FC in an unknown hand (DLC: John Paul Jones Papers); docketed, not by JA: “Plan of Expeditions proposed June 5 1778 to the French minr. of marine & the American Plenipots.”; notations in another hand: “Exd. Examined? J. Copd.”

These dates seemed indicated because Jones was still at Brest on 5 June, and in his private correspondence with Franklin at that time he made no mention of an expedition such as is described in this proposal. Such an error in dating may have resulted from Jones' having, at the beginning of a new month, inadvertently inserted the name of the previous month, a relatively common error. The “Plan” could have been drawn up on 5 July, since Jones was then present and meeting with 263Sartine, who wrote to the Commissioners on that date (below) concerning him and an “expedition particuliere.” The date of 4 July seems equally possible because on 2 Aug., Jones wrote to the Commissioners (below) asking permission to make a copy of his “Memorandum” of the 4th, which had been intended for use in conversations then being held, and of which only one copy had been made. It seems likely that Jones referred to the plan here under consideration and that, from the notations immediately following the docketing, this document is the copy he obtained from the one in the possession of the Commissioners, which has not been found.

The plan is of additional interest, and perhaps significance, because of its close similarity to the course followed by Jones in his Bonhomme Richard expedition of 1779 (see Morison, John Paul Jones , p. 200–220, particularly the map on p. 211). Indeed, JA states that Sartine's letter of 5 July (noted above), marked “the first conception of the Plan which was afterwards carried into Execution under Jones in the Bonhomme Richard” ( Diary and Autobiography , 4:158). Moreover, Jones, in the portion of his 1786 memoir to Louis XVI which discusses his visit to Paris and meetings with Sartine in the summer of 1778, notes his failure to gain command of the Indien and states that he made proposals, apparently much like those contained in this plan, for “secret missions” to be undertaken by a “small, light squadron” of as few as “three frigates and three cutters” (John Paul Jones' Memoir of the American Revolution, ed. Gerald W. Gawalt, Washington, 1979, p. 22–23). Finally, on 17 July, Jones wrote Sartine (PCC, No. 168,1, f. 177–178) in terms that seem to refer to this plan. In the letter he stated that “had your first plan taken Effect the most pleasing prospect of success would have been before me. But that seems now a distant Object. I have no doubt but that many Projects, that would Promise Success, might be formed from the Hints which I had the Honor of sending, lately for your Inspection: had I been entrusted with the Chief Command, I would have held myself Responsible for the Consequences.”

Very likely the scheme to obtain the command of the frigate Indien for Jones (see the Commissioners to Jones, 25 May, calendared above; Jones to the Commissioners, 3 July, above).

RC (Adams Papers); docketed: “Mr A. Lee. July 5 1778.”

Lee is presumably referring to Jones' orders from the Commissioners of 16 June (calendared above), although JA had a copy in his Letterbook. JA acknowledged receipt of the orders in his reply to Lee of the 5th (NNPM). Lee might be referring to Jones' instructions from the Marine Committee of 6 Sept. 1777 (PCC, No. 168, I, f. 15–16), requiring him to obey the instructions of the Commissioners “as far as it shall be in your Power,” except that there is no evidence that Jones communicated them to the Commissioners, at least not to Arthur Lee, and no copies have been found in either the Franklin or Lee Papers.

Lee's transmission of the orders and the sentiments expressed regarding Jones' conduct probably stemmed in part from Jones' letter of 3 July (above), but more directly from an encounter that Lee had had on the previous day with JA and Franklin, which he recorded in his fragmentary journal of the period 25 May to 4 July (MH-H: Lee Papers). Lee wrote that JA had informed him that Chaumont and Jonathan Williams had brought Jones to him with a proposal, which he rejected, that the Commissioners permit Jones to serve, presumably during his wait for a new assignment, as a volunteer in the French fleet at Brest. At that point: “Dr. F. coming in Mr. L. said it was a most pernicious example that an Officer in the public service should quit his post without leave, stay here, in defiance of his orders intriguing to get into another service. Dr. F. excusd it, said we were not certain he was doing so, not knowing, that Mr. A. had told me what Mss. Chaumont and Williams had proposd but upon his repeating it the Dr. was silent. However he made an excuse of not having Capt. Jones's instructions to see how far he was under our orders, for postponing the proposition I made that we should order him to his ship immediately.”

Although Lee could have had only suspicions, Franklin's statements do seem questionable. He may not have known the exact nature of Jones' instructions from the Marine Committee, but it is difficult to believe that Chaumont and Williams would have approached JA with such a proposal without consulting Franklin first, and it was Franklin who had invited Jones to Paris (see the Commissioners to Jones, 25 May, calendared above).

It seems likely that the “enclosd Account” was that for the period 30 March to 30 June (above, under the initial date), which indicated that Jonathan Williams had received 114,281.14.11 livres.

No orders for Jones later than 16 June have been found in either draft or final form, probably because Franklin, in light of his role in bringing Jones to Paris, refused to permit any. The only extant letter to Schweighauser for this period is that of 9 July, which is partly concerned with Jonathan Williams' activities (JA, Diary and Autobiography , 4:147).

John Thornton, who served Lee as secretary and the British as a spy and was soon to be replaced by Hezekiah Ford (Wharton, ed., Dipl. Corr Amer. Rev. , 1:539, 659–661). According to Lee's docketing on a copy enclosed in a letter to the Committee for Foreign Affairs of 7 Aug., the charges against Thornton were in a “Paper delivered secretly to Mr J Adams by Dr Bancroft, and by Mr Adams given to me” (PCC, No. 83,1, f. 233–237, 255–261; see also Wharton, ed., Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:679–680). Bancroft, reporting on Thornton's financial dealings with Joseph 265Wharton of London, depicted him, at worst, as a British spy, and, at best, as a speculator using documents obtained from the Commissioners, or forgeries thereof, to gain financial advantage. In addition, Bancroft noted Thornton's attempt to cash a bill drawn on Arthur Lee of which, according to his letter of 7 Aug., Lee was unaware. In that letter Lee stated that, because of its source, he had at first discounted Bancroft's report, but had been led by later information (enclosed with the letter of 7 Aug.) to conclude that his secretary had been seduced by the “stockjobbers,” including Bancroft, who had continued to be trusted with state secrets even after the stockjobbers' activities were known to Franklin and Deane.