DOCUMENTS BEARING ON TREATY OF 1783. 81 



doctor said I did not perceive, he made any account of this distinc- 

 tion ; and I did not think it proper to say anything more about it. ... 



I remember the doctor in a former proposal in April hinted that a 

 cession of the back lands of Canada, would raise a sum, which would 

 make some reparation to the sufferers on both sides. Now, he says, 

 one of the necessary articles is a cession of these back lands, without 

 any stipulation for the loyal sufferers. 



And as an advisable article, a gift of 5 or 6 hundred thousand 

 pounds, to indemnify the sufferers on their side. I should hope he 

 would be persuaded to alter that part of the plan. 



I have the honour to be, My Lord 



Your Laps, most obedient Humble servant, 



KICHARD OSWALD. 



50 No. 46. 1782, July 11: Extract from letter, Mr. Oswald to 



Lord Slielbume. 



. . . With respect to the Commissioners of the Colonies, our con- 

 duct towards them, I think, ought to be of a style somewhat different. 

 They have shown a desire to treat, and to end with us on a sepa- 

 rate footing from the other Powers, and I must say in a more liberal 

 way, or at least with a greater appearance of feeling for the future 

 interests and connections of Great Britain, than I expected. I speak 

 so from the text of the last conversation I had with Mr. Franklin, 

 as mentioned in my letter of yesterday. And therefore we ought to 

 deal with them tenderly, and as supposed conciliated friends, or at 

 least well disposed to a conciliation. And not as if we had anything 

 to give them, that we can keep from them, or that they are very 

 anxious to have. Even Dr. Franklin himself, as the subject hap- 

 pened to lead that way, as good as told me yesterday, that they were 

 their own masters, and seemed to make no account of the grant of 

 independence as a favour. I was so much satisfied before hand of 

 their ideas on that head that I will own to your Lordship, I did not 

 read to the doctor that part of your letter, wherein you mention that 

 grant as if it in some shape challenged a return on their part. When 

 the doctor pointed at the object of the Enabling Bill, as singly rest- 

 ing on a dispensation of Acts of Parliament they cared not for, I 

 thought it enough for me to say, they had been binding and acknowl- 

 edged. To which no answer was made. When the doctor mentioned 

 the report, as if there was an expectation of retaining the sovereignty, 

 I ventured a little farther, (though with a guarded caution) to 

 touch him on the only tender side, of their supposed present emanci- 

 pation and said, that such report was possibly owing to the imagina- 

 tions of people upon hearing of the rejoicings in America on the 

 cessation of war change of the Ministry &c. which they might con- 

 clude would have some effect in dividing the provinces, and giving a 

 different turn to affairs; as no doubt there was a great proportion 

 of the people, notwithstanding all that had happened, who, from 

 considerations of original affinities, correspondence and other cir- 

 cumstances, were still strongly attached to England, &c. To this also, 

 there was no answer made. . . . 



