infancy to call your Colonies. I pity your situation, and therefore I excuse the little aberrations from truth which your letter contains. At the same time it is possible that you may have been misinformed. For I will not suppose that your letter was intended to delude the people of these States. Such unmanly, disingenuous artifices have of late been exerted with so little effect, that prudence, if not probity, would prevent a repetition. To undeceive you, therefore, I take the liberty of assuring your Excellencies, from the very best intelligence, that what you call "the present form of the French offers to America," in other words, the treaties of alliance and commerce between his most Christian Majesty and these States, were not made in consequence of any plans of accommodation concerted in Great Britain, nor with a view to prolong this destructive war. If you consider that these treaties were actually concluded before the draft of the bills under which you act was sent to America, and that much time must necessarily have been consumed in adjusting compacts of such intricacy and importance, and further, if you consider the early notification of this treaty by the Court of France, and the assurance given that America had reserved a right of admitting even you to a similar treaty, you must be convinced of the truth of my assertions. The fact is, that when the British minister perceived that we were treating with the greatest prince in Europe, he applied himself immediately to counteract the effect of these negotiations. And this leads me, with infinite regret, to make some observations which may possibly be by you considered in an offensive point of view. It seems to me, gentlemen, there is something (excuse the word) disingenuous in your procedure. I put the supposition that Congress had acceded to your propositions, and then I ask two questions:-- Had you full power from your commission to make these propositions? Possibly you did not think it worth your while to consider your commission, but we Americans are apt to compare things together and to reason. The second question I ask is, What security could you give that the British Parliament would ratify your compacts? You can give no such security; and therefore we should, after forfeiting our reputation as a people, after you had filched from us our good name, and persuaded us to give to the common enemy of man the precious jewel of our liberties,--after all this, I say, we should have been at the mercy of a Parliament which, to say no more of it, has not treated us with too great tenderness. It is quite needless to add that, even if that Parliament had ratified the conditions you proposed, still poor America was to lie at the mercy of any future Parliament, or to appeal to the sword, which certainly is not the most pleasant business men can be engaged in.