David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, 19 June 1783

David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty

[Paris, 19 June 1783]1

1. That Lands belonging to Persons of any Description which have not actually been sold shall be restored to the old possessors without Price2
2. That an equal and free Participation of the different carrying Places, and the Navigation of all the Lakes and Rivers of that Country thro’ which the Water Line of Division passes between Canada and the United States shall be enjoyed fully and uninterruptedly by both Parties3
3. That in any such Places within the Boundaries assigned generally to the American States as are adjoining to the Water Line of Division, and which are not specifically under the Dominion of any one State, all Persons at present resident, or having Possessions or Occupations as Merchants or otherwise may remain in peaceable Enjoyment of all civil Rights, and in pursuit of their respective occupations.4
4. That in any such Places adjoining to the Water Line of Division as may be under the specific Dominion of any particular State, all Persons at present resident or having Possessions or Occupations untill they shall receive Notice of removal from the State to which any such Place may appertain; and that upon any such Notice of Removal a Term of three Years shall be allowed for selling or withdrawing their valuable Effects, and for settling their affairs5
5. That his Britannic Majesty’s Forces not exceeding in Number, may continue in the Posts now occupied by them contiguous to the Water Line for the Term of three Years, for the Purpose of securing the Lives, Property and Peace of any Persons settled in that Country against the Invasion or Ravages of the Neighbouring Indian Nations who may be suspected of retaining Resentments in consequence of the late War.6
6. That no Tax or Impost whatsoever shall be laid on any Articles of Commerce passing or repassing thro’ the Country, but that the Trade may be left entirely open for the Benefit of all Parties interested therein.—7

C, undated, DNA: PCC, item 85, 322–23. Endorsed: “Mr Hartley’s / C Propositions / & our Ansrs”. Additional texts listed in PJA description begins Robert J. Taylor, Gregg L. Lint, et al., eds., Papers of John Adams (16 vols. to date; Cambridge, Mass., 1977–) description ends , 15: 43–44. Enclosed in American Peace Commissioners to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 27 July, below.

1. JA (Diary, 3: 139) noted that he had received these undated propositions from Hartley on 19 June. On pressure from British fur traders for protection of their interests which had been threatened by the boundary provisions in the preliminary treaty, see Hartley to Fox, 3 May 1783, in 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: 106; and 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 , 1: 463–65. For the reply, see the American Peace Commissioners’ Answers to David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, 29 June 1783, below. On negotiations for a commercial treaty, see the editorial note “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” on pp. 373–86. None of these proposals were incorporated into the definitive treaty, on which see the editorial note “Signing the Definitive Treaty” on pp. 462–67.

2. British dissatisfaction with the fact that the preliminary treaty had not provided for compensation for Loyalists had been one of the principle irritants that contributed to Shelburne’s resignation. See the editorial note “Signing the Definitive Treaty” on pp. 462–67. In their reply to Hartley of 29 June below, the commissioners indicated that they could offer nothing beyond what had been specified in articles 5 and 6 of the preliminary treaty. In their proposal of 6 Aug., however, they reverted to a proposition initially made by BF that linked compensation for Loyalists to compensation for Americans whose property had been destroyed by British forces. That idea had been immediately rejected by the British. The 6 Aug. proposal suggested that commissioners be appointed to create offsetting accounts of the appraised value of all property seized, confiscated, or destroyed belonging to either to Loyalists and Americans. The party that suffered least would then be liable for paying the value of the balance in money. 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: 908–9.

3. For modifications made by the commissioners, see the American Peace Commissioners’ Answers to David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, 29 June 1783, below. For Hartley’s opinion that no nation other than Britain could claim free use of waterways “as before the war” under most favored nation status, see his letter to Fox of 1 July 1783 in 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: 868–69.

4. This proposal modifies one initially drafted by BF for the preliminary articles of 30 Nov. 1782 but not included. He had discussed the topic with both Benjamin Vaughan and David Hartley as early as July 1782. See the editorial note “Signing the Definitive Treaty” on pp. 462–67; and PBF description begins William B. Willcox et al., eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (40 vols. to date; New Haven, Conn., 1959–) description ends , 37: 609–10, 618–20; 38: 433–34, 444–45, 584. For the 6 Aug. 1783 version (article 16) of this proposition, 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: 912.

5. The commissioners’ response of 29 June lowered the term of years from three to two.

6. The commissioners’ response of 29 June specified that British troops might remain until given notice by Congress. This was repeated virtually unaltered in the commissioners’ proposal (article 17) of 6 Aug. 1783. 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: 912.

7. The commissioners’ response of 29 June indicated that this article should be dealt with in a treaty of commerce.

Index Entries

You Are Looking At

Source Project: Jay Papers
Title: David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, 19 June 1783
Author: Hartley, David
Date: 19 June 1783

Reference

Cite as: “David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, 19 June 1783,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-03-02-0147. [Original source: The Selected Papers of John Jay, vol. 3, 1782–1784, ed. Elizabeth M. Nuxoll. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013, pp. 396–398.]