1. JA’s views reflect, to some degree, the Chevalier de Pinto’s reasoning for the Portuguese reluctance to send a minister to the United States without a treaty in place. Three years earlier, seeking to prevent such concerns, JA pressed Congress to send an official notification of American independence to the nations of Europe, but it never did (vols. 15:186–187; 17:572–573).

2. William Pitt, who served as chancellor of the exchequer throughout his tenure as prime minister, had received Richard Price’s proposal to establish a sinking fund in 1784. Pitt’s revised version, which he introduced in the House of Commons on 29 March 1786, promised a £1 million annual payment to redeem the national debt at a high compound interest rate, with funds to be supplied by the existing surplus, Britain’s post-Revolutionary trade boom, and new taxes on spirits and hair powder. Pitt recommended that independent commissioners supervise the sinking fund, which he predicted would eradicate the national debt in less than forty years. As JA suggested, Pitt’s bill easily passed Parliament, and it was accepted by George III on 26 May (Hague, Pitt description begins William Hague, William Pitt the Younger: A Biography, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. description ends , p. 194; Carl B. Cone, “Richard Price and Pitt’s Sinking Fund of 1786,” Economic History Review, 4:243–251 [1951]).

3. The RC’s enclosed by JA have not been found. For the first see the extract from the Marquis de Lafayette’s 9 Jan. letter, above. Nathaniel Barrett’s last extant letter to JA was of 10 Dec. 1785 (Adams Papers description begins Manuscripts and other materials, 1639–1889, in the Adams Manuscript Trust collection given to the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1956 and enlarged by a few additions of family papers since then. Citations in the present edition are simply by date of the original document if the original is in the main chronological series of the Papers and therefore readily found in the microfilm edition of the Adams Papers (APM). description ends ), for which see JA’s 24 Dec. letter to Barrett, note 1, above. Barrett’s next letter to JA is of 29 Jan. 1786, below. This suggests that Barrett sent another letter to JA, probably dated around 9 Jan., that has been lost, since RC’s of both of Barrett’s other letters are in the Adams Papers. In a 22 April letter to Jonathan Jackson, King indicated that he was sending the enclosures he had received from JA to the Newburyport merchant Nathaniel Tracy (Smith, Letters of Delegates description begins Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789, ed. Paul H. Smith and others, Washington, D.C., 1976–2000; 26 vols. description ends , 23:249–250).

4. On this day, JA also received Elbridge Gerry’s 8 Nov. 1785 letter with news of Congress’ 28 Oct. resolution empowering JA, along with Thomas Jefferson and William Carmichael, to act as consuls general (vol. 17:386, 574–577). A formal commission, however, never arrived. John Jay originally planned to send copies of the act to JA in early December, but presumably he delayed doing so in hope of receiving clarification from Congress regarding the powers and duties of the post. Specifically, Jay inquired if a consul general’s authority extended to appointing vice-consuls or agents; whether Thomas Barclay and Jefferson would enjoy “concurrent Jurisdiction” in France; and if formal commissions were needed. Jay’s queries apparently went unanswered by the congressional committee, which included King, as members debated instead the credentials of Britain’s consul general, John Temple (JCC description begins Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford, Gaillard Hunt, John C. Fitzpatrick, Roscoe R. Hill, and others, Washington, D.C., 1904–1937; 34 vols. description ends , 29:888, 896–897).