[Extract]

There can be no better way of showing to the King of England our desire to perpetuate the good intelligence which exists than that of presenting to him the actions of subordinates which might disturb it. The English cruisers take certain liberties which might determine commitments against the wishes and will of the two Courts. I believe that it was not in a manner of reproach that Lord Suffolk mentioned to you the war ammunition which the Americans may have obtained from our islands, and that he does not wish to use it as an argument in order to justify the acts of carelessness on the part of their sailors who took it upon themselves to make incursions into our roads and under our guns. The English have encouraged illicit traffic as long as it was convenient for them, and they would like to stop it now that it has turned to their disadvantage; but greed will always be stronger than caution and human laws. We had a good example of this during the disorders in Corsica. The English merchants brought arms and war ammunition there with much publicity. We always understood that they were private and independent ventures, loathsome even to the Government. The King would be displeased to see his subjects taking the liberty to bring any form of offensive assistance to the Americans, and if they were caught by English ships in this illicit traffic they could expect no support nor help from us. However, I cannot help but note that Lord Suffolk, while mentioning their numerous cruises, gave us to understand that they also watched those of our ships which sail to and from our islands and carry arms and other war ammunition on board. But there is an essential difference which you will please to mark to the English Minister. I can conceive that vessels coming out of the Bahama strait on pretext of returning to Europe with rather large quantities of contraband may be presumed to deal in illicit traffic and be suspect enough to be stopped and subjected to the loss of their cargo, but I cannot understand on what grounds one could take the liberty to limit our direct trade with our islands, whatever the nature of the cargoes may be. What England considers as contraband in the present circumstances is quite legal from one French possession to another French possession, and I remain convinced that if this matter were taken to any English tribunal, its decision would be favorable to us, but we cannot rely upon the wisdom of the British Government and believe that it would raise such a delicate question. Furthermore, the sea is free and we do not stand opposed to the British if they seize the American ships, even those which would sail under our flag, and prevent them from reaching our ports and returning to theirs; but our territorial waters must remain a sacred shelter for them.

I find easier to believe the disasters which General Arnold is said to have suffered before Quebec and which forced him to raise the siege than the arrival of the ship Isis which is said to have anchored at this place on 19 April; there is no previous example to the effect that the St. Lawrence is navigable before the end even of the month of May.²