When Mr Hartley arrived here, he brought with him only a set of instructions, signed by the King. We objected to proceeding with him until he should have a commission in form. This occasioned some delay. A proper commission was, however, transmitted to him, a copy of which was shortly after sent to Mr Livingston.
We having been instructed to obtain, if possible, an Article for a direct trade to the West Indies, made to Mr Hartley the proposition No. 1.[18]
He approved of it greatly, and recommended it to his Court, but they declined assenting to it.
Mr Hartley then made us the proposition No. 2;[19] but being asked, whether he was authorised to sign it, in case we agreed to it, he answered in the negative. We, therefore, thought it improper to proceed to the consideration of it, until after he should have obtained the consent of his Court to it. We also desired to be informed, whether his Court would, or would not, comprehend Ireland in their stipulations with us.
The British Cabinet would not adopt Mr Hartley's propositions, but their letters to him were calculated to inspire us with expectations, that as nothing but particular local circumstances, which would probably not be of long duration, restrained them from preferring the most liberal system of commerce with us, the Ministry would take the earliest opportunity of gratifying their own wishes, as well as ours, on that subject.
Mr Hartley then made us the propositions No. 3.[20] At this time, we were informed, that letters for us had arrived in France from Philadelphia; we expected to receive instructions in them, and told Mr Hartley, that this expectation induced us to postpone giving him an answer for a few days.
The vessel by which we expected these letters, it seems had not brought any for us. But at that time information arrived from America, that our ports were all opened to British vessels. Mr Hartley thereupon did not think himself at liberty to proceed, until after he should communicate that intelligence to his Court and receive their further instructions.
Those further instructions never came; and thus our endeavors as to commercial regulations proved fruitless. We had many conferences, and received long Memorials from Mr Hartley on the subject; but his zeal for systems friendly to us, constantly exceeded his authority to concert and agree to them.
During the long interval of his expecting instructions, for his expectations were permitted to exist almost to the last, we proceeded to make and receive propositions for perfecting the definitive treaty. Details of all the amendments, alterations, objections, expectations, &c. which occurred in the course of these discussions, would be voluminous. We finally agreed that he should send to his Court the project or draft of a treaty, No. 4.[21] He did so, but after much time, and when pressed by France, who insisted that we should all conclude together, he was instructed to sign a definitive treaty in the terms of the Provisional Articles.
Whether the British Court meant to avoid a definitive treaty with us, through a vain hope, from the exaggerated accounts of divisions among our people, and want of authority in Congress, that some revolution might soon happen in their favor; or whether their dilatory conduct was caused by the strife of the two opposite and nearly equal parties in the Cabinet, is hard to decide.