of France and Spain to exclude the United States from the Mississippi, and their jealousies of the growing power and ambition of this country."1

A departure from instructions is not an unusual incident of negotiations even at the present day; and there was much more occasion and justification for it before the age of steam and electricity. The instructions of Congress were peculiar in the circumstances under which they were issued, and unusual in their tenor. I have already referred to the fact that the French government had objected to the appointment of Adams as sole commissioner, and had asked Congress that others be named. But it went further, and, through the direct intervention of the French minister, secured a modification of the instructions as to the boundaries, fisheries, and navigation of the Mississippi, the most essential subjects, after independence, to be decided; and finally, at the minister's instance, the commissioners were instructed, as we have seen, to undertake nothing in the negotiations without the knowledge or concurrence of the ministers of the king of France; and ultimately to govern themselves by their advice and opinion.

Such instructions virtually took away from the American negotiators all discretion, and made them the mere instruments of the French minister of state, Vergennes. No self-respecting public men could be expected to follow literally such a course, and the only excuse which can be advanced on behalf of Congress for such action is that this body felt the necessities of the situation, as well as the treaty of alliance, required

1 1 Gibbs's Administrations of Washington and Adams, 95–96.

it to place its cause in the hands of " our generous ally." Had the commissioners been together when the instructions were received, they might have taken some action on the subject; but Adams was in Holland, Jay in Spain, and Franklin in Paris, and no common representation to Congress was practicable. But after the negotiations were concluded, and when Livingston's letter of censure on their action in withholding their proceedings from the French government was received, John Adams lost his temper (not an unusual occurrence with him), and he broke forth in this language: "I am weary, disgusted, affronted, and disappointed. . . . I have been injured, and my country has joined in the injury; it has basely prostituted its honor by sacrificing mine. But the sacrifice of me was not so servile and intolerable as putting us all under guardianship. Congress surrendered their own sovereignty into the hands of a French minister. Blush! blush! ye guilty records! blush and perish! It is glory to have broken such infamous orders. Infamous, I say, for so they will be to all posterity. How can such a stain be washed out? Can we cast a veil over it and forget it?" 1

Notwithstanding their natural feeling of resentment, the commissioners were anxious to remove from the French ministry all further occasions of complaint, and soon after the signature of the treaty they published a formal declaration that so long as peace was not concluded between France and England the preliminary treaty did not change the relations between England

13 John Adams's Works, 359.

and the United States. As soon as the change of ministry in England brought about by the treaty would allow, negotiations were entered upon for the permanent treaty of peace. Oswald was recalled, and David Hartley, an old and intimate friend of Franklin, was sent in his place. Attempts were made to insert additional articles as to royalist land-owners, and as to commercial relations, but they all failed; and it was a high testimony to the efficiency of the work of the negotiators of the preliminary treaty that it was accepted without change as the permanent treaty of peace, which was signed September 3, 1783, the day of the signature of the treaties of peace of Great Britain with France and Spain.

Of all the foreign officials connected with these negotiations, the most prominent personage was Count de Vergennes, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was not a man of commanding talents, but a thoroughly equipped diplomatist, and, by a residence at various courts before being called to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of his own country, he had become probably the best informed statesman of his day respecting European politics. During a long public career no man more effectively served Louis XVI. and France. He was thoroughly devoted to his king and his country, and with him they were always inseparably united. Two motives impelled France to lend its support to the cause of the American Colonies. The first was the responsive chord of sympathy awakened by the spirit of liberty, in the French, partly sentimental and partly philosophical. The second had its origin in the traditional hatred of the English, and in the desire to

weaken and humiliate their ancient enemy. Vergennes was not influenced by the first, but fully controlled by the second. He regarded the contest between the Colonies and the mother country purely from the standpoint of French interests, and this fact is to be borne in mind in judging his conduct.

He has been charged with duplicity and bad faith, and his relations with the British ambassador support the charge; but there is no evidence that he did anything respecting America contrary to the terms of the treaty of alliance. That convention pledged France to the independence of the Colonies, but it went no further. While Vergennes was heartily in favor of tearing away the most important dependency of the British empire, he did not propose to accomplish this result to the injury of the interests of France or her nearest ally, the Spanish Bourbons. Owing to the French participation in the Newfoundland fisheries and to the Spanish territorial claims in the Mississippi Valley, he opposed as far as he thought prudent the proposals of the American envoys respecting the Canadian fisheries and the western boundaries. His correspondence, extracts from which have been given, shows that he was not over-scrupulous in attaining his ends; but so far as the Colonies were concerned he complied strictly with his promises, and rendered them invaluable aid in times of their sorest need. For his contribution towards the achievement of its independence America should cherish his name with grateful memory.

nego

The English statesman who most controlled the tiations was Lord Shelburne, and he is entitled to the

greatest share of the credit for bringing them to a successful conclusion. In his earlier life, during a chaotic period of English politics, he was associated with men of strong retrograde tendencies; but in his mature years he became attached to the school of liberal political economists led by Adam Smith, and in this company he made the acquaintance of Franklin during the latter's residence in England. This relation, as we have seen, led to the opening of peace negotiations. Although he had been slow to recognize the necessity of independence, when the fit time arrived he was more prompt and liberal in action than his political associates, Fox and Burke, who had before been so strong in advocacy of the cause of the Colonies. Strange to say, but for their opposition the terms of peace Shelburne was ready to grant would have been even more liberal than those finally obtained. Having accepted independence as inevitable, he had the statesmanship to see that it would be good policy to establish peace between the mother country and the new state upon such a basis as would secure the latter's confidence and friendship. Hence Rayneval's mission to London had no unfavorable influence on him. He much preferred to have the vast territory of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys transferred to the United States than to either France or Spain; and he was quite prepared at that early day to open the commerce of the two kindred people upon the most liberal terms of reciprocity. Had the policy which he advocated been adopted by the British government, the war of 1812 and much of the bitter feeling of later years might have been avoided.