Papers of John Adams, volume 17

To Samuel Mather, 26 April 1785 Adams, John Mather, Samuel
To Samuel Mather
Sir Auteuil April 26. 1785.

I received with Pleasure your valuable Legacy, and your Letter by Mr: Temple.1 I am obliged to you for these Attentions to me, and should have acknowledged them sooner if the public Service had not so constantly employed me.

Your Son, and his Lady, with Mrs: Hay, were so kind, as to call and dine with us at Auteuil last Fall. They are now at Beaugency, at some distance from Paris, but in good Health.2

I had hopes of returning home, and of the Pleasure of seeing again my friends in Boston; but Congress are sending me to England, & what I am to meet with there or how long to stay I know not.3 I have however a great Comfort in knowing that if I can do no good there I shall soon go home.

My Son John Quincy Adams will have the Honour to deliver you this, and let me ask the favour of you to shew him your Library, as it has an excellent Effect upon young Minds to look into the Libraries of such great characters as the Line of Dr: Mathers.

With great Respect, &c

LbC in JQA’s hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “Revd: Dr: Mather.”; APM Reel 107.

1.

This is Mather’s letter of 13 Nov. 1783, with which the son of Cotton Mather and longtime Boston minister enclosed his Dying Legacy of an Aged Minister of the Everlasting Gospel, Boston, 1783, Evans, No. 18032 (vol. 15:362–363).

2.

Samuel Mather Jr., his wife, Margarette Gerrish Mather, and their traveling companion Katherine Farnham Hay, wife of Capt. John Hay, were at Beaugency, approximately one hundred miles southwest of Paris. The younger Mather was a loyalist and former chief clerk of the Boston customs office who fled to England upon the British evacuation of Boston, but he later returned to America (JQA, Diary , 1:210–211). On 7 May 1785 the younger Mather wrote to JA (Adams Papers), enclosing a packet for his father that JQA was to carry on his return to America. But when JQA reached New York he learned that the elder Mather had died on 27 June and lamented to AA2 that “I have a Letter from your Pappa to him, and a small packet from his Son. I don’t know who I shall give them to” ( AFC , 6:226, 230).

3.

This is JA’s first reference to his 24 Feb. appointment as minister to Great Britain. He almost certainly learned of it from Elbridge Gerry’s 25 Feb. letter to Thomas Jefferson that Jefferson received on 26 April (Jefferson, Papers , 7:652; 8:142). JA’s failure to mention the appointment in any of his other letters of this date likely indicates that he received the news just as he was finishing his correspondence for the day, since the letter to Mather is the final LbC entered on the 26th. Moreover, in his letter to Richard Cranch of 27 April, JA indicated that “last evening” Jefferson had called on him and showed him a letter from Gerry “in which it is said that Mr. Adams is appointed to London” ( AFC , 6:109). AA noted the arrival of the news in her 26 April letter to Cotton Tufts, declaring that “this is an event tho not unexpected from the late Letters which have been received, yet an event which will load with cares and anxieties the Head and Heart of my Friend, subject him I suppose to many 51censures, and no small share of ill nature” ( AFC , 6:106). JQA recorded the event in his Diary entry for 26 April, writing that “I believe he will promote the Interests of the United States, as much as any man: but I fear his Duty will induce him to make exertions which may be detrimental to his Health: I wish however it may be otherwise. Were I now to go with him, probably my immediate Satisfaction, might be greater than it will be in returning to America” (JQA, Diary , 1:256).

To James Sullivan, 26 April 1785 Adams, John Sullivan, James
To James Sullivan
Dear Sir. Auteuil April 26th. 1785.

Yesterday at the Marquis de la Fayette’s, he told me, that he had received a Letter from Mr: Gerry, in which he was surprized to be informed that the French Chargé des Affaires had demanded Mr: Longchamps to be given up. This was unexpected to him, he said, as he had understood at Court that the Ministry were pretty well contented with the Sentence against Mr: Longchamps. He thought too that the Members of Congress, would be surprized, especially, as they probably received soon after the demand, Letters from him that the Ministers he thought would not press the Matter. I told him that I had received Information too, both from Mr Gerry and the minister of foreign Affairs to the same Effect.1 that possibly the French Ministry thought it necessary to make the demand and keep up the Claim as a Check upon the Kings own Subjects; although they might be Sensible of the improbability of the demands being complied with. He said this might be, and fully agreed with me, that as our Courts of Judicature had already taken Cognizance of the Cause, passed Sentence upon the Crime and carried that Sentence into Execution according to the Laws of the State, Congress could not with propriety now give him up, if indeed it were ever in any Case proper, without a Convention for that Purpose. We agreed farther in Opinion that it would be proper to say in the Answer to the Office, some handsome Thing to the Court and to give the Reasons for the Refusal in as soft Language as may be. I may add in a private Letter to you, that a complaisant answer, added to the Motive of restraining their own Subjects, may be all that is expected. It would not be proper for me to compromise the Marquis, by giving Official Information of this Conversation, although it is very proper to be communicated to some Member of Congress.

I met Mr: Hailes the British Chargé des Affaires Yesterday at Dinner, at a Noble House in the City, and fell designedly into Conversation with him upon the Subject of the Frontier Posts, in the Course of which I asked him, what could be the Reason of the delay to 52surrender those Posts? He said he could not pretend to say, precisely, but he had no doubt it was the private Interest of some Individual Officer, or Trader which had hitherto studied pretences and Excuses for delay: but that we might depend upon it, there were no Thoughts at Court or in the Nation, of holding those Posts. Mr: Pitt was a Man of the most perfect moral Character, and of the highest Sense of public, and private Honour, and would abhor every Idea of violating the national Faith— He asked if I did not think him a wonderfull young Man. I told him I did. that I had often seen with surprize his firmness and Coolness, his comprehensive knowledge of Business, and his perfect command of himself, qualities in which he had shewn himself superior to all his Rivals. that he seemed to be the Man for the Salvation of the Nation if it were yet in a salvable State: But that he did not yet appear to be sufficiently Sensible how large a share America must have in assisting him to save the Nation. That he would finally miss his object, and fail in all his great Projects if he did not place the intercourse with America upon a proper footing— He laughed and said it was very true, and as soon as we have settled with Ireland, says he, we will take you in hand, and settle with you upon honest and generous Terms, but it is dangerous attempting too many Things at once.2 I think it very silly, says he in our People, to hold those Posts, and it does no good, and I have written so, & will again.

This Letter will be delivered you, by my Son John Quincy Adams, who is going to Colledge and the Bar, where I beg Leave to solicit for him your kind Protection and Patronage.

With great regard. I have the Honour to be, Sir &c

LbC in JQA’s hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “The Hon: James Sullivan Esqr: / Member of Congress.”; APM Reel 107.

1.

Elbridge Gerry’s letters to the Marquis de Lafayette and JA concerning the Longchamps Affair have not been found, but see John Jay’s letter of 11 Feb. (vol. 16:518–520).

2.

The conversation between JA and Daniel Hailes recounted in this paragraph took place at the residence of JA’s old friend Guy Claude, Comte de Sarsfield, for whom see vol. 6:85. AA copied the account of the conversation, virtually verbatim, into her [26 April] letter to Cotton Tufts ( AFC , 6:105–106).