The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1813-07-20

ant impartial world. Ii, however,, the
two acts could be separated from each
other, so as that tia. latter might be made
the basis OF the repeal of the orders in
council. distinct from the former, it follows
tnat, searing date on the 2Stli April, 1871,
the repeal ought to have relation to that
GATE. In legal cohstrUction, between nati-
Cns as well as individuals, acts are To be
respected from the time they begin to ore
rate, and, where they impose a moral or
political obligation on another party, that
coiiSauon commences with the commence
ment CT the act. but it has been urg-
I'd that the Er.ncA decree was not pro-
Nn'gated, or mads kcown to the BRUSH
government. until a year after its date.-
This objection has no torce. BY accepting
an act bearing date a year before it was
Fromuiga ted, 1t IS admitted that III the in
terval nothing was done repugnant - It,
III Cannot be presumed that any govern
nieht would accept from another, as n
OASIS OH which it was to found an Important
measure, an act of anterior and remote
c4tc, pledging itself 10 a certain course OF
conduct phicn hat government Rad in the
~sntSrvat eeparted from and violated. Ii
ANY government had violated an act, ths
itjoncions OF which 1t was Douna TO observe,
~ az anterior one, In relation to a third
parry, and which it profesxca 60 have ob
we'd. before its acceptance by the ether,
~ could aot be presumed that II woh a.
Set TO violate it after the acceptanCe.-
Nne confusion - irresistible, that 1t til
pthsF gaserEnlent did accept spch act with
spo@ ied8e OF its aatecedent vioiaticr, as
Ghe foundation oil any measure on its onu
Part, that such act must have been the o..
tensi5ie only, and not the real motive Of
such measure.
The declaration of the Prince Regent of
tne2lst April 1912. is in foil confirmation
ot these remarks. 81 this act of The Bri-
tish government 1t Is formerly annuulced, On
tue authority OF a repor at the Secretary
oftoreign affairs to the Conservative Sc
nate OF France, that the French decrees
were still in force, and that the orders Iu
Council should not be repealed. 1t cannot
faii 70 excite considerable surprize that the
British government should imuie diately at
forwards, that is. on the Esd June, repeal
ITS orSersin council, un the ground OF tie
French decree OF the GSth April, tSll.-
-By this proceeding the British govern
has involved ltse'f in manifest consistency.
j hasg f1aintaiDed by one TACT, thai the
French decrees were in full force, and by
another that they were repealed dur ing die
same space of time II admits also. that
by no act Of the French government or its
cTnIZers, had any violation ui the repeal
annoaDced oy the declaration o. the French
government OF Jhe 5th August 1910. beeI,
cc=pDitted, or at least, lhat such violation
h.. r,t had sufficient weight to prevent
the repeal of the orders in council.
al = - cpJeCted that the declaration OF
the French s OF the 5th OF Au-
get 1910, was not such an aCt as the BIZ
~ ravcEnmelt ought TO have regarded.
The Secretary of Stste is thoroughl, s~atisf-
G taatth objection IS Altegetier unioun
at. 1t "~S communicated by the Emle-
IN n r)ugiI fis h'gEc.t official organ, In,
T%ecretAy Of Foreign Affairs, It the minister,
kteEI 5otentiary ut the United states u, p.
rI9. It is impossible 10 conceive an a.,
aoFe ioImal. authentic or obligatory en- IL.
eEcn government than tE.e Blinded TO.
Noes one government ever ask or expec.
srOn another TO secure the performance {
asy duty, howeve Important. more thar
Is ofticiai pledge fairly and fully expires
seG: Can better security be given tor IL
performance? Had there been apy doub,
ia shis subject, the conduct Of G.. Britain
herself, in similar cases, would have Com
ple'ely removed it. The whole history 6,
her diplomatic Intercourse with othc
powers, en- the. subject of blockade. is IT,
accord with this proceeding of the French p..
seTnment. We know that when her so.
yernncnt institutes n blockade, tae SecIe
tary or Foreign Affairs announces il, to the |
r1'nistefS OF ether powers at Lcnncu !; apu
tnat the same iortn is Observed Wben the,
a.e revoked. Nor was the autheptjcitv ct
either act, thus announced. ever QUESTION
cd.
Had q similar declaration been made Ly
The minister o. France in the United States
tothis government, BY the order Of has own.
would 1t not have been entitled TO r~espectI
and beeD respected ? BY tie usaae oin.. |
Tors snch respect could hot have been
yiinheid. The arrangement made witt |
~ itfssine isa full proof OF the goba
faIh o trs government, aud of impartia;i
~, IN 1t &~fansactinns with both the bcih
aerents 1t vas made With that mjuiste |
Gu "a s~feund.ot his public Character. and
the ~conbcfHcc Cue to it On which basis
the non intercourse was removed as n I'm |
eland and LETT III t,li force against F,ance |
Ens failure OF that ~arrangem, Mt was ;mnn
thbIe to the British government airne. VII,
. reIeciln6 It, took on itseIf . high respon-
$dDhitj not SIMPLY, III regard to the conse
Cleoces attending II, but il disa Vov,iur apC
seEuffnE the act of its minister, VII hont
sh9"in6 tilat he bad exceeded is autbortv
~ acc'ptIng tie declaration OF the French
rine'eT 81 ioreifn affair, in proof f tbr |
Gttmh Tcpeal. tile UnIted S,atrs cave NJ.
PROC 81 Improper credtbCe TO tie pU,erD.i
I'tAt ct = rance. One compglison If both
tran e~-fiohs, u NIli appear that If a marked
oounGe0te ard respecr was sheBn 10 either
fVVtrome0';. vas 10 that Of Great ltri
t1r' Jn erCrpfihe the declaration of the
N"N