Saturday, June 8. I received some newspapers from England, in one of which is the following paragraph: Extract from the London Evening Post of May 30, 1782.

"If reports on the spot speak truth, Mr. Grenville in his first visit to Doctor Franklin, gained a considerable point of information as to the powers America had retained for treating separately with Great Britain, in case her claims or demands were granted.

The treaty of February 6, 1778, was made the basis of this conversation, and by the spirit and meaning of this treaty, there is no obligation on America not to treat separately for peace, after she is assured England will grant her independence and a free commerce with all the world. The first article of that treaty, engages America and France to be bound to each other, as long as circumstances may require; therefore the granting America all that she asks of England, is breaking the bond by which the circumstances may bind America to France.

The second article says, the meaning and direct end of the alliance is, to ensure the freedom and independence of America. Surely then, when freedom and independence is allowed by Britain, America may, or may not, as she chuses, put an end to the present war between England and America, and leave France to war on through all her mad projects of reducing the power and greatness of England, while America feels herself possessed of what she wishes.

By the 8th article of the treaty, neither France nor Ame rica can conclude peace without the assent of the other, and they engaged not to lay down their arms, until the independence of America is acknowleged, but this article does not exclude America from entering into a separate treaty for peace with England, and evinces more strongly than the former articles, that America, may enter into a separate treaty with England, when she is convinced that England has insured to her all that she can reasonably ask." I conjecture that this must be an extract from a letter of Mr. Grenville, but it carries an appearance as if he and I had agreed in these imaginary discourses of America's be

ing at liberty to make peace without France, &c. Whereas my whole discourse in the strongest terms declared our determinations to the contrary, and the impossibility of our acting not only contrary to the treaty, but the duties of gratitude and honor, of which nothing is mentioned. This young negociator seems to value himself on having obtained from me a copy of the treaty; I gave it to him freely at his request, it not being so much a secret as he imagined, having been printed first in all the American papers soon after it was made; then at London in Almon's Remembrancer, which I wonder he did not know; and afterwards in a collection of the American Constitutions published by order of congress. As such imperfect accounts of our conversations find their way into the English papers, I must speak to this gentleman of its impropriety.

Sunday, June 9. Doctor Bancroft being intimately acquainted with Mr. Walpole, I this day gave him lord Shelburne's letter to Mr. Oswald, requesting he would communicate it to that gentleman. Doctor Bancroft said it was believed both Russia and the emperor wished the continuance of the war, and aimed at procuring for England a peace with Holland, that England might be better able to continue it against France and Spain.

The marquis de la Fayette having proposed to call on me to-day, I kept back the discharge of lord Cornwallis, which was written and ready, desiring to have his approbation to it, as he had in a former conversation advised it. He did not come, but late in the evening, sent me a note acquainting me that he had been prevented from accompanying the grand duke to the review, but would breakfast with me to-morrow morning.

b

This day I received a letter from Mr. Dana, dated St. Petersburgh, April 29th, in which is the following passage: "We yesterday received the news that the states general had on the 9th of this month (N. S.) acknowleged

b The grand duke of Russia, afterwards the emperor Paul; then at Paris under the title of the count de Nord.

the independence of the United States; this event gave a shock here, and is not well received, as they at least profess to have flattered themselves that the mediation would have prevented it, and otherwise brought on a partial peace between Britain and Holland. This resentment, I believe, will not be productive of any ill consequences to the Dutch republic."

It is true, that while the war continues, Russia feels a greater demand for the naval stores, and sells perhaps at a higher price. But is it possible, that for such petty interests, mankind can wish to see their neighbors destroy each other, or has the project lately talked of some foundation, that Russia and the emperor intend driving the Turks out of Europe, and do they therefore wish to see France and England so weakened, as to be unable to assist those people?

