This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-11,629

DUNHAM, Chester Gray, 1923- THE DIPLOMATIC CAREER OF CHRISTOPHER HUGHES.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1968 History, modern

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

Copyright by

Chester Gray Dunham

1969 THE DIPLOMATIC CAREER CP CHRISTOPHER HUGHES

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Chester Gray Dunham, A.B., M.A.

******

The Ohio State University 1968

Approved by

Harry L. Coles, Adviser Department of History ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The late Jesse Slddall Reeves of the University of I'iichigan obtained custody about 1930 of a large collection of the papers of Christopher -"ughes, recognized their his­ torical value, and apparently intended to use then in the preparation of a biography or some other study of Eughes. Failing to obtain access to the important Adams family papers, houever, he contented himse?f with the publication of a small portion of the Hughes papers in the Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review and preserved the collection for

posterity. After the death of Reeves, the Milliam L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan received the papers, has added to them, and has made them available to scholars. Howard l-I. Feckham, director of the library, William 3. Swing, curator of manuscripts, and Albert T. Klyberg of the manuscript division cheerfully granted access to the mag­ nificent resources of the library and provided valuable guidance and assistance in using, them. Other persons who helped mightily in discovering and assembling source materials for this study are Michael Hart of the University of Virginia Library, Christine D.

ii Hathaway of the Brown University Library, James J . Heslin of the New-York Historical Society, Gertrude D. Hess of the American Philosophical Society Library, John D. Xilbourne of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, David C. Mearns of the Library of Congress, Avril J. M. Pedley of the Maryland Historical Society, and Stephen T. Riley of the Massachusetts Historical Society. The rich resources of these institutions contributed much to an understanding of Hughes. Harry L. Coles, chairman of the history department of The Ohio State University, advised and encouraged with patience, persistence, and promptitude.

lii VITA

February 11, 1923 Bom - Chicago, Illinois

1943-1946 Lieutenant, U.S. Army

1948 A.B., Cberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio

1949-1964 Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Department of State

1965 M.A., The Ohio State University, I Columbus, Ohio

1965-1966 Teaching assistant. Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1967-1968 Instructor in History, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: American history Studies in American diplomatic history Professor Harry L. Coles

iv Key to Abbreviations In Citations

Ar Microfilms of The Adams Papers ovnaed by the Adams Manuscript Trust and deposited In the Massachusetts Historical Society APSL American Philosophical Society Library BUL Bro^vn University Library DUL Duke University Library HSP Historical Society of Pennsylvania LC Library of Congress MDHS Maryland Historical Society MHS Massachusetts Historical Society NA National Archives, Records of the Department of State NYHS New-York Historical Society UVL University of Virginia Library V.'LCL Ù-111 lam L. Clements Library TABLE OP CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 11 VITA ...... Iv KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS...... v I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II TOWARD A DIPLOMATIC CAREER ...... 11 Apprentice to Five Masters; Ghent, 1814 .... 11 An American Politician: Baltimore, 1815 .... 26 Special Agent; Cartagena, 1816 31 III ASSIGNMENT TO S’-/EDEN...... 40 Sharing Authority with Jonathan Russell; 1816-18 40 In Charge at Last; 1819-22 ...... 69 Peripatetic Representation; 1823 89 Mission Accomplished; 1824-25 ...... 98 IV ASSIGNMENT TO THE NETHERLANDS ...... Ill Circuitous Route to a New Post; 1825-26 .... 114 A Journeyman Diplomat at Work: 1826-28 .... 124 Aspirations Dashed; 1828-30 ...... 140 V RETURN TO S^WEDEN...... 156 Personal Tragedy; 1830-33 • 157 A Blunder: 1833-34 ...... I69 Comfortable Isolation; 1834-38 ...... 181 Unauthorized Initiative; 1838-39 18? Final Months at Stockholm; 1839-41 197 VI TWILIGHT OF A CAREER ...... 204 Contriving a Transfer; 1841-42 ...... 204 Enjoying Life In Europe: 1842-45 . 214 Retirement: 1845-49 ...... 222 C o n c l u s i o n ...... 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 235 vl CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The diplomatic career of Christopher Hughes reveals much of the day-to-day practice of American diplomacy dur­ ing the first half of the nineteenth century. A craftsman rather than an artist, Hughes labored more than thirty years to safeguard and promote the interests of the United States in Europe. He never aspired to be a master of statecraft like John Quincy Adams or Henry Clay, but he took pride In his work as a journeyman. A diplomat by choice and by disposition, Hughes applied himself enthusi­ astically to the conduct of American foreign relations. In his successful application to the countless but Important details of diplomacy lies the significance of his career. Hughes began his career in 1814 as secretary to the American peace commission at Ghent and concluded It In 1845 as charge d'affaires at The Hague. Although he never attained the coveted rank of minister and although he never negotiated a treaty, he won goodwill for the United States through witty conversation and wide correspondence; he facilitated the settlement of claims and promoted the I growth of trade through the goodwill he had established;

1 and he gathered Important Information through, his agreeable manner and his interest in international problems. A well- bred gentleman, Hughes excelled in his role as eyes, ears, and tongue of his government. A study of the career of Hughes should deal with a number of important themes. There are matters of back­ ground influences, problems, and opportunities. These matters blend imperceptibly into questions of motivation such as why he chose the diplomatic profession, why he con­ tinued in it, and why he ultimately left it. In addition, an evaluation of Hughes should include some consideration of what was expected of him and how he fulfilled those expectations. An attempt will be made in this study to analyze these matters, discover answers to these questions, and evaluate the career of Hughes. Christopher Hughes was b o m on February 11, 1786, in Baltimore, Maryland.^ As he grew to manhood, so did his native city grow in economic importance in the nation. In 1780 Baltimore had a population of about 3,000, but a de­ cade later the inhabitants numbered 13,503» As fifth largest city in the country in 1790, Baltimore during the ensuing years kept pace with Boston, New York, and

^Christopher Hughes, senior, to Mrs. Jane O'Brien, 22 Oct 1801; Christopher Hughes, junior to Mrs. Peggy Moore, 11 Feb 1830; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Francis P. Corbin, 7 Feb 1848, Corbin Papers, DUL. 2 Philadelphia, but surpassed Charleston. The startling rise in population resulted partly from the increasing sea­ borne trade. In 1790 Baltimore ranked fifth in the tonnage of vessels entering the port. Important exports were tobac­ co, corn, wheat, and flour.^ Besides commerce, Industry also helped to account for the rising population. By the time Hughes had reached adulthood, the workshops of the city were producing large quantities of iron and brass pro­ ducts, leather goods, carriages, sugar, paper, glass, a snuff, and cordage. Toward the close of 1?85 a young English merchant visited Baltimore and observed The houses are almost all built of brick, and a great many of them very handsome. It's astonishing what a stir there is in Baltimore. . . . The shops are exceedingly neat and the goods set out to advantage. . . . They are building away here in every corner of the town. . . . Baltimore is now a very considerable place, but in the course of a few years, when these elegant houses are finished, it will be one of the first towns in America in point of beauty and superior to any in trade.^ 2 U.S. Bureau of the Census, A Century of Population Growth from the First Census of the United States to the Twelfth. 1790-1900 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909) PpT 11, 13, 78-79. ^Ibid.. pp. 30-31. ^Compiled from Tench Coxe, A Statement of the Arts and Manufactures of the United States of America for the Year 1É10 (Philadelphia; A. Cornman, Junr., 181^). ■^Robert Hunter, Jr., Quebec to Carolina in 1785-1786. Being the Travel Diary and Observations of Robert Hunter.""^ L

Ten years later Isaac Weld of Ireland visited the city and noted Baltimore is supposed to contain sixteen thousand inhabitants, and . . . is the largest town in Maryland, and the most considerable place of trade in North America, after Philadelphia and New York. . . . The greater number of private houses . . . are of brick. . . . The churches and places for public worship are ten in number. . . . They have no less than three incorporated banks in this town. . . . Amongst the inhabitants of Baltimore are to be found English, Irish, Scotch, and French. The Irish appear to be most numerous; and many of the principal merchants in town are in the number. . . . With a few exceptions the inhabitants are all engaged in trade, which is closely attended to. . . . Cards and dancing are favourite amusements. . . . There are two theatres here, in which there are performances occasionally. Weld concluded that the rising prosperity of Baltimore was assured through easy access by water to the increasingly populous American hinterland.^ Christopher Hughes, senior, the father of the dip­ lomat left his native Ireland as a young man, migrated to the New World, end settled in Baltimore about I??!» After working at a trade for a time, he became a merchant and then, about 1?84, invested in real estate. During the next 40 years he managed and developed his properties so well

Jr.. a Young Merchant of London, edited by Louis B. Wright and Marion Tinling (San Marino, California; The Huntington jpibrary, 19^3) pp. 179-180. ^Isaac Weld, Junior, Travels through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, during' the Years 1794. 1796. and 1797. ^ vols. (3rd éd.. London:John Stockdale, 1800) I, 4J-46. 7Ibid.. p. 55, 59-60. that they were valued at close to half a million dollars at his death in 1824. He not only amassed wealth, but he also displayed a baronial generosity and hospitality. His establishment consumed two pipes of Madeira annually and was served by eight slaves. If he was generous, he was also stern. His son Christopher remembered him as a tyrant who sometimes coddled his family and sometimes ruled it with a rod of iron.® The Hughes family was large. Of fourteen children, only six reached adulthood, however. Young Christopher pitied his meek mother, respected his older brother George, deeply loved his twin-sister Peggy, but apparently had little to do with his three,other sisters. Nevertheless, all acknowledged the dominant authority of the father. The wealthy patriarch, who had come to the New World as an immigrant from Ireland, tried to give his name­ sake the benefits of a good education. After attending a preparatory school at Annapolis, young Christopher entered the sophomore class at the College of New Jersey at Princeton in January, 1803. However, he wasted his time, neglected his studies, and was suspended in November of the p Christopher Hughes, senior, to Mrs. Jane O'Brien, 22 Oct 1801, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Christopher Hughes, Junior to John Quincy Adams, 30 May 1834, AP reel 499. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790; Mary­ land (Washington: Government Printing Office, 190?) p. 35» same year. Perhaps It was at this period that he ran away to sea to escape his creditors. However it was, the yoang Hughes quickly became disenchanted with the life of a sailor, bowed to the wish of his father that he resume his studies, and was readmitted to the college just before Christmas, 1803. For the next few years he appears to have studied diligently. The college granted him an A.B. degree in I805 and an A.M. degree in I809, the latter possibly in recognition of legal studies pursued at 9 Baltimore. After completing his education, Hughes showed lit­ tle interest in a legal career or in any steady occupation. He seems to have been a gay young blade with a greater talent for spending money than for earning it. To defend his gentlemanly honor, ne fought four duels, apparently without any fatality. Politics offered some excitement, and Hughes assisted Senator Samuel Smith in opposing the Federalists. He wrote articles for Smith, served as his bodyguard, and was his favorite companion, for a time Companionship with Smith led to love with his daughter Laura. The senator regarded his one-time

^M. Halsey Thomas (Princeton University Archivist) to author, 3 May I967. Hughes to Adams, 30 May 183^, AP reel 499.

^^Hughes to Mrs. Peggy Moore, 23 Aug I83I, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 30 May 1834, AP reel 499. companion as a neer-do-well and not fit to marry into his family. Nevertheless, despite the clear opposition of the entire Smith family, Christopher Hughes married Laura Smith in 1811. Ostracized, the newly-weds found refuge with his twin sister Peggy and her husband, Colonel Samuel Moore. Marriage to Laura Smith and the outbreak of the War of 1812 seem to have sobered Hughes and to have induced him to consider his future more seriously. In the summer of 1813 he attended some sort of social affair at Mont­ pelier, the Virginia estate of President Madison, and apparently made a favorable impression by his pleasant manner and conversation. Later that year, he applied to the Secretary of the Treasury at Washington for appoint­ ment as a collector. Soon afterward, Hughes wrote to James Monroe that he would like an appointment as surveyor of the port of Baltimore if he failed to receive the Treasury position. As 1813 came to a close, Hughes was serving as a captain of artillery at Fort McHenry, but he 12 was looking beyond the war for a permanent job. At the same time that Hughes applied to the federal government for employment, British Foreign Secretary Lord

llj.Q. Adams diary, entry for 4 Jan 181?» AP reel 33* Hughes to Mrs. Peggy Moore, 21 May 1822 and 23 Aug 1831; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 1 ? Hughes to Monroe, 7 Nov 1813; Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. Hughes to Mrs. Madison, 8 Nov 1827, Madison Papers, LC. Hughes to Adams, 17 Nov 1827, AP reel 483. 8

Castlereagh wrote to American Secretary of State James Monroe proposing direct negotiations to end the war between Britain and the United States. Early in January, 1814, 13 President Madison accepted the British proposal. During this period, the United States maintained a rather small apparatus for the conduct of foreign relations. The Secretary of State, assisted by a staff of eight or ten clerks and messengers, communicated with representatives of foreign governments residing in the United States and cor­ responded with representatives of the United States posted abroad. In 1810 ministers plenipotentiary represented the United States in four countries: Great Britain, Prance, Spain, and Russia. Ten years later, the number of American legations had increased to seven, but that number was still small. Furthermore, the United States adopted the practice of leaving certain legations under the supervision of a charge d'affaires rather than a minister. To be sure, in 1810 sixty consular posts performed commercial duties for I the United States in foreign ports, but consular officers usually had no access to foreign governments, received no salary, and had to maintain themselves with fees charged for the services they performed. In comparison with the

13 "^Bradford Perkins, Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States. 1812-1823 (Berkeley and Los Angles: University of California Z^ess, 1964) p. 23. powers of Europe in the first quarter of the 19th century, the United States had no professional diplomatic organi­ zation and could offer little in the way of a diplomatic 14 career to an aspiring young man. In 1810 the Congress reviewed the question of com­ pensation for American diplomats and established a pattern which was to remain unchanged for more than forty years. Ministers plenipotentiary were to receive an annual salary of S9 ,000, while charge d'affaires were to receive $4,500. A minister plenipotentiary generally had the assistance of a secretary of legation who was to receive an annual sal­ ary of $2,000. On proceeding from the United States to take up an appointment abroad, a minister or a charge were to receive an outfit, a sum equal to one year’s salary to defray the expense of establishing a new residence, 'fhile this pattern of compensation may have seemed adequate or even generous to many members of Congress, a number of American diplomats found these salaries discouragingly inadequate

14 Gaillard Hunt, The Department of State of the United States; Its History and Functions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1914) p. Ï90-201. William Barnes and John Heath Morgan, The Foreign Service of the United States: Origins. Development, and Functions (Washington; Department of State, 1961) pp. 54, 6Ô, 3^9» 350* l^U.S. Congress, Annals of the Congress of the United States, 11th Congress, vol. II (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853) pp. 2^ 85-2587. 10

At the beginning of 1814, Christopher Hughes of Baltimore stood at the threshold of a diplomatic career. However, years of aspiration, disappointment, and work passed before he accepted diplomacy as his way of life. CHAPTER II

TOWARD A DIPLOMATIC CAREER

At the beginning of 1814 Christopher Hughes had only fuzzy and formless notions about a future career, but two and a half years later his thoughts focussed on two possi­ bilities. During the interval he had three important experiences which sharpened his thinking. He played a minor role in the negotiation of a treaty of peace at Ghent; he represented Baltimore in the Maryland legislature; and he achieved partial success on a special mission for his gov­ ernment in South America. These experiences enabled and encouraged Hughes to formulate his aspirations along either of two alternative courses: serving his country abroad or serving a constituency at home. When the opportunity ar­ rived for him to decide on a career, these experiences, combined with background influences and problems, suggested that he should try diplomacy, at least for a while.

Apprentice to Five Masters: Ghent. 1814 On February 2, I8l4, President Madison sent a mes­ sage to the Senate nominating Christopher Hughes to be "secretary of the joint mission for negotiating a treaty of

11 12 peace and of commerce with Great Britain."^ In a letter 111'"oi'T:!:'!.:' 'rù '.h'.in cf th: no-'in'%tlon, "^cretary of :%mes .lonroe mentioned the.t number of youny men had appeared ynalifled foi- trc appointment hut that the freaidant had "■■'.of'tn particular interest in him. Apparently, :'u%hes had favorably impressed itadison during the pleasant social eve­ ning at wontpeiier in the suiamer of 1013. The denatc 2 quickly approved the nomination, and Hughes eagerly accepted. He became a member of a mission which eventually included five "ministers plenipotentiary and extraordinary," an attache who assisted with clerical duties on occasion, and a varying number of young men nominally employed as private secretaries by the ministers. Already In Europe were three ministers: John Quincy Adams, James A. Bayard, and Albert Gallatin. The other two ministers, Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell, were to meet Hughes and William Shaler, the attache. In New York and sail for Europe in the United States Corvette John Adams.^ Because of hostilities

U.''. fonrrarc, -"ennte . Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America ("ashinr ton: ^'u^f Groan, 1?2&) II, . 2 ’''onroe to "nrhas, 2 1P1 4 , ' T t ? s tnpera, VLCL. Hughes to Adams, 1? Nov 1827, AP reel 483. y "Monroe to Russell, 2 Peb 1814; copy of Presiden­ tial cornlsolon on yeoco to an y ^ and Russell, 18 jan 1814; copy of Presidential commission or. connorco Itcu.af to ^avarf. Clay, anf Tnaoall, 18 Jan 1814; copies of similar Presidential commissions 13 and the unsettled conditions prevailing In much of Europe, the joint mission was to assemble at Gothenburg, Sweden, where the negotiations were expected to take place. According to Instructions from the Secretary of State, Hughes left Baltimore Immediately In order to assume his new duties. Because of the tardiness of Russell and bad weather conditions, he had to tarry In New York for about two weeks. At last, the corvette sailed on February 25 with Hughes, Clay, Russell, and Shaler on board and if. arrived at Gothenburg on April 13, Nearly three months elapsed, however, before the joint mission finally assembled In one place, and that place was Ghent rather than Gothenburg, When the corvette arrived In Sweden with part of the mission, Adams was still In St. Petersburg as American minister to Russia while Gallatin and Bayard had just arrived In London from Amster­ dam for unofficial talks with the British. The latter. In view of the abdication of Napoleon and the more settled conditions In Europe, now preferred to negotiate In a

Issued to Gallatin, 9 Feb 1814; copy of Presidential com­ mission Issued to Hughes, 3 Feb 1814; copy of Monroe to joint mission, undated, on Shaler; all In Russell Papers, BUL.

^Clay to Monroe, 13 Feb 1814 and 23 Feb 1814; Clay and Russell to Bayard and Gallatin, 14 April 1814; all three In The Papers of Henry Clay, edited by James F. Hopkins and Mary W, M. Hargreaves (Lexington; University of Kentucky Press, 1 9 5 9 -), i, 866, 869, and 875, respectively. 14 place doser to London. Weeks passed while the American ministers communicated with each other, settled on Ghent as the site for negotiations, and then began to travel toward that city.^ Meanwhile, Hughes visited London. He carried let­ ters and packages to Gallatin and Bayard, and he was also prepared to perform secretarial duties for them. However, his real reasons for making the visit were to admire the metropolis and to see his wife’s sister Mary, who many years earlier had married an Englishman named Mansfield.^ Arriving on May 9 , he found lodging in the same house where Bayard lodged. While the "immense mass of houses" and the "ostensible comfort" of London astonished him, he soon became ill in body and spirit and wanted to return to 7 the United States. Perhaps the refusal of the Mansfields to receive him contributed to his depressed spirit; they had not yet forgiven Hughes for marrying Laura Smith in defiance of her father. Toward the end of June, Hughes

^Copy of Clay and Russell to Bayard and Gallatin, 14 April 1814; copy of Clay and Russell to Adams, 14 April 1814; copy of joint mission to Monroe, 11 July 1814; all three in Russell Papers, BUL. ^Clay to Bayard and Gallatin, 2 May 1814, and Clay to Russell, 4 May 1814, both in Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henrv Clav. I, 89I and 893. J.Q. Adams diary, 4 Jan IÉI7 , AP reel 33* Hughes to Gallatin, 19 Jan 1827, Gallatin Papers, NYHS. ^Hughes to Clay, I5 May 1814, in Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henry Clav. I, 913-915. 15

left London, spent a few pleasant days in Paris, and Q arrived at Ghent on July 7» After the arrival of Hughes, the members of the joint mission established a certain degree of organization and agreed to certain procedures in order to accomplish the tasks of negotiation which lay ahead. Adams regarded him­ self as first among five equals because his name appeared first in the commission issued by President Madison. Although Russell grumbled about the accidents of the alpha­ bet, no one challenged Adams. Therefore, he invited the other ministers to a meeting in his hotel room at noon on July 9» The meeting lasted four hours. Although much of the discussion concerned the prospects for the negotiations and other substantive matters, the ministers dealt with procedural matters as well. They determined how Hughes should maintain the records of the mission and decided that Shaler should assist Hughes in copying documents. On July 11 the ministers held another meeting at which they discussed and approved the text of the first despatch of the mission to the Secretary of State. After this meeting, Adams gave Hughes the rough draft from which a fair copy

8~ J.Q. Adams diary, 7 July 1814, AP reel 26, Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, 1 Aug 1814, in Writings of John Adams, edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford, 7 vols. ,New York, I913-I7), v, 69. Hughes to William Harris Crawford, 24 Nov 1814, Crawford Papers, DUL. 16 was to be prepared. In this fashion, the joint mission o organized itself and began to function. Although the Americans were ready to begin nego­ tiations, they had to wait nearly a month for the British representatives to arrive at Ghent. During this interval, the members of the mission decided to leave their temporary lodgings at the Hotel des Pays-Bas and occupy more comfort­ able lodgings on a monthly basis. After some search and much discussion, the five ministers rented a house in the liue des Champs and moved into it on the last day of July. Although they would have been happy to have shared the house with the other members of the mission, Hughes, Shaler, and the private secretaries decided that they could find quar­ ters more to their liking elsewhere in town.^*^ Writing to his wife about Hughes, Adams commented that, ”I regret the loss of his society, for he is lively and good-humored, smart at a repartee, and a thorough punster. . .

^John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1796 to 1È48. edited by Charles Francis Adams, 12 vols. (Philadelphia, 1874-77) ±1, 656-657» Adams to Bayard, Clay, and Bussell, 2 Jan I8I 5 , and Russell to Clay, I5 Oct I8I5 , both in Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henry Clay. II, 1-2, and II, 72-78, respectively. ^^Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, I9 July 1814, in Ford, Writings of John Quincy Adams. V, 64, J.Q. Adams diary, 31 July 1814, AP reel 32. ^^Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, 1 Aug 1814, in Ford, Writings of John Quincy Adams. V, 69, 17

Nevertheless, Hughes and the other Junior members of the mission usually dined with the ministers every day. While waiting for the British, the Americans associated with each other in perfect harmony. Also during this interval, Hughes became ill with a fever and was confined to his bed for about a week. At the height of the fever, Adams and several other members of the mission took turns sitting with the sick secretary. About this time, something like a father-son relationship began to develop between Adams and H u g h e s . ^3 The weeks of waiting ended for the American mission early in August. On the morning of the 7th, Anthony St. John Baker, secretary to the British commission, called on Bayard and informed him that three British commissioners had arrived the previous evening in Ghent and were prepared to begin negotiations. That afternoon, the American minis­ ters sent Hughes to call on Baker and to propose that the first meeting between the British and American representa­ tives be held the following day at one o ’clock in the Hotel des Pays-Bas, The British agreed, and at the appointed hour the American ministers, accompaniedty their secretary, arrived at the hotel. When the representatives of the two

Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, 12 Aug 1814, in Ford, Writings of John Quincy Adams. V, 73» Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, II, 661.

^^J.Q. Adams diary, 21-2? July 1814, AP reel 26. 18 governments exchanged copies of their full powers, they closed a long period of anticipation and opened an equally 14 long period of arduous negotiation. While the American ministers debated sharply with each other In their regular strategy meetings and while they patiently and tenaciously upheld the Interests of their coun­ try in a series of verbal and written exchanges with the British commissioners, Hughes busied himself with his bur­ den of unexciting but Important clerical duties. On August 8, he sat up with Adams and Gallatin until after midnight deci­ phering messages from the Secretary of State. On the 9th, after the ministers agreed on the text of a protocol des­ cribing the first encounter with the British, Adams asked him to prepare a fair copy. On the 12th, the ministers de­ cided that Hughes should henceforth attend their regular strategy meetings in order to keep a record of the proceed­ ings of the mission. In addition, Hughes had charge of the petty cash and paid for postage, bought despatch boxes, and made other disbursements. Although he was Involved In great matters of state, he felt his relative Insignificance and face­ tiously referred to himself as "the fly on the coach wheel.

^^Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Ill, 3-5* Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henry Clay. I, 952- 953* Not expecting the British, Russell had gone on a pleasure trip to Dunkirk and missed this first meeting. ^^Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Ill, 7, 10. J.Q. Adams diary, 12 Atig lSl4, AP reel 32. Christopher 19

Hughes was not a passive observer, however. He had much to learn about his duties, and he experienced difficult moments in his apprenticeship. Adams, as nominal chief of the mission, assumed primary responsibility for the instruc­ tion of Hughes and for ensuring that certain standards were maintained. Early in the negotiations, Hughes was instructed to prepare a fair copy of a sixteen-page note to the British. When he presented his hand-penned copy to Adams, the latter exploded, "Is this your best. Sir? We can't sign such a spot of work as that."^^ Thereupon, Hughes went to work to prepare a second copy. This, too, failed to meet the stern standards of Adams. Not until Hughes had copied the note for a third time did Adams grant his approval. Incidents such as this inspired Hughes and others to nickname their chief "Ignis Patuus" or "Foolish Fire.Nevertheless, Hughes apparently learned quickly, pleased his masters, prepared a steady stream of fair cop- 18 ies, and, after signature, delivered them to the British. Despite the nicknames, it was not all work and rou­ tine for the American mission at Ghent. On the contrary,

Hughes manuscript notebook, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 7 May 1815, AP reel 4 2 ) . ^^Hughes to Adams, fî7 June 1833» AP reel 497* ^7Hughe8 to Russell, 7 May 1815, 25 May 1815, and 20 Nov 1815, all three in Russell Papers, BUL. ^®J.Q. Adams diary, 26 Sept 1814 and 10 Nov 1814, AP reel 32. Adams. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. III. 58. 68-69, 99-100. ------20

Interspersed between days of furious activity were weeks of waiting while the British commissioners communicated with their superiors in London. During these slack periods, the Americans found amusement and diversion where interest and opportunity led them. Between July and October, Hughes made five trips away from Ghent, each trip lasting from two to five days. He visited Antwerp three times and Brussels twice. On one trip. Colonel George Milligan, Bayard’s private secretary, accompanied him. On another trip, Hughes travelled with Clay and Russell. A third time, he accompanied Gallatin and Bayard. During this last trip, he joined the "chevalier," as Bayard was called among the Americans, for a side trip to Bergen op Zoom. If he did not travel anywhere with Adams, the reason probably was that the latter chose to remain in the city at Ghent during the whole period cf the negotiations. While diverting, these excursions offered Hughes opportuni- IQ ties to become better acquainted with his associates. ^ Social life in the city of Ghent also provided opportunities for Hughes to form acquaintanceships which endured for decades. On August 12 the American ministers invited all American citizens in the city for dinner;

^^J.Q. Adams diary, 13 July 1814 to 21 Oct 1814, AP reel 26. J.Q. Adams diary, 22 Aug 1814 to 23 Oct 1814, AP reel 32. Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, 16 Dec 1814, in Ford, Writings of John Quincy Adams. V, 238-239. 21 a total of 22 persons sat down at the table. The following evening, the American mission entertained the three British commissioners for dinner. Ten days later, the intendant of Ghent gave a dinner for 25 persons, including both the British and American missions. On the 27th, the British gave a dinner for the Americans. Several days later, the

i Americans gave a dinner for 30 persons with band music, an illuminated garden, and card games later on. 20 Perhaps it was on some occasion such as this that Gallatin acquired 21 the sobriquet "the ace of spades." Other dinners Allowed, but social life acquired more variety as the members of the American mission became better established in the oommurdty. In October, the intelligentsia of Ghent wanted to recognize the distinguished Americans who were laboring for peace with honor# The Society of Fine Arts and Letters and the Society of Agriculture and Botany drew lots to determine which Americans should be invited by the respective soci­ eties to become honorary members. As it turned out, Adams, Bayard, and Gallatin received invitations from the former society while Clay, Russell, and Hughes received invita­ tions from the latter. Although Russell felt somewhat

20Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Ill, 21-31. Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, l6 Aug 1814, in Ford, Writings of John Quincy Adams. V, 83. Russell diary, 12 Aug 1814 and 13 Aug l8l4, in The Gentleman*s Annual Remembrancer for the Year. 1814. Rare Book Collection. BUL. 21 Hughes to Russell, 6 Aug I8I6 , Russell Papers, BUL. 22 affronted by this association with the lovrer-rariking secre­ tary, the episode illustrates the friendly attitude of the 22 people of Ghent toward their American visitors. Besides dining with the other members of the Ameri­ can mission on a more or less regular basis and besides accepting invitations to dine elsewhere, Hughes-also gave small dinners occasionally in his ovm lodgings. At least twice in November and three times in December he gave such ( dinners and included, at one time or another, all five of 23 the ministers for whom he worked. In doing so, Hughes was laying the basis for the career which he eventually followed. On November 27 the American ministers received a British note which led them to conclude that a peace treaty was not only possible but probable. Several consequences followed from this conclusion. The ministers decided to Institute strict secrecy in order to safeguard the negotia­ tions during this new and critical stage. They further decided that only Hughes, among the other members of the

22 Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Ill, 58-59» Bayard to Richard Henry Biayard, 27 Oct l&lb, in "Papers of James A. Bayard, I796-I8I5" edited by Elizabeth Donnan, in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1913. 2 vols. Washington. 1919Ï. II. 349-350. ^^J.Q. Adams diary, I9 Nov 181^, 2 Dec 1814, and 15 Dec 1814, AP reel 32. Russell diary, I5 Nov 1814, 15 Dec 1814, and I7 Dec 1814, in The Gentleman*s Annual Remembrancer for the Year. 1814. Rare Book Collection, BUL. 23 mission, had a need to be kept Informed. Sensing these decisions, Shaler soon convinced himself that the ministers had lost confidence In him. Therefore, he requested and received permission to return to the United States. During the next few weeks, the negotiations moved briskly ahead. 2Ur By December 23 the negotiators had come to an agree­ ment on the text of a peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States. At a meeting on that day, they decided that each mission should prepare three fair copies of the treaty and that those copies should be signed and exchanged the following day. After the meeting on the 23rd, Hughes began preparing two fair copies while Clay undertook to prepare a third copy. At four o ’clock on the afternoon of December 24, the five American ministers with their secretary arrived at the residence of the British commissioners for the formal sign­ ing of the treaty. Two and a half hours later, the six copies of the treaty had been examined, compared, corrected, 2 5 signed, sealed, and exchanged. The next problem facing the American mission was to transmit to Washington three copies of the treaty as quickly 24 Adams, Memoirs of John Qulncv Adams. Ill, 70, 90-91 • Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, 29 Nov 18l4, In Ford, Writings of John Qulncv Adams. V, 219-220. ^^Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Ill, 126. Russell diary, 23 Dec 18l4 and 24 Dec 1&14,In The Gentle­ man’s Annual Remembrancer for the Year. 1814. Rare Book Collection, BUL. 24 and as safely as possible. The ministers decided to send one copy with Hughes, who was to depart early on December 26 for Paris and then proceed to Bordeaux to sail on the Ameri­ can ship Trans it. Henry Carroll, Clay's private secretary, was to carry a second copy and depart later on the same day for England where he hoped to find speedy passage to the United States. The ministers expected to send a third copy by a vessel then at Amsterdam. '' Late on December 25 as Hughes was gathering together some of the despatches which he was to carry to the Secre­ tary of State, the strain of the previous weeks disturbed his normally equable disposition. He had worked hard and well, and he had expected some kind of favorable mention in the despatches of the mission. When he found no such mention, he exclaimed to Adams and Bayard that the omis­ sion "takes away /a/ great part of my satisfaction in being the bearer of the treaty.Later in the evening when he said farewell to Clay, he broke down and wept because of his disappointment. Nevertheless, the next morning at four o'clock, Hughes, carrying the precious

26 Adams to Abigail Adams, 24 Dec 1814; Adams to John Adams, 26 Dec 1814; Adams to Louisa Catherine Adams, 27 Dec 1814; all tliree in Ford, Writings of John Cuincy Adams. V, 24?-255. 27 Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Ill, 128. 25 treaty and the latest despatches of the mission, set out 28 on the road to Paris. After a brief pause In Paris with William Harris Crawford, the American minister, Hughes continued his jour­ ney to Bordeaux and arrived on January 1. Up to this point, he had pressed forward tirelessly In an effort to convey the good news of peace to his country, but henceforth Hughes was at the mercy of wind and weather. The schooner Transit did not sail for a week and, when she finally left the Garonne, made slow headway against tempestuous seas. With sails In tatters and food nearly gone, the ship arrived at New London, Connecticut, on March 1, 1815# Hughes soon discovered that Henry Carroll had delivered his copy of the treaty to Washington two weeks earlier and that the Presi­ dent had ratified It already. Eventually, Hughes arrived at the capital with his copy of the treaty together with the despatches from the mission. For ten days he had dis­ cussions with President Madison, with Secretary of State Monroe, and with others concerning the negotiations and negotiators at Ghent. At last, Hughes returned to

28 Hughes to Clay, 2? Nov 1844, In Works of Henry Clay. Comprising his Life, Correspondence, and Speeches, edited by Calvin Colton, 10 vois. (New York: G.P. Putnam•e Sons, 1904) V, 503-506. 26

Baltimore. He had ended an episode In his life but had laid 29 the foundation of a career.

An American Politician; Baltimore. 1816 The Christopher Hughes who returned to Baltimore in the spring of I8I5 seemed different in certain respects from the one who had left a year earlier. Talkative as always, he was now listened to by the Secretary of State and by the President. Both Clay and Crawford had testified that Hughes had served well at Ghent, and the former secretary to the peace mission could speak authoritatively on the Anglo- American negotiations and on the larger problems of Europe. Hughes had left behind his wild youth and had emerged as a public figure.^® Perceiving this change Senator Samuel Smith led his family in a reconciliation with his son-in-law and with his

^^Hughes to Russell, 6 Jan I8I 5 » Adams to Bayard, Clay, and Russell, 9 Jan 1815» Hughes to Russell, 7 May 1815; all three in Russell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Adams, 7 Kay I8I 5 , AP reel 423. Fred L. Engelman, The Peace of Christmas Eve (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, I962) p. 287, asserts that Hughes sailed directly to Annapolis and arrived before Carroll. His assertion is at variance with the version given above and is unsupported by any citation of evidence.

^^Clay to Monroe, 26 Dec 1814, in Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henry Clay. I, IOO9 . Crawford to Monroe, 28 Dec 1814, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 5 . Hughes to Monroe, 28 April I8I5 , Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Hughes to Russell, 7 May I8I5 , Russell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Adams, 7 May 1815, AP reel 423. 27 daughter. The old senator Invited Kughes to spend a month at Montebello, his luxurious country home, and he bestowed upon his daughter property which he valued at $25,000. Though neither Smith nor Eughes could envisage the conse­ quences of this restoration of family harmony, both 31 ultimately benefitted from it. As in the autumn of 1813, so also in the spring of 1815 Hughes was unemployed and wanted a job. However, he now had a much clearer idea of the kind of employment which would satisfy him. In the space of one week he sent three letters to Monroe asking for an appointment as secretary of legation, preferably at Paris. He argued that his Ghent experience qualified him for such a position, that his former masters on the peace mission would support his application, and that one or two more years in Europe would prepare him "for further usefulness at home."^^ Hughes wanted to go abroad as a diplomat, and he used arguments calculated to achieve his purpose. However, the prospect of public service probably attracted him less than the wonders and delights of Europe.

