not, and, in case of refusal, solicit your recall, that you may not continue from year to year, at a great expense, in a constant state of uncertainty with regard to so important a matter. I do not see how they can decently refuse such an answer. But their silence, after the demand made, should in my opinion be understood as a refusal, and we should act accordingly. I think I see a very good use that might be made of it, which I will not venture to explain in this letter.

I know not how the account of your salary stands, but I would have you draw upon me for a quarter at present, which shall be paid; and it will be a great pleasure to me, if I shall be able to pay up all your

arrears.

Mr. Laurens, being now at liberty, perhaps may soon come here, and be ready to join us, if there should be any negotiations for peace. In England they are mad for a separate one with us, that they may more effectually take revenge on France and Spain. I have had several overtures hinted to me lately from different quarters, but I am deaf. The thing is impossible. We can never agree to desert our first and our faithful friend on any consideration whatever. We should become infamous by such abominable baseness. With great and sincere esteem, I am ever, &c.

B. FRANKLIN.

FROM DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.

Correcting Misapprehensions of his Propositions. Cases in which the United States might treat separately.

MY DEAR SIR,

London, 24 January, 1782.

I received yours of the 15th instant this day. I must take the earliest opportunity of setting you right in one mistake, which runs through your whole letter, and which to you, under that mistake, must be a very delicate point. You seem to apprehend, that America has been stated, in the proposition to Lord North, as "disposed to enter into a separate treaty with Great Britain"; but you meet the condition, viz. in the words immediately following, "and that their allies were disposed to consent to it." There cannot possibly be any supposition of treachery to allies, in any proposition to which they may consent. A separate treaty, with the consent of the allies of America, was the proposition communicated to me by Mr. Alexander, and which I laid before the minister, and which I reported back again to Mr. Alexander in writing, when I showed him the paper entitled Conciliatory Propositions," which I took care to reduce to writing, with a view of avoiding mistakes; therefore I have not misunderstood Mr. Alexander. I have since seen Mr. Alexander many times, and he has always stated one and the same proposition, viz. that America was disposed to enter into a separate treaty, because their allies were disposed to consent that they should; therefore there cannot exist a suspicion of treachery. It occurred to me once, while I was writing, to bar against that misconstruction; but, having specified the consent of the

66

allies of America in the same sentence, I could not conceive such a misconstruction to have been possible.

You have mistaken another point greatly. You say, "a truce for ten years." There is not in the bill any such disposition or thought; on the contrary, it is specified in the enclosed paper that it is kept indefinite, for the sole purpose of avoiding the suspicion which you have suggested. The truce may be for twenty, or fifty, or one hundred years; in my opinion, the longer the better. But, in any case, what I mean now to state is, the indefinite term in the bill. The articles of intercourse are only proposed for ten years certain, just to strew the way with inviting and conciliatory facilities, in the hope that a little time given for cooling would confirm a perpetual peace. If I were permitted to be the mediator, I should certainly propose the truce for twenty years; but if no more than ten years could be obtained, I would certainly not refuse such a ground of pacification and treaty. I refer you to several of my letters, two or three years ago, for the justification of my sentiments on that head.

Another point; look at all my letters since 1778, and see if I have at any time suggested any breach of treaty or of honor; on the contrary, I think a faithless nation, if exterminated, would not deserve the pity of mankind. I speak of all I know in the treaty between America and France, and what I think reasonable upon the case itself. If America is further bound than we know of, they must abide by it. I speak to the apparent and public foundation of the treaty, article second, with the provision of tacitly, from article eighth; and now I refer you to my letter to you, as long ago as April 10th, 1779; "If beyond this essential and directed end, and upon grounds totally unconnected with that alliance, not upon motives of

magnanimity for the relief of an innocent people, but from distinct and unconnected motives of private European sentiments, America should be dragged into the consequence of a general European war, she may apply to France the apostrophe of the poet, speaking in the person of Helen* to Paris,

Non hoc pollicitus tuæ.""

You see, therefore, that our sentiments have been uniform, and, as I think, reasonable, because I still remain in those sentiments.

Suppose, for instance (and you may call it the case of a straw, if you please), that Great Britain and France should continue the war for ten years, on the point of a commissary at Dunkirk, ay or no. Would it be reasonable, or a casus fœderis, that America should be precluded from a separate treaty for ten years, and therefore involved in the consequential war, after the essential and direct ends of the treaty of February 6th, 1778, were accomplished? As far as my judgment goes, upon the knowledge of such facts as are public, I should think it was neither reasonable nor a casus fœderis. This is the breviate of the argument, in which there is no thought or suggestion of any breach of faith or honor. I did conclude, that France was disposed to give their consent, because Mr. Alexander informed me so, and because I thought it reasonable that France should consent, and reasonable that America should enjoy the benefit of that consent. I transmitted it to Lord North, as a proposition temperate and pacific on the part of America, and consented to by their allies, and on no other ground did I transmit or propose it. All that your letter tells me, is, "that

The writer's memory is at fault here. Nereus, reproaching Paris with his future cowardice, says

"Not such the promise to your [Helen] made."

Horace, Od. I. xv. 32.

America will not break with her allies, and that her Commissioners will not entertain such a thought;" but give me leave to add, that they, as honest men, cannot disdain such a thought more than I do; every honest man ought to disdain the office, or the thought, of proposing a breach of faith to them. I have often told you, that such an office or such a thought shall never be mine.

But you have not told me, that France would not be disposed to consent to a separate treaty of peace for that ally, whose peace was the original declared object of the alliance, in the case supposed, viz. of certain supposed or real punctilios between two proud and belligerent nations, which might possibly involve America for years in a war totally unconnected with the objects of the alliance. Besides, if any rubs should occur in the road to a general peace, France is too proud a nation to say, that, beyond the policy of contributing to the separation of America from Great Britain in any contest of rivalship, they cannot meet their rivals in war, without the assistance of America. I cannot conceive, that the minister of a great belligerent nation could entertain such a thought, as affecting their own sense of honor, or be so unreasonable to their allies, as to withhold consent to their peace, when the essential and direct ends of the alliance were satisfied. Observe, I do not contend against a general peace; on the contrary, I mean to recommend the most prudent means for producing it. But, as an anxious lover of peace, I feel terrors which dismay me, when I consider the dangers which may obstruct a general peace, arising from the pride and prejudices of nations, which are not to be controlled in their heat by arguments of reason or philosophy.

Can any man in reason and philosophy tell me, why any two nations in the world are called natural ene