Page images
PDF
EPUB

TO CHARLES THOMSON, ESQ., Secretary of Congress.

DEAR SIR,

[ocr errors]

Passy, May 13, 1784.

Yesterday evening Mr. Hartley met with Mr. Jay and myself, when the ratifications of the definitive treaty were exchanged. I send a copy of the English ratification to the president. Thus the great and hazardous enterprize we have been engaged in, is, God be praised, happily completed: an event I hardly expected I should live to see. A few years of peace, well improved, will restore and increase our strength: but our future safety will depend on our union and our virtue. Britain will be long watching for advantages, to recover what she has lost. If we do not convince the world that we are a nation to be depended on for fidelity in treaties; if we appear negligent in paying our debts, and ungrateful to those who have served and befriended us; our reputation, and all the strength it is capable of procuring, will be lost, and fresh attacks upon us will be encouraged and promoted by better prospects of success. of success. Let us therefore beware of being lulled into a dangerous security and of being both enervated and impoverished by luxury of being weakened by internal contentions and divisions, of being shamefully extravagant in contracting private debts, while we are backward in discharging honourably those of the public; of neglect in military exercises and discipline, and in providing stores of arms and munition of war, to be ready on occasion: for all these are circumstances that give confidence to enemies, and diffidence to friends; and the expenses required to prevent a war, are much lighter than

`those that will, if not prevented, be absolutely necessary to maintain it.

**I am long kept in suspense without being able to learn the purpose of Congress respecting my request of recall, and that of some employment for my Secretary W. Temple Franklin. If I am kept here another winter and as much weakened by it as by the last, I may as well resolve to spend the remainder of my days here; for I shall hardly be able to bear the fatigues of the voyage in returning. During my long absence from America, my friends are continually diminishing by death, and my inducements to return lessened in proportion. But I can make no preparations either for going conveniently, or staying comfortably here, nor take any steps towards making some other provision for my grandson, till I know what I am to expect. Be so good, my dear friend, to send me a little private information. With great esteem, I am ever yours, &c. B. FRANKLIN.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

DAVID HARTLEY, ESQ. TO DR. FRANKLIN.

ŞIR,

Paris, June 1, 1784.

I have the honour to inform you, that I have transmitted to London the, ratification on the part of Congress of the definitive treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States of America, and I am ordered to represent to you,' that a want of form appears in the

[ocr errors]

Copy of a Letter from LORD CARMARTHEN to D. HARTLEY, Esq.
SIR,

St. James's, May 28, 1784.

I received this morning by Lauzun, your dispatch No. 5, and the private letter of the 24th instant, together with the

VOL. II.

2 F

first paragraph of that instrument, wherein the United States are mentioned before his Majesty, contrary to the established custom in every treaty in which a crowned head and a republic are parties. It is likewise to be observed, that the term "definitive articles" is used instead of definitive treaty; and the conclusion appears likewise deficient, as it is neither signed by the President, nor is it dated, and consequently is wanting in some of the most

ratification of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America; and I own it was with the greatest surprize that I perceived so essential a want of form as appears in the very first paragraph of that instrument, wherein the United States are mentioned before his Majesty, contrary to the established custom observed in every treaty in which a crowned head and a republic are contracting parties.

The conclusion likewise appears extremely deficient, as it is nei ther signed by the President nor is it dated, and consequently is wanting in some of the most essential points of form necessary towards authenticating the validity of the instrument.

I should think the American ministers could make no objeɛtion to correcting these defects in the ratification, which might very easily be done, either by signing a declaration in the name of Congress for preventing the particular mode of expression, so far as relates to precedency, in the first paragraph, being considered as a precedent, to be adopted on any future occasion, or else by having a new copy made out in America, in which these mistakes should be corrected, and which might be done without any prejudice arising to either of the parties from the delay. I am, with great truth and regard, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, CARMARTHEN.

1

P.S. I send you enclosed a copy of the ratification-part of the treaty, which it is also to be observed were previously described as "definitive articles."

essential points of form necessary towards authenticating the validity of the instrument.

I am ordered to propose to you, Sir, that these defects in the ratification should be corrected, which might very easily be done either by signing a declaration in the name of Congress for preventing the particular mode of expression so far as relates to precedency in the first paragraph being considered as a precedent to be adopted on any future occasion; or else by having a new copy made out in America in which these mistakes should be corrected, and which might be done without any prejudice arising to either of the parties from the delay. I am, Sir, with great respect and consideration, your most obedient humble servant, D. HARTLEY."

To His Excellency B. Franklin, Esq.

[ocr errors]

To HIS EXCELLENCY DAVID HARTLEY, Esq.

SIR,

·Passy, June 2, 1784)

I have considered the observations you

did me the honour of communicating to me concerning certain inaccuracies of expression and supposed defects of formality in the instrument of ratification; some of which are said to be of such a nature as to affect “the validity of the instrument.”"The first is, "that the United States are named before his Majesty, contrary to the established custom observed in every treaty in which a crowned head and a republic are the contracting parties." With respect to this it seems to me that we should distinguish between the act in which both join, to wit, the treaty, and that which is the act of each separately, the ratification. It is necessary that all the modes of expression in the joint

act, should be agreed to by both parties; though on their separate acts, each party is master of, and alone accountable for, its own mode. If the ministers of the United States had insisted, or even proposed naming in the treaty the States before the King, it might have been deemed injurious to his dignity, as requiring him to acknowledge by that joint act their superiority. But this was not the case; on inspecting the treaty it will be found that his Majesty is always regularly named before the United States. How it happened that the same order was not observed in the ratification I am not informed. Our secretaries are new in this kind of business, which methinks should be favourably considered if they chance to make mistakes. They may have been led by some precedent; or being republicans, and of course preferring that kind of government as in their opinions more excellent than monarchy, they may naturally have thought it right, when the two kinds were to be named in their own instrument, to give their own kind the precedence; an effect of that sort of complaisance which almost every nation seems to have for itself, and of which the English too afford an instance, when in the title of the King they always name Great Britain before France. The Congress however adopted the form, presented to them, and it is thus become an act of theirs; but the King having no part in it, if it is improper, it reflects only upon those who, committed the impropriety, and can no way affect his Majesty. Whatever, may have occasioned this transposition, I am confident no disrespect to the King was intended in it by the Congress. They, as little thought of affronting his Majesty by naming the States before him, as your ministers did of affronting the Supreme Being, when in the corresponding first paragraph of their

« PreviousContinue »