The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-11-26

iHaucc fSld rclinqnished the blockade. o
oritain, Britain meant to give up the block
/ tde OF France.-in every point of view, i,
became important to understand the views
OF q. B.-though still . faint hope was en-
tertained, that iicr ministers would not be SO
much out OF their senses as to persist in any
new conditions.
MR. foster however, came; and it was
respected that every doubt would at once
dissipate before him--Yct the language of
ms first communication was ambiguous
All that he does is to rest " the justifica-
ton OF the Orders in Council upon the cxis-
tcnCe OF the DEGREES of Berlin and Milan. e.
Oh the perseverance of the enemy in the sys-
tenn OF hostility which has subverted the
rights of neutral commerce on the CONT
neat, and then nearly to re-ccho the words
OF the Marquis Wellesley to Mr.. p as quo
ted above. Still we are at loss to know
the precise extent of the British claim &
nor TAR the u. ). must go to satisfy the Bril-
fish cabinet. Mr.. Monroe determines, how
ever, to bring him 10 the point he request, !,
" AN explanationf of the precise extent i'm
which repeal of the French decree is made
4 condition OF the repeal of the British Or
ders, and particularly whether the condition
embraces the seizure of vessels and mer-
chandize entering French ports in contra
vention OF French regulations MIR. +. in
replyt still evades all specifcation-he cites
the preamble to the Berlin decree by way of
proof, that all it's regulations were "parts
OF new system of warfare, unauthorized by
the established laws of nations and adds
that - the ruler of France has drawn no dis
uncuon'between any of them"-he then Con-
Guides with re-echoing the same genera,
phrases of Lord Wellesley, quoted above
and with hope that "th;a explanation
would be considered sufficiently satisfacto-
ry.''
This explanation is indeed sufficiently por-
tentous, though by no means exphcit-Mr.
Monroe feels this uncertainty for in his re-
ply, what does he say /. After stating the
general expressions of Mr.. F., he rams them
out into certain specific cases commenting
upon each, and at the same time asking him
wmchl Is the one he means ? lis it then
meant (says Mr.. M } that G.. b. should be al
lowed to trade with ALL the powers with
whom she traded at that epoch pc Or do
you maintain the general principle, & con-
tend that Great Britain ught to trade
zuith France and her allies.'' Sc Or does G..
b. contend that the u. S. as a neutral D wer
ought to open the continent to her commerce
on such terms asshe may designate !''-7Nis
mode, oy suggestions, seemed the only one
which was likely to pin Mr. F. down and
1t had finally its effect. 1t is no wonder, there
tore, that Mr. being unable to slip any
longer through Mr.. Monroes fingers, Should
feel himself somewhat nettled by these ca
tegorical questions-yet he comes out at last.
4" U. Is. (says he) never contended that Br1-
ffSh merchant vessels should be allowed to
trade with her enemies, or that British firo-
ferty should be allowed entry into their ports
such pretension would inded be prepos-
terous-but G. B. does contend against the
system OF terror put in practice by France,
by which, usNrping authority wherever her
arms or the timidity of nations will enable
her to extend her influence, she makes it
crime to neutral countries as well as indivi-
duals that they should possess articles howe
DER acquired which may have been once the
produce of English industry Or of the British
sol" He adds that :" the honor no less than
the interest of G.. B. engages her to oppose
Such an accountable and eXtravagant preten-
SON." Here then ne INSISTS by ncce ssura
.n'fhcahon that France has no right to inhi-
DIT the importation INFO her ports of British.
manufactures, WHEN the property of neu-
trals''S ,
Mr.. F., although in his reply he touches
this very question, does not deny, & therefore
admits the truth of this necessary mplica-
ton = yet Mr.. Monroe chooses to give him
another opportunity of denying it-for in his
letter OF oct. 29th, he says, &C You still adhere
to the prctension that the productions and
manufactures of G.. B., 4vhen ueutrahzed.
must be admitted into the ports of your enc
my. Yet Mr.. F. III his reply of the 51st.,
not only does not contradict the statement,
thns explicitly spread before him, but most
positively confirms it by these words ; e it is
impossible for US 20 submit &c the doctrine,
that he has right to compel the whole con-
y.nent to break OFT all intercourse with us, &
% seize upon vessels belonging to neutral ma
tons upon the sole idea of their having visi-
ed an English port, or of their being laden
With articles of British or colonial produce in
whatsoever manner acquired 7"
line tdct, THEREFORE,, stands confessed !;
and it is idle for the federalists to deny it,
The British Minister HAS declared it 60 be
+" an indispensable condition of the repeal of
" the British Orders, that commerce should
be restored to footing that would admit
" the productions or manufactures of Great
" Britain, 7vhere owned by neutrals, into
" markets shut against them by her enc
my."**
NE say, that this is pretension to which
it is impossible for us to subscribe that il is
one which we have uniformly opposed that
the positions, now taken by the administra-
ton, are not new positions coniured up to
suit particular purpose but that they have
been always maintained because they are
founded on the immutable principles of
things.
I 1t is as idle as indecorous for Mr.. Foster to
complain, that our administration have nozv
assumed ne1o ground Idle, because it