synonymous with '_la France_,' why was the alteration made? When I
proposed that alteration, I explained my reasons, and it cannot be
supposed I would offer a change of language, but for some matter of
substance. Again, in the translation, it is 'dominions of France.' This
translation was submitted to M. de Montmorin and M. de Reyneval, with a
request that they would note any deviation in it from the original, or
otherwise it would be considered as faithful. No part was objected to.
M. de Reyneval says, we must decide by the instrument itself, and not by
the explanations which took place. It is a rule, where expressions are
susceptible of two meanings, to recur to other explanations. Good
faith is in favor of this recurrence. However, in the present case, the
expression does not admit of two constructions; it is co-extensive with
the dominions of the King. I insist on this, only as a reservation
of our right, and not with a view to exercise it, if it shall be
inconvenient or disagreeable to the government of France. Only two
appointments have as yet been made (Mr. Skipwith at Martinique and
Guadaloupe, and Mr. Bourne in St. Dominique), and they shall be
instructed not to ask a regular _Exequatur_. We certainly wish to press
nothing on our friends, which shall be inconvenient. I shall hope
that M. de Montmorin will order such attentions to be shown to those
gentlemen as the patronage of commerce may call for, and may not be
inconvenient to the government. These gentlemen are most pointedly
instructed not to intermeddle, by word or deed, with political matters.

My letter of August, 1790, to Mr. Carmichael, was delivered to him by
Colonel Humphreys.

The report you mention of the prospect of our captives at Algiers
being liberated, has not taken its rise from any authoritative source.
Unfortunately for us, there have been so many persons, who (from