Comments and Motion in re Henry Laurens, [19 September] 1782
Comments and Motion in re Henry Laurens
Printed copy ( pp. 155–57, 158). See Comments on Temple, 1 August 1782, headnote.
[19 September 1782]
Mr Madison arose and informed the house that since the passing the resolutions of the 17th,1 he had come to the knowledge of a fact, which he wished to lay before Congress and on which he meant to ground a motion; and as it did not admit of delay, the vessel that would carry those resolutions being on the point of sailing he wished the present business might be postponed and accordingly made a motion to that effect.2 This being agreed to, he then proceeded to inform Congress that he had a great respect for the character of Mr Laurens and entertained a high opinion of his abilities and integrity, and had therefore given his hearty concurrence and assent to the resolutions which passed on the 17th.3 But that since that time he had come to the knowledge of some matters, which induced him to think it would not be proper, at least, for the present, to forward those resolutions or so much of them as respected Mr Laurens. He would now state those matters to Congress, that they might judge. He had, he said, in his hand a pamphlet printed in London entitled “Parliamentary Register,” and containing an account of the debates in the House of Commons from the month of Nov. 1781, to the latter end of Janry, 1782, among which were debates on a petition to that house from H. Laurens, a prisoner in the Tower, and that the petition was printed at full length.4 He then read the debates and the petition; and then observed that though the evidence was not such as would, in a Court of Law, be sufficient to prove that Mr. Laurens had signed and presented such a petition,5 yet coming from such authority and with such concurring circumstances, it was sufficient to raise doubts in this house, and a strong suspicion that it was genuine. That if Mr Laurens did actually sign and present such a petition; he had thereby wounded the honor and dignity of the United States in such a manner that he was no longer fit to be entrusted with the character of a public minister, much less to be solicited to continue his services as the negotiator of a peace. He would not undertake to say positively that the petition was genuine, though he must confess that he could not altogether withhold his belief of its authenticity. He repeated again the assurances of his respect and regard for the man, his willingness to draw a veil over this part of his conduct, and to bury it forever in oblivion, but standing in the place he did, and feeling as he did for the honor & dignity of his country, he could not, consistent with his duty, forbear to move. “That the resolution of the 17th day of Sept., 1782, informing Mr Laurens that his services as a minister plenipotentiary for negotiating a peace cannot be dispensed with by Congress, and so much of the other resolution of the same date as relates to Mr Laurens,6 be not transmitted till the farther order of Congress.” He would not give so much credit to the publication as thereon to ground a recall, his meaning was only to suspend the effects of a resolution, which he was convinced never would have passed had the matter now before the house been known to Congress. He confessed that if in fact the petition was not genuine a temporary injury would be done to Mr Laurens’ character, and in that case, as soon as the truth should appear, no man would be readier than he should be, by every act in his power, to wipe off the stain and restore his character to its ancient splendor, and therefore would wish that the resolutions of the 17th, as well as that which might now be passed, should remain secret.7 But when he considered on the other hand in what light the conduct of this Congress would be viewed by, and what effect it might have on the powers of Europe if a man was pressed to continue in such a high confidential trust and office who had prostrated the dignity of his Country, wounded its honour, and as far as in him lay denied its sovereignty and independence, all which must be admitted, if the petition is genuine, he trusted he would stand excused and that the house would agree to his motion.
He then repeated his motion, which was seconded by his colleague, Mr Jones.8
Mr Madison spoke again,9 professed the purity of his motives and his regard for Mr Laurens’ character; urged the probability of the petition being genuine, and his readiness to make every allowance and excuse for Mr L’s situation, but still persisted in the opinion that the dignity, honor, and interest of the U. S. required that Congress should agree to the motion.10
1. On 16 September Congress had appointed a committee, comprising John Rutledge, James Duane, and JM, and directed them to submit recommendations about (1) Rutledge’s motion to instruct Washington not to agree with the British to any prisoner-of-war cartel which would release from their paroles Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton and Earl Cornwallis, who were held in “the utmost abhorrence and detestation” because of their “many wanton cruelties and barbarities” (JM to Randolph, 3 September 1782, n. 8); and (2) Henry Laurens’ letter of 30–31 May 1782 to Congress (, XXIII, 583, and n. 4, 584), received on 11 September, stating that he had acquainted Franklin with his declination of the appointment by Congress as an American peace commissioner. After telling of his release on bail on 31 December 1781 and the complete freedom granted him by Lord Shelburne on 27 April 1782, Laurens added that, not daring to accept this “ample discharge” as “a gift,” and understanding that Shelburne expected a quid pro quo in the form of the liberation of Cornwallis from his parole, he had solicited Franklin’s “concurrence” in the exchange but had received no reply to this request (NA: PCC, No. 185, III, 41; , XXIII, 583; JM to Randolph, 11 September 1782, P.M., and n. 4; , V, 454–59).
