To George Washington from Rufus King, 6 February 1797
From Rufus King
London feb. 6. 1797
Sir
I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 22d of december. Count Rumford being in Bavaria, I have requested the minister of that Country at this court, to forward your Letter to the count with his next dispatch1—I have delivered to Mr Fulton the letter for him, and as soon as Sir John Sinclair returns to Town I will also deliver the Letter addressed to him2—I have before sent two copies of the Gazette containing the Publication of the Chancery order that you enclosed to me for that purpose, by this Opportunity I transmit a third3—our affairs here relative to the Execution of the Treaty are in a good train; some delays and Difficulties have existed, but they exist no longer, and the Commissioners are going on in a satisfactory manner4—In the conferences that I have had with this Government upon these and other Topics, I have found them candid and impartial in as great a degree as I had expected—Several important points not settled by the Treaty still remain open; and both time and patience are requisite even now to form a safe Opinion how far we shall in the End be able to agree—I think I am not deceived in supposing that a sincere and general desire exists in this Country to live in harmony and friendship with us; this disposition is however fettered and enfeebled by Prejudices and Opinions connected with the national commerce and marine, which make the government slow and cautious in every Step which has a reference to these important concerns.
Some uneasiness has been manifest here for some few weeks past concerning the situation of the British Territories in the E. Indies—It is not very easy to obtain good information upon this Subject, but there is reason to believe that much disaffection exists among the native troops in the Companys Service—the Establishment is understood to be 20000 Europeans, and 60 000 native or Black Troops; whatever the origin of these discontents may have been, and they are supposed to be of several years standing, they have lately risen to such a pitch that the local Government of India has been compelled first to temporise, and then, as is commonly the consequence, to submit to measures they were unable to prevent—Lord Cornwallis is suddenly to be sent to Bengal, and with such extensive powers as it is hoped will enable him to restore tranquillity—what may be his Success my want of accurate information forbids me to conjecture.5
From the continent as a Balance to the Glory acquired by the arch Duke, we have just received the accounts of the astonishing victories lately gained by Buonaparte in Lombardy—the immediate consequences must be the fall of Mantua and the easy subjugation of the South of Italy.6
Whether these victories or any recent information from america have had any influence with the Directory respecting the Situation of General Pinckney remains to be ascertained, but I have this morning been informed by Letters from Paris that on the 28 ulto the General was ordered by the Directory to leave Paris, and that he intended to depart on the 31st for Amsterdam7—With perfect Respect I have the Honor to be, Sir yr ob. & faithful Ser.
Rufus King
ALS, DLC:GW; LB, NHi: Rufus King Papers. GW replied to King in a letter of 25 June 1797 (see 1:214–15).
1. GW’s letter to Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, dated 22 Dec. 1796, was enclosed with GW’s letter to King of the same date (see n.3 to that document). Sigismund, Graf von Haslang served as the Bavarian minister to Great Britain from October 1785 to October 1800 (see , 3:22).
2. On 4 Feb., King delivered the letter of 14 Dec. 1796 from GW to engineer Robert Fulton (see Fulton to GW, 12 Sept. 1796, n.2; and Fulton to GW, 5 Feb. 1797). GW had written British agriculturist John Sinclair in letters of 10 and 11 Dec. 1796, and likely transmitted both of those missives with his letter to King of 22 Dec. (see n.2 to that document).
3. In mid-December, King had sent GW at least one of the several issues of The London Gazette that published the decree of 4 June 1796 by the Virginia High Court of Chancery. That decree related to the Thomas Colvill estate. The issue of The London Gazette enclosed with this document has not been found. For GW’s request for assistance from King in getting the court’s decree published in a London newspaper, see King to GW, 12 Nov. 1796, and n.1 to that document.
