LbC (Adams Papers); addressed: “His Exy. Pres. Laurens chez Madame Babut et Labouctiere a Nantes.”

This is Rodolph Valltravers' letter of 11 April written from Munich (Adams Papers). There Valltravers, a Swiss who declared his veneration for JA and support for the American cause, sought an appointment from JA to serve the interests of the United States in Europe. He enclosed a duplicate of his letter of 24 March to Henry Laurens (ScL [ScU]) in the Tower of London, which might not have been received, but see Laurens' reply of 27 Aug., below. Valltravers wrote to Henry Laurens on 25 Sept. (ScL [ScU]) that JA had replied to his letter with one of 18 Aug. (not found). There JA had promised to forward the enclosed letter to Laurens and indicated that Laurens was not on parole and thus, in Valltravers' mind, free to act on the proposal contained in his letter.

With those of all states whom it may concern. For a discussion of the significance of this phrase from Fitzherbert's comission, see JA's 18 Aug. letter to Robert R. Livingston, and notes 2 and 3, below. The final quotation marks are supplied.

RC in Charles Storer's hand (PCC, No. 84, IV, f. 125–132). LbC (Adams Papers). Text lost at a worn fold supplied from the Letterbook copy.

In the Letterbook, the paragraph continued with the following canceled passage: “It has been Sent to the States General by, Mr De Berkenrode, the Dutch Ambassader at Paris, and has been communicated to me by a Friend. It is in these Words.” In the letter as printed in the Boston Patriot of 8 May 1811, JA restored the canceled passage and then wrote “[N.B. in 1810.—This essential document was not communicated to me 249by the Comte De Vergennes, nor by the Duke De La Vauguion, nor by Dr. Franklin, nor Mr. Jay—but by a member of the states general, in confidence. This occasioned me no small embarrassment. What could I write about it to my colleagues, who wrote nothing of it to me?]” The text of the commission to Alleyne Fitzherbert provided by JA, and translated in note 2, is that authorizing him to conclude a treaty with the Netherlands, but see note 3.

Translation done by Congress from a copy of the commission in C. W. F. Dumas' hand (PCC, No. 93, II, f. 186–188):

“George R,

“George the Third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, Arch Treasurer and Elector of the holy Roman Empire—To all and every one who shall see these Presents Greeting.

“Whereas the ravages of War having already spread over too many parts of the world, we are greatly desirous to see public tranquillity restored, and so many quarrels amicably settled, and whereas we have resolved to send for this purpose a man equal to this arduous business to our good Brother the most Christian King—

“Know then, that we, greatly confiding in the fidelity, industry, knowledge understanding and abilities of our faithful and well beloved Allen Fitz Herbert, Esquire, We have nominated, appointed and constituted him, and we do by these presents nominate appoint and constitute him our true, certain and undoubted Commissary, Attorney and Plenipotentiary, giving and granting to him all and every sort of power, faculty and authority, as well as our general and special Mandate (in such a manner however, that the one may not derogate to the other) to repair to the Court of our aforesaid good brother the most Christian King, and there for us and in our name, with the Delegates, Commissaries, Deputies and Plenipotentiaries of the High and mighty Lords the states general of the United Netherlands, and with those of all Princes and states whom it may concern, having sufficient authority to meet and confer, as well jointly as separately and with them to agree, treat, consult and conclude, of the most speedy restoration of a firm and sincere peace, friendship and amity, to sign in our name all that he shall thus agree to and conclude, and to digest what he shall have concluded into a Treaty or Treaties, or any other Instruments, and as many such as shall be necessary, to receive and deliver the same, and to transact every other necessary matter to bring his business to a happy conclusion in the same form to be of the same validity as if it was transacted by ourselves in person, promising freely and on the word of a King to agree to, ratify and accept whatever shall be transacted and concluded by our said Plenipotentiary, and not to suffer at any time that it be violated entirely or in part, or that any thing may be done to the contrary.

“In faith whereof we have signed these presents with our Royal hand, and affixed thereto our seal of Great Britain. Given at our Palace at St. James the 24th day of July Anno Domini 1782 and in the 22d Year of our Reign.”

The Latin phrase reads, with those of all states whom it may concern. JA was troubled because Fitzherbert lacked a commission to negotiate specifically a peace treaty with the United States. Instead he held commissions to negotiate with France, Spain, and the Netherlands, with the United States being included only under the terms of the passage cited by JA. This was unacceptable because neither the British nation nor George III recognized the United States as independent and sovereign. Therefore, it was unwise to accept a mere verbal assurance that a commission that did not name the United States specifically as a party to the negotiations nevertheless included the United States among those states concerned in the negotiations and with whom Fitzherbert was empowered to negotiate. A treaty could be negotiated only between sovereign states, and in the absence of recognition, Britain was free to disavow any agreement that Fitzherbert might make with its colonies. This issue was not resolved until Richard Oswald received his commission of 21 Sept., below, authorizing him to negotiate with the United States.

In the Letterbook, the two paragraphs that followed were canceled. They read,

“For my own Part I will be very explicit with Congress. If I were now the Sole Minister for treating of Peace, I should decidedly refuse to enter into any Conferences with any one whatever, without full and express Powers to treat with the United States of America. If I had been alone when the first Messengers were sent over, I mean when Mr Diggs, and Mr oswald came over, my Answer would have 250been clear, that I never would treat but with such a Plenipotentiary. If my Opinion had been asked by Dr Franklin I should have given him the same. If this only wise and manly Part had been taken We should have had Such a Minister, long eer now to have treated with and Mr Fox's System would have prevailed. But instead of this Dr Franklin Sends over to England Mr Alexander and he tells them that no such Acknowledgement of our Independence would be insisted on. Thus it is that all American affairs are conducted by Dr Franklin. I have not refused to act in the Commission with him because I thought it possible that I might perhaps do some little good in it, or prevent some Evil. But I despair, of doing much, to such a Degree, that I beg Congress would release me from this Tye and appoint another Minister of that Commission in my Room.

“At least this is my humble opinion. If We ever gain any Advantage from modern Britons, by relaxing in one Iota from our Principles and just Pretentions, I am wholly mistaken in their Character.”

When JA published this letter in the Boston Patriot of 8 May 1811, he included the canceled material and at the end of the letter wrote, “the paragraphs in the foregoing letter included within crochetts, thus, from the words—for my own part, to the words wholly mistaken in their character I omitted in my letter to Mr. Livingston, upon more mature reflection.”

At his point in the Letterbook, JA wrote and then canceled a closing to the letter, deciding to include the instructions to the Dutch negotiators.

This is Catharine II's 10 March 1780, N. S., declaration of the principles of the armed neutrality. For the text of the declaration and a discussion of its significance, particularly from the American point of view, see vol. 9:121–126.