^^Hughes to Russell, 7 May 1815 and 1 Aug 1815, Bussell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 23 Aug 1831, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 32 Hughes to Monroe, 28 April 1815, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6 . Hughes to Monroe, 29 April I8I 5 and 4 May I 8I 5 , Christopher Hughes MSS, HSF. Hughes to Russell, 7 May I8I5 and 25 May I8I5 , both in Bussell Papers, BUL. 28

'îonroe replied on May 12 #lth a friendly but firm rejection of this application for employment. The Secre­ tary of State declared that the new ministers to be appointed would have a voice in the selection of their secretaries, that the appointment of Hughes to the Ghent mission had been Intended to advance his interests at home, and that other applicants for office with equally good claims had not been granted even temporary appointments. As an alternative to service abroad, Monroe suggested that Hughes consider the practice of law or the possibility of 34 election to the state legislature. For two months Hughes reflected about his future. He gave his diplomatic uniform to William Shaler, who sailed for Algiers as consul general; he asserted that his interests in Europe had declined; and he discovered a cer­ tain amount of popularity among the citizens of Baltimore. Perhaps the suggestions of Monroe influenced him somewhat, but probably the counsel and assistance of Samuel Smith were decisive. At any rate, in mid-July Hughes decided to campaign for election to the Maryland general assembly as 35 a representative of Baltimore.

34 Monroe to Hughes, 12 May 1815, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^^Hughes to Russell, 25 May 1815 and 1 Aug 1815, both in Russell Papers, BUL, Hughes to Adams, 25 May 1815, AP reel 423. Hughes to Monroe, 19 July 1815, Christopher Hughes MSS, ESP. 29

The election was held on October 2, and Hughes received a plurality. Two other candidates also sought the office, an older one and a younger one. Although the older candidate received little electoral support, Hughes’s nargin of victory over the younger candidate was narrow. Nevertheless, he won the opportunity, as he said, "to make laws and speeches. The session of the legislature opened at Annapolis early in December and continued until the end of January, I8l6. At the outset, Hughes found his duties strenuous. From one-half to two-thirds of the business of the legis­ lature seemed to concern Baltimore, but the state constitu­ tion permitted that city to send only two representatives while each rural county sent four representatives. As the session progressed, however, Hughes felt that his duties became less burdensome, and he began to regard his labors 37 with some satisfaction. Toward the end of the session, Hughes unexpectedly became a candidate for election to the United States House of Representatives. The congressman, regularly elected from Baltimore, had resigned his seat before completing his

^^Hughes to Adams, 16 Oct 1815, AP reel 426. 37 Hughes to Monroe, 2 Dec 1815 and 1 Feb 1816, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. Hughes to Monroe, 16 Jan 1816, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Hughes to Crawford, 14 Feb 1816, Crawford Papers, DUL. 30 term, and the Maryland legislature had the duty of filling the vacancy. Prospects for the election of Hughes appeared excellent until another unforeseen development occurred. Before filling the congressional vacancy, the legislature had to elect a United States Senator. Two candidates contended for the honor: Samuel Smith, the Republican incumbent, and Robert Goodloe Harper, a nationally known Federalist. By a single vote. Smith lost the election to Harper. Undaunted, Smith then became interested in winning the congressional seat. While Hughes could perhaps not have won the election against Smith, he quickly withdrew from the contest in favor of his father-in-law. Smith won 38 the election, and family harmony was preserved. Several weeks after the close of the session at Annapolis, Hughes went to Washington for a few days to renew contact with Monroe, Crawford, Clay, and other promi­ nent persons. Although he probably did not request any appointment as he had done nearly a year earlier, he almost surely let others know of his political standing in Mary­ land. Perhaps he also suggested his readiness to assume greater public responsibilities. When he left Washington and returned to Baltimore, he had the reputation of being

OO Hughes to Monroe, 16 Jan 1816, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6 . Hughes to Russell, 5 Feb 1816, Russell Papers, BUL. 31 not only a former diplomat but also a rising young politi­ cian.^^

Special Agent: Cartagena. 1816 Almost as soon as Hughes arrived In Baltimore, he received a confidential letter from Monroe requesting him to return to Washington Immediately. The Spanish authori­ ties at Cartagena In New Granada had Imprisoned a number of American citizens, said Monroe, and the President had decided to send a special agent on a United States naval vessel to demand their release. Because many of those citizens were from Baltimore and because a person of dis­ cretion and sound judgment was required, Hughes appeared to Monroe as the best qualified person who might be willing to assume the responsibility for this task. If Hughes would come to Washington, Monroe could explain the problem and the proposed course of action more fully. Without ques- 40 tlon, Hughes accepted the summons of his government. The problem facing the United States arose out of the efforts of Spain to regain control over the rebellious colonies of the crumbling Spanish Empire. Along with other

^^Hughes to Monroe, 1 Feb 1816, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. Hughes to Crawford, 14 Feb 1816, Crawford Papers, DUL. Monroe to Hughes, 23 Feb 1816, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 17 May 1816, AP reel 431. 40 Monroe to Hughes, 23 Feb 1816, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Russell, 6 March 1816, Russell Papers, BUL. 32 parts of that empire, the port cities of Cartagena and nearby Santa Marta on the northern coast of South America asserted their independence from Spain during the Napoleonic wars in Europe. With the reestablishment of Ferdinand on the throne of Spain, Spanish military and naval forces quickly occupied Santa Marta in the summer of 1815 but did not take Cartagena until December after a long and bitter siege. On their entry into these cities, the Spanish authorities initiated repressive measures which often 41 seemed cruel and vindictive. While neither the American government at Washington nor the Spanish authorities at Cartagena seem to have known precisely how many Americans suffered innocently or other­ wise, the dimensions of the problem eventually became apparent. In December, 1815, a total of three ships from Baltimore were tricked into technical violations of a paper blockade by the authorities at Cartagena. As a consequence, the authorities seized the ships with their cargoes and imprisoned the crews, all without any pretense of trial or other legal proceeding. In addition, a ship from New Orleans, disabled and lying at anchor off the coast, was seized by two Spanish naval vessels and taken to Santa Marta. 4l Jesus Maria Henao and Gerardo Arrubla, History of Columbia « translated and edited by J. Fred Hippy (Cha'pel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1938) pp. 270-276. 33

The fate of this ship, with cargo and crew, then became the same as that of the other three ships. Finally, two ships from Norfolk received similar treatment from Spanish author­ ities at other ports in the area. Although the authorities quickly sold or otherwise disposed of the cargoes, they kept the American crewmen in prison on short rations. Some managed to escape; many died from disease; and the rest suffered from ill treatment. The problem of the United States, then, was a matter of protecting American 42 citizens and property. Monroe took the position that these actions of the Spanish authorities violated international law and usage. First of all, the blockade proclaimed by them was not effectively and properly enforced. Therefore, it was ille­ gal. Second, even if the blockade had been legal, the maximum penalty for a breach would have been forfeiture of property. There should have been no imprisonment of anyone charged with such a breach. Third, if any American citi- I zens had been captured while serving with rebel armed forces, they should be repatriated to the United States. In view of these considerations, Monroe believed that the Spanish authorities should release both the American

— Copy of Hughes to Don Francisco de Montalvo, 11 June 18l6, enclosed with Hughes to Secretary of State, 6 July 1816, NA Communications from Special Agents, vol. 4. 34 citizens and their property on demand. He instructed 43 Hughes along these lines. Monroe also carefully advised Hughes on the mode of presenting the demand to the Spanish authorities; Our success will depend on our right in every instance, and the apprehension of the con­ sequences likely to attend a refusal to comply. If you place reliance on Spanish magnanimity, you will weaken the claim of right. . . . The delicate part of your duty will be, in resting on the right, to mingle . . . in your communications so much of conciliation as will be necessary to the object. I think the written communication should be as con­ cise as you can make it. A long essay will have no effect. . . . The measure, that is, the sending a frigate with a personality in a diplomatic char­ acter . . • , is calculated to draw attention. . . . It is the circumstance which is to produce the effect, and what you have to do is to give it fair play by presenting things in their just light. The frigate mentioned by Monroe was the Macedonian, then at Boston where Hughes was to board her. After visiting Washington, Hughes returned to Baltimore to prepare for his trip to Cartagena. News of his special mission quickly spread, and the people of Baltimore loaded him with messages and money to take to friends soon to be liberated from Spanish colonial prisons. Even the governor of Maryland sought out Hughes for a special chat. While the people of Baltimore heartily approved of the Hughes mission, the bankers hesitated to

43Konroe to Hughes, 25 March 1816, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8;40-42. 44jionroe to Hughes, 26 March I8I6 , Hughes Papers, WLCL. 35 assist with the necessary financial arrangements. Hughes had received authority from Monroe to negotiate for a loan of $4,000 in specie against the credit of the United States, This amount was intended to cover all of the expenses Hughes might have on his mission and to provide a modest honorarium besides. However, the Baltimore bankers had agreed with their colleagues in Philadelphia and New York to postpone making new loans in order to accumulate sufficient reserves to enable all to resume specie payments simultaneously. Nevertheless, the bankers held a special meeting, appar­ ently decided that the Hughes mission warranted special measures, and agreed to provide $4,000 in specie to Hughes at Boston in exchange for $4,800 to be recovered from the Secretary of State in sixty days. Having made these 45 preparations, Hughes left Baltimore on March 17. On his journey to Boston, he stopped for several days at Philadelphia to discuss his mission with the Spanish minister, Luis de Onis, who was then residing in that city. Monroe had corresponded with Onis concerning the Americans imprisoned at Cartagena and believed that the Spanish minister would facilitate the special mission. As antici­ pated, Hughes had a friendly discussion with Onis and

45 Hughes to Russell, 6 March 1816, Russell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Secretary of State, 14 March 1816, 15 March 1816, and 16 March 1816; all three in NA Communications from Special Agents, vol. 4. 36 obtained from him two letters addressed to the Spanish authorities at Cartagena. One letter Introduced Hughes while the other letter recommended the Immediate release of all Americans held for blockade violations. After receiving the letters, Hughes resumed his journey. At Boston he discovered that Captain Warrington of the Macedonian was having difficulty recruiting a crew and that, as a consequence, the frigate would probably not sail for several weeks. During this wait, Hughes called on for­ mer President Adams at nearby Quincy; he met Harrison Gray Otis and other Boston dignitaries; and he planned his com­ ing encounter with the Spanish authorities at Cartagena. Eventually, Captain Warrington succeeded In gathering a crew together. Therefore, on May 1 the Macedonian, with Hughes on board, sailed for the Spanish Main. Arriving off Cartagena on June 8, Hughes sent ashore a letter to Francisco de Montalvo, the Spanish captain- general and viceroy of New Granada, explaining his mission and requesting the release of any American citizens with

^^Monroe to Hughes, 13 March 1816, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Monroe, 21 March 1816, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Hughes to Secretary of State, 6 July 1816, NA Communications from Special Agents, vol. 4. ^^Hughes to Secretary of State, 9 April 1816, NA Communications from Special Agents, vol. 4. Hughes to Monroe, 13 April 1816, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Abigail Adams to Louisa Catterlne Adams, 24 April 1816, AP reel 430. Hughes to Adams, I7 May I8I6 , A P reel 431. 37 their property who might be detained. Montalvo replied the next day. While admitting that a number of Americans had been detained for having violated a blockade, he claimed that all had been released. Their ships and cargoes had been confiscated, he continued, but the former owners could attempt to recover them through the normal channels of Spanish Justice. Montalvo also invited Hughes ashore for an interview* Hughes accepted, asserted that some Americans still remained in prison, and obtained the viceroy’s promise that all would be set free. In attempting to arrange a restoration of the confiscated ships and cargoes, Hughes not only raised the issue of the legality of the blockade but also requested that it be modified. In making this request, Hughes exceeded his authority, as Montalvo quickly pointed out. Hughes then contented himself with preparing a detailed statement of American grievances, more for the record than in any hope of obtaining recovery of the con­ fiscated property. During his brief stay at Cartagena, Hughes arranged for the release of several American citi­ zens but achieved little else. Concluding that further 48 effort would be futile, he sailed away on June 12. Two days later, the Macedonian arrived off Santa Marta. Hughes addressed a letter to the local governor #

Hughes to Secretary of State, 6 July 1816, NA Communications from Special Agents, vol. 4. 38 requesting the release of any Americans in confinement, and he enclosed with his letter an order from the viceroy to the same effect* Lieutenant Percival, one of the officers of the frigate, carried the letter ashore. Promptly, the Spanish authorities released to him a group of Americans, Englishmen, and Frenchmen. While Captain Warrington wel­ comed the entire group aboard his ship, the English sloop of war Jay shortly arrived from Jamaica and received the Englishmen. Although the number of American citizens con­ fined by the Spanish authorities at one time totalled more than fifty, only fifteen remained for Hughes to take home aboard the Macedonian. The others had died, escaped, or had been freed. With half of his mission accomplished and no hope of accomplishing the other half, Hughes sailed for 49 the United States on June I7 . When the Macedonian reached Chesapeake Bay on July 6, Hughes sent an account of his mission to the Secretary of State. He forthrightly reported complete success in arranging for the release of American citizens and complete failure with respect to the recovery of confiscated ships and cargoesIn a private letter to Monroe, Hughes 49 Hughes to Secretary of State, 6 July I8I 6 , NA Communications from Special Agents, vol. 4. Hughes to Monroe, 6 July 1816, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Hughes to Adams, 16 June 1816, AP reel 438. ^^Hughes to Secretary of State, 6 July 1816, NA Communications from Special Agents, vol. 4. 39 observed: "I have seen enough of the abjectness of the South American to convince me of their total incapacity to effect any important change in their political condition* They are inept, benighted and degenerate. . , Having achieved partial success in his mission, Hughes happily returned to Baltimore. In the space of two and a half years, Hughes had served his country abroad and had served a constituency in the legislature at home. He had gained some experience in diplomatic affairs and domestic politics. This experience influenced him in decisions which he was soon called upon to m a k e .

^^Hughes to Monroe, 6 July 1816, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. CHAPTER III

ASSIGM'IENT TO SVJEDEN

In July, 1816, Christopher Hughes decided to accept the offer of the Secretary of State of an assignment to Sweden as charge d'affaires. This decision represented a significant turning point in the life of Hughes. During the preceding years, he had groped in an uncertain fashion toward a career. Although he had engaged in diplomatic activities at Ghent and Cartagena, he had not yet committed himself to diplomacy and had kept open the option of engag­ ing in domestic politics. During the following years, he pursued a diplomatic career sometimes with enthusiasm, sometimes with dismay, hut always with the conviction that he could pursue no other. By accepting the assignment to Sweden, Hughes made a lifetime commitment.

Sharing Authority with Jonathan Russell; 1816-18 After Hughes returned from Cartagena, he went to Washington to report to the Secretary of State, The recent voyage to the Spanish Main had made him tired, and he wanted nothing more than to rest for a while in his com­ fortable Baltimore home, Certainly he seems to have had no thought of seeking employment or favors of any kind from

40 4l the Madison administration. He appears to have visited Monroe out of a sense of duty and for no other reason. On receiving Hughes, the Secretary of State prob­ ably complimented him on his accomplishments at Cartagena and listened politely to a few anecdotes about the mission, but he really wanted to discuss with him the representation of American interests in Sweden. Jonathan Russell, the American minister at Stockholm, had requested permission to leave Sweden on the ground that diplomatic relations with that country had become less important since the restoration of peace in Europe. Russell suggested that the level of American representation might be reduced from that of minis­ ter plenipotentiary to that of charge d'affaires. This course of action would injure the sensibilities of the Swedish court less than if diplomatic relations were sus­ pended entirely. The Madison administration generally agreed with Russell but requested him to try to settle cer­ tain claims and to negotiate a commercial treaty if he could conveniently do so before leaving Sweden. Neverthe­ less, the administration had granted Russell permission to leave Stockholm whenever he wished. Monroe now wanted to know whether Hughes would like an appointment as secretary

^Hughes to Monroe, 6 July 1816, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Hughes to Monroe, 1 Aug 1816; Hughes to George Hughes, 29 May 1817; both in Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. 42 of the legation at Stockholm on the understanding that he would become charge d'affaires on the departure of Russell. Hughes replied that he would consider the offer and Inform 2 Monroe of his decision. For about two weeks Hughes deliberated. He reflec­ ted on his achievements In domestic politics and on his prospects. While his father-in-law had contributed to the former, he had also sharply limited the latter. Hughes remembered the advice of Henry Clay, given him the preceding February, to defer his hopes for advancement In this field. The conclusion appeared clear; a career In domestic poli­ tics offered little In the foreseeable future while the 3 appointment as charge represented Immediate advancement. The comfort-loving Hughes also considered possible financial arrangements. Assuming an appointment lasting three years and assuming Russell's early departure from Stockholm, Hughes reckoned that an outfit of four thousand five hundred dollars added to an annual salary of an equal amount would total eighteen thousand dollars for the period

2 Russell to Monroe, 9 Jan 1816, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. Monroe to Russell, 20 May 1816, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8;56-58* Madison to Monroe, 13 July 1816, In The Writings of James Madison . . . . edited by Gaillard Hunt, 9 vols. (New York, 1900-10) VIII, 349-350. Hughes to Monroe, 1 Aug 1816, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. ^Hughes to Clay, 13 Sept 1816, In Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henry Clay. ll, 231-233. 43 he might remain abroad. In addition, he expected to receive a private Income of about two thousand dollars annually or a total of six thousand dollars for the same period. According to his calculations, therefore, he might expect to receive a grand total of twenty-four thousand dollars In three years or an average of eight thousand dollars per year. Furthermore, after breaking up his home In Baltimore and selling his furniture, he could realize a further five thousand dollars, which sum would help him establish a residence In Stockholm. Hughes concluded that the appoint­ ment offered by Monroe would enable him to live as comfortably as he wished and, perhaps, even permit him to 4 save as much as a thousand dollars each year. In view of these considerations, Hughes decided to accept the appointment. On August 1 he wrote a long let­ ter to Monroe explaining his assumptions and calculations and then declaring, "I have determined, with the consent and approbation of Mrs. Hughes, to embark In the proposi­ tion /with whlc^ you have honoured me. . . ."^ He added that he had resigned his seat In the Maryland legislature In order to be able to accept the new position. On the same day, Hughes also wrote to the President agreeing to

^Hughes to Monroe, 1 Aug 1816, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. ^Hughes to Monroe, 1 Aug 1816, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. 44 the proposition "to go to Sweden as Secretary of Legation, and to remain as the Charge des affaires ^ l o / • • • In succession to Mr. Russell. . . Despite his decision to accept the appointment, however, Hughes did not sail for Europe until early Novem­ ber. He became 111; his wife had a miscarriage; and there was some delay In obtaining accommodation aboard a ship sailing In the general direction of Sweden. Besides, he had the task of breaking up his household In Baltimore and 7 packing for a stay of several years In Stockholm. In addition, Hughes remembered the precipitate way In which he had gone off to Ghent, and now he wanted to proceed to Stockholm In a more deliberate manner. He wrote to his recently-acquired friend, Harrison Gray Otis: It occurs to me that you may have It In your power to be useful to me. I may be In many parts of Europe before I come home. The last time I started back formost ^lo/. Now, I want to start right. Letters are no trouble to carry and very expedient to have. If you can give or get me any, no matter tg what place, I will thank you for them.. . .

^Hughes to the President, 1 Aug 1816, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. ^Hughes to Russell, 6 Aug 1816, Russell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Monroe, 10 Aug 18l6, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Hughes to Monroe, 5 Sept 1816, Christopher Hughes MSS, ESP. Hughes to Monroe, 24 Sept 1816 and 19 Oct 1816, both In NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. g Hughes to Otis, 30 Sept 1816, Otis Papers, MHS. 45

Otis responded with a letter of introduction to his uncle, Harrison Gray, then living In London. Hughes approached other prominent persons with the same request and eventually collected 45 letters of intro­ duction. Among the contributors were William Harris Crawford, then Secretary of the Treasury, and Sir Charles Bagot, the British Minister at Washington. Among the addressees were the Duke of Wellington, then at Paris, and Alexander Baring, the London banker. By means of these letters, Hughes could expect to gain entry into diplomatic and business circles in London, Paris, Brussels, Copenhagen, g Stockholm, and elsewhere. When the departure of Hughes became imminent, the Secretary of State prepared instructions for him: Mr. Russell, in case he is still at Stockholm, will present you to the Government of Sweden, as Secretary of Legation, and on his departure, you will take the character of Charge d'Affaires, and perform the duties incident thereto. If he should have departed before your arrival, you will present your Commission of Secretary of Legation to the Secretary of State /of Swede^, and inform him that you are authorized to act as Charge des Affaires 2^ic7 .... The instructions heretofore given to Mr. Bussell with those now sent by you will be your guide. . . . Although a general peace is established throughout Europe, yet there seem to be some symptoms of inquietude. . . . It is expected that you will attend to every movement of any importance, and communicate it to this Depart­ ment. . . . You will receive under cover with

^Christopher Hughes manuscript notebook, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Crawford, 22 Oct 1816, Crawford Papers, DUL. 46

this a Letter of Credit on our Bankers in London, by which you will perceive you are authorized to draw on them for your Salary at the rate of #2,000 per annum, and for a Quarter's.Salary to meet the expenses of your Voyage. . . . At the same time that Monroe prepared these instructions for Hughes, he prepared instructions for

Russell as well: As it is somewhat uncertain whether Mr. Hughes may find you at Stockholm, or if he does,whether you can remain there without making a sacrifice which it would be improper to ask, I forbear to press the subject of the /commercial/ convention or of the claims /settlemen;^ upon you further. . . . Should it happen from any cause that you have not succeeded in bringing them to a close, the former may be transferred to this country where it would seem that . . . /the Swedish minister/ . . . has full powers to act on it and the latter may be confided to Mr. Hughes, who, with the aid of the information it will be in your power to give him, will it i|^hoped be able ultimately to settle i t. . . . Hughes carried these instructions with his own and was to be guided by them in the absence of Russell. Besides letters of introduction, instructions for himself, and instructions for Russell, Hughes also carried official communications addressed to the American legations at London, Paris, and St. Petersburg. With the approval of Monroe, Hughes intended to visit the first two cities to deliver the communications personally to Adams and Gallatin,

^^Monroe to Hughes, 1 Nov 1816, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:115. ^^Monroe to Russell, 1 Nov 1816, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:108. ^7 the American ministers, respectively, to Great Britain and Prance. With the assistance of one of those ministers, he hoped to forward the official mail for St. Petersburg by

Russian embassy courier from London or Paris. In the early 19th century the United States maintained no regular cour­ ier service to American diplomatic missions and relied on trustworthy travelers, who chanced to visit European 12 capitals, to carry official despatches and instructions. After waiting several days for the official mail from Washington and for a favorable wind on Chesapeake Bay, Hughes embarked on the Emily at Baltimore on the morning I of November 5» Accompanying him were his wife and two 13 servants. Their immediate destination was London. Hughes reached the British capital on December 12 and wrote immediately to Monroe :

I have . . . heard . . . of the recent departure of Mr. Russell for the United States. I shall proceed to Stockholm, with every prac­ ticable despatch, consistent with the season and the delicate health of Mrs. Hughes. . . . As Mr. Russell has left Stockholm, I suppose my situation of Charge d"Affaires may be considered as having commenced. May I beg of your kind attention to direct a corresponding credit to be 12 Christopher Hughes manuscript notebook, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Monroe, 28 Oct I8I6 ; and Hughes to Secretary of State, 3 Nov I8I6 ; both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 13 Hughes to Monroe, 3 Nov I8I6 , Christopher Hughes MSS, ESP. Hughes to Secretary of State, 5 Nov I8I6 , NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 48

opened for me, with Messrs. Barings, for my salary and outfit. . . . Two and a half years earlier, Hughes had sailed across the North Sea twice, and he now remembered how cold and stormy such a voyage could be during the winter season. For his own comfort and for the health of his wife he preferred to postpone the onward trip to Sweden until the weather improved. The next day, Hughes called on Adams, delivered both official and private mail, and chatted for about two hours. He mentioned his reluctance to cross the North Sea during the winter and his intention to spend six weeks in London and a similar period at Paris before proceeding to Stockholm. The time in London would enable Hughes and his wife to rest after their trip across the Atlantic, to pur­ chase some furnishings for their residence in Stockholm, and to visit with Laura’s sister, Mrs. Mansfield, and her husband. On Christmas Day, Hughes, his wife, and several 16 other guests dined at the Adams home in suburban Ealing. Earlier, Hughes had requested Adams to recommend some books on diplomacy which he might buy in London and take along to

^^Hughes to Monroe, 12 Dec 1816, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1.

Adams diary, 13 Dec 1816, AP reel 33» Adams diary, 25 Dec 1816, AP reel 33. 49

Stockholm to study.^^ Adams gave serious consideration to this request, prepared a list of two dozen works, and had it ready to present on December 25» In a covering letter, he declared that "the enclosed list will more than suffice for eighteen months or two years reading," and then he added I But as you have a Career before you, and do me the favour to consult my opinion, I would suggest to you the utility of preparing your mind for application, when you return home, to the history, the internal interests, and-the external relations of our own country. . . - — The party broke up by eleven o ’clock in the evening; it marked the continuing, friendly teacher-pupil relationship between Adams and Hughes. Before Hughes and his wife left England, they accomplished a complete reconciliation with the Mansfields. As a consequence, Hughes had additional social oppor­ tunities to become acquainted with prominent persons in England, and he and his wife acquired, at the Mansfield residence, something of a home away from home.^* I The next stop on the Hughes itinerary was Paris. Traveling with Mr. and Mrs. Robert Patterson, wealthy 17 Hughes to Adams, Nov 1816 (Ship Emily, at sea), AP reel 434. X8 Adams to Hughes, 25 Dec I8I6 , Hughes Papers, WLCL. 19 J.Q. Adams diary, 4 Jan 1817, AP reel 33» Hughes to Adams, Jan 1812/, 4P reel 436. 50 friends from Baltimore, Hughes and his wife arrived in the French capital in the middle of January. Losing no time, Hughes called on Gallatin, who, "with his usual kindness 2 A went the rounds with me to leave my letters and cards." Invitations to receptions, dinners, and dances soon poured in. Hughes had met the Duke of Wellington in Paris in 1814, and, now, he renewed the acquaintance. Writing to Adams, Hughes related _In 2 hours I had an invitation to dine from /they Duke of Wellington. . . . He gave me a most marked reception! took my hand, said he was glad to see me again and remarked that he was not in the same house, as when I was last in Paris! "No!" thinks I to myself, "but you are much better established!" The social round continued for Hughes and his wife until 22 they resumed their journey toward Stockholm earlyIn March. Proceeding by easy stages via Brussels and Copen­ hagen, they reached the Swedish capital toward the end of April, 1817. Along the way, Hughes saw some of his old friends from Ghent and made new acquaintances by means of his letters of introduction. This final part of the Journey required more time than was perhaps anticipated because Laura Hughes had become pregnant again, and her husband

20 Hughes to Adams, 10 Jan 181? and 20 Jan 1817, both in AP reel 4-36. 21 Hughes to Adams, 20 Jan 1817, AP reel 436. 22 Hughes to Adams, 25 Jan 1817, 5 Feb 1817, 6 March 1817; all three in AP reel 436. 51 wanted to do everything possible to avoid another miscar­ riage. Fortunately, they arrived without mishap and looked forward to representing their government in Sweden for a 23 number of years. Before Jonathan Russell left Stockholm in the autumn of I8I6 , he had tried to carry out his instructions with respect to a commercial convention and a claims set­ tlement. On September 4, he and Count Laurent d*Engestrom, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, signed a treaty designed to place "the commerce between the two states upon the firm basis of liberal and equitable principles, equally advantageous to both countries. . . ."^4 Article 1

of the treaty provided that There shall be between all the territories under the dominion of the United States of America and of His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway a reciprocal liberty of commerce. The inhabitants of either of the two countries shall have liberty, with all security for their persons, vessels and cargoes, to come freely to all ports, places and rivers within the territories of the other into which the vessels of the most^favoured nations are permitted to enter. . . . ^ ^^Hughes to Adams, 1 May 181?» and Norbert Comelissen to Adams, 10 May I8I7 » both in AP reel 43?. Hughes to Secretary of State, 5 May I8I7 and 22 May 1817; and Hughes to John Graham, 6 May 1817; all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 24 Copy of treaty enclosed with Russell to Monroe, 5 Sept I8I6 , NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. ^^Copy of treaty enclosed with Russell to Monroe, 5 Sept I8I6 , NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 52

Subsequent articles applied these principles specifically to duties levied on Imports, to fees charged for services to vessels, and to the treatment accorded to cargoes whether discharged or not. Article 5 provided for consular relations: The high contracting parties grant mutually the liberty of having In the places of commerce and ports of the other, consuls, vice-consuls or commer­ cial agents who shall enjoy all the protection and assistance necessary for the due discharge of their functions. . . . The archives and documents rela­ tive to the affairs of the consulate shall be protected from all examination and shall be care­ fully preserved. . . . The consuls and their deputies shall have the right . . . to act as judges and arbitrators In the differences which may arise between the captains and crews of the vessels of the nation whose affairs are entrusted to their care. . . The treaty was to remain In force for eight years following the exchange of ratifications. Russell had less success with the matter of claims. In 1810 over 500 bales of cotton and other merchandise, belonging to Stephen Girard and several other American merchants, were landed at Stralsund In Swedish Pomerania and passed through customs after the payment of Import duties. At the order of the French occupational authoritl es, Swedish officials sequestered this American property. Al­ though the French subsequently withdrew or cancelled this 26 Copy of treaty enclosed with Russell to Monroe, 5 Sept 1816, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 53 order, the Swedish officials in 1811 proceeded to sell the merchandise for the account of the Swedish government. The property, thus disposed of, was originally valued in the United States at 110,000 Spanish dollars, was valued at 192,000 rix dollars in Pomeranian currency when seques­ tered, and was actually sold to a single merchant for 151,000 dollars in the same currency. Despite the repeated efforts of American representatives to prevent sequestration and sale of these goods and, eventually, to obtain recom­ pense for the merchants in the United States, the Swedish government, while tacitly admitting the Justice of the American claims, displayed no disposition to settle them. Concluding that a quick settlement of this matter was impossible, Russell "decided on leaving it in a form that should attract the attention of the Swedish government and facilitate the labours of my successor."^? Accordingly, he vigorously summarized the American case In a note to Engestrom on September 3» Several days later, the Swedish foreign minister acknowledged the receipt of the note. By reasserting the Stralsund claims and negotiating a treaty of commerce, Russell had accomplished as much as could be expected under the circumstances, and he therefore felt free to return to the United States. 27 'Russell to Monroe, 9 Sept 1816, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 54

Earlier, Monroe had instructed Russell concerning the departure of the latter from Stockholm: A Secretary of Legation will be appointed without delay, who will be ordered to repair to Stockholm, and be authorised to take charge of our affairs, on your leaving it. . . « Should he not arrive before your departure . . • , you may leave the papers of the Legation, with some trust-worthy individual, who may be willing to take care of« them without any claim to official emolument. ® On September 9, 1816, Russell was ready and eager to leave Stockholm. Because no successor had arrived and because he had not even heard of the appointment of one, Russell entrusted a trunk containing the legation papers to his good friend Count de Rumigny, the young charge d'affaires of Prance. In a note "for his successor," Russell described the contents of the trunk: "the archives of the American legation, a copying machine, three prints of the American naval victories and a gilt and bronzed Eagle which has served to support the canopy of Mr. Russell's bed."^9 In the middle of October and in the midst of pre­ paring to embark at Liverpool for the United States, Russell received word of the appointment of Hughes. He immediately

28 Monroe to Russell, 20 May 1816, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:56-58. 29 Russell to his successor, 9 Sept 1816, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 55 wrote a friendly letter to his former associate at Ghent; I felicitate you with a full heart on the successful performance of the trust confided to you at Carthagena and St. Martha and on your appointment to the Court of Stockholm. . . . Among the fashion­ ables my friends Rumigny and Bodisco— the former the French charge d ’affaires and the latter secretary to the Russian embassy— will procure you all that is desirable. They both speak English well and I have required of_ them all . . . their good offices in your behalf. Among the citizens I recommend you to be acquainted . . . with David Erskine and Co. The last named gentlemen I advise you to employ as your bankers. With regard to official business you will find very little to do. I have left the archives of the legation in the possession of K. Rumigny. . . . From the archives you will le am what has been done and what still remains for you to accomplish. . . . Mr. D. Erskine will hand you this letter. . . .50 After arriving in Stockholm toward the end of April, 1817, Hughes received the letter from Erskine and the trunk from Rumigny. He considered himself the Ameri- 31 can charge d ’affaires and proceeded to act accordingly. He promptly presented himself to the Swedish govern­ ment. On the day following his arrival the Prince Royal received him in a private audience and ceremoniously declared that Sweden sincerely desired to cultivate friendly intercourse with the United States. The king and queen soon extended a similar welcome to Hughes. Although the Swedish government recognized Hughes immediately as the official

^^Russell to Hughes, I7 Oct I8I6 , Hughes Papers, WLCL. 31 Hughes to Adams, 1 May I8I7 , AP reel 437. Hughes to Adams, 30 July I8I7 , AP reel 438. 56

representative of the United States, the foreign minister suggested that court custom generally required the presen­ tation of a letter of credence of some sort. Peeling the awkwardness of his situation Hughes soon sent a request to -Washington for his commission as charge and for an explana­ tory letter from the Secretary of State to Engestrom. At the time, Hughes possessed only his commission as secretary of legation, and Russell, though on leave of absence, remained the accredited minister as far as the Swedish 32 government was concerned. Besides containing polite expressions of friendship, the initial conversations between Hughes and prominent persons in the Swedish government touched on the Russell treaty and the Stralsund claims. The Swedes were delighted that the treaty had been concluded and were eager to hear of the ratification of it by the United States. Moreover, Hughes received the impression that the Swedish government preferred to receive word of the ratification before giving further consideration to the claims. Consequently, Hughes reported to the Department of State that "on the arrival of the Ratification of the Treaty, I propose to revive and

32 Hughes to Secretary of State, 5 May 1817; and Hughes to John Graham, 6 May 1817; both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 57 urge this business /pf the claims/ upon the Minister of 33 Foreign Affairs." Several weeks after Hughes assumed charge of Ameri­ can affairs at Stockholm, he began to receive disquieting reports. About the middle of May, a friend In London Informed him that the Senate had rejected the Bussell treaty. Ten days later, he heard that the Senate had approved the treaty, but with modifications. Finally, at the end of the month he received a letter from his father- in-law mentioning that Russell Intended to return to Stockholm as American minister. Suddenly, all of the hopes and calculations of Hughes for the next several 34 years appeared shattered. He wrote to Monroe, Crawford, and Adams, expressed the hope that Bussell would not return to Stockholm, ex­ plained the basis on which he had accepted his appointment, declared that his displacement by Russell would almost ruin him financially, and appealed for a transfer to another post as charge If Russell should return. Hughes faced not only a loss of $2,500 per year In salary but a reduction In

^^Hughes to John Graham, 6 May 1817, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. ^^Hughes to Secretary of State, 12 May 181? and 22 May 1817, both In NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. Hughes to Monroe, 26 May 1817, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6. Hughes to the President, 27 May 1817; and Hughes to George Hughes, 29 May 1817; both In Christopher Hughes MSS, ESP. 58

status from charge to secretary. The prospect of this double blow tormented him increasingly the longer he brooded over it.^^ As Hughes wrote to the President, the possibility of Russell returning "has really appeared so extraordinary to me, and given me so much uneasiness, that I shall scarcely know what to think, or what to do, until I am informed, whether or not, the Government will permit him to do so."3^ Hughes remained in suspense for three months. Then in August he received word from Acting Secretary of State Richard Rush that The President has determined to allow you an outfit as Charge d'Affaires at Stockholm, in addition to the salary provided by law, and I enclose a letter to Messrs, Baring Brothers and Company, bankers of the United States in London, authorizing and requesting them to pay your drafts accordingly; viz.--for four thousand five hundred dollars, the amount of your outfit,— and for your salary, at the rate of four thousand five hundred dollars a year until the period of Mr. Russell's return, as Minister Plenipotentiary to Stockholm.-^' Hughes now knew that he could expect Russell to return, but he did not know how the return would affect him~whether he would remain at Stockholm in a subordinate capacity, be

^^Hughes to Monroe, 26 May 1817, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 6 . Hughes to Adams, 30 July 1817, AP reel 438. Crawford to Hughes, 2 Oct 1817, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 3^Hughes to the President, 27 May I8I7 , Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. ^^Rush to Hughes, 9 June I8I7 . NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:141-142. 59 transferred to another post as oharpce. or even be required OQ to return to private life in the United States. Without newspapers from the United States and with only fragmentary information contained in personal letters from friends and relatives, Hughes could not understand for a long time why Russell was to return to Sweden or what had happened to the Russell treaty in the Senate. Eventually, he learned that the Senate had approved the treaty, except for three of the fourteen articles. Also he learned that the administration in Washington had good reasons for sending Russell back to Stockholm. Not only had Russell negotiated the treaty and thereby had become familiar with the interests and concerns of the Swedish government, he had also acquired an understanding of the sentiments of the Senate and the desires of the administration concerning the modified treaty. Better than anyone else he could explain the Senate action to the Swedish government and, at the same time, try to persuade the latter to accept the modifications. While Hughes came to understand how the return of Russell was intertwined with the fate of the treaty, he neverthe­ less continued to ponder his own future career.

