Of these papers Mr Deane, by his own account, took and secured such as he chose. The rest, a very few excepted, you have. Many of these I have never even seen, but have been favored with copies. Of the few originals in my possession, there are, I know, duplicates of the most part at Passy, because it was for that reason only that I took them. The rest are necessary evidence to answer Mr Deane’s accusations. If it were indeed agreed, that all the papers belonging to our late commission should be brought together, numbered, docketed, and deposited where the late Commissioners, and they only, might have access to them, I would very readily contribute the few I have. But on no other terms can I part with them, and must therefore desire you to command me in some other service. Still, however, I am in the judgment of Congress, and if upon our mutual representations, should you think it worth troubling them with, they should be of a different opinion, I shall abide by their decision, and obey their orders. I hope your gout is better, and have the honor to be, &c. ARTHUR LEE. TO THE COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Paris, February 25th, 1779. Gentlemen, I received the remarks of Mr Deane, dated the 12th of October, 1778, on my letter of the 1st of June, 1778.[42] Mr Deane endeavors to mislead Congress from the real point of my information, which is, that from the papers he left, no satisfactory account could be obtained of the millions that had been expended, to that of the banker’s accounts, the fairness and validity of which, as far as they go, I never questioned. The banker’s account proves what I said, _that millions have been expended_; but it does not prove what I wanted to be satisfied of, that the value of this expenditure has been received by the Agents of Congress in Europe. Neither their receipts nor the bills of lading appeared among the papers he left at Passy. Upon a scrap of paper Mr Deane had left notes, that such and such sums were paid in general for such and such purposes. This was a manner of accounting equally mercantile and satisfactory. It was not even so explicit as the summary of the banker’s account he has subjoined to the remarks I am answering. It never specified the quantity, and not often the quality, of what the sums were paid for. It was not accompanied with accounts and receipts from the persons, to whom the money was said to have been paid; nor the receipts of our agent, to whom the things must be supposed to have been delivered. It is manifest why the agent, Mr Williams, did not and will not to this moment give receipts, specifying the quantity and quality of what he received for the public use, because such receipts would make him responsible to the public for their contents; which now he is not.