is ever likely to be made by me, and I believe by no other authorised person whatever in behalf of America. You may farther, if you please, inform his lordship, that Mr. Adams, Mr. Laurens, Mr. Jay and myself, have long since been empowered by a special commission to treat of peace, whenever a negociation shall be opened for that purpose: but it must always be understood that this is to be in conjunction with our allies, conformably to the solemn treaties made with them.

You have, my dear friend, a strong desire to promote peace, and it is a most laudable and virtuous desire. Permit me then to wish that you would, in order to succeed as a mediator, avoid such invidious expressions as may have an effect in preventing your purpose. You tell me that no stipulation for our independence must be in the treaty, because you "verily believe (so deep is the jealousy between England and France) that England would fight for a straw to the last man and the last shilling, rather than be dictated to by France." And again, that "the nation would proceed to every extremity rather than be brought to a formal recognition of independence at the haughty command of France." My dear sir, if every proposition of terms for peace that may be made by one of the parties at war is to be called and considered by the other as dictating, and a haughty command, and for that reason rejected with a resolution of fighting to the last man rather than agree to it, you see that in such case no treaty of peace is possible. In fact we began the war for independence on your government, which we found tyrannical, and this before France had any thing to do with our affairs: the article in our treaty whereby the "two parties engage that neither of them shall conclude either truce or peace with Great Britain without the formal consent of the other first obtained, and

VOL. II.

E

mutually engage not to lay down their arms until the independence of the United States shall have been formally or tacitly assured by the treaty or treaties that shall terminate the war," was an article inserted at our instance, being in our favor. And you see by the article itself, that your great difficulty may be easily got over, as a formal acknowledgment of our independence is not made necessary. But we hope by God's help to enjoy it, and I suppose we shall fight for it as long as we are able. I do not make any remarks on the other propositions, because I think that unless they were made by authority, the discussion of them is unnecessary and may be inconvenient. The supposition of our being disposed to make a separate peace, I could not be silent upon, as it materially affected our reputation and essential interests. If I have been a little warm on that offensive point, reflect on your repeatedly urging it, and endeavor to excuse me. Whatever may be the fate of our poor countries, let you and I die, as we have lived, in peace with each other. Assuredly I continue with great and sincere esteem, my dear friend, yours most affectionately, B. FRANKLIN.

D. HARTLEY, Esq. M. P. To DR. FRANKLIN. MY DEAR SIR,

London, Jan. 24, 1782.

I received yours of the 15th instant, this day. I must take the earliest opportunity of setting you right in one mistake, which runs through your whole letter, and which to you, under that mistake, must be a very delicate point. You seem to apprehend that America has been stated in the proposition to Lord North, as "disposed to enter into a separate treaty with Great Britain;" but you omit the condition, viz.

in the words immediately following," and that their allies were disposed to consent to it." There cannot possibly be any supposition of treachery to allies, in any proposition to which they may consent. A separate treaty with the consent of the allies of America, was the proposition communicated to me by Mr. Alexander, and which I laid before the minister, and which I reported back again to Mr. Alexander, in writing, when I showed him the paper intitled "Conciliatory Propositions," which I took care to reduce to writing, with a view of avoiding mistakes: therefore I have not misunderstood Mr. Alexander. I have since seen Mr. A. many times, and he has always stated one and the same proposition, viz. that America was disposed to enter into a separate treaty because their allies were disposed to consent that they should. Therefore there cannot exist a suspicion of treachery. It occurred to me once whilst I was writing, to bar against that misconstruction: but, having specified the consent of the allies of America, in the same sentence, I could not conceive such a misconstruction to have been possible. You have mistaken another point greatly. You say, "a truce for ten years.” There is not in the bill any such disposition or thought; on the contrary, it is specified in the enclosed paper, that it is kept indefinite, for the sole purpose of avoiding the suspicion which you have suggested. The truce may be for 20, or 50, or 100 years, (in my opinion the longer the better). But in any case, what I mean now to state is the indefinite term in the bill. The articles of intercourse are only proposed for ten years certain, just to strew the way with inviting and conciliatory facilities, in the hope that a little time given for cooling would confirm a perpetual peace. If I were permitted to be the mediator I should certainly propose the truce for 20 years: but if no more than ten years could be obtained,

I would certainly not refuse such a ground of pacification and treaty. I refer you to several of my letters two or three years ago, for the justification of my sentiments on that head. Another point: look at all my letters since 1778, and see if I have at any time suggested any breach of treaty or of honor: on the contrary, I think a faithless nation, if exterminated, would not deserve the pity of mankind. I speak of all that I know in the treaty between America and France, and what I think reasonable upon the case itself. If America is farther bound than we know of, they must abide by it. I speak to the apparent and public foundation of the treaty, article second, with the provision of tacitly from article eight: and now I refer you to my letter to you, as long ago as April 10, 1779: "If beyond this essential and directed end, and upon grounds totally unconnected with that alliance, not upon motives of magnanimity for the relief of an innocent people, but from distinct and unconnected motives of private European sentiments, America should be dragged into the consequence of a general European war, she may apply to France the apostrophe of the poet, speaking in the person of Helen to Paris non hoc pollicitus tua!" You see therefore that our sentiments have been uniform, and as I think reasonable, because I still remain in those sentiments. Suppose, for instance, (and you call it the case of a straw if you please) that Great Britain and France should continue the war for ten years, on the point of a commissary at Dunkirk, aye or no-would it be reasonable or a casus fœderis, that America should be precluded from a separate treaty for ten years, and therefore involved in the consequential war, after the essential and direct ends of the treaty of February 6, 1778, were accomplished? As far as my judgment goes, upon the knowledge of such facts as are public, I should think it was neither reasonable

nor a casus fœderis. This is the breviate of the argument, in which there is no thought or suggestion of any breach of faith or honor. I did conclude that France was disposed to give their consent, because Mr. Alexander informed me so, and because I thought it reasonable that France should consent, and reasonable that America should enjoy the benefit of that consent. I transmitted it to Lord North as a proposition temperate and pacific on the part of America, and consented to. by their allies, and on no other ground did I transmit or propose it. All that your letter tells me is," that America will not break it with her allies, and that her commissioners will not entertain such a thought;" but give me leave to add, that they, as honest men, cannot disdain such a thought, more than I do every honest man ought to disdain, the office, or the thought of proposing a breach of faith to them. I have often told you, that such an office or such a thought shall never be mine. But you have not told me that France would not be disposed to consent to a separate treaty of peace, for that ally whose peace was the original declared object of the alliance. In the case supposed, viz. of certain supposed or real punctilios between two proud and belligerent nations, which might possibly involve America, for years, in a war totally unconnected with the objects of the alliance. Besides, if any rubs should occur in the road to a general peace, France is too proud a nation to say, that beyond the policy of contributing to the separation of America from Great Britain in any contest of rivalship, they cannot meet their rivals in war, without the assistance of America. I cannot conceive that the minister of a great belligerent nation could entertain such a thought, as affecting their own sense of honor, or be so unreasonable to their allies, as to withhold consent to their peace, when the essential and direct ends of the alliance were satisfied. Observe, I do not contend against a general peace: on the contrary, I