3®Hughes to Adams, 25 Aug 181?, AP reel 438. ^^Rush to Russell, 14 Aug isi?, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:145-14?. Crawford to Hughes, 2 Oct 181?; and Clay to Hughes, 9 Oct 181?; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 8 Oct 181?, AP reel 440. Hughes to Adams, 1? Jan 1818, AP reel 442. 60

Advice from his highly-placed friends influenced him to accept with equanimity his impending subordination. After ascertaining the views of Monroe, Crawford wrote that "I hope you will reconcile it to your feelings . . . to remain at Stockholm as Sec^ of legation until the President can place you in a more eligible situation."^0 Similarly, Clay urged that Hughes "acquiesce, with a good grace . . . , and to patiently wait a more favorable turn of events. Finally, Adams, the new Secretary of State, formally com­ municated that "the President approves of your conduct dur­ ing the period that you were charged with the affairs of h,2 the United States at Stockholm." Between the end of April when Hughes assumed charge of American affairs at Stockholm and the end of December when Russell superseded him, three problems involving the United States arose. None of these ranks in importance with the commercial treaty or the Stralsund claims, but all three required Hughes to exercise a certain amount of diplomatic ability and resourcefulness. The first problem stemmed from a mutiny aboard the American schooner Plattsbura of Baltimore in the summer of 1816. Nine members of the crew killed the officers, sailed Crawford to Hughes, 2 Oct 1817, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^^Clay to Hughes, 9 Oct 1817, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ho Adams to Hughes, 13 Nov 1817, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:172-173. 61 the vessel to a Norwegian port, and then disappeared with $4^,000 in specie which had been aboard. After a time, one of the mutineers. Nils Peterson Pogelgren, was arrested by the Swedish authorities at Gothenburgi Learning of this ar­ rest, Hughes requested the Swedish government to place the prisoner in the custody of the American consular officer at that port for the purpose of sending him to the United States to stand trial. Though apparently reluctant at first, the Swedish government granted the request, and Hughes instructed the consular officer to put the prisoner aboard the first American vessel bound for the United States. Eventually, Pogelgren arrived at Boston where he was to be tried by the United States circuit court. If Hughes had not energetically intervened in this affair, the Swedish author­ ities would probably have set the prisoner free. Motivating Hughes was the desire to show the world that mutiny could 43 not be committed with impunity aboard American ships. The second problem concerned American consular rep­ resentation at Gothenburg. In 1814 Nathaniel Strong, an American citizen, arrived at that port as the regularly- appointed American consul. A year or so later, he decided

43 '^Hughes to Secretary of State, 22 May 1817, 28 May 1817, 26 July 1817, 18 Aug 1817, 4 Sept 1817; all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. Adams to Hughes, 13 Nov I8I7 , NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8 :172-173, 62 to return to the United States and requested Joseph Hall, a local Swedish merchant, to perform the duties of consul until the United States government should make an appropri­ ate appointment. Subsequently, the Swedish authorities jailed Hall for customs house Irregularities. As a conse­ quence, there was no American consular officer to assist American vessels at the most Important port In Sweden at the beginning of the 181? shipping season. Acting on the advice of the provincial governor, Hughes authorized C. A. Murray, also a local Swedish merchant, to perform the con­ sular duties until the government at Washington determined how the United States should be represented at Gothenburg. Although Hughes possessed no authority to appoint a consu­ lar officer, he had the duty of trying to promote American trade. In this matter, he acted with Initiative and deter- mlnatlon and hoped that his government would support him. The third problem was also related to the promotion of American commerce. Many American ships discharged their cargoes In English, French, and Dutch ports before proceed­ ing In ballast to Swedish ports to load cargoes of Iron ore for the United states. The supercargoes preferred to leave their ships before the discharging had been completed In

^^Hughes to Secretary of State, 28 May 181? and 5 June 1817, both In NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. Hughes to C.A. Murray, 2 June 1817; and Hughes to Joseph Hall, 2 June 1817; both In Russell Papers, BUL. Engelman, The Peace of Christmas Eve. pp. 83, 101. 63 order to travel overland to Sweden quickly and make their commercial arrangements before the ships arrived in Swedish ports. Their purpose in traveling overland ahead of their ships was to save time and expense, especially at the end of the shipping season when storms became more frequent and ice threatened to block Swedish ports. However, the super­ cargoes often had to wait two weeks or more at Copenhagen before they could obtain the permission of the police authorities at Stockholm to enter Sweden. Learning of this problem, Hughes proposed to the Swedish government that American merchants, bearing passports issued by the American consul at Copenhagen and visaed by the Swedish minister in the same place, be permitted to enter Sweden without further formality. A few days later the Swedish government not only accepted this proposal with respect to American merchants at Copenhagen but extended similar privileges to those at Gothenburg and Christiansand. It was several years before merchants of other nations received

the same privileges. Although the solution of this problem required little effort on the part of Hughes, he perceived an opportunity to aid his countrymen and made the most of It >5

Hughes to Adams, 25 Aug 1817, AP reel 438. Hughes to Secretary of State, 1 Sept 181? and 3 Sept 1817, both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 64

On December 20, 1817, Jonathan Russell arrived at Stockholm and assumed charge of the American legation. As a consequence, Hughes automatically reverted to his posi­ tion as secretary. Both regarded their new relationship as a delicate one, yet each was disposed to tolerate the 46 other for as long as necessary. At their first encounter after nearly three years, Russell and Hughes frankly explained to each other their views and intentions concerning the American diplomatic mission in Sweden. As far as the administration in Wash­ ington was concerned, Russell had returned to persuade the Swedish government to accept the commercial treaty as modi­ fied by the Senate. As far as he personally was concerned, Russell seems also to have had private reasons for return­ ing. Aware that he had embarrassed Hughes with respect to both status and salary, Russell asserted that his stay would be limited and that Hughes could expect soon to become charge again. For his part, Hughes wanted to maintain a harmonious relationship with Russell but, because of finan­ cial and other reasons, he wanted also to resume his character as charge. either at Stockholm or elsewhere, with as little delay as possible. Having thus forthrightly de­ clared themselves, they assumed a friendly posture toward

^^Russell to Clay, 12 Jan 1818, in Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henry Clay. II, 426. Hughes to Adams, 17 Jan lël8, AP reel “ 65 each other but more or less went their separate ways Although Hughes had been superseded, he remained a diplomat. Several days before Russell returned, Laura Hughes had given birth to a baby boy. The new father was delighted but had the perplexing problem of finding a suit­ able name for his son. Unwilling to perpetuate the name of his own tyrannical father, Hughes searched for some other name which would please everyone rather than offend someone— or which would at least be generally acceptable to relatives, friends, and others. He solved the problem by deciding to 48 call his son Charles John, after the Prince Royal of Sweden. Eager to flatter and please, Hughes Intimated to the Prince Royal that the latter could strengthen Swedlsh- Amerlcan relations by standing as sponsor for the Infant Charles John at a baptism ceremony. Probably the Prince Royal personally liked Hughes and was willing to participate In such a ceremony for this reason alone. Possibly, however, he did not want to jeopardize the ratification of the commercial treaty by a rebuff to Hughes. At any rate, on January 27, 1818, the baptism took place, with the Prince

^^Russell to Clay, 12 Jan 1818, In Hopkins and Hargreaves, The Papers of Henry Clay. II, 426. Hughes to Adams, I7 Jan 1818, AP reel 442. 48 Hughes to Gallatin, 16 Dec 1817, Gallatin Papers, NYHS. Hughes to William E. Williams, 25 Aug 1818, Williams Papers, MDHS. Extrait du Livre des Baptemes a la Paroisse St. Claire en Stockholm, 23 April I838, ^Baptismal certi­ ficate of Charles John Hughe^, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 66

Royal serving as godfather and Countess d'Engestrom as godmother. Most of the diplomatic corps attended the ceremony, but the dour Russell stayed away because of what he regarded as the importunity of his subordinate. After the ceremony, the Prince Royal and his son remained sever­ al hours in the Hughes home, conversed in an amiable manner, and gave the impression that they had appreciated the occasion. Several days later. Countess d ‘Engestrom, on behalf of the Prince Royal, presented a diamond cross on a pearl necklace to Laura Hughes in accordance with Swedish custom. Promptly, but politely, Hughes returned the present, point­ ing out that accepting it would be contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the United States Constitution. Sub­ sequently, Hughes claimed credit for taking the initiative in this self-denying action, but Bussell believed his influence had been decisive. While somewhat awkward for Hughes, this episode of the baptism present was soon over­ shadowed by a momentous event

49 Hughes to Monroe, 20 Aug 1818, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 7» Draft of Russell to John S. Smith, 7 Oct 1818, Russell Papers, BUL. ^^Hughes to Monroe, 20 Aug 1818, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 7. Draft of Russell to John S. Smith, 7 Oct 1818, Russell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Engestrom, 1 Feb 1818; and Engestrom to Hughes, 15 Feb 1818; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 67

Charles XIII, King of Sweden and Norway, died on February 5* and the Prince Royal, Charles John, was Immedi­ ately proclaimed his successor. Although originally French and one of Napoleon's marshals, Charles John had been adopted by the old king as his son, and the succession had been sanctioned by the legislatures of both Sweden and Norway.Nevertheless, the new king probably wondered whether the powers of Europe would regard his succession as legitimate. Reporting this matter to Washington, Russell requested that he be accredited to the new king: To refuse these credentials might . . . be regarded here as proceeding from a want of courtesy towards the reigning monarch, who. In the extra­ ordinary circumstances in which he Is placed, would . • . feel the discontinuance of the Minister Plenipoten­ tiary of the United States, already accredited to his predecessor, as an Indication of dlsresgectful. If not unfriendly, sentiments towards him. While Russell now had a good reason to extend his stay at Stockholm, the godfather of the son of Hughes had become the king of Sweden and Norway. Shortly before the death of the old king, Russell had reported that the Swedish government accepted the com­ mercial treaty, as modified by the Senate, and wished ratifications to be exchanged at Stockholm. He had also expressed the hope that Washington might send the ratification

^^Russell to Adams, 8 Feb 1818, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. ^^Russell to Adams, 11 Feb 1818, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 68 to him as quickly as possible in order that American trade could benefit from the treaty during the 1818 shipping season. 53 Somewhat earlier, Russell had recommended that his friend, the Scottish banker David Erskine, be appointed American consul at Stockholm. Both Russell and Hughes agreed that such an appointment would benefit American 5^ trade and be helpful to American seamen. Because of the slow communications between Sweden and the United States during the early 19th century, Russell received no response from Washington on the letter of credence, the treaty ratification, or the consular appointment until late in the summer. Then almost simul­ taneously, he received positive replies on all three mat­ ters. As a consequence, David Erskine not only became the regularly-appointed American consul in Stockholm, but Murray's provisional appointment at Gothenburg by Hughes was also confirmed. In addition, Russell delivered a letter of credence to the new king and exchanged treaty ratifica­ tions with Count d'Engestrom.^^ In sending the positive

^^Russell to Adams, 26 Jan 1818, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. ^Russell to Adams, 20 Jan 1818, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. Hughes to Adams, 17 Jan 1818, AP reel 442. ^^Russell to Adams, 26 Sept 1818, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 2. 69 replies to Russell, Adams Instructed him in the following manner; It is not expected . . . that there will be any necessity for protracting your residence at Stockholm. . , . The President wishes you to make your arrangements according to your own convenience, to take leave of the Court of Sweden in the course of the present year and to commit the affairs of the Legation again to the charge of Mr. Hughes Russell had accomplished his mission in Sweden and was now under an injunction to depart. On October 16, 1818, he took leave of the king, and six days later he left Stockholm. Before leaving he had again vigorously raised the matter of the Stralsund claims with the Swedish government, and he continued a fruitless correspondence on this subject with Count d'Engestrom from Berlin and Vienna for almost two months. However, on the departure of Russell, Hughes again became charge d*affaires.^^

In Charge at Last: 1819-22 On assuming charge, Hughes sent a despatch and a private letter to Adams notifying the latter of Russell’s departure and outlining the current situation with respect

^^Adams to Bussell, 22 May 1818, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:181-182, ^^Russell to Adams, 20 Oct 1818 and 22 Peb 1819, both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 2. Hughes to Adams, 23 Oct 1818 (no. 1) and 23 Oct 1818 (private), both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3* 70 to American affairs. The Russell treaty had placed American commerce on a satisfactory basis, but Hughes would remain alert for further opportunities to expand trade between Sweden and the United States. In connection with American claims, Hughes saw little prospect of a settlement unless the United States government were disposed to exert pressure against Sweden through some kind of adverse commercial dis­ crimination, Of the two major problems mentioned to Hughes when he left the United States two years earlier, one had 58 been solved and the other appeared insoluble. Besides the public interest, Hughes also had in mind his personal interest. Repeating a request originally made in May, 1817, for a commission as charge and for some kind of credential letter from the Secretary of State to Engestrom, Hughes suggested the utility of both documents in helping him establish himself in the diplomatic corps at Stockholm, Furthermore, because of the unanticipated reduction in his salary connected with the return of Russell to Sweden in 1817, Hughes asked for ”a new outfit or at least half a one” as just compensation for his loss Nevertheless, he declared that he would rather suffer even

Hughes to Adams, 23 Oct 1818 (no, 1) and 23 Oct 1818 (private), both in NA Despatches from U,S, Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol, 3» 59 Hughes to Adams, 23 Oct 1818 (private), NA Despatches from U,S, Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol, 3» 71 greater losses "than lose one iota of the good will" of 60 either Adams or Monroe. After many months had passed, the overworked Secre­ tary of State in Washington responded to the requests of Hughes. The commission as charge was sent after the Senate had advised and consented to the nomination.The matter of the credential letter was ignored. The outfit was 62 denied as not "warranted by the laws," Nevertheless, despite financial difficulties and delays in receiving proper credentials, Hughes managed to become a popular member of the diplomatic corps at the Swedish court. Among his colleagues, he enjoyed most his French friend, Rumigny, who received a promotion from charge to minister while at Stockholm. Not long after Russell left, both the Hughes family and the Rumigny family moved into apartments in the same new building. Thus, the two diplomats could chat with each other daily, and Hughes came to regard his friend as a brother. Apparently because of this friendship, Hughes was sometimes able to obtain good

^^Hughes to Adams, 23 Oct 1818 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» ^^U.S. Congress. Senate. Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America (Washington; Duff Green, 1&28), III, I67-I69. Hughes to Adams, 20 July I8I9 , NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3 . 62 Adams to Hughes, 17 June 1819, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:341-342. 72

French translations of Swedish documents more quickly than mediocre English translations.^^ Although the British representatives changed rather frequently, Hughes formed warm working relationships with them all. First, there was Strangford: "I have this moment received a polite note from Lord Strangford, informing me that he proposes to send off a courier . . . and offering his services to take letters for me to London.This offer was particularly valuable because it was made in mid­ winter when the ports were closed by ice and the seas were stormy. Then there was FitzGerald, who showed to Hughes confidential instructions received from Castlereagh. As a consequence, the American charge at Stockholm could report certain important aspects of British policy more quickly than any other American representative abroad.Finally, during the intervals when no British minister resided at Stockholm and when a charge headed the British legation, Hughes received similar favors. ^Hughes to Adams, 20 June I 8I9 and 12 July 1820, both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» Hughes to Russell, 13 Oct 1819, Russell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Monroe, 28 Peb 1820, Monroe Papers, LC, microfilm series 1, reel 7 . ^^Hughes to Adams, 27 Feb 1819, AP reel 446. ^^Hughes to Adams, 2 Peb 1821, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3* Adams to Hughes, 17 May 1821, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 9:81. Hughes to Adams, 8 June 1822, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» 73

While the enjoyment of delicious dinners may have brought Hughes together with Rumigny and while sparkling conversation may have led to good working relationships with the British representatives, the autographs of great men provided a basis for friendship with old General Suchtelen, the Russian minister. Recognizing the general’s interest in collecting such curiosities, Hughes obtained for him an autograph letter of George Washington and attempted to obtain autographs of Benjamin Franklin and John Adams as well. Perhaps partly because of these atten­ tions, Hughes received a standing invitation to dine at the lavish table of the Russian. As a result of this associa­ tion, Hughes learned much about developments in eastern Europe and about Russian policy toward the Ottoman Empire. Of course, he reported everything of interest to Washington. The American charge wanted to extend invitations as well as receive them, but he felt hampered by a burden of debt and by a relatively meager income. The former developed when Russell unexpectedly returned, and the lat­ ter resulted partly from depression in the United States 68 and partly from the rising cost of living in Sweden. Hughes to Bushrod Washington, 29 Oct 1818, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 21 Aug 1821, AP reel 4^2. Hughes to Adams, 26 March 1822, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» Hughe8 to Adams, 20 June I8I9 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3 . Hughes to Crawford, I9 Oct 1820, Crawford Papers, DUL. Hughes to Samuel Moore, 12 May 1821, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 74

Nevertheless, the visit of the American steamship Savannah to Stockholm in August 1819, gave Hughes an opportunity to entertain his friends and colleagues with eclat at no expense to himself. Captain Rogers, master of this latest creation for ocean navigation, wanted to sell his ship in Europe and, to attract potential buyers, he suggested to Hughes that the latter invite local dignitaries aboard. Although Rogers did not sell his ship at Stockholm, Hughes proudly showed it to his wondering friends as an example of 69 American achievement. He also gave occasional dinners for small groups in his home. Though diminutive in scale, these affairs prob-, ably possessed a matchless quality. Certainly, members of the diplomatic corps and prominent persons in Swedish society appear to have appreciated invitations extended by 70 Hughes. Though an amusing raconteur, he ascribed much of his social success to his wife: The praise of everything is due to Laura; she is celebrated here for having the sweetest and cleanest children, the neatest and cleanest house,

Hughes to Adams, 30 Aug 1819, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3. 70 Hughes to William E. Williams, 6 May 1818 and 25 Aug 1818, Williams Papers, MDHS. Hughes to Robert G. Harper, 7 July 1819, Harper Papers, MDHS. Hughes to Peggy Moore, 21 May 1822, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 8 June 1822, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3« 75

and more taste In her dress than any other Lady. . . . She Is a model of everything good and respectable, and Is looking much younger and better than I ever saw her in my life. • . ."71 By 1822 Laura Hughes had given birth to a daughter, Margaret, and a second son, Edward. Generally, Hughes and his family appeared to thrive at Stockholm. During the years immediately following the departure of Bussell, Hughes acknowledged to himself and to others a growing commitment to a diplomatic career. To Adams he confided: "You know, my policy is to live well with all mankind, especially such as I get some advantage or 72 instruction from." In another letter to Adams written a few months later, he alluded to an alternative career in domestic politics: Some of my friends are anxious for me to return home as there is believed to be an approach­ ing vacancy in our congressional district, which they think would be offered me I but I have private reasons for wishing to remain some years longer in Europe. . . .73

He explained his views somewhat more explicitly to Crawford the next year: . . . It will suit the necessity of my private affairs, as well as the bias of my 71 Hughes to Peggy Moore, 21 May 1822, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 72 Hughes to Adams, 18 Dec 1818, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3* 73 Hughes to Adams, 20 June 1819, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3* 76

dispositions, to "be continued in diplomatic employ­ ment; and • • • having laid myself out for that line, at least for a few coming years. . . , I am prepared to accept any place, that thej^President may think fit to entrust to me. . . •' Commenting to his hrother-in-law about his diplomatic life, Hughes admitted that "it certainly has enabled me to live comfortably and at ease, and even with some distinction, during the last five or six years. . . ."75 The "private" reasons mentioned by Hughes included his antipathy toward his father and an uncertainty over how to assure himself of a steady and sufficient income. Regardless of his explana­ tions, however, Hughes appeared to have found the kind of life most congenial to his interests and temperament. With American commerce placed on a satisfactory basis and American claims stalemated, Hughes devoted much of his attention to political reporting. In this phase of his work, good personal relationships with his colleagues were indispensable. While Hughes obtained most of his information through frequent and informal conversations, he also obtained opportunities to read and, sometimes, to copy the official instructions and despatches of his friends in the diplomatic corps. The amount and variety

Hughes to Crawford, 19 Oct 1820, Crawford Papers, DUL. 75 Hughes to Samuel Moore, 20 Nov 1820, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 77 of Information which he gathered occasionally presented problems, as he explained to Adams: You will have received various letters from me during the last month, and some may con­ tain contradictions to the statements in others. . . . The fact is, I must write, you know, what I hear, and though the reports I have written to you have all come to me from official sources, yet it would seem that the ministers and diplomatists themselves-, from whom I have received them, have been mistaken.' On one occasion when Hughes was out for a walk, he happened to meet FitzGerald driving by: He stopped his carriage to speak to me today in the street. . . . He told me that he had just received a very important despatch from L. Castlereagh. . . . He wished to show it to me, was very busy, but would send it to me. . . .77 On another occasion, Hughes sent to Washington copies of some Russian documents : Much secrecy has been observed by the Russian mission here. . . . I have succeeded in procuring . . . ^ h e copiesj . . . through the /Swedis^/ cabinet.7° Hughes also obtained valuable information from friends in a number of European capitals. After several years at Stockholm, Strangford was transferred to Constan­ tinople and corresponded with Hughes on developments in the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, Rumigny went to Dresden and informed Hughes concerning events in central Europe. In 7^Hughes to Adams, 26 Sept 1821, AP reel 453» 77Hughes to Adams, 2 Feb 1821, AP reel 7®Hughes to Adams, 29 May 1820, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» 78 addition, Henry Goulbiirn, member of the British Parliament and formerly one of the British commissioners at Ghent in 1814, wrote to Hughes occasionally from London. As a consequence, political intelligence streamed to Hughes 70 from many sources, and he funnelled it all to Washington. Though he paid much attention to the substance of his reports, Hughes did not trouble himself with respect to form. Because the use of ciphers was tedious and time-consuming, he apparently never attempted to safeguard confidential information in this manner. Furthermore, writing an official despatch involved the preparation of an original and a duplicate, to be sent to Washington by separate means, and a letterbook copy to be retained in the archives of the legation. However, as far as Hughes was concerned, writing a private letter required the preparation only of an original. Consequently, he employed this latter form for many of his communications to the Secretary of State. With respect to the form of his reports, Hughes explained to Adams: I am rather apprehensive that you will think my manner of writing to you, officially, too

Hughe8 to Samuel Moore, 12 May 1821, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 25 July 1821, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» Hughes to Adams, 21 Aug 1821, AP reel 452. Hughes to Adams, 2 Oct 1821, AP reel 453. Hughes to Gallatin, 16 Nov 1821, Gallatin Papers, NYHS, 79

easy and familiar. But^ as of late, I have had principally to communlcate political intelligence and events, more immediately regarding others than ourselves. I can scarcely consider my papers as Notes. I look on them rather as chronicles made up for your general information, ^ ce qui se passe. and of the current opinions of my professional colleagues, and made up too under the almost dis­ couraging certainty that my news will be old and will have been preceded by many weeks, in the quicker communications of your many other . • . correspondents. On another occasion, Hughes pleaded I pray you, my dear Sir, to excuse this hurried letter and to pardon my having given to this communication the shape of a private letter; but the fact is, I have only had an hour’s notice of the departure of an English courier, and I have- barely had time to copy the enclosed papers. . • Regardless of irregularities in form, the Secretary of State appreciated the substance of the communications from Hughes, Adams noted in his diary: General Vives, the Spanish Minister, came, and I showed him the copy of a circular dispatch from the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs . . . to the Spanish Ministers at other European Courts relative to the interference of the allies in the affairs of Naples, which I received a few days since from C. Hughes at Stockholm. Mr. George Hay called and borrowed the circular of the allied sovereigns, issued at Laybach, also forwarded by Mr. Hughes. To Hughes, Adams wrote The Troppau Circular, and the Note of the Spanish Minister of foreign affairs of 8 January

80 Hughes to Adams, 21 Aug 1821, AP reel 452. 81 Hughes to Adams, 18 Jan 1823, AP reel 458. 82 Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. V, 34?. 80

1821, were received with much pleasure, as no other authentic copies of those papersgtod been received here, before they came from you. ^ To Robert Walsh, a Journalist in Philadelphia, he also wrote I enclose, in confidence a Letter I have lately received Stockholm, the perusal of which will I hope afford you half an hour's amuse­ ment. I will thank you to return it, as Hughes is one of my most pleasant correspondents, and I set more than a diplomatic value upon his letters. During the years immediately following Russell's departure, the greatest achievements of Hughes probably lay in the sphere of political reporting. Nevertheless, Hughes also diligently tried to promote American trade. At this period, the number of American ships arriving in Swedish ports and the export of Swedish iron in those ships to the United States seemed to increase each year. The volume and increase in this commerce are suggested by the following figures: Vessels Arriving Vessels Arriving Year at Stockholm at Gothenburg

1819 7 30 1820 15 46 In the latter year, the exports of iron were valued at 6170,000 sterling. While the Russell treaty provided the basis for this trade, both the Swedish and American

®^Adams to Hughes, 17 May 1821, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 9:81. 84 Adams to Robert Walsh, 26 Oct 1821, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 81 governments favored even closer commercial relations. As a consequence, although Hughes encountered problems, the Qgf prevailing sentiment in both countries supported his effbrts. One of his first problems concerned Swedish quarantine regulations. Article 11 of the Russell treaty recognized the need for such regulations by providing that . . . Vessels arriving direct from the United States at a port under the dominion of His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway . . . , fur­ nished with a certificate of health from the competent health officer of the port whence they took their departure, certifying that no malignant or contagious disease existed at that port, shall not be subjected to any other quarantine than such as shall be necessary for the visit of the health officerppf the port at which they may have arrived. . . . ^ An escape clause suggested that the procedure outlined in the treaty might be suspended in the case of a vessel sail­ ing from a country where a contagious disease was suspected. In April, 1819, at the beginning of the shipping season, the Swedish government manifested an intention to enforce quarantine regulations in the future more strictly than in the past. For vessels restricted by the health authorities, a new anchorage was established at Kanso near Gothenburg. While better protected from adverse weather

®^Hughes to Adams, 1 Dec 1818, 28 June 1819, 20 July 1819, and 8 Dec 1820; all four in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» Text of treaty, with Senate modifications noted, enclosed with Russell to Monroe, 5 Sept 1816, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 1. 82 conditions, the location was less accessible from the shore. Two months later Hughes received a note from the foreign office explaining and Interpreting the treaty provisions In the context of Swedish measures designed to safeguard health. Hughes feared that the Swedish authori­ ties were preparing to harass American commerce In violation of the spirit. If not of the letter, of the commercial treaty. During the summer, he expressed his fears several times to the Swedish foreign office and sought assurances that the rights accorded to American vessels by the treaty would not be abridged by subterfuge. Of course, he promptly reported all developments on this subject to Washington. Meanwhile, the Swedish authorities maintained that they wished to uphold both the spirit as well as the letter of the treaty, and American shipping suffered little or not at all because of Swedish health measures.®® Then, on November 11 when the shipping season had almost ended, Engestrom summoned Hughes to the foreign office to Inform him of a quarantine proclamation soon to be issued. Because reports had arrived In Sweden that yellow

®^H\ighes to Adams, 26 April 1819, 20 June 1819, and 24 June 1819; all three In NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3* 88 Hughes to Adams, 12 Aug 1819 and 20 Nov 1819; both In NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» 83 fever epidemics were raging in New York and Charleston and that Baltimore was also affected by a contagious disease, the Swedish government had decided that "all Vessels, to whatever Nation they may belong and coming from North America, are, till further orders, to be considered as suspected, and therefore not to be permitted to enter into any Swedish Port before they have undergone the Quarantine prescribed at Kanso In reporting to Adams, Hughes declared that the new quarantine measures would not adversely affect American commerce during the next few months but that they would do so if still in force in the spring when the 1820 shipping season would begin. Therefore, he requested that he be informed officially, at as early a date as possible, of 90 the end of the epidemics in American cities. On December 7, 1819, President Monroe sent his third annual message to Congress: . . . I regret to have to state that several of our principal cities have suffered by sick­ ness. . . . I am happy, however, to have it in my power to assure you that the health of our cities is now completely restored. . . .91

®^Hughes to Adams, 20 Nov 1819, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» 90 Hughes to Adams, 20 Nov 1819, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3. 91 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. 1789-1897. 10 volsl (Washing­ ton:Government Printing Office, 1896-99), II, ^4. 84

Although Adams had not yet received word concerning the strict Swedish quarantine, he sent a copy of the President's message to Hughes as a matter of course. As a consequence, Hughes was able to notify Engestrom at the end of January that the American epidemics were over. Further, he requested that the measures, instituted the preceding Novem­ ber, be revoked. The Swedish government promptly complied, and the problem of the quarantine regulations was settled.^^ Several other commercial problems also arose which required the attention of Hughes. In the spring of 1819 two American vessels arrived at Gothenburg with cargoes of American goods mixed with non-American goods. While American goods were subject to a relatively low import duty, non-American goods were subject to a substantially higher duty. The Swedish customs officials attempted to levy the higher duty on all of the goods because the cargoes were mixed. Hughes promptly took the matter up with the foreign office, referred to the Russell treaty, and succeeded in arranging for the importation of the American goods on the 93 payment of the lower duty.

^^Adams to Hughes, ? Dec 1819, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8*366. Hughes to Adams, 6 Peb 1820, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway,'vol. 3. ^^Hughes to Adams, 9 April 1819, 15 April 1819, and 10 June 1819; all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» 85

In 1820 the Swedish government attempted to deal with a foreign exchange crisis. First, to obtain specie, it required that customs duties be paid in silver. Second, to curb widespread smuggling, it banned the anchoring of vessels off the coast. Again, Hughes promptly intervened with the foreign office. He pointed out that these measures, if enforced against American vessels, would not benefit Sweden, but would hamper American trade, and would violate the Russell treaty. In response, the Swedish government agreed to exempt American vessels from the provisions of the first measure and to apply the provisions of the second measure in a manner to accommodate American ship captains who wanted to obtain market information before entering a port. While these matters were pending, Hughes communica­ ted frequently with the American consul at Gothenburg, responded to his needs, and influenced his actions. Pro­ moting American trade required constant t'igilance,^^ Although Hughes had to cope with a succession of commercial problems, he usually found a disposition on the part of the Swedish government to expand rather than restrict trade. While some high Swedish officials favored a pro­ tectionist commercial policy, others advocated a liberal one,

9^Hughes to Adams, 1 March 1820, 20 April 1820, 4 May 1820, 13 May 1820, and 18 May 1820; all five in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3 » 86

The ascendancy of the latter group became clear In January, 1821I when the Swedish government unilaterally placed American ships on the same footing as Norwegian ships in Norwegian ports. To be sure, the Swedish government hoped that the American government would make some kind of recip­ rocal gesture aimed at the expansion of trade between the two countries. However, a more important consideration was the hope that this measure would induce American mer­ chants to divert some of their shipping from other European ports to those of Norway and to utilize the latter as an entrepot in the supply of so-called colonial goods to northern Europe. Naturally, Hughes welcomed this measure : closer trade relations between the two countries, while contributing to mutual prosperity, would enhance his own 96 importance in both commercial and diplomatic circles. Besides political reporting and the promotion of trade, certain consular matters also required the attention of Hughes, Early in 1820, he received reports that Peter Isaackson, the American consul at Christlansand, had repeatedly defrauded American merchants of substantial sums over the previous several years. Remembering his provision­ al appointment of Murray at Gothenburg In 1817, Hughes decided to proceed more circumspectly with this new consular ^^Hughes to Adams, 30 Jan 1821 and 21 Aug 1821; both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3. Adams to Hughes, I7 May 1821, NA Diplo­ matic Instructions, All Countries, 9:81. 87 problem. On the earlier occasion, several local merchants had felt slighted over the action of Hughes, and Russell had accused him of acting without authority. On this occa­ sion, Hughes consulted both Engestrom and a high Norwegian official concerning the removal of isaackson and the appoint­ ment of a replacement. He also received the views of a Boston merchant who was a friend of Russell and happened to be visiting Norway. At length, Hughes wrote to Adams, explained the problem, and recommended the appointment of Henry Janson, a Norwegian merchant of Bergen, as American consul. In due course, Janson received the appointment with consular jurisdiction over all of Norway, including the authority to designate a vice consul at Christiansand. As a consequence, American consular representation was placed on a satisfactory basis in Norway as well as in 96 Sweden. In addition, the United States government wanted consular representation on the Swedish Island of St. Bar­ tholomew in the Caribbean Sea. Believing that the right to such representation was established in the Russell treaty, the Secretary of State in Washington had discussed the matter with the Swedish charge d'affaires. The latter,

^^Hughes to Adams, 1 March 1820, 10 March 1820, Ik March 1820, 20 April 1820, 21 Aug 1821, and 29 Nov 1821; all six in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3* 88 tinder Instructions from Engestrom, had denied the right. With this matter at a standstill in Washington, Adams instructed Hughes: "You will persevere in requiring * . . /consular representation^ . . . , in a manner entirely respectful and conciliatory, but leaving no possible im­ pression . . . that we entertain a doubt of the right under 97 the treaty." Following his instructions, Hughes began discussions with Engestrom and Count Wetterstedt, chancel­ lor and head of the colonial department. Apparently, he argued in a convincing manner that an American consul at St. Bartholomew would significantly aid American traders without injuring Swedish interests. When he at last per­ ceived favorable prospects for his efforts, Hughes submitted a formal note requesting Swedish agreement to the admission of a consul. On March 18, 1823, he received a note from Engestrom granting the request. Of course, Hughes was 08 pleased with his success.^ For more than four years he had been in charge of American Affairs in the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway. If there were no dramatic achievements to the credit of Hughes, neither were there any serious mistakes to his debit. All

^^Adams to Hughes, 23 July 1822, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 9:13?.

Hughes to Adams, 15 March 1823 and 14 April 1823; both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 89 in all, he had discharged his duties with pleasure to him­ self and satisfaction to his government.