4. Various factors contributed to the delayed implementation of the 1794 Jay Treaty between Britain and the United States. One difficulty stemmed from jurisdictional issues related to the commission appointed under the treaty’s Article VII to settle merchants’ claims for damages from ship seizures. On this date, King wrote Alexander Hamilton from London: “In the main our affairs here are in a good train, the treaty I think will be fairly and fully executed. You remember the opinion given by certain Gentlemen upon the Construction of the 7th Article of the Treaty. We have experienced embarrassments on this subject, and for several weeks the business of the Commissioners was entirely at a stand; the advocate of this Government having denied their Power to examine any question that had been decided by the H. Court of Appeals. The question was delicate; the pride, and as it was alledged, the importance of men of Rank and influence were almost enlisted against our pretensions … with moderation, caution and a conciliatory mode of proceeding these difficulties have been entirely removed, and all is now proceeding in a satisfactory manner” (, 2:141–43). For more on the commission, see Timothy Pickering to GW, 15 Oct. 1796 and 27 Jan. 1797. For the activities of the commissions required under Articles V and VI of the Jay Treaty, and for Britain’s delays in evacuating the western posts, as required by Article II, see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 7 Dec. 1796, and notes 6 through 9 to that document.
5. Officers of the British East India Company’s army in Bengal were on the brink of mutiny in 1795 and 1796, and threatened to capture John Shore, the governor-general of Bengal from 1793 to 1798. Factors behind the looming revolt included insufficient pay, too few opportunities for promotion, Charles Cornwallis’s proposal to transfer the company’s military forces to the Crown, the Company’s officers’ frustration over their failure to attain the same rank held by their counterparts in the British army holding similar commands, and rumors that British officials intended to eliminate corruption from the company’s army. Regulations were issued, and Shore made concessions in the areas of pay and promotions. These pecuniary allowances were viewed by some officials as weakness; as a result, Prime Minister William Pitt and others planned to have Cornwallis, who had been governor-general of Bengal from 1786 to 1793, retake political control there. However, the concessions successfully quelled the unrest, and Cornwallis never embarked for Bengal, despite being sworn in as governor-general in February 1797. Shore remained in command until 1798 (see Sir Penderel Moon, The British Conquest and Dominion of India [London, 1989], 268–70).
The London Chronicle for 19–21 Jan. 1797 printed the following report: “The advices by the last regular ships mentioned, that discontents still continued to prevail among the army in Bengal. … it is certain that a spirit of mutiny has again shewn itself among the Company’s troops up the country, at … distant posts from the seat of government; and it has produced such remonstrances to the Supreme Board, that Sir John Shore has thought it prudent acquiesce to some of the demands. It is said that the principal source of jealousy arises from the number of King’s troops in India.” The Evening Mail (London) for 25–27 Jan. 1797 announced plans to reappoint Cornwallis as governor-general in India “for the purpose of endeavouring by his presence and personal influence to restore tranquillity among the Company’s forces there.”
6. The French had a series of victories against Austrian forces in northern Italy in January and February 1797. Napoleon Bonaparte, commander in chief of France’s Army of Italy, defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Rivoli on 14–15 Jan. 1797. His forces again were victorious days later during the French sieges of the Austrian garrison at Mantua in the Lombardy region (see Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to GW, 25–28 Jan., and n.10).
Archduke Charles (Karl) Louis of Austria (1771–1847), the third son of Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II, was appointed in 1796 as commander in chief of the Austrian Rhine army and field marshal general of the Holy Roman Empire.
On 5 March 1797, King wrote Secretary of State Timothy Pickering from London in part: “The unexpected and total defeat of the Austrians in Lombardy, followed by the fall of Mantua, to which the Treasure of the neighbouring country had been removed for safety, produced a serious despondency in the public Opinion of this country” (, 2:150–52).
7. The letters from Paris have not been identified, but they evidently pertained to the Directory’s refusal to recognize Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as the U.S. minister to France. For Pinckney’s forced expulsion from France, see Pinckney to GW, 25–28 Jan. 1797; see also GW to Pinckney, 5 Dec. 1796.
The General Evening Post (London) for 4–7 Feb. 1797 printed an item headed “London,” which reads: “By the letters from Paris … we learn that Mr. Pinckney, the American minister, … intimated his intention of quitting France, and of going to reside in Amsterdam, until he should know the pleasure of his Government as to his future conduct.”