Sire,
The singular wisdom, by which your Majesty has raised your kingdom to so flourishing a state, the wise measures, which have carried the prosperity of your dominions to a truly astonishing degree, do not prevent me from being so bold, as to say to your Majesty, that there are yet means of increasing the number and the wealth of your subjects.
Nothing is more true, than that the wealth of kings depends upon the number of their subjects. Ancient and modern history will show, without an exception, that commerce is the mother of population. There is no need of citing proofs of this to the most learned king that ever lived. Such is the fact, and the reason is plain. It is then reasonable to say, that the king, who is desirous of increasing as much as is possible the number of his subjects, should establish and encourage commerce in his dominions.
Your Majesty’s dominions are admirably situated for commerce. Three large rivers, which run through them, must furnish the greatest facilities for it. What then is wanting? Merely an object sufficiently distant to form sailors, and sufficiently extensive to establish and support trade. Such an object is America; and the unexpected events, which have made the trade of that country free, afford inducements for it. The monopoly of this trade, which, in the opinion of that great and wise man, Mr Pitt, supported the power of England, no longer exists, and, without a miracle, will never exist again. The nations that shall endeavor to obtain a part of it for themselves, by furnishing to a young and grateful people the means of resisting their oppressors, will be very successful. But those, who wish to await in tranquillity the event of this war, ought not to expect to turn trade from the course, in which custom and gratitude, before that time, will have fixed it. The present, therefore, is the proper time for those to begin, who wish to enjoy for the future the commerce of America.
But there are obstacles to this trade; for, in the first place, you have no vessels of war to cause your flag to be respected. But, Sire, you have the best regiments in the world; and Great Britain, destitute as she is of wise counsels, is not, however, so foolish as to incur the risk of compelling your Majesty to join your formidable forces to those of her rival. Besides, such is the present weakness of England, so pressed and exhausted is she by the war with America, that she is obliged to blind herself to still harder things, which are carried on immediately before her eyes.
Secondly. It is not practicable to have at the same time an army so numerous as that of your Majesty, and a respectable fleet, since the latter would require too many men, and destroy the country. This reasoning would be sound, if population were diminished by commerce. But the contrary is the fact. In place of diminishing, it increases it. Thus the most commercial countries are always the most populous. Population is always proportioned to the means of living. Commerce, by increasing these means, increases the population. Instead therefore of increasing the consequences of a numerous army, commerce is their most certain remedy.
Thirdly. Sailors are wanting for the enterprise. It is the enterprise itself that must form sailors. A handful of experienced sailors are enough to encourage others; and the matter once put in a good train will go on successfully by itself. If your Majesty’s ports were open for the entrance of our armed vessels, if they could there deliver their cargo, refit, and sell their prizes secretly, then the instructions and the encouragement, which they would give to your sailors, and particularly if some of them were allowed to make a voyage in our vessels, would in a short time form sailors of your own subjects, and would draw a number of them from other countries into your ports, by the desire of going on a cruise to America.
But it may be said, this would be taking an active part in the affair, and deciding for the independence of America.
Not more than it is already decided by the fact, nor more than is authorised by the laws of nations, founded on the just interests and the wants of a State. The fact is, that we have the sword in our hand and that we are making war openly. Are there more convincing proofs of actual independence? We are in the possession of the country, the articles of commerce are the produce of our labors, and belong to us. They are ours by right and in fact, and it belongs to us alone to dispose of them. Is it necessary then, that other nations should wait and suffer the most pressing want, while the English are using their utmost exertions to ruin us, and to wrest from us our property in order to sell it to them? Or can they not go there, buy the commodities of which they are in want, and with which the English can no longer furnish them, without violating the character of neutral nations? It is not difficult to say which is most agreeable to reason, and consequently to the rights of nations. Neutral nations, in carrying on this trade, decide as to the fact, and not as to the right. This is the distinction which the laws of England make; since the English are allowed to obey the actual, or de facto power, although it should not be so by right, or de jure. Besides, the English acknowledged the Duke of Braganza as king of Portugal, and received his Ambassadors, in the year 1641, for this reason, that he had been called to the crown by the unanimous consent of the people. Congress is established on the same foundation. The assemblies of the States choose the members of Congress, and empower them annually; and these assemblies are chosen by the whole people. Can there be a consent more unanimous, or more maturely given? Will your Majesty allow me here to adduce some authorities on this subject?
Charles, Duke of Sudermania, having been crowned king of Sweden at the commencement of the 17th century, sent James Vandyck into France, and offered to Henry the Great the renewal of the treaties and alliances, which had before been made between these two powers. Vandyck showed, that the advantages which France would derive from the commerce of Sweden would be so considerable, that the king listened to the proposals of this Minister, and was desirous to conclude a treaty with him. There was nothing to prevent him from doing it, except that the action of Charles, who had usurped the crown from Sigismond, his nephew, after the latter had been chosen king of Poland, was the more odious, as the pretext of religion was the cause of the revolution. It was also taken into consideration in France, that the king of Denmark, who was no friend to Charles, might form an alliance against him with his brother in law the king of England. But notwithstanding all this, M. de Villeroy, in writing to Jeannin, April 8th, 1608, speaks plainly, and says; “All these reasons and considerations would not prevent the king from making a treaty with Charles, if he should find it for his interest, and that of his kingdom to do so.”—Wickfort, p. 26. The example of Henry the Great is worthy of a prince, who has no less claim to this title.