Peripatetic Representation; 1823 In the summer of 1822 Hughes had received a letter from his elderly and ailing father demanding that he come to Baltimore for a visit. Fearing disinheritance, Hughes applied to the Secretary of State for permission to absent himself from his post for six months for the purpose of attending to private affairs at home. His intention was to depart from Stockholm in the spring of 1823 and to return before the onset of the following winter. He also intended to leave his wife and children in Sweden in order to avoid Êiddltlonal trevel expense and to retain a claim on his post.99 On December 24, 1822, Adams instructed Hughes: I am directed by the President of the United States to signify to you his consent that you should have leave of absence from Sweden for six months, from such time as It will suit your convenience to take your departure from Stock­ holm. . . . You will leave the affairs of the Legation during your absence in the hands of the Consul Mr. Ersklne. . . .100

99Hughes to Adams, 13Aug 1822, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» Hughes to Adams, 5 Oct 1822, AP reel 456. Hughes to Peggy Moore, 26 Nov 1822, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 100 Adams to Hughes, 24 Dec 1822, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 9:160, 90

Availing himself of the leave thus granted, Hughes began his long journey to the United states on March 20, 1823» Before he left Stockholm, he dined with the king and explained his plans. Proceeding to England, he paused for two weeks to rest, to visit his friends Wellington and Goulburn, and to observe debates in Parliament. Sailing on across the Atlantic, he reached New York on June 10 after forty days at sea.^^^ Several days later, Hughes arrived in Baltimore and devoted the next three weeks to his personal affairs. Pre­ sumably, he paid his respects to his father. Certainly, he visited with his mother and, probably, stayed with his twin sister, Peggy Moore, and her husband. While in his home town, he attended to his financial problems and apparently succeeded in arranging to pay off all of his burdensome debts.102

With his affairs in Baltimore settled, Hughes went on to Washington for consultations with the prominent and the obscure on great matters and on small ones. At the out­ set, he spent a morning in conversation with the Secretary of State, and he passed the evening of the same day with

lO^Hughes to Adams, 14 April 1823, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. Hughes to Adams, 15 April 1623, AP reel 459» Hughes to Adams, 10 June 1823, AP reel 461. 102 Hughes to Peggy Moore, 9 July 1823; and Hughes to Samuel Moore, 1 Aug 1823; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 91 the President. During the two and a half weeks which fol­ lowed, he saw Adams repeatedly, both at the Department of State and at social functions. Also, he had another long discussion with Monroe, probably over dinner at the White House, In addition, Hughes found opportunities to meet with Calhoun, Crawford, and Gallatin, While conversing at length on affairs in Europe and on his experiences in Sweden, Hughes persisted in claiming a second outfit and in recommending that he be accredited additionally to Copen­ hagen, In support of this recommendation, he pointed out that the United States maintained no diplomatic representa­ tion in Denmark and that American ships sailing to Sweden sometimes encountered quarantine and other problems in Danish waters. Besides such matters, Hughes had to settle his salary accounts with the Treasury, Though instructed to render them quarterly, he had apparently neglected this 103 bothersome and boresome business for several years, ^ Writing late at night to his sister, Hughes described his time in Washington; I am so over-run with visits and kindness and the distances are so great, , , , The heat and the moving about and the agitation of a change of abode , • , have prevented my sleeping, , , , I

Adams diary, 7 July to 24 July 1823, AP reel 37» Hughes to Peggy Moore, 9 July 1823, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 11 July 1823, 23 July 1823, and 23 July 1823; all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol, 4. Hughes to Crawford, 15 Sept 1824, Crawford Papers, DUL. 92

have so much writing to do, that I am obliged to rise early, to avoid the visitors who call. . • Having done all that he believed possible, Hughes returned to Baltimore on July 24. The next day, the President met with his cabinet to discuss the claim of Hughes to a second outfit and his recommendation that he be accredited to Denmark. Adams summarized the proceedings: . . . All the papers relating to Mr. Hughes's claim to a second outfit were read and considered. All the members of the administration were present, and all except myself for the allowance. I thought it allowable neither by the letter, nor by the most liberal construction of the law. . . . It was also determined that Hughes should be authorised to go to Copenhagen to revive the claims upon the Danish Government. But the project of authorising him to act permanently as Charge d'Affaires to Sweden and Denmark both, requires the concurrence of the Senate, and must be reserved for consideration. During the next several days Adams and his associates at the Department of State worked diligently to transform Presidential decisions into precise diplomatic instructions, Meanwhile, Hughes bade farewell to relatives and friends in Baltimore and left for New York in order to sail aboard the Canada on August 1. He had been told that a messenger from Washington would deliver instructions and despatches to him before the ship sailed, but the hour came 104 Hughes to Peggy Moore, 9 July 1823, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Adams diary, 25 July 1823, AP reel 37# 93

for the passengers to go aboard and there was no sign of a messenger. Almost too late, a State Department clerk In a small boat sped out into New York bay, met the Canada, and delivered a packet of valuable papers to the impatient Hughes.^06

As the latter examined the papers, vexation melted into contentment. In one instruction from the Secretary of State, Hughes read: I have this day, by direction of the Presi­ dent of the United States, requested the Secretary of the Treasury to cause a remittance to be made to you . . . , of four thousand five hundred dollars, being for an outfit which, under the special cir­ cumstances of the case, he has directed should be allowed to you. . . .10? Another instruction directed Hughes to become temporarily, a courier and an adviser: The despatches herewith committed to you for Mr. Rush at London and for Mr. Middleton at St. Petersburg relate to objects which make it desirable that they should be delivered personally by you. . . . It is presumed you will proceed with all convenient despatch to London. . • . The necessary expenses of your voyage and journey from New York to London, and . . . to St> Petersburg . . . , and for your return to Stockholm, will be allowed. . . . Mr. Rush and Mr. Middleton will communicate freely with you, in relation to the subjects of the despatches with which you are charged. You will consider these communications as entirely confidential.108 lO6jj^gjj0g Adams, 1 Aug 1823, AP reel 462.

^O^Adams to Hughes, 29 July 1823 (no. 11), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 10:164. TOfl ■^'^°Adams to Hughes, 29 July 1823 (no. 9), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 10:50-51. 94

These instructions repaired any damage to the pride and purse of Hughes remaining from the return of Russell to Stockholm in 181?. Furthermore, they tangibly expressed the full confidence of the Monroe administration in the American diplomatic representative assigned to Stockholm. As Hughes sailed away to Europe, he reflected on his dip­ lomatic career and wrote to his brother-in-law; "Is it not 109 gratifying to live in this honourable way?” In the summer of 1823, French military forces were in Spain, quelling a rebellion against the Bourbon King Ferdinand VII and helping him restore his tyrannical authority. Rumors spread across Europe that Prance, and perhaps other powers, would also attempt to reestablish Spanish rule in the former colonies of the New World. Such an attempt would threaten profitable British trading relationships in Latin America and the principle of national independence upon which the United States had been founded. While Hughes was crossing the Atlantic, British Foreign Secretary George Canning was making overtures to the American minister, Richard Rush, concerning a joint Anglo-American policy on Latin America. The eventual American response to these overtures was the rejection of any joint policy and the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine.

^®^Hughes to Samuel Moore, 1 Aug 1823, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 95

However, when the Canada sailed into Liverpool after a passage of three and a half weeks. Canning was still conducting his "flirtation" with the Americans. On his arrival, Hughes received an invitation to attend a dinner at the town hall in honor of Canning. Considering that Liverpool occupied a vital position in American trade and that his attendance at the dinner could possibly contribute to better Anglo-American relations, Hughes went to the affair. About 80 other persons were also present, including Canning and William Huskisson.^^^ Although the British foreign secretary had met Hughes the previous April, he now regarded his American acquaintance in a different light. Ihe latter, representing the United States, could serve as the object of calculated British affections. Hence, in proposing a toast to Hughes, Canning alluded to "the force of blood" and the "community of interests" binding the two English-speaking countries 112 together.

^^^Bradford Perkins, Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States. 1812-1823 iBerkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,1964), pp. 316-320. ^^^Hughes to Adams, 27 Aug 1823, AP reel 462. 112 George Canning, The Speeches of the Right Honourable George Canning ^ t h a Memoir of his Life by R « Therrv. Esq. 6 vols. (London: James Hidgway, 1Ô28) VI, 4l3-4l4 96

Hughes rose to the occasion with an eloquent response: . . . Long may the noble and unrivalled works constructed by this great and public spirited town for the accommodation of commerce • . • present to the eye . . . the busy and cheering scene that they now exhibit; a scene that I have visited this day . . . , a scene made up of thick and almost impei-vious forests of English and American masts, topped . . . with the fair foliage of friendly flags. • • .113 Canning, Hughes, and the merchants of Liverpool appeared to enjoy the occasion— each in his own different way.^^^ After being lionized at Liverpool, Hughes went on to Leamington Spa to rest for a few days. During this short period, he established cordial relations with the Duke of Buckingham and with Frederick John Robinson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Wherever he moved in English society, Hughes found an eagerness to cultivate friendship with the United States.

He arrived in London on September 6 , spent a week in the English capital, and had so many engagements that he saw little of Rush. As a consequence, he did not

^^%iles* Register (Baltimore), 25 Oct 1823, pp. 123-124. ^^^George Canning, George Canning and his Friends containing hitherto unpublished letters, jeux d'esprit, etc. Ed. by Cajptain Josceline Bagot. 2 vols. (London: Joto Murray, I909), II, 199-200. ^Hughes to Adams, 11 Feb 1824, AP reel 464. Hughes to Crawford, I5 Sept 1824, Crawford Papers, DUL. 97 perceive the importance of some of the subjects which Rush was willing to discuss with him, and he even left unread some of the confidential documents made available to him by the American legation. Hughes thus lost an opportunity to act as an adviser, but he remembered his responsibility as a courier and left for Russia in the middle of September. On his way to St. Petersburg, Hughes spent two tragic weeks with his family in Stockholm. While he had been absent, his younger son, Edward, aged three, had died. Now, the father had the melancholy responsibility of arranging for a funeral service. Also while Hughes had been absent, Laura had given birth to a baby girl. A week after the father had rejoined his family, this infant also died. After burying these two children and attempting to comfort his grief-stricken wife, Hughes, with heavy heart, 117 set out for the Russian capital. He arrived on October 16 and delivered his impor­ tant papers to Henry Middleton, the American minister. Quickly recovering his composure after his double personal tragedy and recognizing the mistake of his hastiness in London, Hughes resolved that, as long as he had come to

^^^Rush to Adams, JO Aug 1823 (no. 327), AP reel 462. Rush to Adams, 20 Sept 1823 (no. 332); and Hughes to Adams, 18 Oct 1823; both in AP reel 463» Hughes to Adams, 19 Feb 1824, AP reel 464. ^^^Hughes to Adams, 18 Oct 1823, AP reel 463» 98

Russia, he should derive as much benefit as possible from his visit. Through the kindness of Middleton and Sir Charles Bagot, the British minister, Hughes quickly became acquainted with the prominent members of the diplomatic 118 corps and Russian society. Travelling on to Moscow, Hughes paid a courtesy call on Prince Demetrius Gollitzin, the governor general, and was promptly included in a series of social affairs. He thus had opportunities to meet and converse with Count Nesselrode and other Russian statesmen. This visit to Russia could not be prolonged, however, because winter was approaching, and Hughes had to return to Stock­ holm before snow and ice made travel impossible. Bidding farewell to the Kremlin ("worth a passage across the Atlantic") and to St. Petersburg ("the queen of European 119 cities"), Hughes began his journey to Sweden. First by carriage, then by sled, and finally by boat, he made his way, day after day, toward the Swedish capital. He reached his destination on December 21 and brought to a close nine months of peripatetic representation.

Mission Accomplished: 1824-29 Hughes continued to represent the United States in the Swedish capital for a year and a half longer. During

^^®Hughes to Adams, 18 Oct 1823, AP reel 46]. Bagot, George Canning and His Friends. ll, 199-200. Hughes to Adams, 11 Feb 1824, AP reel 464. 99 this period, he reported on political developments through­ out Europe as he had done since 1819» and he helped to oversee a steady Increase In American trade with Sweden. While these activities required his constant attention and while they constituted the substance of routine diplomacy for Hughes, It was In another field that he achieved a certain degree of distinction. A few days before he left Sweden, Hughes participated In the settlement of the long- pending Stralsund claims. The negotiations leading to this settlement lasted many months and highlight this portion of his career. Although the king, his foreign minister, and other top figures In the Swedish government had long shown a will­ ingness, even an eagerness, to encourage American commerce, they displayed a curious reluctance to take any action con­ cerning the claims. Informally, they admitted the justice of them; formally, they promised to Investigate them In order to arrive at an official position. Actually, the Swedish government did nothing and apparently hoped that the American government and the American claimants would 120 eventually tire of pursuing the subject and forget It. 120 Hughes to Adams, 1 Deo 1818, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3* 100

In gossiping with members of Stockholm society, Hughes found an explanation for the attitude of the Swedish government. As he reported to Adams, There is no secret about the manner in which the proceeds of the sales of the American property seized at Stralsund was ^ i c / disposed of. . . . It was divided among the spoilers; the late queen got a share; the Wetterstedts another; the EngeStroms a third; other favourites received portions; and . . Æhe kin^ . . . knows what became of the rest.^^ For the record, the Swedish government suggested that the proceeds were allocated to defense purposes in Swedish Pomerania, but no one appears seriously to have denied the explanation reported by Hughes or to have offered an alter­ native explanation. Apart from the apparent collusion of the leaders of the Swedish government in defrauding American merchants, the senility of Engestrom, the foreign minister, contribu­ ted to the procrastination over the claims question. Hughes and others hoped that the old count would retire, but he clung to his office with a passion. In 1821 Hughes reported: *’^ngestrom7 Is almost super-annuated

121 Hughes to Adams, 5 Oct 1822, AP reel 456. 122 Hughes to Adams, 12 Aug 1819 (no. 9) and 16 Aug 1819 (private), both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 3» 101 and cannot hold out much longer.” The next year, he reported: Count d*EngeStrom is so completely caduc that It is quite idle to attempt to do any manner of business with him. He is allowed to remain in office from a regard for his long services and amiable personal character and a sort of belief that to dismiss him would be to kill him.^^^ Finally, in June, 1824, Engestrom was induced to retire after 5^ years in the service of his country, the last 15 of them as foreign minister. To fill the vacant position, the king appointed Count Wetterstedt. Then in his latter forties, the new foreign minister had long occupied responsible positions in the Swedish government and had acquired the reputation of being the ablest official in the kingdom. During the seven years that Hughes had resided in Sweden, he had established friendly and frank personal relationships with Wetterstedt and welcomed this new appointment. If the senility of Engestrom had obstructed the settlement of the claims ques­ tion, that obstruction no longer existed.^26

^^^Hughes to Adams, 21 Aug 1821, AP reel 452. ^^^Hughes to Adams, 5 Oct 1822, AP reel 456. ^^%ughes to Adams, 30 June 1824, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 126 Hughes to Adams, 30 June 1824, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. Hughes to Adams, ll Feb 1824, AP reel 464. 102

Several weeks after the appointment of Wetterstedt, a representative of the American claimants arrived in Stockholm. His name was John Connell, and he had been authorized to accept as little as fifty percent of the nomi­ nal value of the claims in a settlement of the matter with the Swedish government. For his expenses, the claimants agreed to allow him twenty percent of whatever amount he might obtain. No other compensation was allowed to him. Although the claimants had sent another representative to Stockholm in I8I7 in an unsuccessful effort to settle this 127 question, they were now disposed to make a new attempt. Despite his eagerness to reach a prompt settlement, Connell could do nothing &r over three months. The king, the foreign minister, and other top officials of the Swedish government absented themselves from Stockholm at various times to enjoy summer vacations. In addition, Connell had expected that Hughes would receive new and specific instruc­ tions to cooperate with him, but the diplomat had only the general instructions on this subject which he had received X28 in Washington in 1816. 127 Copy of agreement between John Connell and Stephen Girsœd and others, Jan 1824; Connell to Girard, 10 July 1824; both in microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. 128 Connell to Girard, 10 July 1824, microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. Hughes to Adams, 10 Oct 1824, AP reel 466. 103

In October the Swedish officials had returned to their posts, and Hughes was prepared to facilitate the efforts of Connell, even without new Instructions. There­ fore, on October 12 the representative of the claimants addressed a memorial to the minister for foreign affairs, briefly describing the basis for the claims and appealing 129 for a settlement. Hughes undertook to present the memorial and. In a covering note, declared I cannot forbear remarking . . . that this Is the only passage In the Relations between Sweden and the United States that may not be referred to and contemplated with pride and with satisfac­ tion. . . . Will not His Majesty consent to make some sacrifice, to expunge this obnoxious passage from the Annals of the Two Nations . . . ?130 In this manner, Hughes Joined Connell In opening negotia­ tions on a subject which had been dormant since the departure of Russell In 1818. When two weeks passed without any formal response, Hughes arranged a conversation with Wetterstedt. In reporting the substance to Adams, he summarized: "I do not perceive the slightest prospect of the Swedish Government's consenting to make any restitution, or of their making any satisfactory settlement of this business."^31 Writing to 129j4emorlal of John Connell to Count Wetterstedt, 12 Oct 1824, microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. ^3®Hughes to Wetterstedt, 18 Oct 1824, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. ^^^Hughes to Adams, 4 Nov 1824, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 104

Girard, Connell also reported bleak prospects, but he added, '•I shall wait a formal answer, before I attempt a compro­ mise ,^32

In November Hughes received word of the death of his father. Believing that the settlement of the estate would require his presence in Baltimore, he wrote to the Secretary of State requesting a leave of absence for six months beginning the following May. While Hughes expected that the claims question would again become dormant by the time he was ready to depart from Sweden, he had unwittingly established a kind of deadline for the completion of the negotiations on the s u b j e c t . ^^3

Ever since his first informal conversations with Swedish officials many years earlier, Hughes had held the opinion that the claims question could not be settled unless the government at Washington strengthened the hand of the American diplomatic representative in Stockholm in some fashion. In his despatches to the Secretary of State, he repeatedly suggested that the only effectual means of com­ pelling the Swedish government to make a settlement would be to threaten to raise the American import duty on Swedish iron and thereby threaten to exclude all or a great part of

^^^Connell to Girard, 4 Nov 1824, microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. 133 Hughes to Adams, 18 Nov 1824, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 105 that product from the United States. Probably in his con­ versations with Swedish friends, Hughes Intimated that American exasperation at Swedish procrastination might one day reach the point where Congress would adopt discrimina- 13£l tory measures against Sweden. However, about the same time that Connell appeared in Stockholm, the Swedish charge d'affaires at Washington, Baron Stackelberg, also arrived on a leave of absence. As a matter of course, he had consultations with the Swedish foreign minister and other officials and apparently assured them that Congress would not adopt any measures discrimina­ ting against Sweden. Hughes felt that Stackelberg had 135 "poisoned" Wetterstedt*s ear on the subject of claims. At the moment when Hughes considered his bargaining position to be disintegrating. President Monroe, in his

annual message to Congress, noted that It was under the influence of • . • ^rance% . , . that our vessels were . . . seized by the Governments of Spain, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Naples, and from whom indemnity has been claimed and is still expected. • . .13^ ______

^3^Hughes to Adams, k Nov 1824, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. ^Hughes to Adams, 4 Nov 1824, AP reel 466. Hughes to Adams, 18 Nov 1824, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. II, 253. 106

The President of the United States had called the attention of Congress to the unsettled American claims against Sweden. Early in February, Hughes reported the Swedish reaction: The Passage was carefully translated to the King by Count Wetterstedt, and it came in very good seasonI His Excellency expressed his great satisfaction at the mild and friendly manner in which the affair had been mentioned by Mr. Monroe, saying that the absence of all menace and strong language had been noticed and appreciated here. . . .^37 Though the language of the President was mild, the Swedish leaders understood the implications of his message. Thus, the previous intimations of Hughes concerning possible Congressional action seemed to have a better foundation than the assurances of Stackelberg. The fact that the Congress of the United States now possessed official notice of the claims question seems to have shaken the complacency of the Swedish government. At any rate, Wetterstedt in his informal conversations with Hughes admitted the justice of the claims and declared that, sooner or later, they must be settled. As a consequence, Hughes became optimistic and reported to Adams "my persua­ sion and my hope that we shall finally come to some conclusion of the business. 1*57 Hughes to Secretary of State, 3 Feb 1825 (no. 3), Ni Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. ^^^Hughes to Secretary of State, 3 Feb 1825 (no. 3)* NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 107

Although Wetterstedt appeared ready to engage in negotiations, he insisted on dealing only with or through Hughes. He refused to have official communication with Connell, but he welcomed informal conversation with him. Thus, Hughes became indispensable to Connell in the nego­ tiations,^^9

Apparently, Connell never received a formal answer to the memorial which he had submitted, but informal dis­ cussions occurred intermittently during the winter and spring. At one point, Connell offered to accept Swedish government bonds valued at seventy-five percent of the claims. Wetterstedt countered by offering to sell the Island of St. Bartholomew to the United States for $500,000 and by suggesting that part of the proceeds might be applied to a claims settlement. While both sides probed and explored, both clearly wished to continue the negotiations. Wetterstedt gave the impression that he favored a settlement but that he required time to win other ministers in the government to his view. If the Swedish foreign minister could afford to delay more easily than the representative of the claimants, both needed Hughes, and the latter had lUo announced his intention of returning to the United States.

^^^Hughes to Secretary of State, 3 Feb 1825 (no. 3), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4.

^^^Hughes to Secretary of State, 7 Feb 1825 (no. 4), 16 Feb 1825 (no. 5), 19 March 1825, 25 March 1825 (no. 7), 108

Although he and his family had planned to leave Stockholm in May, Hughes did not receive permission from Washington to depart as soon as he had expected; besides, he, too, wanted to see the claims question settled. Because of these considerations, he postponed his departure until the middle of July.^^^ With this new deadline only weeks away, hard bar­ gaining began. When the Swedish negotiators appeared balky, Hughes menaced them "with Congressional exposure and e x p l o s i o n . "142 Then Connell reported

After a long and arduous war of words with this government, they finally made me an offer of compromise. . . . However, I shall hold out a week or two lonfer, as Mr. Hughes will not leave this, until the middle of next month. . . .1^3 Two weeks later, Hughes wrote the Secretary of State: Nothing decisive has taken ^lace7 yet in Mr. Connell's business; but I think we shall come to a conclusion before the 12th when . . . it is my intention to weigh anchor; prospects are encouraging; Mr.,Connell decides, and acts, for himself. . . .^44

7 April 1825; all five in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. Connell to Girard and others, 8 Dec 1824, 20 Feb 182$, and 1? April 1825; all three in microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. ^4lHughes to Clay, 21 June 1825 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. ^42Hughes to Clay, 21 June 1825 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. ^43connell to Girard and others, 25 June 1825, microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. ^44nughes to Clay, 8 July 1825 (private), NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 109

Hughes had planned to take formal leave of the king on July 12 and depart from Stockholm immediately. His family had already left and was vacationing in the country. However, on that day the king was indisposed and sent word to Hughes requesting the latter to delay his departure. Connell and Wetterstedt were still haggling. Although a claims settlement appeared no closer on July 15, Hughes received an invitation to dine with the royal family the same day. This farewell dinner for the American diplomat passed off pleasantly, and, afterwards, Hughes took leave of the king.^^^ The following day with the departure of Hughes from Stockholm imminent, the Swedish government accepted the terms which Connell had demanded several weeks earlier: $60,000 in cash. However, the Swedish government insisted that the American claimants request the President to inform Congress of the settlement. Connell, of course, agreed. Thereupon, Wetterstedt, Hughes, and Connell exchanged documents evidencing the amicable conclusion of the claims 1^7 question.

^^^Hughes to Clay, 15 July 1825 (private), with postscript of 16 July 1825, NA Despatches from U.S. Minis­ ters to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. l^^Hughes to Clay, I5 July 1825 (private), with postscript of 16 July 1825, NA Despatches from U.S. Minis­ ters to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. ^^^Hughes to Clay, 15 July 1825 (private), with postscript of 16 July 1825; 7 Aug 1825 (no. 3); and 8 Aug 1825 (no. 4); all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers 110

In his first annual message to Congress, President Adams on December 6, 1825, informally ratified this settle­ ment; . . . And those /claims/ upon Sweden have been lately compromised by a private settlement, in which the claimants themselves have acquie seed. Describing the settlement to the claimants in the

United States, Connell declared I am principally indebted to Hr. Hughes* unwearied exertion for my success.1^9 It is unnecessary to inform you of the difficulties with which I have had to contend; and, but for the great nersonal consideration in which Kr. Hughes is held by both the King and his Council, all my time and trouble would have been lost.^50 Three days after the settlement, Hughes joined his family at a chateau in the country for a brief vacation. He had accomplished his mission to Sweden. to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. Connell to Girard and others, 20 July 1825 and 25 July 1825, both in microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. 1 Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. II. 30l. ^^9Connell to Girard and others, 20 July 1825, microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. Connell to Girard and others, 25 July 1825, microfilms of the Stephen Girard Papers, APSL. ^^^Hughes to Peggy Moore, 1 Aug 1825, Hughes Papers, WLCL. CHAPTER IV

ASSIGNMENT TO THE NETHERLANDS

The diplomatic career of Christopher Hughes depended partly upon his personality and his talents but also, to a varying degree, upon the political influence of his father-in-law, Samuel Smith, and upon the favor of his friend, John Quincy Adams, While the latter served as President of the United States, the career of Hughes reached a zenith. After Adams was relegated to private life in 3S29, the career of Hughes descended to a nadir. Only the vigor­ ous intervention of Smith with the new Jackson administration saved Hughes from dismissal and enabled him to remain in his chosen profession. Between 1825 and 1830 both Adams and Smith played crucial roles in the career of Hughes. Long before the settlement of American claims against Sweden, Hughes had requested not only leave to return tempor­ arily to the United States but had also urged that he be transferred to a different diplomatic post. He asserted that the long and cold Swedish winters,were making his wife grow thin and weak, and he suggested that the climate of Lisbon or Brussels would be more agreeable. Adams, then

111 112

Secretary of State, promised to keep the wishes of Hughes in mind.^ On March 4, 1825, John Quincy Adams succeeded James Monroe as President of the United States. A day after as­ suming office, Adams sent a message to the Senate nominating Henry Clay to he Secretary of State and a number of other persons to lesser offices, including "Christopher Hughes, of Maryland, to be Charge d ’Affaires to the Netherlands."^ Besides transferlng Hughes to a more pleasant and perhaps more Important post, the new administration granted him leave to visit the United States for six months in con­ nection with the settlement of his father’s estate. Althotgh Adams and Clay believed that American diplomats should re- I main at their posts during their assignments and should not normally benefit from any leave of absence to visit their 3 homeland, an exception was made in the case of Hughes."^ When Adams became President, the United States main­ tained no diplomatic mission to Denmark although several problems had long troubled the relations between the two ^Smith to Adams, 12 June 1824, AP reel 465* Adams to Smith, 20 June 1824, AP reel 14?. Hughes to Smith, 28 Oct 1824, Hughes Papers WLCL. Hughes to Adeuns, 4 Nov 1824, AP reel 466. Smith to Adams, 1 March 1825, AP reel 468. ^United States Congress. Senate. Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, vol. Ill (Washington: Duff Green, 1828i 436. Diary of John Quincy Adams, 5 March 1825, AP reel 36. ^Clay to Hughes, 24 March 1825, no. 1, Hughes Papers WLCL. 113 countries. The anticipated return of Hughes from Sweden to the United States offered the new administration an oppor­ tunity to press for the settlement of these problems. Accordingly, when Clay approved the transfer and leave for Hughes, he also instructed the latter to travel via Copen- hagen on a special mission to the Danish government. About June 1st the American charge in Sweden received a packet of letters and instructions from the Department of State— his first communications from the new administration in Washington. Pleased with his prospects, Hughes replied to Clay that he intended to leave Stockholm about the middle of July, stop briefly at the Danish capital to carry out his special mission, resume his journey to Brussels to present his letter of credence, and then continue on to the United States with his wife and two children.^ Now an experienced diplomat, Hughes began the middle phase of his career in 1825»

Circuitous Route to a New Post: 182S-26 More than a year passed between the day Hughes re­ ceived notification of his tiansfer to the Netherlands and

Clay to Hughes, 24 March 1825, no. 1, Hughes Papers WLCL. ^Hughes to Clay, 21 June 1825, NA Despatches from U. S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 114 the day he assumed his new duties in the Dutch capital. During the interval, he twice crossed the Atlantic, settled his personal affairs at Baltimore, and sought to strengthen relations with his friends in Washington. Hughes arrived at Copenhagen on the last day of July and immediately arranged for an interview with the Danish foreign minister to explain his special mission. Two prob­ lems disturbed relations between the United States and Denmark; unsettled claims of American merchants against the Danish government for grievances suffered in 1810 and the refusal of the Danish authorities to permit an American consul to exercise his functions on the Caribbean island of St. Thomas. The claims against Denmark seem to have been as complicated and as trifling as those against Sweden, recently settled. With respect to the consular matter, the Danish officials in the Caribbean apparently had been prof­ iting from illicit trade and had opposed any foreign representation within their Jurisdiction. In his interview with the foreign minister and in subsequent conversations with the king and other dignitaries, Hughes courteously but insistently requested that the claims be settled and that a consul be admitted to St. Thomas.^

^Hughes to Clay, 19 Aug 1825, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. Hughes to Adeuns, 28 Oct 1825, AP reel 4?2. 115

Expecting to achieve nothing of consequence in the Danish capital and under instructions from Clay not to pro­ long his stay, Hughes remained just long enough for an exchange of notes concerning the subjects of his mission. With respect to the claims, the Danish foreign minister pleaded lack of time for a thorough examination of the issue during the brief visit of Hughes and contented himself with noting that Denmark herself had suffered grievously during the Napoleonic period. With respect to the other problem, however, the foreign minister declared that the king had agreed to the appointment of an American consul at St- Thomas. Hughes, surprised and delighted with the partial success of his efforts, bade farewell to the king on August 18 and, shortly afterwards, left Copenhagen for the Netherlands.? Since 1815 the kingdom of the Netherlands, under William I of Orange, had consisted of the former United Provinces and the former Austrian Netherlands. Because of the dual nature of the kingdom, the royal court resided alternately at The Hague and at Brussels, moving annually in the autumn. The ministers of the king, the members of the States-General, and the diplomatic corps followed the court. Such was the unusual nature of the government to which Hughes was now assigned.

?Hughes to Clay, 1 Aug 1825 and 19 Aug 1825, NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. 116

On September 5 the new American charge arrived at Brussels, then the seat of government. As he set out on foot the next day to pay his initial call on the foreign minister, along clattered the carriage of the British am­ bassador, Sir Charles Bagot. The latter, having served previously at St. Petersburg and Washington and having known Hughes in both places, caught sight of him, had the carriage stopped, and welcomed his old acquaintance inside. Together they proceeded to the foreign ministry where the British diplomat graciously introduced his American col­ league. Several days later, Hughes was formally presented to the king. On both occasions, he carefully explained that he would shortly leave for the United States to help settle the estate of his father but that he would return the following year to take up his duties. After receiving official recognition as American charge d'affaires. Hughes traveled on to Le Havre where, with his wife and children, O he embarked on the Lewis bound for New York. The passage lasted a month. Despite rough seas and a crowded cabin, Hughes found opportunity during the cross­ ing to write long letters to Monroe, Adams, and Clay. He summarized recent developments in American relations with Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands; pointed out his achievements; and suggested in respectful terms that he had Q ^ - n Hughes to Clay, 7 Sept 1825, NA. Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 4. Hughes to Adams, 28 Oct 1825, AP reel 4?2. 117 earned a promotion In rank ae well as a transfer to a more desirable post. After a fatiguing voyage, the Hughes family sailed into New York harbor on October 28.^ For the next six months the jovial diplomat sought out old friends, maintained harmony with his brother and sisters in the settlement of the paternal estate, and tried to advance his professional fortunes. Except for his brief and hurried visit of seven weeks in 1823, Hughes had seen nothing of his homeland in nine years. Not only he but Laura as well wanted to obtain the maximum benefit and enjoyment from this home leave. Hughes and his family rested several days in New York, then journeyed on to Philadelphia for a chat with Stephen Girard, and finally arrived in Baltimore on November 6 . Samuel Smith, again a member of the United States Senate, welcomed into his luxurious home his daughter Laura, her husband, and their two children. Not only Smith but much of Baltimore society provided a warm homecoming for the Hughes family For the first couple of months there seemed to be some kind of dinner or reception in honor of Hughes almost 9Hughes to Monroe, 8 Oct 1825, Monroe Papers, LC, series 1 reel 9» Hughes to Adams, 28 Oct 1825, AP reel 4?2. Hughes to Clay, 28 Oct 1825, Clay Papers, LC. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 28 Oct 1825, Hughes Papers WLCL. ^^National Intelligencer. 1 Nov and 19 Nov, 1825. Hughes to Harrison Gray Otis, l4 Nov 1825, Otis Papers, MHS. Hughes to Clay, 30 Dec 1825, Clay Papers, LC. 118 every day. Always a gourmet, the vacationing diplomat relished the Allegheny venison, the Chesapeake Bay canvas- backs, and the choice Madeira wine served to him on these convivial occasions. Old Charles Carroll of Carrollton fig­ ured among the local dignitaries who greeted Hughes. In turn, the latter repaid his hosts with clever puns and gossipy anecdotes about European kings, queens, and statesmen. He also provided commercial information of some use to the import­ ers, exporters, and shipowners of the port of Baltimore. Almost overnight the likeable, yet sophisticated, Hughes became the toast of Baltimore. In the light of this popularity, of his experience both abroad and at home, and of his political connections both locally and nationally, some politicians suggested that Hughes seek election as governor of the state of Maryland. Though tempted, the diplomat decided to remain in his chosen profession. In a frank letter to Hughes, Henry Clay commended this decision of his long-time friend; The place of Governor of Maryland is highly respectable. . . . It does not suit you yet. It belongs to a later period of your life. You should shed a few more of your follies in foreign parts. . . . I am . . . anxious to see the Governor, that was to have been. . . .

^^Adams, Memoirs, op. cit.. VII, 56. Hughes to Harrison Gray Otis, 28 Nov 1825, Otis Papers, MHS. Hughes to Charles Bagot, 1 Dec 1825, in Canning, George Canning and His Friends, op. cit.. II 296-300. ^^Clay to Hughes, 18 Dec 1825, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 119

While spending most of his leave among family and friends in Baltimore, Hughes visited nearby Washington for several days nearly every month. Of course, he had a duty to report personally to the Secretary of State and to the President concerning his past diplomatic activities abroad and to receive their instructions for the future. In addi­ tion, however, he enjoyed hobnobbing with influential and prominent persons in government and society. Finally, Hughes wanted not only to retain the confidence of his superiors, but he also wanted to persuade them that he should be raised to the rank and dignity of minister pleni­ potentiary. During the course of his visits to the national capital, he twice dined with the President at the White House, called on the British, Russian, and Dutch ministers, met key members of Congress, and passed Christmas Day with 13 Judge Bushrod Washington at Mount Vernon. In his effort to gain promotion, Hughes attempted to arouse impressive support. Through letters and conversa­ tions with friends from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, he argued that a minister, merely by virtue of his rank, enjoyed freer access to key officials of foreign

^^Adams, Memoirs, o n . cit.. VII 56. J.Q. Adams diary, 25 Nov 1825# 5 Jan lôèé, 10 Jan 1826, AP, reel 40. Hughes to Clay, 1 Dec 1825 and 30 Dec 1825, Clay Papers, LC. Hughes to Clay, 15 April 1826, NA, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Harrison Gray Otis, 21 Dec 1825, Otis Papers, MH3. 120 governments than a charge did and, as a consequence, could serve his country more effectively In commercial as well as In strictly diplomatic matters* He suggested that the Interests of American merchants could he fostered better If the United States raised the level of American representation at the Dutch capital. In response to these suggestions, merchants in those cities began sending memorials to the President requesting him to appoint a minister rather than a charge to the Netherlands.^^ Writing to Bagot at Brussels, Hughes mentioned that the king of the Netherlands had sent a minister to represent his government In the United States but that the American government had shown no disposition to reciprocate the cour­ tesy, He went on to suggest that perhaps the Dutch govern­ ment could be Induced to make appropriate hints In this regard Finally, while he lobbied on his own behalf among Congressmen In Washington, his father-in-law joined the cam­ paign. An Influential political figure both In Baltimore and In the United States Senate, Samuel Smith called on the President and earnestly asked him to raise the level of American representation In the Netherlands.^^ Thus, In the l^Hughes to Harrison Gray Otis, 28 Nov 1825, 21 Dec 1825, 12 Feb 1826, Otis Papers, MHS. Hughes to Adams, 27 Oct 1829, AP, reel 491. l^Hughes to Bagot, 1 Dec 1825, in Canning, George Canning and His Friends, op. cit., II 296-300. 1&J.Q. Adams diary, 4 Jan 1826, AP, reel 40. 121 fields of domestic politics, international diplomacy, and commercial interest, Hughes pressed his campaign from the end of November until the middle of February. Although Adams and Clay thought well of Hughes, they hesitated to request the necessary Congressional approval for the promotion. Ihey had to cope with the cost-cutting mood of Congress and stand ready to justify any new expense. The promotion desired by Hughes would have meant a salary in­ crease from 1^,500 to $9,000 per year. While Hughes had done nothing in particular to warrant doubling his salary, his predecessor in the Netherlands had apparently represented American interests as a charge in a satisfactory manner since 1818. Therefore, the Adams administration felt that it could not make a convincing case in favor of the promo­ tion in the existing circumstances. Furthermore, many mem­ bers of both the Senate and House seemed eager to scrutinize severely all aspects of the diplomacy of the administration, and some members of Congress informally expressed the opin­ ion that Hughes was too young to be raised to the dignity of minister. As the administration and Congress soon fell to wrangling over the proposed participation by the United States in the inter-American conference to be held at Panama, Hughes was more or less forgotten in Washington.^?

