While I have the honor of transmitting you the last volume of my translation, I avail myself of that indulgence which you have already so largely extended towards me, to lay before you a criticism of the venerable John Jay: and though somewhat lengthy, in justice to that estimable man, I beg leave to do it in his own words.1

“Having as yet received and read only2 the first volume of the History, I cannot form, and consequently cannot express, an opinion of the whole3 work.—As to the first volume, there are in it certain assertions, representations, and suggestions, of which there are some which I believe to be erroneous,4 and others which I suspect to be inaccurate.5 Being too feeble to write or to read much at a time without fatigue, I forbear to enumerate them.—I will nevertheless for your satisfaction, select and notice one of the most important—Viz.—That anterior to the Revolution, there existed in the colonies a desire of Independence.

The following extracts respect this Topic.6

Explicit11 Professions and assurances of allegiance and Loyalty to the Sovereign (especially since the accession of king William) and of affection for the mother country, abound, continues mr Jay, in the Journals of the colonial Legislatures, and of the Congresses and Conventions, from early Periods to the second petition of Congress, in 1775.12

If those professions and assurances were sincere, they afford evidence more than sufficient to invalidate the charge of our desiring & aiming at Independence.

If, on the other hand, those professions and assurances were factitious and deceptive, they present to the world an unprecedented instance of long-continued, concurrent, and detestable Duplicity in the Colonies.—Our country does not deserve this odious and disgusting imputation. During the course of my life, and until after the second petition of Congress, (in 1775.) I never did hear any American, of any Class, or of any description, express a wish for the Independence of the colonies.

Few Americans had more or better means and opportunities of becoming acquainted with the sentiments and Disposition of the colonists relative to public affairs than the late Doctr Franklin.

In a letter to his Son, dated the 22 March 1775. he relates a conversation which he had with Lord Chatham, in the preceding month of August.   His Lordship having mentioned an opinion prevailing in England, that America aimed at setting up for itself as an independent state, the Doctor thus expressed himself. ‘I assured him, that having more than once travelled almost from one End of the continent to the other, and kept a great variety of company, eating, drinking and conversing with them freely, I never had heard, in any conversation, from any Person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for a separation; or a hint that such a thing would be advantageous to America.’   It does not appear to me necessary to enlarge further on this subject.—It has always13 been, and still is, my opinion and belief, that our Country was prompted and impelled to independence by Necessity and not by Choice. They who know how we were then circumstanced, know from whence that necessity resulted.—It would be indeed extraordinary, if a Foreigner, remote like mr Botta, from the best sources of authentic information, shd in writing such a History, commit no mistakes. That gentleman doubtless believed his narrations to be true. But [it]14 is not improbable that he sometimes selected his materials with too little apprehension of error; and that some of his Informers were too little scrupulous. This remark derives a degree of weight from the following passage in the History—viz. ‘General Montgomery left a wife, the object of all his tenderness, with several children, still infants, a Spectacle for their country at once of pity and admiration. The State, from gratitude towards the father, distinguished them with every mark of kindness and protection.’15 I have been acquainted with general Montgomery’s widow from my youth—the fact is, that she never had a child.16

In making the Translation attention has doubtless been paid to the Rule that a Translator should convey into his translation with perspicuity and precision the ideas of his author and no others; and express them, not literally, but in well adapted classical language. How far your Translation is exactly correct I am an incompetent Judge; for, not understanding the language of the original, I cannot examine17 and compare the Translation with it.

Of the style and manner of the Translation I think well.”18

Having the intention, in case other Editions should be called for, of writing notes, it is desirable for me, who am permitted to approach the highest and best sources of information to remit no diligence in profiting of my good fortune as far as the motive shall appear an excuse for the liberty.

Wishing from my heart that the evening of your honoured days may be as happy and free from bodily suffering as their course has been glorious and useful to mankind! I have the honor to be, with