1. GW’s most recent extant letter to Newenham is dated 20 Oct. 1792. GW next wrote to him on 6 Aug. 1797, when he apologized for “so long a silence.” GW attributed this silence, or dearth of correspondence, to his presidential responsibilities, which “allowed no leisure for the indulgence of private correspondencies” (Papers, Retirement Series description begins W. W. Abbot et al., eds. The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series. 4 vols. Charlottesville, Va., 1998–99. description ends 1:290–91).

2. GW’s Farewell Address, published on 19 Sept. 1796, announcing his forthcoming retirement from the presidency, appeared in British newspapers by November of that year (see St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post [London], 8–10 Nov. 1796).

Rufus King, the U.S. minister to Great Britain, provided similar reports about GW’s reputation in Britain. In a letter to Alexander Hamilton, written from London on 6 Feb., King wrote: “Nothing can exceed the applause that is given here to our Government, and no American who has not been in England can have a just Idea of the admiration expressed among all Parties of General Washington. It is a common observation that he is not only the most illustrious but also the most meritorious character that has hitherto appeared. The King is without doubt a very popular character among the People of this Nation: it would be saying very much to affirm, that next to him, General Washington is the most popular character among them, and yet I verily believe this to be the fact” (King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King description begins Charles R. King, ed. The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. 6 vols. New York, 1894–1900. description ends , 2:14143, quote on 142).

3. In 1795, Robert R. Livingston had written sixteen essays against the Jay Treaty under the pseudonym “Cato.” The essays appeared in sixteen separate issues of The Argus, or Greenleaf’s New Daily Advertiser (New York). They were later reprinted in the Examination of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation … ([New York], 1795) and in The American Remembrancer; or, an Impartial Collection of Essays … Relative … to the Treaty with Great Britain (Philadelphia, 1795) (see also Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 18:475–79).

4. British newspapers, such as the Telegraph (London) for 19 Jan. 1797, published Thomas Paine’s letters to GW dated 20 Sept. 1795 and 30 July 1796. For more on the 30 July letter, which accused GW of duplicity and misconduct, and for other recent publications designed to harm GW’s reputation, see Paine to GW, 30 July 1796, source note; see also John Carey to GW, 1 Oct. 1796, and n.1 to that document; and GW to David Stuart, 8 Jan., and n.2 to that document. A London edition of the 30 July missive, titled Letter From Thomas Paine to George Washington, President of the United States of America, appeared in 1797. Several British papers offered critiques of Paine’s letters. The True Briton (London) for 20 Jan. 1797 reported that Paine was “now attempting to sully the character of that really great Man [GW] with the most rancorous abuse.”

In response to criticisms of GW by British officials, British newspapers also had printed items that served to vindicate GW’s character and policies. The Morning Chronicle (London) for 19 Nov. 1796 printed an article reporting that “British Ministers” had “most carefully shunned … any discussion of the principles upon which that great ⟨man⟩ [GW] regulated his Government.” The article considered GW’s “attention to preserve peace” and attempts to cement national unity and contrasted them with the British “system of Government, supported by war, division, and terror.”

5. In December 1796, French general Louis-Lazare Hoche, in cooperation with a fleet under Adm. Justin Bonaventure Morard de Galles, took command of a military expedition to Ireland. De Galles’s fleet, consisting of over forty warships carrying more than 14,000 troops, sailed from Brest, France, in mid-December. Hoche made additional arrangements for a reinforcement of 14,000–15,000 men. Despite British plans to intercept the French fleet, it arrived off Bantry Bay, Ireland, on 21 December. However, a severe snow-storm and a scarcity of provisions prevented the French from landing, and contributed to the failure of the expedition and the fleet’s almost-immediate return to France. A second French invasion attempt, assisted by a Dutch naval force, took place in July 1797, but was thwarted (see Elliott, The United Irishmen and France description begins Marianne Elliott. Partners in Revolution: The United Irishmen and France. New Haven and London, 1982. description ends , 111–15, 156–59; see also Bartlett, “Ireland, 1793–1803,” description begins Thomas Bartlett. “Defence, Counter-Insurgency and Rebellion: Ireland, 1793–1803.” In A Military History of Ireland. Edited by Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery, 247–93. Cambridge, England, 1996. description ends 268–69). For the fears of a French invasion of Great Britain and Ireland in the summer and fall of 1796, and for Britain’s military preparations for national defense purposes, see Rufus King to GW, 12 Nov. 1796, and notes 5 and 6.

