negotiation when it was for a time uncertain whether England would ever admit our independence, or whether a basis of peace would not have to be found in some other way.

The scene of the conflict was on the other side of the Atlantic, and the central figure was that famous monarch King George III. His peculiar characteristics, too well known to call for mention, made him a difficult person with whom to treat. Though the British armies bad surrendered, no idea of acknowledging American independence had taken possession o King George. It was hoped that the representatives of England and America would be able to settle the relations of the countries on a firm footing immediately on the close of the war, but the King obstinately refused to treat with the Americans, except as "Colonists." In the light of subsequent history, this attitude of the old King causes a smile, for he might as well have stood on the shore and lifted his foot against the incoming tide as attempt to stay the onward march of American independence. After nearly two years of resistance, of long drawn out parliamentary debates, of pleadings and negotiations too intricate to be even touched upon here, he was moved to make a speech in Parliament, in which he said he had attempted entire reconciliation with the "Colonies," and having failed, he had gone the full length of the powers vested in him and had "offered" to declare them free and independent States. The speech proceeded as follows: "In thus admitting their separation from the Crown, I have sacrificed every consideration of my own to the wishes of the people. I make it my humble prayer that America may be free from those evils which have formerly proved in the mother country how essential monarchy is to the enjoyment of constitutional liberty."

The fall of Lord North's ministry in 1782 had as much to do with the settlement of affairs as any event of the year. This was very significant, for it meant the coming into power of those who were as friendly to American interests as any on this side of the ocean-the Duke of Richmond, Edmund Burke, Charles Fox, and Lord Shelburne. Lord North said privately

that he had often been accused of issuing lying bulletins, but never had he told so big a lie as when he said, His Majesty

has been pleased to appoint" a new ministry. It was a bitter pill for King George to swallow.

Let us refer briefly to our own relations with the other powers of Europe. If it is true that no man liveth to himself, it is equally true that no nation has a history of its own, but bears its part in a world-wide movement. The events of history are so interwoven that we cannot consider one nation without the many.

America had had, as you know, a treaty of alliance with France, had long been represented at its court and had received untold help from this country during the war.

France was as liberal of friendship and good services as England of tyranny and cruelty, and the policy of our great statesman, Franklin, was to stand by with France against the common foe, England. As early as 1779 Congress had received from France intimation that it would be well to have an envoy in Europe empowered to treat for peace there, and John Adams had been sent. France was ruled at this time by King Louis XVI, but it was wholly with his minister, de Vergennes, about whose character and aims there is great diversity of opinion, that the American commissioners had to deal. It is certain that he was diplomatic and far-sighted, liking no country but France, hating no country but England. Like some politicians of the present day he was firm in the belief that "honesty had no place in politics." He was willing to help America only in so far as he could injure England. Mr. Adams understood this wily diplomat; Mr. Franklin did not, and thereby arose dissensions and difficulties among the commissioners. The attitude of France toward America is a fruitful theme for discussion with historians. There are pages, nay chapters, devoted to these questions, whether France was really friendly at heart to American interest and to what extent are we indebted to France. But one or two conclusions may safely be reached. It is certain that France, whatever the motive, gave us timely and generous aid, and that the French nation at large was friendly to our interests whether her rulers were or not. We cannot think of the course pursued by this country in the time of America's peril without feeling a thrill of gratitude. As to

the motives underlying the conduct of nations or individuals, who is competent to speak?

In addition to the difficulties that our commissioners met because of England's ill will and obstinancy and France's manysidedness, there were complications with Spain. As an ally of France, Spain had given us some assistance during the war, at the close of which she demanded American land as a reward and was also determined to prevent navigation of the Mississippi through Spanish territory. This was an added complication and delayed the treaty of peace so eagerly longed for by the Americans.

From Holland America received recognition of independence and a free commercial treaty. This strengthened America's position in the eyes of Europe and gave additional consequence to our minister, John Adams, who had procured it.

Finally the American commissioners-Adams, Franklin, and Jay-de Vergennes representing Louis XVI, and Lords Shelburne, Fox, and Oswald from England, met in Paris in 1782 and negotiations for peace began. Our commissioners had peculiar trials before them and had more to dread from their allies than from their foes, for France was covertly leagued with Spain concerning the Mississippi navigation and was also attempting secret treaties with England.

