CHAPTER XXII
“After the perplexing and embarrassing scenes you have just had to pass through, it must give you the most solid joy to see an armament going out to America.... I congratulate you on this great and glorious event, to which you have contributed more than any other person.”
“Silas Deane to Beaumarchais.”
March 29, 1778.
“It seems to me that we cannot consistently with our own honor or self-respect pay off an undisputed debt with a doubtful or disputed gift.”
Speech of Mr. Tucker of Virginia, Relative to the Claims of Beaumarchais, 1824.
Deane’s Recall—Beaumarchais’s Activity in Obtaining for Him Honorable Escort—Letters to Congress—Reception of Deane—Preoccupation of Congress at the Moment of His Return—Arnold and Deane in Philadelphia the Summer of 1778—Deane’s Subsequent Conduct—Letters of Carmichaël and Beaumarchais—Le Fier Roderigue—Silas Deane Returns to Settle Accounts—Debate Over the “Lost Million”—True Story of the “Lost Million”—Mr. Tucker’s Speech—Final Settlement of the Claim of the Heirs of Beaumarchais.
IN accounting for the recall of Deane, Wharton, in the beginning of his Diplomatic Correspondence, Vol. I, p. 560, says:
“Deane had, or was supposed to have had, a considerable amount of business patronage which to Arthur Lee’s eye gave too much opportunity for speculation, and not only did he suppose that Deane made use of this opportunity for his own benefit, but he himself desired to have the entire control of the business side of the mission placed in the hands of his brother William Lee, then, through the influence of Wilkes, alderman of London. The close connection which existed between Lee in Paris and the center of the opposition in London was not unknown to the French Ministry.”
From the first, Vergennes had distrusted Lee, and held him at a distance. “Having had occasion,” says Loménie (Vol. I, p. 115), “to study closely the work of the deputation at Passy, I am able to affirm that Lee never had any credit with the French Government, who, rightly or wrongly, suspected him of having secret relations with the English Cabinet.... It is this which perfectly explains his permanent irritation against his two colleagues.”
Doniol (Vol. I, p. 368) affirms positively, “spies of the foreign office were in communication with him and he aided them to arrive even to M. de Vergennes.”
“In his heart,” continues Doniol, “he had an antipathy for France, which was shared by the majority of his countrymen. He was willing to accept everything from us, but on condition that no obligation be incurred.”
“It is certainly not too much to say,” says Jared Sparks in his Life of Franklin (Vol. I, p. 450), “that the divisions and feuds which reigned for a long time in Congress with respect to the foreign affairs of the United States are to be ascribed more to Lee’s malign influence than to all others.”
It was the same that at the most perilous moment of the war, which was precisely this same winter of 1778, was exerting itself to the utmost of its power to place a creature of its own at the head of the American forces. So bitter had party spirit become, that a member from New England, whose patriotism was undisputed, had allowed himself to write in a letter which has been preserved: “I would rather that the whole cause should come to ruin, than that Mr. Washington should triumph.”
Lee succeeded so well in poisoning the minds of Congress with regard to their commissioner that after much discussion a resolution was passed on December 8, 1777, recalling Deane. The reason given being the importance of obtaining information as to the true state of affairs in Europe.
“It was originally proposed,” says Parton (Life of Franklin, Vol. I, p. 250), “to accompany the resolution of recall by a preamble of censure. But John Jay took the defence of his absent friend and succeeded in getting the offensive preamble condemning a servant of the public unheard, stricken out.” “In this case,” continues Parton, “Jay was warmly his friend and defender, and not on this occasion only, but whenever he was attacked by Congress.”
Franklin also warmly pleaded his cause by letter. Knowing that Congress had received unfavorably the foreign officers sent over by Deane, he wrote as follows:
“I, who am on the spot, and who know the infinite difficulty of resisting the powerful solicitations of great men, ... I hope that favorable allowances will be made to my worthy colleague on account of his situation at that time, as he long since has corrected the mistake and daily proves himself to my certain knowledge an able, faithful, active and extremely useful servant of the public.” (Parton, Life of Franklin, Vol. II, p. 350.)
Franklin indeed might well plead for his friend in regard to the commissioning of officers, since, as has been seen, it was he who was responsible for the departure of du Coudray for America.
When the news of his recall reached Deane, he was filled with consternation. It was easy for him to pierce the thin veil of the reason given. The treatment which he already had received from Congress seemed the guarantee of further trouble.
He at once communicated his fears to Beaumarchais and his resolution not to return to America until a satisfactory explanation of the charges held against him were given. Beaumarchais, however, warmly urged his complying with the command of Congress, assuring him that his presence and the positive proof of his integrity which he would bear with him quickly would dispel the gathering storm.
