Signing the Definitive Treaty Editorial Note
Signing the Definitive Treaty
News that the American preliminaries had been signed reached London on 3 December 1782. Two days later George III, in a speech at the opening of Parliament, announced that he had offered to declare the colonies independent by an article to be inserted in the treaty of peace. He hoped, he said, for an “entire and cordial Reconciliation” with them. Pressure from opposition members led Shelburne to state that Britain’s offer to grant independence to the United States was “not irrevocable; if France does not agree to peace, the offer ceases.” Other ministers, however, contradicted Shelburne and told the House of Commons that the preliminary treaty with its grant of independence would be in force until peace was concluded.1 Although Shelburne refused to release the text of the American preliminary to Parliament until 27 January 1783, a week after the signing of the preliminary treaties with France and Spain made it operative, its provisions were known to the ministry, in which there was mounting criticism of concessions on the fisheries, failure to win compensation for Loyalists, and commercial reciprocity.2
In early December, on Franklin’s advice, the American commissioners began compiling lists of issues to be addressed in negotiations for the definitive treaty and for a temporary or permanent commercial agreement.3 Fitzherbert exerted himself to discourage any requests for “fresh” or “obnoxious” articles that might be made by such “grasping & interested people as these Commissioners”. He told Franklin in no uncertain terms that all that needed to be done to make the treaty definitive was to remove any expressions that made it provisional and to have the commissioners on both sides sign a declaration that it was in effect.4
Both sides initially assumed that the signing of the definitive treaty would follow soon after the preliminaries were concluded. On 1 February Adams sketched a framework for a definitive treaty that entailed only a few changes and discussed it with the other American commissioners several days later. On 9 February Fitzherbert reported to Grantham that the only “fresh Articles” Jay and Adams had mentioned were about prisoners and islands in the Bay of Fundy off the St. Croix and Penobscot Rivers. They had, he noted, “little or no Intention” of supporting Franklin in his “unfair & unreasonable Demand” for compensation for British depredations on American property.5 On 14 February the king proclaimed the end of hostilities and the American commissioners responded in kind. Shortly thereafter they exchanged passports with Fitzherbert to protect merchant shipping from capture until the cessation of hostilities was fully in effect.6
Shelburne’s political vulnerability had been increasingly apparent since the announcement of the peace. Parliament began debating the preliminaries on 17 February. In the week that followed, Shelburne suffered defeat on two censure motions and tendered his resignation on 24 February.7 The Fox-North coalition that succeeded him was not in place until 2 April. The new ministry was less concerned than Shelburne had been about establishing a harmonious relationship with its former colonies and more confident that it could retain and enlarge its share of American markets for British manufactures without making substantial trade concessions in return. Nevertheless, Fox, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, professed willingness to entertain other possibilities for harmonious relations with the United States.8
As noted above, Fox had appointed David Hartley to negotiate both a trade agreement and the definitive treaty.9 Hartley brought with him a “Proposed Supplemental Treaty” covering diplomatic and commercial matters, both of which the negotiators discussed on 29 April. Topics covered included removal of British troops and mutual release of those confined for the part they had played in the war and of prisoners of war, without ransom or payment of debts contracted during captivity.10 Hartley forwarded the result immediately to Fox, who replied on 15 May that revisions to the Loyalist and prisoner articles were unnecessary. He sent assurances that arrangements were being made to withdraw British troops from American soil.11
The next substantive discussion of the definitive treaty took place on 19 June, when Hartley presented the Americans with six proposals for the definitive treaty. They sought return of unsold confiscated lands to the Loyalists and protection for fur traders on the western frontier. On 29 June the Americans replied to Hartley’s proposals, and on 1 July they presented proposals of their own that Hartley immediately transmitted to Fox. By month’s end Fox had still not replied.12
In the interim the American commissioners received Robert R. Livingston’s long-awaited reports on how he and Congress reacted to the preliminary treaty. The responsibility for drafting a joint response to his criticisms rested initially with Jay, whose suspicions of French intentions and whose responsibility for the separate article had come in for the heaviest censure.13
On 17 July the Americans notified Hartley that they had received Congress’s ratification of the preliminary articles. George III ratified the provisional articles on 6 August. Fox transmitted them to Hartley three days later, and he and the Americans exchanged ratifications on 13 August.14
In their letter to Hartley of 17 July the American commissioners raised several other concerns Livingston had voiced—the timetable for evacuation of British forces and Britain’s refusal to return to their American owners the slaves to whom it had promised freedom, a violation of article 7 of the preliminary agreement. Arguing that damages suffered during the war made immediate payment of debts impossible, the American commissioners also tried to persuade Britain to delay execution of judgment for debts for three years from the date of the treaty, such judgments not to include interest during the period of the war.15
Fox did not respond to the proposals Hartley had forwarded on 1 July because he considered that ratification of the preliminary treaty answered all the purposes of a definitive treaty with the United States. He told Laurens that he understood that any revisions to the preliminary treaty were to be done “under the Eye of, or in concert with the Court of France”, a prospect he would not agree to.16 With France pressing to conclude negotiations so that the definitive treaties among the four major belligerents could be signed at the same time, Hartley and the Americans agreed that the preliminary articles, virtually unmodified, would become the definitive treaty. The separate article about Florida was dropped.
