John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Jay, John" AND Period="Revolutionary War"
sorted by: date (descending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-03-02-0152

American Peace Commissioners’ Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, [c. 1 July 1783]

American Peace Commissioners’ Propositions
for the Definitive Treaty

[Paris, c. 1 July 1783]1

Propositions made to Mr Hartley for the Definitive Treaty.2

1st. To omit in the Definitive Treaty, the Exception at the End ^of the 2d:^ Article of the Provisional Treaty: viz: these Words, “Excepting such Islands as now are, or heretofore have been within the Limits of the said Province of Nova Scotia.”—3

Article

2dly. The Prisoners made respectively by the Arms of his Britannic Majesty & the United States, by Land & by Sea, not already set at Liberty, shall be restor’d reciprocally & bona fide immediately after the Ratification of the definitive Treaty, without Ransom, and on paying the Debts they may have contracted during their Captivity; and each Party shall respectively reimburse the Sums which shall have been advanced for the Subsistence and maintenance of the Prisoners by the sovereign of the Country where they shall have been detained, according to the Receipts and attested Accounts, and other authentic Titles which shall be produced on each side.4

Article

3dly. His Britannic Majesty shall employ his good Offices and Interpositions with the King or Emperor of Morocco or Fez, the Regencies of Algier Tunis & Tripoli, or with any of them, and also with every other Prince, State or Power of the Coast of Barbary in Africa, and the Subjects of the said King, Emperor, States & Powers & each of them, in order to provide as fully & efficaciously as possible for the Benefit, Conveniency and safety of the said United States, and each of them, their Subjects, People and Inhabitants, and their Vessels and Effects, against all Violence, Insult, Attacks, or Depredations on the Part of the said Princes & States of Barbary or their Subjects.5

Article

4thly: If War should hereafter arise between Great Britain and the United States, which God forbid, the Merchants of either Country then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain Nine Months, to collect their Debts & settle their Affairs, and may depart freely carrying off all their Effects without molestation or Hindrance. And all Fishermen, all Cultivators of the Earth, and all Artisans & Manufacturers unarmed & inhabiting unfortified Towns, Villages, or Places, who labour for the Common Subsistence & Benefit of Mankind, and peaceably follow their respective Employments, shall be allowed to continue the same, and shall not be molested by the armed force of the Enemy, in whose Power by the Event of the War they may happen to fall; but if any thing is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable Price. And all Merchants or Traders with their unarmed Vessels employed in Commerce, exchanging the Products of different Places and thereby rendring the Necessaries, Conveniences and Comforts of Human Life more easy to obtain and more general, shall be allowed to pass freely unmolested. And neither of the Powers, Parties to this Treaty, shall grant or issue any Commission to any private armed Vessel impowering them to take or destroy such trading Ships, or interrupt such Commerce.6

Article

[5thly.] And in Case either of the contracting Parties shall happen to be engaged in War with any other Nation, it is farther agreed in order to prevent all the Difficulties and misunderstandings that usually arise, respecting the Merchandize heretofore called Contraband, such as Arms, Ammunition, & Military Stores of all Kinds, that no such Articles carrying by the Ships or Subjects of one of the Parties to the Enemies of the other, shall on any Acct be deemed Contraband, so as to induce Confiscation and a Loss of Property to Individuals. Nevertheless it shall be lawful to stop such Ships & detain them for such length of Time as the Captors may think necessary to prevent the Inconvenience or Damage that might ensue from their proceeding on their Voyage, paying however a reasonable Compensation for the Loss such Arrest shall occasion to the Proprietors. And it shall farther be allowed to use in the Service of the Captors, the whole or any Part of the Military Stores so detained, paying to the Owners the full Value of the same.—7

Article

6thly: The Citizens and Inhabitants of the said United States or any of them, may take and hold real Estates in Great Britain, Ireland, or any other of his Majestys Dominions, and dispose by Testament, Donation or otherwise; of their Property real or Personal, in favour of such Persons as to them shall seem fit; and their Heirs, Citizens of the said United States or any of them, residing in the British Dominions or elsewhere, may succeed them Ab intestato, without being obliged to obtain Letters of Naturalization.

The Subjects of his Britannic Majesty, shall enjoy on their Part, in all the Dominions of the said United States, an entire & perfect Reciprocity, relative to the Stipulations contained in the present Article.—8

Article

7thly: The Ratification of the Definitive Treaty shall be expedited in good & due Form, and exchanged in the Space of Five Months, (or sooner if it can be done) to be computed from the Day of the Signature.9

8thly: Query. Whether the King of Great Britain will admit the Citizens of the United States to cut Log-Wood in the District allotted to his Majesty by Spain, and on what Terms?—10

C, DNA: PCC, item 85, 330–37; Tr, DNA: PCC, item 104, 4: 437–42.