^?Hughes to Albert Gallatin, 10 Dec 1826, Gallatin Bipers, NYHS, Clay to Hughes, 25 Dec 1829. Hughes Papers, WLCL. U.S., Congress, Debates in Congress. 1st session of 19th 122

He therefore retreated to Baltimore to attend to family matters and to enjoy the remaining weeks of his leave. His father's estate, valued at close to a half million dol­ lars, consisted to a large extent of rental dwellings, warehouses, and undeveloped parcels of land. Apparently, Hughes shared in the settlement of the estate more or less equally with his brother and four sisters. Although the general lines of the settlement had been established before he returned to the United States in the fall of 1825, Hughes faced all sorts of problems concerning the management, development, and possible disposal of his properties during his expected absence abroad. Ey the spring of 1826, however, 18 he believed that he had solved most of these.problems. Although occupied with his affairs in Baltimore, Hughes thought also of his future representational duties in the Netherlands. Proud of his country, he attempted to procure, through his Boston friend Harrison Gray Otis, a portrait of George Washington painted to his order by Gilbert Stuart.Of course it was to be a copy of the famous Stuart likeness of the father of his country. In request­ ing Otis to approach the celebrated artist, Hughes wrote. Let him distinctly have the stimulating foreknowledge, that, the portrait is to be exhibited

Congress (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1826), II, 142-405. T R Hughes to Harrison Gray Otis, 14 Nov 1825, Otis Papers,MHS. Hughes to Clay, 12 April 1826, Clay Papers, LC. Hughes to Adams, 30 May 1834, AP, reel 499. 123

at Brussels, to all the great connolseurs In paint­ ing in that region . . . and that even the King and Royal Family will see this Picture of General Washington. With this knowledge, he will do his bestl Having arrived at Baltimore early in November, Hughes planned to conclude his leave and sail for Europe early in May, 1826. He visited Washington during the last week of April, received his final instructions from the Secretary of State, and said farewell to his friends in the administration. On May 3 at Baltimore, Hughes, with his wife and two children, embarked on the William Penn and sailed down Chesapeake Bay bound for Rotterdam. The voyage lasted 40 days— a rather long crossing at that season— not because of adverse winds but because of the absence cf strong winds. As the ship lay becalmed off Calais, Hughes impatiently insisted on disembarking and on proceed­ ing overland by diligence. On June 18 he and his family at last reached Brussels. Over a year had passed since Hughes received notification of his transfer from Sweden to the Netherlands. Now he was ready to assume his new duties. 21

^^Hughes to Harrison Gray Otis, 21 Dec 1825, Otis Papers, MRS.

""^Hufi^es to Clay, 15 April 1826, 30 April 1826, 3 May 1826, NA, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. National Intelligencer. 4 May 1826. 21 Hughes to Clay, 14 June 1826, NA, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Hughes to Samuel Moore, 26 June 1826, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Clay, 11 July 1826, Clay papers, LC. 124

A Journeyman Diplomat at Work: 1826-28 For two and a half years Hughes served as a reliable channel of communication between the United States and the Netherlands. While enjoying the confidence of the American government, he established pleasant working relations with the Dutch government and with his colleagues In the diplo­ matic corps. If he achieved nothing dramatic during this period, neither did he disturb the basic harmony between the two countries. His significant contribution to diplomatic relations was the day-by-day nurture of Inter­ national unders tandIng. Although no serious or urgent problems strained relations between the United States and the Netherlands In 1826, problems existed nonetheless. As President Monroe had noted In his annual message to Congress In December, 1824, American citizens had claims against the Dutch government. Dating back to 1810, these claims resembled those against Sweden and Denmark In nature and value. In seeking settlements, the claimants In all cases seemed to 22 suffer much delay and exasperation. Another problem— more theoretical than practical- concerned the treaty relations between the two countries. 22 Adams to Alexander Hill Everett, 10 Aug 1818, NA, Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8:235-244. Clay to Hughes, 27 April 1826, NA, Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 11:27-28. 125

In 1782 John Adams had negotiated a treaty of amity and commerce with the existing Dutch government, and that instrument, despite great constitutional and territorial changes involving both countries, still provided the legal basis for trade and friendly intercourse. In 181? repre­ sentatives of the two governments began negotiations on a new treaty, but their efforts soon broke down, apparently because of the fears and obstructions of Amsterdam mer­ chants. Both governments then tacitly agreed to await more favorable circumstances before attempting to resume negotiations.Meanwhile, each country resorted to uni­ lateral action to encourage foreign trade. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, attempted to define the evolving bilateral commercial relationship as a "system of equalization, established with a mutual understanding between the United States and the Netherlands, by recipro- 24 cal Acts of Legislation." In 1822 the government of the Netherlands adopted legislation intended to favor a larger and more active Dutch merchant marine. This legislation provided for a drawback of ten percent on duties levied on imports or exports carried on Dutch ships. The government of the United States considered this drawback as a measure of 23Adaas to Everett, 10 Aug 1818, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 8 î 235-244. ^^Adams to Everett, 9 Aug 1823, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 10:94-96. 126 discrimination against American shipping and asserted that It violated the system referred to by John Quincy Adams. Despite vigorous protests against this measure by the American government, the drawback continued In force and was a third problem with which Hughes had to concern himself A fourth problem arose shortly before Hughes left Baltimore for his new post. The Dutch government, com­ plaining that many Dutch seamen were deserting their ships In order to serve aboard American ships, requested American assistance In recovering the deserters. The Secretary of State, In his Instructions to Hughes, parried this request by suggesting that the subject might be arranged to mutual 26 satisfaction In a new treaty of amity and commerce. Finally, Alexander Hill Everett, the American charge d'affaires In the Netherlands from 1818 to 1824, published some uncomplImentary remarks about the Dutch monarchy shortly after quitting his post. This Indiscretion offended many of the persons In government and society with whom Hughes would have to deal. The new charge regarded the "offensive republicanism" of his predecessor as an addi­ tional problem confronting him In the Netherlands.^^

^^Adams to Everett, 9 Aug 1823, NA Diplomatic Instruc­ tions, All Countries, 10:94-96. Clay to Hughes, 27 April 1826, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 11:27-28. ^^Clay to Hughes, 27 April 1826, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 11:27-28. ^^Hughes to Gallatin, 10 Dec 1826, Gallatin Papers, NYHS. Hughes to Clay, 20 Oct 1829, Clay Papers, LC, 127

Hughes spent the summer of 1826 establishing himself at his new post. After finding temporary lodging for his family at Brussels and placing his eight-year old son in school, he journeyed to The Hague, then the seat of govern­ ment. Early in July, he presented a renewed letter of credence to the Dutch foreign minister, Baron Verstolk de Soelen, and was received by the king several days later. Both interviews passed off quite pleasantly despite the problems between the two countries. Besides meeting key persons in the Dutch government, Hughes also called on members of the diplomatic corps, some of them old acquaint­ ances like the British ambassador. Sir Charles Bagot. Finally, before returning to Brussels, Hughes visited Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam to become acquainted with the leading merchants engaged in trade with the United States. Satisfied with his initial contacts, he looked 2ft forward to a pleasant tour of duty in the Netherlands. Always concerned about the personal comfort of him­ self and his family, Hughes devoted a considerable amount

(contains quotation from a letter, Gallatin to Hughes, 28 Nov 1826). Also see Herbert B. Adams, The Life and Writ­ ings of Jared Sparks. Comprising Selections from His Journals and Correspondence. 2 vols (Boston and New York : Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1893) I, 284-290. 28 Hughes to Clay, 11 July 1826, 16 July 1826, and 17 July 1826, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Hughes to Clay, 11 July 1826 and 12 Aug 1826, both "private," Clay Papers, LC. 128 of time and money finding and furnishing a suitable resi­ dence. Also searching for housing at the same time were dozens of Englishmen~both diplomatic and commercial— who appeared to possess funds equal to or greater than those of Hughes. Against this competition he succeeded in leasing "a snug little house, near the park" at 1025 Hue Ducale for 29 3000 francs per year, payable in advance. Before occupy­ ing the premises, Hughes had to spend an additional 3000 francs for papering, painting, and general repairs. Although the Hughes family had many of their household effects shipped from Stockholm, they found it necessary to buy more furnishings for their new home in Brussels. Early in October, all was ready and they moved in.^® In trying to establish himself properly at his new post, Hughes of course had in mind also his duties as a representa­ tive of the United States. Writing to Clay, he declared There is no success, without, now and then, giving these diplomatic gentry a good dinner and having the air and appearance of keeping a gentle­ manlike house I It is astonishing how far this goes and how much depends on hospitality and digestionP^ Appropriately adorning the walls of the residence of the

9Hughes to Hannah Nicolson Gallatin, 14 Nov 1826, Gallatin Papers, NYHS, Hughes to Clay, 9 March 1827, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Three thousand francs was the equivalent of 600 U.S. dollars in the calculations of Hughes. ^^Hughes to Clay, 11 July 1826, Clay Papers, LC. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 9 Oct 1826, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^^Hughes to Clay, 9 March 1827, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. 129

American charge were original portraits from life of Washington and Lafayette, the former perhaps by Rembrandt 32 Peale and the latter by Ary Scheffer. To serve effectively as spokesman for his government and interpreter of his nation, Hughes needed a steady stream of information on current developments and problems in the United States. Letters from well-placed friends and routine circular instructions from the Department of State supplied some of this information. English and continental newspapers supplied additional scraps with a European bias. But Hughes believed that he could best obtain an under­ standing of the current American scene by reading American newspapers. Therefore, he tried to assure himself of a continuing supply, particularly of the National Intelli­ gencer of Washington, D.C. To his great annoyance, however, copies of this newspaper as well as other journals arrived in a wildly irregular fashion. Once, four months passed when Hughes received no American newspapers at all, and then 70 issues were landed by one ship at Amsterdam. Part of the diffi­ culty lay in the bureaucratic tendency of the Department of State to send all of the newspapers for Hughes to New York with directions that they be placed aboard the first ^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 9 Oct 1826, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Herbert B. Adams, The Life and Writings of Jared Sparks. OP. cit.. II, 82-63, 130 available ship bound for a port in the Netherlands. Because transatlantic service to Liverpool and Le Havre was much faster and more frequent, Hughes repeatedly re­ quested that the clerks of the Department modify their mailing routine to take advantage of the better, alterna­ tive routes. Though he failed in this effort to receive more regular and timely news from the United States, he 33 managed to keep fairly well informed on American politics. In the autumn of 1826 Just as Hughes was beginning to feel settled as American charge d'affaires in the Netherlands, the realization dawned on him that the cost of living at Brussels was substantially higher than that at Stockholm. Before the spring of 1827 arrived, he made the dismaying discovery that his ordinary living expenses to­ gether with the extraordinary expenses of establishing a new residence far exceeded his current combined official and private income. To make ends meet, he had to adopt rigorous economies in his daily living and he had to borrow extensively. Because of the need to reduce expenses, he could maintain no carriage, give no formal dinners, and accept fewer invitations for social engagements than he would have liked. Especially during the first year at 33Hnghes to Clay, 18 Aug 1826, l6 Sept 1827, 5 Oct 1827, 27 July 1828, Clay Papers, LC. Hughes to Clay, 16 Oct 1826 and 30 Jan 1827, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Hughes to Adams, 4 July 1828, AP reel 468. 131

Brussels, but to some extent later on as well, lack of sufficient funds seriously hampered Hughes in his efforts to represent the United States.3^ After residing a year and a half at Brussels, Hughes described his plight to the Secretary of State; I am almost in despair. . . . Mrs. Hughes never goes into Society, not being able to bear the expense of dress I . . . We have dismissed our cook. . . . There are balls and parties to which I am absolutely obliged to go. Myjwife st^s at home; I walk, rain or snow, with /an extra/ pair of dry shoes . . . and change in the entry, not affording 10 or 12 francs for a Hackney Coach!35 Complicating his financial problem was the need to travel to The Hague from time to time, especially when the seat of government was located there. Nevertheless, Hughes represented his country as well as his circumstances permitted. At his initial interview with the Dutch foreign minister, Hughes raised the matter of the ten percent drawback which the American government considered discriminatory against American shipping. He suggested that, if the drawback remained in force, the President of the United States, in accordance with 3%îughes to Mrs. Moore, 9 Oct 1826 and 30 June 1828; Hughes to Samuel Moore, 7 March 1827 and 13 June 1827; Hughes to Messrs. Willink and Van Staphorst, 5 March 1827; Laura Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 25 Dec 1826; all of the fore­ going in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Clay, 21 Jan 1827 and 16 Jan 1828, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Hughes to Hannah Nicholson Gallatin, 14 Nov 1826, Gallatin Papers, NYHS. ^^Hughes to Clay, 16 Jan 1828, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. 132 existing legislation, might be required to adopt retalia­ tory measures. Verstolk replied that the drawback was a matter of domestic legislation designed to benefit Dutch shipping, that American shipping remained on the same footing as all other foreign shipping, that the Dutch minister in Washington had already received instructions to discuss this subject with the American Secretary of State, and that any formal conversations on this matter should preferably be held in the American capital. He noted that between I50 and 200 American ships annually visited ports in the Netherlands while only 10 or 12 Dutch ships visited ports in the United States. If the American government decided to single out Dutch shipping in some kind of discriminatory measure, he hinted that his government, in turn, would resort to counter­ vailing action. In such a contest, American interests would clearly suffer more than Dutch interests. Of course Hughes 37 duly reported this conversation to the Secretary of State. Subsequently, Hughes visited merchants interested in the trade with the United States and obtained their opinions about existing conditions and about possible future develop­ ments. He found that American shippers appeared to be

^^Hughes to Clay, 11 July 1826, (no. 1), NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Hughes to Clay, 11 July 1826, (no. 1), NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. 133

thriving despite mistaken and short-sighted measures of the Dutch government. He concluded that in a contest, such as that suggested by Verstolk, the Americans would be more vulnerable than the Dutch. Therefore, he recommended to Clay that the United States delay exerting any pressure on the Netherlands for the time being. For all practical purposes, the drawback became a dormant issue in the relations between the two countries and continued so for as long as Hughes remained in the Netherlands. To be sure, he informally complained about the drawback to the foreign minister from time to time, and Clay also mentioned the subject to the Dutch minister . in Washington. However, the American government took no retaliatory action although Dutch ships continued to receive this preferential treatment.39 All of the other problems existing between the United States and the Netherlands when Hughes assumed his duties in 1826 lay dormant also. Neither government showed any eagerness to begin negotiations on the unsettled claims, on treaty relations, or on the Dutch deserters. The indiscre­ tion of Everett, though it may have rankled in the minds of

3®Hughes to Clay, 12 Aug 1826 (private). Clay Papers, LC. 39ciay to Hughes, 12 Dec 1826 (no. 4), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 11:219-220. Hughes to Clay, 15 April 1827, 12 June 182?, 21 Oct 182?, 28 Nov 182?, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Hughes to Adams, 16 Aug 1828, AP reel 487. 134

some, does not seem to have hindered Hughes In any signif­ icant way. Basically, both countries enjoyed profitable commercial relations with each other and did not want to disturb them.^® Besides being concerned with specific problems be­ tween the two countries, Hughes of course had other duties. Among these was that of assisting American citizens, par­ ticularly tourists who passed through the Netherlands by the dozen. Some sought out the official representative of the United States merely to have a chat; others asked for financial help or made inquiries of one sort or another; and still others applied for passports to enable them to cross frontiers more easily. Shortly before Christmas in 1827, a group of Osage Indians proceeded to the residence of the American charge and, on the way, attracted a crowd of about a thousand curious onlookers. Hughes rose to the occasion, addressed the crowd in a Jovial fashion, and invited his red-skinned countrymer. to breakfast. A few months later, the historian, Jared Sparks, dropped by to request assis­ tance in obtaining some important source materials. Generally, the amiable Hughes appeared to enjoy these visitors and tried to help them in whatever way he could.

^®Hughes to Clay, 12 June 1827, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Clay, 9 March 1827 (private), NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Clay, /15 Aug?/ 1828, Clay Papers, LC. Hughes 135

Another duty was that of cultivating his colleagues in the diplomatic corps to keep abreast of developments in the Netherlands and elsewhere In Europe. Although the mem­ bers of the corps occasionally called on each other, they met more frequently at receptions, dinners, and other social affairs. On these occasions and in the course of seemingly casual conversation, they exchanged political intelligence, explained the policies of their respective governments, and otherwise pursued their objectives in the game of diplomacy. Hughes could not entertain his friends as he would have liked, but he nevertheless had plenty of opportunities to mingle with them socially. For example, the Dutch foreign minister on every second Thursday gave a dinner for the chiefs of all of the diplomatic missions. Hughes of course attended these dinners as well as numerous other partly ceremonial, partly social, and partly diplomatic functions. Though maintaining cordial relations with all of his colleagues, Hughes appeared to be on especially good terms with his friend Bagot. Twice a week, a courier from the Foreign Office in London arrived in the Netherlands to to Samuel Moore, 13 June 1827, Hughes Papers WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 28 Dec 1827, AP reel 483» Hughes to Adams, 4 July 1828, AP reel 486. Herbert B. Adams, The Life and Writings of Jared Sparks, op. cit.. II, 82-83.

Hughe8 to Clay, 21 Jan 1827 (private), 30 Jan 1827 (private), 16 Jan 1828 (private), NA Despatches from U. S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Mr. Moore, 3 Oct 1827, Hughes Papers, WLCL, 136 deliver and receive British diplomatic mail. Bagot regular­ ly offered Hughes the opportunity to use this service, and occasionally the latter gratefully accepted. Sometimes the American charge took advantage of this offer merely to send a letter to the American legation in London; on one occasion, however, he used the British courier service to send a val­ uable autograph collection across the Atlantic to a family friend in Baltimore. Normally, American diplomats in the early 19th century had to rely on the unpredictable, and often unsafe, international mails to send their despatches to Washington, there being no regular American courier service. Besides cultivating his colleagues in the Nether­ lands, Hughes corresponded with friends scattered all over Europe. From London, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, and other capitals he received letters containing a variety of news and opinion on European affairs. Valuing this corres­ pondence, he TfTote witty, infornative letters in reply.

^^Hughes to Clay, 16 July 1826 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Clay, 20 Nov 1827 (private) and 2? July 1828 (private), Clay Papers, LC. ^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 9 Oct 1826, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Albert Gallatin, 10 Dec 1826 and 19 Jan 1827, Gallatin Papers, NYHS. Hughes to Clay, 28 Dec 1826 (private). Despatches ftom U.S. Ministers to the Nether­ lands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Clay, 18 Sept 1828, Clay Papers, LC. Jesse S. Reeves, "Washington*s Autographs and Some Others," .iichigan Alumnus Quarterly Review. XLII (March 28, 1936) 1 68-178. Jesse S. Reeves, "Coke of Norfolk and Lafayette— II," Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review. XLV (February 18, 19^9 ) 137-147. 137

His purpose, of course, was to be able to supply significant information to the Secretary of State to aid him in the formulation of policy and in the conduct of American foreign relations, generally. Carrying out this duty to report on political opinions and developments, Hughes sent a despatch to Washington approximately once a month between 1826 and 1828. He reported on the budget debates in the States General of the Netherlands; a fever epidemic at Groningen; the annual move of the royal court between the alternate capitals; grumbling over heavy taxes; Catholic discontent with the Protestant king; a royal mar­ riage ; and other such subjects. ]h addition, his despatches dealt with topics 6f broader scope: a dispute between the Netherlands and Austria on the navigation of the Rhine; war between Russia and Persia; prospects for peace elsewhere in Europe; a confidential report on the Battle of Navarino; and British domestic politics. Only by cultivating col­ leagues and friends could Hughes have obtained the lit: information necessary for such reports. During the summer of 1828 two unusual matters occupied the attention of Hughes and became subjects for

^^Hughes to Clay, 16 Oct 1826, 16 July 1826, 18 Oct 1826, 28 Dec 1826, 21 Jan 182?, 12 June 182?, 13 Sept 182?, 5 Oct 182?, 16 Oct 182?, 16 Jan 1828, 13 June 1828, 30 Sept 1828, all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Clay 16 Sept 182?, 5 Oct 182? (private), 2? Nov 182?, 28 Deo 182?, 28 Dec 182? (private), 18 Sept 1828, all in Clay Papers, LC. 138 his despatches. A representative cf the Greek government, then at war with the Ottoman Empire, approached the Ameri­ can charge and offered to cede the island of Cyprus to the United States. By such a cession, the latter would acquire a base to promote and protect American commerce in the Mediterranean. In exchange, the Greek government would receive assistance in fighting the Turks. Of course the Adams administration politely refused this offer. The other matter concerned a topographical expedi­ tion to be sent by the Netherlands to Central America "to ascertain . . . the practicability of making a communication to connect the two oceans.The Dutch government infbrmed Hughes that the survey would probably require about two years to complete, that the members of the expedition would like to stop at New York on their journey, and that they might wish to stockpile their supplies at that port. Ac­ cordingly, the Dutch requested that the American government assist the expedition by permitting the supplies to be landed free from customs duties and inspection for tempor­ ary storage. Of course Hughes promptly informed his government about the nature of this expedition, and he

^^Rughes to Clay, Zk July 1828, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Clay to Hughes, 6 Nov 1828, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:164-165. Hughes to Adams, 4 July 1828, AP reel 486. 139 was happy to transmit the Dutch request at the same time.^® In addition to his other duties, Hughes had respon­ sibility for a house and lot which the United States government owned at The Hague. Acquired by John Adams dur­ ing the American Revolution, this property had stood vacant for many years and had deteriorated to the point where it was unsafe to enter. After inspecting it in the summer of 1826, Hughes calculated that the necessary repairs to the building would cost more than the market value of the whole property. Therefore, he recommended to Adams and Clay that he be authorized to dispose of the "rotten ruin."^9 Although Clay sent the necessary authority rather promptly, Hughes had great difficulty finding a buyer. Final­ ly in March 1829, he succeeded in selling the property to the Netherlands government for 6,500 florins, about $2,600 or twice as much as he had hoped to obtain. Delighted with the transaction, Hughes sent a full report to Washington. The sale of this property concluded a period of two and a half years in the career of Hughes. It was a period

^8Hughe8 to Clay, 27 July 1828, Clay Papers, LC. ^9Hughes to Adams, 1 April 1828, AP 485« Hughes to Clay, 12 Oct 1826, 2 March 182?, 14 April 182?, NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . ^^ciay to Hughes, 12 Dec 1826, NA Diplomatic Instruc­ tions, All Countries, 11:220-221. Clay to Hughes, 25 Nov 1828, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:167-168. Hughes to Secretary of State, 20 March 1829 (no. 6), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . 1^4-0 of Journeyman service, competent but undramatic. Despite the financial stringency which sometimes oppressed him in these years, Hughes in retrospect sometimes looked upon them as some of the most enjoyable of his life.

Aspirations Dashed; 1828-30 Between the close of 1828 and the middle of 1830 Hughes reached the summit and then tumbled into the valley of his diplomatic career. His aspirations for the rank and dignity of minister plenipotentiary seemed on the verge of realization when suddenly he faced the prospect of dismissal and poverty. At no other time in his career did promotion seem so close; at no other time did his pro­ fessional outlook appear so bleak. This period of a year and ahalf was one of climax and then of despair. In 1828 the career of Hughes became intertwined with the Maine Boundary dispute. Since the American Revo­ lution, this issue had been the subject of repeated but inconclusive negotiations between the United States and Great Britain. At Ghent in 1814 the peace negotiators made a fresh attempt to find a solution. In the fifth article of the Ghent treaty they agreed that an American and a British commissioner should be appointed to ascertain Jointly the Maine boundary along the lines described in the peace treaty of 1783» If the two commissioners failed to 141 reach an agreement, the Issue was then to be referred to a friendly sovereign or state for arbitration. After the treaty was ratified, commissioners were appointed; they spent eight years at their task; but they failed to agree on a boundary. Accordingly, in 1828 the two countries agreed to submit the issue to the king of the Netherlands for arbitration. In this agreement the American and British governments contemplated several steps. First, their diplomatic repre­ sentatives in the Netherlands would jointly invite the king to assume the responsibility of arbitrator. Second, the two governments would proceed with the preparation of their respective cases while awaiting the reply of the king. Third, if the king accepted the invitation, representatives of the two governments would present their cases at a date still to be determined. Clearly, both the United States and Great Britain had an interest in fostering amicable relations with the Netherlands as well as in formulating sound and convincing arguments.

^^Clay to Hughes, 14 Oct 1828 (no. 6), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:155-157• Text of the Treaty of Ghent is in Fred L. Engelman, The Peace of Christmas Eve (New York; Harcourt, Brace and World, I962), pp. 303-311* Gallatin to Clay, 21 Sept 1827 (no. 11?) In Henry Adams, ed.. The Writings of Albert Gallatin. 3 vols. (New York: Antiquarian Press Ltxi., I96O), II, 388-389• ^^Clay to James Barbour, 3 June 1828 (no. 1), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:109-113* Clay to Hughes, 14 Oct 1828 (no. 6 ), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:155-157, 142

As American charge d*affaires in the Netherlands, Hughes participated in the first of these steps. In Novem­ ber, 1828, his friend Bagot informed him unofficially about the plans of their two governments, but Hughes did not re­ ceive official instructions on the subject from Clay until early in January, 1829. However, on the receipt of his instructions, he and Bagot moved quickly. Together they prepared similar notes of invitation, and together they pre­ sented these to the Dutch foreign minister on January 12. Less than ten days later, the king, in a conversation with Hughes, expressed his readiness to assume the delicate re­ sponsibility of arbitrator. Losing no time, Hughes gave the good news to Bagot and then hurriedly sent off a report to Clay•53

Long before Hughes learned from Bagot about the proposed arbitration, the Adams administration had begun the preparation of the American case. Albert Gallatin, American minister to Great Britain in 1826 and 1827, and William Pitt Preble, a prominent judge from the state of Maine, performed most of the involved labor of examining documents, studying the long history of the dispute, and marshaling arguments in support of the presumed rights and interests of the United States. Probably these two men

53Hughes to Clay, 8 Jan 1829 (no. 2), 21 Jan 1829 (no. 3), 22 Jan 1829 (no. 4), 23 Jan 1829 (no. 5), all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Hughes to Clay, 24 Nov 1828 (private). Clay Papers, LC. 143 understood the legal and political aspects of the Issue, from the American standpoint, better than anyone else in the country. Having started action under the first two steps of the plan for arbitration, the administration in Washington considered the mode of presenting the American case before the arbitrator. Adams and Clay agreed that diplomatic propriety as well as a proper regard for American Interests required the appointment of a minister plenipotentiary to make the presentation. They further recognized that ami­ cable relations with the arbitrator and a persuasive exposi­ tion of the merits of the American case were also essential. Bearing these requirements In mind, the President and the Secretary of State considered available personal­ ities. Although Hughes had great experience as a diplomat, spoke French, and understood the ways of the court of the Netherlands, he knew little of the boundary dispute and less about the sentiments of the Inhabitants of Maine. On the other hand, Preble could supply all of the deficiencies of Hughes but knew nothing of diplomacy and clearly could not easily or quickly replace him In the esteem of the Netherlands government.

^^Gallatln to O.P. Van Ness, 22 March 1829; Gallatin to W.P. Preble, 22 March 1829; Gallatin to William C. Bradley, 22 March 1829; all In Adams, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, op. cit.. pp. 406-410. E.E. Everett to A.H. Everett, 15 Dec 1828, Everett Papers, MHS. 144

This last consideration received emphasis during the autumn of 1828 when Adams and Clay were reflecting on the relative merits of Hughes and Preble. General Verveer, head of the Dutch topographical mission to Central America, visited Washington and paid a courtesy call on the Presi­ dent. Speaking on behalf of his king, the general suggested that the United States raise the level of American repre­ sentation in the Netherlands as a matter of reciprocity and friendship. He went on to express the opinion that Hughes was well qualified for appointment as minister. Early in December Adams and Clay reached several decisions. Wishing to ensure good relations with the Dutch government and, perhaps, to reward a loyal and competent public servant, they decided to promote Hughes to the rank of minister. Desiring at the same time to ensure a cogent and persuasive presentation of the American case, they decided to send Preble to the Netherlands to serve as expert adviser to Hughes. In this manner, the Adams admin­ istration hoped to pay adequate attention to domestic politics, international relations, and American national interest.56

55Adams to Samuel Smith, 11 March 1829, AP reel 148 (letterbook copy). Baltimore American. I7 May 1842, (reprint of article), Corbin Papers, DUL. ^^Hughes to Clay, 24 Nov 1828, Clay Papers, LC. Adams to Samuel Smith, 3 Sept 1829, AP reel 149 (letterbook copy). Speech of Clay in Senate, 10 July 1832, in Calvin Colton, ed., Works of Henry Clay. Comprising His Life. Ik5

In accordance with these decisions, the President on December 11 sent a message to the Senate nominating "Christopher Hughes, of Maryland, to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at the Court of the Netherlands."57 News of the nomination trav­ eled far and fast. The journalist, Nathaniel Greene, reported it to Jonathan Russell at Boston; Congressman Edward Everett informed his brother, Alexander Hill Everett, at Madrid; and Senator Samuel Smith hastily scrawled a let­ ter to his son-in-law at Brussels. To other important cities in the United States and Europe the National Intelli­ gencer carried an announcement of the nomination. Friends of Hughes in London, Paris, and elsewhere read about it, assumed Senate approval in due course, and sent warm let­ ters of congratulation to the American charge in the Nether­ lands . For a few days in January^ 1829, Hughes had reason to 68 believe that he would soon receive his long-sought promotion. Opposition to the nomination soon began to develop, however. Since December 3, Adams and everyone else in Washington knew that Andrew Jackson would become President Correspondence. and Speeches. 10 vols. (New York: G.P. Putnam^s Sons, 19o4] VII, 519-521. 57u.s. Congress. Senate. Jouirml of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America Washington:Duff Green, 1820), III, 6&0, ^^Edward Everett to Alexander Hill Everett, 15 Dec 1828, Everett Papers, MHS. Nathaniel Green to Jonathan Russell, 19 Dec 1828, Russell Papers, BUL. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 17 Feb 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 146

In the following March. As a consequence, the influence of Adams steadily dwindl d while the hopes of those who might benefit from the new administration soared. A further con­ sequence was the disposition of the Senate to postpone action indefinitely on all appointments proposed by the fading Adams administration. Partly because the nomination of Hughes was made by a lame duck President, it was not immediately considered. Opposition also appeared in other quarters. Some persons in Washington, perhaps out of honest conviction or possibly out of a desire to gain some advantage for them­ selves or their friends, made disparaging remarks about Hughes. He was described as being "very gentlemanly but of moderate abilities . . . , unacquainted with /the Maine boundary dispute/*”^^ James Hamilton, a Jacksonian leader in Congress, regarded Hughes as not "large" enough for the proposed appointment.^^ Ar office-seeker from Maryland complained to the Vice President that Samuel Smith had already received many patronage favors from the federal government and that the promotion of his son-in-law would

Allan Nevins, ed.. The Diary of John Quincy Adams. 1794-1845 (New York; Longmans, Green and Co., I9È8 ) pp. 385-387. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, I7 Feb 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Charles Francis Adams, ed.. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams . . . , 12 vols. (Philadelphia, 1074-77) VIII, 95-96. ^^Nathaniel Greene to Jonathan Russell, 19 Dec 1828, Russell Papers, BUL. James Hamilton to Martin Van Buren, 25 Feb 1829, Van Buren Papers, LC. li+7

ip be too much. Finally, Albert Gallatin declared Hughes unfit to hold the rank of minister, and he worked for the defeat of the nomination. Despite the opposition, the new President and his Secretary of State, Martin Van Buren, appeared ready to renominate Hughes until they began to assess the political forces in Maine. They soon discovered that Preble consid­ ered himself best qualified to present the American case on the boundary dispute, that he therefore believed himself entitled to the appointment of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the Netherlands, and that he would not share either honor or responsibility with Hughes. Many politically sentitive persons, especially in Maine, appeared to hold these same sentiments and could not under­ stand why the real American advocate should not also be the nominal one. The new administration certainly recognized the desirability and perhaps the necessity of gaining and holding the support of Maine, especially to assure the acceptance of whatever arbitral decision might be made. Thus, the apparently superior claims of Preble rather than

^^Virgil Maxcy to John C. Calhoun, 9 April 1829, in J • Franklin Jameson, •’Correspondence of John C. Calhoun" in Vol. II of the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899 (Washington; Government Fringing Office, I900), pp. 797-798. ^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 17 Feb 1829, Hughes Papers, NLCL. Clay to Hughes, 25 Deo 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 148 the alleged deficiencies of Hughes influenced the Jackson administration to replace the diplomat from Maryland with the lawyer from Maine. Early in February, Hughes received letters inform­ ing him about the opposition to his nomination and about the attitudes of Preble and the politicians of Maine. Dur­ ing the succeeding months he followed, as well as he could from across the Atlantic, his fluctuating fortunes in Wash­ ington. He probably remembered the French proberb, "les absents ont tort," and would have liked to be present in Washington to advance his own interests. Nevertheless, he tried to remind Washingtonians of his existence by sending some lithographs to the British minister in the American capital and requesting the latter to distribute them judi­ ciously. For the most part, however, Hughes had to wait and endure suspense while others fought his battles for hlm.^^

^^Edward Everett to Alexander Hill Everett, 15 Dec 1828, Everett Papers, MRS. Nathaniel Greene to Jonathan Russell, 19 Dec 1828, Russell Papers, BUL. James Hamilton to Martin Van Buren, 25 Feb 1829 and 27 Feb 1829, bbth in Van Buren Papers, LC. Gallatin to Preble, 22 March 1829, in Adams, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, op. cit., II, 408-409. Van Buren to Hughes, &9 May lë?9, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:200-201. Draft of letter. Van Buren to Samuel Smith, 2?8 June 1829?^, Van Buren Papers, LC. Clay to Hughes, 25 Dec 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL.

^^Hughes to Harrison Gray Otis, 14 Nov 1825, Otis Papers, MHS. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 1? Feb 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Charles Vaughan to Henry Clay, 1 July 1829, in Colton, Works of Henrv Clay, on. cit.. IV, 237. 149

His foremost champion was his father-in-law, still a powerful Baltimore politician and once again president pro tempore of the United States Senate. Smith visited Jackson and Van Buren to urge that the new administration not only retain but promote Hughes. He also attempted to line up support among his Senatorial colleagues for his son-in-law.^6 At the request of Smith, former President John Quincy Adams prepared a statement to be used in this effort: I consider Mr. Hughes as one of the most valuable public officers in the service of the United States, abroad; and that for the peculiar service needed at the Court of the Netherlands, his place could not be supplied by any other person. The courtesy of his manners, the obligingness of his disposition, and the vivacity and pleasantness of his conversation are allied in his character with quick observation, accurate judgment, great facility and great assiduity in the transaction of business. . . .o? Also openly supporting Hughes were Henry Clay and a number of prominent Baltimore citizens. However, throughout the spring of 1829 when the Jackson administration was estab­ lishing control of the federal bureaucracy, it was Smith 68 who led the effort to defend and promote Hughes.

