To SIR HENRY CLINTON, &c. &c.

   May it please your Excellency.

   I have been favoured with the sight of your letter to the Congress, dated at New-York, the l9th September, 1778, on which I shall take leave to make a few observations.(1)

   It was suggested to me to notice the requisition you sent upon the same subject, some time since, as a Commissioner, in conjunction with your brethren, Eden and Carlisle. I avoided it, because I was certain your Excellency would offer me another and a better opportunity. You will, however, pardon me for referring to that paper on the present occasion.

   Let me observe, Sir, that fraud and hypocrisy, however they may be mistaken for policy by weak minds, are of a very different family, and have not the slightest connection. The use of them is at all times dishonourable, sometimes dangerous. They may serve one turn and for one moment, but they frequently fail even of that short purpose, and impede a man in all his future operations. If ever there was an opportunity for using these weapons successfully, you had it with us; for we reposed the highest confidence in British integrity, and we had an affection for the nation. But you have so imprudently dissipated our good opinion, that when you aim a great stroke the means are wanting.

   When your officers broke their paroles, we imputed it to a defect of principle among them individually from the want of education and other circumstances of that kind, which, considering the characters of some, is not to be wondered at. And when we heard that these persons were not only countenanced but caressed, we did not believe it.

   We know tolerably well the insidious manners of your court, for they were painted by your own citizens, and we had reason to believe their assertions. We found the design to enslave us was persisted in through every change of Ministers and measures, and professions in a long course of years. But we did not, we could not believe that their baneful influence had so deeply affected every order of your state. And though the conduct of Lord Dunmore, in tendering freedom to all the slaves who should butcher their masters and repair to his standard, was sufficient to have opened our eyes. Yet our partiality in your favour led us to attribute this to the profligacy of his private character, and to a predeliction for Negroes, arising from his natural propensity to the females of that complexion.

   In short, I have known some of the best friends to America behave

   At length conviction came, though slow, yet full. To mention the instances in which you broke faith with the public and with individuals, would be to write the history of your three campaigns, with all the attirais of proclamations and protections. But it would be for the honour of human nature to bury this history in oblivion. It is sufficient for the present to observe, that we became fully convinced you were no longer to be trusted.

   Honest men, after they have been defrauded, acquire that wholesome suspicion which others inherit. The only difference indeed is, that the former reason from facts, the latter from feelings. Of consequence mutual diffidence took place to the greatest degree; and it is perhaps as laughable a circumstance as any of the others that you made at this time, and under such auspices your conciliatory propositions, which of all things required the greatest confidence. But to return.

   It was predicted by every discerning man, that the troops of the convention would be used against us the instant they were out of our power. Your former conduct justified the inference, and considering the many infractions you made in it from the very commencement of the treaty, Congress had good right to have declared the stipulations on their part void. Principles, however, of national honour induced the determination of that Body strictly to comply with the convention. Luckily for America General Burgoyne, by declaring in a letter to Congress that they had broken it, gave an additional ground, known and acknowledged among nations, for suspending it until a ratification from the court of Great-Britain. It is observable, that even then the suspension was carried by a very small majority, although every Member present was convinced you did not mean to pay the least regard to it. They reasoned (but with what force it becomes not me to determine) that it was better to convince the world by one more experiment of your want of integrity. Luckily however, they were overruled; and you have daily given additional proofs of the wisdom of that cautionary measure.

   On the requisition by yourself and others, Commissioners, &c. dated at New-York, the 26th August,(2) the following doubts arise:

   1st. Why was it not made sooner, since clearly the Commissioners had as much power to ratify it before, and their King was as much in need of his troops.

   2d. By what authority did the Commissioners intermeddle in a business by no means in contemplation at the time of their appointment, and (as will be shewn hereafter) clearly out of their power,

   I am informed that the solution given in Congress at the time was, that the Commissioners had received a ratification of the convention, together with orders to make an application of that kind, with a view to two objects:

   1st. If possible to obtain the prisoners, and then declare the convention void by reason of the suspension, and of their want of authority.

   2d. At least to lead Congress into some kind of treaty or correspondence with them on the subject, and thereby indirectly into an acknowledgment of an authority in the Commissioners to treat with us as subjects of Great-Britain.

   This is confirmed substantially by your letter; for it cannot be supposed that your Ministers have less pride or wisdom than heretofore. If therefore their Commissioners had been possessed of sufficient authority, they would hardly have sent you that express and recent authority you mention to have received since the date of their requisition. It is worthy of observation that this date is the 26th of August, and Your authority the twelfth of June, between which is an interval of eleven weeks. It is evident that Your Ministers in the critical situation of their country, would give this paper every possible dispatch. Six weeks or seven, at farthest, were sufficient to transmit it from Whitehall to New-York. Hence it is evident, not only that you had received that paper before the date of the requisition, but also that it was on that ground the requisition was made.(3)

   What right had the Commissioners to interfere in it? They were appointed for the single purpose of persuading us to become subjects to the King, being a kind of missionaries to propagate monarchy in foreign parts,(4)and what connection this has with a military convention, no man can discover. They had no authority to speak to Congress on national grounds. They were not Ambassadors, Ministers Plenipotentiary, nor any thing of that kind. They were not appointed by letters of credence but by commission under the great seal, not from the mere motive of the Prince, but by Act of Parliament. In short, the whole mission was on domestick principles; when therefore the people of America refused to become subjects to the King of England, their authority, if any they had, ceased, nor could they possibly have had authority to the purpose they pretended. It was given them neither by their commission, nor by the act on which that commission was grounded, nor could it possibly have been in contemplation when that act was passed; and your letter shews demonstratively, not only that they had not any such authority, but that your King and his Ministers did not think they had.

