The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1813-05-07

raw, WHfcn SAYS, tnat VI, ceIOre the LIST OF
November, 1910. both paitie have repeal
ed TIER DEGREES, their commercial and
friendly intercourse with her shall continue
that ifone party does repeis. aud the o.
Their does not repeal by that day, then her
ports shall be shut against the non repeal
ing power in February 1911 Napoleon,
in the month of August. 1910, issued De-
cree by which his violating necrees stood
repealed or The lst OF the following Nov.
| This new de rec WAS contemplated to our
Ministers by the AMERICAN Minister in I.or-
don.wh expressed his hope, that, agree
ably to our many solemn declarations, we
should hasten to follow the example of
France. Our Minister'S answered in sort
OF vague way; but at any rate, they did not
repeal /; and in February, 1911, the law
went into effect against u.s. Our goods and
ur vessels were shut out of the America n
orts, while those of France were admit
ed. We asserted, that Napoleon had not
rrheated his DEGREES. America asserted
| that he had, but we would not believe her.
We insisted, that she did not know the fact
| nearly as we'll as we did In short. we
continued to refuse to repeal. At last, the
great distresses and consequent complaints
OF the manufacturers led to an enquiry,
at the bar of the House of Commons. into
the effect of the Orders in Council when
such mass of evidence was produced by
Mr.. brougham in support OF the proposition,
that the non-importation law of America
was the principal cause of those distresses.
that the ministers (Perceval being deadl
gave way and the Orders acre reheaied.
L his is the plain and true history of the
matter and particularly wish the reader
to bear lin mind, that our Orders had up 10
the moment of Napoleon's repeal of his
DEGREES, Always been acknowledged by TN
| to contain violation ofthe kno9rn rights
| Of neutrats but in our justification, We said,
that 1t was forced ufion US by the decrae.
of the enemy. This was our language up
to the moment of NaPoieon's repeal. But,
what says Lord Castlereagh noEy ? So far
from acknowledging hat the Orders in
Council reinforced violation of any known
neutral right, he contends (if the report
of his speech be correct) that they were
founded on our known primitive right
l ne words, as they stand in the report are
| these. The orders in Council had been a
point on which considerable difference
OF opinion in this Country had prevailed
'' but they had been abandoned, nor so
much on The ground this Country not
" havmg THE RIGHT, as with view to
" commercial eatediency. He rather wish
" ed. however, to wave the renewal Of
g that branch OF the question, now that the
. whole proceedings of government were
=" before the House. With respect to the
e" main principles of that system, Ministers
y" were sfW undLtered in their ofiinion, when
" the conservation of the Country rendered
' 1t necessary 10 resort 70 ff. AT the time
" the measure was adopted, such system
was necessary, nor oniy as il Tesbect,d
Frdnce, out as connected zOith The soundsse
'f0Hcy for the general Interest oFfhe Brf
y tfsh Enlffre. Had if not been for tho
manly resistance given by that measure
-" to the power of France, France now
=, would nave been as triumphant, in com
mercial point of view, as she was with
" respect to the Continent. He bepged he
might always be considered as an adu,;.
rer or that system" Now, state that
the Orders in Council themselves, ard the
IpaPers o; cur diplomatic agents and the
Speeches of Sir William Scott, almost cx-
plicitiy acknowledge, that the measure was
TO he justified only OH the ground of it's be-
ing 'etabo'ion on France; and hat in the
two former, is expressed, his Maiestv's
earnest desire to initiate France in doing
away these obnoxious measures This was
our language up to The moment when the
repeal OF the French DEGREES was announ.
ced TO us. Our Language has, indeed, since
changed; and it was during the debaies
upon Mr.. Brougham's motions, coolly arou-
ed, that the repeal of the Orders would
make the Americans tire carriers of fbe
commerce Of TIE foorld. But, though we
nave changed our language, il does not fol-
always commended that by the Orders III
Council her rights were violated she all
ways commended, that all the seizures we
made under these Orders were uniust-Sx
OF course, she demands indemnity for those
immense seizures But is it really soe can
IL be possible can the thing be, that a Sc
cretary OF State has asserted, in open Par
lament, that without any reference to the
conduct OF France, and that though the De-
crees OF Napoleon did noe exist, We had n
right 70 do what was done, towards per.
trails, under the ORDERS in Council and
that Whenever we think proper, We nave
a right to do the same again? 1t this be so
II thLs assertion was made by the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, and if it be meant tn ne
m maintained, then, certainly, the war with
America VIII be long indeed. Reader.
what was il that was done IN virtue of these
Orders in Council viii give you an in
stance. An American built ship, owned nv
native American, manned bynatjve Aue.
rlcans, laden with -four or any tbjpp, else
The growth OF America, aud b. und from A.
menca to France OF to- any o-her Country
named in the Orders IN Council. was sci.
zed on the high seas by aiy of cur vessels
OF war carried into any ct our ports. the
SHIP and cargo condemned, and the master
and his crew turned On shore 20 ber nr
starve, or live and fad Il .ir wav home az
they could. This was done in VIRTUE Of th.
Orders in Council AMI, If TIE Report he