1. This is Oswald’s commission of 25 July. A copy of that document, possibly the one enclosed by Jay is in the Adams Papers at that date. The most obvious difference between the commissions of Alleyne Fitzherbert and Richard Oswald is that Fitzherbert’s appointment to negotiate a peace treaty was done under the King’s inherent power to conduct foreign policy and appoint diplomatic representatives, while Oswald’s was done pursuant to the statute, 22 George III, ch. 46, assented to in June, enabling the King to conclude a peace or truce with America. But the principal problem posed by Oswald’s commission was that it failed to mention negotiations with the United States of America. Instead it authorized, empowered, and required Oswald “to treat, consult of and conclude with any Commissioner or Commissioners, named or to be named, by the said Colonies or Plantation, or Plantations, and any Body or Bodies Corporate or Politic, or any Assembly or Assemblies, or Description of Men, or any Person or Persons whatsoever, a Peace or a Truce with the said Colonies or Plantations, or any of them, or any part or parts thereof.” For the change in wording that made negotiations possible, see Oswald’s second commission of [21 Sept.], below. JA included Oswald’s 25 July commission, probably derived from the copy sent by Jay, in his letter of 16 Sept. to Robert R. Livingston (PCC, No. 84, IV, f. 169–172), but for the text of the commission see Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. description begins The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, ed. Francis Wharton, Washington, D.C., 1889; 6 vols. description ends , 5:613–614.