   But what kind of authority is your's? Why it seems you have sent a

   The position then, Sir Harry, is clear, that when Carlisle, Eden and Clinton made their remonstrance and requisition, and when you made your demand, neither they or you had given or could give that satisfaction for keeping the convention which Congress had a right to demand: Of consequence you could not expect the troops would be suffered to depart from our shores. This being the case, let us consider the requisition. I say what did you and your brethren mean by your eulogy upon the faith of cartels, military capitulations, conventions and treaties which you have sported with so often? What did you mean by calling on us by the sacred obligations of humanity and justice, to do what, confident with a regard to either, or even to our own safety you knew was impossible? What did you mean by a threat of retaliation, you who have exhausted the mores of military barbarity? What were you to retaliate? A weakness almost amounting to pusilanimity in declining to avenge the injuries you have done? Do you think it possible to affright us by an idea that you will pay no regard to cartels or capitulations? You nevey yet have done it: Those who surrender to you know they are exposed to the sword or to languish in confinement.

   You have dared to say, "all breach of faith, even with an enemy, and all attempts to elude the force of military conventions, or to defeat their salutary purposes by evasion or chicane, are justly held in detestations and deemed unworthy of any description of persons assuming the characters or stating themselves as the Representatives of nations," and yet at that moment you are employed in the very

   It is to be lamented, that on an occasion so solemn, and of such serious consequences to your reputations, we cannot derive an idea of your wisdom, equal to that which your fortitude hath impressed. It would have been glorious indeed, could you have shewn a capacity to deceive all mankind with the same facility that you set their opinions at defiance. But unfortunately this is not the case, for you have taken upon you to remonstrate against the unjust detention of the Saratoga troops. Did you consider the force of the term? If the detention is unjust, the convention is broken, if we have broken the convention you are no longer bound by it, if no longer bound in equity, a ratification extorted by the unjust detention will be void. To have released them therefore on this requisition, other objectionable circumstances being removed, would by implication have admitted you a ground whereon to build a release from your engagements; wherefore the requisition taking it conjunctively with the remonstrance contained in it, as it shews the mind an opinion which you possess so presumptively it demonstrates the conduct you mean to hold, and therefore compels-Congress to a greater caution and circumspection, being in fact a supplement to that letter of General Burgoyne which I mentioned before.

   We come now to your letter of the nineteenth of September. One word more as to chronology. Your offer it seems is not only by express but recent authority, &c. If this epithet means any thing, we are to conclude that the authority was then just received. Indeed you take pains to induce that belief. But the extract you send us is dated the 12th of June, that is more than three months prior to your letter. Did you imagine the Congress had such implicit faith in your dictums, as to believe you had but just received that letter? The imposition is too glaring to pass on men of much less sagacity. What could have put it in your head that it is unprecedented to take no notice of demands by those who have no right to make them? The Lord Chief Justice of England is an officer at least as well known in the constitution of your kingdom as these new-fangled Commissioners. Suppose the Earl of Mansfield had written a letter to Congress demanding the convention troops, do-you think a neglect of this demand would have been quite unprecedented? And yet he had full

   But let us examine this express authority. I take it such authority can be derived but two ways respecting those to whom it relates: These are dependent on the points either of sovereignty or subjection.

   First then as to the sovereignty. Conceding that America is an independent power, then clearly your authority ought to be expressed in a letter of credence to Congress, which it is not.

   Secondly, as to the subjection. If, as you say we are subjects, then on general principles you are not bound to keep faith with rebels. But further, your laws have expressly determined this matter by a case in point, shewing that capitulations and conventions with rebels are merely void, so that the least which could be expected is an act of Parliament. But

   Thirdly, on the ground both of sovereignty and of subjection, leaving that great point in dubio, the authority should have been derived under the great seal and sign manual.

   In lieu of all this you send an extract of a letter from a Secretary of State, which neither with foreign nations, nor even with your own subjects is worth a pinch of snuff; and thus you have thought proper to dubb with the sounding title of an express and recent authority from the King.

   In order however to piece out the deficiencies of your ratification, you have insinuated a threat of certain consequences which are to follow from withholding a compliance with your demands. You are really a most diverting correspondent. What in the name of common sense can you mean by this and by your former menace of retaliation? Is it that if ever we are so weak as to make any agreement with you, you will break it? We always expected as much, we have told you so repeatedly, and this is one of the capital reasons why we reprobate all connection with you. Is it that you will to the utmost of your power lay waste our country? You have done this already, not excepting the territory of those poor creatures who had a confidence in your promises and an affection for your cause. Is it that you will burn our habitations? You made no small figure in that kind of business before the convention was made. Is it that you will murder prisoners in cold blood? Why even that practice, bad as it is, you are by no means unaccustomed to. This part of your letter reminds me of a speech which one of your excellent poets hath put in the mouth of a mad King. He too takes upon him to threaten those whom he cannot injure, and exclaims, "I will do such things! What they are yet I know not." (5)

   To conclude, Sir Harry, though you are my enemy, I will express

   I am, with the greatest respect, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant, An AMERICAN.(6)