By the original law of nations, war and extirpation were the punishment of injury. Humanizing by degrees, it admitted slavery instead of death. A further step was, the exchange of prisoners instead of slavery. Another, to respect more the property of private persons under conquest, and to be content with acquired dominion. Why should not the law of nations go on improving? Ages have intervened between its several steps, but as knowledge of late increases rapidly, why should not those steps be quickened? Why should it not be agreed to as the future law of nations, that in any war hereafter the following descriptions of men should be undisturbed, have the protection of both sides, and be permitted to follow their employments in surety, viz.

1. Cultivators of the earth, because they labor for the subsistence of mankind.

2. Fishermen, for the same reason.

3. Merchants and traders, in unarmed ships, who accommodate different nations by communicating and exchanging the necessaries and conveniences of life.

4. Artists and mechanics, inhabiting and working in open towns.

It is hardly necessary to add, that the hospitals of enemies should not be molested; they ought to be a.s.sisted.

In short, I would have n.o.body fought with, but those who are paid for fighting. If obliged to take corn from the farmer, friend or enemy, I would pay him for it; the same for the fish or goods of the others.

This once established, that encouragement to war, which arises from a spirit of rapine, would be taken away, and peace therefore more likely to continue and be lasting.

B. FRANKLIN.

TO BENJAMIN VAUGHAN.

Pa.s.sy, July 11th, 1782.

Dear Sir,

In mine of yesterday, which went by Mr Young, I made no mention of yours of May 11th, it not being before me. I have just found it.

You speak of a "proposed dependent State of America, which you thought Mr Oswald would begin with." As yet I have heard nothing of it. I have all along understood (perhaps I have understood more than was intended) that the point of dependence was given up, and that we are to be treated with as a free people. I am not sure that Mr Oswald has explicitly said so, but I know that Mr Grenville has, and that he was to make that declaration previous to the commencement of the treaty.

It is now intimated to me from several quarters, that Lord Shelburne's plan is to retain the sovereignty for the King, giving us otherwise an independent Parliament, and a government similar to that of late intended for Ireland. If this be really his project, our negotiation for peace will not go very far. The thing is impracticable and impossible, being inconsistent with the faith we have pledged, to say nothing of the general disposition of our people. Upon the whole I should believe, that though Lord Shelburne might formerly have entertained such an idea, he had probably dropped it before he sent Mr Oswald here; your words above cited do however throw a little doubt in my mind, and have, with the intimations of others, made me less free in communication with his Lordship, whom I much esteem and honor, than I should otherwise have been. I wish, therefore, you would afford me what you can of eclairoiss.e.m.e.nt.

This letter going by a courier, will probably get to hand long before the one preceding in date, which went by Mr Young, who travels on foot. I therefore enclose the copy of it, which was taken in the press. You may return it to me when the other arrives.

By the return of the courier, you may oblige me, by communicating what is fairly communicable, of the history of Mr Fox's and Lord J.

Cavendish's resignation, with any other changes made or likely to be made.

With sincere esteem, I am ever, my dear friend, yours most affectionately,

B. FRANKLIN.

TO RICHARD OSWALD.

Pa.s.sy, July 12th, 1782.

Sir,

I enclose a letter for Lord Shelburne, to go by your courier, with some others, of which I request his care. They may be put into the penny post. I have received a note informing me, that "some opposition given by his Lordship to Mr Fox's decided _plan of unequivocally acknowledging American independence_, was one cause of that gentleman's resignation;" this, from what you have told me, appears improbable. It is further said, "that Mr Grenville thinks Mr Fox's resignation will be fatal to the present negotiation." This perhaps is as groundless as the former. Mr Grenville's next courier will probably clear up matters. I did understand from him, that such an acknowledgment was intended previous to the commencement of the treaty; until it is made, and the treaty formally begun, propositions and discussions seem in consideration to be untimely; nor can I enter into particulars without Mr Jay, who is now ill with the influenza.

My letter, therefore, to his Lordship is merely complimentary on his late appointment. I wish a continuance of your health, in that at present sickly city, being with sincere esteem, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

B. FRANKLIN.

_P. S._ I send you enclosed the late resolutions of the State of Maryland, by which the general disposition of people in America may be guessed, respecting any treaty to be proposed by General Carleton, if intended, which I do not believe.

TO THE EARL OF SHELBURNE.

Pa.s.sy, July 12th, 1782.

My Lord,

Mr Oswald informing me, that he is about to despatch a courier, I embrace the opportunity of congratulating your Lordship on your appointment to the treasury. It is an extension of your power to do good, and in that view, if in no other, it must increase your happiness, which I heartily wish.

Being with great and sincere respect, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient and most humble servant,

B. FRANKLIN.

TO M. DE LAFAYETTE.

Pa.s.sy, July 24th, 1782.

Dear Sir,

In answer to your questions, Mr Oswald is doing nothing, having neither powers nor instructions; and being tired of doing nothing, has despatched a courier requesting leave to return. He has, I believe, received no letters, since I saw you, from Lord Shelburne. Mr Grenville's return hither is, I think, doubtful, as he was particularly connected in friendship with Mr Fox, but if he stays, I suppose some other will be sent, for I do not yet see sufficient reason to think they would abandon the negotiation, though, from some appearances, I imagine they are more intent upon dividing us, than upon making a general peace. I have heard nothing further from Mr Laurens, nor received any paper from him respecting Lord Cornwallis.

And since that General's letter, written after the battle of Camden, and ordering not only the confiscation of rebels' estates, but the hanging of prisoners, has been made public, I should not wonder if the Congress were to disallow our absolution of his parole, and recall him to America.

With everlasting esteem and respect, I am, dear Sir, yours most affectionately,

B. FRANKLIN.

DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.

_London, July 26th, 1782._

My Dear Friend,

You will have heard before you receive this, that Mr Thomas Townshend is appointed Secretary of State for that department to which the American correspondence belongs. He is, and has been for many years, one of my most intimate friends. A more honorable and honest man does not exist. I have been requested, in connexion with him, to undertake one branch of his office relating to America, as instrumental to some necessary arrangements in the course of a negotiation for peace with America. The point which I have been requested to undertake is the case, or rather the diversity of cases, of the American refugees. I understand, that in the progress of this business, I shall be referred to a correspondence with you, as matter may arise. My purpose, therefore, for the present, is only to advertise you of this, in case you should have any preliminary matter to give or receive elucidation upon. I am very ready to undertake any matter, which may be necessary or instrumental towards peace, especially in connexion with my worthy friend Mr Townshend.

You know all my principles upon American pacification, and _sweet reconciliation_. I shall always remain in the same. But the delegation of a single point to me, such as the case of the refugees, does not ent.i.tle me to advise upon the great outlines or principles of such pacific negotiations. I shall retain my full reservation in such points as events may justify. My personal motive for saying this to you is obvious. But, in point of justice to those who have at present the direction of public measures in this country, I must request that this caution of mine may be accepted only as personal to myself, and not as inferential upon the conduct of others, where I am not a party.

Having taken a zealous part in the principles and negotiations of peace, I wish to stand clear from any collateral constructions, which might affect myself, and at the same time not to impose any collateral or inferential constructions upon others.

G.o.d prosper the work of peace and _good will_ (as the means of peace) among men.