o give to it, I am prepared to express my belief most
fully, that Mr Jay was mistaken both in regard to the aims of the
French Court, and the plans pursued by them to gain their supposed
ends.

1. Mr Jay conceived, that one motive of M. de Rayneval's journey was
to cause the acknowledgment of independence by Great Britain to be
deferred, till France and England should have arranged their treaty.
But in reality, M. de Rayneval was instructed to insist on the
independence of the United States as a _preliminary measure_. In a
letter to the Count de Vergennes, dated September 28th, 1782, he
writes, that Lord Shelburne said, "he had always been opposed to
independence, but that he perceived the necessity of ceding it, and
that this object should be granted _without condition_." And in
reporting the result of his conversations with the British Minister,
M. de Rayneval states the points discussed in their order, the first
of which is as follows.--"_Independence, this article is agreed upon;
it shall be without restriction_;" (il sera sans restriction.) So far
from recommending, therefore, to defer the recognition of American
independence, M. de Rayneval insisted on an agreement to it as _a
preliminary step_ to further discussions.

2. Mr Jay supposed again, that another purpose of M. de Rayneval's
visit to London was to interfere with the claims of the United States
respecting the fisheries and boundaries. But this supposition is
contradicted by the following extract from his instructions, viz. "As
it is possible, that the English Ministers may speak to M. de Rayneval
concerning the affairs of America and of the United Provinces, he will
declare, _that he has no authority to treat on these topics_."
Accordingly we find him writing to the Count de Vergennes in the
letter quoted above, that after discussing the subject of the
fisheries with reference to the interests of England and France, Lord
Shelburne said to him, "without doubt the Americans will also form
pretensions to the fisheries, but he trusted the king (of France)
would not sustain them." To which M. de Rayneval replied,--"that he
was ignorant of the views of Congress concerning the object in
question, but thought he might venture to say, that the king would
never support unjust demands; that he was not able to judge whether
those of the Americans were such or not; and that, besides, _he was
without authority in this respect_." Again, in the same letter, M. de
Rayn