Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-03-03
G. ntinaed from Frs, P.lge J


revoke the orders in council for fear
his motives in doing SO may be mista.
ken; not that it Is not in itscifju and
proper to revoke them according to the
principle of retaliation upon which
{ they were originally adopted: but
merely for fear his motive in doing an
act of justice and propriety, may be
mistaken or misconoeived by Others.
But, sir, let us hear him in his own
words:
I" The struggle has been viewed by
other powers, not without an appre-
hension that it might be fatal to this
country. The British government has
not disguised from itself, that the trial
of such an experiment might be ardu-
Gus and long, though it has never
doubted of the fna! issue. But if that
issue, such as the British government
confidently anticipated, has providen-
TALLY arrived much sooner than could
even haye been hoped; if 6 the block
ade of the continent" as it has been
triumphantly styled by the enemy, is
raised even before it had been well es-
tablished, and if that system, Of which
extent and continuity were the vital
principles, is broken up into fragments,
utterly harmless and contemptibie, it
is nevertheless Important In the high
est degree, to the reputation of this
country, "a reputation which consti-
tutes great part of her power) that this
disappointment of the hopes of her
enemies should not have been purcha-
sed byanv concession; that not n doubt
should remain so distant times of her
determination and of her ability to
have continued her resistance, and that
no step which could even mistakenly
be CONSTRUED into concession, should
be taken or her part, while the small
! lest link or the confederacy remains
undissolved or while it can bea ques-
ton, whether the plan devised for her
destruction has or has not, either COM
pletely failed, or been unequivocaliy
abandoned"
Canning 10 Pi7ksey, Sent. %, 1908.
"The purpose of this letter is not
to'renew the discussion upon the SUBJ
ject Of your proposal, but merely to
clear up any misunderstanding which
had existed between us IN the course
of that discussion. cannot conclude
it, however, without adverting very
shortly to that part of you, letter, in
which you argyle that the failure of
France, in the attempt to realize her
gigantic project of the annihiiation Of
the com nlerce ofthis country, removes
all pretext for the continuance of the
retaliatory system of Great Britain.
This i,npotency of the enemy to carry
his projects of violence and injustice
into execution, might, with more pro-
prietv, be pleaded with him, as mo-
tive for withdrawing DEGREES at once
so inde.ensible and so little e& cacious
for their purpose, than represe nted as
creating IN obligation upon Great Bril-
tain to desist from those meaiures of
defensive retaliation, which thi'sep de-
crees have necessarily occasion ed, II
the foundation Of the retaliatillg svs-
tenn of Great Britain was Gas We con-
tend IT to have been) originally just,
that s. stem will be iusti6ably continu-
ed in force, not so long only as the de-
crees which produced it are nj schie-
vously operative, but until they are
uneqhivocally abandoned, and, if IL be
thus consistent with justice to serse-
we're in that system, it is surely no
mean motive of policy for such perse-
yerence, that premature departure
from it, while the enemy's original pro.
vocation remains unrepcaled, might
lead to false conclusions, as to the eff
fcacy Of the DEGREES of France, and
might hold out dangerous template
on to that power to resort to the same
system on any future OCCASION"
Canning TO Pinkney, Nov. o. 1903.
WIZ, Sir, does Mr. Canning here
tell usl Why sir, on the Esd Of Sep
TENDER last, that tho French blocka-
ding DEGREES were then broken up in
to fragments utterly harmless and con-
temptible, and on The 22d Of Novem-
Der following, that they had ceased to
be mischievously operative, &c. &c.
Retaliation may be defined, wrong
returned for wrong Indicted. Well,