The Rutledge committee restricted its report to two recommendations—one, that Laurens’ service as a peace commissioner “cannot be dispensed with”; and the other, that he and his fellow commissioners “punctually attend and assist in the negotiations.” Over slight opposition, Congress adopted the report (, XXIII, 584–85).
The omission from the report of reference to Rutledge’s motion about a Laurens—Cornwallis exchange in connection with the cartel negotiations soon to begin at Tappan, N.Y., between the American and British representatives (JM to Randolph, 3 September 1782, n. 8) probably reflects the receipt by Congress on 17 September of Franklin’s letter of 29 June enclosing a copy of his formal notification, dated 9 June, to Cornwallis of his release from parole in exchange for Shelburne’s cancellation of Laurens’ bail bond. Realizing that his right to extend this favor derived only from his authorization of 14 June 1781 by Congress to effect an exchange of Burgoyne for Laurens-an offer which the British had refused—Franklin included in the document, given to Richard Oswald for delivery to Cornwallis, a statement that “the exchange” would be subject to “the approbation or disallowance of Congress” (NA: PCC, No. 185, III, 42; , III, 232–33; 233 n.; , XX, 647; , V, 533–35, 576–77). Although as early as February 1782 Washington had suggested the possibility of a Laurens-Cornwallis exchange, Congress had viewed the proposal with disfavor and on 12 August of that year had “rejected [it] with a loud and general no” (, XXIV, 4–6; , XXII, 77, 93–95, 380; XXIII, 463–65; p. 105). See also Report on Cornwallis-Laurens Exchange, 25 September 1782, and ed. n., and n. 7.
2. The “present business” was “the report of a Committee respecting the Commissioners [commissions] or allowance to be granted to the late Jos. Trumbull, Comry Genl for his services” ( p. 155). See also , XXIII, 692, n. 1.
3. See n. 1, above.
4. JM had read this “pamphlet” after its receipt by the secretary for foreign affairs (JM to Randolph, 24 September 1782). For the debate of 17 December 1781 in the House of Commons “on the Case of Mr. Laurens, Prisoner in the Tower—and on the Exchange of Prisoners with America,” see , XXII, cols. 853–65. Three days later Edmund Burke gained the consent of the House of Commons to present the petition, which Henry Laurens had addressed to the speaker on 1 December 1781, to have it read, and thereafter to have it “lie on the table” (ibid., XXII, cols. 874–78).
5. In this petition Laurens described himself only as “a native of South Carolina” whom the British peace commission, under the leadership of the Earl of Carlisle, had addressed in 1778 “by the style and title of his Excellency Henry Laurens, President of Congress.” See , X, 605. In support of his plea for “enlargement” from “long confinement,” Laurens referred to the “languishing state” of his health and his efforts “at the peril of his life and fortune” before 1776 “to preserve and strengthen the ancient friendship between Great Britain and the Colonies.” After pointing out that he had refrained from promoting “the dissentions which climaxed in the Declaration of Independence,” Laurens added: “That the commencement of the present war was a subject of great grief to him, in as much as he foresaw and foretold, in letters now extant, the distresses which both countries experience at this day. That in the rise and progress of the war, he extended every act of kindness in his power to persons called Loyalists and Quietists, as well as to British prisoners of war; very ample proofs of which he can produce” (, XXII, cols. 877–78). Although as late as 7 December 1783, there still was doubt in Congress whether Laurens “was the real Author of that humiliating Piece,” the fact that he wrote it has long since been established (, VII, 385; David Duncan Wallace, The Life of Henry Laurens, with a Sketch of the Life of Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens [New York, 1915], p. 375).
6. See n. 1, above.
7. Under an injunction of secrecy, JM sent to Edmund Randolph on 24 September 1782 (q.v., and n. 20) an uncoded copy, in his own hand, of Henry Laurens’ petition.
8. Following JM’s speech, the seconding of his motion by Joseph Jones, and the reading of it “from the Chair,” Arthur Lee, Eliphalet Dyer, Jonathan Jackson, Noble Wymberley Jones, and Theodorick Bland spoke successively in derogation of the trustworthiness of the “Parliamentary Register” and either emphatically expressed their disbelief that Laurens “wrote or signed such a petition” or their conviction that if he had done so it was “in an unguarded hour when under the pressure of sufferings and reduced by sickness.” George Clymer seems to have been the sole delegate who supported JM’s motion, and he only to the extent of stating that the “Parliamentary Register” was “of considerable authority,” and its editor certainly would not “ruin the character & reputation of his pamphlet by publishing a falsehood which could be so easily detected” ( pp. 157–58).
9. That is, after the delegates mentioned in n. 8 had concluded their remarks.
10. As soon as JM finished speaking, a vote was “eagerly called for by those who were opposed to the motion.” Thereupon Turbutt Wright (Md.), after urging that more consideration should be given to JM’s proposals before they were voted upon, successfully moved that Congress adjourn (ibid., p. 159). See Comments on Motion in re Laurens, 20 September 1782.