^^Hughes to Van Buren, 1 June 1829, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . Laura Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 11 June 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Smith to Van Buren, 17 June 1829, Van Buren Papers, LC. Adams, Memoirs of John Qtaincy Adams, op. cit.. VIII, 113» ^^Adams to Smith, 11 March 1829, AP reel 148 (letterbook). 68 Hughes to George A. Hughes, 1 June 1829, and Clay to Hughes, 25 Dec I829, both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 150

Early In May, Smith and others In Washington began to perceive that Jackson had decided to send Preble to the Netherlands as American minister.At the end of the month, the Secretary of State sent instructions to Hughes, informing him of the appointment of Preble, requesting him to remain at his post until his replacement arrived, and promising him another "appointment equally gratifying and acceptable. Before these Instructions airived in Brussels, Hughes received fragmentary information from his friends and concluded that he would be dismissed. His wife Laura wrote to his twin sister: At last our fate is decided. . . . Your brother's diplomatic career is finished. We must return home to poverty and mortification. For myself I care not, because though great will be the change I can always manage. For ^^Christopher/ and the children my heart bleeds. The former since January has not had one hour's comfort. . . . He neither eats, drinks or sleeps nor can he occupy or fix his mind. . . . He walks up and down the room . . . , his head bowed. . . .71 By July 13, Hughes had read about the appointment of Preble in the English newspapers but had not yet received his instructions or any other communication from the

^^Smith to Van Buren, 14 May 1829, Van Buren Papers, LC. ^®Van Buren to Hughes, 29 May 1829, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:200-201. 7^Laura Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 11 June 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 151

Jackson administration» Therefore he wrote to VanBuren: For . . . seven months, the very heart has been goaded and worried out of my body by the miseries of suspense and the agonies of "hope deferred;" of contradictory reports; conversations; promises; assurances. . . ,72 At the end of August, he received his first offi­ cial communication from the new administration. Although this was not the letter of instructions sent by Van Buren at the end of May, it confirmed reports of Preble’s appoint­ ment and authorized Hughes to quit his post before the arrival of his replacement, if he wished to do so. In his reply, Hughes pointed out the desirability of maintaining American representation in the Netherlands during this delicate period before arbitration and declared that he would remain at his post until Preble superseded him. He went on to suggest that he and his family would plan to return to the United States the following spring after the winter storms on the Atlantic had subsided. Uncertainty over his future career tormented Hughes throughout the year 1829 and into the following year. Though his spirits were low most of this time, he contin­ ued to write lively letters to his friends and they

y^Hughes to Van Buren, 13 July 1829 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . ^^Van Buren to Hughes, 8 July 1829, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 12:209-210. Hughes to Van Buren, 3 Sept 1829, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8 . 152 responded with advice and sympathy. Adams counseled, ’’Make friends with disappointment and wait for calmer times. Clay urged, "You must come home, conceal your chagrin, and keep up your spirits. . . . I should be glad to see you a Candidate for Congress from Balto. where I think you could be elected. . . Hughes preferred to continue his diplomatic career, if at all possible, and he placed his hopes in the efforts and influence of his father-in-law."^^ Although Samuel Smith had failed to persuade Jackson to renominate Hughes as minister to the Netherlands, he persisted in supporting the interests of his son-in-law. When the appointment of Preble appeared certain. Smith wrote to Van Buren to propose that Hughes be transferred to Spain as American minister. The Secretary of State made a counter proposal: would Hughes like to consider an appoint­ ment as American minister to Mexico? Smith wrote to his son-in-law, who replied that he would prefer to remain in Europe. When Van Buren suggested Sweden, Hughes mentioned Denmark, Prussia, or Austria. Because this triangular, transatlantic correspondence soon became rather complex and tiresome, Hughes decided to leave to his father-in-law

7^Adams to Hughes, I9 March 1829, AP %eel 149 (letterbook). f^ciay to Hughes, 25 Dec 1829, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^^Hughes to Smith, 1 Dec 1829, Van Buren Papers, LC. 153 the final decision concerning his future career.?? On January 18, 1830, before that decision was made, William Pitt Preble arrived at Brussels. The next day, he visited Hughes and had a pleasant chat with him for about an hour. Because the seat of government was then at The Hague, the two diplomats made plans to proceed to the capital where they would formally transfer their responsi­ bilities.?® Hughes spent about two weeks there, presenting his successor to members of the government and the diplomatic corps and saying farewell to his former colleagues. On the last day of January, Hughes gave Preble two boxes con­ taining the archives of the American legation in the Netherlands; the following day, he took formal leave of the king.^^ In a letter to his twin sister, Hughes described the manner in which he concluded his mission; "I have had a painful scene to go through. I have

??Smith to Van Buren, 1^ May 1829; Hughes to Smith, 1 Dec 1829; Hughes to Van Buren, 11 Dec 1829; all in Van Buren Papers, LC- Hughes to Van Buren, 1? Sept 1829, 25 Sept 1829, 9 Oct 1829; all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. Hughes to Samuel Moore, 4 Nov 1829 and 21 Dec 1829; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 98 • Hughes to Van Buren, 19 Jan I83O, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 8. ?^Hughes to Van Buren, 31 Jan 1830, and 1 Feb I83O; both.in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Nether­ lands, vol. 8. 154 gone through it, like a Gentleman, and an Americant About the middle of March, he received a letter from his father-in-law reporting that Jackson had nominated him as AkA-rg*» to Sweden.81 Although not entirely pleased, he now felt some assurance that the administration intended to retain him in diplomatic activity in Europe, and he believed that "anything is better than Mexico."82 Not wishing to remain any longer as a private citi­ zen in the Netherlands, Hughes left Brussels with his family on April 10 and moved to Paris. His plan was to wait in the French capital for orders from the Department of State, see the sights and make a long-postponed visit to his friend Lafayette. In May, he heard informally that the Senate had unanimously approved his nomination. Although Hughes still longed for a promotion, the news that no one had opposed his appointment consoled him somewhat. Finally, early in June, he received his commission as charge d'affaires to Sweden, a letter of credence, and other papers concerning his new assignment. Acknowledging the receipt of these documents, Hughes wrote to Van Buren that he would leave Paris in a few days for Stockholm and Rn Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 11 Feb 1830, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 81 Hughes to Smith, 18 March 1830, Smith Papers, UVL. QO Hughes to Samuel Moore, 5 March 1830, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 155 and that he would carry out his instructions with zeal and to the letter.®^ A period of hope and despair in the diplomatic career of Hughes now came to a close• Both Adams and Smith had played significant roles during this period. The noteworthy fact, however, is that Hughes was retained in the service of his country at a time when so many others were cast aside.

®^Hughes to Smith, 28 April 1830, Smith Papers, UVL. Hughes to Van Buren, 1 June 1830, Van Buren Papers, LC. Hughes to Van Buren, 15 June 1830, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. CFAFT71: V

RETURN TO SWEDEN

'Tiighes accepted his asEl^nment to S^^eden In 1830 with mixed feelings. While he felt relief to have an assured Income and while he felt satisfaction over the honor of continuing to represent the United States, he also was disappointed by his transfer from the center of Europe to the rather cold and remote periphery. In addi­ tion, he dreamed of the day when he and Laura might end their vagabond existence and comfortably settle down among relatives and friends In Baltimore. Furthermore, he ob­ served that their children were fast growing up, believed that they should be educated as Americans, and recognized a responsibility to prepare his son to follow a useful career. With these thoughts In mind, he resolved to continue his diplomatic career for possibly two or three more years before finally returning to his country to stay.^ Events, however, soon led Hughes to change his attitude toward his career. In the past, he had regarded

^Hughes to Samuel Moore, 5 March I83O; Hughes to Mrs. Moore, I5 Sept I83O; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Van Buren, 1 June I830, Van Buren Papers, LC.

156 157

It more as a form of honorable employment than anything else; shortly, he began to view It rather as his own par- tlonlar way of life. Events, therefore, contributed to his disposition to continue In his career and not to quit It. As a consequence, the second assignment of Hughes to Sweden lasted 12 years— his longest In the diplomatic ser­ vice of the United States.

Personal Tragedy; 1830-33 The first phase of this new assignment began In the summer of 1830 with the arrival of Hughes and his family In Sweden and ended three years later on his departure for a visit to the United States, During the Interval, he exper­ ienced the second great crisis of his diplomatic career. If the first had occurred In 1829 when Jackson supplanted Adams, the second arose In 1832 when Hughes lost his wife Laura. \^He the earlier crisis was political In nature, the later one was profoundly personal. Both required him to search his soul and make serious decisions about his career. On August 13, 1830, Hughes arrived In Stockholm with his wife, son, daughter, English tutor, and French cook. The receipt of an outfit of #4300, Incidental to the trans­ fer to a new post, and the prospect of a lower cost of living In Sweden apparently led Hughes to conclude that he and his family could live on a more comfortable level dur­ ing the next few years. Although they had left Stockholm 158 five years earlier, their old friends, both in and out of government, welcomed them back to the Swedish capital as if they had been absent only a few weeks. On August 20, King Charles XIV John, godfather of Hughes's son, formally received the new American charge d'affaires and then enter­ tained him and his wife for dinner. Hughes could now once more officially represent his country in the Kingdom of 2 Sweden and Norway. Between 1825 and 1830 relations between this kingdom and the United States continued along the same harmonious course which Hughes had known earlier. For most of this five-year period, John James Appleton of Massachusetts com­ petently served as American charge g 'affaires at Stockholm. After the Russell treaty expired in 1826, Appleton negotia­ ted a similar treaty of commerce and navigation which was signed on July 4, 1827. Otherwise, few problems disturbed relations between the two countries, and trade appeared to thrive.3 Despite his satisfactory service, Appleton was dis­ missed by the Jackson administration. While Samuel Smith 2 Hughes to Samuel Moore, 25 Aug 1830; Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 15 Sept 1830; Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 23 Aug 1831; all three in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 3 ' Clay to Appleton, 12 Jan 1827, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 11:231-237* Clay to Appleton, 11 Sept 1827, NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 11:374-376. Van Buren to Hughes, 20 March I83O (no. 2), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 13:97-103. 159

Insistently supported the interests of Hughes in Washington in 1829 and negotiated with Van Buren over various posts for his son-in-law, no one appeared to advocate the claims of Appleton. As a consequence, Jackson decided to remove the h latter, replace him with Hughes, and thereby quiet Smith. Hughes, after his experience in the Netherlands, knew how Appleton must have felt. The latter remained in Stockholm until the middle of September, 1830, in order to transfer his responsibilities to his successor and assist him in whatever way might be appropriate. The new charge in gratitude and perhaps in chagrin, wrote to his Boston friend, Harrison Gray Otis: My chief object in writing to you now, is to recommend to you, and in the strongest terms, the worthy and excellent Gentleman whose post has been conferred on me; these were certainly not very agreeable circumstances for the commencement of an acquaintance ; yet, they were the circum­ stances under which I met Mr. Appleton for the first time; and the manly, dignified and honourable carriage and conduct he has observed in these our very uncomfortable relations have given him a claim to my lasting esteem and respect. . . .5 In this manner, Hughes attempted to smooth the path of his predecessor, a man he wanted to have as his friend. After their arrival in Stockholm, Hr^ghes and his wife quickly established themselves again as members of the - Jackson to Van Buren, 12 Aug 1829, and Van Buren to Smith, 13 Aug 1829 (draft), both in Van Buren Papers, LC. ^Hughes to Otis, I5 Sept 1830, Otis Papers, MHS. 160 diplomatic corps In Sweden. They found and furnished a comjfortahle house for their enlarged menage; they adopted the local custom of dining at four o'clock In the after* noon and of receiving visitors after seven o'clock In,the evening; and the two children diligently studied every day with their tutor. The first year was a happy, placid one.^ Early In 1831, Hughes wrote to his brother and described his contented family: We are all In perfect health; nor has any one of us had an 111 moment since our landing In Sweden In August* The climate has had an especial good effect upon Margarette. . . . She Is the dearest, most engaging and reasonable little creature In the world. . . . Charles Is a fine, tall fellow; very gentlemanlike; very studious. . . . Laura Is In perfect health; and the best dressed woman here. . • • She has a natural tact and taste about dress; and a perfect tournure of a Gentlewoman. . . . As to myself, I am in excellent care . . . ; head a little grey; belly rather round. . . Hughes had recovered from the pain of being denied promotion and from the dismay of being transferred to distant Stockhdlm. Soon after his arrival In Sweden, the American charge also settled easily Into a professional routine. In order to be well Informed, he regularly studied newspapers from London, Paris, and Brussels. With varying success, he attempted to obtain the wa11nnai tntianigenoAv from

^Hughes to Samuel Moore, 25 Aug 1830; Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 15 Sept 1830 and 23 Aug 1831; all three In Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^Hughes to George A. Hughes, 3 March 1831, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 161

Washington as well. Naturally, he maintained contact with his colleagues in the diplomatic corps to exchange informa­ tion and opinions on developments in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe. As on previous assignments, he seems to have associated most easily and closely with the British minis­ ter, now Lord Bloomfield. Finally, the Swedish foreign minister appears to have invited the chiefs of all diplo­ matic missions in Stockholm to a weekly conference, probably devoted to a review of Scandinavian affairs, of course, O such a routine had become second nature to Hughes. Besides gathering political intelligence for the American government and representing the American viewpoint in discussions with his diplomatic colleagues, Hughes dealt with a number of specific problems between his government and that of Sweden. Prominent among these were several issues involving the Swedish island of St. Bartholomew in the West Indies. First, American merchants in that colony complained that, as a condition for engaging in trade, the local authorities required them either to become naturalized Swedish citizens or to pay large fees. Second, the Ameri­ can consul assigned to the colony reported that the local

^Hughes to Van Buren, 20 Oct I830 (private), and 3 May I83I; Hughes to Livingston, 4 Feb 1832 (private); all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. Hughes to George A. Hughes, 3 March 1831» Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Samuel Smith, 2 Dec 1831, UVL. 162 authorities hindered him in the discharge of his duties. Third, some Boston merchants asserted that they were exper­ iencing difficulty recovering a cargo which had been taken at sea by pirates, which had been landed at St. Bartholomew, and which was then in the custody of the local authorities. Complicating a solution of this third issue was the fact that an American sloop of war had entered the harbor of St. Bartholomew, seized the supposed pirate ship, and had taken her to Pensacola, Florida. The American government, while embarrased over the violation of Swedish territorial waters by the sloop, believed that the authorities of St. Bartholomew were acting in violation of the treaty of 1827 with respect to the three issues. Accordingly, Van Buren instructed Hughes to make appropriate representations to the Swedish government.^ For a year and a half, both in Stockholm and Washington, there were informal discussions and exchanges of formal notes on these issues. While Hughes and the Swedish charge in the American capital, Baron Stackelberg, served as channels of communication, the two governments attempted to adjust their differences. With respect to the first issue, the Swedish government argued that a

9van Buren to Hughes, 20 March 1830 (no. 2), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 13:97-103. Van Buren to Hughes, 30 June 1830 (no. 3)* NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 13:176-177. Van Buren to Hughes, 2 Oct 1830 (no. 4), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 13:181-184. 163 correct Interpretation of the treaty would sanction the activities of the colonial authorities. The American government recognized some ambiguity in the language of the treaty and chose not to press the matter further. With respect to the second issue, the United States, at the request of Sweden, replaced a controversial consul. With respect to the third issue, the colonial authorities released the cargo on the understanding that the American government would facilitate the payment of certain debts. In the settlement of these issues, the role of Hughes was certainly not great, but it was useful. Trade between Sweden and the United States was, of course, one of the continuing concerns of the American charge at Stockholm. In 1829, a year apparently typical of this period, the United States bought over a fifth of the total value of goods exported from Sweden. Payment for these goods, almost exclusively iron, was generally in the form of bills of exchange, although some American tobacco was also landed. These bills of exchange, in turn, were used to finance a large share of Swedish imports from other countries. When the annual shipping season opened in May, American vessels in ballast would begin to appear at

^^Hughes to Van Buren, 1 Dec 1830 (no. 5) and 3 May 1831* NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Nor­ way, vol. 6. Hughes to Edward Livingston, 20 Dec 1831 (no. 24) and 15 Jan 1832 (no. 1), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 164

Gothenburg, Stockholm, and other ports to take on cargoes of iron. By the end of the season in October, perhaps as many as 50 American vessels would have visited the first port and lesser numbers at other ports. Although this trade was not of great importance to the United States, it obviously was so to Sweden, and many American merchants appeared to profit by it.^ Hughes had a duty to promote American commerce, to discover profitable opportunities for American merchants, and to try to settle any trade problems which might arise. Accordingly, he maintained contact with the American con­ suls at Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Bergen; with commercial circles interested in trade with the United States; and, of course, with the Swedish foreign office on all laws and regulations affecting trade. As significant developments occurred, he reported them to Washington. At the end of I830 and early in I83I, Hughes received requests for assistance from several industrialists in the United States. One group, interested in mining and refining copper in Vermont, asked for information on various proces­ ses used in Sweden. Another group, involved in the

^^Hughes to Van Buren, 3 May 1831, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. Hughes to Livingston, 15 July 1831 and 1 Oct I83I (no. 20), both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. ^^Van Buren to Hughes, 20 March 1830 (no. 1) and 20 March I830 (no. 2), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 13:90-97 and 13:97-103. 165 manufacture of Iron products In New York, wanted information which might be useful in their enterprise. Responding to the first request, Hughes reported With some labour and management and consid­ erable expense. I have succeeded in obtaining a part of the desired information; and the Details and Diagrams of the Stoves, Furnaces, Piles and models, with notes. . . , are contained in the Roll. With respect to the second request, Hughes expected to give similar satisfaction. In the spring of 1831» the Swedish government an­ nounced certain future modifications in the tariff on imports. The purpose was to encourage Swedish shipping, but an incidental consequence would probably be to discour­ age American shipping. Alerted by local business friends to this possible threat, Hughes moved quickly. He spoke with the king and presented a detailed memorandum to the Swedish foreign office. He described the nature of American trade with Sweden, pointed out the importance of it in the settle­ ment of Swedish foreign accounts, and implied that the proposed modifications, while inconvenient for American mer­ chants, would be injurious to Sweden. Although the king appeared persuaded by the arguments of Hughes, it is not clear whether the proposed modifications ultimately went in­ to effect. It is clear, however, that American trade with

13 Hughes to Van Buren, 18 March 1831 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 166

Sweden continued to thrive while Hughes remained charge Between the spring of 1831 and the spring of 1833, the Swedish government enforced severe quarantine regula­ tions because of cholera epidemics affecting many parts of northern and eastern Europe. All ships entering Swedish waters were to have health certificates issued by the auth­ orities in the port of departure; further they were subject to thorough inspection by Swedish quarantine authorities and, possibly, to a period of observation at specified quarantine stations. In addition, the authorities some­ times fumigated the baggage of persons entering Sweden and bemned, outright, the importation of certain goods. Such measures necessarily impeded trade. Hughes reported to Washington on the issuance and enforcement of these regulations and on the spread and abatement of the epidemics. He wanted to ensure that Ameri­ can ships complied with Swedish regulations and to warn the authorities in the United States of a serious public health problem. By the end of May, 1833» however, he was able to inform the Secretary of State that the epidemics had subsided, that enforcement of the regulations was being relaxed, ^^Hughes to Van Buren, 20 Oct 1830 (no. 4) and 3 May 1831; Hughes to Livingston, 15 July 1831, 20 June 1832 (no. 4), 1^ May 1833 (private) all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. ^^Hughes to Van Buren, 1^ June 1831; Hughes to Livingston, 1 Oct 1831 (no. 20), 11 Nov 1831 (no. 22), 18 March 1832 (no. 2), and 20 June 1832 (no. 4); all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 167 and that prospects for a good trading season were bright. The problems and duties of his position stimulated Hughes as long as his wife could cheerfully share his life, but they became burdensome when she fell sick. Since their marriage in 18H, they had enjoyed and suffered much together, and their marriage seemed Increasingly to give vital support to both of them with the passing years. Inevitably, a thought or feeling or a condition which affected one of them would also affect the other. As Laura grew thin and weak in January, 1832, her husband became lethargic and depressed, The health of Laura Hughes declined rapidly. Although she appeared to rally somewhat in April, her chest complaint was diagnosed in June as pulmonary tuberculosis. Both a Swedish physician and a British naval surgeon sug­ gested to the grief-stricken Hughes that there was no hope for the recovery of his wife. She died in her sleep on Tuesday, August 7, 1832,^® Because of this tragedy, Hughes wanted to leave Sweden for a time, and he wanted to provide properly for his son and daughter. If the season had not been so far advanced, he would have returned to the United States,

^^Hughes to Livingston, 20 Aug 1832, 14 May 1833 (private), and 24 May 1833» all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6, WLCL Hughes to Samuel Moore, 18 Jan 1832, Hughes Papers,

^®Hughes to Mrs, Moore, 28 April 1832, 10 June 1832, and 20 Aug 1832; all in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 168

However, not wishing to risk a winter passage across the Atlantic with his children, he decided to travel to England. The three of them sailed from Gothenburg at the end of iQ September and reached Harwich two stormy weeks later. ^ Hughes spent about two months In England. During this time, he visited friends and tried to bring some order Into his thoughts and emotions. He also made arrangements for his children to remain In that country until he could take them to the United States the following summer. Els son stayed with Thomas William Coke, later Earl of Leicester of Holkham, while his daughter became part of the family of her aunt, Mrs. Mansfield. Among his many English friends and acquaintances Hughes received much sympathy and comfort. 20 After visits to Paris and Brussels, the widower 21 returned to Stockholm, probably late In February, 1833. He had little energy or spirit and could do almost nothing but brood. He wrote to his sister at the end of March: I am helpless. . . . Nothing but my affection for my children and my duty to them make life tolerable to me. Nor have I any hope of becoming better or ever again taking an

Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 2 Nov 1832, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 20 Hughes to Robert Gllmor, 10 Dec 1832, Hughes MSS, HSP. Martin A. Shee to Hughes, 13 Dec 1832, Hughes MSS, HSP. Hughes to Adams, /?/ June 1833, AP reel 497» ^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 8 Feb 1833, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 169

Interest In the world and Its concerns. . . . I have no plans I I am In doubt, what I shall do!22 Nevertheless, ty May he had made some plans. Having received permission from the Secretary of State to visit the United States, he intended shortly to transfer responsibil­ ity for American affairs to David Erskine, the American consul at Stockholm. He would then leave Sweden, collect his children in England, and sail for his homeland in August.

Hughes left Stockholm on July 5i 1833» and thus ended the first phase of his second assignment to Sweden. The previous three years had been a period of some happi­ ness followed by much grief. As he tried to leave mournful memories behind, he did not know what to expect or to hope for in the future.

A Blunder: 1833-34 From the summer of 1833 until the autumn of 1834, Hughes was absent from his post. During that time, he arranged for the care and education of his children in the United States; he found pleasure in association with old

22 Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 22 March 1833» Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^^Livingston to Hughes, 1? July 1832 (no. 8), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All countries, 13:318. Hughes to Livingston, 14 May 1833 (private), 6 June 1833, 20 June 1833 (private); all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. ^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 16 July 1833, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 170 friends and reassurance in his contacts with the Jackson administration; and he decided to continue in the only career he knew and, perhaps, could enjoy. In his renewed enthusiasm for his profession, however, he committed a blunder— one without any serious consequence but one which reflects weakness in Hughes as a diplomat. This blunder may possibly be regarded as a key to his thoughts and feel­ ings during the interim period after the death of his wife and before the resumption of his duties at Stockholm. Hughes with his two children arrived at New York on September 15» 1833» after a residence abroad of more than seven years.Eager to see his homeland again, he took his son and, presumably, his daughter on a steamboat excur­ sion up the Hudson River. While appreciating the scenic beauties of the trip,he particularly wanted his son Charles to notice the cadets at the military academy at West Point. As the boat cut through the water of the broad river, Busies also was determined "to rouse my dormant patriotism and establish my Yankee identity."26 Therefore, he went below, ordered a julep, and had himself shaved by a colored barber. Inside and out, he began to feel more American. After a brief stay in New York, Hughes and his children traveled to Baltimore where they spent most of the next

^^Hughes to Samuel Moore, 10 Sept 1833 with a post­ script of 15 Sept 1833» Hughes Papers, WLCL. Zfi Hughes to Adams, 6 Dec 1835, AP reel 502. 171 eight months. His twin sister, Peggy Moore, and her hus­ band, Samuel Moore, had a small house at 133 South Charles Street, and it was there that Hughes felt most at home. This feeling had developed through the vicissitudes of many years. When he had married Laura Smith in 1811 and had incurred the wrath of her father, the Moores offered the newlyweds a place to live. When Hughes had found him­ self deep in debt during his assignment to the Netherlands, Samuel Moore agreed to manage his properties and succeeded in settling all obligations within a few years. When Hughes sadly prepared to leave Sweden in 1832 to take his I children to England, he feared that all three of them might perish on the stormy North Sea, and he therefore made a will leaving all of his estate to Peggy Moore. The ties between Hughes and the Moores had long been close, but after the death of Laura they seemed to become much closer. When Hughes arrived in Baltimore, he had rather indefinite notions about his future. To an acquaintance at Philadelphia he wrote: I love to be the friend of the best. . . . I have come home, "on leave;" and I mean to pass the winter at least at home I My intention is to

^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 23 Aug 1831, 14 Sept 1832, 22 March 1833» Samuel Moore to Hughes, 12 June 1833» all four in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 30 May 1834, AP reel 499. 172

cherish my old friendships and to cultivate new ones. . . .28 He toyed with the idea of entering politics, but the thought of becoming involved in party machinations dis­ couraged him. Besides, he felt quite ignorant about domestic conditions and problems.^9 While Hughes was still reflecting over his future, he went to Washington to report personally to the Secretary of State and to the President. Both received him in a friendly fashion; both appeared satisfied with his past conduct; both entertained him at dinner. Although his hosts apparently had no thought of transferring or promoting the veteran diplomat, they seemed prepared to retain him indefinitely as American charge at Stockholm. His relation­ ship with the Jackson administration appeared secure. Hughes also called on the Secretary of War, Lewis Cass, to request that his son be admitted to the military academy at West Point. In the initial meeting and at several subsequent ones, Hughes probably noted his long service as an American diplomat, pointed out that his official and private Income together seemed barely adequate to support him in his public capacity, and perhaps

^®Hughes to Joseph Hopkinson, 24 Oct 1833» Hughes MSS, HSP. ^9Hughe8 to Adams, fT7 June 1833, AP reel 497. 39Hughe8 to Samual Moore, 27 Nov 1833 and 4 Dec 1833» both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 173 suggested that approval of his request would be in the public interest as well as in his own private interest. In addition to such arguments as these, Hughes probably recalled that he had rendered valuable service to the War Department. Early in 1832, he had reported French interest in the high quality and low cost of recently-developed Swedish field artillery pieces. Later, at the request of the Secretary of War, he had procured two iron field can­ nons of the latest Swedish design, had sent them to the United States for testing, and had received a note of appreciation from the War Department for his efforts. Possibly in view of these considerations, Cass assured Hughes on December 4 that his son would be admitted to the 31 academy as a cadet the following June. Although the three weeks which Hughes spent in Washington in the autumn of 1833 were filled with official meetings and social engagements, he slipped away one week­ end to Montpelier, the Virginia estate of James and Dolley Madison. While this trip was unscheduled and his arrival unannounced, Hughes was instantly recognized and warmly welcomed by both the former President and his wife. So pleased was Madison to behold his one-time protege that he

^^Hughes to Samuel Smith, 4 May 1832. Smith Papers, UVL. Winfield Scott to Lewis Cass, /t7 Sept 1833» Cass Papers, WLCL. George Bomford to Hughes, 23 Nov 1833» Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Samuel Moore, 27 Nov 1833 and 4 Dec 1833» Hughes Papers, WLCL. 174 urged Hughes to remain overnight. The visit stretched to three days and became one uninterrupted conversation from nine o'clock each morning until nine o'clock each evening. Hughes was captivated by the "father of the American con­ stitution" and wrote to his brother-in-lawi I have never in my life passed three more interesting and instructive and delightful days; nor been more amply rewarded for an effort, or for the performance of a sacred and cherished duty! And it was both a duty and an effort to make this long and long meditated journey to pay my homage to my first political Patron, and to endeavor to see once more this great and good man. . . .3 On returning to Washington, Hughes ordered a rocking chair to be sent to Montpelier; he had observed that Madison suffered from rheumatism and seemed to have difficulty sitting in ordinary chairs.33 Hughes also paid homage to another political patron, John Quincy Adams. In September on arriving at New York after his voyage from Europe, he sent a letter to the Adams home in Quincy, Massachusetts, and addressed it to "my kind old Master, my indulgent and amiable friend."^ The former President quickly and perceptively replied: After all your vicissitudes and those of all the world around you, still you are young and warm hearted— and more— that you remember your friends when you have no occasion that they

32Hughe8 to Samuel Moore, 1? Nov 1833» Hughes Papers, WLCL. 33Hughes to Samuel Moore, 27 Nov 1833» and D.P. Madison to Hughes, 2 Dec 1833» both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 34Hughes to Adams, /?7 June 1833 /^icy, AP reel 497. 175

should remember you# A marvelously rare property in human nature. . . .35 In the spring of 1834, the two old friends met frequently in Washington at various social affairs— but not frequently enough because they felt a need to indulge in a voluminous and sprightly correspondence. Both appeared to enjoy their increasingly mellow relationship, but their paths soon parted again. After Hughes had left Washington to return to Stockholm, Adams wrote FarewellI God prosper and bless youI Come home as you promise— come home within two years— Rich— and come to Congress. Says your old and faithful f r i e n d — 36 Adams alluded to thoughts previously expressed by Hughes. The latter had a vague desire to represent Balti­ more in the House of Representatives, had found some political support among his friends, but had apparently not found enough to assure his election. Rather than engage in a doubtful electoral campaign, Hughes seems to have preferred to remain in his relatively secure diplomatic position. However, he believed that he would soon gain great wealth through an undisclosed scheme and in two years would be better able to win victory at the p o l l s . 37

35Adams to Hughes, 26 Sept 1833, AP reel 151. 36Adams to Hughes, 1 June 1834, AP reel 152. Also see Hughes to Adams, I7 May 1834, 18 May 1834, 30 May 1834, AP reel 499. Adams to Hughes, 19 May 1834 and 4 June 1834, AP reel I52. 37iîughes to Adams, I7 May 1834 and 30 Nay 1834, AP reel 499. 176

While these were some of the thoughts of Hughes, perhaps they were not his only ones on the subject of a career. Possibly he expressed such thoughts to be agree­ able to his friends. More jlllcely, he may have always wanted to have open an alternative career In the event that political changes in Washington deprived him of his diplo­ matic employment. Additionally, the vision of such an alternative In the future perhaps compensated, to some extent, for the Inevitable separation from friends, the Isolation, and the transitory relationships Incident to the diplomatic life. Although Hughes spoke of returning to the United States and entering politics, his decisions and deeds reflect the true balance of his thoughts, perhaps somewhat better than his words. On June 8, 1834, Hughes sailed from New York aboard the George Washington bound for Liverpool. He had placed his fifteen-year old daughter with the Moores; had arranged for the admission of his sixteen-year old son to West Point; had found his position with the Jackson administra­ tion secure; and had decided to resume his diplomatic duties at Stockholm. His departure for Europe concluded a crucial time of thought and decision. After a fast, smooth voyage of 1? days, Hughes reached Liverpool and soon went on to London. He stayed 38nughes to Adams, 30 May 1834, AP reel 499. Hughes to Adams, 2 June 1834 and 1 July 1834, both In AP reel 500. 177

In the British capital more than two months, listened to important speeches in the House of Lords, visited with a number of acquaintances such as Lord Palmerston and Lord Holland, and probably was selected for membership in one of the celebrated gentlemen’s clubs.39 As he remarked, "the times were exciting, and I love stimulants."^® In this exciting atmosphere, the ambition of Hughes for advancement in his diplomatic career appeared again— this time in an unfortunate, indiscreet way. About the middle of July, Hughes approached Mr. Hummelauer, the Austrian charge d ’affaires in London, and suggested that he had been authorized by the Secretary of State to discuss the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Austrian Empire. He asserted that the reluctance of Congress to appropriate funds would pre­ vent the President from taking any initiative in this matter; however, if the Austrian government sent a diplo­ matic representative to reside at Washington, the President would soon manage to make a reciprocal appointment at Vienna. Continuing, he mentioned that the President had promised such an appointment to him if the opportunity arose to make it. Hughes, of course, was eager to

^^Dudley Coutts Stuart to Hughes, 12 fT7 July 1834, Hughes MSS, HSP. Hughes to Samuel Moore, 17 Sept 1834, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 1 July 1834, AP reel 300.

Hughes to Adams, 6 Dec 1835# AP reel 502. 178 exchange the dreariness and sad memories of Stockholm for the gaiety of the Austrian capital. During his recent leave in the United States he had spoken with Louis McLane, the Secretary of State, on a num­ ber of occasions and had argued the desirability of main­ taining diplomatic representation at Vienna. While McLane was on cordial terms with Hughes and may well have spoken along the general lines subsequently followed by the latter with Hummelauer, the Secretary probably stopped short of authorizing any approach to the Austrian diplomat. Appar­ ently Hughes either misunderstood or carelessly construed the words of his chief. Probably he was influenced by a disinclination to remain at his old post, by a desire for a more important and stimulating assignment, by a hope for promotion, and by a certain recklessness induced by the stimulating conditions of London. Hummelauer suspected that Hughes was engaging in some sort of intrigue and asked him to show written cre­ dentials authorizing this approach. Hughes, of course, could produce nothing of that nature. Therefore, the Austrian charge declared that he would deal only with the regularly accredited American minister in London on this subject and would regard Hughes merely as a traveler with

^^Aaron Vail to John Forsyth, 24 July 1834, Van Buren Papers, LC. Hughes to Samuel Moore, 28 April 1837» Hughes Papers, WLCL. 179 no official character. Hummelauer then dutifully reported 42 the Incident to the American minister, Aaron Vail. The American minister was upset. He had already participated In Inclusive, confidential conversations with the Austrlans on the establishment of diplomatic relations. He had been uninformed about the Intentions of Hughes and regarded the actions of the latter as self-seeking and as Jeopardizing the success of the earlier conversations. When Hughes In an Interview with Vail substantially con­ firmed the report of Hummelauer and did not appear aware of any discourtesy or Indiscretion, the American minister became more upset. He thereupon prepared a long, confiden­ tial despatch to the new Secretary of State, John Forsyth, describing this blunder of Hughes. Eventually, Forsyth received the despatch, appar­ ently discussed It with both the President and McLane, and then sent Hughes a reprimand; The President . . . has Instructed me to express to you his regret and dissatisfaction at this uncalled for and unauthorized Interference In a matter which has no connexion whatever with the duties of your present official station. . • When Hughes received this Instruction, he had already reached his post at Stockholm.

^^Va 11 to Forsyth, 24 July 1834, Van Buren Papers, LC. ^^Vall to Forsyth, 24 July 1834, Van Buren Papers, LC. 44porsyth to Hughes, 10 Oct 1834 (no. 20), Hughes Papers, WLCL. 180

After his rebuff by the Austrian charge and the strained interview with the American minister, Hughes tarried in London some weeks longer. He probably enjoyed the company of his many friends and acquaintances; he may have wanted to delay his onward Journey until the cholera epidemic in the Baltic area had abated. At last, on September 10 he resumed his trip to distant Sweden. A month later, delayed by severe local quarantine restrictions, he arrived in Stockholm. The epidemic had claimed an estimated 4,000 victims in the city of 75,000 persons. Among the dead were a number of friends of Hughes, including the Prussian minister and the physician who had cared for Laura. It was a city of sadness and gloom to which Hughes returned. During the preceding year and a half he had con­ sidered quitting his diplomatic career but had finally decided to continue in it. The blunder he had committed in London not only exposed a weakness in his capacity as a diplomat but also revealed an ambitious attachment to his career.

