Royal. Yorktown itself might never have happened if this juncture of the French had not been effected, and in all probability it would not have been effected if Rodney, with his whole fleet, had been where Hood wished him to be, to windward of Martinique.1

Lord North's "fine brute majority" might stifle inquiry, but it could not control the operations of the courts of law, nor such retribution as might be offered by the fortunes of warfare. In the course of the legal proceedings no fewer than sixty-four claims appeared, amounting as stated to far more than the whole of the captured property. Rodney was subjected to great expense and vexation. The books and papers, sent to the care of the secretary of state, could not be found. Six years after the capture, only thirteen of the cases had been finally disposed of, and in nine of these there had been sentences of restitution. The King had granted all the spoil to the captors, excepting only provisions, ordnance, arms, ammunition, and military stores, and Rodney and Vaughan should each have received a sixteenth part of the immense booty; but Vaughan declared in the House of Commons that he had not made a shilling by the transaction, and Rodney seems to have fared hardly better. They had made two successive and mutually conflicting arrangements for the general agency, which had embroiled them with the captains, and embarrassed and retarded the settlement."

2

Much the most valuable part of the spoil had been, after careful preparation, sent to England in a large fleet of thirty-four merchantmen under convoy of Commodore Hotham, with two ships of the line and three frigates. Before they had reached the English coast, but only twenty leagues to the west of the Scilly Islands, a French admiral, LaMothe Piquet, having under his command a much superior force, fell in with the ill-fated convoy. Hotham signalled for the war-ships to draw closer and for the convoy to dis

1 Letters of Sir Samuel Hood, 17, 22, 23; Stevens, Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, I. 83; Mahan in Clowes, History of the Royal Navy, III. 481, 482; Types of Naval Officers, 224, 228.

2 Mundy, II. 5, 77, 367, 368. One of the suits became a leading case in prize law. The King's Bench having been moved for a prohibition to restrain the Court of Admiralty from condemning certain property, on the ground that it had been taken on land, not on the sea, Lord Mansfield in an elaborate opinion considered the foundation and nature of the prize jurisdiction of that court, and declared that the question of prize or no prize belonged solely to it, whoever the parties or whatever the place of capture; Lindo vs. Rodney, 2 Douglas 613-620 (1782). In 1783 the House of Lords sustained the same view in Mitchell et al. vs. Rodney and Vaughan; 2 Brown, Reports of Cases in Parliament, 423. London Chronicle, November 24-27, 1781.

3 Letters, 99, 101; Mundy, II. 79, 80, 112.

Hansard, XXII. 781.

5 The details are given in two pamphlets: An Explanation of the Case relating to the Capture of St. Eustatius, London, 1786; and Saint Eustatius; Facts respecting the Captured Property, and Reasons in Support of a Bill, etc., ibid.

perse and save themselves. But the French made after the convoy and captured twenty-two of them. Only eight of the merchant vessels, together with the ships of war, succeeded in making their escape into Berehaven Bay.1

2

So vanished a part of Rodney's expectations of wealth. Before the end of the year St. Eustatius itself, which he supposed that Vaughan had made impregnable, was taken by the French. The recapture was planned by the principal French merchant of the place, in conjunction with the Marquis de Bouillé, the energetic governor of Martinique. The marquis landed 1,400 men at an unguarded point of the coast, and easily overcame the small force of 628 which Lieutenant-Colonel Cockburn, the British commander, had at his disposal. Upon Cockburn's trial at the Horse-Guards in 1783 it was testified that he had been offered reënforcements, but replied that he "had vagabonds enough already"; also that he had been warned of the French attack two days before it occurred, but had "damned the information."3 By the mismanagement of Rodney's agents his money at the island, which should have been sent to New York and so home, was detained and confiscated. The conquest on which he had prided himself as "the greatest blow that Holland and America ever received" ended in disappointment and vexation for him, reversal and odium for his country. But it was left for him, by the memorable victory of the twelfth of April, 1782, to show that, despite mistakes of public policy and faults of private character, he possessed a professional greatness that could lift his name to heights of glory as a naval commander.

