The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-02-03

council, you addtHat it was howsver oiiv IN
Low. las. Sciyimcdiately after the publ;ca,;-
on OF che orSa<rs IN ccaicil, ,late Won had di-
rectiv announced to me your intention of o.
Pehing a correspondence upon them |; an in-
.ehton from which you afterwards desistcd,
ohti' you should receive the pleasure of vour
governments" The correctness of his state.
ment do not dispute but YOU, I am SIRE.
VIII agree with me, sir, in recollcctinr how
MANY times more than once since the peri-
Oh of mat hrst intention of yours being an
hounced and withdrawn, my expectations
thS.t you were about to ~'receive the pleasure
OF yonr government" upon this subject have
been excited. by the notification in AmerI-
CA. ana the destination hitler, OF ships em-
pioyedby the United States. as it was gene
raiiy supposed, tor the special purpose ofcon-
veyihg representations or proposals, from the
american government, to the Governments
OF France and Great Britain, upon the sub
Ject OF their respective maritime DEGREES and
orders.
Such was the universal belief both if A.
merica and in England, upon the ARR.
val OF me Usage, upon that of the Hope. os
Tie u. Mtcnaei, and OF another vessel. named
think, the Union. Iccrtainlv have no -icl;t
to afhrn that yon shared in the expectation
wh'cn so universally prevailed. I have no
righf to say that The government ofthe u :.
des'gaedlY created that cxnec;atiop. Bur
thar 1t did ~prevai!, and ira, I very sincere
~ nc'icved 1t to he well founded. you I
th'nk mast 60 ne the justice torecollect as
IN enc INSTANCE at least, that of tlie Usage. so
strong was my persuasion that YOU must ha, o.
Instructions from vour government
hat | took the liberty of sending TO Won TO
enquire whether you had not some commit
nica,ion to make To ne anu received for an
swer that you had none.
lie was To these. ,uisSiopc +t,t T ,,.:,.
iy referred when I sid that l had "mor-
taan once expected YOU TO open a correspon-
fence With me iIDon the orders of councii.n
Il ms expectation 1t was, that aloaA prevcnt-
ed the sending instructions to Mr.. Frskipct 20
reply tothe un.e.r1dressed to him bv Mr.. M,S
d son ON the 25th Of March ia answer to ,hat
note ot Mr.. Erskine's in which he commuui-
Gated the orders in Council, and i'm alinsion
tothese missions, particularly to that of the
Usage. and to the expectation which hadlccn
founded here upon the return here of that
vessel after its voyage to France, it was, th7t
l made that declaration in parliament which.
l see has neen the subject ofsome misapprc-
hefi II, Il VIII not say MISREPRESENTATION
III America, that since the termination os
Mr., Roses mission, the American GOVERN
ment had not made aHy co Communication here
IN the shane OF remonstrance, or in a tone Of
irFitatioh lam not aware, sir, that. there.
= "hN ONiS part III YOUR iGrter winch re-
cures that | should trouble YOU with many
observation. Yonr report of your answer,
. me enquiry, which I took the liberty of
.jiiking. whether the orders in council OF
N v mber we're known to the government OF
tne Onlted States previously to the message
o. 'he president proposing the embargo, SO
:. one : moving consideration to tiat mes
s Sc does not appeart to differ. in anv ma
fe'iai degree, from nv statement oft That
'olr answer to such an enquiry was official.
o authorised by your government, 7 did not
assert nor presume. / have alreadY said.
tn&t 1t was not till you had, in vtur Official
letter OF the sd OF August referred to what
passed In conversation, that | Should have
thought any such reference ALLOW able on nv
part; and even then the generality ofyour re-
ference precluded me from judging correct
ly'how much of what YOU had stated in con
versation was from official. authority, how
much from your own personal information
or opinion.
You inform me that YOUR answer to this
question was of the latter description only
but, even fit were only from your own ind :
vidual authority, it was very material, and
hlgnly gratifying to learn, that the embargo.
winch had been sometimes represented, both
mere and III America, as the direct ard
immediate consequence of the orders in
council OF November, and as produced solely
by them, was IN your opinion ga measure Of
f~recaukton against reasonably anticihakeR
peril"
The purpose Of this letter is not to renew
the discussion upon the subject of our pro-
posal, but merely to clear IN any misundcr-
standing which had existed between us in the
conr.e Of that discussion. cannot conclude
1t, now ever. without advertirg very shortly
20 that part OF your letter, in which YOU ar
sue that the failure Of France in the attempt
to realise her gigantic project of the annihi-
lation OF the commerce of this country. re-
moves all prete%t of the continuance of the
retaliatory system of e. h.
Ihis impotencv of the enemy to carry his
projects of violence and injustice into execu-
ion' might, with more proprietv, be pleaded
with him, as a motive for withdrawing do
crees at once so indefer sible and so little fiji
cac'ous Tor their purpose, than Represented
as creating an obligation upon G.. Britain 20
desist from the measures Of defensive reta-
latIon which those teorees have necessarily
occasioned. IF the foundation ofthe retalia-
Ting system OfG Britain was (as we contend
1t t. have been) originally Just, that system
VIII be lustliably continued in force, not SO
long only as the DEGREES which produced it
arc mischieV usly operative, but until thew
are uneqIivocaiiy abandoned Andif il he
thus Consistent with justice TO perseyerc in
thtt system. tits surely no mean motive of
lpohcy Tor such perseverance, thai a prcma-
ture departure from it, While the enemy's
Cflginai proVoCdtion remains unreDPaled