Adams Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Cutting, John Brown" AND Recipient="Adams, John" AND Period="Confederation Period"
sorted by: date (descending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-19-02-0232

To John Adams from John Brown Cutting, 12 July 1788

From John Brown Cutting

London 12th July 1788.

My Dear Sir,

I have now the honor to inclose you a copy of the southern whale fishery bill—which I cou’d not obtain early enough to send forward when I last wrote.1 I likewise subjoin additionally to what I have already written to you on the subject—the transcript of a line or two on the same topic to Mr Jefferson.2

As I expect to embark for Charlestown in a very few days—probably by the 25th of this month—I am too much occupied by trivial private affairs of my own to detail public occurrences very minutely.3

In that silly paper called the world you will peruse the speech of the british monarch on the late prorogation.4 The session was uncommonly protracted from some cause—beside the altercation and heat which resulted from the slave trade bill.5 Perhaps the internal disputes in the Cabinet caused the delay. Among the ministers a strong disagreement has subsisted for several months past; which the murmurs of the navy against the regulations of Lord Howe—and the distribution of the law loaves and fishes—by Mr Pitt kindled into combustion. Mr Pitt has triumphed. The Chancellor is chagrin’d. Lord Howe is forced from the head of the Admiralty—and soothd with an english Earldom. The Earl of Chatham is first Lord of the Admiralty in his stead. The Earl of Mansfield having resign’d—Sir Loyd Kenyon is a peer and Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. And the late Attorney General Richard Pepper Arden is knighted and made master of the rolls. This last appointment was so detestable to the Lord Chancellor that even after Arden had kissed hands, for four days he refused to put the seals to his appointment or andminister the official oaths. At last he was compelled to do it or resign the prime minister preponderating with the Monarch—and carrying all his favourites into office with an high hand. It is thought Thurlow will resign soon and the seals be put into commission. Meanwhile the Marquis of Stafford is expected to make room for the Marquis of Camarthen— & Lord Hawksbury to become secretary of State instead of the latter. It is now agreed on all hands that no minister since Sir Robert Walpole has possess’d a line of patronage so extensive or power so transcendent and establish’d as the power and patronage of Mr Pitt.6

The affairs civil and military on the Continent are involved in such thick obscurity that the most intuitive minds refrain from pretending at this moment to penetrate the eventful issue of either. If one were to form an opinion of the probability of prevalence on the part of the french king in his contest for power with the french nobility—from the remonstrances of the french clergy, and parliaments—it wou’d seem as if the Barons must controul the sovereign. But when it is recollected how many hundred thousand troops veteran and equip’d await the nod of the latter, & also that those troops remain inflexibly attach’d to the glory of the Prince—and likewise that this Prince adheres stedfastly to the maxim of the monarchy— the king’s will is the law—then it seems much more probable that his present majesty will prevail in the present contest and finally fix his code of constitutions by the paramount efficacy of the ultima ratio regum.7 I understand that even since he has been familiar with the tears and tumults of the provincial parliaments—even within a few days—a fresh edict is issued menacing the individuals of any body who shall in future remonstrate—with the total forfeiture of their respective properties real & personal—and also with the taint of incapacity to hold any rank office or honors in the kingdom. Meanwhile the presidents and principals of the parliaments are summon’d to Versailles on the 4th of August to receive a final reply to their murmurs and supplications.8

As to military operations—the belligerant parties accumulate. Sweden is resolved to re-assert her claim to Finland. Or at any rate to attack Russia—if England or Turkey will clandestinely—defrey the expence of her armaments. The letter from Elsineur dated 1st of July written by Fenwick the British Consul is fully credited here. The hostile intentions of the Swedes have been manifest these three months.9 Ever since the internal distractions of France, England has been privately intriguing—and it wou’d seem successfully with all the little maritime allies of the former. Even the King of Prussia has forgotten his reverence of Lewis 16th. and his deference and veneration for his french allies and protectors. He has formed a new friendship with his good Brother George—whose ships can render him no effectual service on dry land—whose armies cannot spare him a regiment—and whose coffers are drain’d by debts of honor to the last guinea.

