“1.  Their first article differs not in substance from the first which I proposed, and therefore I did not object against it; but as to all of them, I reserved a liberty to myself of further consideration and objection.  I did a little stick upon the word ‘colonias’ in this article, lest it might tend to anything of commerce in America; but finding it only to relate to the amity, I passed it over.

“2.  The first part of it agrees in substance with my sixth article, the latter part of it with my fourth article; only I objected against their words in this article, ‘in damnum illius,’ who should be judge thereof, and the omission of that part of my fourth article against harbouring of enemies and rebels.

“3.  Their third article agrees in substance with my second article, but is more general, not naming the Sound, and explaining the word ‘aliorsum’ in my second article; and I desired that the word ‘populos’ might be added after the word ‘subditos.’

“4.  Their fourth in the beginning agrees with my third article; that of it touching the trade of America and the fishing I answered, as I gave you a former account, and thereupon denied it, as also that part of it which concerns importation of goods in foreign bottoms, being contrary to our Act of Parliament.  In this latter end of their fourth article they likewise bring in again the business of fishing implicitly in the words ‘maribus, littoribus,’ etc., and therefore I desired that all that part might be left out, and in lieu thereof I offered the latter part of my third article beginning with the words ‘solutis tamen,’ etc., and the last of my reserved articles to be admitted; or else, I desired that this whole article of theirs might be omitted, and in lieu thereof my third article, and the last of my reserved articles to be admitted; and they likewise insist to have these words added if that part of their fourth article be omitted, viz. ’quoad Americae commercium, piscationem halecum, et mercium importationem, de his in posterum erit conventum.’

    “5.  Their fifth article agrees in substance with my eleventh, only
    hath more words to express the same matter.

“6.  Their sixth agrees in substance with my thirteenth article, with the addition of words for kind usage, and the omission of the proviso in my thirteenth article as to breaking of bulk; which yet seems to be supplied by the latter part of their sixth article, of conforming to the ordinances of the place.

“7.  Agrees with my reserved article, marked with fifteen, only the words ‘nihil inde juris’ I thought fit to be omitted, because in the treaty we are not to meddle with particular rights; yet the sense and desire thereof is answered in the words for restitution.  I offered them, if they liked not this, my fifteenth article, which is one of those reserved, omitting only that part