s
former appointment, from which it was natural to suppose his former
appointment had been considered as superceded by the new. We had
received intelligence, that the information we had given of Mr
Morris's conduct, had been received and read in Congress, and that
Congress notwithstanding chose to continue him in this situation. We
thought it very extraordinary that we should be applied to, to
interfere where Congress, knowing the facts, had declined to
interfere, and still more so, that we should be requested to put (what
indeed was not in our power) the commercial agency into the hands of a
gentleman, who must execute it by deputies; himself at a distance too
great either to see or correct the abuses that might be practised. The
letter referred to by Mr Izard was a letter to this purpose, and I
remember well (for I avoided bearing any considerable part in the
conversation) Doctor Franklin's reply, which was to this purpose, that
Congress by disregarding the information we had given, and continuing
Mr Morris, had impliedly censured our conduct. That Mr Morris had
treated us ill personally for what we had done, and that Mr William
Lee ought to remember, that he had himself jointly with Mr Morris
complained of our interfering as he thought in that department; and
therefore he did not incline to subject himself to any further
censures, or as he expressed it "raps over the knuckles" for meddling
in the affair. We were indeed as much surprised as Mr Izard appears to
have been on the occasion, but our surprise arose from another cause;
it was to find Mr William Lee desirous of holding such a plurality of
appointments, in their own nature incompatible with each other, and
impossible to have been executed by the same person. But as one of the
places was supposed to be a lucrative one, the subject was too
delicate to be touched on by us.

Mr Izard says that Mr William Lee complained that parties had been
excited against him at Nantes, and that so far from having been
supported by the commissioners in the execution of his duty, these
gentlemen had as much as possible contributed to perplex him in the
discharge of it; that he had frequently written, &c. His letters have
been taken notice of already, and the reason mentioned why they were
not answered. The rest of this complaint is, as far as I know anything
about the matter, totally groundless; it must appear so to every one
acquainted with the following particulars. Mr William