Deane seems to have been convinced that the wisest course would be to yield to authority; accordingly, he at once set about his preparations for the journey. Beaumarchais, equally active, addressed a lengthy memoir to the ministers.
The memoir is given in full in the Deane papers (Vol. II, p. 399). In it, with characteristic boldness, he prescribes the rôle necessary for each minister to play, in order that Deane’s enemies may be outwitted. Though Beaumarchais was no longer entrusted with the millions which were being handed over to the Americans, yet from the tone of his memoir there can be no doubt that he was still an indulged favorite.
“March 13, 1778.
“Secret Memoir to the King’s Ministers, Sent to the Comte de Vergennes:”
(After explaining clearly the character and ambitions of Lee, his English connections, his influence in Congress, Beaumarchais continued:) “To succeed in his design, it was necessary to dispose of a colleague so formidable as Mr. Deane. This he has done by rendering him in many respects an object of suspicion to Congress.
“Having learned that foreign officers demanding commissions were not received favorably by the American Army, he put the worst construction upon the conduct of his colleague who sent them, maintaining that Mr. Deane arbitrarily and in spite of good advice, was responsible for the sending.... Another reason is the officious zeal displayed by M. Lee in constantly writing to Congress that all merchandise, etc., was a present.... Nothing then is easier than for the adroit Lee to blacken the conduct of Mr. Deane by representing it as the result of underhand measures contrived to support demands for money in which he expected to share; and this explains the silence, more than astonishing, that Congress has observed in regard to over ten letters of mine full of details.”
Then he draws a faithful picture of Deane’s situation and speaks of his having at first formed the determination not to return until charges should be communicated to him.
“I have, however, urged him to go back to face the storm. ‘Lee,’ I have said, ‘accuses you of having arbitrarily sent officers to America; your complete defense is in my portfolio. I have in my possession a cipher letter from this time-serving Lee, urging me to send engineers and officers to the assistance of America, and the letter is written before your arrival in France.’”
Then he urged the importance for French interests to have so true and tried a friend as Mr. Deane back in America.
“I would desire,” he wrote, “a particular mark of distinction, even the King’s portrait or some such noticeable present to convince his countrymen that not only was he a creditable and faithful agent, but that his personality, prudence and action always have pleased the French Ministry.... I strongly recommend his being escorted by a fleet.... Once justified before Congress, his opinion becomes of immense weight and influence.... His enemies will remain dazed and humiliated at their own failure.... Should the ministry be unable to grant a fleet as he wishes, he ought at least to have a royal frigate to be furnished by M. de Sartine. His friend Beaumarchais will with pleasure undertake the composition of an explanatory and defensive memoir. He should have a testimonial, laudatory of his conduct, and this important writing is the province of the Comte de Vergennes. Finally I believe that there should be accorded to him some special favor, showing the esteem entertained for him personally and this would properly come from M. le Comte de Maurepas in the name of the king. (This seems to have been the only suggestion not carried out by the ministers.)
“There is not a moment to lose....”
Beaumarchais then recommended that everyone assume a dejected air at the news of Deane’s recall, so that the enemies of the latter might be thrown off their guard. “If it is thought advisable, I will even quit Paris as one driven to despair. My lawsuit at Aix will furnish an excellent excuse. I suggest in addition that a reliable person accompany Mr. Deane, to return in the same frigate under order to await his convenience, bringing back the result of M. Deane’s labors with Congress....
“Upon the assurance that these considerations be regarded as just, I will neglect everything else until I have completely vindicated Mr. Deane.”
If anything could be more curious than the tone of the above memoir, it is the docility with which each minister filled the rôle mapped out for him. Not only was the portrait of the King with the personal testimonials given to Deane, but a fleet was sent out under the popular Comte d’Estaing to bear him safely to America, and with him the first minister sent by France to the new world went as his companion, charged with orders to follow closely his interests in the ensuing combat.
To the president of Congress he bore the following letter from the Comte de Vergennes:
“Versailles, March 25, 1778.
“Monsieur Deane being about to return to America, I seize this occasion with pleasure to give my testimony to the zeal, activity and intelligence with which he has conducted the interests of the United States and for which it has pleased his Majesty to give marks of his satisfaction.”
To Deane himself Vergennes wrote the same day:
“March 26, 1778.
“As I am not, Sir, to have the honor of seeing you again before your departure I pray you to receive here my wishes that your voyage may be speedy, short, and happy, and that you may find in your own country the same sentiments which you inspired in France. You could not, sir, desire anything to be added to that which I feel for you and which I shall keep as long as I live. The King, in order to give a personal proof of the satisfaction which he has had in your conduct, charged me to communicate it to the Congress of the United States. This is the object of the letter which Mr. Gérard will give you for Mr. Hancock. He will also give you a box ornamented with a portrait of the king. You will not refuse to carry into your country the image of its best friend.”
