Papers of John Adams, volume 7

Arthur Lee to Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, 7 February 1779 Lee, Arthur Franklin, Benjamin JA Arthur Lee to Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, 7 February 1779 Lee, Arthur Franklin, Benjamin Adams, John
Arthur Lee to Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
Gentlemen Chaillot Feb. 7th. 1779

To a written Letter,1 one of you was civil enough to return me a verbal answer, that Doctor Bancroft was appointed to transact business for us in England, and that his instructions shoud be sent to me.

Why you shoud think that in the choice of a person to represent us, I shoud have no voice; I am at a loss to conceive.

The notorious character of Dr. Bancroft as a Stockjobber is perfectly known to you. The dishonor of his transactions in that way, having been visited upon the Commissioners you also know.2 His living in open defiance of decency and religion you are no strangers to;3 nor to his enmity against me, and the constant means he employs to calumniate my character. You know also that he is the creature and Agent of that Mr. Deane, who has just publishd a most false and scandalous libel against Congress and some of their Servants; which, in the opinion of all persons of honor whom I have heard speak of it, is likely to injure the affairs of the United States in Europe, and greatly disgrace our national character.

For these reasons I shoud have imagind that Dr. Bancroft woud have been the last person in the World you woud have chosen to represent us, or to vest with public Confidence. There are, most certainly in Paris, Americans of untainted Reputation and undoubted abilities, who I am sure woud be willing to undertake any Commission from us for the service of their Country.

I have farther to inform you as one of your Colleagues, that I have evidence in my possession, which makes me consider Dr. Bancroft as a Criminal with regard to the United States, and that I shall have him chargd as such, whenever he goes within their jurisdiction.4

If after consideration of these Reasons, and of this information, you shoud still be of opinion he is a proper person to represent us; you will give me leave by this letter to dissent from, and wash my hands of, his appointment.

395

I have the honor to be, with the greatest esteem & respect, Gentlemen Your most obedient Humble Servant

Arthur Lee

RC (PPAmP: Franklin Papers).

1.

In a brief letter written earlier this day, Lee had demanded to know whether it was true that Dr. Edward Bancroft was being sent to England on a mission (to Franklin and JA, 7 Feb., PPAmP: Franklin Papers). Also on this date Bancroft wrote to inform Lee that he had been requested by Franklin and JA to go to England to facilitate the exchange of American prisoners, and asked that Lee send him those portions of Lee's letter that pertained to him (MH-H: Lee Papers).

2.

See Lee's letter to the Committee of Correspondence of 26 April 1778 (Wharton, ed., Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 2:562), as well as Muscoe Livingston's signed statement of 11 April 1778 (PCC, No. 83, II, f. 49) declaring that he had seen evidence that Bancroft had used his knowledge that a Franco-American treaty would be signed in Feb. 1778 to speculate on the London market.

3.

A reference to Bancroft's mistress. For more information on him, see vol. 6:14, note 3; JA, Diary and Autobiography , 4:71–74, and note 4.

4.

Presumably a reference to Lee's suspicion that Bancroft was a British spy and to which he referred in the letter to the Committee of Correspondence of 26 April 1778 and elsewhere.

Arthur Lee to Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, 8 February 1779 Lee, Arthur Franklin, Benjamin JA Arthur Lee to Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, 8 February 1779 Lee, Arthur Franklin, Benjamin Adams, John
Arthur Lee to Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
Gentlemen Feby. 8th. 1779

Having not seen the Letter of Mr. Williams to which one of those sent me is an Answer I cannot form any judgment of it.1

As there are no marks mentiond by which Mr. Deanes claim to any of the Goods in the possession of the public Agent can be ascertaind—as all the Goods in question, were, when receivd, declard to be on account of the public; and as I perceive in the Banker's Accounts very large Sums of public money paid for Goods purchasd in Holland, which Goods I am satisfyd these are; I cannot think it consistent with my duty to concur in delivering them to any person upon so indefinite a claim.

