ty would be the first of the neutral powers, as they had
intended, which should receive a Minister from them.

_Answer._

I. "Her Imperial Majesty having been invited by the Courts of
Versailles, Madrid, and London, to mediate in conjunction with the
Emperor, at the conclusion of the definitive treaty of peace between
them, and having accepted that trust till those arrangements are
completed, and the definitive treaty is concluded, she cannot,
consistent with her character as mediatrix, receive a Minister from
America, without the consent of those powers; the treaty with America
is provisional only, and depends upon those arrangements. Though there
is no doubt but they will take place and the definitive treaty be
concluded, yet till that is done, her Imperial Majesty cannot consider
you in your character as the Minister of America."

_Reply._

The present mediation differs from the former one, which had been
tendered by their Imperial Majesties, in two essential respects. That
was tendered during the continuance of hostilities, and while the
great object of the war, the independence of the United States, was
still in question. It contained also a proposition, which inseparably
connected their interests with those of the other belligerent powers.
At such a time for her Imperial Majesty to have received a Minister
from the United States, would have been to prejudge the most capital
subject of the proposed negotiation, and most certainly repugnant to
the character of a mediator, if not to the laws of neutrality. But in
the present mediation there is no question relative to the United
States, nor can there regularly be any made upon their interests, as
they are not parties to the mediation, and consequently have no right
to send their Ministers to the Congress. If then the United States are
not concerned in any arrangements to be made under the present
mediation, the matter seems to rest upon the general law of nations,
and to be reduced to this simple question: whether the reception of a
Minister from them at this moment, would be incompatible with the laws
of neutrality? If their independence is already completely
acknowledged by the King of Great Britain, is not the question decided
in the negative?

In the preliminary treaty, "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the
United States to be free, sovereign, and independent States; that _he
treats with them