To John Jay from Thomas Jefferson, 3 November 1787
From Thomas Jefferson
Paris Nov. 3. 1787.
Sir
My last letters to you were of the 8th. & 27th. of October.1 in the former I mentioned to you the declaration of this country that they would interpose with force if the Prussian troops entered Holland, the entry of those troops into Holland, the declaration of England that if France did oppose force they would consider it as an act of war, the naval armaments on both sides, nomination of the Bailli de Suffrein as generalissime on the Ocean,2 & the cold reception of mr Grenville here with his conciliatory propositions, as so many symptoms which seemed to indicate a certain & immediate rupture. it was indeed universally & hourly expected. but the King of Prussia, a little before these last events, got wind of the alliance on the carpet between France & the two empires: he awaked to the situation in which that would place him: he made some applications to the court of St. Petersburgh to divert the empress from the proposed alliance, & supplicated the court of London not to abandon him. That court had also received a hint of the same project; both seemed to suspect, for the first time, that it would be possible for France to abandon the Turks, and that they were likely to get more than they had plaid for at Constantinople: for they had meant nothing more there than to divert the Empress & Emperor from the affairs of the West by employing them in the East, & at the same time to embroil them with France as the patroness of the Turks. the court of London engaged not to abandon Prussia: but both of them relaxed a little the tone of their proceedings. the King of Prussia sent a mr Alvensleben here expressly to explain & soothe: the K. of England, notwithstanding the cold reception of his propositions by Grenville, renewed conferences here through Eden & the Duke of Dorset. the Minister, in the affection of his heart for peace, readily joined in conference, & a declaration and counterdeclaration were cooked up at Versailles, & sent to London for approbation. they were approved, arrived here at 1. o’clock the 27th. were signed that night at Versailles, & on the next day I had the honor of inclosing them to you, under cover to the count de Moustier, whom I supposed still at Brest, dating my letter as of the 27th. by mistake for the 28th. lest however these papers should not have got to Brest before the departure of the count de Moustier, I now inclose you other copies.3 the English declaration states a notification of this court in September by Barthelemy their minister at London, ‘that they would send succours into Holland’, as the first cause of England’s arming; desires an explanation of the intentions of this court as to the affairs of Holland, & proposes to disarm; on condition however that the king of France shall not retain any hostile views in any quarter for what has been done in Holland. this last phrase was to secure Prussia, according to promise. the King of France acknoleges the notification by his minister at London, promises he will do nothing in consequence of it, declares he has no intention to intermeddle with force in the affairs of Holland, & that he will entertain hostile views in no quarter for what has been done there. He disavows having ever had any intention to interpose with force in the affairs of that republic. This disavowal begins the sentence which acknoleges he had notified the contrary to the court of London, and it includes no apology to soothe the feelings which may be excited in the breasts of the patriots of Holland at hearing the king declare he never did intend to aid them with force, when promises to do this were the basis of those very attempts to better their constitution, which have ended in it’s ruin as well as their own. I have analysed these declarations because, being somewhat wrapped up in their expressions, their full import might escape, on a transient reading; and it is necessary it should not escape. it conveys to us the important lesson, that no circumstances of morality, honour, interest, or engagement are sufficient to authorize a secure reliance on any nation, at all times, and in all positions. a moment of difficulty, or a moment of error, may render for ever useless the most friendly dispositions in the king, in the major part of his ministers, & the whole of his nation. the present pacification is considered by most as only a short truce. they calculate on the spirit of the nation, & not on the agued hand which guides it’s movements. it is certain that from this moment the whole system of Europe changes. instead of counting together England, Austria, & Russia, as heretofore, against France, Spain, Holland, Prussia & Turkey, the division will probably be England, Holland, & Prussia, against France, Austria, Russia & perhaps Spain. this last power is not sure, because the dispositions of it’s heir apparent are not sure. but whether the present be truce or peace, it will allow time to mature the conditions of the alliance between France & the two empires, always supposed to be on the carpet. it is thought to be obstructed by the avidity of the emperor who would swallow a good part of Turkey, Silesia, Bavaria, & the rights of the Germanic body. to the two or three first articles France might consent, receiving in gratification a well rounded portion of the Austrian Netherlands, with the islands of Candia, Cyprus, Rhodes, & perhaps lower Egypt. but all this is in embryo, incertainly known, & counterworked by the machinations of the courts of London & Berlin.
