Upon these grounds I took my commission from him for Lord North, viz. the question of dependence or independence _sub silentio_, a separate treaty with America, and to state the Conciliatory Bill of June, 1780, as, the outline of negotiation. I saw Lord North in the evening, and stated the foregoing propositions to him, as I have now stated them to you. After having stated the compromise _sub silentio_ and the separate treaty, I left with Lord North the copy of the bill of June, 1780, together with a paper, entitled, _Conciliatory Propositions_, as explanatory of that bill, both enclosed with this. The next morning, viz. Saturday, December the 22d, I saw Mr Alexander, and reported to him what I had stated to Lord North, and showed him a copy of the paper, entitled _Conciliatory Propositions_. He told me, that I had executed my commission perfectly to his intelligence of the matter. I should tell you, that at the conclusion of my conversation with Lord North, we both settled jointly the result thus; "I recommend to your Lordship the propositions which I have had the honor of stating to you, as _general grounds of a proposed negotiation, leading towards peace, under liberal constructions_." Lord North said in answer, "so I understand them." Upon this footing, matters rested for some days. On Sunday last, December the 30th, I received a message from Lord North, through the means of Lord Guilford, requesting an explanation of this point, viz. "Who is authorised to treat on the part of America? whether you or Mr Adams, or both jointly; and whether the propositions above stated would be acknowledged, as general grounds of negotiation towards peace, by the person or persons authorised to treat; because it was necessary, before he could lay a matter of so great importance before the Cabinet Council, that he should be entitled to say, these propositions and general outlines come to me from responsible and authorised persons." The moment I received the request of Lord North, I agreed entirely with the necessity of an explanation on that head. I had partly expected such an inquiry, and it gave me satisfaction when it came, as I thought it the first reply towards a parley. If the propositions had not gained some attention, it would have been of very little importance to have inquired whence they came. As to the caution itself, it appears to me not only prudent but indispensable. The forms of caution in such cases are the essentials of caution. I had determined on my own account before this message to have written to you, that I might have received your sentiments directly from yourself without any other intervention, that we might proceed with caution and certainty in a matter of such infinite importance. This message has only quickened my despatch. The two points of explanation requested, I take to be these; whether the outlines above recited are properly stated, always considering that they imply no further than