The Sun.
London, England, 1812-03-04 00:00:00

the Orders in Cottheil ; but lie objeeed to the ins.
quiry because it was not celculated toproduce hy
possible benefit. He could, not agree with his Hon.
Friend, echo had just sat down, that it would tee
expedient to go into this inquiry, if it were for no
other purpose but to strew them that no inquiry at
all were necessary. He was not surprised, howe
ever, at his Hon. Friend supporting, because it was
that species of motion which generally met with •
his approbation ; indeed the motion was framed with
.a view to catch his Hun. Friend, and that descripe
Lion of Gentlemen
,who might be called floating
votes. He was surprisecti, however, at what 'clad"
fallen from hiS Right Hon.'Frieud (Mr. Catring)
upon this occasion. If his Right Hon. Friend wee
of opinion, and he was sure he was, th tt the Orders
in Council were not only justifiable, but absolutely
necessary, if his Right Hole Friend 'bought, and he
was sure he did, that tire distre-ses of the mance
faaurers, which had been brought forward as the.
grounds of the present motion, did not arise from
the Orders in Council, he should have thought.
that his Right Hon. Fliend, entertaining such senti-
ments, would have been one of the last men in ttid
House to have given his support to a motion for in-.
quiry. There was one circumstance welch had
occurred in the present debate, which had never
occurred before, and raper which he could not avoid.
congratulating himselt. Although Gentlemen bad
represented the Orders in Council as impolitic, and
as produCtive of great injury to this country, not one
of them had this night contended that the principle
upon which they were founded was- unjust. He
wished to press this upon the House, because, upon
former occasions, the injustice of the Orders in
Courcil had been strongly urged, and it was highly
gratifying to him to find that that line of argument
was now abandoned. The Orders in Council were
therefore now to be argued merely as a question of
policy, not as a question of justice. He could not
help expressing a wish that Gentlemen had always
pursued that course—if they had, they would not
have led America to believe that we were not only
acting hostilely towards our enemy, but that we ,e•ere
concluding ourselves upon unjust principles towards
the United States. He never could see much force
in their arguments, but there could be no doubt but
that they had produced a considerable rifled in
America. His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning)
had said that it was absurd in his Hon'. Friend (Mr.
Stephen) to ask which of. the Orders in Council •it
was they were finding fault•with, but he contended
that the question was a most material one. The -
Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had opened this
discussion, and who had declaimed so strongly against
the Orders in Council, had yet defendel the Order
of 1807. It was therefore most material to know
against which of the Orders in Council the accusel
tion was seecifically direaed. With respea to the
principle upon which these Orders in Council were
founded, he begged to state, that he had always
considered them as stridly retaliatory, and as tar
as he understood the sebjea, they were most com-
pletely justified upon the principle of retalialion.--..
It never could, he was sure, be contended, in any
assembly of rational men, that retaliation should bee
excluded from the Law of Nations. There Was'
in tact, no other means of enforcing obedience to
the Law of Nations, bet by means of retaliation.—
It a le•eitt and powerful nation, like France, will
set all laws at defiance, will break down every sys-
tem that has hitherto been regarded as settee;, and
will carry on the war uucootroaled by any prinerple
of the Law of Nations, how is she to be resisted
but by a recurrence to measure} of retaliation? 1
Law of Nations. would otherwise prove a trap and
a• snare to those who were disposed to Obey them-,
anti a sword and a shield to those who were deter?
mined to violate them. It was, therefore, itt,;st
absurd to contend that we had no right to have re-
course to retaliation; and yet it was upon that prin.
ciple that it was alp-led that we had acted unjustly
to America. But then it is said, that if we do tee-
foliate, you must do it in mode and form, as the
enemy has injured us—a more extravagant propo=
erion it was difficult to conceive. What ! it the
enemy chose to violate the Law of Natieni
on a point where she had nothing to lose, and we
had every thing, could it seriously be argued that
we were bound to retaliate, not where we could
make her feel, but where we could do her no pos-
sible injury When a country violates the Law of
Nations, not in trifles, but boldly and systematically
violates the Law of Nations, she loses the protec-
tion, because she had thrown off the obligation of
that law. This was the principle upon which the
whole of our proceedings had been founded. He
was, he confessed, a little surprised at what had
fallen from his Right Hon. Friend respeaing the
mode in which he conceived the blockade was to
be enforced. What was the occasion that led to
the Orders in Council ? France had declared that
Great Britain should not have any trade with any
nation upon earth ; the British Government, in re-
turn, said, You (France) shall have no trade but with
us. The object of Government was to prole& and
to force the trade of this country, which had
been assailed in such an unprecedented manner. by
the French Decree:. If the Orders in Council had
not been issued, France would have a free Colonial
trade by means of neutrals, and we should have
been shut oat of the Continent. If we' had at-
tempted to destroy all trade, both our own amid that
of, France, France would have been the gainer, be-
cause she has less to lose, and she depends less upon
her commercial exertions than we do. The objeet
of the Orders in Council •was not to destiroy the
trade of the Continent, but to force it to trade
with us. The article of bark, about which so much
had been said formerly, would prove that he was
earnest in his understanding of the prinCiple upon
which the Orders in Council were founded. The
British Government had never said that France
should not have bark, it had only said, if -you
' want bark you shall not have it, unless you
will import other articles with it. It was ob-
vious, therefore, that our object was to compel
France, and the Nations that were subje&
to her Decrees, to trade with us. In 180.9, Oleic
was an alteration of the Orders in Council ; it was
thought that the alteration proposed would be more
acceptable to America, and it was so; but it was
not only America that we bad in view, bat our
allies. Built was needless
hnewediblcesshe :gadforhimbeteongsooaatblicynth
into these points, o
an-
ticipated by his Right Hon. 'Friend, and by his Hon.