Rufus King commented on the 1796 French-attempted invasion when he wrote Secretary of State Timothy Pickering from London on 5 March 1797: “The expedition against Ireland, tho’ it failed, increased the public inquietude, by refuting the consoling opinion that England was safe against invasion, so long as she could maintain a decided superiority upon the Ocean. … The consequence has been that the Fears and Despondency of the Nation have been such, as to materially impair that confidence so necessary in conducting the affairs of every Nation, and without which the means of administering this Government are annihilated” (King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King description begins Charles R. King, ed. The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. 6 vols. New York, 1894–1900. description ends , 2:150–52).

The invasion attempts were championed by the Society for United Irishmen, a revolutionary association founded in 1791 to advocate for political reform. With an objective to create an Irish Republic similar to the one in France, the society members not only backed French invasion attempts but also sought to stir up a domestic insurrection, which, in their view, would lend support to invading forces.

6. Anxiety in Ireland over French invasion threats inspired the establishment of the Yeomanry force in late August 1796. A part-time force made up mostly of Protestants, the Yeomanry was charged with policing the countryside and was called out during emergencies, such as riots and invasions. The Yeomanry consisted of volunteer corps that included officers appointed by the lord lieutenant and commissioned by the Crown. By early 1797, the strength of the Yeomanry amounted to 440 corps and approximately 24,000 men. By June 1798, the force’s strength totalled around 40,000 men. Newenham allegedly raised 150 yeomen by June 1797 (see McDowell, Ireland description begins R. B. McDowell. Ireland in the Age of Imperialism and Revolution, 1760–1801. Oxford, England, 1979. description ends , 558–59; see also Bartlett, “Ireland, 1793–1803,” description begins Thomas Bartlett. “Defence, Counter-Insurgency and Rebellion: Ireland, 1793–1803.” In A Military History of Ireland. Edited by Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery, 247–93. Cambridge, England, 1996. description ends 265–68; and Kelly, Sir Edward Newenham description begins James Kelly. Sir Edward Newenham MP 1734–1814: Defender of the Protestant Constitution. Dublin, 2004. description ends , 269).

Newspapers reported on the Yeomanry and its effectiveness during the attempted French invasion of Ireland. The Morning Chronicle (London) for 4 Jan. 1797 printed an article, dated 3 Jan. 1797 at Whitehall, which reads: “the Yeomanry and Volunteer corps displayed the utmost zeal and alacrity in undertaking the guards in those places from whence the regular troops were withdrawn; and the universal readiness shewn … to forward the preparations for defence, left no doubt of the event, in case the enemy had ventured to make a descent.” Another report, dated 3 Feb. from Dublin, stated that on the 2nd, “the Yeomanry Corps, horse and foot, were inspected … and went through an appointed series of movements … The whole number under inspection amounted to about 3000, 600 of whom consisted of cavalry” (Times [London], 8 Feb. 1797).

7. Newenham probably refers to Bushfield, his estate near Nenagh, Tipperary County, Ireland. Financial problems forced him to abandon that estate sometime in 1796 and to settle at Limerick. Low finances, however, caused him to leave his residence at the latter place as well (see Kelly, Sir Edward Newenham description begins James Kelly. Sir Edward Newenham MP 1734–1814: Defender of the Protestant Constitution. Dublin, 2004. description ends , 265–66, 268).

8. For the election of John Adams as president, see U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to GW, 10 February.

9. Lady Newenham refers to Edward’s wife, Grace Anna.