J. FRANKLIN JAMESON.

1 London Chronicle, May 15-17, p. 465; another subsequently escaped into Plymouth. Gazette de Leyde, May 18, p. 8, May 25, p. 6, May 29, p. 2; Nederlandsche Mercurius, L. 212; Rev. Dipl. Corr., IV. 412, 423, 437; Mundy, II. 61; Marshall, Naval Biography, I. 106.

2 The London Chronicle, May 15-17, p. 466, estimates that Rodney and Vaughan will personally lose £300,000 by LaMothe Piquet's captures. The recaptured goods were not restored to the Dutch, as they would have been under the French-Dutch convention of May 1, 1781, but were adjudged to the French recaptors; Gazette de Leyde, June 12, pp. 3, 6.

3 Cockburn was cashiered and died soon after. The leading source of information on the recapture is An Authenticated Copy of the Proceedings on the Trial of Lt. Col. Cockburn (of the Thirty-Fifth Regiment) for the Loss of the Island of St. Eustatius, London, 1783.

4 Letters, 169-171, 174; Mundy, II. 421, 422. The French are said to have got more than £120,000 in cash; An Authenticated Copy, p. 172.

DOCUMENTS

Correspondence of the Comte de Moustier with the Comte de
Montmorin, 1787-1789.

(First Installment.)

It is not altogether clear why Bancroft in giving in the appendix of his History of the Constitution selections from the correspondence of the diplomatic representatives of France in America during the agitation for a better system of government should have stopped where he did, for with 1788, a year critical for the new Constitution, there was begun the correspondence of the Comte de Moustier,' from which but a single letter is taken. This correspondence is instructive not merely because it defines exactly the attitude of the French government toward the project, but also because it reveals the impression which the last months of the Confederation made upon the French minister, and explains the measures which he suggested to protect French interests in case of an utter collapse or of a sudden outbreak of war between France and England. It also touches incidentally the questions which arose between France and the United States. The letters that follow are given chiefly to illustrate the interest that belongs to the correspondence as a whole, while at the same time they have been selected with a view of bringing out the attitude of France toward the attempt to consolidate the new republic, and of showing the embarrassments of diplomacy prior to the organization of an effective central government. There is noticeable even in these few lettters a progressive irritation at the Americans. This appears more clearly in other letters written in 1789. Apparently Moustier was ill adapted to his task. He was described in a private letter sent to General Gates as "Distant, haughty, punctilious, and entirely governed by the caprices of a singular, whimsical, hysterical old woman [his sister, Madame de Bréhan] whose delight is in playing with a negro child and caressing a monkey." From one of Jefferson's letters it appears that

1 Éléonore François Élie, comte, afterwards marquis de Moustier; born March 15, 1751, died January 28, 1817. After his mission in the United States was ended he became minister at the court of Berlin. With the overthrow of the monarchy he joined the émigrés, not returning to France until the Restoration.

2 A letter dated June 5, 1789, Bancroft, II. 495-496.

3 Quoted in Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris, I. 20.

AM. HIST. REV., VOL. VIII.-46.

709

Moustier's conduct "was politically and morally offensive," and that Jefferson had approached the Comte de Montmorin through Lafayette to urge "that his minister's conduct had rendered him personally odious in America, and might influence the dispositions of the two nations." Montmorin promised to make use of a loose expression in one of Moustier's letters which might be interpreted as a petition for a leave of absence. Moustier really desired a leave of absence because his health had been impaired by the long voyage to America. A little later in 1789 Montmorin informed Jefferson that the formal request for leave had come. He also told Gouverneur Morris in July that it was not the intention of the French government to allow Moustier to return, but that another more. acceptable person would be sent in his place.3

Instructions 10. bre 1787.

Octo

HENRY E. BOURNE.

I. INSTRUCTIONS.

(Archives des Affaires Étrangères, États-Unis, 1777 à 1789, Tome I., folios 421 ff.)

Mémoire pour servir d'Instructions au Sieur Comte de Moustier, Chevalier de l'Ordre royal et militaire de S' Louis, allant en Amérique en qualité de Ministre Plénipotentiaire du Roi près le Congrès des Etats-Unis.