The following solution of the British armaments is supposed in a letter of the 25th. Ult. from Colo. Blackden of Connecticut now at Dunkirk to the Marquis de la Fayette. I will cite it in his own words. ‘a gentleman who left London two days ago, & came to this place to day informs me that it is now generally supposed that mr Pitt’s great secret, which has puzzled the whole nation so long, & to accomplish which design the whole force of the nation is armed, is to make a vigorous effort for the recovery of America.—when I recollect the delay they have made in delivering the forts in America, & that little more than a year ago one of the British ministry wrote to the king a letter in which were these remarkeable words “if your Majesty pleases America may yet be yours” add to this, if it were possible for the present ministry in England to effect such a matter, they would secure their places & their power for a long time, & should they fail in the end, they would be certain of holding them during the attempt, which it is in their power to prolong as much as they please, and at all events they would boast of having endeavored the recovery of what a former ministry had abandoned, it is possible.’4 a similar surmise has come in a letter from a person in Rotterdam to one at this place. I am satisfied that the king of England beleives the mass of our people to be tired of their independance, & desirous of returning under his government: and that the same opinion prevails in the ministry & nation. they have hired their newswriters to repeat this lie in their gazettes so long that they have become the dupes of it themselves. but there is no occasion to recur to this in order to account for their arming. a more rational purpose avowed, that purpose executed, and, when executed, a solemn agreement to disarm, seem to leave no doubt that the reestablishment of the Stadtholder was their object. yet it is possible that, having found that this court will not make war in this moment for any ally, new views may arise, and they may think the moment favorable for executing any ^purposes^ they may have in our quarter. add to this that reason is of no aid in calculating their movements. we are therefore never safe till our magazines are filled with arms. the present season of truce or peace should in my opinion be improved without a moment’s respite to effect this essential object, & no means be omitted by which money may be obtained for the purpose. I say this however with due deference to the opinion of Congress, who are better judges of the necessity & practicability of the measure.
I mentioned to you in a former letter the application I had made to the Dutch Ambassadors and Prussian envoy for the protection of mr Dumas. the latter soon after received an assurance that he was put under the protection of the states of Holland: and the Dutch Ambassador called on me a few days ago to inform me by instruction from his constituents ‘that the States General had received a written application from mr Adams, praying their protection of Dumas: that they had instructed their greffier Fagel to assure mr Adams by letter that he was under the protection of the states of Holland, but to inform him at the same time that mr Dumas’s conduct, out of the line of his office, had been so extraordinary, that they would expect de l’honnetete de M. Adams, that he would charge some other person with the affairs of the United states, during his absence.’5
Your letter of Sep. 8. has been duly received.6 I shall pay due attention to the instructions relative to the medals, and give any aid I can in the case of Boss’s vessel. as yet however my endeavors to find Monsieur Pauly, avocat au conseil d’etat, rue Coquilliere, have been ineffectual. there is no such person living in that street. I found a M. Pauly, avocat au parlement, in another part of the town: he opened the letter, but said it could not mean him. I shall advertize in the public papers. if that fails, there will be no other chance of finding him. mr Warnum will do well therefore to send some other description by which the person may be found. indeed some friend of the party interested should be engaged to follow up this business, as it will require a constant attention, & probably a much larger sum of money than that named in the bill inclosed in mr Warnum’s letter.7
I have the honour to inclose you a letter from Obrian to me containing information from Algiers, and one from mr Montgomery at Alicant. the purpose of sending you this last is to shew you how much the difficulties of ransom are increased since the Spanish negotiations.8 the russian ^captives^ have cost about 8000 livres a peice on an average. I certainly have no idea that we should give any such sum: and therefore if it would be the sense of Congress to give such a price, I would be glad to know it by instruction. my idea is that we should not ransom but on the footing of the nation which pays least, that it may be as little worth their while to go in pursuit of us as any nation. this is cruelty to the individuals now in captivity, but kindness to the hundreds that would soon be so, were we to make it worth the while of those pyrates to go out of the streights in quest of us. as soon as money is provided I shall put this business into train. I have taken measures to damp at Algiers all expectations of our proposing to ransom at any price. I feel the distress which this must occasion to our countrymen there, & their connections: but the object of it is their ultimate good, by bringing down their holders to such a price as we ought to pay: instead of letting them remain in such expectations as cannot be gratified. the gazettes of France & Leyden accompany this.9 I have the honour to be, with sentiments of the most [remainder missing]
PrC, DLC: Jefferson (EJ: 10162). E embedded in JJ to James M. Varnum, 7 Mar. 1788, , 3: 337–38 (EJ: 2246); 12: 309–13; 3: 320–26. Enclosures as listed in notes below.
