Your reasons did not appear at all satisfactory to me, and I took the liberty of telling you so, which gave you very great offence. I was extremely sorry for it, but did not at that time, nor have I upon the most mature deliberation since been able to conceive how it could have been avoided consistent with my duty. I requested you to consider how unreasonable it was, to allow your resentment against the Committee for a supposed tacit reproof, and against Mr Robert Morris for what you called _a rap over the knuckles_, to operate to the prejudice, perhaps to the destruction of the commercial concerns of your country. Your answer was direct and positive; “If these consequences should happen, Mr Robert Morris and the Committee must be answerable for them, but you were determined not to meddle with the matter.” In this determination Mr Deane co-operated, and we parted without Mr Lee’s having been able to obtain any satisfaction on the subjects of his complaints, except a promise on your part to countermand an order you had given relative to the sale of one of the prizes at Nantes. This promise, however, I understand was not fulfilled. I most solemnly protest, that I believe this interview to have been the cause of your excluding me from all communications. Perhaps it may be said, that you were not required by Congress to make those communications. This may be considered in the nature of those injuries against which no positive law can be produced, but which are, notwithstanding, known to be injuries by all the world. Had the directions of Congress, however, in these points, been as explicit as words could make them, I doubt not but you would have found the means of evading them, as you have in others, if it suited your purpose, and have drawn arguments for your justification from every source. I shall trouble you with my reasons for thinking so. I requested of you at Chaillot, to let me know why you had disregarded the instructions of Congress respecting the treaty; you expressed your doubts whether Congress intended to have anything communicated to me, except the treaty after it was _concluded_. I referred you to the words of the instruction itself, which I had quoted to you in my letter, and asked you if you thought it possible, that the gentlemen who had written them could have been so ignorant, as not to know the distinction between a _proposition_ and a _conclusion_. Other doubts arose. If I had been at Florence, the department which was assigned me by Congress, it might have been inconvenient to have followed the strict letter of the instructions, by sending every alteration of the treaty, that might have been proposed on either side, on account of the danger of their being intercepted.