RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “T. B. Adams Esqr”; endorsed: “J, Q Adams Esqr: / 18 November 1795 / 4 Decr Recd: / 12 Answd:.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 130.

On 8 Nov. Nathan Frazier Jr., John Gardner, and James White visited JQA at Hellevoetsluis. The next day, he finally sailed for England, arriving on the 10th and reaching London on the 11th (D/JQA/24, APM Reel 27).

JQA was destined to be disappointed in his wait for new orders. On 15 Jan. 1796 Timothy Pickering finally wrote to JQA to explain that the instructions originally drawn up in Aug. 1795, which planned for additional negotiations with Britain, had been made obsolete by the speedy ratification and exchange of the Jay Treaty. Creation of a new set of instructions was hindered by the lack of a permanent secretary of state, though Pickering promised “they will be immediately attended to” (Adams Papers). This letter, received in March 1796, confirmed that JQA’s mission to London had been largely unnecessary.

The previous spring Thomas Pinckney, U.S. minister to Great Britain, had been named special commissioner and envoy extraordinary to negotiate a treaty with Spain. After successfully completing his mission with the signing of Pinckney’s Treaty on 27 Oct. 1795, he began his return trip to England, arriving in mid-Jan. 1796 ( DAB ; D/JQA/24, 15 Jan., APM Reel 27).

CA’s letter has not been found nor the source of JQA’s information, but the London Courier and Evening Gazette, 14 Nov. 1795, reported that “a bilious fever, highly malignant, and very near resembling the yellow fever of the West Indies,” had been prevalent 67 in New York City since July. But there was hope that “a considerable frost will undoubtedly put an end to it.” An item in the London Lloyd’s Evening Post, 18–20 Nov., informed readers, “A vessel arrived yesterday from New-York, by which we learn that the dreadful fever which has prevailed there so long, is very fast abating, and is now principally confined to the lower part of the city, near the docks.”

TBA had written to JQA on 7 Nov. regarding the case of the capture of the Penn as a French vessel by a Dutch privateer near the Cape of Good Hope. The captain of the vessel in London was protesting its capture, claiming it was an American vessel, and hoped to receive assistance from Samuel Bayard (1767–1840), an agent for the United States in London overseeing claims at British admiralty courts. Van Son was likely one of the partners in the Dutch mercantile firm of Coenraad & Hendrick van Son (Adams Papers; Washington, Papers, Retirement Series, 2:33; Joost Jonker and Keetie Sluyterman, At Home on the World Markets: Dutch International Trading Companies from the 16th Century until the Present, The Hague, 2000, p. 394, note 54).

Not found.

In early November William Pitt and Lord Grenville introduced into Parliament bills that would become the Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act and the Seditious Meetings Act, both in response to the attack on George III’s coach on 29 Oct., for which see TBA to AA, 1 Dec., and note 3, below, and to mass meetings held to demand political reform in increasingly radical terms. The first act was designed to clarify the definition of treason, adding any direct or indirect attempt to intimidate the king, all of which was punishable by death, and to restrict the right of radicals to petition the government. The second forbade meetings of more than fifty people without a license and gave magistrates broader scope to declare gatherings to be riots (Jennifer Mori, William Pitt and the French Revolution 1785–1795, Edinburgh, 1997, p. 252–256).

Baron von Bielfeld, the Prussian chargé d’affaires in the Netherlands, was a close friend of JQA and frequent walking companion, most recently on 2, 9, 16 Oct. (M/TBA/2, 16 Feb. 1795, APM Reel 282; D/JQA/24, APM Reel 27).

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “The Vice-President.”; endorsed: “J. Q. A. / Nov 21. 1795” and “Bet. N. 15. and 16.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 130.

JQA’s most recent letter to JA, of 17 Nov., provided a lengthy description of political activities in France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. JQA outlined the current composition of the new French legislature, observing, “If the tone of the Directory can be anticipated by any consideration of the character of its members, it will not be 68 remarkable for stability or harmony. … The new Legislature did not assemble under the fairest auspices that could be wished. A civil war in the heart of Paris, but a few days before stifled in blood, a paper currency depreciated to the lowest extreme of sufferance; an expence of more than an hundred daily millions to support, and defeat, a word of which they had almost lost the use attending their armies.” Although the Dutch were outwardly celebrating their liberty under the French, JQA believed, “They are however at length seriously alarmed. They expect an attack from a corps under the hereditary prince of Orange; they are afraid of Prussia, afraid of England; afraid of their own people.” Likewise, Great Britain, too, JQA saw as divided: “The uneasiness and discontent which has been produced by the War has naturally mingled with the revolutionary principles and designs; but hitherto an occasion had been wanting to connect them closely with the pursuits of the opposition leaders. That occasion seems to be now furnished, and it gives a consistency to the party adverse to the Government, that is really formidable” (Adams Papers).

The enclosures have not been found, but the London newspapers contained extensive coverage of the debate over what would become the Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act and the Seditious Meetings Act, both still under discussion in Parliament, including reports of mass meetings in opposition to the bills. See, for example, London Tomahawk, 12 Nov., and London Courier and Evening Gazette, 16 November.

John Stockdale published a new edition of JA’s three-volume Defence of the Const. in London in 1794. The enclosure has not been found but was presumably the Monthly Review, 2d ser., 16:547–553 (Jan.–April 1795). The positive review indicates that “readers will derive much pleasure, and … instruction” from JA’s history of “republics democratical, aristocratical, monarchical, or regal and mixed.” The writer also uses the review as a call for reform of the British government, arguing, “With a constitution so admirably adapted as that of Great Britain is shewn to be for the preservation of liberty, such, in the general outline, with due allowance for antient institutions, ought to be the present picture of British freedom. If the fact be in any respect otherwise, the defect, not being in the machine, must be in the manner of working it. When the absurd and disgraceful antipathy, which has arisen in this country against reform, shall have subsided, we trust that such regulations will be adopted, as will effectually prove that the balancing system of government, so ably defended in this work, is practically, as well as theoretically, productive of every blessing which can be enjoyed in a free government.”