Monday, June 10, the marquis de la Fayette did not come till between eleven and twelve. He brought with him major Ross. After breakfast he told me, (major Ross being gone into another room) that he had seen Mr. Grenville lately, who asked him when he should go to America: That he had answered, I have staid here longer than I would otherwise have done, that I might see whether we should have peace or war, but as I see that the expectation of peace is a joke, and that you only amuse us without any real intention of treating, I think to stay no longer, but set out in a few days. On which Mr. Grenville assured him, that it was no joke, that they were very sincere in their proposal of treating, and that four or five days would convince the marquis of it. The marquis then spoke to me about a request of major Ross's in behalf of himself, lord Chewton, a lieutenant colonel, and lieutenant Haldane, who were aid-de-camps to lord Cornwallis, that they too might be set at liberty with him. I told the marquis he was better acquainted with the custom in such cases than I, and being himself one of the generals to whom their parole had been given, he had more right to discharge it than I had, and that if he judged it a thing proper to be done, I wished him to do it; he went into the bureau

N n

saying, he would write something, which he accordingly did; but it was not as I expected, a discharge that he was to sign, it was for me to sign. And the major not liking that which I had drawn for lord Cornwallis; because there was a clause in it reserving to congress the approbation or disallowance of my act, went away without taking it. Upon which I the next morning, wrote the following to Mr. Oswald:

SIR,

"Passy, June 11, 1782.

I DID intend to have waited on you this morning to enquire after your health, and deliver the enclosed paper, relating to the parole of lord Cornwallis, but being obliged to go to Versailles, I must postpone my visit till to-morrow. I do not conceive that I have any authority in virtue of my office here, to absolve that parole in any degree. I have therefore endeavored to found it as well as I could, on the express power given me by congress to exchange general Burgoyne for Mr. Laurens. A reservation is made of confirmation or disapprobation by congress, not from any desire in me to restrain the entire liberty of that general; but because I think it decent and my duty to make such reservation, and that I might not otherwise be blamed as assuming a power not given me, if I undertook to discharge absolutely a parole given to congress without any authority from them for so doing.

With great esteem and

respect, I

am, &c. B. FRANKLIN."

I have received no answer from Mr. Laurens.

The following is the paper mentioned in the above let

ters:

I did not well comprehend the major's conduct in refusing this paper. He was come express from London to solicit a discharge of lord Cornwallis's parole. He had said that his lordship was very anxious to obtain that discharge, being unhappy in his present situation. One of his

objections to it was, that his lordship, with such a limited discharge of his parole, could not enter into foreign service. He declared that it was not his lordship's intention to return to America, yet he would not accept the paper, unless the reservation was omitted. I did not choose to make the alteration, and so he left it not well pleased with me.

This day, Tuesday, June 11th, I was at Versailles, and had a good deal of conversation with M. de Rayneval, secretary to the council. I shewed him the letter I had received, by Mr. Oswald, from lord Shelburne, and related all the consequent conversation I had with Mr. Oswald. I related to him also the conversation I had had with Mr. Grenville. We concluded that the reason of his courriers' not being returned, might be the formalities occasioning delay in passing the enabling bill. I went down with him to the cabinet of M. de Vergennes, where all was repeated and explained. That minister seemed now to be almost persuaded, that the English court was sincere in its declarations of being desirous of peace. We spoke of all its attempts to separate us, and of the prudence of our being I made one remark,

together and treating in concert. that as they had shewn so strong a desire of disuniting us, by large offers to each particular power, plainly in the view of dealing more advantageously with the rest, and had reluctantly agreed to make a general treaty, it was possible that after making a peace with all, they might prick out one of us to make war with separately. Against which project I thought it would not be amiss if, before the treaties of peace were signed, we who were at war against England should enter into another treaty, engaging ourselves, that in such case we should again make it a common cause, and renew the general war, which he seemed to approve of. He read lord Shelburne's letter, relating to Mr. Walpole, said that gentleman had attempted to open a negociation through the marquis de Castries, who had told him he was come to the wrong house, and should go to M. de Vergennes; but he never appeared. That he was an intriguer, knew many people about the court, and