The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-06-12

AIRY you desire to know-nameiy, :" the pre-
else situation of cur affairs with England"
Since my letters Of the 18th and ed
nit. which trust, will have eXtnguished all
expectation of any change here. the molten
Of Lord Lansduwne, on the 26lh If Februa-
~, and that Of MIR. Brcugham ssterday,
aave been severally debated in the ,espec-
ave Houses of Parliament. ! attended the
discussions ON both, and if any thing was
wanting to prove the ineexib.e determina-
ton of the present ministry to pers we're
in tho orders in council without modifica-
lion or relaxation, the declarations of the
leading members of administration on these
occasions must place it hey ond the possibility
If doubt. In both i,ouses these leaders expires.
'ed a disposition 20 forbear to canvass, in he
resent state of our relations, the conduct of
he U. 5. towards England, as it could rot be
done without reproaching her in manner
increase the actual irritation, and to do
way What Lord Bathurst stated to be the
feebfe hopes of preventing war.
In the House of Commons, Mr.. Rose
virtually confessed. that the orders in coun-
ell were maiptained to promote the trade of
England at the expence of neutrals. and as
measure of commercial rivalry with the
y. States. When Mr.. Canning inveighed "a
rainst this new (he must have meant newly
acknowledged) ground of defending these
orders, and contendcd that they could be
Justified only on the principle of retalia-
lien on which they were avowcdly institu-
ted, and that they were intended to produce
the effect of an actual blockade, and liable
20 al, the incidents of such blockade-that
is, that they We're meant only to distress
'he enemy-and that G.. Britain had no
right to defeat this operation by an inter-
course with that enemy which she denied
to neutrals, Mr.. Percival replied, =" that the
riders we're still supported on the principle
Of retaliation. but that this very principle
involved the license trade for as France,
by her DEGREES, had said that no nation
Should trade with her which traded with
England, England retorted, that no country
mould trade with France but through Eng
Ind. lie asserted, that neither the par
'al nor even the total repeal Of the Berlin
and Milan DEGREES, as they related to A
merica, or to any other nation, or all other
1ations, could form any claim on the Bri-
sh government while the continental sys-
en-, so called, continued in operation. He
enied that this system, or any part of the
'erlin and Milan DEGREES, were merely ,nu-
mcIai They had not been adopted n time
OF peace with view to internal regulation,
out IN Z. tine of war with hostile purpose
WARDS England. Every clause and par
ticie Of them were to be considered of a
fNNNuiS SHsilCiJ OCillSCISnt, c. DIS SuCn TeQIl-
ing resistance, and authorising retaliation
on the part of Great Britain. 1t was idle
ino absurd &c suppose that G.. Britain was
bound, in acting On the principle of reta,ia-
tion IN these times, to return exactly, and
| N form, IKE for ike, and to choose the OBJ
'ect and fashion, the mode of executing it,
reciseiy by the measures of The enemy
m adopting these measures, France had
orohen through all the restraints imposed
ny the laws OF nations, and trodGen unoer
Ioct the great conventional code received by
the civilized world as prescribing rules
tor its conduct in war as we'll as in peace.
In this state of things England was not
bound any longer to shackle herself with
this code, and by SO doing become the unre-
| sising victim OF the violence of her enemy,
| but she was herself released from the law $
OF nation and left at liberty to resort to any
means within her power to injure and dis
tress that enemy and to bring it back TO an
observance of the jus tgentiunr which it had
so egregously and wantonly violated. Nor
was England to be restricted any more in
the e:rtent than IN the form of retaliation
out she had right. both as to the quantity
the evil in her power, until this enemy
should retrace its steps, and renounce, not
only verbally but practically, its continent
tai system and every other of its belligerent
measures incompatible with the old &C
knowledged laws of nations. Whatever
neutrals might suffer from the retaliatory
measures OF England was purely incidental,
and as no injustice was intended to them
they had right to complain of none. And
ne rejolced to observe that no charge of such
injustice had that night been brought for
ward in the house. As England was con-
tending for the defence OF her maritime
rights and for the preservation of her ma
tional existence, which essentially depend
ed on the maintenance of those rights, she
could not be expected, jim the prosecution OF
this great and primary interest, to arrest
or vary her course to listen to the preten-
sions of neutral nations, or to remove the e.
Wis, however they might be regretted, which
the imperious policy of the times indirectly
and Internationally extended to them"
" AS the newspapers of this moinins give
out very imperfect report of this speech
of Mr.. Percival, have thought it to be my
duty topresent you with a more particular
account ofthe doctrines which were main
aimed ~ it, and which so vitality affect the
rights and interests of the United States.
" no longer entertain hope that we can
honorably avoid war;"
Extract ofa krtter from Mr.. Russell 10 The
Secretary of State.
LONDON, Goth March, 1912.
had the honor to address you on the
the House of Commons on the preceding
evening since then no change in relation
to us has taken place here"
Extract ola letter from, Mr.. Russell 10 The
Secretary Of State.
DCy.f