The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-06-26
CORRESPONDENCE.
NR. rosrEn no MN. MoNRor-

which had the honor to receive yesterday
morning, that it was not the wish of the A.
merican government to close all further dis
cussion relative to the important question
at issue, between the two countries. | beg
you to be assured, sir, that it never was my
intention. in abiding to my letters which
had remained without answer at your Office,
TO use any expressions which could, in the
most remote manner, contain any thing per-
sonal. i shall ever be ready, with plea
sure, to bear testimony TO that frankness,
Candor and good temper, which so eminent
ly distinguish you, and have been acknow-
lodged to belong to you, by all who have e.
yer had the honor to discuss with YOU any
questions of public interest
But, sir, although you were not backward
In entering into full explanations with n,e
verbally, could not but feel, particularly
as had just had communications to make
TO you of the greatest Importance, that had
right to expect from you written reply
TO them and while | remembered that two
OF my former notes were still unanswered,
the one written three months ago, contain
ing among other important topics par;i-
cnlar question which I was expressly in
structed to put to you, to whether YOU
could point to any public act, OH the part of
the French government by which they had
really revoked their DEGREES, and the other
furnishing strong evidence of the continued
existence of those very DEGREES also when
i perceived that my note, communicating
the Duke of Bassano's report, which yoI
knew was to be sent to you on the 1st inst
was not waited for, but that a message was
transmitted by the Executive to Congress,
which IT seems contained reference to an
insulated passage in the dispatch on which
my note was founded, that if taken uncon-
nected with what preceded or followed it
might be liable to msconstruction, / could
ebo- i'm hot G.
further explanation might be left open to me-
= beg you to be assured, sir, that if was
embarrassed by your demands Of an explana-
sioa as to what appeared to YOU to be diff
ference between, Lord Castlereagg,'s dis
patch, communicated to you, and my note,
1t arose from the novelty ofthe demand, that
seemed to involve an informality of proceed
ing in which could not feel myself justif-
ed in acquiescing. Had you, in max inp a re-
ply to my communication, ask me how far
repeal OF the French DEGREES was demand
ed by my government, and as to whether a
special repeal as far as respected America
would be sufficient, l should have no hest
tatio1 in giving you every satisfaction.
Your note of the 9th instant has, by show
ing that the door was not absolutely shut to a
continuation of our discussion, relieved me
from further difficulty this point.
l have no hesitation, sir, in saying that G.
Britain, as the case has hitherto stood, never
did, nor ever could engage without the gros-
sest injustice to herself and her allies, as
well as to other neutral nations, to repeal
her orders as affecting America alone, lea
wing them IN force against other states, upon
condition that France would except, singly
and specially, America from the operation
OF her decrees You will recollect, sir, that
the orders IN Council are measures of de-
fence, directed against the system contain
ed in those DEGREES that it is war of trade
which is carried on by France that what
you call the municipal regulations OF France,
have never been called municipal By France
herself, but are her main engines in that nov
Gland monstrons system. 1t cannot then be
expected that Great Britain should re-
Dounce her efforts to throw back upon
France the evils with which she menaces
Great Britain, merely because France might
seek to alleviate her own situation, by wav-
ing the exercise Of that part Of her system
which she cannot enforce.
4. But, sir, to what purpose argue upon
supposed case; upon q state OF things rot
likely to occur, since the late Report and
Senatus Consu!tum which have been pub
lished to the world, as it were, insultingly in
the face of those who would contend that
any repeal whatever lad taken the place
of the DEGREES III question.
on draw a Comparison between the mode
IN which this instrument has appeared, and
Gnat WElCh you call the high evidence OF the
repeal, as stated in NJ. Champagne note
q it would almost seem as if you considered
the latter as the most authenciC of the two
but, sir, you Cannot seriously contend
that the Duke of Bassano's Report, with
the Scnatus Consultum accompanying II,
published in the official paper at Paris, is
not very different instrument from the a.
boye letter, Offering mere provisional re-
peal OF the DEGREES, upon conditions utterly
inadmissible, conditions too which really
formed Of themselves question of para
mount importance.
The condition then demanded, and which
was brought forward so unexpectedly wac
repeal of the blockade Of May 1906, which
Mr. Pinkney, in the letter you have refer.
red me to- declared 70 have been required
by America as indispensable in the view of
her acts of intercourse and non-intercourse,
as well rs repeal of other blockades of
similar character. which were maintained
by O. Britain to be founded on strict mari
time right.
i he Conditions now annexed to the French
demand are much more extensive, and, as
j have shown, include 81 surrender of many
other Of the most established principles of
the public law Of nations.
] cannot, confess, see upon what ground
you contend that the Report Of the Duke of
Bassano affords no proof against any par
tial repeal of the French DEGREES. The
priDCipies ADVANCED In that reDort q re ron