Hartley’s instructions stipulated that the ceremony of the signing was to take place in Paris. This seemed to pose a possible difficulty, since Great Britain, France, and Spain had arranged to sign their treaties at Versailles on 3 September. Franklin shared his concern about this unanticipated complication with Rayneval, who reported back that Vergennes favored two separate formalities on the same day, the one involving the American commissioners occurring early enough so that they could reach Versailles in time to witness the other closing rites. The exchange of correspondence between Hartley and the Americans fixed the time and place for the signing. Hartley sent off a special note to his “Dear friend” Franklin, urging him to make the effort to be present.17
Although the Americans feared last minute delays18 the ceremony took place as scheduled on 3 September. They met at Hartley’s lodgings at the Hotel d’York and concluded their business by 10:30 a.m. Jay, Franklin, and Adams signed for the United States.19 A congratulatory exchange followed. Hartley assured the Americans that “his Britannic majesty and his confidential servants entertain the strongest desire of a cordial good understanding with the United States of America.”20 The Americans in turn rejoiced with Hartley “in that event, by which the Ruler of nations has been graciously pleased to give peace to our two countries.”21 As soon as transcribing was completed, the commissioners dispatched copies of the treaty to Congress.22 On the same day Jay summoned up the events succinctly: “If we are not a happy people it will be but our own Fault.”23
1. On the conclusion of negotiations for the Anglo-American preliminary treaty, see “The Preliminary Articles Are Signed” (editorial note) on pp. 264–67. The disagreement over whether American independence had been granted was politically damaging to Shelburne. See John Cannon, The Fox-North Coalition: Crisis of the Constitution, 1782–4 (Cambridge, 1969), 40–49. For JJ’s insistence that Britain recognize American independence before treaty negotiations began, see “John Jay Proposes Altering Richard Oswald’s Commission” (editorial note) on pp. 108–11. On the political developments that led to Shelburne’s resignation, see , 14: 292–93, 328–30; , 1: 420–31; , 418–23; and , 20: 442–43.
Shelburne was not the only one to contend that American independence might not have been completely established in December 1782. The American commissioners were concerned that Parliament would contest the commission the king had issued to Oswald and then void the preliminary treaty and negate recognition of their independence. In a letter to Fox of 31 July 1783, Hartley, then negotiating the definitive treaty, remarked that the Americans would be eager to sign it, for this would allow the United States to “take possession of her great object, actual & recognized independance.” Fox, however, asserted that the preliminary treaty and American independence took complete effect as soon as Britain signed the treaty with France. See , 1: 754, 902, 903.
2. See , 14: 126–27, 292–93n4, and 330n2; , 1: 712–13, 714–15, 725–27; , 1: 308–9; and , 411–18. French ratification of the preliminary articles with Great Britain did not reach London until 8 Feb. The Spanish ratification arrived on 13 Feb. See , 1: 774.
3. BF’s list included British renunciation of the right to claim or preempt all lands within the boundaries it had conceded to the United States, withdrawal of all British troops from Canada and Nova Scotia, declaring them and the island of Bermuda free and at liberty to join the United States, compensation for property damaged by British forces, reciprocal free trade between the United States and the British Empire, dual citizenship for British subjects and Americans, an end to privateering, and protection for neutral trade and for unarmed fishermen, farmers, artisans and manufacturers peacefully following their occupations in the event of future war. He also suggested the possibility of closing the United States to British trade as a means to obtain compensation for damages done to American property by British forces. JA’s list incorporated some of BF’s suggestions and added articles on the Barbary powers, the Isle of Sables, the banning of armed vessels from the Great Lakes, and the settlement of prisoner accounts. Laurens appears to have wanted a more specific statement about American obligations to compensate “real British subjects” who had lost property in the course of the war. BF’s list or a document based on it was probably among the papers sent to Britain with Richard Oswald in mid-Jan. 1783. See , 38: 433–35, 584; , 14: 119–20; , 16: 80n4; and Fitzherbert to Strachey, 19 Dec. 1782, and to Shelburne, 15 and 25 Jan. 1783, in , 1: 725–26, 752–53, 760–61. For JJ’s subsequent proposals on the slave trade and trade with Ireland, see “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” (editorial note) on pp. 373–86; and John Jay: Proposals for Inclusion in a Trade Agreement [c. 1 June 1783], above.
