The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-02-28

the 18th March 1898. for maintainir. their
rights and procuring just satisfaction. And
the maritime powers perceiving that the
complaints of the two crowns were we'll
grounded. did them justicc.(c)
Vattei, however, is not the only writer who
has noticed this curious decree. Mr., Charles
Jenkinson, now the Earl OF Liverpool, one
of the most unblushing advocates Of British
corruption, has auimadvertcd on this very
fact. The following are extracts from his
celebrated pamphlet, entitled, &" discourse
on the conduct of G. Britain in respect 10
peutral nations" written originally in l753:
Z" At the commencement Of that war,
which broke out immediately after the Re
volution, when the first grand alliance was
formed against France, Holland entered in
to a convention Concluded at London, Au-
gust pod, 1882 with England, TO PRou1-
BIT TOTALLY THE COMMERCE OF NEU-
TRIAL POWERS WITH THE ENEMY. IN
the preamble OF this they assign publicly
their reasons FOR it they say, that having
declared war against the most Christian
King, it behoves them to de as much dam
age as possible to the common enemy in or
der to bring him to agree to such conditions,
as may restore the repose CT Christendom
and that for this end it was necessary to in
terrupt all trade and m with the
subjects of the said King and That to eff
tect this they have ordered their fleets to
block up all the ports and haveils of France.'
And afterward, in the ID * Sd articles of ylis
convention, it is agreed, that then 4uouid
take any UesSei, 7vhateUer King or STATE il
may belong 10, that shaN be Jound sailing
INFO or out offhe hortS IT France, and con-
demn boh VeSSei and merchandise as icgal
frfze; and that this resolution should be
notified to ali neutral States.' Such there
fore was at this time the avowed opinion of
Holland; and England was induced to Join
with her in this convention, exceeding there
By those bounds Of equity and moderatton
which she had almost always praCtised in
this point before, and which she will, l hope,
most faithfully observe for the future -
Pages q and IS.
And farther in page, 81 and SIS, he says
" 1t cannot, Ithr.k, be doubted, that, accor-
ding TO those principles of natural equity,
which constitute the law of nations, the heo-
fle ofseVerV country must aizuayS haze a
right TO -traac in general 10 the forts ofauy
State, though ii maY hahhen to be- engaged
az suar zvfh Gpofher, hroUided il be 7vith
their oyDn merchandise, OR OF THEIR OWN
ACCOUNT and that under this pretence
they do not attempt to screen from one party
the effects of the other; and on condition al
SO that they carry not 20 either OF them any
implements OF war, or whatever else, accor-
ding to the nature or their respective situa-
tons, or the circumstances Of the case, NAV
be necessary to them for their defence. AS
clear as this point may be, it has sufficiently
appeared by the facts deducsd above, tAQt a.
md the irregularities Of 7yur, fhe rules Of
egHify, in This RESPECT, goPre not GlzvruS r.
noHSh regarded ; and that nany gGUern-
7rentS, IN time Of gar, haze oJ1e,l most
Hcentionsiy disturbed, end aomefin5eS hro.
hi6Hed TOTALLY, the NJ Of neutral
nations zviIH [HPir eney1itSp
The ordinance OF France of17O4, was IN re-
taiiation tor these Illegal determinations OF
England and Holland; and the ordinance of
1874 renewed them-Yet a British writer of
great eminence deems them as exceeding
the bounds o~fequity and moderation "(a)
Thus we see, that the French edict of
1704 is preceded by a much more outrage
Gus aggression on the part of Eagsand. We
behold too, another curious fact-that the
practice of b~lockading whole countries ~
once by a dash OF the pen. Is not peculiar "a
the modern edicts Of France and Great pri-
tam. The same trait appears in this an
tique convention of 16S9-and to the honor
OF Old England, be it spoken, she has still
the merit of the invcntion.-So much for the
.Frst epoch.
Tie second Ehoch is more important in
Itseif, and much more so to the u. States.
IL IS durlng those wars, that the u. States
S''So h9L lbsC 10 lne RANK OF an III
dependent, neutral nation-that the en-
c~roachmentS of England and France upon
the neutral rights OF others were so MANY in
Vasions OF our own-that we were much the
greatest neutral OH the face Of tie globe
that we were not only the victims of ihe pe-
neral injustice Of the belligerents, but of some
particular edlcts, which were expressly and
directly aimed at our commercial prosDe-
rlty. The question therefore, now takes n
niiGher hue. There is scarce a wrong in
hicted on the seas, to which we are not a par
ty-scarce one, which does not give us the
I.lSnt or remonStrance resistance and r,ta-
his part ofthe discussion IS scarce
or less importance than that which touches
the existing edicts Of 1906 and 1907.
It's asserted in the Report, that drrinr
these disastrous times also, France has been
the first and the most bitter violator OF nru-
trail rights On may 9th, 1898. it is said.
that France authorised the capture Of neu-
trai vessels laden witt, provisions, belonging
70 neutrals, but bound to enemies ports. and
that this decree was frior, by one month. to
tue order OF g.. Britain of similar import -
The Report then proceeds to enumerate the
oates @ imports OF the subsequent DEGREES Of
france affecting neutral Commerce. it is diC-
ncuit tokeep down our indignation, when we
behold this list so formally paraded and
that ot Brush injustice so carefully sun
pressed. There is no enumcration-no
GVnnnUNnn N"N 70 - H