I have the honor to be, with the greatest esteem & respect, Gentlemen Yr. most Obedt. Humbl. Servt.

Arthur Lee

RC (PPAmP: Franklin Papers).

1.

Lee is writing about the answer to be given Jonathan Williams' letter of 23 Jan. (above), but in this paragraph he is referring to Williams' letter to Horneca, Fizeaux & Co. (not found). Their reply, dated 26 Nov., was enclosed in Williams' letter to the Commissioners of the 23d (see note 1 there), and apparently sent on to Lee by Franklin or JA.

The Commissioners to the Comte de Vergennes, 9 February 1779 Franklin, Benjamin Lee, Arthur JA First Joint Commission at Paris Vergennes, Charles Gravier, Comte de The Commissioners to the Comte de Vergennes, 9 February 1779 Franklin, Benjamin Lee, Arthur Adams, John First Joint Commission at Paris Vergennes, Charles Gravier, Comte de
The Commissioners to the Comte de Vergennes
Sir Passy Feb. 9th. 1779

It is now near six Months that Capt. McNeil, of the Mifflin Privateer from America, has been embarras'd with a Process on Account of 396a French Ship, which he retook from the English after she had been three Days in their Possession. The Laws of France are clear with regard to the Validity of this Prize, and our Captains have Orders, contained in their Commissions, to submit their Prizes to the Laws of the Country into which they carry them, and they ought undoubtedly to regulate their own Conduct by those Laws, without any regard to the Laws of America, relating to this Matter, which may be different in every one of the United States, and therefore too Uncertain to be made the Rule for Judgement in the Courts here.1 But if the Persons reclaiming this Prize, insist, among other Reasons, which seem no better founded, that their Cause should be judged by the Laws of Capt. McNeils Country, because more favourable for them. We believe that no Americans in France will ever think of claiming here any Advantage by virtue of the Laws of their own Country, and it seems not just to put those Laws in force against them in France, when it may be done to their Detriment. The Vexation of these kind of Processes, and the Slowness and length of these expensive Proceedings before a Decision can be obtained, discourage our armed Vessels, and have tended to impress them with an Opinion, that their Operations against the English cannot be carried on to Advantage in the European Seas.

We therefore request your Excellency to join your Sollicitations with those we have had the Honor to make to M. De Sartine, that these Processes may be more speedily determined, and that the Americans in France may be treated in these Respects, on the same Footing with the Subjects of his Majesty. Of which we shall be glad to give Information to the Congress, that so, some Popular Prejudices occasioned by these Affairs, may be effectually removed, and the American armed Ships be encouraged to return and cruize again upon the Coasts of England.

We have the honor to be, with the greatest Consideration & Respect, Your Excellency's, most obedient & most humble Servants.2

B Franklin Arthur Lee John Adams

RC (Arch. Aff. Etr., Paris, Corr. Pol., E.-U., vol. 7); docketed: “M. de R. rep le 16 fev. [Les?] deputés americains Se [... ment] du retard qu'eprouve le [... ment?] du procès entre le Srr. [Mc]Neal Capne. du Corsaire le [Gener]al Mifflin et le Srr. Risteaux.”

1.

For the respective laws regarding recaptures, see Sartine to the Commissioners, 16 Sept. 1778, and notes (above).

2.

In his reply of 16 Feb. (Dft, Arch. Aff. Etr., Paris, Corr. Pol., E.-U., vol. 7), Vergennes stated that the Commissioners' letter had been sent to Sartine for his consideration. The case, however, dragged 397on for at least another year. In a letter dated 17 Jan. but without a year given, Daniel Marc Antoine Chardon, Procurer Général près du Conseil des Prises, informed Franklin that the McNeill case had been tried and settled in his favor. An editorially supplied date of 1779 is in error ( Cal. Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , 2:9).