On the 23rd of March, Beaumarchais had written to Congress in a letter in which he set forth the proofs in his possession of the innocence of Deane.
“These, gentlemen,” he wrote, “were the real motives that determined us both in sending you the officers. As I have never treated with any other, as my firm never has transacted business with any other in France, and as the other commissioners have been lacking even in common civility towards me, I testify that if my zeal, my advances of money, and my shipments of supplies and merchandise have been acceptable to the august Congress, their gratitude is due to the indefatigable exertions of Mr. Deane throughout this commercial affair.
“I hope that the honorable Congress, rejecting the insinuations of others, who are desirous of appropriating for themselves the credit of the operations, will accept in perfect faith the present declaration of the man most capable of enlightening them and who respectfully signs himself and his firm, gentlemen, yours, etc.
“Caron de Beaumarchais,
“Secretary to the King and Lieutenant-General of the King’s Hunt, known in America under the title of his firm, Roderigue Hortalès et Cie.”
Before quitting France, Silas Deane addressed a letter to Beaumarchais, dated March 29, 1778. Obliged to quit France during the absence of his friend, he wrote thanking him for his letter to Congress, which he hoped would throw light upon the vexed question. “It is unhappy,” he said, “that the short time allowed me to prepare for my voyage will not admit of our making at least a general settlement of our accounts.... I hope to return to France early in the fall; immediately after my return it shall be my first business to adjust and settle with you the account for your several expeditions and disbursements.... After the perplexing and embarrassing scenes you have had to pass through, it must give you the most solid joy to see an armament going out which will convince America and the world of the sincere friendship of France, and their resolution to protect its liberties and its independence.
“I again congratulate you on this great and glorious event, to which you have contributed more than any other person....
“I shall improve my first opportunity of writing to you, and rely on being honored with a continuance of your correspondence and friendship. Wishing that you ever may be happy and fortunate, I am, etc.,
“Silas Deane.”
The misgivings which had haunted the American commissioner seemed entirely to disappear during his voyage, so confident was he of being able to justify himself before Congress, and if ever commissioner had the right to look forward with joy to setting foot again on his native land, that commissioner was Deane. When he had gone out two years previously he had left his country poor, unrecognized and not yet decided to declare its independence. By his unhesitating and indefatigable zeal, aided by that of Beaumarchais, supplies and officers of priceless value had been sent to its aid, arriving at the moment when they were most needed.
Mistakes had been made, it is true, but those mistakes were all of a nature that no man of honor need blush to acknowledge. Far from having enriched himself during those two years of service, he had spent not only all his own private savings, but had been obliged to draw very heavily upon the generosity of his friend, since all the stores brought with him from America had fallen into the hands of the English. In the words of Parton, “He was returning now the acknowledged minister of a victorious nation, the honored guest of a French Admiral, bringing back a powerful fleet (twelve line of battleships and four frigates) to aid his country, and accompanied by an ambassador of the King of France! Well might he write exultingly to the president of Congress, well might he expect a warm welcome and a hasty adjustment of his claims; as the proud French vessel was dropping anchor in Delaware Bay, July 10, 1778, he wrote: ‘I shall embark this afternoon ... and I hope soon to have the honor of presenting my respects to your Excellency and the Honorable Congress in person. . . .’
No reply came to him from Congress. No one paid him the smallest attention. His testimonials were ignored and even the presence of the French fleet had no power to rouse Congress from a stony indifference. He was in despair.
“He had brought with him,” said Parton, “only a hundred pounds, not expecting to be detained in America many weeks. When at last given audience, he told his story to distrustful and estranged employers. All the friends of Arthur Lee, all the ancient foes of France, and a large proportion of the faction who desired to put Horatio Gates into the place of Washington, were disposed to believe the foul calumnies sent over by every ship from Paris.”
As a matter of fact the time of his arrival in Philadelphia was not well suited to a fair consideration of Deane’s claims. The city recently had been evacuated by the British Army. During the occupation, Toryism had been rampant and the state was retaliating with indictments for treason. Disputes over questions of jurisdiction engaged the civil authorities in quarrels with Arnold, the commander of the garrison, who numbered among his sympathizers Silas Deane and the mercantile class.
Arnold, after his brilliant exploits at Saratoga, had seen himself thrust aside at the moment of victory to make way for Gates. Wounded at Saratoga, and burning for revenge, Arnold was already so much disgusted with the Continental Congress that he began seriously to wish to see Great Britain triumph.
