Papers of John Adams, volume 12
I trouble your Excellency at this Time to transcribe the following Letter “sent by Person of some Distinction at Paris to a Man not less so in London” the Copy of which I have just now receivd.
“Nous ne donnons pas á Monsieur Ad: une Confiance bien aveuglé; et ce n’est pas sans cause quils ont mis autour de lui des Hommes, qui l’Observent, on le croit honnête; on le scait ardent; inflex-67ible même pour sa Cause; mais il S’abonde trop dans son sens, et ne Scait donner aux convenances. Nous aimons mieux placer Confiance dans Monsr Fra.”1
I Know not from whom this Letter comes or to whom it is addressed. I will endeavour to learn one and the other.
We have reports here of an Attempt on the Emperors Life by Poison. It is said too that France is to cede Corsica to the Grand Duke for 1500,000£.2
The Council and the States of these Countries are debating on the Reception of the Emperors late Edict for tolerating the Protestants. The Churchmen are much dissatisfied therewith.3
I have read the Oaths, which the Emperor took by Proxy to the States of Brabant. It is very long but is not materially different from the former ones, taken by the Antient Dukes.4
I should be glad to Know what your Excellency proposes to do with Mr Charles Adams in his present Situation at Corunna. I am much distress’d about My Nephew.5
For the sense of this passage from the unidentified letter and JA’s commentary on the points raised therein, see his letter of 29 Nov. to Jenings, below; for his speculation that the Comte de Vergennes was the source of the comment, see his letter of 21 Feb. 1782 to Robert R. Livingston, note 15, below.
Neither of these reports was true.
On 12 Nov., at Joseph II’s direction, the governors general of the Austrian Netherlands, Joseph’s sister Marie Christine, and her husband Duke Albert of Saxe-Teschen, issued a circular letter granting religious toleration to Protestants. This “Edict of Toleration,” which had been promulgated in other parts of the empire a month earlier, immediately aroused opposition from the Catholic authorities. The controversy was relatively brief, however, largely because the edict was of minor importance when compared to Joseph II’s later efforts at religious reform. For Joseph II’s motivation in granting religious freedom to Protestants, which had an economic dimension, and the unrest created by his reforms, see Walter W. Davis, Joseph II: An Imperial Reformer for the Austrian Netherlands, The Hague, 1974, p. 189–219.
The Joyeuse Entrée oath of 1356 established the rights and privileges enjoyed by the people of the Duchy of Brabant. Rulers of the Duchy, part of the Austrian Netherlands, swore to uphold its provisions upon taking office. Duke Albert of Saxe-Teschen took the oath for the emperor at Brussels, the capital of Brabant, on 17 July (same, p. 14, 119).
John or Matthias Bordley; see Jenings’ letter of 22 April, and note 2 (vol. 11:285–286).
I take the Liberty of writing to you though I have not the honor of your personal acquaintance, and I hope that when you shall have68 read my Letter, and find that I am the Daughter of the worthy but unfortunate H Laurens Esqr. sentiments of sympathy for his unhappy situation, and of pity for a Child in the deepest affliction on account of that Situation, will be more than sufficient to induce your humane heart, to pardon a step which on a less occasion might have worne the appearance of Boldness in a young Person.1 You know Sir that my dear Papa’s attachment to his Country, and zeal in her Service, had after his serving with Integrity in other important Posts, procured him the honor of being named to that, which your Excellency now fills up. You know also Sir, that on his Way to Holland he had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Enemy, and that in Consequence of this Event, he has been Prisoner during 13 Mos. in the Tower of London. Till now I had been taught to beleive, that though strictly confined he was at least treated in other respects, as all Prisoners of any Credit are while in the Power of civilised Enemies. This hope was an alleviation to the first strong Emotions wch it was natural I should feel on account of my dr Papa’s Captivity, and I wrote to my dr Brother, Mr John Laurens, when he was last in France in a public Capacity, every favorable account which I had received from Engd, with regard to our dear Parent, through the tender motive of making his mind as easy as possible. In a Letter to me from Paris, he says, that he will make use of his utmost Interest to serve our dr Father, and to procure his release, but I find however good his heart and his will may have been, his Efforts have been without success, as my dr Papa not only remains a prisoner but is treated with the greatest Cruelty. To convince your Excellency of this, I will give you an extract of a Letter, which I have just received from a near friend in London, and which by his desire I communicate to you, in hopes that you will interest yourself, in procuring my dr Father a more honorable treatment.2 Let me entreat you Sir to exert yourself to render his Situation less painful. The anguish of my mind on his account is too great to be described, but this is natural. A Daughter would feel for her Father, were he the basest of Mortals, but may I may not plead with you Sir, that a Person of my Fathers unspotted and upright Character, is an Object of Sympathy for every honest Man and merits their utmost Endeavors for his Service.
