I herewith return the Book which you was so obliging as to send me.1 Whether the Convention of armed Neutrality was limited in its Duration to that of the war then subsisting, or remained in force after the Return of Peace? is a question to which the inaccurate manner in which the 11th. article2 is expressed, appears to have given occasion.— The original (which is not translated with perfect Precision) is in these words— vizt.

Cette Convention, arrêtée et conclue pour tout le Tems que durera la Guerre actuelle, servira de Base aux Engagemens que les Conjonctures pourroient faire contracter dans la Suite des Tems, et à l’Occasion des nouvelles guerres maritimes par lesquelles l’Europe auroit le Malheur d’etre troublée. Ces Stipulations doivent au Reste être regardées comme permanentes, et feront Loi en matiere de Commerce et de navigation, et toutes les fois qu’il s’agira d’apprecier les droits des Nations neutres.—3

On considering this article, it appears to me that a Distinction is made between the Convention considered as a defensive alliance, & the Principles which are declared in it— that the Term or Duration of the defensive alliance is limited to that of the war, and did expire with it— but that the Principles having been in question, having been adopted and insisted upon by the Parties as just and reasonable, were to be constantly and uniformly regarded by them as such. According to this Construction the two clashing Clauses of the article will be reconciled, and in my opinion the nature of the other Stipulations, will justify confining the operation of the latter Clause to those Stipulations only, which declare the Principles contended for.

It was evidently the Design of the Parties to bring on a general Discussion of the Laws of Nations relative to the Rights of neutral Nations touching Commerce and Navigation; and if possible to accomplish a general Recognition of these Principles as a part of those Laws.— several Passages in the State papers printed with the Convention manifest such a Design. upon the whole—it is my opinion

(1) That the Alliance between the Parties to the Convention, was formed for the mutual Defence of the neutral Rights asserted in it, during the war then subsisting, and no longer. and this is to me the more clear, from our hearing nothing of the Convention during the present war— especially as the Spoliations by Britain on Denmark, would doubtless have induced the latter to claim the Benefit of it, if it had remained in full force—

2d. That the Principles alluded to were permanently adopted by the Parties to the Convention—

3 That they implicitly admitted that those Principles had not as yet become a part of the existing & acknowledged Laws of Nations— I have the Honor to be with great Respect & Esteem Dr Sir your most obedt Servt