The necessary questions to be treated by this body of men aside from that of American independence were the fisheries question, the boundaries of the United States, the navigation of the Mississippi, the indemnity granted by England to the sufferers in the war, and other matters of less importance. It has been stated that England hindered all efforts toward a treaty by her determination to consider the Americans as "Colonists." It is interesting to read that a courteous, diplomatic letter sent by Jay at a critical time had much to do with the final concession of King George. In this letter Jay suggested that it was incompatible with the dignity of a King to negotiate except with an independent power, and that the obstacle should be removed by his majesty." Soon messengers were sent to France empowered to treat with the "Thirteen United States of America." Thus did the King tacitly admit their independence and a point was gained. The question of the

fisheries was of importance to Massachusetts, for this was the great industry of her people. France would have had all the

States shut out from their privileges, and Adams, as the representative of New England interests, had a hard and bitter fight. In the end he conquered and the right to the fisheries became then and has since remained a part of the national property.

The important question of the Western boundaries was particularly Jay's concern. Do we realize how small was the area called the United States at this period? Nearly the whole of the population was confined to the Eastern seaboard. New York State, west of Schenectady corn fields, was an Indian country. Every State bordered upon the ocean or its tidewaters. Spain and France wished the States to remain confined between the Alleghenies and the sea. But the Americans looked with longing eyes to the great lands west of the mountains, so the question of the boundaries was a burning The navigation of the Mississippi particularly concerned. Spain, who zealously guarded the mouth of this river and the Gulf coast.

one.

Upon the question of indemnification the fight was waged with zeal by all. The settlement was finally effected by the ingenuity and diplomacy of Franklin. And this is the conclusion of the whole matter. American independence was conceded and later Adams, when in London, had the rare fortune to witness the confession made to Parliament by King George himself that he had "made a treaty of peace," not with the " Colonists," but "with the independent States of North America."

The fisheries and boundary questions were satisfactorily settled through the tact and wisdom of Adams and Jay. The Americans got all the English had in their power to grant concerning the Mississippi navigation, and on the question of compensation the English yielded once more. There was brilliant work on the part of the American commissioners and we would think they had earned the gratitude of their countrymen. In time, honor was given where honor was due, but that there was some discontent at the time is proven by a letter written by Franklin in which he says, "I have never yet known of a

peace made that did not occasion a great deal of popular clamor and censure on both sides, so that the blessing promised to peacemakers, I fancy, relates to the next world, for in this they seem to have a greater chance of being cursed."

Fiske says, "On the part of the Americans the treaty of Paris was one of the most brilliant triumphs of modern diplomacy. Had the affair been managed by men of ordinary ability, some of the greatest results of the war would have been lost; the new republic would have been cooped up between the Atlantic Ocean and the Allegheny Mountains; our westward expansion would have been impossible without further war with European powers, and the formation of our Federal Union would have been delayed if not altogether prevented."

All the gratitude the American people had to bestow belonged to the commissioners, for their wisdom, integrity, and patriotism had brought our country through a most perilous and critical period. Surely, as has been said of other great men, "They were born in the right place and in just the nick of time." As a result of their long labors, on the 30th of November, 1782, they had the pleasure of setting their hands to the most important treaty the United States has ever made or is likely to make, for it embodied the complete and final recognition of American independence.

MRS. CHARLES J. PARKER, Historian Esther Stanley Chapter, New Britain, Conn.

EARLY TIMES IN SUMNER COUNTY.

IN searching the history of Tennessee we find the early settlers of Sumner County a brave, self-sacrificing people, who, after undergoing many hardships, trials, and deprivations, succeeded in vanquishing the Indians, and securing as their home the garden spot, as their descendants now think, of the most beautiful State in the Union. This section of which having been first invaded in 1771 by a party of bold men bent on adventure, who penetrated into the wilds of the forest, along the banks of the Cumberland, and found a land so prolific of wild game, that they heralded its frame throughout North Carolina