^^Hughes to Samuel Moore, 1? Sept 1834, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^^Hughes to Margaret Hughes, 10 Oct 1834, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Forsyth, 10 Oct 1834 (no. 1), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6 . Hughes to Adams, 6 Dec 1835, AP reel 502. 181

Comfortable Isolation^ 1834-38 Hughes began the second phase of his assignment to Sweden in the autumn of 1834 and ended it four years later with his departure once again for the United States, Dur­ ing this period he carried his light responsibilities with ease and seemed contented with an existence which he found both comfortable and isolated. When Van Buren becsune President in 1837, Hughes feared that he might suddenly be dismissed by the new administration for personal or poli­ tical reasons. Though this fear was soon dispelled, the change of administrations in Washington was the most sig­ nificant episode of this period in the diplomatic career of Hughes, For about three months after he arrived in Stockholm, Hughes did little but grieve and brood. The city sadly reminded him of Laura, His lodging seemed cold and empty without his children. Although friends tried to console him, he sometimes refused invitations and remained unshaven 47 and alone in his room. In January, 1835, however, he began to reconcile himself to the life of a widower and to recover his buoyant spirit. He leased a house in the center of town and staffed it with four servants, including one of the best cooks in Stockholm, In a letter to his twin sister, he boasted

^?Hughes to Samuel Moore, 16 Dec 1834, Hughes Papers, WLCL, 182 that "I have the r.icest little establishment . . • possible" and, remembering the approach of their 49th birthday, he reflected Time treats me gently. . . . My health . . . is excellent! My sleep, like that of an infant . . . I My digestion glorious; my appetite capacious. . . .48 Once more, he delighted in the companionship of his colleagues and in the society of prominent Swedish families. As was his custom, he maintained especially close contact with the British and French ministers, but he seemed to be on good terms also with all of the other members of the diplomatic corps. During the pleasant summer months, Hughes often enjoyed the hospitality of wealthy Swedish friends at their country estates far from Stockholm.Now, without family responsibilities and apparently free from financial worries, he seemed to Indulge in his natural inclination toward conviviality. As a consequence, he had to confess that "I have got excessively fat."50 His relations with the foreign ministry seem to have been as close and easy as they had been before his latest visit to the United States. Apparently, the American

J[i O Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 1 Feb 1835» Hughes Papers, WLCL. Also see Hughes to Adams, 6 Deo 1835» AP reel 502. 4q ^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 1 Oct 1835» 8 March 1836, 14 June 1836, 1 Nov 1836; all four in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughe8 to Mrs. Moore, 7 Sept 1836, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 183 charge. along with the other chiefs of diplomatic missions in Stockholm, attended the weekly conferences held by the foreign minister. Unlike his colleagues, however, Hughes had known some of the important Swedish officials since 1817 and probably benefited by his long residence in Sweden. Nevertheless, with the passage of time, there were changes. In the spring of 1837, Count Wetterstedt died. He had served well as foreign minister since 1824 and had played an important role in the settlement of American claims. His successor. Count Adolph Morner, had negotiated the com­ mercial treaty with Jonathan Russell in 1816 and had subsequently filled responsible positions in the Swedish government. Early in 1838, Morner also died. Thus, within 12 months, Hughes lost two friends— both of them valued by him personally and professionally. Despite these losses, he experienced no difficulty in the performance of his duties.

These, to a large extent, consisted in the reporting of commercial, political, or other intelligence of possible interest to the United States government. During the four years from 1834 to 1838, the despatches of Hughes covered such subjects as the new and voluminous Swedish tariff, the always Important iron shipments to the United States, 1 ^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 1 Oct 1835 and 25 May 1837; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Forsyth, 23 May 1837 (no. 27) and 9 Feb 1838 (no. 35); both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 184 the Increasing use of steamships in the Baltic trade, con­ stitutional problems in the dual kingdom, the negotiation of treaties between Sweden and other countries, and the peacetime and wartime equipment of the French army. Some­ times enclosed with these despatches were printed copies of such public documents as the speeches of the king and laws pertaining to commerce. Hughes appeared reasonably diligent in reporting significant matters promptly and <2 fully to Washington. Nevertheless, weeks and, sometimes, months went by during which time he heard no remark and observed no inci­ dent worth a despatch. In fact, he had little of an official nature to occupy his time and was often bored. In one of l^is despatches to the Secretary of State he des­ cribed a situation characteristic of much of this four-year period: Everything is perfectly calm and quiet in the Country: and we are— by being the last to hear the political news— left at leisure, to occupy ourselves with the arrangements and pre­ parations made necessary for our comfort by the vlgourous ^inter/ season, already set in. . . . S^There are more than a dozen despatches from Hughes to Forsyth on these subjects, written between 1834 and 1838, in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. Also see Joel Poinsett to Hughes, 14 March 1838, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Secretary’s office. Letters sent. Military Affairs, 18:451. ^^Hughes to Forsyth, 5 Jan 1836 (no. 16), NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. Also see Hughes to Forsyth, 4 Aug 1835 (no. 11), 1 May 1836 (no. 17), 30 Nov 1836 (no. 22), and 1 July 1837 185

This comfortable Isolation appeared threatened in 1837 by the change of administrations in Washington. Hughes had long believed that Van Buren had little regard for him and would dismiss him if it were politically advan­ tageous to do 80.^ Philosophically regarding his prospects, he wrote to his brother-in-law on inauguration day; If Mr. Van Buren continue me in the Diplom. service, I shall be very much obliged to him, and I will continue cheerfully and zealously and faith­ fully to do my duty to my country, and in that station in which it may please Mr. V.B. to trust and employ me I If he order me home. . . , why, 1*11 obey his orders, without anger, wrath, spleen, or pretending to have the least right to complain. . . .55 Two months later, Hughes had not received any dismissal notice, but he had heard of the plans of the new administration to establish diplomatic relations with Austria. Because of his previously expressed interest in such relations and in a desire for transfer, he began to believe that Van Buren would, perhaps, soon send him to Vienna. However, within a few weeks' he learned that some­ one else had been selected for that post— selected on the basis of domestic American political considerations.^^ (private); all four in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 5^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 1 Nov I836, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^5pughes to Samuel Moore, 4 March 1837, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 5^Eughes to Samuel Moore, 28 April 1837; Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 25 May 1837; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Niles* Weekly Register. 18 March 1837» P» 3^. Richardson, IP: 6

By the end of the summer of 1837, Hughes felt con­ fident that the Van Buren administration would retain him in the diplomatic service even though it might not trans­ fer him to a more desirable and important post. Although oamuel Bmith no longer possessed the influence which he liad used effectively eight years earlier, Van Buren probably did not wish to arouse his enmity. With the rapidly deter­ iorating economic conditions in the United States, the ^resident liad enough problems to face without creating any additional ones. In this sense, Henry Clay wrote to his friend at Stockholm and correctly assured him that he had nothing to fear because of the change in administrations.^? Hughes could relax in his comfort and isolation. On Aarch 10, 1838, he imrote to the Secretary of State: I have nothing to ;frite about that could in the least interest you. Our winter /Tsy dreadfully severe, and there appears as if there would be no end to it. . . .5° Of course, the end of winter soon came, and a few months later the end of this dull period in the career of lviftSSfl.gP-R and PmpA-rR nf t.bp Presldentm, III, 375* The Van Buren administration offered the appointment to William K. King, U.S. Senator from Alabama, but he refused. Although Congress had provided funds, the administration did not fill the position of U.S. minister to Austria during the balance of 1837. 57ciay to Hughes, 18 June 1837*, and Hughes to Samuel Moore, 1 Aug 1837; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 58Hughe8 to Forsyth, 10 March 1838 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6 * 187

Hughes also came. These four years, by themselves, contain little of interest but, in relation to the subsequent twelve months in the life of Hughes, they may provide a key to understanding.

Unauthorized Initiative; 1838-39 Hughes left Sweden in the autumn of 1838 and did not return until a year later. After his long isolation and inactivity, he was eager to see his family and dis­ posed to exercise his diplomatic talents if a suitable opportunity should arise. During this twelve-month period, he visited Baltimore, of course, but then he proceeded to England and Prance where he found occasions to support the interests of the new republic of Texas. His efforts on behalf of Texas were unauthorized by his government and, like the blunder he committed in 1834, reveal something of his capacity and motivation as a diplomat. Early in 1838 Hughes began to contemplate a leave of absence in the United States. In the course of the coming year, his son would graduate from West Point and make a decision about a future career. The fifty-two year old father wanted to share in the excitement and thinking of the young man. Besides, his daughter, who four years before had been a mere girl, would now be a young lady. She, too, stood at the threshold of adulthood and would 188 perhaps need the counsel of her father. Furthermore, since his last home leave in 1834, there had occurred a change of administration at Washington. Hughes probably believed that a personal call on the President and one on the Secre­ tary of state would remind them of his existence and that, as a consequence, they might more readily consider him for transfer or promotion. Finally, he was bored at Stockholm and wanted a change of scene. Therefore, on February 10, 1838, he wrote to the Secretary of State requesting leave and mentioning urgent family matters as the reason for his request.

An answer reached Hughes about the middle of June and approved a visit in the United States of two months. Upset at the limited period allowed to him, he immediately wrote back, pointed out the hazards and delays encountered by travelers during the stormy winter season, and asked for an extension of the time granted to him. Eventually, this request was also approved. The American charge at Stockholm informed the Swedish government of his plans for leave, dined with the

Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 9 Dec 1837» Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Forsyth, 10 Feb 1838, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. ^^Forsyth to Hughes, 28 April 1838 (no. 3 D and 2 Feb 1839 (no. 32), both in NA Diplomatic Instructions, Sweden and Norway, 14:12. Hughes to Forsyth, 14 June 1838 (no. 39) and 14 June 1838 (private), both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 189 king early in September, and departed for the United States a few days later. Traveling by way of England, he spent 33 days crossing the Atlantic and arrived at the home of his twin sister in Baltimore toward the middle of 61 November. A day after his arrival, all of his many relatives in Baltimore assembled in a family reunion to welcome home the diplomat. He found that his daughter””had become a gracious and kind woman although he admitted that "she is 62 neither a genius nor a beauty." His son had graduated from West Point the preceding June, had become a lieutenant in the United States army, was then serving with the sixth regiment in Florida, but was expected back on furlough. His twin sister and her husband, as a matter of course, 63 provided him with a place he could call home. Within several days, Hughes went on to Washington where he stayed about six weeks. From the moment he stepped out of the train from Baltimore, he began meeting old friends and acquaintances on the streets, in the shops, and elsewhere in the capital city. Opportunities for conversation abounded, and the vacationing diplomat seems Hughe8 to Charles Hughes, 4 Sept 1838; Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 24 Sept 1838; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 12 Nov 1838, AP reel 510. 6? Hughes to Adams, 12 Nov 1838, AP reel 510. Hughes to Adams, 12 Nov, 1838, AP reel 510. 190 to have enjoyed them, fully. However, play was mixed with work. At the State Department, Hughes had routine but essential conversations; at the Har Department, he dis­ cussed another shipment of Swedish artillery for experi­ mental purposes; and at the Treasury Department, he Ail presumably brought his accounts up to date. Among the dignitaries with whom Hughes chatted was Anson Jo.ies, minister of Texas to the United States. At that time, his government was seeking diplomatic recogni­ tion by the European powers in an effort to consolidate the independence recently won from Mexico. Jones sug­ gested to Hughes that the latter, on his return to Europe, could possibly assist the agents of the Lone Star Republic in this effort. In reply, the American diplomat promised to give such assistance in his private capacity if he could conveniently do so.^^ Toward the close of this six-week visit in Washing­ ton, Hughes was entertained for dinner in the Adams home. Besides the former President and his wife, the only other person attending this private affair was John Connell, who had participated in the claims settlement at Stockholm in

^^Hughes to Samuel Moore, 13 Nov 1838, Hughes Papers, WLCL. George Bomford to Hughes, 20 Nov 1838, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. J.Q. Adams diary, 18 Dec 1838, AP reel 36.

^^Hughes to Forsyth, 2h July 1839» Hughes Pacers, WLCL. 191

1825* Hughes felt himself in good company and spent a pleasant evening. Of course, the conversation sparkled; then there was a hearty beef roast of which the Baltimore gourmet accepted three portions; and, finally, the Madeira— "old, generous, abundant, and soporific I After leaving the table, Adams and Hughes settled down into sofas opposite each other and dozed off. Several days la­ ter, the diplomat returned to his family circle in Baltimore Sarly in February, 1839» Hughes apparently suffered an apoplectic stroke and was so sick that he had to stay in his room for a month and a half. Under the care of his "worthy cousin and cunning Leech, Dr. Gibson," he gradually recovered and by the beginning of April felt well enough to proceed to Stockholm. Before doing so, he visited Washington again to receive his final instructions and to say farewell to some of his friends. The Secretary of State entrusted a packet of important documents to him and asked that they be deliv­ ered personally to Henry Wheaton, the American minister at

^^Hughes to Adams, 1 Jan 1839, AP reel 511*

Hughe8 to Adams, 1 Jan 1839» AP reel 511» Also see J.Q. Adams diary, 19 Dec 1838 and 25 Dec 1838, AP reel 36. Hughes to Adams, ^ 0 Dec 18387, AP reel 510.

Hughe8 to Margaret Hughes, 2 July 1839» Hughes Papers, WLCL. Also see Hughes to Forsyth, 6 March 1839, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. Hughes to Adams, 2 April 1839, AP reel 512. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 24 Sept 1839» Hughes Papers, WLCL. 192

Berlin. Adams, then especially interested in promoting astronomical research, requested him to make some inquiries at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, England. In this manner, Hughes concluded his leave in the United States 6q during the third week in April. On April 22, 1839t as he was preparing to sail for England, his father-in-law died. Although relations between the two had sometimes been strained, Samuel Smith had mightily helped Hughes on several critical occasions during his diplomatic career. The older man had shielded his son-in-law from some of the hazards resulting from shifting political currents in the United States. That shield \7as now gone, and Hughes, as an employee of the federal government, was more vulnerable in his profession than he had been before. However, the death of Smith did 70 not delay the departure of Hughes for Europe. He reached Liverpool on May 19 and spent the next four weeks in England. The time was filled with a suc­ cession of interviews, dinners, receptions, and visits. He called on the astronomer. Sir George B. Airy; dined with the foreign secretary. Lord Palmerston; was presented

6o ^Adams to Hughes, 9 April 1839, Hughes Papers WLCL. Forsyth to Hughes, 17 April 1839 (no. 34), NA Diplomatic Instructions, Sweden and Norway, 14:13-14. Hughes to Adams, 9 June 1839, AP reel 512. 70 National Intelligencer. 24 April 1839, p. 3- 193 to the young Queen Victoria; commiserated with the T'ansflelds over the death of Samuel Smith; and passed several pleasant days with Lord and Lady Leicester at their Longford estate in Derbyshire. On one occasion, he suggested to Palmerston that Britain might gain certain advantages through an early recognition of Texas, but the foreign secretary mentioned difficulties connected with such a move. 71 In a letter to his daughter describing his sojourn in England, Hughes con­ fessed that "my time was devoted so much to others that I had not the power of attending to myself. . . ,"72 After about ten days of such activity, he began to feel unwell. His head was dizzy, his back weak, and his legs sifollen. He consulted a physician who mentioned the danger of palsy or apoplexy, urged him to postpone his onward journey for a time, and prescribed rest and a vapor bath treatment. Hughrs accepted the advice, reduced his commitments, but still moved to some extent in London society. About the middle of June, he went to Paris.. Although he had not intended to visit France, concern over his health 7lRughes to Margaret Hughes, 28 May 1839» and Hughes to Forsyth, 24 July 1839 (private); Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 9 June 1839, AP reel 512. Hughes to Margaret Hughes, 2 July 1839, Hughes Papers, WLCL. "^^Hughes to Forsyth, 2 July 1839 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 194 led hlm to change his plans. While in London, he was not altogether pleased with his medical treatment and decided to visit the famous Bohemian spa of Karlsbad. He recog­ nized, however, the desirability and, perhaps, the necessity of traveling to that place in easy stages. Therefore, the French capital seemed to him to be a reasonable stopping point on his trip across the continent.'74 The stopover in Paris lasted six weeks because Hughes found Parisian society as stimulating as that of London. He got along well with Lewis Cass, the American minister; he was presented to the king; he chanced to meet some of his former colleagues in the French diplomatic service; and his health began to improve reassuringly. With respect to his mode of living, he wrote to his daughter: I don't say that I am a model of modera­ tion and abstemiousness; but my life is sober and careful; I eat little and drink less. . . Shortly after arriving in Paris, Hughes happened to meet Mrs. Wheaton, wife of the American minister at Berlin. She informed him that her husband had already received duplicates of the documents entrusted to him by Forsyth.

74 Hughes to Forsyth, 2 July 1839 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. Hughes to Margaret Hughes, 2 July 1839, Hughes Papers, WLCL. ^^Hughes to Margaret Hughes, 2 July 1839, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 195

With this knowledge, Hughes felt less urgency in continu­ ing his trip. At the sane tine, he found a trustworthy person who undertook to carry to Wheaton the original documents which he had brought from Washington. Hughes dutifully sent word to Forsyth about these arrangements.^^ While in Paris, Hughes also met James Pinckney Henderson, official representative of Texas. The task of the latter was to obtain French recognition of the Lone Star Republic and then negotiate a treaty of commerce, but the Texan spoke little French and appeared to be making no progress, Hughes, with his fluent knowledge of the French language and his wide acquaintance with French officialdom, decided to give whatever assistance he could in his pri­ vate capacity. Devoting the last two weeks of July to this effort, he made introductions, arranged meetings, served as interpreter, and generally functioned as a catalyst. By the end of the month, he believed that he had succeeded in his role as intermediary, that he had fulfilled his promise to Anson Jones, and that Henderson would shortly 77 accomplish his mission. ______f&Hughes to Forsyth, 2 July 1839» NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6 . f^Hughes to Forsyth, 24 July 1839 (private), Hughes Pa^rs, WLCL. J. Pinckney Henderson to Secretary of State Texasy, 26 July 1839» in "Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas," ed. by George P. Garrison in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 190ë. vol. II (2) (Washington; Government Print- ing Office, 1911)» pp. 1257, 1264. 196

Pleased with this exercise of his diplomatic tal­ ents, Hughes sent a full report to the Secretary of State. Expecting that this unauthorized initiative would be approved in Washington, he even hoped that he might be rewarded by a transfer to Madrid or St. Petersburg and by promotion to the rank of minister.?^ President Van Buren and Secretary of State Forsyth thought differently. Although they did not reprimand Hughes, they determined that his report should not be placed in the archives of the federal government but should be sent back to him as something pertaining to his own private affairs. The administration in Washington appeared content to allow Hughes to return to the isolation 79 of Sweden.

On July 30, he resumed his roundabout journey to his post. Traversing Germany in a leisurely fashion, he reached Karlsbad in about ten days. During the next four weeks, he spent some time at that spa but more time at nearby Marienbad, drinking the waters and receiving con­ flicting medical advice. At length, he proceeded northward,

78 Hughes to Forsyth, 28 July 1839 (private), Hughes Papers, WLCL. 79 ForSyth to Hughes, 29 Oct 1839, DIA Diplomatic Instructions, Sweden and Norway, 14:14. 197 paused several days In Berlin late in September, and 80 arrived at Stockholm early in October. Shortly after his arrival, Hughes vras informed that his son had died in August, apparently of a fever con­ tracted -while serving with his regiment in Florida. Stricken with grief, the father reluctantly took up his 8T responsibilities as American charge in Sweden. During the preceding year, Hughes had found oppor­ tunities to promote international understanding, and he had exploited them with verve. At the same time, however, he had revealed a certain ignorance or misunderstanding of the attitude of his own government. Clearly he possessed skills useful in the field of diplomacy, and, just as clearly, he eagerly wanted to use those skills. Neverthe­ less, they were generally not fully employed and not effectively directed. The problem of Hughes was to find employment in diplomacy as well as a position in the diplomatic service.

Final Months at Stockholm; 1839-41 Hughes remained at Stockholm until the autumn of 1841 when he left in search of a new assignment. He had

Hughe8 to Charles Hughes, 24 Aug 1839» and Hughes to Mrs. Koore, 24 Sept 1839» both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 0 * 1 J . Edward Arfwedson to Samuel Moore, 26 Oct 1839, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Forsyth, 7 Nov 1839, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. 198 competently served his country for a quarter of a century as a diplomat, had tried to find opportunities to exercise his talent for diplomacy, and had aspired toward greater responsibility and more distinguished rank in his profes­ sion. Aware that he had achieved little so far and that he was growing old fast, he wanted to make some noteworthy mark in the few years possibly left to him in his career. Juring 1840 and 1841, these considerations weighed ever more heavily in the thinking of Hughes and eventually influenced him to end this third phase of his assignment to Sweden. Although the loss of his son deeply saddened him, Hughes gradually recovered his normally cheerful disposi­ tion and resumed the comfortable existence he had led before his recent trip to the United States, Early in 1840, he wrote to his daughter in Baltimore: I am now in excellent health. . . . Excepting in not drinking wine, I live as usual, and I sit up— playing Uhist— a great deal tog late and, of course, I rise too late. . . He appeared to move as freely as before in Stockholm society and to maintain cordial personal relations with the king. The jovial diplomat also cherished his more distant contacts. Later on in the year, he commented in a letter

®^Hughes to Margaret Hughes, 7 March 184], Hughes Papers, WLCL. 199

to his daughter on his long friendship with Lord Leicester, and he went on to give her some fatherly advice; Always keep alive such friendships; they are always agreeable and pleasing; and God knows— if events may not make them useful— when we least think of it I Remember this maxim! I have Friends everyifhere; and in every part of the world; real. kind and good friends; solid and useful friends; and I never allow a friendship to die off— for „ want of attention on m^ part— to keep it alive. . . . ^ The means employed by Hughes in establishing and maintain­ ing his contacts— both near and far— were witty and entertaining conversation, sprightly and informative cor­ respondence, careful attention to the conventional courtesies, respect for position and achievement, but also a distinctive candor about persons and institutions. During his final months at Stockholm, Hughes reported to the Secretary of State on various subjects of possible political or commercial interest. These included the negotiation of treaties and agreements between Sweden and other countries; the erection of a new lighthouse at Gothenburg; a reduction in the Swedish export duty on bar iron; a study of the Swedish banking system; and a state­ ment of governmental policy by the king. As earlier, the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway appeared tranquil, and the

Hughes to Margaret Hughes, 29 Cet 1840, Hughes Papers, V/LCL. 200

American charge observed relatively little worthy of a a [i despatch to his government. Besides reporting to the State Department, Hughes also served the War Department during this period. In the spring of 184o, the Secretary of War informed him that a group of four officers would shortly tour Europe to study methods used in the more important cannon foundries. Sweden was included in the countries to be visited, and the American charge at Stockholm was requested to assist the officers in their mission. Hughes was delighted to have something worthwhile to do. When the officers arrived in June, he arranged for their presentation to the king and for their visit to the three privately-owned cannon foundries in the country. The group spent over a month in Sweden, observed the cast­ ing of cannon, and prepared orders for experimental specimens. After they left, Hughes helped to arrange for the shipping of the specimens to the United States and for

84 Kughes to Forsyth, 3 Feb 1840 and 8 April 1840; Hughes to Secretary of State, 13 March 1841; Hughes to Webster, 25 May 1841, 2? June 1841, 19 July 184l, 24 Aug 1841; all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6 . ®^Poinsett to Hughes, 12 March 1840, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Secretary’s office. Letters sent. Military affairs, 22:32-33. 201 payment through hankers In London.However, apart from the procurement of this artillery, the preparation of an occasional despatch to the Secretary of State, and his . nightly, games of whist, the American diplomat had little to do. As the months passed, he thought increasingly about a transfer to a more stimulating post and a promotion to a higher rank. In November, 1840, he wrote to Seaton and Gales, publishers of the National Intelligencer, to appeal for some favorable publicity on his behalf. A short time later, he sent letters to Adams, Clay, and Webster begging them to support his interests with the administration in Washington. In January, 1841, Hughes wrote to the Presi­ dent-elect, William Henry Harrison, outlined his long and devoted service to his country, declared his Whig sympa­ thies, and asked for an appointment as minister plenipotentiary at some European capital. A few months later after Tyler had succeeded to the Presidency, the persistent diplomat tried again: in a letter to the Secre­ tary of State he suggested that the new President send him to Vienna, Naples, or Brussels. Despite all of these

^^Hughes to Poinsett, 9 June 1840, 8 July 1840, 11 March 1841; all three in Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. Poinsett to Hughes, 15 Jan 1841 and 23 Feb 1841, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Secretary's office. Letters sent. Military affairs, 23:136 and 23:216. Alfred Mordecai to Hughes, 27 Oct 1841 and 30 Oct 1841, both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. 202 letters, Hughes received no transfer, no promotion, and, possibly, not even a reply. " He began to feel desperate. To Adams he pleaded: ‘Hiovr, do something for me, and get me out of this old-cold hole ; for God's sake and at once. . • To Webster, now Secretary of State, he addressed repeated requests for a leave of absence to visit the United States. In view of the failure of his letters and friends thus far to accom­ plish his aims, he probably concluded that his last hope for transfer and promotion lay in h.'.s personal intervention in Washington.

Toward the end of August, Hughes at last received word that his request for leave had been approved. He immediately made plans to entrust the archives of the lega­ tion to the American consul and to leave Stockholm about the middle of September. Though still the regularly assigned and accredited American charge d'affaires to

37 Hughes to Seaton and Gales, 7 Nov 1840; Hughes to Adams, 13 Nov 1840; both in AP reel 515- Hughes to Harri son, 5 Jan 1841, Harrison Papers, LC. Hughes to Webster, 25 May 1841 (no. 2, private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. Hughes to Adams, 25 May 1841, AP reel 518.

Hughe8 to Webster, 25 Kay 1841 (no. 2, private), 20 July 1841, 20 July 1841 (private); all three in NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. George A. Hughes to Adams, 21 Sept 1841, AP reel 519» 203

Jweden, he was determined not to return to Stockholm in go that capacity. Then Hughes left Sweden in the autumn of 1841, he completed a period during which the basis of his career iiad changed in several significant respects. The death of his wife diminished some of the attraction of settling dowm to live in the United States. Furthermore, the death of his father-in-law reduced the possibility of any kind of alternative career in domestic politics. Finally, the death of his son removed another re ^son Hughes may have had for residing in his own country. These events, coupled with his familiarity and aptitude for diplomacy and with his ignorance of other kinds of employment, led Hughes to view his diplomatic career as his own particular way of life.

go Webster to Hughes, 16 July 1841 (no. 39), Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Webster, 23 Aug 1841, NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to Sweden and Norway, vol. 6. CH/V.PT3R VI

TWILIGHT' OF A CAREER

The career of Hughes depended as much upon the favor of the administration in Washington as it did upon his own abilities or wishes, and the President was often more sensitive to considerations of domestic politics than to those of foreign relations. Since his experience at Ghent in 1814, Hughes had been quite aware of the political basis of his employment in the diplomatic service and had constantly cultivated the friendship of persons influential in American national politics. As a consequence, he had managed to gain certain benefits from this system, such as it was, but he had also suffered frustration and despair. During his last few years in the service, he was again a beneficiary of the system and a victim.

Contriving a Transfer: 1841-42 Hughes left Europe in the autumn of 1841 and spent the following winter and spring in the United States try­ ing to arrange a transfer to a different post. During this period, as on several previous occasions, his well-placed friends helped him in his efforts.

204 205

Early In September before Hughes had left Stockholm, John Quincy Adams rose on the floor of the House of Repre­ sentatives in Washington and delivered a speech concerning the case of Alexander McLeod, an issue then troubling Anglo-American relations. McLeod was a Canadian deputy sheriff who had participated in a border affray along the Niagara River in 1837» During this incident an American citizen had been killed. Late in 1840, McLeod happened to visit the American side of the border, was arrested by New York state authorities, and held for trial on a charge of murder. Popular feeling, both in the United States and Great Britain, mounted and reached something of a peak in the late summer and early autumn of 1841. Adams, as chair­ man of the committee on foreign affairs, had a duty to speak on such subjects. Besides, he wanted to calm the excited passions of some of his colleagues and to assist the Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, in a difficult situation. Speaking for an hour and, in part, extempor­ aneously, he skillfully held the attention of the House and apparently achieved his purposes.^ In the course of the speech, Adams found an oppor­ tunity to include a few remarks favorable to Hughes. Some

^Daily National Intelligencer. 6 Sept 1841 and 18 Sept 1841. Niles* National Register. 25 Sept 1841, p. 61. Allan Nevlns, ed.. The Diary of John Quincy Adams. 1794- 1845 (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1928), p. 531. 206 time earlier, Andrew Stevenson, the American minister at London, had misunderstood the Intentions of the British government, had feared the outbreak of hostilities between Great Britain and the United States, had sent what amounted to a war warning to the American naval squadron In the Mediterranean, and had thereby contributed to the tension existing between the two countries. Suggesting that the behavior of Stevenson was cow­ ardly If not ludicrous, Adams declared that Hughes, If he had been minister In the Brit)si capital, would have been better Informed and would not have sent a panic message to the naval squadron. The chairman of the committee on foreign affairs recalled his previous experience as Secre­ tary of State under Monroe and told how the American charge in Sweden at that time had gathered Important Intelligence "by no Improper acts and at no cost of secret service money, but by the art of making friends . . . wher- 2 ever he goes." Summing up his comments on Hughes, Adams said that, "I mention this to show what ought to be the qualities of a public minister abroad." In effect, he suggested that Hughes was a model diplomat.

^Nlles* National Register. 25 Sept 1841, p. 61. ^Ibld. 20?

The publishers of the Daily National Intelligencer in Washington regarded the speech as an important contri­ bution to the existing public discussion on American relations vrith Great Britain and requested Adams to fur­ nish them with a copy for publication. Accordingly, he set to work and prepared such a copy from his notes. The text of the speech appeared in the issue of September 18. A week later, Niles* National Register of Baltimore car­ ried the same text and, in an accompanying article, drew 4 special attention to the remarks on Hughes. Unaware of all of this publicity favorable to him­ self, the American charge at Stockholm meanwhile left his post, made his way to England, and then sailed for the United States. He apparently arrived at Boston about the third week in October intent on arousing support for his transfer to a different post.^ Hughes began his effort in characteristic fashion. He called on friends, chatted about his experiences abroad, showed entertaining letters he had received from prominent persons in Europe, mentioned his eagerness to serve his country elsewhere than in Sweden, and asked for help in

4 Daily National Intelligencer, o p . cit. Niles* National Register. 25 Sept 1B4i. pp. 53V Nevlns, The Diary of John Quincy Adams, op. cit.. p. 531. Hughes to Adams, 22 Oct 1841 and 14 Nov 1841, both on AP reel 519* 206 effecting a transfer. -Thlle at Boston, he probably saw Harrison Gray Ctis and may have persuaded the latter to act as the anonymous "Boston letter writer" who sent a glowing description of Hughes to the Baltimore Sun»^ He also dropped in on Adams, then at nearby Quincy. The for­ mer President remarked that he had given a speech on the î'cLeod case and suggested that Hughes try to obtain a copy of the National Intelligencer containing the text. This suggestion aroused the curiosity of Hughes, and not until about ten days later did he realize what Adams had done for him. After a brief stay at Boston, Hughes proceeded to Philadelphia where he paused again. Here he visited Joseph Reed Ingersoll, a friend since college days and now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In addition, he may have spoken with such acquaintances as federal district Judge Joseph Hopkinson and the prominent Whig attorney Horace Binney. On this leisurely trip from Boston to Baltimore, Hughes probably had opportunities to meet other influential figures and probably tried to 7 recruit supporters wherever he could do so.

^"Extract from the Baltimore Sun, 4th November, 1841" on AP reel 519» ^Hughes to Adams, 22 Oct 1841 and 14 Nov 1841, both on AP reel 519» Clay to Hughes, 15 Nov 1841, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Ingersoll, 3 Dec 1841, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. Hughes to Adams, 11 Dec 1841, AP reel 520. le reached his native city early in November and settled doTTn comfortably with the ’'"oores at their new residence in St. Paul*s Street. Here he had an apartment of his oxm, previously constructed and furnished according to his directions and at his expense. Presumably his daughter Margaret shared this apartment and helped to make p it a home. Hughes was lionized by relatives and friends. For two weeks after arriving in Baltimore, he did little but receive callers and accept invitations. The Adams speech and the subsequent publicity in the National Intelligencer. Niles* Register. Baltimore Sun. and Baltimore American had made him a celebrity. Now he realized that his friend Adams had responded in timely fashion to his earlier plea Q for help. Nriting to his ’’Guide, Philosopher, and Friend,” iîughes declared

You . . . stretched out your hand, and you have saved me, and made me known to this Nation. Wherever I go, I am hailed and complimented, and everyone has read your speech about me, and it has done me immeasurable Good and cheered my heart. . . .

, ^Hughes to Adams, 14 Nov 1841, AP reel 519» Hughes to Samuel Moore, 30 Dec 1841, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Adams, 21 May 1842, AP reel 522. ^Hughes to Adams, 14 Nov 1841, AP reel 519. Niles* National Register. 25 Sept 1841, p. 53, quotes the Baltimore American of 23 Sept 1841. Hughes to Hobert Gilmor, 16 Nov 1841, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. «v ^^Eughes to Adams, 11 Dec 1841, AP reel 520. 210

On November 18, Hughes went to 'Washington to call on the Secretary of State and to explore the possibilities for transfer and, perhaps, for promotion.Despite a previous request for an assignment either to Naples or to Brussels, he discovered that the one post had been "given 12 away to ass" and the other "to some Backwoodsman." He received the impression that Webster liked him well enough but was too much occupied with weighty affairs of state to be concerned about the personal interests of one second-grade diplomat. After spending about a week at the capital and accomplishing nothing, he retreated to

Baltimore in embarrassment and frustration. At the beginning of December, Hughes had almost given up hope for a transfer, but within five months his prospects had taken a turn for the better. 'Why the President and the Secretary of State decided to give the Baltimore diplomat a new assignment is not clear. Prob­ ably the cumulative influence of Adams and other political figures moved the administration to this decision. Possi­ bly there were other reasons. In any event, during the latter part of April, 1842, the administration took steps to dismiss Hermanns Bleecker as American charge d'affaires

^^Daily National Intelligencer. 20 Nov 1841. 12 Hughes to Adams, 11 Dec 1841, AP reel 520. 211 at The Ta^rue and to appoint Rushes in his place, 'vith Henry Clay and, later, John Crittenden looking after the interests of Hughes in the Senate, his nomination to the new post appears to have been approved without difficulty.13 However, while approving this and other nominations of the President, the Senate also had under consideration a general appropriation bill providing funds for numerous purposes, including the conduct of foreign relations. Cn this occasion, as on similar occasions before and since, several economy-minded Senators searched for ways to reduce the costs of government; they believed that they had found one with respect to outfits paid to diplomatic agents proceeding to new posts. For several decades, the practice of the executive branch of the government seems to have been to allow a full outfit both to new appointees travelling abroad for the first time and to old appointees being transferred from one post to another. Now, in 1842, a few members of the Senate thought this practice ought to be changed, and they managed to amend the pending bill to allow only half an outfit for old appointees being trans­ ferred. Although the name of Hughes did not appear in the

^^Webster to Bleecker, 26 April 1842 (no. 15)» NA, Diplomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14:55-56. Clay to Hughes, 11 Jan 1842, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to John J. Crittenden, 2 April 1842, Crittenden Papers, LC. Hughes to John J. Crittenden, John MacPherson Berrien, and William Campbell Preston, /24 June/ 1842, Crittenden Papers, LC. 212 anendnent, only he would have suffered by it, his expected outfit being reduced from 34500 to 32250. As a regular and careful reader of the National Intelligencer. Hughes followed the progress of important legislation through Congress and, in the issue of April 30, perceived the threat to his finances. Immediately, he appealed again to Adams for help. He mentioned the long­ standing practice of the executive branch; pointed out that it would be just as expensive to move from Stockholm to The Hague and establish a new residence as it would be to move from the United States; and suggested that veteran diplomatic officers deserved as much consideration as novices— certainly not less consideration.^^ Within two weeks, the bill, as amended by the Senate, came before the House of Representatives. Adams eloquently argued the case for Hughes and was vigorously supported by Ingersoll. As a consequence, the House voted to allow a full outfit to the new American charge to The Hague. Subsequently, the Senate readily concurred. On this occasion, the influence of Adams in support of his friend was clear and decisive. ______^^Dally National Intelligencer. 30 April 184-2. Hughes to Adams, 30 April 1842, AP reel 522. Hughes to Adams, 14 May 1842, AP reel 522. Adams to Hughes, 16 Kay 1842, AP reel 154 (letterbook). Hughes to Francis P. Corbin, 25 Oct 1842, Corbin Papers, DUL (extracts from the Baltimore American of 16 Kay 1842 and 17 May 1842). 213

In June, Mushes visited Washington to thank his friends, receive his final instructions, and say farewell. Although he had not obtained both a transfer and a promo­ tion, he had achieved partial success, and the testimony of Adams and Ingersoll was especially gratifying. He looked 17 forrfard to his new assignment with contentment. Cn July B, Hughes and his daughter Margaret sailed from Mew York on the Argo bound for Le Havre. He had not Intended to take hei along, but the thought of parting was too painful to both. Consequently, the flfty-slx year old father now had his twenty-three year old daughter to look after hln.^^ After arriving in France, Hughes apparently left his daughter at Paris while he went ahead to establish a residence at The Hague. In the latter part of August, he received the legation archives from Bleecker, presented his letter of credence, and had an audience with the Dutch king. Paving thus formally assumed his duties as the American charge d'affaires in the Netherlands, Hughes then went to Stockholm to take formal leave of the Swedish king and to arrange for the shipment of his household effectr to the Dutch capital. By October, he had returned to The Hughe8 to Adams, 21 May 1842 and 25 June 1842, both on AP reel 522, Webster to Hughes, 9 June 1842 (no. 1) and l6 June 1842 (no. 2), both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughe8 to Adams, 7 July 1842, AP reel 523. 21k

Iiague, had found a house in which he and his daughter would live, and had begun sending political reports to iq Vashlngton. During the preceding year, Hughes utilized his hnowledge of American politics and politicians to con­ trive a transfer to a more desirable post. Cnee again it was clear that his long diplomatic career rested, to a large extent, on a political foundation.