1Hartley enclosed these proposals in his letter to Fox of 1 July 1783. The proposals, with some additions, were restated in the form of articles in a second submission to Hartley on 6 Aug. 1783. Hartley commented that there was little substantial difference between the two versions, except for a great deal of “preambulary recital” drawn up by JA. He enclosed the revised proposal in a letter to Fox of 6 Aug. See Giunta, Emerging Nation description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends , 1: 866–70, 905–13.

2On additional articles suggested for inclusion in the definitive treaty by the American peace commissioners, see David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty of 19 June, and the American Peace Commissioners’ Answers to David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty of 29 June 1783, both above; and “Signing the Definitive Treaty” (editorial note) on pp. 462–67.

3The first, second, third, and sixth articles in the revised proposal for the definitive treaty submitted to Hartley by the American commissioners on 6 Aug. 1783 were virtually identical to those articles of the preliminary treaty.

4This proposal became article 9 in the revised proposals. See Giunta, Emerging Nation, description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends 1: 909–10.

5This article became article 10 in the version submitted to Hartley on 6 Aug. Ibid., 910.

6This article became article 11. Ibid. In his letter to Fox of 1 July, Hartley noted that he was enclosing explanatory papers from BF on this article, which he considered amounted to “a Proposition of perpetual alliance” and suggested that it went beyond the scope of a treaty designed to put a definitive end to the late war. He described it as “novel” and “leading to very deep and important consequences” and recommended that consideration be postponed so as not to delay the definitive treaty. He argued that Britain should “keep herself open for every degree of reunion & reconnexion which time & prudence may bring,” and described the optimum future relationship of the two nations as an alliance that was “not only natural but exclusively so.” For background to this proposal, see the notes to Hartley’s proposals of 19 June 1783, above; “Signing the Definitive Treaty” (editorial note), on pp. 462–67; and Hartley’s letters to Fox of 1 and 31 July 1783, Giunta, Emerging Nation description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends , 1: 866–70, 902.

7This became article 12. Ibid., 910–11.

8This became article 13. Ibid., 911. In his letter of 1 July, Hartley described this article as a modification of the 10th Article of the “proposed supplemental Treaty” he had originally brought from England, for which see Giunta, Emerging Nation description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends , 2: 94–95. He judged it “within the Scope of the definitive Treaty.”

9An expanded version of this article, without number, specifying that the exchange of ratifications would take place either in Philadelphia or London sometime in the future, appears in the revised proposal. Ibid., 1: 913.

10This query became article 14 in the revised proposal. Ibid., 911. It provided that the king should allow citizens of the United States to cut logwood, “as heretofore,” in territory opened to British subjects by the treaty with Spain on condition that they sent what they cut only to Britain or Ireland. For Congress’s hope that Spain would concede logging privileges in Honduras to the United States, see the President of Congress to JJ, 16 Oct. 1779 JJSP, 1 description begins Elizabeth M. Nuxoll et al., eds., The Selected Papers of John Jay: Volume 1, 1760–1779 (Charlottesville, Va., 2010) description ends : 715n11, 717, 718n5.

The draft definitive treaty the American commissioners submitted to Hartley on 6 Aug. contained some additional proposals. In response to letters from RRL and Elias Boudinot, the American commissioners suggested amending article 4 of the preliminary treaty to postpone the time before which British creditors could seek judgments against American debtors. See the American Peace Commissioners to Hartley, 17 July, and to RRL, 18 July 1783, both below. For revisions to article 5, which dealt with compensation to both Loyalists and American citizens, see the notes to Hartley’s proposals of 19 June 1783, above. Reports that the British had violated article 7 by carrying offslaves to whom they had promised freedom led to revisions in the August proposal requiring compensation for the loss. Article 8 provided for free navigation of both the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence rivers by both British subjects and American citizens. Two other BF suggestions would have outlawed privateering and ended the term “contraband” (article 12). A Hartley proposal would have entitled citizens of either country to own or acquire property in the other under the laws of inheritance (article 13). Article 16 provided that residents or merchants situated on the water line of division might remain in place unless they received notice from Congress to remove themselves. Article 17 allowed British forces to remain at posts contiguous to the water line until Congress gave them notice to move and replaced them with American troops assigned to guard the lives and properties of residents there. Article 18 required Britain to evacuate New York and Penobscot within three months of the signing of the treaty, and article 19 provided for the return of vessels captured after 3 Feb. 1783. Giunta, Emerging Nation description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends , 1: 909–13.

Index Entries