For the incorporation of some of these suggestions into the various plans subsequently considered by the combined commissioners, see Hartley’s proposals of 19 June; the American Peace Commissioners’ Answers to David Hartley’s Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, 29 June; and the American Peace Commissioners’ Propositions for the Definitive Treaty, [c. 1 July] 1783, above.
4. For the dispute between BF and Fitzherbert on the meaning of the clause in the preliminary articles that specified that they were “To be inserted in, and to constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded, between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States”, see Fitzherbert to Grantham, 25 Jan. 1783, , 1: 759–61
5. In his letter to Grantham of 9 Feb. 1783, Fitzherbert stated that he hoped to see the definitive treaty concluded before Laurens rejoined the negotiations. Though no friend of BF’s, he remarked, Laurens agreed with BF on demanding compensation for damages inflicted by British armies. Although JA believed that the United States had a just claim to compensation, he was apparently unwilling to support BF. On JA’s draft, [c. 1 Feb. 1783], of a definitive treaty, see “Passports and the Cessation of Hostilities” (editorial note) on pp. 313–16, above; and , 14: 227–30. For BF’s proposal of 29 Nov. 1782 for compensation for property damages from the British, see , 38, 375–77; , 1: 725–27, 765; and , 14: 158.
6. See the American Peace Commissioners to Fitzherbert, 20 Feb. 1783, above, and notes.
7. See , 14: 292–93.
8. On the “dual citizenship” proposal, see JJ to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 11 and 22 Apr. 1783; and , 1: 817–18, 836–37, 845–46. On the “communion of intercourse”, possibly in the form of a future alliance between Britain and the United States, about which Hartley was more enthusiastic than Fox, see , 1: 139, and 2: 866–70.
9. See “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” (editorial note) on pp. 373–86.
10. Among the points omitted from the combined proposal were a statement that “No tacit compliance on the part of the American States” would be thereafter urged “in derogation of their independence”; referral of the separate article to the definitive treaty; and a provision for dual citizenship. See , 2: 94–95.
11. For Fox’s response to these proposals, see , 2: 118–20. His response to the trade proposal is discussed in the editorial note “Negotiating a Trade Agreement” (editorial note) on pp. 380–81.
12. See Hartley’s proposals of 19 June, the Americans’ reply of 29 June, their counterproposals of [c. 1 July], and their letter to RRL of 27 July 1783, above; and Hartley to Fox, 20 June and 1 July 1783, , 1: 866–70, and 2: 166; and , 3: 139. In his letter of 20 June, Hartley was still optimistic that negotiations might lead “hereafter to the consolidation of common interests with Great Britain”, although he admitted this was complicated by remembrance of the recent war and by the “delicacy” of the situation between Britain and France.
13. See “The Commissioners Defend the Treaty” (editorial note) on pp. 416–19; and, for JJ’s individual response, his letter to RRL of 19 July 1783, above.
14. See the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the American Peace Commissioners, 21 Apr., and the commissioners’ letter to Hartley of 17 July 1783, above; and , 1: 904–5, 919.
15. See the American Peace Commissioners to David Hartley, 17 July, and to RRL, 18 July 1783, and notes.
16. See , 16: 250, 252.
17. Rayneval to BF, 29 Aug., , 6: 662. Hartley to American Commissioners, 29 Aug., and American Commissioners to Hartley, 30 Aug., , 1: 924–25; Hartley to BF, 2 Sept. 1783, ALS, PHi; photocopy, MiU-C.
19. Hartley to Fox, 3 Sept. 1783, UkLPR: FO 4/ 2. For the ceremony, see , 435–36. The Definitive Treaty is found in , 151–57; , 462–65.
20. Hartley to American Commissioners, 4 Sept. 1783, , 1: 931.
21. American Commissioners to Hartley, 5 Sept. 1783, ibid., 1: 932–33. In his letter of 4 Sept. Hartley had expressed the hope that, now that the definitive treaty had been signed, negotiations for a commercial agreement could be resumed. The American commissioners informed him, however, that their commission to negotiate a commercial agreement terminated with the signing of the definitive treaty. They would, they promised, write Congress immediately on the subject.
22. See, e.g., JJ to Charles Thomson, 12 Sept. 1783, below.
23. JJ to Robert Morris, 12 Sept. 1783, below. For ratification of the treaty by Congress, see the President of Congress to the American Peace Commissioners, 14 Jan. 1784, below.