The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-11-12

cease merely IN consequence Of u revocation
OF the Orders in Council whenever i. does
Cease, it will cease because there will be no
adequate force applied to maintain it.
On another very material point, sir, YOU
appear to have misconstrucd my words
for in no one passage os my letter can dis
cover any meation of Innovations Oh the part
of Great Britain such as YOU say excited I
painful surprise in your government. There
is no new prctcnsion scr up by his Majesty's
government. In answer tn qucstipns or years
as to what were the DEGREES or regulations
of France which G. 3. complained OF and "a.
gainst which she directs her rctaliatory mca-
snres, brought distinctly intoyonr view the
Berlin and Milan DEGREES, and you have not
-Gcaicd, because, indeed, you could not, that
the provisions of these DEGREES, were new
measures Of war on the part of Franco, &C
know,elsed as such by her ruler, and con-
trarysto the principles and usages of civiliz-
cd matte as That the present war has been
oppressive beyond example by its duration,
and the desolation it spreads through Europe,
willingly agree with you, but the U. s. can
not surely mean to attribute the canse to G.
b. The question between G. sand France,
is that OF an honorable struggle against the
lawless efforts of an ambitious tyrant, and A
merica can but have the wish OF every indie
pendent nation as to its result.
On third point, sir, l have also to regret
G.. b. never commended that British merchant
vessels should be allowed to trade with her
enemies, or that British property should be
allowed entry into their ports, as you would
infer such Il pretension would indeed be pre-
posterous but G.. b. does contend against
the system of terror put in practice by France
by which, usurping authority Wherever her
arms or the timidity of nations will enable
her to extend her influence, she makes it a
crime to neutral countries as we'll as indivi-
duals that they should possess articles how
ever acquired which may have been once
the produce of English industry or of the
British soil. Against such an abominable &
extravagant pretension every feeling must
revolt, and the honor no less than the inter-
est OF G. B. engages her to oppose it.
Turning to the course of argument contai-
ned in your letter, allow me to express my
surprise at the conclusion you draw in consi-
, dcring the question of priority relative to the
french DEGREES or British Orders in Council.
1t was clearly proved that the blockade
OF May 1906, was maintained by an ade-
quate naval force, and therefore was
blockade founded on just and legitimate
principles, and l have not heard that it
was considered in contrary light when
notified as such to you by Mr.. Secretary
Fox, nor until it suited the views of France
to endeavor to have it considered otherwise
Why America took up the view the French
government chose to give of it, and could
see in it grounds for the French DEGREES,
was always matter of astonishment in En-.
gland
Your remarks on the notifications at va
rious times of our system of retaliation,
will require the less reply from the cir
cnmstance of the Order in Council of April
1909, having superseded them all. They
were calculated for the avowed purpose of
softening the effect of the original orders
,,l I
OF those orders on ncutrals having been
always sincerely regretted by his Majes-
tvs Government but when it was found
that ncutrals objected to them they were re-
moved.
AS to the principle of retaliation, it is
founded on the just and natural right of
selt-defence against our enemy if France
is unable to enforc cher DEGREES on the ocean,
1t is not from the want of will, for she en-
forces them wherever she can do it her
threats are only empty where her power
is of no avail.
In the view you have taken of the con-
duct of America in her relations with the
two belligerents, and in the conclusion you
draw with respect to the impartiality of
your country as excmplihed in the non-im-
portation law, / lament to say I cannot
agree with you. That act is direct
measure against the British trade, enacted
at time when all the legal authorities in
the United States appeared ready to con-
test the statement of a repeal of the French
DEGREES on which was founded the Prcsi-
dents proclamation of November Cd, and
consequently to dispute the justice Of the
proclamation itself.
You urge, sir, that the British, govern
ment promised TO proceed hari Ea8ou with
France in the repeal of her edicts. 1t is
60 be wished you could point out to us any
step France has taken in the repeal of hers.
Great Britain has repeatedly declared that
she would repeal when the French did so,
and she means to keep to that declaration
have stated to you that we could not
consider the letter of August S, declaring
the repeal of the French edicts provided
we revoked our Orders i'll council, or Amer
lea resented our not doing so, as a step of
that nature and the French government
knew that we could not (; their object was
evidently while their system was adhered
to in all its rigour, to endeavor to per-
Suade the American government that they
had relaxed from it, and to induce her to
proceed in enforcing the submission of Great
Britain to the inordinate demands of France.
1t is to be lamented that they have but too
we'll succeeded for the United States 90
vernment appear to have considered the
French declaration in the sense in which
France wished it to be taken, as an abso-
Lutte repeal of her DEGREES without adver-
ting to the conditional tcrrns which accom-