n produce to be carried in our own vessels into
the British European dominions) would be strictly enforced in future,
and the private belief expressed at the same time, that the intention of
that court did not go so far, that the latter terms are not sufficiently
accurate. About the fact it is impossible we should differ, because it
is a written one. The only difference, then, must be a merely verbal
one. For thus stands the fact. In your letter of April the 11th, you
say, you have received by a circular despatch from your court, direction
to inform this government that it had been determined in future strictly
to enforce this clause of the navigation act. This I considered as an
official notification. In your answer of April the 12th, to my request
of explanation, you say, 'In answer to your letter of this day, I
have the honor of observing that I have no other instructions upon the
subject of my communication, than such as are contained in the circular
despatch, of which I stated the purport in my letter dated yesterday.
I have, however, no difficulty in assuring you, that the result of
my personal conviction is, that the determination of his Majesty's
government to enforce the clause of the act, &c. is not intended to
militate against the proclamation,' &c. This personal conviction is
expressed in the report as a private belief, in contradistinction of the
official declaration. In your letter of yesterday, you chose to call it
'a formal assurance of your conviction.' As I am not scrupulous about
words when they are once explained, I feel no difficulty in substituting
in the report, your own words 'personal conviction,' for those of
'private belief' which I had thought equivalent. I cannot indeed insert
that it was a formal assurance, lest some readers might confound this
with an official one, without reflecting that you could not mean to
give official assurance that the clause would be enforced, and official
assurance, at the same time, of your personal conviction that it would
not be enforced.

I had the honor to acknowledge verbally the receipt of your letter of
the 3rd of August, when you did me that of making the inquiry verbally
about six weeks ago; and I beg leave to assure you, that I am, with due
respect, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER CXXXII.--TO M. DE TERNANT, February 17, 1793

TO M. DE TERNANT.

Philadelphia, February 17, 1793.

Sir,

I have duly