Papers of John Adams, volume 16

C. W. F. Dumas to John Adams, 16 September 1784 Dumas, C. W. F. Adams, John

From C. W. F. Dumas

Monsieur, Lahaie 16 Sept. 1784.

Rien de nouveau ici depuis ma derniere. On attend la réponse de Vienne à celle de L. H. P. En attendant les antirépublicains ici, & les pusillanimes & indolens, font des Com̃entaires sur le dernier Meme. de Mr. De B—r. Selon eux c’est une défaite de la part de la fce., pour ne pas dire tout cru. “Nous ne nous soucions pas de nous mêler de vos affaires; démêlez votre fusée com̃e vous pourrez.” Selon les autres, ce n’est que le style & les Ménagemens d’usage entre les Cours pour ce qu’elles appellent leur dignité, afin de s’ôter mutuellement tout sujet de plaintes, & le prétexte de faire valoir ces plaintes auprès des autres Puissances, qui pourroient être enclines à 326 prendre de l’ombrage. Entre quatre yeux l’on va plus loin; & l’on se communique à l’oreille l’assurance, que si les choses étoient poussées à l’extrêmité, ce qu’on ne croit pas qui arrivera, les bons offices promis seroient très energiques. Dans certain quartier ici, l’on a dit sérieusement ces jours passés, que le Meme. susdit est un effet du ménagement que le R. veut avoir pour la grossesse de la R——.1 A ce beau trait vous pouvez reconnoître sans que je m’explique davantage, quel est le quartier, & quelles sont les têtes profondes qui l’ont conçu.

Mr. V. D. Hm. qui étoit parti en poste pour aller boire les Eaux de Pyrmont, est revenu ici, parce que certain personnage, que Son absence allarmait, dit-on, lui a fait, dit-on, courir après, pour lui persuader que les Eaux sont trop froides, & que le Bourgogne qu’il peut avoir ici vaudra mieux pour son estomac affadi par le Sorbet que le grand Turc, &c. &c. &c. &c. lui ont fait avaler.2

Nous vous assurons, & vos Dames de nos respects.

De Votre Exce. le très-humble & / très-obéissant servitr.

C.w.f. Dumas

TRANSLATION

Sir The Hague, 16 September 1784

Nothing new here since my last. We are waiting for the response from Vienna to that of Their High Mightinesses. While waiting, the antirepublicans here, and the pusillanimous and indolent, are making comments about the last memorial of Mr. Bérenger. According to them, it is a defeat for France, not to tell it like it is. “We are not interested in getting mixed up in your affairs; disentangle your own knots as best you can.” According to others, it is only the fashion and the customary considerations between courts for what they term their dignity, in order to remove mutually all grounds for complaint and the pretext for disclosing their complaints to other powers, which might be inclined to take umbrage. In private we go further, and we whisper in each other’s ears the assurance that if things were pushed to the extremity, which we do not think will happen, the promised mediation would be very energetic. In certain quarters here, it has been seriously said these past few days that the abovementioned memorial is a result of the solicitude with which the king regards the queen’s pregnancy.1 By this noble detail you may get the idea without my having to explain any more from what quarter this comes and what the deep minds are who thought it up.

Mr. van der Heim, who left by the post to go take the waters at Pyrmont, returned here because a certain person of note, being alarmed by his absence, they say, had him run after, they say, in order to persuade him that 327 the waters are too cold and that the burgundy that he can have here would be better for his stomach dulled by the sorbet that the grand Turk, etc., etc., etc., etc., made him swallow.2

We assure you and your ladies of our respects.

Your excellency’s very humble and very obedient servant

C.w.f. Dumas

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “A Son Excellence Mr. Adams. M. P.”

Marie Antoinette gave birth to her second son, Louis Charles, on 27 March 1785, for which see JA’s [30] March letter to Dumas, below. The Dutch Patriots apparently believed that France was moderating its response to the effort by Joseph II, Marie Antoinette’s brother, to reopen the Scheldt, and thus its support for the Netherlands, in deference to the queen’s pregnancy.

Jacob van der Heim served in a variety of municipal offices in Rotterdam from 1757 to 1795. In 1784 he was apparently a member of the city’s regency when the States General sent an investigatory commission to look into the disturbance supposed to have been incited by Catharina Mulder and Cornelia Toppen, for which see Dumas’ 3 Sept. letter, and note 2, above. In a 9 Sept. letter to Pieter Johan van Berckel, Dutch minister to the United States, Dumas joked that Van der Heim departed for the waters at Bad Pyrmont because he had been seized with “un goute consulaire” that would keep hold of him—and keep him away—as long as the commission remained at Rotterdam ( Nieuw Ned. Biog. Woordenboek ; Nationaal Archief: Dumas Papers, Microfilm, Reel 2, f. 641).

David Hartley’s Memorandum to the American Commissioners, 16 September 1784 Hartley, David American Commissioners

David Hartley’s Memorandum to the American Commissioners

[Passy, 16 September 1784]1

You may with great Truth assure the American Ministers of our ready and friendly disposition to receive any proposals from the United States for the forming such regulations as may tend to the mutual and reciprocal advantage of both Countries.—

That his Majesty’s governt wd at all times be ready to concur in the forming such a System as may fully answer every purpose of commercial as well as political advantage to the two Countries & fix and establish a permanent and beneficial intercourse between them

RC (PCC, No. 86, f. 21–22); endorsed by David Humphreys: “Passy Septr. 16. 1784 / Memoire from / Mr Hartley Minister / Plenipory from His B. Majesty.”

This document stemmed from a meeting between Hartley and the commissioners on 31 Aug., at which time the Americans notified the British minister of their new commission empowering them to negotiate an Anglo-American commercial treaty. Hartley responded “that he did not doubt his Court would at all times be ready to concur in forming such a system as might fully answer every purpose of commercial as well as political advantage to the two Countries, and fix & establish a permanent & benificial intercourse between them” (PCC, No. 116, f. 28). This assurance was given, however, without Hartley’s having any specific instructions to do so.

Hartley wrote to London to inform the ministry of the commissioners’ changed circumstances, and upon receiving new instructions he contacted the commissioners on 16 Sept. to request a meeting. In doing so Hartley indicated that he had been recalled to 328 London but also presented this memorandum relating extracts from his instructions that he had been authorized to share with the commissioners (same, f. 33–34). With Hartley’s return to England, any Anglo-American negotiations at Paris would be with John Frederick Sackville, the Duke of Dorset, British ambassador to France since January ( Repertorium , 3:162). This led to the commissioners’ two 28 Oct. letters to Dorset [(1), (2)], both below, in which they sought to initiate new talks and referred to Hartley’s assurances that Britain was open to renewed negotiations.