close
Browsing: Papers of John Adams, Volume 7
Docno: ADMS-06-07-02-0192-0002
Recipient: Franklin, Benjamin
Recipient: Lee, Arthur
Recipient: Adams, John
Recipient: First Joint Commission at Paris
Date: 1778-12-18
C. W. F. Dumas to Benjamin Franklin: A Translation
[dateline] The Hague, 18 December 1778
[salute] Gentlemen
I have seen our friend. There are two committees: one to work on the new British complaints;
the other on the response to be given to the French Ambassador's mémoire, of which I sent you a copy.1 We will not know the result until next week.
{ 287 } The protest published by Amsterdam against the resolution of the 18th was sent to
me so that I might send a copy to Congress. This important document is 20 pages in
folio.2 I will thus have much work to do, first translating it and then having it copied
in duplicate and triplicate &c.
If a satisfactory response is not made to France, Amsterdam will protest again.
[dateline] 19 December, in the morning
We were told that the Admiralty would not give its preliminary advisory regarding
the resolution until next week, but measures were secretly taken to issue one this
morning that promises fine things to France without, in the meantime, changing anything
regarding the refusal of convoys for naval stores. Early this morning the Ambassador,
having heard of it, visited the Grand Pensionary, before he left for the Assembly,
to deliver a note so strong that I do not think that it will be possible to avoid
giving a precise yes or no answer, which will either maintain or destroy the commerce of the seven provinces
with France.
[dateline] 19 December, in the evening
Despite the Ambassador's note, the English party has prevailed in the Assembly, and
all but Amsterdam have adopted by a plurality the Admiralty's position. Thereupon
Amsterdam delivered its protest which, after confirming her previous protests, especially
against the resolution of 18 November, declared that she considers herself not responsible
for and thus free from all the unfavorable consequences for the Republic that might
result from the unsatisfactory answer to be given to France. Our friend made me read
this protest which is as short and moderate in form as it is strong in content.3
[dateline] 22 December
I have been permitted to make a copy of both the resolution and the protest. On good
authority I have been assured that a letter from Count Walderen has arrived which
indicates that the Court of London is no longer content with the resolution taken
by this state on 18 November. Thus have those who were so eager to spare the said
Court been badly paid for their complaisance. Will they not finally open their eyes?
That I do not know. What is certain is that the resolution taken by a plurality of
the States of Holland on the 19th of this month has not yet been brought before the
States General. The Assembly of Holland, which was to separate this week, has been
adjourned to next Tuesday. The delegates of the towns will leave Thursday. Are they
going to seek new instructions for another response that the French ambassador can
receive? It is possible. Only the Amsterdam delegates remain, for they do not need
ad referendum—stat sententia civitatis.4
[dateline] 24 December
The letter from the Envoy, Count Welderen, contains the order of the British Court,
given him by Suffolk, by which the Royal Navy and British privateers are authorized
to seize all neutral vessels carrying mu• { 288 } nitions for land or naval forces, that is to say masts, &c., to France. This ruling is directly contrary to
the resolution of 18 November, in which the States refused to call into question this
article guaranteed them by their treaties.
Until I can give you, gentlemen, the outcome of all this, I think that I should inform
you of a curious letter that I received and my reply. The writer, a lawyer and brother
of the State Council's fiscal agent, came by coach to deliver it, together with a
package and a visiting card. Among some legal documents, gentlemen, was a copy of
a letter written to you, last year and your reply regarding a Dutch vessel from Rotterdam,
captured at sea, taken into Charleston, and there declared good prize.5
As a result, I went to see him and was told that he was one of those interested in
the vessel, having invested 10,000 florins, etc. Finally, he said to me: But sir, you have nevertheless been entrusted with some business matters by the States
or, at least, they have passed through your hands. I have positive assurances of it. I replied: if that was so, I would be very indiscreet to admit it. But, sir, please believe my
letter; make whatever use of it you please; show it to the Grand Pensionary or anyone
else, who will tell you far better than I what you wish to learn.
The Grand Facteur, to whom I told all this, fully approved.
[dateline] 28 December
I carried this letter with me to Amsterdam, where certain persons [had invited me?] to confer with them on some undertakings which could be very beneficial to America.
[I] will make the necessary moves to bring [this matter to?] fruition before [speaking?] to you [about it?]. Tomorrow I leave for The Hague, whence I will inform you as to what will have been
resolved regarding the answer to be given the French Court. I am, with very great
respect, gentlemen, your very humble and very obedient servant
[signed] Dumas
RC (MH-H: Lee Papers). LbC (Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague, Eerste Afdeling, Dumas Coll., Inventaris I, p. 242–243). Water damage
to the recipient's copy has resulted in the obliteration of several words. In the
section of the letter dated 22 Dec. these have been supplied, in brackets, from the
Letterbook copy. The section dated 28 Dec., however, does not appear in the Letterbook
and missing words there are conjecturally supplied.
3. The Duc de la Vauguyon's note or mémoire of 19 Dec., the Provincial Assembly's response, and Amsterdam's protest were copied
by Dumas and sent to the Committee for Foreign Affairs as enclosures in his letter
of 7 Jan. 1779 (PCC, No. 93, I, f. 258–259). For the text of an explanatory note to the mémoire of the 19th, see Dumas' letter of 12 Jan. to the Commissioners (below). In his note La Vauguyon demanded a precise explanation
of the means by which the United Provinces intended to maintain a perfect neutrality
and declared that the absence of such an explanation would be seen as partiality and
result in the implementation of the measures promised in his mémoire of 7 Dec. The resolution { 289 } adopted by the Assembly in response to La Vauguyon's representations did not mention
convoys for ships carrying materials for naval construction, the real issue, but only
reiterated the Assembly's desire to maintain a perfect neutrality and intention to
put the issue before the States General. Amsterdam's protest is summarized accurately
by Dumas.
4. That is, to carry back an answer—the decision of their city stands.
5. This was a letter from Franco and Adrianus Dubbeldemutts to the Commissioners of 30
Oct. 1777. The Rotterdam firm sought the Commissioners' help in recovering its sloop
Chester which, bound for Rotterdam with a cargo of dyewoods and hides, had been seized by
American privateers on 14 June 1777 and brought to Charleston, S.C., where it was
condemned. Because the privateers had put the Chester's captain ashore at St. Eustatius, he was unable either to testify concerning the sloop's
ownership or appeal the ruling within the statutory time limit. In their reply of
10 Nov. 1777, the Commissioners deplored the seizure and promised to send all of the
documents in their possession to the congress for its consideration. Not until 24
July 1786, however, did the congress authorize a new trial for the Chester (Franklin, Papers, 25:122–124, 147–148; PCC, No. 45, f. 93–254 passim; JCC, 30:423–424).
Immediately following this paragraph Dumas inserted copies of two letters, which have
been omitted. The first, dated 4 Dec. 1778, was from H. J. d'Oldenbarneveld, also
known as Witte Tullingh. Understanding that Dumas handled the interests of the Americans,
had a commission from the congress, and was friendly with Franklin, Tullingh requested
Dumas to use his influence for the recovery of the Chester. In the second, dated 6 Dec., Dumas denied that he held any such commission, but agreed
to do what he could in the case.
Cite web page as: Founding Families: Digital Editions of the Papers of the Winthrops and the Adamses, ed.C. James Taylor. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2016.
http://www.masshist.org/apde2/
http://www.masshist.org/apde2/