In one word there appears to be a complete mutation in the system of Europe without the substitution of any general determinate new plan of politics in lieu of the old. Catherine pants for wider dominion Joseph for cash and commerce—Stanislau for that neutrality which his three quarrelsome neighbours refuse him. The prussian monarch dreads the Emperor, courts, offends and then sooths France—but ultimately forms an alliance with England. The United Netherlands bind themselves their constitution and even their trade with the ligature of the Orange Cockade—which the Stadtholder waves in mock triumph—while his prussian brother defends it with a drawn weapon, like a second Don Quixot and his cousin Sancho of Britain covers it with his shield, that under cover of this courtesy he may wield the clumsy sceptre of their high mightinesses, and guide the millers and become master of the grain of Holland, without any ostensible attack of the windmills. England hopes by strong alliances on the continent—reinforcements recently sent out to India—and fortification and fresh garrisons in America and the West Indias—and above all the formidable front of her fleet—to intimidate France—maintain domestic peace and reap all the profit of foreign war. Thus point the plans of her present prime minister—whose supremacy now seems to pervade every department of this government. France (meaning by this term the people as contradistinguish’d from the court)—seems equally eager for civil freedom without understanding its essence or limits—or checks, or ballances—and military conflict without considering what it might cost, or calculating how it can be carried on. Her finance notwithstanding the fertility of its natural resources is at a low ebb—and demands expert management— and the rigid rectitude of a Neckar—ere it can yield the surplus requisite to sustain a vigorous war. The Archbishop perceives it, and likewise that even if this were otherwise—a war on the part of France against England might force him from a situation the transcendent power of which he seems determin’d both to retain and exercise. Negligent therefore of foreign affairs and the diminishing importance of his country in the scale of Europe he apparently bends his whole efforts to establish the absolute supremacy of the Monarch—subdue the legal turbulence of the parliamentary aristocracies—and under the shelter of some wise, equitable and beneficial innovations—in criminal jurisprudence—converge the radii of national authority into an administration of prime nobles paramount to all but monarchic controul—& in one word substitute the centre of regal domination— for the circumference of representative freedom. To demonstrate the justness of such an opinion one might cite the whole tenor of that meek, tame conduct in the repulsion of foreign insults which has marked the councils of France ever since the Archbishop became prime minister. The abandonment of the Hollanders—the consequent humiliation before the Courts of Britain and Berlin last autumn; that article in the dutch treaty with England this spring—whereby the dutch forces in the Indias are even upon a rumour of war commanded by this country—the recent affront offered at the Hague to M. St Priest the french ambassadour—because his valet refused the orange cockade—the mortifying usage of the french ambassadour here—the cavalier behaviour of the Swedes—and in fine the demeanour of almost every court in Europe to that of France during the last nine months—; I might venture to mention as almost unparalel’d instances of contumely submitted to by the Archbishop from abroad to ensure sufficient leisure and adequate tools to subjugate the people at home. Still there has been such a persevering and general resistance by the Nobility, the Parliaments and all their adherents in most of the provinces, that if the military power did not render an appeal to arms a desperate undertaking, on the part of the civil against the monarch and his minister—of this struggle it might yet be said—exitus in dubio est. As the affair now seems to stand—the personages of rank—resist with an obstinacy resolutely passive—with- out a thought of resorting to arms—not withstanding newspaper rumours to the contrary. They submit to exile by hundreds—and their uniform language is—“Sire pray assemble the States General. This nation will receive no constitution but from them.” To which supplication there has hitherto been substantively this response: “Audacious and eternally subordinate! All power exists in Jove alone—He wills to use it well—but when or where or how—presumptuous reptile mortals born and bred in France shou’d never dare to ask—but if they do our thunderbolts shall smite them dead or dumb: all this we swear—all this we swear by Styx—completely by this oath to prove that Jove and we are One.”