Washington had put him in command of the garrison at Philadelphia in June, 1778. The reigning belle of the Quaker City was at that moment Miss Margaret Shippen, “the most beautiful and fascinating woman in America.” She was the daughter of a wealthy merchant, who along with his whole class, was eager for the war to come to an end through a speedy adjustment with Great Britain, whose liberal offers, since the surrender of Burgoyne, seemed more than satisfactory to their moderate patriotism.
No sooner had Arnold entered into his new post than he fell a captive to the charms of the young woman in question, then under twenty years of age.
“As no one kept a finer stable of horses, nor gave more costly dinners than Arnold,” it was natural that he should invite the Tory friends of the young lady whose hand he hoped to win. Although he was “thirty-five years of age and a widower with two sons” ... his handsome face, his gallant bearing and his splendid career, made him acceptable. In the fall their engagement was publicly announced, while the Tory sentiments of the commander of the fort of Philadelphia became definitely fixed.
The bitterness of his own grievances against Congress led him to give ear willingly to the complaints poured out by the exasperated French commissioner, whose patriotism was also rapidly vanishing in the gulf of his private wrongs.
It was during this summer of association between Arnold and Deane that the sentiments of the latter underwent the profound change which induced a subsequent conduct so disappointing to his dearest friends. Silas Deane never has been accused of treason to his country, for he was incapable of such an act as that which rendered Arnold an object of contempt to our enemies even—but that he was untrue to his own past cannot be denied. No one in the beginning had been a warmer advocate of independence or had worked so indefatigably for an alliance with France. In the end, this was completely reversed. The unfortunate course which he took to avenge himself for the atrocious wrongs heaped upon him by the party in Congress then in power led him to exile, where he died destitute and dishonored. However, “the most bitter reproach,” says Wharton, “ever heaped upon this loyal patriot was that he had joined hands in friendship with the traitor Arnold.”
While the condemnation of Lee at the bar of history seems unanimous, it is unfair to allow the blame of his conduct to rest wholly upon him, for it must be shared by that party in Congress which was dominant during most of the existence of the body, and which supported the pretensions of Lee and shared his antagonisms.
A consideration of the complex causes which led to the ruin of Deane is in place here, only as these causes relate to his connection with Beaumarchais. Up to a certain point the credit of the two men is inseparable, and it must not be forgotten that the same party which planned Deane’s downfall was also the one that tried to prevent the alliance with France, and was unwilling to admit any debt of gratitude to Roderigue Hortalès et Cie.
Gérard de Rayneval, first ambassador of France to America, who accompanied Deane on the occasion of his recall, attributes the action of Congress at this time to an “esprit d’ostracisme, which,” he says, “already has begun to make itself felt against those men who, having rendered important services, are no longer deemed necessary....”
The private secretary of Deane while in France, W. Carmichaël, had returned to America some time before. Having aided Beaumarchais and Deane in the shipment of supplies to the new world, there was no one who understood better the exact nature of the difficulties against which they had labored, or the real debt of gratitude owed them by America. Under date of September 3, 1778, he wrote to Beaumarchais from Philadelphia:
“I have written you twice lately about your affairs, so that I have the pleasure of repeating that Congress begins to feel its lack of attention to you and to realize that it was too ready to believe the base insinuations of others, which I truly believe would have had no weight if du Coudray had not circulated such prejudicial reports concerning you.... I have applied myself with my whole power to convince my compatriots of the injustice and ingratitude with which you have been treated and this before the arrival of Deane, and I flatter myself to have had some success. His efforts have been the same, so that justice, although tardy, should now prevail. I wish for the honor of my compatriots that it had never been necessary for us to plead for you.
“M. de Francy is in Virginia and works sincerely and indefatigably for your interests. I expect him here soon.
“Your nephew spent several weeks with me, but is now commanded with his general to join the army under the orders of General Sullivan. He is a brave young man who makes himself loved very much when he is known; he has all the vivacity of his age and desires to distinguish himself. General Conway assures me that he conducted himself like a young hero at the battle of the Brandywine. I take the liberty of entering into these details because I know they will delight his mother, since bravery always has been a powerful recommendation to the fair sex, and she will be charmed to find so much in her own son.... I do not know whether I shall be continued in my place as Secretary of the Embassy at your court, or be employed in some other department.
“Dr. Franklin certainly will be continued at the Court of Versailles, and an attempt will be made to force the Lees to fall back into the obscurity from which they have lifted themselves, but whether this will succeed is doubtful. We have as many intrigues and cabals here as you and your friends suffer from on the other continent. And why not? Are we not sovereign states and are we not friends and allies of Louis XVI?
“I beg you to believe me always, Yours,
“W. Carmichaël.”
