FOOTNOTE:
[2] The two commissions were for distinct purposes; Mr Oswald's to treat with the American Commissioners alone; and Mr Fitzherbert's to treat for a general peace with the European powers, then at war with England.
TO CHARLES W.F. DUMAS.
Paris, January 1st, 1783.
Dear Sir,
Returning this evening from Versailles, where I had been to make the compliments of the season, I found your favors of the 26th and 27th of December. The letters enclosed shall be forwarded, as you desire.
The Dutch Ministers here have no occasion for my assistance. Non tali auxilio. I have the honor to be more particularly acquainted with M. Brantzen, who is certainly a very able man, and universally acknowledged to be so by all who know him. The arguments, which I know he has used with the British Minister, are such as can never be answered, both upon the liberty of navigation, and the compensation for damages. He is an entire master of his subject, and has urged it with a degree of perspicuity and eloquence, that I know has much struck his antagonists.
Unnecessary, however, as any exertions of mine have been, I have not omitted any opportunity of throwing in any friendly suggestions in my power, where there was a possibility of doing any good to our good friends, the Dutch. I have made such suggestions to Mr Fitzherbert. But with Mr Oswald, I have had several very serious conversations upon the subject. So I have also with Mr Vaughan and Mr Whiteford.
To Mr Oswald I urged the necessity of Great Britain's agreeing with the Dutch upon the unlimited freedom of navigation, from a variety of topics, some of which I may explain to you more particularly hereafter. Thus much I may say at present, that I told him, that it was impossible for Great Britain to avoid it; it would probably be insisted upon by all the other powers. France and Spain, as well as Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, the Emperor, and Portugal, as well as Holland, had already signed the armed neutrality. The United States of America had declared themselves ready to sign, and were ready. The combination being thus powerful, Great Britain could not resist it. But if she should refuse to agree to it with Holland, and the other powers should acquiesce, and Holland should make peace without it (which would never, however, be the case,) yet all would be ineffectual, for Holland would forever be able to make use of other neutral bottoms, and would thus enjoy the benefit of this liberty and reality, though denied it by treaty, and in appearance. It would, therefore, be more for the honor and interest of Great Britain to agree to it with a good grace, in the treaty with Holland. Nay, the wisest part she could act would be to set on foot a negotiation immediately for signing herself the Treaty of Armed Neutrality, and then admitting it into the treaty with Holland would be a thing of course. At one of these conversations Dr Franklin was present, who supported me with all his weight; at another, Mr Jay seconded me with all his abilities and ingenuity. Mr Oswald has several times assured me, that he had written these arguments and his own opinion, in conformity with them, to the King's Ministers in London, and I doubt not they will be adopted.
With respect to the compensation for damages, it is impossible to add anything to the arrangements M. Brantzen has urged to show the justice of it, and if Britain is really wise, she will think it her policy to do everything in her power to soften the resentment of the Dutch, and regain their good will and good humor.