PARIS, September 28, 1787.
DEAR SIR,--I received your favor by Mr. Cutting, and thank you
sincerely for the copy of your book. The departure of a packet boat,
which always gives me full employment for some time before, has only
permitted me to look into it a little. I judge of it from the first
volume, which I thought formed to do a great deal of good. The first
principle of a good government, is certainly, a distribution of its
powers into executive, judiciary and legislative, and a subdivision of
the latter into two or three branches. It is a good step gained, when
it is proved that the English constitution, acknowledged to be better
than all which have preceded it, is only better in proportion as it has
approached nearer to this distribution of powers. From this, the last
step is easy, to show by a comparison of our constitutions with that of
England, how much more perfect they are. The article of Confederations
is certainly worthy of your pen. It would form a most interesting
addition, to show, what have been the nature of the Confederations
which have existed hitherto, what were their excellences, and what
their defects. A comparison of ours with them would be to the advantage
of ours, and would increase the veneration of our countrymen for it. It
is a misfortune that they do not sufficiently know the value of their
constitutions, and how much happier they are rendered by them, than any
other people on earth, by the governments under which they live.
You know all that has happened in the United Netherlands. You know also
that our friends, Van Staphorsts, will be among the most likely to
become objects of severity, if any severities should be exercised. Is
the money in their hands entirely safe? If it is not, I am sure you
have already thought of it. Are we to suppose the game already up, and
that the Stadtholder is to be re-established, perhaps erected into a
monarch, without the country lifting a finger in opposition to it. If
so, it is a lesson the more for us. In fact, what a crowd of lessons do
the present miseries of Holland teach us? Never to have an hereditary
officer of any sort: never to let a citizen ally himself with kings:
never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences: never
to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for us, etc. Still
I am not without hopes that a good rod is in soak for Prussia, and that
England will feel the end of it. It is known to some, that Russia made
propositions to the Emperor and France, for acting in concert; that the
Emperor consents, and has disposed four camps of one hundred and eighty
thousand men, from the limits of Turkey to those of Prussia. This court
hesitates, or rather its Premier hesitates; for the Queen, Montmorin
and Breteuil, are for the measure. Should it take place, all may yet
come to rights, except for the Turks, who must retire from Europe, and
this they must do, were France Quixotic enough to undertake to support
them. We, I hope, shall be left free to avail ourselves of the
advantages of neutrality; and yet, much I fear, the English, or rather
their stupid King, will force us out of it. For thus I reason. By
forcing us into the war against them, they will be engaged in an
expensive land war, as well as a sea war. Common sense dictates,
therefore, that they should let us remain neuter: _ergo_ they will not
let us remain neuter. I never yet found any other general rule for
foretelling what they will do, but that of examining what they ought
not to do.
* * * * * * * *
I have the honor to be, with my best respects to Mrs. Adams, and
sentiments of perfect esteem and regard to yourself, Sir, your most
obedient, and most humble servant.