The spirit of the letter, as well as the news it brought, must have been consoling to the heart of Beaumarchais. But in the meantime, he had been pushing forward his vast commercial enterprises and with his usual vigor prepared himself for new dangers to which the open alliance with France exposed his undertaking. He wrote to De Francy:
“I am dispatching the Zephyr, so that you may know that I am ready to put to sea a fleet of more than twelve vessels at whose head is le Fier Roderigue, which you sent back to me and which arrived safely the first of October. This fleet will carry six thousand tons, and it is armed absolutely for war. So arrange yourself in consequence. If my ship, the Ferragus, leaves Rochefort in September, keep it there to join my fleet in returning. This is an armament which I hold in common with M. de Montieu.... Allow the ships to remain in port no longer than is absolutely necessary, for although strong and well armed, our enemies must not be allowed to interfere with their return.
“They will not arrive until some time in February, as they are to make a detour to provision our colonies with flour and salt provisions, of which they are in great need, and the payment of which, sent to us in bills of exchange upon our treasurers before the return of the fleet, will enable us to meet the terrible outlay which this armament costs us.... You will receive by the Fier Roderigue all my accounts with Congress.... The result is that Congress will pay for nothing which it does not receive, or that was destroyed en route. I join the exact account of what I have received from Congress, in spite of the unjust deputation at Passy who have disputed every return cargo and who would have seized upon that of La Thérèse if M. Pelletier, instructed by me, had not sold it by authority. This perpetual injustice makes me indignant and has made me take the resolution to have no more to do with the deputation as long as that rogue Lee is there....
“I have been promised, my dear Francy, your commission of captain. I hope to be happy enough to send it by le Fier Roderigue, but do not count upon it until you see it in your hands. You know our country; it is so vast that it is a long way from the place where things are promised to the place where they are given. In a word, I have not received it yet, although it has been promised....
“I have received no other money from the comte de Pulaski than that which he himself gave me. I send you his exact account. He should write me but I have heard nothing. I approve of what you have done for M. de Lafayette. Brave young man that he is. It is to serve me as I desire, to oblige a man of his character. I have not yet been paid for the money I advanced to him but I have no uneasiness about that.
“As for you my dear de Francy, I will write you later what I will do for you. If you know me, you will expect to be well treated. Your fate is hence forth attached to mine. I esteem you and love you and you will not have long to wait for the proof of it. Remember me often to Baron von Steuben. I congratulate myself after all I hear of him, for having given so great an officer to my friends the free men, and for having in a way forced him to follow that noble career. I am not in the least disturbed by the money I lent him. Never have I made a use of funds the investment of which gratified me as much as this does, since I have succeeded in putting a man of honor in his true place. I learn that he is inspector-general of all the troops; bravo! Tell him that his glory is the interest on my money and at that title I have no doubt he will repay me with usury.
“I have received a letter from M. Deane and also one from Mr. Carmichaël; assure them of my warm esteem. Those two are brave republicans. They have given me the hope that I may soon embrace them both in Paris, which will not, however, prevent me from writing them by the Fier Roderigue, who is very proud to find himself at the head of a small squadron, and who I hope will ne se laissera pas couper les moustaches, on the contrary he promises to do some cutting for me,
“Adieu, my Francy, I am yours for life,
“Caron de Beaumarchais.”
Silas Deane returned to France in 1781, to settle all his accounts. On the 6th of April of that year the indebtedness to Beaumarchais by Congress was fixed by him at 3,600,000 livres after the deduction of all receipts and comprising the interest promised. This sum, then, Beaumarchais demanded of Congress.
CÆSAR AUGUSTUS RODNEY
Attorney General of the U. S.
Two years passed. Congress paid no attention to the demand. In 1783, another emissary, Mr. Barclay, arrived from America in the capacity of consul-general, and with the mission to revise all the accounts rendered by Silas Deane. Beaumarchais refused to submit to this treatment, but Mr. Barclay told him Congress would pay nothing until there had been a new inspection of the accounts. After a year Beaumarchais was forced to submit.
In revising the statement made by Deane, Mr. Barclay admitted all the claims, but gratified Congress by lessening commissions, expenses, etc. Still Congress refused to pay the new and reduced accounts. Soon after this, an incident arose which determined Congress to postpone payment indefinitely.
In the fall of 1783, after signing the treaty which ended the war, the United States wished to borrow six millions from the French Government. It was decided to grant the request and at the same time to make an exact recapitulation of all the sums already furnished, whether loaned or presented.
In the first class were announced eighteen millions; then another loan of ten millions from Holland, guaranteed by the king of France and of which he paid the interest; finally the six millions about to be loaned. This constituted a sum of thirty-four millions which the United States promised to refund at future times. Finally the King announced as a gift, the three millions conveyed to the colonists before her treaty of Alliance in 1778, and six millions given in 1781. It was therefore nine millions which the king of France relinquished without expecting any return, and this in addition to the enormous expenditure made in sending the fleets and armies of France to America. (See Loménie Vol II, p. 186.)
