he
acknowledgment of their independence by the King of Great Britain.

3dly. Because it would go to annul all their acts of sovereignty prior
to that period, and among others, the important ones of their treaties
with his Most Christian Majesty, and with the United Provinces of the
Low Countries, as well as their commissions granted to their Ministers
at the Court of Madrid, and other Courts, and such treaties as they
have already made, or shall make in virtue thereof.

4thly. Because it would be repugnant to a resolution contained in
their declaration of independence, viz. "that as free and sovereign
States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things,
which independent States may of right do."

The United States have been induced to constitute this mission thus
early, solely from the laudable views abovementioned. It is singularly
unfortunate then, that the very circumstance, which they intended as a
mark of particular respect and consideration for her Imperial
Majesty's person and government, should be turned against them, and
have an operation to defeat the design of it.

Besides, it is to be observed, that the King of Great Britain has by
his Commissioner, consented to treat with the Commissioners of the
United States, whose powers had date long before he had acknowledged
their independence, and without requiring them to produce new ones
bearing date since that time. Which is a strong and necessary
implication, that he did not consider that acknowledgment as
conferring their sovereignty upon them, but, on the contrary, they
were a complete sovereign power before, and had a full right to name
their Ministers as such, to treat with him of a peace. He cannot,
therefore, consider it as a violation of the laws of neutrality, if
any neutral power should consider them in the same light, and receive
their Minister, whose letters of credence bear date prior to his
acknowledgment of their independence.

_Answer._

III. "Besides, no Minister has been received at the Court of London
from America yet, and her Imperial Majesty could not consistently
receive a Minister from America, before that Court had done it."

_Reply._

There seems not to be any objections against the immediate reception
of a Minister from the United States at the Court of London, which
might not be made