A doctrine prevails that the acknowledgment of the independence of America, is a hostility against England, and consequently a breach of the neutrality. Our friends have sometimes favored this idea. The Duc de la Vauguyon has often expressed this sentiment to me; and if I am not mistaken, the Marquis de Verac has said the same to Mr Dana. If this opinion is not clear, it is very impolitic to favor it. The Court of France, in their public memorials, have denied it, and it would be difficult to prove it, either by the law or practice of nations. Sending or receiving Ambassadors, entering into peaceful commercial treaties, or at least negotiating at Philadelphia, the rights of neutral nations, is not taking arms against Great Britain.
But if an acknowledgment of our independence is a hostility, a denial of it is so too, and if the maritime confederation forbids the one, it forbids both. None of the neutral nations can take the part of Great Britain, therefore, without breaking to pieces that great system, which has cost so much negotiation, and embraces so great a part of mankind.
The neutral powers set so high a value upon it, and indeed make so great profit by it, that I think none of them will take the part of Great Britain. The connexions of the Duke Louis of Brunswick in Denmark and Russia, have set some little machines in motion, partly to favor him, and partly to hold out an appearance of something fermenting for the benefit of Great Britain. But these will never succeed so far as to draw any nation into the war, or to incline this Republic to make a separate peace.
It is to this source that I attribute certain observations that are circulated in pamphlets and in conversation, "that there is at present an incoherence in the general system of Europe. That the Emperor has deranged the whole system of the equilibrium of Europe, so that if ever the Northern Powers should think of stopping by a confederation the preponderance of the Southern Powers, Holland will be unable, on account of the demolition of the barriers, to accede to that confederation."
M. Magis, who has been eight and twenty years Envoy at the Hague from the Bishop of Liege, and who converses more with all the foreign Ministers here, than any other, has said to me, not long since, "Sir, the wheel rolls on too long and too rapidly one way; it must roll back again, somewhat, to come to its proper centre. The power of the House of Bourbon rises, and that of Great Britain sinks too fast, and I believe, the Emperor, although he seems perfectly still at present, will come out at length, and take the greatest part of any power in the final adjustment of affairs."
The Count de Mirabel, the Sardinian Minister, said to me, upon another occasion, "your country, Sir, will be obliged in the vicisitudes of things, to wheel round, and take part with England, and such allies, as she may obtain, in order to form a proper balance in the world." My answer to both was, "these sentiments betray a jealousy of a too sudden growth of the power of the House of Bourbon; but whose fault is it, if it is a fact, (which it does not appear to be as yet) and whose fault will it be, if it should hereafter become a fact? Why do the neutral powers stand still and see it, or imagine they see it, when it is so easy to put a stop to it? They have only to acknowledge American independence, and then, neither the House of Bourbon nor England will have a colorable pretence for continuing the war, from which alone the jealousy can arise."
The Prince de Gallitzin said, not long since, that the conduct of this Republic, in refusing a separate peace, &c. he feared would throw all Europe into a war, there were so many pretensions against England. I quote these sayings of foreign Ministers, because you express a desire to hear them, and because they show all the color of argument in favor of England that anybody has advanced. All these Ministers allow that American independence is decided, even the Ministers from Portugal, within a few days said it to me expressly. It is therefore very unreasonable in them to grumble at what happens, merely in consequence of their neutrality.
It is the miserable policy of the Prince of Orange's counsellors, as I suppose, which has set a few springs in motion here. M. Markow, one of the Ministers of Russia, and M. St Saphorin, the Minister from Denmark, are the most openly and busily in favor of England. But if, instead of endeavoring to excite jealousies and foment prejudices against the House of Bourbon, or compassion towards England, they would endeavor to convince her of the necessity of acknowledging American independence, or to persuade the neutral powers to decide the point, by setting the example, they would really serve England, and the general cause of mankind. As it goes at present, their negotiations serve no cause whatever, that I can conceive of, unless it be that of the Duke of Brunswick, and, in the end, it will appear that even he is not served by it.
I have the honor to be, &c.