381
plicity of it, and concluded by observing to me, that it sometimes happened that useful propositions, though not practicable at one time, might become so at another. I told him that that consider ation had induced me to press the matter when I did, because, I had understood the renewal of the Farm was then on the carpet, and that it was the precise moment, when I supposed that this por tion might be detached from the mass of the Farms. I asked the Count de Vergennes whether, if the renewal of the Farm was pressing^ this article might not be separated, merely in suspense, till government should have time to satisfy themselves on the ex pediency of renewing it. He said no promises could be made.
In the course of this conversation, he had mentioned the liberty we enjoyed of carrying our fish to the French islands. I repeated to him what I had hinted in my letter, of November the 20th, 1785, that I considered as a prohibition, the laying such duties on our fish, and giving such premiums on theirs, as made a difference between their and our fishermen of fifteen livres the quintal, in an article which sold for but fifteen livres. He said it would not have that effect, for two reasons. 1. That their fishermen could not furnish supplies sufficient for their islands, and, of course, the in habitants must, of necessity, buy our fish. 2. That from the con stancy of our fishery, and the short season during which theirs continued, and also from the economy and management of ours, compared with the expense of theirs, we had always been able to sell our fish, in their islands, at twenty-five livres the quintal, while they were obliged to ask thirty-six livres. (I suppose he meant the livre of the French islands.) That thus, the duty and premium had been a necessary operation on their side, to place the sale of their fish on a level with ours, and, that without this, theirs could not bear the competition.
I have here brought together the substance of what was said on the preceding subjects, not pretending to give it verbatim, which my memory does not enable me to do. I have, probably, omitted many things which were spoken, but have mentioned nothing which was not. It was interrupted, at times, with collateral mat ters. One of these was important. The Count de Vergennes complained, and with a good deal of stress, that they did not find a sufficient dependance on arrangements taken with us. This was the third time too, he had done it ; first, in a conversation at Fon- tainebleau, when he first complained to me of the navigation acts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire ; secondly, in his leiter of October the 30th, 1785, on the same subject; and now, in the present conversation, wherein he added, as another instance, the case of the Chevalier de Meziercs, heir of General Oglethorpe,
