TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

Paris, June 17th, 1778.

Sir,

Mr Pringle, who was the bearer of my last letter, has given me an account of his conversation with you on the subject of it. It would have been much more satisfactory to me, if, instead of speaking to him about the contents of it, you had done me the honor of writing an answer to it. Words which pass in conversation are sometimes forgotten and sometimes misunderstood. Misrepresentations are sometimes the consequence, which though produced by mistake, to a mind affected by ill treatment, of which neither the occasion can be learned nor the progress stopped, may pass from effects proceeding from either causes. I enclose you a copy of Mr Pringle’s letter. You will be so good as to correct any mistakes that may be found in it. Some there probably are; I do not, for instance, think it likely you could have said that you did not know what I complained of, at the same time that my complaints appear so numerous, that it would require a pamphlet to answer them. It is impossible that both these assertions can be true; and though I cannot agree with you in either, I shall not dispute about them, but refer you to the several letters which I have written since the receipt of your favor of the 29th of January.

I have requested to be informed of your reasons for withholding from me all communications respecting the treaty of commerce during the negotiation, contrary to an express instruction of Congress. You have constantly, in spite of every endeavor on my part to get your reasons in writing, wrapped yourself up with caution, and notwithstanding the repeated breach of your engagement with me, have not been ashamed to make promises of the same kind and break them again, to amuse me till Mr Deane had an opportunity of going privately away. I shall not examine your inducements for so carefully avoiding to commit yourself to paper on this subject, but only observe that this determination compels me to mention the reasons given by Dr Bancroft and your grandson, which it would have been more agreeable to me to have had under your own hand. Those gentlemen have informed me, that some proposals which Mr Lee had made to you and Mr Deane, respecting his brother and me, made you apprehensive, that it was intended to have us admitted into all consultations, and that every question should be carried by a plurality of voices; that this had determined your conduct with respect to communications to me; but that if you had been ever so well inclined to communicate anything relative to the treaty, you lay under such strong injunctions of secrecy from the French Ministry, that it was out of your power to do it.

With respect to the first of these reasons I shall observe, that if Mr Lee ever made any such proposal, it was entirely unknown to me. I have spoken to him on the subject, and he declares that he never said anything that could in the least justify such an apprehension. There does not indeed seem the least probability that such a proposal could have been made. The unfortunate dispute in which he was engaged with you and Mr Deane, and the decided majority of which you were possessed, would have made such an attempt on his part too weak for a man of common understanding. With regard to the injunctions of secrecy, which the French Ministry are said to have laid you under, I answer, that you had no right to lay yourself under any such injunctions. Before you can avail yourself of that excuse, you should show that you had reminded the French Ministry of there being at that time in Paris two other Commissioners of Congress, to whom your duty required you to communicate not only a copy of the treaty originally proposed by Congress, but also whatever subsequent alterations might be proposed on either side. Had this been done, and had they expressed a desire that those Commissioners also should be unacquainted with the transaction, rather than the smallest obstruction should have been thrown in the way of the negotiation, I should have been contented to have had it kept from me as long as you thought proper.

Having examined these reasons, and I hope at least shown the probability of their being only pretended ones, I shall proceed to state what appears to me to be the true cause of your conduct, and as it will be necessary to trouble you with a dull narrative, you will I hope excuse it on account of the importance of it. I received a letter in October last from Mr William Lee, one of the joint commercial agents for conducting the affairs of the Congress in this kingdom, desiring my attendance at your house at Passy, and informing me, that he had something of importance to lay before the Commissioners. I accordingly attended, and heard an account of some very extraordinary abuses and embarrassments in the commercial department, owing to the misconduct of Mr Thomas Morris, late one of the joint commercial agents, and to the claim which certain persons made to the management of the affairs of the Congress at Nantes. Mr Lee complained of great obstructions, which he had met with from these circumstances, that so far from receiving any assistance from the Commissioners, they seemed to have encouraged the persons who opposed him in the discharge of his duty, and that he had repeatedly written to the Commissioners for their support, without ever having been able to obtain the favor of an answer. He expressed his desire of returning to Nantes, and using his endeavors to prevent the repetition of such abuses as had been stated, and did not doubt but with the support of the Commissioners he should be able to render this material service to the public. The support which he required was a letter from the Commissioners, addressed to all such captains of ships as were in the service of the United States, informing them, that he was an agent properly authorised by Congress to manage their commercial concerns in this country, and that it would be proper for them to follow his instructions. This request, which appeared to me extremely reasonable, was to my astonishment rejected both by you and Mr Deane.

This appeared the more extraordinary to me, as you both acknowledged, that you were perfectly convinced of the truth of what Mr Lee had stated to you, and said you had laid these abuses before Congress, and complained in the strongest terms against Mr Thomas Morris, whose misconduct had occasioned some of them; that Congress had given you a tacit reproof, by taking no notice of the complaints you had made, and that Mr Robert Morris, a member of the committee for foreign affairs, had given you a rap over the knuckles for having made them. I begged you to consider that the silence of Congress, which you had construed into a reproof, might have been occasioned by the multiplicity of business they had to transact, or they might have attended to it, and their letter on the subject have miscarried. This you said could not have been the case, as the complaints to Congress against Mr Morris made but part of your letter; there were several other matters contained in it, which were all answered, and as the complaint against Mr Morris was the only part unnoticed, you considered it as a reproof to you for having written to Congress about it. You had attempted once to correct the abuses, which every body knew were practising at Nantes to a very scandalous degree. Mr Robert Morris had misrepresented your good intentions, and had insinuated in his letter to Mr Deane of June 29th, that your complaints against his brother were made from interested motives, and that you wished him removed to make way for your nephew. As your conduct had in one instance, relative to the abuses at Nantes, been thus misrepresented, you were determined it should in no other, by adhering to your resolution of not meddling with them.

Your reasons did not appear at all satisfactory to me, and I took the liberty of telling you so, which gave you very great offence. I was extremely sorry for it, but did not at that time, nor have I upon the most mature deliberation since been able to conceive how it could have been avoided consistent with my duty. I requested you to consider how unreasonable it was, to allow your resentment against the Committee for a supposed tacit reproof, and against Mr Robert Morris for what you called a rap over the knuckles, to operate to the prejudice, perhaps to the destruction of the commercial concerns of your country. Your answer was direct and positive; “If these consequences should happen, Mr Robert Morris and the Committee must be answerable for them, but you were determined not to meddle with the matter.” In this determination Mr Deane co-operated, and we parted without Mr Lee’s having been able to obtain any satisfaction on the subjects of his complaints, except a promise on your part to countermand an order you had given relative to the sale of one of the prizes at Nantes. This promise, however, I understand was not fulfilled. I most solemnly protest, that I believe this interview to have been the cause of your excluding me from all communications.