The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-11-22
BRIrISH PLEA

~ T.. !
BRITISH PLEA,
lhc Documents, which are now epinr be-
fore thee people of the u. States. will most
strongly demonstrate the frmness as well as
love OF peace; the impartiality rs we'll as
discretion, with which their affairs have zen
conducted. But when will Federalism .pan-
don its opposition Or how can the preiu-
dices OF party be charmed to sleep
| What now becomes. of the charges of
! French Influence in our cabinet; and of its
parta!ity TO France! These papers dissi--
pate this iiluson.. 1t now appears that, our
government was wiling to accent The same
terms from both powers, and that no promo
sition was made to France, which was not
ohcfed to U. Britain. Nay it seems, that
the proposition was made 10 Great Britain
10 repeal our embargo as to her :. but that
no Rsach proposition was ACTUALLY made. by
our minister at Paris.
| What more could our roverntnent have
| doie to manifest it's sincere love of peace. &
It's regard tor the feelings OF g. Britain. We
proposed to suspend our embargo as 10 her.
PROVIDED she would suspend her orders with
| respect to US, and continue it on with res
lpect to France, provided France Should re-
lyect our propositions. What more could G..
britainl,ave demanded consistently with her
previous professions p To our ac0uicsccnce
IN the DEGREES of France, she had ascribed
the extension of her orders in couHciI TO the
Y. States. What more then could she have
required from the u. States than this mea
sure 1t q. Britain accepted of our terms,
france would either have accc;>.Sa -.
sed our proposition. IF She had accented
then her decree, the ostensible cause of the
| orders or council would have been with
drawn. If she had refused, ther, our cotni-
I a II
have displayed our resistanceto her DEGREES.
at the same time that it would have been a
much more efficient substitute for the Bril-
tlsh orders in council. The propositions.
therefore, which we made to G.. b. would
either have removed the French DEGREES
themselves, or those objections of a pretended
acquiescence on our part, on which her or
ders were ostensibly founded But these pro-
positions have been rejected-.and nothing
more is cwanting to show how hollow and
hypocrlti al are the. professions of G. Britain.
| 1t is unquestionable. that this plea OF ae-
quteScence has never been any thing more
than mere pretext to cover her aggressi-
ons upon us.-Ihe official note attached to
the treaty OF December 81, 1906, says 'that
| U however the enemy should carry these
threats into execution, and if neutral natl
ons, contrary to all expectation mark This J
should acquiesce in such usurpations, his
majesty might probably be compelled. how
ever reluctantly, to retaliate in his lust de-
fence The same idea is stated in Mr.. Err
kline letter OF March12, 1907. rAnd vet
SeUen days after the date of this note, with
out any consultation with the u. S. without
Knowing whether they 7uouid acquiesce or
even giving them time to determine, G.. b.
enacts her orders of January, in professed
retaliation of this decree Even with
respect to original and grcvous aggressions.
the laws OF nations require certain time
Tor demand OF satisfaction, before rehri-
sails can be attempted--As her orders of
Nov. according to Mr.. Canning, are only
" an extension in operation but not frs hy-fncii-
hie, of these first. orders, Great Britain
would have been just as well entitled to pass
her Nov. orders at the very commencement
OF her retaliatihg. system.
Other facts will shew how eontemptibly
hollow has been this pretext. 1t is inds-
Putable that "the enemy did. (not) carry
these threats into execution :" that the min
lster OF the French government officially de-
| clared, 1T was not intended to apply to the
| United States that for nine months there
| was no overt act to contradict these asser-
tons; that the United States suffered no
injury from France, and Great Britain, of
course, none through us With what consis-
tency then could the British government Of
Ter d PieaSe, III this othcialno which was
never fulfilled? Or with what face could she
plead as an Excuse for her aggression, an al
ledged acqulescence on the part of the u.
,. IN injuries which never existed.
The rejection of-our proposition has dis
slpated every possible doubt on this subject.
mat proposition would have either remoy-
ed the original subject of her complaints, or
IL would have drawn from the u. States a
strong and vehement Resistance to the views
OF France. She had no rightto expect that
we should resist France by declaration of
zvar. 1t was suif for her, that we
should refuse the benefits of our commerce to
her enemy, who had attempted to cut oft our
commerce with her.-The very grounds too,
on which Mr.. Canning rejects our proposition,
are full of bubbles ard equivocations & ma :
| nitestiy shew the impotent injustice of his
cause.
Considering the Embargo as a measute
OF impartial hostility" and France as the o.
riglnal aggressor, our proposition would have
come up to the wishes of G. Britain. For if
u. Britain had suspended her ORDERS and
france had refused similar atone ment for
her wrongs, our embargo, that is our hosti-
hty against her, would have continued
1 Where then is that acqrfe8ce,ice of which
U. Is. has complained!
| lfit be considered as "voltfntarv self-re.
strlction" for the purposes of hrecantf on
| stIIl1t Is absurd to say, that there Is 4" no "a