Meanwhile Spain has equip’d a naval force consisting it is said of thirty ships of the line—but satisfies Mr Eden the british ambassadour at Madrid—that she meditates naught hostile against this nation— and commands perfect neutrality to be observed towards Prussia by all her subjects: Hinting that these armed ships are in future to be exercised across the atlantic in fetching and guarding her south american treasure.10

Thus have I attempted to abridge for your amusement a cursory outline of the present aspect of Europe—from such limited sources of political intelligence—as I can at present command.

With regard to America England France and Spain will soon become as busy as their seperate interests in our vicinity require that they shou’d be. Even here they begin to think our federal executive will be worth attending to soon. That it may long remain pure and powerful is a wish that ought to actuate every citizen of the Union— but especially one who has witnessed the miserable corruptions that canker the best constitutions in Europe.

I have written repeatedly both to you and also to Mrs Adams concerning the individual welfare of some private friends of yours here that seem interested in yours. But I assure you no person can be more truly so, than / Your respectful, affectionate / And Most Obedt Servant

John Brown Cutting

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams Esquire.”

1Cutting’s last letter was of 28 May, but for the southern whale fishery bill, see also his 17 May letter, and note 5, both above.

2The transcript has not been found, but Cutting likely was referring to the 26 June letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, listing six of the “public objects manifestly intended to be accomplish’d by” the southern whale fishery bill. These goals included: “To distance all competition in the fisheries, monopolize the oyl trade, and nourish a national nursery for seamen;” to eliminate “a (suppositious) projected settlement of american whale fishermen in France;” to “check the growth or perhaps suffocate the germ of our rising marine in the west;” and, finally, “to diminish the maritime force of France, or hinder its augmentation” (Jefferson, Papers description begins The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, James P. McClure, and others, Princeton, N.J., 1950– . description ends , 13:291).

3Cutting traveled to Charleston, S.C., to act as agent for Anne Paul Emanuel Sigismond de Montmorency de Luxembourg in his claims against the state of South Carolina, an issue stemming from his 1780 contract with Alexander Gillon regarding the frigate South Carolina (D. E. Huger Smith, “The Luxembourg Claims,” SCHGM description begins South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine. description ends , 10:92, 97 [April 1909]). For the South Carolina and Luxembourg’s claims, see vols. 11:186–190; 12:402.

4George III’s closing speech to Parliament on 11 July 1788 was printed in the London World the next day. There, the king praised the “chearfulness and liberality” with which the House of Commons had “granted the necessary Supplies” for the year. He commented broadly on European affairs, noting that “the assurances which I receive from Foreign Powers, afford me every reason to expect that My Subjects will continue to enjoy the blessings of Peace.”

5For two months, Parliament debated a bill to regulate the slave trade. On 9 May William Pitt introduced a resolution in the House of Commons to delay consideration until the next session. Sir William Dolben (1727–1814), M.P. for Oxford University, responded by denouncing the “crying-evil” of the slave trade and the horrors of the Middle Passage. Richard Pennant, 1st Baron Penrhyn (ca. 1737–1808), a representative from Liverpool, where the slave trade thrived, disputed Dolben’s claims and vigorously defended the trade, which supplied labor for his estates in Jamaica. Despite this rebuttal, on 21 May Dolben submitted the bill to the House of Commons, and it passed a third reading on 18 June. The House of Lords took up the debate on 25 June and approved the bill on 2 July, adding a compensation clause. The House of Commons then revised and resubmitted a new bill for the regulation of the slave trade on more humane conditions, which was passed by the Lords on 10 July, and it received George III’s assent the next day (James W. LoGerfo, “Sir William Dolben and ’The Cause of Humanity’: The Passage of the Slave Trade Regulation Act of 1788,” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 6:431, 433, 435, 436–437, 439–446, 449 [1973]; Parliamentary Hist. description begins The Parliamentary History of England, from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, London, 1806–1820; 36 vols. description ends , 27:503–505; Namier and Brooke, House of Commons description begins Sir Lewis Namier and John Brooke, eds., The House of Commons, 17541790, London, 1964; 3 vols. description ends ).