“I beg that you will write to the Ministers at Versailles3 and Amsterdam, and give them the true account of your Father’s situation, wch I am positive they have not yet received, or would have taken some measures to procure him a more honorable treatment. It is69 " politic to send over the smoothest accounts, but not content with this, they invent the most infamous Lies, to inflame the minds of the People, and to induce them to beleive that the treatment which he meets with is not unmerited. It was reported the other Day that your Father had attempted to bribe his keeper, by a Bill upon an eminent Merchant in the City, but this must be false, for he is denied the use of Pen and Ink, and had when this was published, entirely exhausted his stock in Mr ——s hands.4 After 4 Months petioning the Secretaries of State for the use of Pen and Ink, he at length obtained it for half an hour, to draw for just as much Money as would suffice for his bare subsistance; wch one would have supposed no civilised Nation could have endeavord to refuse, he was reduced so far as to live five Days upon a single fowl, and two days upon 5 pennyworth of Beef. Numbers of People and friends would have supplied your Father with Money, but he has refused every offer of the kind, for he is as proud and as humble, as a Gentleman and a Man of honor ought to be. He is too honest to borrow without a prospect of repaying, and too proud to beg. Many People in this Country think your Father and Friends have no ground for Complaint supposing that he has 6s. 8d per day, (the allowance for all state Prisoners) and that his friends have constant access to him, but the truth is, Government had made no provision for him, and if one could judge from past Conduct, would starve him if they could. And during 13 Months close Confinement, have with the greatest reluctance permitted a part of Mr ——’s family to visit him 5 times.5
“I have been told that your Father would have been long since released had he had ears to hear, that is could he have acceded to Propositions, incompatible with his Sense of honor and Integrity, but these he will be forever deaf to.”
You see Sir how much reason I have to be affected, and how painful a situation my dr Papa’s must be, and I make no doubt you will do all you can to make it less so. May a kind Providence bless the endeavors you may make use of and hear my Prayers for my dr Papa’s happiness, and for a Peace to America, as firm and stable as her cause is good, and as her Sufferings have been great. May I flatter myself Sir that you will condescend to favor me with a speedy answer to this Letter, that I may know whether there are any hopes of his Exchange, or at least any attempts to make his Situation easier. Is it not a reflection on America that one of her Ambassadors a Man of Worth and Credit, should in his Prison be so miserable as to want the common necessaries of Life, and no notice taken of it.
70Be pleased to direct for Mlle Laurens—au Vigan en Cevenes.
In this retired place, living in the oeconomical manner wch becomes our Situation, I have past the greatest of 4 years which I have spent in France.
I am, as well as a Sister of eleven year old6 under the Protection of an only Brother of my dr and unfortunate Father. This dear Friend, who for many years past has had bad health, received a shock to his Constitution soon after my Father’s imprisonment wch it is probable will greatly contribute to shorten his Days.7He would no doubt present his most respectful Compliments to your Excellency, but his declining health, and great Sensibility for my dear Papa have induced me to hide from him the Contents of a Letter melancholy enough to produce on him some fatal Effect, and consequently the Liberty wch I have taken to write to you.
Accept Sir, my sincerest Wishes that Heaven may long preserve a Life so useful to our Country as yours is, and crown with success your Labors for her welfare.
Be pleased to excuse the bad writing and inaccuracies of my Letter, not to lose the Morning Post, I write in great at one o clock after midnight.
Martha Laurens was 22 years old and since 1771, following the death of her mother, had lived with her aunt and uncle, Mary and James Laurens. In 1775 they went to England and then, in 1778, to Vigan in the south of France. She next saw her father in Feb. 1783, when she went to England to nurse him back to health. She returned to America in 1785 and in 1787 married the physician and historian David Ramsay (
DAB
; Edward T. James, ed., Notable American Women, 1607–1950, a Biographical Dictionary, 3 vols., Cambridge, 1971; Laurens, Papers
, 15:591).
The author of the letter received by Martha Laurens is unknown. The plight of Henry Laurens, however, was no mystery to the British public as is indicated by an anonymous letter published in the London Courant of 20 Oct., which covered much the same ground as in that related by Martha Laurens.
Martha Laurens wrote a nearly identical letter to Benjamin Franklin on this date, to which Franklin replied on 29 Dec. (Franklin, Papers
, 36:52–55, 326–328).
This report appeared in the London Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser of 23 October. The editors stated that they had been informed that Laurens “attempted lately to bribe his keeper, by a bill on an eminent merchant in the City; but the Rebel was disappointed in his scheme: he has received no other punishment than what still further proves the superiority of British magnanimity untained by rebellious principles!” On the following day the Morning Herald issued a retraction based on the testimony of Laurens’ friend, William Manning. He declared that “Mr. Laurens never drew upon him at any one time for a sum of money, sufficient to bribe even a warden; and the funds which remained in his hands before Mr. Laurens’s arrival in England, are, 71at this time, absolutely exhausted.” For additional information regarding Henry Laurens’ imprisonment, see the journal and narrative of his confinement (Laurens, Papers
, 15:330–404).
This refers to the difficulties Henry Laurens Jr. experienced in visiting his father in the Tower. For earlier accounts in letters to JA, see vol. 10:276–277, 293, 324, 333–334, 366; see also Laurens’ journal and narrative as well as extracts from the register of the Tower of London (Laurens, Papers
, 15:619–622).
Mary Eleanor Laurens, who in 1788 married Charles Pinckney (same, 16:760).
Henry Laurens’ younger brother James died 25 Jan. 1784 (same, 16:373).