Le zèle et la prudence avec lesquels le Sieur Comte de Moustier a rempli les deux Missions que le Roi lui a successivement confiées, ont déterminé Sa Majesté à le nommer son Ministre plénipotentiaire auprès des Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrionale. Cette marque de confiance est d'autant plus flatteuse pour le Comte de Moustier, que Sa Majesté attache un grand prix au maintien de son alliance avec les EtatsUnis, et que la conduite de son représentant peut inflüer · essentiellement sur leurs affections et sur leurs démarches.

Le Comte de Moustier jugera par là qu'il devra s'attacher à fortifier les Américains dans les principes qui les ont engagé à s'unir à la France: il leur fera sentir pour cet effet, qu'ils ne sauroient avoir d'Allié plus naturel que le Roi, tandis qu'ils peuvent être certains que l'Angleterre jalouse leur prospérité, et qu'elle y nuira autant qu'elle en trouvera l'occasion. Cette matière conduira nécessairement le Comte de Moustier à avoir des conversations sur le Commerce, objet qui fixe presqu'exclusivement l'attention des Américains.

American Diplomatic Correspondence, 1783–1789, IV. 62-63.

2 Ibid., 94.

3 Diary and Letters, I. 139.

These instructions were accompanied by the letter of transmittal published by Bancroft, History of the Constitution of the United States, II. 443-444.

Ils se plaindront probablement du peu de faveur qu'ils prétendront éprouver en France et particulièrement dans nos Iles. Le Comte de Moustier trouvera ci-joint un Mémoire qui le mettra en état de discuter cette matière en pleine connaissance de cause. Cette pièce lui fournira des moyens plus que suffisants pour convaincre les Américains des bonnes intentions du Roi à leur égard, et de son désir de faire prospérer leur Commerce autant que cela se pourra sans préjudicier à celui de ses propres sujets.' Au reste le Comte de Moustier ne négligera rien pour acquérir autant de connaissances qu'il pourra sur tous les objets qui pourront contribuer à rendre notre Commerce avec les Etats-Unis aussi avantageux que la nature des choses pourra le comporter. L'administration n'a pas été suffisamment éclairée jusqu'ici sur . cette importante matière; et il est à craindre que les Américains ne prennent des habitudes qui nous seroient préjudiciables, et dont la France ne pourroit plus les détourner. a lieu de croire que c'est là le principal objet de la Cour de Londres; et il est évident que la France perdra tout ce que gagnera la Grande Bretagne.

On

Ce seroit se tromper volontairement que de supposer que cette puissance ne cherche pas à diminuer les sentiments qui doivent attacher les Etats-Unis à la France, et à opérer insensiblement leur raprochement de leur ancienne Mère-patrie. Il sera utile que le Ministre du Roi suive la marche des agens anglais, et qu'il fasse ce qui dépendra de lui, mais sans affectation, pour rendre nulles leurs insinuations.

Le Comte de Moustier trouvera sûrement les Américains fort occupés de la fermentation qui règne en ce moment-ci en Europe, et il y a beaucoup d'aparence qu'on cherchera à l'en entretenir, et à connaître par lui le véritable état des choses. Dans ce cas le Comte de Moustier pourra dire, relativement aux affaires de Hollande qu'elles ont pris inopinément une tournure décidée en faveur du Stathouder par un de ces hazards qu'il est impossible de prévoir, et sur lequel ni la Cour de Berlin, ni celle de Londres ne comptoient, et que les résolutions prises par les Etats de Hollande comme par les généraux sous l'influence des troupes prussiennes, ont empêché Sa Majesté de faire des démonstrations en faveur des patriotes, et qu'Elle s'est déterminée à laisser les choses dans leur état actuel plustôt que de livrer la République aux hor

1 Certain concessions were made in December of this year which later excited considerable protest in France. Jefferson's letters in American Diplomatic Correspondence, 1783–1789, III. 354 ff. Cf. 364, 375–376, 401; IV. 6.

2 For this affair see A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, I. 360-368.