The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-11-15

Equally untounded is your complaint. that
l misunderstood that passage which claimed
as condition of tie revocation of the Orders
III Council, that the trade of G.. g. with the
continont should be restored to the state in
which it was before the Berlin and Milan de-
crees were issued. AS this pretensiou was
novel and extraordinary,sit was necessary
that distinct idea shclid be formed Of it, s,
with that view, asked such an explanation
as woald enable me to form one.
IN the explanation given, You do not insist
on the right to trade in British property.
with British vessels, directly with Your enc
mics. Such claim, you admit, would be
preposterous. But you do insist by necessa-
ry implication, that France has no right to
lnhiblt the importation into her ports of Br;-
uSh manufactures, or the produce of the Bri-
t:sii soil, when the property of ncutrais; and
thai, until France removes the inhibition, the
u. >. are to he cut of by G. Is. from all trade
whatever with her cncrnses.
On snch a prctcrsicn Il is almost impossi-
bic to reason. There is, believe, no exam
pic OF IT, In the history OF past wars. G. B.
the enemy OF France, undertakes 70 regulate
the trade OF France nor is that all she tells
her that she must trade in British goods
1t France and G.. b. were at peace, this pre-
tension wonld not be set up, nor even thought
or has q. Britain then acquired in this res
.pect, by war, rights which she has not in
peace! And does she announce to neutral
nations, that unless they consent to become
the Instruments of this policy, their commerce
shall be annihilated, & then. vessels shall be
shut up in their own ports
1 might ask whether French goods are adj
mittcd into @. b., even in peace, and if they
are, whether it be of right, or by the consent
and policy of the British government
That the property would be neutralized
does not affect the question: Ii the u S. have
no right to carry their own productions into
France without the consent of the French go
vernment, how can they undertake to carry
there those of G. b. In all cases it must de-
pend on the interest and the will Of the par
ty.
Nor is it material to what extent, or by
what powers, the tradeto the continent is pro-
hibited. If the powers who prohibit it, are
at war with G. b., the prohibition is a neces-
sary consequence of that state. If at peace,
1T is their own act ; and whether it be volun-
tary or compulsive, they alone are answer
able tor 1t. Ii the aCtibe taken at the insti-
CATION and under the influence of France, the
most that can be said, is, that it justiies re-
Nprisal against them, bya similar measure
On no principle whatever can it be said to
give any sanction to the conduct of G.. h. to-
wards neutral nations.
hS ~ y. Sdii nave no ODJeCtIOn TO the en-
ployment OF their commercial capital in the
supply of France, and of the continent gene
rally, with manufactures, and to comprise
IN the supply those of G.. b. provided those
powers will consent to it. But they cannot
undertake to force such supplies on Frauce
or on any other power, in compliance with
the claim of the British government, on prin-
lclples incompatible with the rights of every
independent nation, and they will net demand
in favor OF another power, what they cannot
claim for themselves.
All that G.. b. could with reason complain
of, was the inhibition BY the French DEGREES,
OF the lawful trade of neutrals with the Bri-
fish dominions. AS soon as that inhibition
ceased her inhibition of our trade with France
ought III like mannert' have ceased. Having
pledged herself to proceed harf hassu with
france, In the revocation of their respective
acts violating neutral rights, it has afforded
Just cause OF complaint, and even of astonish-
ment, to the y. s., that the British govern
lnent should have sanctioned the seizure and
condemnation of American vessels under the
Orders in Council, after the revocation of the
French DEGREES was announced, and even in
ne very moment when your mission, avowed
| 20 be cOnciiatory, was to have its effect
will only add that had it appeared final
| iy, that France had failed 10 perform her en-
90 IL hioii' az itdSI istNS DCGH cXpeC-
ted, that U. b. would not have molested such
OF the vessels of the U. S. as might be enter
ing the ports of France, on the faith of both
governments, till that failure was clearly
proved.
To many inslnuations in your letter, ]
make no reply, because they sufficiently sug-
| gest the only one that would be proper.
Ii 1T were necessary TO dwell OIL the Impair
tiaiity which has been observed by the u. s
towards the two belligercnts, / might ask,
whether if @. B. had accepted the condition
which was offered equally to her & France
by the act OF May 1st, 1910, and France had
rejected 1t, there is cause to doubt that the
| non-lmportation act would have been carried
into effect lgsirst'Francc No such doubt car
possibly exist, because in former instance
when this government, trusting to fulfill
ment by yours of an arrangement which put
all end to a nOn-intercourse with G.. b. tho
lnon-intercoursc was continued against
France, who had not then repealed her de-
crces as it was not doubted England had
done. Has it not been repeatedly declared
| toy your government, that ii q. Is. would re-
yoke her Orders IN Council, the President
would immediately cause the non-importati
on to cease ? Nou well know that the Same
declaration has often been made tovourself
and that nothing more is wanting to the re-
moval OF the EXISTING distractions TO the com.
merce between the tyo countries, than a sa-
tstact0ry assurance, which will be received
with pleasure from your sell, that the orders il
council are at an end.
BY the remark in your letter of the Sd o.
7 tstl ffaa,tf ~ !. L.. r ~