The statement was signed by Franklin and received without comment by the United States, but three years later, in 1786, Franklin made the discovery that the king of France stated that three millions had been given to the cause of independence in America before 1778, whereas he, Franklin, had received but two millions.
What had become of the other million?
Inquiry was at once made of the United States banker in France, and an explanation demanded. After much difficulty it was learned that this million was one delivered by the royal treasurer on the 10th of June, 1776.
“It was,” says M. de Loménie, “precisely the million given to Beaumarchais, but the reticence of Vergennes showed that an embarrassing mistake had been made, though unconsciously, by the royal treasurer.”
It was impossible in 1786 for the French government to avow the secret aid she had given to the colonies before her open recognition of American Independence. The two millions given to Franklin in 1777 through the banker, Grand, after France had decided upon the policy of open recognition, but before the act, had never been a secret—but the million given to Beaumarchais, while really intended to help the American cause, had been conveyed to him under stress of secrecy at a time when it was unsafe to submit to writing even the most informal engagement in regard to it.
Whatever the stipulations made concerning the use of the money, they were verbal and have never been revealed. Nothing could attest the profound confidence inspired in the magistracy by Beaumarchais more than this absence of documents relative to the loan. There can be no doubt that whatever the arrangement made by Vergennes, he was satisfied with the account rendered him by Beaumarchais, for we find him coming repeatedly to the latter’s aid when the failure of Congress to return cargoes, placed the house of Hortalès and Company in danger of bankruptcy. The confidence of the minister is also further attested by his refusal to deliver the receipt for the million, signed by Beaumarchais, on the 10th of June, 1776, and so become a handle to the calumny which Congress was directing against him.
To summarize the exposition of that conscientious historian, Loménie: “Why,” he asks, “did the government insert this million in the list of those given directly to America? Was it simply a recapitulation of the accounts of the treasury made without thought of the inconvenience that might result for Beaumarchais; or did the government really intend Beaumarchais to render an account of it to the United States?... We have the right to affirm that the government never intended that he should be accountable for it to anyone but to the minister.
“By refusing constantly to name the person to whom the million had been given, the minister said implicitly; ‘I class this million with those given gratuitously because in effect it was given; but since it was not given to you, and as the man to whom it was given, engaged himself by his receipt to render an account of it to me, and not to you, that man cannot be accountable except to me. If I asked to have the million returned, you would then have the right to demand it of him who received it; but since I ask nothing, I am the one to decide whether that million, gratuitously given by me, shall profit you or the man to whom I gave it. It was given to aid in a secret operation very useful to you, but which, by your refusal to acquit and by losses which he has experienced in his commerce with you, seems to have been more harmful than fruitful to him.’” (See Loménie, Vol. II, p. 190.)
Of all this that was transpiring Beaumarchais knew nothing, nor could he obtain from Congress any explanation of their reason for totally ignoring their debt to him. At last his patience at an end, on the 12th of June, 1787, he wrote to the President of Congress as follows:
“A people become sovereign and powerful may be permitted, perhaps, to consider gratitude as a virtue of individuals which is beneath politics; but nothing can dispense a state from being just, and especially from paying its debts. I dare hope, Monsieur, that touched by the importance of the affair and by the force of my reasons, you will be good enough to honor me with an official report as to the decision of the honorable Congress either to arrange promptly to liquify my accounts, or else to choose arbiters in Europe to decide the points debated, those of insurance and commission as M. Barclay had the honor of proposing to you in 1785; or else write me candidly that the sovereign states of America, forgetting my past services, refuse me all justice: thus I shall adopt the method best suited to my interests which you have despised, to my honor which you have wounded, although without losing the profound respect with which I am of the General Congress and of you, Monsieur le President, the very humble, etc.
“Caron de Beaumarchais.”
It was at this juncture that Beaumarchais, stung by the reproaches of his own countrymen, made a ringing vindication of his acts in the cause of American independence, which will be given in the next chapter.
The reply which Congress made to the letter above quoted, was to appoint Arthur Lee to examine the accounts.
“The work was soon done,” says Loménie, “d’un tour de main. Arthur Lee pretended to discover that instead of 3,600,000 livres owing Beaumarchais, he not only had nothing to reclaim but on the other hand owed 1,800,000 francs to the United States!” The absurdity of this account could not fail to appear to Congress, and after four years more of protestations, in 1793 it confided a new examination of the debt to “that most distinguished American Statesman, Alexander Hamilton,” who established the sum owing Beaumarchais as 2,280,000 francs, but at the same time he proposed to suspend payment until the question of the lost million was settled.