Enjoying Life in Europe; 1842-4S From the autumn of 1842 until the spring of 1845, Hughes represented the United States in the Netherlands. His official duties were light, and his life at The Hague was easy and comfortable. Although this new assignment presented no greater professional challenge to Hughes than his previous assignment, it offered him more opportunity for pleasure and diversion. During this period of two and a half years, he enjoyed life as much as his cIrcumstances permitted. After Hughes left the Netherlands in 1830, the country suffered convulsion and change. Belgium, with a population of about three and a half million, revolted

Hughes to Secretary of State, 26 Aug 1842 (no. 1); Hughes to Hebster, 18 Oct 1842 (private) and 21 Oct 1842 (private); all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. Ihre to Hughes, 15 Sept 1842, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 91 f against Dutch rule and achieved independence under the protection of the great powers. Folland, witn a popula­ tion of about two million, regained loyal to King Killian I of Orange and continued to be known as the Netherlands. Pecause of growing domestic problems, however, the old king abdicated in lOkn and iras succeeded by his son, ’Jilllarr. II. Although Fughes returned to a much smaller Netherlands in 1BU2, that countrj’- still possessed great commercial Importance In world affairs. Relations between the Dutch kingdom and the United States were generally cordial and tranquil at this period. American ships visited Dutch ports in large numbers, and American consuls at Rotterdam and Amsterdam dealt with routine matters of shipping and trade. As far as the governments of the trcTo countries were concerned, no serious problems existed between them. 20 However, the private bankers of Amsterdam had a grievance for which they held the American government responsible. Some years before, they had bought large amounts of bonds Issued or guaranteed by a number of

20 Fletcher Webster to Hughes, 5 Sept 1842 (no. 3)» KA Diplomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14:39. Daniel Webster to Hughes, 27 April 1843 (no. 10), NA Diplomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14;61. Hughes to Legare, 2 June 1843 (private); Hughes to Upshur, 16 Aug 1843 (pri­ vate) and 30 Oct 1843 (private); Hughes to Calhoun, 25 March 1845 (private); all four in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. 216

States, including J'ississippi and Pennsylvania. Subse­ quently, depressed economic conditions led sone of the states to suspend interest pajnnents and, in a fe*T instan­ ces, to repudiate the indebtedness entirely. Naturally, the dutch bondholders were upset and believed that the federal government at '•'ashington had a moral if not a legal obligation to ensure the full payment of these debts. Although this problem does not appear to have been a sub­ ject of correspondence beti-reen the dutch and American governments, it embarrassed Nughes from time to time in 21 his daily intercourse with the Dutch people. The new American charge d'affaires became aware of the problem almost as soon as he assumed his responsibili­ ties at The Hague. In the autumn of 1842, one of the leading bardters of Amsterdam presented to him a carefully- drafted, hand-written twenty-six page memorial In the dnglish language on"the subject. Hughes, not pretending to possess any expert knowledge of international finance and not knowing quite what to do with this document, decided to send it to the Secretary of State. During the next six

21 Hughes to Webster, 18 Oct 1842 (private) and 4 Kay 1843 (no. 8 ); both in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to tte Netherlands, vol. 12. Hughes to Upshur, 30 Jan 1843 j/sic/ (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. This last despatch must have been prepared in 1844 but apparently was dated erroneously by Hughes and filed in Washington according to the erroneous date. 217 months, the government at Washington seems to have done nothing about the problem; the American representative at The Hague remained uninstructed; and the bankers at Amster- 22 dam continued to search for a way to recover their funds. Early in May, 184^, a deputation of three prominent financiers from Amsterdam journeyed to The Hague to present to Hughes an address signed by 165 "Bondholders of North American Loans.This thirteen-page document clearly set forth the Dutch case and appealed to the charge to exercise his influence on their behalf. With little com­ ment, Hughes sent the address to the Secretary of State. About this time, Hugh Swinton Legare replaced Daniel Webster at the State Department and replied to Hughes without delay. According to this reply, the federal government refused to assume any responsibility for the debts and, with reference to the United States Constitu­ tion, denied that these transactions of the states could form a subject of international discussion. However, Legare went on to suggest that economic conditions were improving in the United States and that the state

22 Hughes to Webster, 18 Oct 1842 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 8 March 1843, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Webster, 4 May 1843 (no. 8), NA Des­ patches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. 218 governments could be expected eventually to settle their 2k obligations in a satisfactory manner. On receiving this reply, Hughes immediately informed the bondholders of the position taken by his government. He went to Amsterdam, met with some of those who had signed the address, and read to them the message from Legare. A few days later, he confirmed this position in a letter to the members of the deputation. Having officially declared that the government at Washington would have nothing to do with the debts of the states, the American charge took no further action on this subject during the two years he remained in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, he continued to hear bitter complaints about the faithlessness of his 2*5 countrymen. While feeling some embarrassment over the state debts, Hughes experienced frustration because of the Dutch attitude toward American consular representation. Although he easily obtained exequaturs for consuls at Rotterdam and Amsterdam, he encountered delay and equivocation with respect to consuls at colonial ports. In accordance with instructions, the American charge requested exequaturs for 2k Legare to Hughes, 12 June 1843 (no. 12), NA Dip­ lomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14:62-6?. ^^Hughes to Legare, 14 July 1843 (no. 12); Hughes to Upshur, 30 Jan 1843 /sic; should read 1 8 4 ^ (private); Hughes to Calhoun, 25 March 1845 (private); all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. 219

Levi Bixby at Paramaribo and William H. Freeman at Curacoa. For a time, the foreign ministry hesitated to answer the requests but eventually rejected both of them despite the persuasive efforts of Hughes. The ministry explained that foreign consuls were not admitted to Dutch colonies but then suggested that their presence would be tolerated. In a despatch to the Department of State, Hughes recommended that the American government accept the substance of con­ sular representation and not insist on the form of it for 26 the time being. In the field of political affairs, the veteran dip­ lomat heard or observed little which might interest his government. During this period of two and a half years, he prepared a total of nine despatches on such subjects as the speeches of the king, the debates in the States Gener­ al, and the problems resulting from the separation of Belgium from Holland. Sometimes three or four months_____ 26 Fletcher Webster to Hughes, 5 Sept 1842 (no. 3) and 10 Sept 1842 (no. 4), both in NA Diplomatic Instruc­ tions, Netherlands, 14:59* Daniel Webster to Hughes, 23 April 1843 (no. 8), NA Diplomatic Instructions, Nether­ lands, 14:60. Webster to Hughes, 27 April 1843 (no. 10), NA Diplomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14:61. Calhoun to Hughes, 22 July 1844 (no. 19)» NA Diplomatic Instruc­ tions, Netherlands, 14:71. Hughes to Webster, 6 Oct 1842 (no. 2), 10 Oct 1842 (no. 3), 24 Dec 1842 (no. 5), 10 Jan 1843 (no. 6 ), 24 May 1843 (no. 8 ) /sic7. 30 May 1843 (no. 10); Hughes to Upshur, I6 Aug 1843 (private) and 29 Sept private); Hughes to Calhoun, 30 Aug 1844 (no. 18) /sic/. 10 Oct 1844 (no. 25) /sic7. 10 Oct 1844 (private); all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. 220 would pass when Hughes reported nothing. While the Dutch kingdom may have appeared tranquil to him, he seems to have lost much of his former Interest and resourcefulness In political reporting. To an Increasing extent, he 27 appeared hored with diplomatic life at The Hague. This "boredom was relieved "briefly In September, 1843, when : Tilllam Henry Dalngerfleld arrived to serve as charge d'affaires of the Republic of Texas. Hughes had known his father many years earlier and quickly formed a favorable opinion of the son. Proudly remembering his effort on behalf of Texas In 1839 at Paris, Hughes undertook to Introduce his new colleague to the other members of the diplomatic corps and to assist him In establishing cordial 28 relations with the appropriate Dutch officials. Dalngerfleld was grateful and wrote to an associate that I cannot find terms too strong for the expression of the gratitude I feel towards the able accomplished and most Popular representative of the Government of the U States at this court, Mr C Hughes. . . . ^

Hughe8 to Webster, 18 Oct 1842 (no. 4), 21 Oct 1842 (private), 27 Jan 1843 (private); Hughes to Legare, 2 June 1843 (private); Hughes to Upshur, 30 Aug 1843 (private), 29 Sept 1843 (private), 13 Oct 1843 (private), 30 Oct 1843 (private); Hughes to Calhoun, 25 March 1845 (private); all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. ^®Hughes to Upshur, 29 Sept 1843 (private) and 30 Oct 1843 (private); both In NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. ^^Dalngerfleld to A. Smith, 8 Nov 1843, In "Dip­ lomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas," ed. by George P. Garrison in Annual Report of the American 221

Although the American charge found his official duties light to the point of boredom, he managed to lead a pleasant existence during this period of two and a half years. He lived with his gracious daughter Margaret at

39 Vyverberg in a fashionable section of The Hague. His well-furnished residence contained numerous mementoes of his long diplomatic career such as paintings, choice pieces of silver, antiques, and autograph letters from prominent statesmen and artists. Four servants maintained this establishment according to the particular standards of Hughes. H^s hospitality, though not lavish, was warm and known to many throughout Europe. The diplomat, encouraged by his daughter, seemed to enjoy the social life at The Hague. He bought season tickets for the theater, subscribed to a series of tea- dances, belonged to one of the private clubs of the city, received as many invitations for dinner and other affairs Historical Association for the Year 1908. vol. II (2) ^Washington: Government Printing Office, I9II), pp. 14?4- 1^75« Also see Daingerfield to Anson Jones, 25 Sept 1843, in the same volume, pp. 1552-1553* Hughe8 to Mrs. Moore, 8 March 1843 and 29 Dec 1843, Hughes Papers, WLCL.- Hughes to I.A. Scoville, 20 July 1843, Christopher Hughes MSS, MDBS. Niles* National Register. 23 Aug 1845, pp. 386-38?. Christopher Hughes, Narrative of the Loss of the Ship Poland. by Miss Margaret S. Hughes. Letter from Christopher Hughes to the Hon. Joseph H. Ingersoll. An offering to the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts (Baltimore: John D. Toy, 1845), pp. 8-1I . A copy of this publication is in the Hughes Papers, WLCL. 222 as he could accept, and hired a coach hy the month to con­ vey him and his daughter to their various engagements. Margaret Hughes, either through youthful enthusiasm or through concern for her father, apparently kept him in 31 good health and good spirits. Partly through her interests and efforts, Hughes took a number of trips away from the Netherlands during this period. Margaret had a cousin, Charlotte Mansfield, who was approximately her age and who resided with her family just outside London. To provide companionship for his daughter, Hughes arranged for Charlotte to stay with them at The Hague for several months early in 184-3 • In return, Margaret spent some time with the Mansfields later that year and again in 1844. The father believed it necessary to escort his daughter to and from England, but he also recognized these trips as opportunities for diver­ sion. As a consequence, he not only visited London at least twice in both 1843 and 1844, but he also included Ireland, Belgium, and Prance in his travels. While his duties did not require his presence at The Hague, he

^^Hugnes to Mrs. Moore, 8 March 1843 and 29 Dec 1843t Hughes Papers, WLCL. Bunches of receipts in the Hughes Papers, WLCL, suggest the extent of the social activities of Hughes at this period. 223 amused himself with family, friends, shops, and theaters 32 elsewhere in Europe. As Hughes pleasantly passed his time in the Nether­ lands and nearby countries, he was aware that the foundation of his career was gradually crumbling away. Since 1814, his career had rested on a number of close personal rela­ tionships with relatives and friends both in the United States and abroad. He had depended on these persons for sympathy and comfort; for a place to live when in the United States and for funds when in debt; for political support in Washington and for diplomatic intelligence abroad. Not only his career, but his whole life had been sustained and stimulated by dozens of persons who had found Hughes likeable, useful, and entertaining. Now, one by one, these persons were dying because of sickness or old age. Between 1842 and 1845, Hughes lost his twin sister, Peggy Moore, and her husband; he lost Sir Charles Bagot and Lord Leicester; and he lost many more.^^______^^Hughes to Webster, 18 Oct 1842 (private) and 21 Oct 1842 (private); Hughes to Legare, 2 June 1843 (private); Hughes to Upshur, 3C Aug 1843 (private); Hughes to Calhoun, 10 Oct 1844 (private); all in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. Hughes to Mrs. Mocre-y-March 1843 and 12 Sept 1843; both in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Francis P. Corbin, 1 Dec 1844 (strictly private) and 1 Dec 1844; both in Corbin Papers, DUL. Hughe8 to Mrs. Moore, 8 March 1843 and 12 Sept 1843; Hughes to Samuel Moore, 10 Jan 1844; all three in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Legare, 2 June 1843, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. Niles* National Register. 23 Aug 1845, P- 400. 224

Furthermore, the relationship "between Hughes and his own government seemed to grow increasingly tenuous. During his first 15 years as a diplomat, he had served under only three Secretaries of State, each of whom he had regarded as a personal friend. Between 1842 and 1845» he served under five, none of whom could be considered as more than an acquaintance. This loosening of close contact with the administration in Washington probably led to the diminished 34 interest of Hughes in his diplomatic functions. However, perhaps more than any other event, the Presidential election of November, 1844, caused Hughes to regard his professional prospects with resignation. When James Knox Polk won the contest, he defeated Henry Clay, a friend of Hughes for 30 years and one who might have pro­ moted him to the coveted rank of minister plenipotentiary. The Baltimore diplomat received the election news while visiting in London and was downcast~both for his friend and himself.

34 Legare to Hughes, 9 May 1843 (no. 11); Upshur to Hughes, 24 June 1843 (no. 14); Calhoun to Hughes, 1 April 1844 (no. 18); all three in NA Diplomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14:6l, 14:68, and 14:70, respectively. ^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 29 Dec 1843, Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Clay, 27 Nov 1844, in Calvin Colton, ed.. Works of Henry Clay. Comprising his Life.Correspondence, and Speeches. 10 vols, (New York: G.P. £^tnam*s Sons, I904), V, 503-506. 225

Nevertheless, his spirits soon revived; he went off to Paris to enjoy the theater; and, early in 1845, he settled down again at The Hague as official representative of his country. There he waited for the new administra­ tion to take office and to determine his professional fate.

Retirement; 1845-49 From time to time since 1814, Hughes had faced sev­ eral questions: whether to live in Europe or in the United States and how best to employ his energies and talents. He had compared the demands and rewards of diplomacy with those of politics. He had considered family problems in Baltimore and the attractions of foreign courts and had weighed such matters as income and cost of living. Until 1842, he had always concluded that the diplomatic life was preferable to any other. However, between 1842 and 1845, his thinking seemed to drift toward the conclusion that a life of leisure in Baltimore would be Just as possible and equally acceptable. In the spring of 1845 as President Polk proceeded to reward his supporters with appointment to public office, Hughes looked on from a distance and was prepared either to serve the new administration or to re- 36 tire from the diplomatic service.

.^^Hughes to Mrs. Moore, 8 March 1843; Hughes to Samuel Moore, 10 Jan 1844; William McConkey, Jr., to Hughes 20 Jan 1844, 23 Feb 1844, 26 Dec 1844; all five in Hughes Papers, WLCL. Hughes to Legare, 2 June 1843 (private), NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. 226

At the end of April after Congress had adjourned, Auguste Davezac received a recess appointment as American charge d'affaires in the Netherlands, He had previously served in that same capacity under President Jackson but had subsequently been dismissed by President Van Buren because of irregularities in his accounts with the Trea­ sury. Now, domestic political considerations apparently led Polk to remove Hughes in order to reinstate Davezac. Hughes knew nothing of these arrangements for at least several weeks and did not receive official notice of his dismissal until his successor brought it to him at The Hague toward the end of June. With his recall letter in hand, the Baltimore diplomat took leave of the Dutch gov­ ernment and then prepared to return to the United States 38 with his daughter. In a letter to his old friend Adams,

Hughes to Adams, 3 Sept 1845 with a postscript of 9 Sept 1845» AP reel 533» The issues of the Dally National Intel­ ligencer of March and April, 1845$ describe the large number of appointments and dismissals in the federal gov­ ernment at this time. ^^Van Buren to Davezac, 19 March 1831» NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 13:214-215. Livingston to Davezac, 30 July 1831 (no. 1), NA Diplomatic Instructions, All Countries, 13:233-237* Aaron Vail to Davezac, 12 Oct 1838 (no. 58)$ NA Diplomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14:39-42. Forsyth to Davezac, 20 May 1839 (no. 6I), NA Diplomatic Instructions. Netherlands, 14:46-4?. Buchanan to Davezac, 25 April 1845 (no. 1), NA Diplomatic Instruc­ tions, Netherlands, l4:?4-76. ^®Buchanan to Hughes, 25 April 1845 (no. 24), NA Diplomatic Instructions, Netherlands, 14:73-74. Hughes to Buchanan, 9 May 1845 (no. 21), 10 May 1845 (no. 22), 28 June 1845 (no. 23); all three in NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. 227 he expressed his feelings as his diplomatic career came to an end; Mr. Folk has "shelved me. . . I wasn’t surprised— nor am I downhearted by my recall. . . Weill I am going to Baltimore. . . Early In July, Hughes and his daughter seem to have left the Dutch capital with the Intention of sailing from Liverpool at the end of August. They spent about six weeks visiting friends and familiar places In Brussels, Paris, and London and bidding them all farewell. The old diplomat had passed most of his life In Europe and wanted to take one last look around before sailing away, probably 40 forever. Just before leaving Paris, Hughes received formal notification that the King of the Netherlands had named him a commander of the Order of the Oaken Crown. The for­ mer charge appreciated this compliment from his royal friend but sent word that the Institutions of his country forbade him to accept such honors. He also dutifully

^^Hughes to Adams, 3 Sept 18^5 with a postscript of 9 Sept 1845, AP reel 533* 4o Hughes to Mrs. Francis P. Corbin, 29 July 1845, Corbin Papers, DUL. Hughes to General De La Sarra?, 23 Aug 1845» copy enclosed with Hughes to Buchanan, /97 Sept 1845, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers-to the Netherlands, vol. 12. Hughes to Adams, 3 Sept 1845 with a postscript of 9 Sept 1845, AP reel 533* 228 reported this matter to James Buchanan, the Secretary of 41 State in Washington. On September 9, Hughes and his daughter arrived at New York aboard the steamer Great Western. After resting a few days at the Astor House, they went on to Baltimore and established their residence in St. Paul Street. "Kit 42 Hughes," as he was known by many, had finally come home. One of his first duties and pleasures was to visit Washington to settle his affairs with the government and to make a series of courtesy calls. On November 5» the Secretary of State ushered Hughes and Dabney Carr together in to see the President. Carr was American minister resi­ dent at Constartdnople, was then on home leave in the United States, and appears to have enjoyed talking as much as Hughes. During this joint call on the President, the two diplomats became so interested in conversing with each other that they appear to have largely ignored both Polk and Buchanan. Later, the President told the Secretary of State that long residence abroad had apparently given the

^^General De la Sarraz to Hughes, 24 July 1845, and Hughes to General De La Sarraz, 23 Aug 1845; copies of both enclosed with Hughes to Buchanan, /ç/ Sept 1845, NA Despatches from U.S. Ministers to the Netherlands, vol. 12. 42 Niles* National Register. 23 Aug 1845, pp. 386-38?, and 2? Sept 1845, PP» ^9-50* Hughes to Adams, 3 Sept 1845, with a postscript of 9 Sept 1845, and 12 Oct 1845, both in AP reel 533. 229 two diplomats an exaggerated opinion of themselves and that henceforth they ought to remain in the United States.^3 Although Hughes failed to establish good relations with the new President, he continued to enjoy his old friendship with Adams. The two saw much of each other dur­ ing November and got along as well together as they ever had. By the end of the month, the retired diplomat had apparently accomplished everything he had intended to in the national capital and therefore returned to his home in Lh. Baltimore. ■Jhile Hughes received an ample income from his properties, resided in a comfortable house, and generally found his retirement pleasant, he still dreamed of serving his country again as a diplomat. In 1846 he wrote to Polk asking for a diplomatic appointment, and the following year he sent a letter to Buchanan suggesting an assignment to Naples. However, the administration does not appear to have been interested in his s e r v i c e s . ______

^^Kilo Milton Quaife, ed.. The Diary of James X. Polk during his Presidency. 1845 to 1849. 4 vols. (Chicago; A.C. McClurg and Company, I9IO), I, 9O-9I. 44 Adams to Hughes, I7 Oct 1845 (letterbook), AP reel 154. Hughes to Adams, 12 Nov 1845, AP reel 533» Louisa Catherine Adams to Adams, 16 Nov 1845, AP reel 533* Adams to Hughes, 30 Nov 1845 (letterbook), AP reel 155» Adams to Mrs. Charles p. Adams, 1 Dec 1845, AP reel 533* 45 Manuscript index to the correspondence of James K* Polk, 1844-1849 (Tennessee State Library at Nashville), entry for 2 June 1846, item C, 162. Hughes to Adams, 30 June 1846 and 25 Aug 1846, both in A? reel 535* Hughes 230

Despite his dreans, Hughes grew physically less able to realize them. He complained of "rheumatic gout* in his knee and suffered recurrent illnesses of various kinds. In September, 1849, presumably at his home in Baltimore, he died at the age of 63»^^ In a letter of condolence to Hargaret Hughes, Henry Clay wrote Your good father and I had maintained intimate friendly relations for about forty years. During that whole period. . . , our mutual friend­ ship was unabated and remained bright and unbro­ ken. . . . The sad event . . . has left me the only survivor of an important foreign commission, connected with the peace of our country, and of which your father was a member. His death, recently preceded by that of Messrs. Adams and Gallatin, is a solemn warning that I too must soon follow them. I pray and hope that we may all meet in that better world. . . .^7

Conclusion The diplomatic career of Christopher Hughes was the product of influences bearing on him combined with opportunities open to him. Favored with an agreeable to Buchanan, 18 June 1847, Christopher Hughes MSS, ESP. Bloomfield to Hughes, I7 Dec 1847, Hughes Papers, VJLGL, Hughes to Francis P. Corbin, 7 Feb 1848 and 2 April 1848, Corbin Papers, DUL. Hughes to Buchanan, 18 June 1847, Christopher Hughes MSS, HSP. Hughes to Francis P. Corbin, 7 Feb 1848, Corbin Papers, DUL. Clay to Margaret Hughes, 29 Sept 1849, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 47 Clay to Margaret Hughes, 29 Sept 1849, Hughes Papers, WLCL. 231 personality, moderate wealth, and a good education, he aspired to the status of gentleman in some kind of public service. Fortuitously appointed as secretary to the peace commission at Ghent, he formed lifelong friendships with persons influential at the highest levels of American politics. Finding the practice of diplomacy satisfying and other means of employment less attractive, he came gradually to the decision that he should continue as a diplomat for as long as his government would retain him. ■'Then his career finally came to an end, he could look back on thirty years during which he represented his country well and derived pleasure in doing so. The career of Hughes may be evaluated according to any one of several different standards, and each standard would yield a different result. If the negotiation of an important treaty or settlement of a serious dispute were the only criteria for judging a diplomat, then Hughes would be a nonentity. If length of time in the early diplomatic service of the United States were the measure, then the thirty-year career of Hughes would be a noteworthy achieve­ ment. However, if diplomacy is regarded as a distinct profession# then certain peculiarly professional standards would appear useful in evaluating the career of Hughes.

^®Por a brief discussion of the concept of profession, see Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State; The 232

In I7I0 , Francois de Cailleras, a French diplomat who had served under Louis XIV, published an essay entitled 49 De la manière de négocier avec les Souverains• Drawing on his long experience, he expressed his views on the aims of diplomacy and on the proper behavior of diplomats. Exactly two centuries later. Sir Ernest Satow called this essay "a mine of political wisdom.More recently. Sir Harold Nicolson declared that it was "the best manual of diplomatic method ever written.Perhaps de Callieres has provided the most enduring and the most widely accepted set of standards for the diplomatic profession available to us— standards with which Hughes may also have been familiar.52

After pointing out the importance of diplomacy in maintaining harmony among nations, preventing war, and

Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (New York: Random House, 1964), pp. 8-10. ifO Francois de Callieres, On the Manner of Negotia­ ting With Princes . . . , trans. A.P. Whyte (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963). 40 Sir Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice. second and rev. ed., 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1922), I, viil.

^^Harold Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 62. Ç2 Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert, eds.. The Diplomats. 1919-1939 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, I953), p. 233

CO' ibuting to International welfare, de Callieres des- bed the qualities necessary in a good diplomat. Such a ?rson should have an observant mind, a spirit of applica- •ion, and the ability to make sound judgments. Further, he should possess an equable humor and a patient nature. Above all, he should be open and agreeable and have easy, ingratiating manners which assist in making favorable im­ pressions upon others. Despite temptations, the good diplomat should always be scrupulously honest but know how to accommodate himself with dignity to the changing senti­ ments of his associates. The capacity to acquire the esteem, friendship, and confidence of key persons in for­ eign governments is essential if a diplomat is to carry out his two basic duties; the conduct of the affairs of his own government and the discovery of the intentions of others, in concluding his essay, de Callieres suggested that a diplomat might not be sufficiently recognized and rewarded for his efforts by his own government. Neverthe­ less, "disappointment awaits us in all walks of life, but in no profession are disappointments so amply outweighed by rich opportunities as in the practice of d i p l o m a c y . "^3

On the basis of the standards of de Callieres, Hughes appears to have been a competent and effective

^^De Callieres, p. 146. 234 diplomat. For thirty years, he repeatedly demonstrated an ■unusual capacity to acquire the esteem, friendship, and confidence of important figures in the countries to which he was assigned and in other countries as well. Further­ more, he carried out his duties without serious error and with a wide measure of success. Although he experienced disappointments in his career, he also found deep satis­ faction in the dally practice of diplomacy. Hughes was a journeyman diplomat. He fashioned no great masterpiece, but he spent his life in a continuing effort to harmonize the interests of his country with those of other countries. Since the death of Hughes, international relations have become more complex, and American involvement in the affairs of the world has become profound. Nevertheless, twentieth century diplomacy resembles nineteenth century diplomacy in many respects, and the example of Hughes may contribute to an understand­ ing of diplomacy as a profession. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscript Sources

Adams Papers owned by the Adams Manuscript Trust and deposited in the Massachusetts Historical Society. Microfilm. This collection contains numerous impor­ tant letters from Christopher Hughes and letterbook copies of letters from John Quincy Adams. These papers were indispensable for this study of Hughes. Lewis Cass Papers. William L. Clements Library, Ann Arbor, Henry Clay Papers. Library of Congress, This collection contains important letters written by Christopher Hughes while Clay was Secretary of State. Francis P. Corbin Papers. Duke University Library, Durham. William Harris Crawford Papers. Duke University Library, Durham. John Jordan Crittenden Papers, Library of Congress. Sverett Papers. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. Gallatin Papers. Mew-York Historical Society, New York. Stephen Girard Papers. Microfilm in custody of American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia. This collection contains correspondence between Stephen Girard and John Connell concerning the settlement of American claims against Sweden in 1825. William Henry Harrison Papers. Library of Congress. Microfilm. I Christopher Hughes Papers. William L. Clements Library, Ann Arbor. This collection contains hundreds of letters from and to Christopher Hughes and was indispensable for this study. Margaret Hughes, daughter of Christopher Hughes, appears to have collected and preserved these papers for posterity. 235 236

Although Hughes kept no diary, he wrote many letters in which he described his life and his thoughts with apparent candor. Christopher Hughes MSS. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore. The librarian kindly arranged to have a number of letters written by Christopher Hughes selected and assembled from the collections listed below: Aldine Papers Harper Papers Harper-Pennington Papers Otho Holland Williams Papers Christopher Hughes MSS. Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The curator kindly arranged to have a number of letters written by Christopher Hughes selected and assembled from the collections listed below: Buchanan Collection Dreer Collection Etting Collection Gilpin Papers— Poinsett Section Gratz Collections Charles Jared Ingersoll Collection Poinsett Collection Society Collection Andrew Jackson Papers. Library of Congress. Microfilm. James Madison Papers. Library of Congress. Microfilm. James Monroe Papers. Library of Congress. Microfilm. Harrison Gray Otis Papers. Massachusetts Historical Society. James Knox Polk Papers. Library of Congress. Microfilm. Jonathan Husse11 Papers. Brown University Library, Providence. Samuel Smith Papers. University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville. John Tyler Papers. Library of Congress, Microfilm. 237

United States. National Archives, Records of the Depart­ ment of State. Microfilm. This collection contains instructions to Hughes from the Department and his despatches to the Department over a thirty-year period. Indispensable for this study. United States. National Archives, Records of the War Department. Microfilm. Martin Van Buren Papers. Library of Congress. Microfilm.

Published Sources; Personal

John Quincy Adams Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Comprising Portions of his Diary from 1795 to 1&48. edited by Charles Francis Adams, lè vols. Philadelphia, 1874-77» Writings of John Quincy Adams, edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford. 7 vols. New York, 1913-17» James A. Bayard "Papers of James A. Bayard, 1796-1815,” edited by Elizabeth Donnan, as volume two of the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1913» Washington, 1915» John C. Calhoun ’ "Correspondence of John 0. Calhoun,” edited by J . Franklin Jameson, as volume two of the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1Ê99» Washington, 1900. George Canning George Canning and his Friends. Containing Hitherto Unpublished Letters. Jeuz d'Esprit. etc, edited by Captain Josceline Bagot. 2 vols. London; John Murray, I909. The Speeches of the Right Honourable George Canning with a Memoir of his Life by R. Therrv. Esq. é vols. London; James Ridgway, 1028. Henry Clay Works of Henry Clay. Comprising his Life. Correspondence, and Speeches edited by Calvin Colton. 10 vols. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904. 238

The Papers of Henry Clay, edited "by James F. Hopkins and Mary W . M* Hargreaves. 2 vols, published, 10 projected. Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1959-• Albert Gallatin The Writings of Albert Gallatin, edited by Henry Adams. 3 vols. Philadelphia: J .3. Lipplncott and Co., 1879* Christopher Hughes Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review, published by the Alumni Association of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented excerpts from the correspondence of Christopher Hughes in the issues listed: XLI (1934), 189-201; XLII (1936), I68-I78: XLV (1938), 1-11; XLV (I939), 137-147. Jesse Siddall Reeves about 1930 obtained custody of the papers, now known as the Christopher Hughes Papers in the William L. Clements Library, and prepared excerpts for publi­ cation. Not having access to the Adams Papers, Reeves could not acquire more than a fragmentary picture of Hughes and, as a consequence, made several minor errors in his interpretive remarks accompanying the correspondence. Robert Hunter, Junior Quebec to Carolina in 1785-1786: Being the Travel Diary and Observations of Robert Hunter. Jr.. a Young Merchant of London, edited by Louis E. Wright ÊUid Marion Tinling- San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1943* Andrew Jackson Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, edited by Jolin Spencer Bassett. 6 vols. Washington, U.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, I929. James Madison The Writings of James Madison . . . , edited by Gaillard Hunt. 9 vols. New York, I9OO-IO. James Knox Polk The Diary of James K. Polk during his Presidency. 1845 to 164g . . . . edited and annotated by Milo Milton Quaife. %Tvols. Chicago: A.C. McClurg and Co., 1910. 239

Simeon South Simeon*s Letters to his Kinsfolk and Other Great People. Written Chiefly from ^anoe and Belgium, in the Years l8%&. 1È33. and 1834. 2 vols. London: Lonnman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, 1834. Heal name of author is John MacGregor. Jared sparks The Life and Writings of Jared Sparks. Compri­ sing Selections from his Journals and Correspondence. by Herbert B. Adams, '"è vols. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1893. Jean Pierre Brissot de './arvllle New Travels in the United states of America. Bowling Green, Ohio; Historical Publications Company, I9I9 . Isaac Weld, Junior Travels through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada during the Years 1794. 1796. and 1797. 3rd ed. ^ vols. London: John Stockdale, 1800.

Published Sources : Official and Semi-Official Tench Coxe A Statement of the Arts and Manufactures of the United States of America, for the Year 1È10. Philadelphia: A. Cornman, Junr., 1&14. James D. Richardson A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. 178ç-l597. 10 Vols. Washington: Government Printing Office, I896-99. Texas "Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas," edited by George P. Garrison, as volume II (2) of the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 190É'. Washington; I9II. U.S. Bureau of the Census Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790: Maryland. Washington: Government Printing Office, ^907. 240

U.S. Bureau of the Census A Century of Population Growth, from the First Census of the United States to the Twelfth. 1790- 1900» Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909* U.S. Congress American State Papers: Documents, legislative and Executive^ 35 vols. Washington, 163Z-6Ï. U.S. Congress Annals of the Congress of the United states. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 103^-56. U.S. Congress. Senate. Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America. Washington: Duff Green, lèZÔ. Volumes two and three were useful for this study. U.S. Department of State Register of Officers and Agents. Civil. Military, and Naval. in the Service of the United States on the 30th of September. lë^3. . . . Washington; Davis and Force, 1Ô24. U.S. Department of State Register of All Officers and Agents. Civil. Military, and Naval, in the Service of the United States, from the Thirtieth September. 154l. to the Thirtieth September. 1&4Ï. . . . Washington: J . and G.3. Gideon, 1843»

Newspapers National Inte11igencer. Washington, D. C. Issues between lôlè and 1845 were occasionally somewhat useful. Niles' Register. Baltimore. Issues between I8I6 and 1845 were occasionally somewhat useful.

Secondary Works William Barnes and John Heath Morgan. The Foreign Service of the United States: Origins. Development, and Functions. Washington: Department of State, I96I. 241

Samuel Flagg Demis, ed, The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy. 10 vols. New York: Alfred A, Knopf, 1927-29, Volumes III, IV, and V were per­ tinent to t lis study. Samuel Flagg Demis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy« New York: A,A, Knopf, I9W: Francois de Callieres, On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes. . , , Translated by A.p, Whyte. Notre Dame: University of Notre Deme Press, I963. Fred L, Engelman, The Peace of Christmas Eve, New York: Parcourt, Brace and World, I962, Drynjolf Jakob Hovde. The Scandinavian Countries. 1720-1865: The Rise of the Middle Classes^ Ô vols, Boston: Chapman and Grimes, I943, Gaillard îîunt. The Department of State of the United States; Its History and Functions, Mew Haven: Yale University Press, 1914, Samuel Eliot Morison, The Life and letters of Harrison Gray Otis. Federalist. 1765-1È4&. 2 vols, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, I913. Harold Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method. London: Constable and Co, Ltd, 1954, Bradford Perkins. Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States. 1812-1823. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964. Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, Second and revised edition. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1922. Annie Leakin Sioussat, Old Baltimore, New York: Macmillan, I931. Graham H. Stuart. American Diplomatic and Consular Practice, New York and London; D. Appleton- Century, 1936,