Our friends are very content with the renewed declaration that I have made to them on your part, etc., and will act accordingly with the courts of France and Spain, and with your excellencies. They seem to me convinced that the measure can and ought to succeed. But in any case, they instruct me again to ask the following question, in hopes of obtaining a favorable reply if possible, which would completely reassure them and put them at ease:

“Question. When their High Mightinesses have made their proposal to France that it sign jointly with Spain, America, and the United Netherlands an agreement based on the principles of the Armed Neutrality in order to maintain the freedom of navigation, should France and Spain seem inclined to defer such an agreement or to reject it before the conclusion or signature of the definitive treaty, would Mr. Dana (and in his absence, Mr. Adams, either acting alone or as minister of the United States to this republic, or in conjunction with his colleagues) be prepared to sign a provisional agreement of this nature between the United States and the United Netherlands when it is proposed by their High Mightinesses?

“We are convinced here that without such a treaty, whether between France, Spain, the United States, and the Netherlands, or, failing the two former, at least between the two latter powers, nothing could avert or excuse the shame of the definitive treaty for the Netherlands, which only went to war over the freedom of the seas and which made it a conditio sine qua non in its preliminaries to peace.”

It is most desirable that one of these two solutions be feasible if the other should fail, because it would immediately smooth the path to a definitive treaty. At least then the only remaining difficulty would be Negapatam and navigation through the Moluccas. I have just read a report on this matter by the seventeen directors of the company, which argues strongly against ceding either.1

My opinion—unless, of course, as always, you have a better one—is that your acquiescence to these gentlemen's demands could be based on the following three things: 1. On the resolution made by the United States on 5 October 1780, which you yourself communicated to their High Mightinesses in a letter of 8 March 1781,2 and in which you noted that your powers in this matter have not been revoked; 2. On the fact that their High Mightinesses are one of the parties involved in the Armed Neutrality, and that Mr. Dana is waiting until it pleases one of the other parties to admit 274the United States; On the fact that it seems to me simply a matter of guaranteeing mutually what has already been signed in the treaty of friendship and trade concluded with their High Mightinesses.

I am, with all the sentiments of true and great respect, sir, and pray that you present them also to their excellencies Franklin, Jay, Laurens, and Brantsen, your excellency's very humble and very obedient servant