In the meantime the Revolution was advancing upon France with awful strides. Already the royalistic government had fallen, that government whose greatest glory was its noble service to the cause of American independence.
When in 1794 Gouverneur Morris applied to Buchot, then minister of Foreign affairs for the new French government, there was no one left who knew or cared for the details that had prevented Vergennes from producing that famous receipt. At the demand of Congress, therefore, it was given to Morris.
Armed now with what it chose to consider as proof that Beaumarchais wilfully had appropriated to himself a million livres intended by the French Government for it, Congress refused all settlement.
They not only repudiated the payment of the 2,600,000 livres surplus of the debt honorably acknowledged by Deane, who alone knew the immense advances that had been made by Beaumarchais to cover the expenses of the commissioner as well as of the officers whom he had commissioned, but that august body considered that it might even dispense with paying the 1,800,000 livres surplus over and above the million, out of the sum accorded by Alexander Hamilton in which he ignored those advances, together with a part of the commission and interest freely granted by Congress in the contract already quoted in this volume, and arranged by the agent of Beaumarchais, Theveneau de Francy, in 1778.
Congress refused all this, arguing that, as M. de Loménie says: “Since the interest of the million given in 1776 will absorb the difference, therefore we owe nothing, and will pay nothing.”
The interest on the surplus, as it would have much more than absorbed the million in question, they, of course, conveniently ignored.
This turn in his affairs with Congress was a crushing blow to Beaumarchais, but it did not prevent him, during the entire remainder of his life, pleading with the representatives of the American people to pay their debt to him.
But at the moment when Congress held triumphantly aloft the receipt for the 1,000,000 livres, and flaunted it in his face, Beaumarchais was in no position to defend himself, for the Revolution which had overwhelmed France had so shattered and ruined his fortune that he was obliged to take refuge in a garret in Hamburg. Here, devoured by anguish,—unable to obtain news from home, knowing only that his goods had been confiscated, that his wife, his daughter, and his sisters had been thrown into prison, his thoughts turned to the people for whom he had performed such herculean labors and to them he addressed one last appeal. This was in April, 1795.
“Congress,” says Loménie, “remained deaf to all his reclamations; not only it allowed him to die without liquidating the debt, but during the thirty-six years following his death, all the governments which succeeded one another in France, and all the ambassadors of those governments, vainly supported the demand of the heirs of Beaumarchais.”
During the years which follow his death, from 1799 to 1835, “The claims of the heirs of Beaumarchais” occupy congress after congress of the United States. In the progress of the suit all the French governments, from the Empire under Napoleon down to the reign of the “bourgeois King,” Louis Phillippe, always take the stand of Vergennes. The following letter from the Duc de Richelieu, dated the 20th of May, 1816, may be said to express the attitude of the French Government in the whole matter. He wrote:
“The notes successively presented by the ministers of France are so particular and positive, that they seem to remove all doubt on the facts of the subject in dispute, and consequently all hesitation as to the decision to be given. It was in fact stated that the French Government had no concern in the commercial transactions of M. de Beaumarchais with the United States.
“By this declaration it was not only intended to convey the idea that the government was in no ways interested in the operations or in his chances of loss or gain, but a positive assurance was also given that it was wholly unconnected with them; whence it results that in relation to them France is to be considered neither as a lender, a surety nor as an intermediate agent. The whole of these transactions were spontaneous on the part of M. de Beaumarchais and the right and agency derived from them appertain exclusively to him....
“The million delivered on the 10th of June immediately reached its intended destination and a simple authorization of the King, but a few months subsequent to the payment of the sum, was the only document which finally placed the expenditure in the regular train of fiscal settlement.
“I am therefore warranted, Sir, after a fresh examination of the facts, in presenting the declaration of the above as stated, and in considering it a matter of certainty that the million paid on the 10th of June was not applied to the purchase of shipments made to the United States at that period by M. de Beaumarchais....
“There is no member of the Government who can be ignorant of the services rendered by the head of that family to your cause and the influence produced on its early successes by his ardent zeal, extensive connections and liberal employment of his whole fortune.
“Be pleased, Sir, to receive, etc., etc.
| Signed | “Richelieu.” |
This claim, so repeatedly stated before Congress, was taken up and examined by a succession of committees which seem each to have adopted the views of the French Government. To the honor of the United States let it be stated that such men as John Jay and Thomas Jefferson, had from the first recognized the debt due to Beaumarchais and had urged the payment of the debt. Later it was James Madison, Cæsar Rodney, William Pinkney and others, who similarly urged Congress to appropriate the money to liquidate the claim.
