Richard Henry Lee to John Dunlap

My plan has been to notice in order such parts of Mr. Deane’s address of Dec. 5, 1778, as called in question Doctor Lee’s fidelity to America and to her ally, intending afterwards to make some remarks upon other passages less material to the public. I think I have gone thro’ with the first class, except a single instance. Mr. Deane told the world that "a gentleman of character told him that his correspondent in England had seen a letter from the Hon. Arthur Lee, Esq. dated the very day on which the treaty was signed (tho’ it was not finished until near nine o’clock at night) in which were nearly these words: This day the new partnership was signed and sealed, and the new house will begin to do business immediately: ["]If the old house means to have anything to do further, and means honestly, they must make their proposals immediately." Had Mr. Deane named this gentleman of character or his correspondent, Mr. Lee or any other person could have traced and refuted the falsehood. But as it was contrived, Mr. Lee could only place his denial against Mr. Deane’s affirmation; and though the public mind might not decide absolutely, yet it would be tainted with the suspicion that there must be something in the accusation, or a man would not hazard his name to it. Mr. Lee has been more fortunate than Mr. Deane intended, as may be seen by the following letters:

COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE HON. ARTHUR LEE, ESQ., TO MR. SAMUEL PETRIE IN PARIS, Dated Paris, April 8, 1779-

Sir, - It appears, by a letter lately published in the London papers, that Mr. Silas Deane has desired his correspondent in Paris to obtain from you "a copy of the letter which you received in March last from London, which gave the information of the signing the treaty."

It is probable you are not unacquainted with Mr. Deane’s having accused me publicly of being the author of that information so given, of the signing of the treaty, and this (as he says) upon the authority of a respectable person in Paris, who had received such a letter as he writes for a copy of from you.

I therefore beg that you will do me the justice to inform me explicitly whether you gave Mr. Deane the information upon which he founds his accusation, and who the person is in London who pretends to have seen a letter written by me, giving intelligence of the signing of a treaty with France, and dated the night it was signed.

I am sorry to trouble you on such a subject, but you must be sensible, Sir, how necessary it is that an untruth of this nature, whether lightly or maliciously asserted, should be traced to its author. I have the honor to be, &c.,

[Signed] Arthur Lee.

EXTRACT FROM MR. PETRIE’s ANSWER

Arthur Lee, Esq.

Sir, - In compliance with your request, in your letter of yesterday, to be explicit, I now inform you that I do not recollect ever showing any letter to Mr. Deane that I thought had any reference to you but I well remember reading to him a paragraph out of a letter received from London, stating that intelligence of the signature of the treaty with France had been transmitted there the very night on which it was signed, expressed in terms which could not have been misunderstood; and which intelligence, from a concurrence of circumstances, appeared to have been communicated by your brother, the Alderman. Of this fact I cannot suppose you ignorant.

When I showed this letter to Mr. Deane, I meant only jocularly to upbraid his secresy respecting a transaction which I understood your brother had unreservedly communicated several weeks before, but I had no idea of bringing censure upon any person whatever.

[Signed] S. Petrie.

Paris, Rue St. Anne, Friday Morning, April 9, 1779.

THE HONORABLE A. LEE’S ANSWER

Paris, April 9, 1779

Sam. Petrie, Esq.

Sir, - I had the honor of receiving your answer of this day’s date to mine of yesterday. It is entirely satisfactory as to myself. But I cannot help believing our correspondent was mistaken as to my brother’s laving been the writer of such a letter, because I did not inform him that the treaty was signed till long after, and I am most sure he did not know it at the time he is supposed to have given the intelligence.

I am obliged to you, Sir, for the readiness with which you have given this satisfaction, and beg you will believe it was with much regret I gave you the trouble. I have the honor to be, &c.,

[Signed] Arthur Lee.

Besides infidelity, Mr. Deane wishes the world to have an impression of Dr. Lee’s incapacity for executing a commission. For he says that "by a wanton display of his errand, Mr. Lee gave great and just cause of distrust to the Court of Madrid," and hints that, therefore, he was restricted to the city of Burgos. He says, also, that Mr. Lee "was so unfortunate as to do nothing at Berlin, unless, indeed, we may give the name of business to the loss of his papers, by which a discovery was made of the secrets of his colleagues, and the British Ministry enabled to counteract the measures taken for the benefits of America." Here I am staggered in my first intentions. I was to give facts. I am prompted to supply their place by the highest wrought execrations upon a man who knew that he was delivering in both instances the most downright falsehoods, which no one could prove by producing vouchers without running into an indiscretion, greatly criminal, both in regard to Spain and Prussia. Have I not produced enough on other points to show that I can command the most authentic papers? Will not a sensible public readily conceive that the disposition of Spain and Prussia is to be declared by themselves in their own time. I shall only now assert that Dr. Lee was, in both cases, an able, judicious Agent. The time may come when I may tell what great things Mr. Lee had done within the compass of Mr. Deane’s knowledge at the time of his publication.

Rowland