John Jay Papers
You searched for: tin with filters: Period="Confederation Period"
sorted by: date (ascending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-03-02-0263

To John Jay from Benjamin Vaughan, 5 August 1784

From Benjamin Vaughan

London, Augt. 5th., 1784.

My dear sir,

I wrote you lately to inform you that a roof-covering of pure tin would be equally expensive with copper. I added, that it was customary in some places, to cover with [black?] tin plates supported on iron plates within, & ^to^ lay a coat of paint or pitch over the whole.— But I have since seen some cast-iron covering, described in the book inclosed.1 I understand that this ^last^ practice is not uncommon in Russia. The iron in the first specimens ^here^ was painted: a species of varnish has since been used, composed they say, of oil chiefly, to prevent the rusting, which you know is much slower in cast, than other iron.— As these seem the chief coverings offered by the metals, & you reject wood, what is your opinion of slate, which is very good both here & in France?

By this opportunity I send you a copy of the Report of Privy Council, as far as it was laid before the House of Commons.2 In itself it is so excessively absurd, that I think it is intended only for uses, which uses also are absurd. They allow that 65 out of 75 vessels lately arriving at Kingston, loaded in the United States; & yet would have us beleive, that the islands can dispense with what the United States furnish, though the Loyal Colonies appear only to have sent two vessels out of the 75; the rest ^of the ten excepted^ coming from these realms.— I believe that orders subsist, to connive at any attempts made to relieve great distress in the islands; and accordingly, some vessels pretend leaks, others to be British, & so get their cargos discharged in the islands.

My opinion of politics is the same that it was at Dover. Subsequent events have more & more confirmed my opinion.

I see neither sense nor boldness enough to set the Irish to rights.

There will be no liberality respecting French & Spanish commerce.

There is peace in India, which is fortunate. I wish it may be lasting. The late India bill that appeared ^from Mr: Pitt^ was the most crude school-boy performance, I recollect to have seen, as a public proposition & second essay, & after several months consideration given to it.3 As amended, it is still bad, and the whole thing ill-conceived, and without any ruling state principles in it.— On India subjects I believe I have even differed from you.— One good will result from the bill, which is that offences ^have^ at least become dangerous in India, & ^it will be always suspected that they now^ may be punished. It is a very possible thing that these gentry will hereafter hereafter think of declining to return to England, and live in France or America; or else set up for themselves in India, which considering the daily improvements of the seapoys is a very practicable thing.

By this opportunity I send you the West India pamphlet & petition; both drawn up by Atkinson; the former wanting politics, the latter point ^& spirit^.4— You know this & every thing else has been disregarded hitherto among us.

Mrs Vaughan & my little ones are very well.— Every body here joins in respectful salutes to yourself & Mrs Jay, with some anxiety to hear of your safe arrival, & the health of your little child.

I hope you will inspire your countrymen with a little more policy, justice, union, frugality, & public spirit, than we have seen among them for these last two years. I own they often make me melancholy for them & human nature. I am, my dear sir, yours ever respectfully & faithfully

Benj Vaughan

ALS, NNC (EJ: 8139). Endorsed: “ . . . and. 25 Nov. 1784”.

1Neither Vaughan’s letter nor the book has been found.

2Report not found. On the creation and role of a Privy Council committee on trade, which reported in favor of maintaining the Navigation Acts in June 1784, see Harlow, Second British Empire description begins Vincent T. Harlow, Founding of the Second British Empire, 1763–93 (2 vols.; London and New York, 1952–64) description ends , 2: 235–37, 254–57; Bell, “British Commercial Policy,” description begins Herbert C. Bell, “British Commercial Policy in the West Indies, 1783–93,” The English Historical Review 31, no. 123 (July 1916): 429–41. description ends 438–39.

3The India bill of 14 Jan. 1784 was designed to take control of civil, military, and revenue functions in India from the East India Company and put it in the hands of a standing committee of the Privy Council. Although weakened by supporters of the India interest, the India Act of 1784 did give the government increased control over the operations of the East India Company. On the act, see Harlow, Second British Empire description begins Vincent T. Harlow, Founding of the Second British Empire, 1763–93 (2 vols.; London and New York, 1952–64) description ends , 2: 141–42, 151–55; and C. H. Philips, “The New East India Board and the Court of Directors, 1784,” English Historical Review 55, no. 219 (July 1940): 438–46.

4Neither the pamphlet nor the petition has been found. On the West Indies planters’ protests of the commercial restrictions imposed on the United States-West Indies trade, see PHL description begins Philip M. Hamer et al., eds., The Papers of Henry Laurens (16 vols.; Columbia, S.C., 1968–2003) description ends , 16: 398, 400–401, 406–7, 412, 415, 423; Selwyn H. H. Carrington, The Sugar Industry and the Abolition of Slave Trade, 1775–1810 (Gainesville, Fla., 2002), 67–70; and Bell, “British Commercial Policy,” description begins Herbert C. Bell, “British Commercial Policy in the West Indies, 1783–93,” The English Historical Review 31, no. 123 (July 1916): 429–41. description ends 429–41. Richard Atkinson (d. 1785) was a prominent British merchant, purveyor of rum to British troops in America, and member of the East India Board. See Holden Furber, “The East India Directors in 1784,” Journal of Modern History 5, no. 4 (December 1933): 479–95.

Index Entries