advantage of buying what they consume cheap and selling what they can spare dear. If we should come to London, I hope it may still be with you that we are to do business. Our already understanding one another may save, on many points, a good deal of time in discussion. But I doubt whether any treaty is intended on your part, and I fancy we shall not press it. It may perhaps be best to give both sides time to inquire, and to feel for the interests they cannot see. With sincere and great esteem, I am ever, my dear friend, yours most affectionately, B. FRANKLIN. MCCCXX TO JOHN JAY PASSY, 8 February, 1785. DEAR SIR: I received by the Marquis de Lafayette your kind letter of the 13th of December. It gave me pleasure on two accounts, as it informed me of the public welfare, and that of your, I may almost say our, dear little family; for, since I had the pleasure of their being with me in the same house, I have ever felt a tender affection for them, equal, I believe, to that of most fathers. I did hope to have heard, by the last packet, of, your having accepted the secretaryship of foreign affairs, but was disappointed. I write to you now, therefore, only as a private friend; yet I may mention respecting public affairs that, as far as I can perceive, the good disposition of this court towards us continues. I wish I could say as much for the rest of the European courts. I think that their desire of being connected with us by treaties is of late much abated, and this, I suppose, is occasioned by the pains Britain takes to represent us everywhere as distracted with divisions, discontented with our govnerments, the people unwilling to pay taxes, the Congress unable to collect them, and many desiring the restoration of the old government. The English papers are full of this stuff, and their ministers get it copied into the foreign papers. The moving about of the Congress from place to place has also a bad effect, in giving color to the reports of their being afraid of the people. I hope they will soon settle somewhere, and by the steadiness and wisdom of their measures dissipate all those mists of misrepresentation raised by the remaining malice of ancient enemies, and establish our reputation for national justice and prudence as they have done for courage and perseverance. It grieves me that we have not been able to discharge our first year's payment of interest to this court, due the beginning of last month. I hope it will be the only failure, and that effectual measures will be taken to be exactly punctual hereafter. The good master, says the proverb, is lord of another man's purse. The bad one, if he ever has again occasion to borrow, must pay dearly for his carelessness and injustice. You are happy in having got back safe to your country. I should be less unhappy if I could imagine signing the convention, it having been done July last, and a copy sent so long since that we now expected the ratification. As that copy seems to have miscarried I now send another. I am not informed what objection has arisen in Congress to the plan sent me. Mr. Jefferson thinks it may have been to the part which restrained the consuls from all concern in commerce. That article was omitted, being thought unnecessary to be stipulated, since either party would always have the power of imposing such restraints on its own officers, whenever it should think fit. I am, however, of opinion that this or any other reasonable article or alteration may be obtained at the desire of Congress, and established by a supplement. Permit me, sir, to congratulate you on your being called to the high honor of presiding in our national councils, and to wish you every felicity, being with the most perfect esteem, etc., MCCCXXIII B. FRANKLIN. TO WILLIAM STRAHAN, ESQ. PASSY, 5 March, 1785. DEAR FRIEND:-I received your kind letter by my grandson. I thank you for the civilities you showed him when in London. I hope to get home this ensuing summer. I shall have an old account to settle then with the family of our friend Hall. There is a particular article of some importance, about which we were not agreed, but were to be determined by your opinion. It was the value of a copyright in an established newspaper, of each of which from eight to ten thousand were printed. My long absence from that country, and immense employment the little time I was there, have hitherto prevented the settlement of all the accounts that had been between us; though we never differed about them, and never should if that good honest man had continued in being. To prevent all dispute on the above points with his son, it is that I now request your decision, which I doubt not will be satisfactory to us both. With unchangeable esteem, I am ever, my dear friend, yours most affectionately, My respects to Mrs. Strahan. B. FRANKLIN. MCCCXXIV TO BENJAMIN VAUGHAN * PASSY, 14 March, 1785. MY DEAR FRIEND:-Among the thoughts you lately sent me was one entitled: Thoughts on Execu This paper on the criminal laws and the practice of privateering, was written in the form of a letter to Vaughan. It first appeared anonymously in a small volume published by Sir Samuel Romilly, in 1786, being observations on a treatise by Dr. Madan, entitled: Thoughts on Executive Justice. It was printed as "a letter from a gentleman abroad to his friend in England." In introducing it to his readers Sir Samuel says: "The simplicity of style and liberality of thought which distinguish it cannot fail of discovering its venerable author to such as are already acquainted with his valuable writings. To those who have not that good fortune, the Editor is not permitted to say more than that it is the production of one of the best and most eminent of the present age." See also Letter to M. Veillard, April 10, 1787.-EDITOR. tive Justice. In return for that I send you a French one on the same subject, Observations concernant d'Exécution de l'Article II. de la Déclaration sur le Vol. They are both addressed to the judges, but written, as you will see, in a very different spirit. The English author is for hanging all thieves. The Frenchman is for proportioning punishments to offences. If we really believe, as we profess to believe, that the law of Moses was the law of God, the dictate of divine wisdom, infinitely superior to human, on what principles do we ordain death as the punishment of an offence which, according to that law, was only to be punished by a restitution of fourfold? To put a man to death for an offence which does not deserve death, is it not murder? And, as the French writer says, Doit-on punir délit contre la société par un crime contre la nature? Superfluous property is the creature of society. Simple and mild laws were sufficient to guard the property that was merely necessary. The savage's bow, his hatchet, and his coat of skins were sufficiently secured, without law, by the fear of personal resentment and retaliation. When, by virtue of the first laws, part of the society accumulated wealth and grew powerful, they enacted others more severe, and would protect their property at the expense of humanity. This was abusing their power and commencing a tyranny. If a savage, before he entered into society, had been told: "Your neighbor by this means may become owner of a hundred deer; but if your brother, or your son, or yourself, having no |