1. When this committee was named by Congress on 3 September, its members were Duane, Randolph, and Mathews. They were directed to report upon the papers dealing with John Laurens’ mission to France (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 928–29, 940; Virginia Delegates to Nelson, 28 August, n. 5, and 4 September 1781, and n. 4). On 19 September Congress added Boudinot and Sherman to the committee and further instructed it to confer with La Luzerne, who wished to impart to a committee of Congress the contents of “despatches from his Court” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 975–76). JM entered and crossed out in his notes: “Sept. 19. 81. Boudinot & Sherman added Come. to communicate with Minister of Fr.”

2. JM’s hasty note really meant that this committee, after conferring with La Luzerne about dispatches to him of 19 April, 11 May, 29 June, and 27 July 1781 from Vergennes, reported to Congress on the portions of those letters relating primarily to diplomatic affairs. This report emphasized chiefly the devotion of the court of France to the interests of the United States; the refusal of Great Britain to admit envoys of the United States to the negotiations of peace suggested by the courts of St. Petersburg and Vienna as mediators; the determination of the court of Versailles not to conclude a peace until London should recognize the independence of the United States; the unlikelihood that Great Britain would extend that recognition until she had been decisively defeated on the battlefield, and hence “the most pressing necessity to take more effectual measures than heretofore to drive the British out of this continent”; the inadvisability of Francis Dana’s appearing at the court of St. Petersburg in the official role of envoy from the United States before the Tsarina should acknowledge American independence; the indiscretion of John Adams in insisting that he would “display his character as a minister of the United States in Holland” when it was virtually certain that his “application would have no favourable issue”; and the expectation of Versailles, upon hearing the happy news of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, that Congress’ “orders” would be “fully and exactly executed” by the states and that the states would “take advantage of the resources of their country to give to American patriotism new energy” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 986–93). On 21 September Congress took no action upon the report, evidently awaiting a second one from the committee, based upon a dispatch of 14 May from Vergennes to La Luzerne and the letters mentioned above, excepting that of 29 June. This further report, laid before Congress on 24 September, centered upon the financial relations of the United States with France. Congress thereupon sent both reports back to the committee (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 998–1006). Neither the above activities of the committee, nor those later recorded in the journal for 15 and 18 October, appear to have directly involved JM (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 1052–53, 1063–64).