The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-10-12
}Do5ttlrat.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE AURORA.
NEUTRAL COMMERCE.

nave Shewn first, That the only con-
dition upon which France has consented to
revoke her DEGREES, is that we shall fulfil
the engagement or promise, which we vo
unfairly, and of our own accord, made in
onr law OF May LIST, 1910: and 2ndly That
Britain gUiN nor no7v cease 10 violate our
rights, although the pretext. the aIledged
right OK retaliation, be removed.
The next point OF consideration, is, svhat
sue should 40, in case Britain shall not cease
TO violate our rights But before enter
into this enquiry, think it useful To prove
70 the public. more particularly than / have
yet done, that British ministers, and their
advoca es in America. have scverally de
clared the orders of council to be solely re
fGtfafory, and that they would be repealed,
so soon as their alledgcd cause, that is, the
Preach DEGREES. shonld cease. Let us eK~
anime Official, and therefore authentic evil
dtnce.
1. In note from lords Holland & Auck
land Che For ministry J to Messrs. Mon
roe and PInkeey. dated December 81, 1906
they state that Britain never declared any
port in stale ut blockade, without allotting
a force competent to make the entrance into
1T dangerous: that France had issued the
Berlin decree upon an unfounded assurnpti
on, that Britain had violated neutral rights:
ard that if neutrals SHOULD submit to the Ber-
lin decree, Britain would be compelled TO
vctaiate.
2. In letter from Mr.. Erskine to Mr..
Madison, dated February %. 1905, announ
chg the existence of the orders in council,
Mr.. Ersk'ne says:
&c His majesty having been disappointed
in his just expectation, that neutrals would
have in;erposed with effect, either to PIE
vent the execution of the French DEGREES. or
TO procure their abrogatiou can no longer
refrain troU having recourse to such mea-
sures, as, by retorting on the enemy the evils
produced by violence, may afford the
only remaining chance of putting AN end to
q system, he existence of which, IS not more
Injurious to his majesty's donnions, than 20
nations not parties in the war between G.. B
and France
=" he right of his majesty to resort to re
taliation, cannot be questioned the suffer
ing occasioned to nentrals, is incidental. and
rot OF his rnalesty's seeking, and l am com
manded by his majesty especially to repre-
sent to the government of the 4. States, the
earnest wish OF his majesty. to see the COM
merCe of the world cree more restored to
that freedom, which is necessary 10 its pros
perity and his readiness 10 abandon the
system, Which has be, n forced upon him,
whe ever the enemy shall retract the prIn
ciples which have rendered il nccessa-
ry."
3. The same language or professions win
be found in the preamble to the orders of
council
4. In letter from Mr.. Canning to Mr.
Pinkrey in answe; to Mr.. Pinkuey's letter
of May 23, 1903, he said, "hs majesty will
be compelled To- adhere TO the principles,
upon which the orders of council of January
7th and Nov. l1th, we've founded, as long 4
france adheres to that sy stem by which his
maJesty's retaiiatory measures were occasi
oned and justified.
S. In letter from Mr.. Canning to Mr..
Pinkney, dated September 5 1903 Mr. Can
nng says - To the represen atoms which
you have repeatedly made against the or
ders OF council, have uniformly maintain
ed the unquestionable right of his majesty,
to resort 10 the fullest measures of retalia
ton. IN consequence of the unparalleled ag-
gression OF the enemy, and to retort upon
that enemy the evils of his own injustice
and have uniformly commended that {" ifthird
parties suffer from those measures, the de
mand of reparation must be made to that
power. which first violated the establish
ed usages Of war, and the rights OF neutral
s,ales"
6. In a debate in the house Of lords, Fe-
bruary II. 1909. earl Bafhur8t lord Mel.
viHe and the earl Of LiUerh9oL, MAINTAIN
cd shat " the nrign Of The orders in coun
Gil, was the Berlin decree that until the
Berlin decree was revoked, the orders in
cOuucil ought, As a ma ter of right and in
terest, to remain in force that the orders
in council were founded IN justice, approx
ed by experience, and were the best means
of retaliating upon the aggress3r the acts
by which he had violated the laws Of naci
ons." In the course of the debate, lord
Howick's letter to Mr.. Rich was quoted by
The earl of Liverfooi, in support OF the pre-
cediH positions.
Z. In debate IN the house Of Commons,
March 6 1903, Mr.. Stehheas, (author of
Uar in GiSguise) con ended that the or
ders IN Council were polite retaliation of
the French DEGREES. and that those DEGREES
had actually injured British trade: "it has
been enormously supposed, (said Mr.. S.
that we have not suffered from those de
crces even be British harfy in ABieri
ca has not been bold enough To- stare how
the fact was Mr.. Pickering, who so abiv
deIeHded fhc British cGuSc. has not stated
it f" Upon the ground OF injury done, he
therefore, maintained that the orders ought
TO be adhered to.
8 The letter written by Mr.. Pickering.
in The winter Of 1908 against the embargo
declares, that :" the orders of the British
government. are rc,a!iating the French i'm