From John Jay to Edmund Randolph, 12 July 1794
To Edmund Randolph
London 12th: July 1794
Sir
I had yesterday the Honor of seeing Lord Grenville— He assured me that no unnecessary Delays should retard a full Discussion of the points in Question; and observed that the new arrangement of the ministry involved the necessity of Time for their being all informed and consulted.1 In this assurance I have perfect confidence.2
we had an informal Conversation relative to Simcoe’s hostile measure—3 we concurred in opinion4 that, during the present negociation, and untill the conclusion of it, all Things ought to remain and be preserved in Status quo— that therefore both Parties should continue to hold their Possessions, and that all encroachments on either Side should be done away— That all hostile measures (if any such should have taken place) shall cease, and that in case it should unfortunately have happened that Prisoners or Property should have been taken, the Prisoners shall be released, and the Property restored. And we have agreed that both Governments shall immediately give orders & Instructions accordingly.5
This Agreement appears to me so perfectly reasonable and so conducive to the Preservation of mutual Confidence and good Temper, that I flatter myself it will meet with the Presidents approbation; and I have given Lord Grenville explicit assurances (which he has reciprocated) that on the Part of the united States, it will be faithfully observed and fulfilled—6 I have the Honor to be with great Respect Sir Your most obedient and h’ble Serv
John Jay
The Hon’ble Edm: Randolf Esqr Secy of State &c. &c.
ALS, DNA:Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04278); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04425); LbkC, NNC: JJ Lbk. 8; E, NN: Bancroft (EJ: 02749); E, PHi (EJ: 01176); E, NhHi: Josiah Bartlett.
1. For the changes to the ministry, which had been announced on 11 July, see JJ to GW, 21 July 1794, below. On receipt of this news, ER remarked that he did not believe that the “interweavaing of parties” in the new government would produce anything favorable to the United States. ER’s reservations may have stemmed from the position of Lord Loughborough, a vocal and energetic opponent of the American Revolution, as Lord Chancellor. See ER to JJ, 17 Sept., ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04323); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04453), and ASP: FR, 1: 496. On consultations with the cabinet, see the editorial note “Negotiating the Jay Treaty,” below.
2. JJ here may have had in mind the endless delays experienced by JA as minister to Great Britain, on which see the editorial note “Anglo-American Relations,” , 4: 33–41, especially, 35–37.
3. On Simcoe, see JJ to ER, 6–8 July 1794, above.
4. On 20 Sept. 1794, the Philadelphia Gazette carried an unsigned article beginning “We are authorized to say, that it has been agreed between Mr. Jay and Lord Grenville” thereafter quoting the remainder of the paragraph with minor variations in capitalization and punctuation.
5. At the conclusion of this paragraph, the Philadelphia Gazette added the following sentence: “Arrangements have been accordingly taken on both sides.” In a subsequent letter to ER, JJ enclosed Grenville’s instructions to Hammond to this effect. See JJ to ER, 16 July, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04279); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04426); ASP: FR, 1: 479–80. For other instructions from British officials to Carleton and Simcoe about the agreement, see , 16: 398–401.
6. In his response, ER informed JJ that GW had agreed to allow all things to remain in status quo, and that the War and State Departments had been instructed to issue appropriate orders to their subordinates. See ER to JJ, 20 Sept. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04324); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04455); ASP: FR, 1: 497.