1. On the objections and the commission, see John Jay’s Draft of a Proposed Alteration in Oswald’s Commission, 9 Sept., and JJ to Oswald, 10 Sept., and to JA, 28 Sept., all above; and Oswald to Townshend, 2 Oct., and JJ to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 17 Nov. 1782, below. The present letter was carried to America by General du Portail and was submitted to Congress on 16 Dec. See the 15 Oct. 1782 entry of John Jay’s Diary of the Peacemaking, below; and “Tensions between Allies over the Peace Negotiations” (editorial note) on pp. 300–302.

2. Vergennes reported the arrival of the new commission, which he described as “perfectly in order according to the desire and the satisfaction of Congress,” in a letter to La Luzerne of 14 Oct. 1782. He noted further that, while he had been assured that substantive negotiations were under way, he knew nothing about them, as JJ and BF held themselves “in the most absolute reserve” in his regard and had not even given him a copy of the new commission. He then recommended that La Luzerne inform RRL of this so he could, without reproaching them, “remind the two American plenipotentiaries of the tenor of their instructions.” 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: 617.

In his letter to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of 6 Nov., JA remarked that Shelburne had been “compelled to acknowledge American independence because the Rockingham administration had resolved upon it, and Carleton and Digby’s letter to General Washington had made known that resolution to the world; because the nation demanded that negociations should be opened with the American ministers, and they refused to speak or hear until their independence was acknowledged unequivocally and without conditions; because Messrs. Fox and Burke had resigned their offices, pointedly, on account of the refusal of the king and my Lord Shelburne to make such an acknowledgement; and these eloquent senators were waiting only for the session of Parliament to attack his lordship on this point.” RDC description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1889) description ends , 5: 855–56.

3. RRL submitted this note to Congress on 16 Dec. 1782. LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 19: 488, 489n.