Henry Strachey’s Remarks to the American Peace Commissioners, 25 November 1782
Henry Strachey’s Remarks to the American Peace Commissioners1
[Paris] 25th Novr. 1782
Since I was here last, I have seen, and conversed with, almost every one of the King’s Council. They are unanimous in the desire of concluding the Peace. But they are also unanimous in declaring that they think You unreasonable in refusing a general Amnesty and Restoration of Property, to the Refugees. They are unanimous in declaring that those Two Points must be insisted upon, and that every Thing ought to be risqued, rather than submit to Terms highly dishonorable to the British Government. And I must add that those of His Majesty’s Ministers, who have been the most zealous Advocates for the Independence of America, are the most forward (if there is the least difference) in condemning America for making a moment’s hesitation, upon these Points, which seem to affect equally the Honor, the Justice, and even the Policy of America, as of Great Britain.2
The Article of the Fishery is another Point. They were determined to resist the Proposition I carried over. They are apprehensive of future Quarels. To obviate which as much as possible, they have expunged that part of the Article, which proposed the Privilege of drying on Cape Sables, and upon the Shores of Nova Scotia, but have left to You what is conceived will be amply sufficient for Your Accommodation.3
Objections were made to almost the whole of the Paper I carried from hence, as deficient in point of Form and Precision. The King’s Ministers have therefore drawn out the Articles as they wish them to stand, and in Form similar to all other Treaties— They have left out several Preambles, as unnecessary, and unusual. The Point regarding the Debts, though somewhat altered in the Forms of Expression, is exactly as You put it, in respect to Substance. The Article of Independence, is adopted precisely in the Words dictated by Yourselves. The Boundaries, they are not satisfied with; and they hope upon a little more Consideration of the real Rights of the Crown, You will have no Objection to admit of the Extention of Nova Scotia to Penobscot— That is left open for amicable Discussion. But I will acknowledge, (depending upon your not taking Advantage of what I say) that they are not disposed to break off the Treaty absolutely, upon that Article.
The Restitution of the Property of the Loyalists, is the grand Point upon which a final Settlement depends— If the Treaty breaks off now, the whole Business must go loose, and take it’s Chance in Parliament, where I am confident the warmest Friends of American Independence, will not support the Idea of the Confiscation of private Property.
Here is the Treaty4 in such shape as Mr. Oswald can immediately sign—and the War is—for ever I hope, at an end— By this Treaty, You have your Independence confirmed, and in Your own identical mode of Expression. By this Treaty You acquire that vast Extent of Territory You have claimed New York, with all Your Artillery there, is ceded to You— You will consider well whether You will reject these great Objects for which You have so long and bravely fought, merely upon the Non-admission of a Demand the most humiliating and degrading to Great Britain, and clearly repugnant to the Honor, the Justice, and even the good Policy of America herself.
It is necessary I should apprise You, that in the Article of Restitution, the Words Rights and Properties are added to the Word Estates, in the view of securing the Proprietary Interests, derived from ancient and solemn Charters—5
Tr, NN: Bancroft (EJ: 2770). Endorsed: “25th Novr. 1782. As much as I could recollect of my opening to the Commissrs. at Paris—” Bancroft’s endorsement: “The original of this paper is written and indorsed by the hand of Henry Strachey.”
1. This document prepared for the record represents Strachey’s recollections of his remarks to the American Commissioners the morning of 25 Nov., when they met for the first time after Strachey’s return from Britain two days earlier. These “opening remarks,” delivered at Oswald’s lodgings, summarized for the Americans the decisions of the British Cabinet on the draft treaty of 4 Nov. Much of the meeting was devoted to JA’s exposition of American fishing rights. At the end of the meeting, JA recounted, “Mr. Jay desired to know, whether Mr. Oswald had now Power to conclude and sign with Us?” When Strachey said that he had, “Mr. Jay desired to know if the Propositions now delivered Us were their Ultimatum. Strachey seemed loth to answer, but at last said, (No.)— We agreed these were good Signs of Sincerity.” , 3: 74–75; , 14: 87; , 6: 72–74.
2. See Oswald’s Preliminary Articles: Second Draft, [4–7 Nov. 1782], above, for the proposals drafted by JJ on the Loyalists. JA commented: “They every one of them, [in the Cabinet] unanimously condemned that [article] respecting the Tories, so that that unhappy Affair stuck as he foresaw and foretold that it would.” , 3: 72.
3. JA “could not help observing that the Ideas respecting the Fishery appeared to me to come piping hot from Versailles.” Ibid., 3: 72–73.
4. The “treaty” mentioned here is the cabinet counterproposal presented to the American commissioners by Richard Oswald on 25 Nov. For the text of this treaty and comparison of it with the second draft, see , 14: 84–89; and the British cabinet’s draft, 11–15 Nov., cited in “The Preliminary Articles: Second Draft” (editorial note), note 18, on p. 204. As the annotation to the text indicates, the important British revisions included an unsuccessful attempt to grant Americans only the “liberty” rather than the “right” to fish on the Grand Banks, to impose distance restrictions from the coast of certain fishing grounds, and to insure amnesty for Loyalists and restitution of or compensation for their property losses. For JA’s drafts of revisions to the articles governing protection for British creditors and the fisheries article, the final draft of which was incorporated into the treaty, see , 14: 97–99. Britain and France had previously debated the question of “right” or “liberty” with regard to the Treaty of Utrecht. See , 3: 76, 79.
5. The text of the British version reads: “It is agreed that Restitution Shall be made of all Estates, Rights and Properties in America, which have been confiscated during the War.” For an alternative draft on the Loyalists, never offered to the British, see , 14: 91–92. For final resolution of the Loyalist issue, see “The Preliminary Articles Are Signed” (editorial note), on pp. 264–67.