2. Comte Pierre André de Suffren de Saint Tropez, bailli de Suffren (1729–88).
3. Copies of tr., in French, in the hand of William Short, of the “Declaration” signed at Versailles, 27 Oct. 1787, by Dorset and William Eden, requesting Louis XVI to explain his position in regard to Dutch affairs and proposing that France and Great Britain discontinue all preparations for war; and of the “Contre Declaration” of the French government, signed at Versailles the same day, denying that Louis XVI intended to interpose by force in Dutch affairs and agreeing to discontinue war preparations. In making the tr. of the “Contre Declaration,” Short erroneously put the signature of Dorset and Eden instead of that of Montmorin, who signed for the French government. See 12: 293–94, 313. For translations of both, see 3: 327–28.
4. Samuel Blackden to Lafayette, 25 Oct. 1787, not found.
5. See TJ to JJ, 8 Oct. 1787 (first letter); and Dumas to JJ, 26 Oct. 1787, both above.
6. JJ to TJ, 8 Sept. 1787, above.
7. See James M. Varnum to JJ, 27 Aug., ALS, DNA: PCC, item 78, 23: 225 (EJ: 5167); LbkC, , 3: 280–81 (EJ: 2171); and JJ’s reply of 11 Sept. 1787, , 3: 281 (EJ: 2172). JJ enclosed an extract of this paragraph in his letter to Varnum of 7 Mar. 1788, as cited in source note. Before receiving that letter, Varnum again wrote JJ on 25 Feb. 1788 to forward another letter. ALS, DNA: PCC, item 78, 23: 229 (EJ: 5168); LbkC, Domestic Letters, 3: 338 (EJ: 2247). JJ again replied on 11 Mar. 1788 that Pauly could not be found. LbkC, , 3: 338 (EJ: 2248). On 5 Feb. 1788, TJ informed JJ he had located the lawyer, whose name was in fact Dupeuty rather than De Pauly, and forwarded a response from him (not found) to Messrs. Topham Boss and Newman, the owners of the Sally. PtC, DLC: Jefferson (EJ: 10166); 12: 564.
8. Richard O’Bryen to TJ, 25 Sept., and Robert Montgomery to TJ, 15 Oct. 1787, 12: 180–84, 242.
9. The records the receipt of TJ’s letter on 1 Feb. 1788 (EJ: 3784); it was forwarded to Congress on 2 Feb., read there on 5 Feb., and returned to the Office for Foreign Affairs on 12 Feb. See JJ to the President of Congress, 2 Feb., LS, DNA: PCC, item 80, 3: 422 (EJ: 326); LbkC, , 316 (EJ: 2224); 34: 29. On 20 Feb., Henry Remsen Jr. wrote TJ acknowledging this letter, to which TJ replied on 4 May 1788, below. See 12: 612.