6In the summer of 1788, Pitt, who doubled as chancellor of the exchequer and de facto Tory Party leader, reorganized his cabinet by stocking it with his friends and confidants. On 16 July Adm. Lord Richard Howe resigned from his post as first lord of the admiralty and was replaced by Pitt’s elder brother John, 2d Earl of Chatham; on 19 Aug. Howe was created Earl Howe and Baron Howe of Langar. Upon the exit of William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, Lloyd Kenyon was appointed lord chief justice of England on 7 June, and he was named Lord Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon, two days later. As a reward for his longtime support of Pitt, on 14 June Judge Richard Pepper Arden, 1st Baron Alvanley, became master of the rolls, receiving a knighthood and a seat on the Privy Council. Pitt adopted this patronage system for the rest of his political career, but Cutting was mistaken about a few of his political prognostications. Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow, did not resign as lord chancellor but was dismissed in June 1792; Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquis of Stafford, stayed on as Lord Privy Seal until 1794; the Marquis of Carmarthen served as foreign secretary until 1791; and Charles Jenkinson did not formally join Pitt’s cabinet until 1791 (Hague, Pitt description begins William Hague, William Pitt the Younger: A Biography, New York, 2005. description ends , p. 211–213; DNB description begins Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., The Dictionary of National Biography, New York and London, 1885–1901; repr. Oxford, 1959–1960; 21 vols. plus supplements; rev. edn., www.oxforddnb.com. description ends ).

7The last argument of kings, namely, war.

8The first of these “tumults” occurred on 7 June 1788 in Grenoble, France, when a crowd gathered to prevent two regiments of soldiers from exiling the local magistrates, on orders from Étienne Charles de Loménie de Brienne. The soldiers confronted the mob, who fled to the rooftops and pelted them with roof tiles in what became known as “The Day of the Tiles.” On 8 Aug., amid a wave of unauthorized assemblies, Louis XVI announced that the Estates-General would meet at Versailles on 1 May 1789 to end the unrest (Schama, Citizens description begins Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, New York, 1989. description ends , p. 274–277, 281).

9An extract of a 1 July 1788 letter from Nicholas Fenwick, the British consul to Denmark, was published in the Pennsylvania Packet on 20 September. Fenwick recounted an engagement between four Russian ships of the line and sixteen Swedish warships, after which, he noted, “no doubt can be entertained of an action having taken place between the Swedes and Russians,” and stated that “his Swedish majesty … ordered the Russian Ambassador to depart from Stockholm in 48 hours.” Gustavus III, king of Sweden, arrived in Finland on 2 July. However, the Russian fleet repulsed the Swedish forces on 17 July. A mutiny among the Swedish troops, along with a declaration of war by Denmark, forced Gustavus’ return to Stockholm in August (H. S. K. Kent, War and Trade in Northern Seas: Anglo-Scandinavian Economic Relations in the Mid-Eighteenth Century, Cambridge, Eng., 1973, p. 25–26; Cambridge Modern Hist. description begins The Cambridge Modern History, Cambridge, Eng., 1902–1911; repr. New York, 1969; 13 vols. description ends , 6:778–779).

10Following Spain’s 1762 defeat at Havana, Cuba, to the British, Charles III pressed for military reforms, including expanding the fleet. By the time of his death in 1788, the Spanish Navy had grown to 150 vessels (Brian Loveman, For La Patria: Politics and the Armed Forces in Latin America, Wilmington, Del., 1999, p. 14–15).

Index Entries