To close this long debate we have selected a few paragraphs taken here and there from reports of committees, terminating with an extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Tucker of Virginia, in order to demonstrate clearly that the enlightened opinion of the most representative Americans always has stood for the recognition of this claim.... “Only two points,” the report says, “are to be decided: Did Mr. Beaumarchais receive from the French Government 1,000,000 livres in behalf of or on account of the United States? If so, has he, or his representative at any time accounted with the United States for their expenditure? ... On the face of the instrument itself it appears that Beaumarchais was to account to Vergennes and not to the United States, for the expenditure of the money.... This contradicts the idea that he was accountable to us for its application.... The engagement of Beaumarchais was positive, express and unqualified to account to Vergennes and to him only for the money received. The United States are no parties to the instrument; there is no stipulation to render them any account of the expenditure.... It is not easy to conceive on what principle he ought twice to account for the same money.... The French government have uniformly declared that they furnished no supply of arms or military stores. Vergennes is full and explicit; he states that all the articles furnished by Beaumarchais are on his private account, who had settled with the artillery department for them by giving orders or bills for their value. This expressly excludes the idea that the million livres in question were intended to be applied to the payment in advance of the account of Beaumarchais.... This construction was acquiesced in by our government in the contract of 1783, when we knew neither the date nor the person to whom the money was paid....
“... The United States allege that the French Government paid this debt for them. The Government through their ministers declare officially that they did not. There seems therefore no room for dispute. Considering that the sum of which the million livres in question made a part, was a gratuitous grant from the French Government to the United States, and considering that the declaration of that Government clearly states that that part of the grant was put into the hands of M. de Beaumarchais as its agent, not as the agent of the United States, and that it was duly accounted for by him, to the French Government; considering also the concurring opinion of two attorneys-general of the United States that the said debt was not legally sustainable in behalf of the United States; I recommend the case to the favorable attention of the legislature whose authority alone can finally decide on it. Signed
“James Madison,
“C. A. Rodney,
“Wm. Pinkney.
“January 31, 1817.”
From the speech of Mr. Tucker of Virginia, 1824:
“Mr. Chairman: It is well known to most of the assembly that in the first years of the Revolution, M. de Beaumarchais furnished military supplies and clothing to the amount of several million livres....
“The merits of this claim have hitherto hinged upon the fact whether the million in question was received by Beaumarchais for the purpose of supplies or not;...
“In regard to this there is the solemn declaration of M. de Vergennes that the king had furnished nothing. Again there can be no doubt that M. de Beaumarchais must have been held accountable to his government for the million, for whatever purpose it was put into his hands.... If it was intended for such services as those for which secret service money is employed, it is said, and it seems not improbable, that the vouchers in such cases are destroyed.... But there could be no reason to destroy them if they related merely to the purchase of supplies....
“On weighing all the considerations there is some preponderance of testimony that M. de Beaumarchais received the million in dispute for the purpose of supplies, and if France had been passive on this occasion or if we had paid any valuable consideration to her for this million I should think that we were justified in charging M. de Beaumarchais with that amount. But when it is recollected that we received these supplies directly from him, having arranged the settlement of the account on our own terms; that the million that we claim as a credit was paid not by us, but by France, and that, as an act of bounty; and when France insists that it was for another purpose;... it seems to me that we cannot, consistently with our honor or self respect, pay off an undisputed debt with a doubtful or disputed gift....
“As an individual, I could never seek to give the bounty of a benefactor a direction which he objected to, for the purpose of making a discount from the acknowledged debt of a third person.
“Sirs:—in this matter France is right or she is wrong.... Then the error consists in claiming our gratitude for 9,000,000 livres instead of 8,000,000 ... which can in no way affect the claim of M. de Beaumarchais.... The whole present difficulty comes from the mistake of Dr. Franklin in the treaty of 1783....
“Assuredly if our agent had signed a treaty under a mistake as he himself states, that mistake should be rectified with the French Government which should give us a satisfactory explanation or hold us bound in gratitude for only 8,000,000 livres, neither of which can affect the claims of M. de Beaumarchais....
“Mr. Chairman: We ought to be consistent with ourselves with regard to the declaration of the French Government. When M. de Vergennes declared to our commissioners in September 1778, that the military supplies were furnished by M. de Beaumarchais, we acquiesced in that assurance and required no further proof....
“On every ground then, Mr. Chairman, I am free to say, I would vote at once for the appropriation to the whole amount of this claim ... and I hope the committee will adopt the resolution for that purpose offered by the Committee.”
But the government of the United States still refused to listen to reason. However, in 1835, under pressure of necessity, the United States having a claim against France which it wished to bring forward, offered the heirs of Beaumarchais the choice of taking 800,000 francs and considering the affair closed, or nothing. The heirs chose the former and so at last ended the long drawn out debate regarding “the lost million.”