Richard Oswald to Henry Strachey, 8 November 1782
Richard Oswald to Henry Strachey
Paris Friday 8 Novr 1782
Dear Sir
In hopes this will find you Safe in England I have to trouble you with the following Memmo after referring you to my Letter to the Secretary of State,1 which I Suppose will come under your Observation
Mr Jay sent to me yesterday for a Copy of the proposed Treaty. I compared it with him, he kept one Copy. He was Singularly attentive to all the particulars and did not admit of the least alteration from the words of his own plan.
He Scored out of the Treaty the Seperate Article respecting W. Florida. But admitted it, in addition at the bottom as a Seperate Article. In so far you was right, & I was wrong in putting ^it^ into the Treaty
In this Article, he also insisted that his own words should be replaced. Viz He had said that in case G.B. at the conclusion of the present War Shall be, or be put in possession, We Said, Shall Recover or be put in possession— He Scored out the Word recover and put in the word be as above—
This Seperate Article must therefor stand as it was added only to the foot of your Copy and without the preamble as in the body of the Treaty of Upon a further consideration of the just Limits &ca
Mr Jay also struck out of the Treaty the Exception as to the Nova Scotia Islands, which I was Surprised at, Saying that if Saved by the general principle of Sea Boundaries, there was no occasion for an Exception I did not think it worth while to dwell upon that matter Since if any of those Islands are within 20 Leagues of the Mouth of St Croix River, he will surely not scruple to escept them as pertinents of the Colony of Nova Scotia. Meantime the Exception must be left out of any Copy you Send over—
And I would also beg leave to add that from this Gentleman’s precision, & attention to the Identity of these Copies in comparison with the original Drafts, I would advise that there should be not the least Alteration, not a single Word, different from the Drafts.
I was once thinking you might give the paper the dress of a little more formality as a Treaty, and I think you said you would Change some of the Words, & put in better. In which you was Certainly right, But now I can assure you, that if there is the least Alteration, if they cannot be replaced by Scratching, the whole must be wrote over again—besides disobliging these people.2
After it is determined which of the two Districts of Territory shall be accepted of,3 you will no doubt have it inserted accordingly in the body of the Treaty, exactly according to the first Draft. And you may at some time send over the other Seperately. I find I have no Seperate Copy of the description of the District of the First proposition which goes round the Waters and Lakes. Although it should not be adapted, you may Send it over
I did not expect to find Mr Jay so uncommonly Stiff and particular about these matters. possibly the late Advices from America just received ^dated^ so late as a month ago, may have had some effect.4 However in case the Treaty is approved of at home & comes back without any Alteration, I am perswaded the Commissioners will Sign it immediately.
The Memms you left with me Viz
1 Amnesty to be expressed as to Real, as well as personal property will be tried when we hear from home I see it would be in vain now, perhaps not proper—
2 Destruction—to insert by the fury of War, the same as above
3 Lawful Impediment— Lawful to be left out, the same as above
4 A better Specification of the Currency in the payments of Debts—the same as above
I send two packets of American Gazettes down to the 5th of last Month, directed to you, together with one of their new pamphlets, which I have not read, but am told it is very strong Language—5
Being in a hurry to dispatch the Messenger I have only to add that I am with Sincere regard Dear Sir Your most obedt huml Servant
Richard Oswald
Mr Whitefoord gives his Complimts. He was to have sent you some things6 by this Courier but he has been so close employed that he has not been able to go out about them, & must defer them to the next opportunity—
ALS, UkLPR: FO 27/ 2. Marked “Private”. Enclosures: first boundary proposition and Oswald’s observations respecting the articles of the fishery. C, UkLPR: FO 97/ 157.
1. See Oswald to Townshend, 6–7 Nov. 1782, above.
2. See Richard Oswald’s Preliminary Articles: Second Draft [4–7 Nov. 1782] as amended by JJ, above.
3. See the alternative boundary proposals in American Peace Commissioners to Richard Oswald, 7 Nov. 1782, above.
4. On these dispatches, see “The Preliminary Articles: Second Draft” (editorial note), note 15 on p. 204.
5. Probably Thomas Paine’s Letter addressed to the abbe Raynal on the affairs of North-America . . . (Philadelphia, 1782) (, no. 17651), which had arrived on the General Washington. In it, Paine refuted Raynal’s assertions that Americans had sought independence only because of their opposition to parliamentary taxation, and that the Americans had refused a British peace offer in 1778 because they had already accepted the alliance with France. Paine personally sent a copy of the pamphlet to Shelburne. See , 6: 328, 518n2.; and Jack Fruchtman Jr., Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom (New York and London, 1994), 143–46.
6. “French Songs—” originally appended as a footnote.