to be too far, or too hastily, condemned by an infant and inexperienced one. That of Great Britain is, in the science of commerce, particularly worthy of our attention; and did she not originally redeem the management of her commerce from the monopoly of the Hanse towns by peculiar exemptions to her own subjects? Did she not dispossess the Dutch by a like policy? And does she not still make a preference of her own vessels and her own mariners the basis of her maritime power? If Holland has followed a different system, the reason is plain. Her object is not to exclude rivals from her own navigation, but to insinuate herself into that of other nations.

The leading objects in the proposed treaty with Great Britain are, first, a direct commerce with the West Indies; secondly, the carrying trade between the different parts of her dominions; thirdly, a like trade between these and other parts of the world. In return for these objects we have nothing to offer of which we could well deprive her, but to secure to her subjects an entire equality of privileges with our own citizens. With regard to the first object it may be observed, that both the temper and the interest of the nation leave us little ground to apprehend an exclusion from it. The French have so much the advantage of them, from the facility of raising food, as well as the other produce of their Islands, that the English will be under the necessity of admitting supplies from the United States into their Islands, and they surely will prefer paying for them in commodities to paying for them in cash. With regard to the second and third objects, it may be observed, VOL. I.-34*

that, although they present great advantages, they present them only to those States which abound in maritime resources. Lastly, with regard to the concession to be made on the part of the United States, it may be observed, that it will affect chiefly, if not solely, those States which will share least in the advantages purchased by it. So striking indeed does this contrast appear, that it may, with certainty, be inferred, that, if Great Britain were negotiating a treaty with the former States only, she would reject a mutual communication of the privileges of natives; nor is it clear that her apprehensions on this side will not yet lead her to reject such a stipulation with the whole.

If this subject should be taken up by the Legislature, I hope that, although not a member, your attention and aid will be given to it. If it should not be taken up publicly, I wish for your own private sentiments, and those of the most intelligent members which you may be able to collect.

We have no European intelligence. Sir Guy Carleton, in a letter to General Washington, avows the same sentiments as were expressed in the conference relative to the negroes, but repeats his caution against their being understood as the national construction of the Treaty.

116

DEAR SIR,

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Philadelphia, May 20, 1783.

For the tenor of the conditions on which Congress were formerly willing to accept the cession of Vir

ginia, I beg leave to refer to their resolutions of the sixth of September, and tenth of October, 1780. I take it for granted, you have the Journals. The expunging of the article relative to State expenses was a subject of no less regret with me than it is with you, and for the same reason; but I acknowledge, that, considering the probable defect of vouchers in Virginia, and the ardor with which the clause was supported from some other quarters, mine was much diminished in the course of the discussion. On the last trial, there were but two or three States besides Virginia that favored it. South Carolina's opposition to it had great weight. After this clause was expunged, it was thought improper to retain the connective clause, as Virginia will now be at liberty to confine her accession to the revenue part of the plan, without enlarging her territorial cession, or being deprived of the opportunity of annexing any condition she may think fit. The connective clause, however, could not have been carried, I believe, either before or after the mutilation of the plan. Notwithstanding this disappointment, I adhere to my wishes, not only that the revenue may be established, but that the Federal rule of dividing the burdens may be changed, and the territorial disputes accommodated. The more I revolve the latter subject, the less inducement I can discover to a pertinacity on the part of Virginia, and the more interesting it appears to the Union.

I am sorry your departure from Richmond became necessary before more of the members were assembled. I make no doubt that useful impressions have been left with those who were so, and were suscep

tible of them. I shall keep in mind the intimation relative to Mr. Short. The idea of adding a fraction of a year to my Congressional service is totally new, and even if it should prevail, will not, as far as I can see, coincide with my private convenience.

DEAR SIR,

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

Philadelphia, May 27, 1783.

The next post, I hope, will bring me your remarks on the budget of Congress, with the pulse of the Assembly with regard to it. The example of Virginia will have great, and perhaps decisive, influence on the event of it. In Rhode Island they are attacking it in the newspapers before it has appeared. But that State is swayed by a party which has raised and connected its importance with an opposition to every Continental measure. The bulk of the people are taken in by a belief, that, if no general impost on trade be levied, their State will be able to tax the neighboring States at pleasure. Should all the other States unite heartily in the plan, I do not think any single State will take upon itself the odium and the consequences of persevering in a veto upon it.

I wish much to know how far your hope was well founded, of an introduction of Mr. Jefferson into the Legislature. The hopes of some, I find, extend to his mission to Congress. The latter would be exceedingly fortunate, and, if his objections are not insuperable, ought, and I trust will, be urged upon

him by his friends. I have been also indulging a hope, that your return for such periods as would be most interesting, and would least interfere with the exercise of your profession, might be reconciled to your views.

Unless temperate and experienced

members come in for the ensuing year, I foresee that the exclusions required by the Confederation will make way for a change in the Federal Councils, not favorable to those Catholic arrangements on which the harmony and stability of the Union must greatly depend.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

Philadelphia, June 10, 1783.

DEAR SIR,

Mr. Jones will have informed you that the mission of Payne to Rhode Island by Congress was a fiction of malice. If the trip was not a spontaneous measure of his own, I am a stranger to its origin.

I am told by one of the Judges of Appeal, that no case has yet required from them a construction of the epochs which are to limit captures. The third of March was generally applied at first to the American seas, but that opinion has rather lost ground. In New York, it is said that the third of April is adhered to. As the like phraseology is said to have been used in former treaties, the true construction might be found, I should suppose, in Admiralty precedents.

We have received the instruction relative to commercial treaties. The principle on which it is