n, I begged
leave to observe, that the present mediation differed from the former
one, which had been tendered by their Imperial Majesties, in two
essential respects, that that was tendered during the continuance of
hostilities, and that there was a proposition in it, which materially
concerned the United States, but in this there was no question
relative to them; that their negotiations with Great Britain had been
conducted apart from those of the other belligerent powers, and were
brought to a happy conclusion. I here took up all the facts stated to
him in my second letter of the 21st instant, and enlarged upon them. I
added to them, the bill pending before the House of Commons in the
beginning of March, for regulating a commercial intercourse between
Great Britain and America, as between States, in fact, and absolutely
independent; and that the bill itself recited, that the King had
concluded a peace with them, and expressly declared the vessels of
their citizens should be admitted into all the ports of Great
Britain, as the vessels of other independent States; that all were
agreed to consider them as such. From these matters, I drew the same
conclusion as is mentioned in that letter.

This closed my observations upon the first article. As to the second,
I went over the reasons contained in my letter of the 22d instant to
you, urging strongly the four first, but passing gently over the rest.
Upon the third, it was to be observed, that the mode of expression
"before her Majesty had acknowledged the independence of America,"
seemed to lead beside the matter. That there was no question in the
acknowledgment of that independence. The only question was, whether
her Majesty would receive a Minister from the United States, who now
presents himself. The United States do not ask the acknowledgment of
their independence, nor have they a wish, nor do they claim a right to
impose their Minister upon any Sovereign. Every Sovereign will judge,
whether it is for the interest of his empire to receive the Minister
of another, and may do this without deciding upon the perfect rights
of that other. This is rather what I would have said, than what I did
say upon that point. I could not fully advance the idea, as he several
times prevented me, by returning to the matter he had before spoken
upon, as if he saw what I intended to say and wished to avoid it. The
fourth and last point was chiefly answered by the arguments used upon
the firs