pp. 373–86, 462–67.
2. On the political turmoil in Britain, see Matthew Ridley to Gouverneur Morris, 24 Mar. 1783, , 7: 628.
3. For JA’s concurrence in this opinion, see , 14: 328–30.
4. Article 4 of the first draft of the preliminary articles (5–8 Oct. 1782, above) provided that Anglo-American trade would return to prewar status. It had been dropped by the British cabinet and did not appear in the preliminaries. The American Peace Commissioners, in their letter to Fitzherbert of 20 Feb. 1783, above, offered commercial reciprocity. Vaughan actively advocated establishing Anglo-American trade on a liberal footing. For a continuation of the discussion on commercial reciprocity, see David Hartley to the American Peace Commissioners, 14 June 1783, below.
5. Questions about whether the American peace commissioners had powers to negotiate a treaty of commerce were raised when a London newspaper published Congress’s July 1781 revocation of powers granted to JA in response to pressure from Vergennes. See , 16: 175; and , 36–37. For the commissioners’ instructions, see the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to JJ, 12 Sept. 1782, above, in which RRL had stressed the importance of obtaining access to the West Indies trade; and Congress’s resolution of 31 Dec. 1782 (, 23: 838), carried by the Emeraude, which reached Paris in February 1783. Congress authorized its ministers to enter into commercial stipulations with Great Britain to obtain direct trade with “all parts of the British dominions and possessions” in “like manner” as “all parts of the United States may be open to British subjects.” The commissioners evidently sent a copy of their commission to London by the end of April 1783. See the editorial note “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” on pp. 375, 383n13.
On 1 May 1783 Congress granted the three commissioners discretionary powers to negotiate a temporary trade agreement if difficulties arose in reaching a full-fledged commercial treaty. These instructions, however, did not reach BF until early September, after the Definitive Treaty had been signed. On 29 Oct. 1783 Congress authorized its ministers plenipotentiary abroad to negotiate trade treaties with European powers generally. See , 38: 537; , 7: 264 and, for the instructions, , 2: 108–9.
6. On the discussions with Fitzherbert, see the editorial note “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” on pp. 373–74.
7. On Pitt’s bill, the American Intercourse Act, see the editorial note “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” on pp. 374, 382n10.
8. For Edmund Burke’s opinion that a treaty that gave extraordinary advantages to the United States might violate Britain’s treaties with “northern nations”, while the American Intercourse Act would not, see , 14: 395.
9. See, for example, JJ to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 17 Nov. 1782, above. On Shelburne’s assertion, in the face of Parliamentary opposition to the peace treaty with the United States, that Britain’s recognition of American independence had not been unconditional, and that it could be revoked if France did not agree to peace with Britain, see , 413–16.
10. Letter not found.