sure; if it has really been taken; which I hardly believe.

There is methinks a point that has been too little considered in treaties, the means of making them durable. An honest peasant from the mountains of Provence, brought me the other day a manuscript he had written on the subject, and which he could not procure permission to print. It appeared to me to have much good sense in it; and therefore I got some copies to be struck off for him to distribute where he may think fit. I send you one enclosed. This man aims at no profit from his pamphlet or his project, asks for nothing, expects nothing, and does not even desire to be known. He has acquired he tells me a fortune of near 150 crowns a year (about 187. sterling) with which he is content. This you may imagine would not afford the expence of riding to Paris, so he came on foot; such was his zeal for peace and the hope of forwarding and securing it by communicating his ideas to great men here. His rustic and poor appearance has prevented his access to them; or obtaining their attention; but he does not seem yet to be discouraged. I honour much the character of this veritable philosophe.

: I thank you much for your letters of May 1, 13, and 25, with your proposed preliminaries. It is a pleasure to me to find our sentiments so concurring on points of importance it makes discussions as unnecessary as they might, between us, be inconvenient. I am, my dear Sir, with great esteem and affection, your's ever,

B. FRANKLIN.

EXTRACT OF A LETTER TO B. VAUGHAN, Esq.

Passy, July 10, 1782.

"By the original law of nations, war and

extirpation was the punishment of injury. Humanizing by degrees, it admitted slavery instead of death. A farther step was, the exchange of prisoners instead of slavery. Another, to respect more the property of private persons under conquest, and to be content with acquired dominion. Why should not this law of nations go on improving? Ages have intervened between its several steps; but as knowledge of late increases rapidly, why should not those steps be quickened? Why should it not be agreed to as the future law of nations that in any war hereafter the following descriptions of men should be undisturbed, have the protection of both sides, and be permitted to follow their employments in surety; viz.

1. Cultivators of the earth, because they labour for the subsistence of mankind.

2. Fishermen, for the same reason.

3. Merchants and traders, in unarmed ships, who accommodate different nations by communicating and exchanging the necessaries and conveniences of life.

4. Artists and mechanics, inhabiting and working in open towns.

It is hardly necessary to add that the hospitals of enemies should be unmolested; they ought to be assisted.

In short, I would have nobody fought with but those who are paid for fighting. If obliged to take corn from the farmer, friend or enemy, I would pay him for it; the same for the fish or goods of the others.

This once established, that encouragement to war which

arises from a spirit of rapine, would be taken away, and peace therefore more likely to continue and be lasting." B. FRANKLIN.

To B. VAUGHAN, Esq.

DEAR SIR,

Passy, July 11, 1782.

In mine of yesterday which went by Mr. Young I made no mention of yours of May 11, it not being before me. I have just now found it.

You speak of a "proposed dependent state of America, which you thought Mr. Oswald would begin with." As yet I have heard nothing of it. I have all along understood (perhaps I have understood more than was intended) that the point of dependence was given up, and that we were to be treated with as a free people. I am not sure that Mr. Oswald has explicitly said so, but I know that Mr. Grenville has, and that he was to make that declaration previous to the commencement of the treaty. It is now intimated to me from several quarters that Lord Shelburne's plan is to retain sovereignty for the king, giving us otherwise an independent parliament, and a government similar to that of late intended for Ireland. If this be really his project, our negociation for peace will not go very far; the thing is impracticable and impossible, being inconsistent with the faith we have pledged, to say nothing of the general disposition of our people. Upon the whole I should believe that though Lord S. might formerly have entertained such an idea, he had probably dropped it before

See Letter and propositions to Richard Oswald, Esq. Jan. 14, 1783.

he sent Mr. Oswald here: your words above cited do however throw a little doubt into my mind, and have with the intimations of others, made me less free in communication with his lordship, whom I much esteem and honour, than I should otherwise have been. I wish therefore you would afford me what you can of eclaircissement.

This letter going by a courier will probably get to hand long before the one (preceding in date) which went by Mr. Young, who travels on foot. I therefore inclose the copy of it which was taken in the press. You may return it to me when the other arrives.

By the return of the courier, you may much oblige me, by communicating, what is fairly communicable, of the history of Mr. Fox's and Lord J. Cavendish's resignation, with any other changes made or likely to be made.

With sincere esteem, I am ever, my dear friend, your's most affectionately, B. FRANKLIN.

LETTERS TO RICHARD OSWALD, Esq. AND TO

SIR,

LORD SHELBURNE.

Passy, July 12, 1782.

I inclose a letter for Lord Shelburne, to go by your courier, with some others of which I request his care. They may be put into the penny post. I have received a note informing me that "some opposition given by his lordship to Mr. Fox's decided plan, of unequivocally acknowledging American independence, was one cause of that gentleman's resignation;" this, from what you have told me, appears improbable. It is farther said "that Mr. Grenville thinks Mr. Fox's resignation will be fatal to the present negociation." This perhaps is as

groundless as the former. Mr. Grenville's next courier will probably clear up matters. I did understand from him that such an acknowledgment was intended previous to the commencement of the treaty; and until it is made, and the treaty formally begun, propositions and discussions seem in consideration, to be untimely; nor can I enter into particulars without Mr. Jay, who is now ill with the influenza. My letter therefore to his Lordship, is merely complimentary on his late appointment. I wish a continuance of your health, in that at present sickly city, being with sincere esteem, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant, B. FRANKLIN.

R. Oswald, Esq..

I send you inclosed the late resolutions of the State of Maryland; by which the general disposition of people in America may be guessed, respecting any treaty to be proposed by General Carleton if intended, which I do not believe.

MY LORD,

Passy, July 12, 1782. Mr. Oswald informing me that he is about to dispatch a courier, I embrace the opportunity of congratulating your Lordship on your appointment to the Treasury. It is an extension of your power to do good, and in that view, if in no other, it must increase your happiness which I heartily wish; being with great and sincere respect, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient and most humble servant, B. FRANKLIN. Right Honourable the Earl of Shelburne.