Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1808-04-18

liaI0CNt, iJdSSCQ III tUc reign VI tAdWoio iAA
which enact that nc ship shall be arrested on
the high seas, or compelled to come to Eng
land, without the consent OF the master OF the
snip or cargo :
These objections were completely answered
lit was shewR shat the pviyy council in lssu~
ing the orders OF the council, acted as the
council OF the crowns which by Its Preroga-
tive III war, was empowered to interrupt tue
trade Of the neutrals, to prevent helr entrance
intoo,r ports; aud to impose a toll upon them.
The opposition however had COMPOUNDED the
power ofthe privy council as iudicature, with
lis power as the council cl the crown. But
if these orders were illegally issued, as the
late ministers contend, their own order; which
was issued under the same a0sh0nty, must
also have been illegal. 2, Il The present MI
nislers TO have waited to ascertain whether
Bonapart's blockading decree had been carried
into effect, and whether neutrais would sab
init TO it, WIN did not the late ministers 3
That decree was issued or the lst November
l8O6--the order OF the late ministers yrs IS
sued On the 7lh January before they could
nave ascertined whether it had been carried
into effect, or whether neutrals were inclined
90 submit to it. The present ministers had
sufficiently asceltaned before they had re
course to their orders of November II, that
ncutrals had submitted to Bonaparte's mea-
sures. s. With respect to the rule OF the
war Of 1855, the order Of council OF January
7, did not merely carry it into eject, but went
beyond it. The rule of 1855 interrupted the
coasting trade Of the enemy, upon the pllnl-
PIE that the commerce which be lgerent DOW
ers refused TO neutrals during the war But
che commerce Of Spain, Prussia, &c with
France, was never prohibited by the order OF
January Z. 4. In answer to the assertion that
that part Of the order relating to the certih-
Gates of origin, was not contormaOle 70 law,
was replied, that vessels which Carried those
certificates made themselves party with the
enemy; they covered the property oil the enc
lny. Ifa vessel, by taking certificate OF o.
ligttl from our enemy, said 70 the French go
7ernment, here am I complying with your
every wish, eNerting myseit to CRAFTY every
desire you may be pleased to express, was 1t
not proper that such vessel, however much
she might profess 10 he neutral, should De
subject to such corrective measures as this
country might legally employ 20. But We
were engaged in an important negotiation
WITH America, and ought TO have ahstained
FROM any thing ihat might tend to Illustrate
fts object This argument, If it had any
weight, would equally apply to the la,c mi
nisters. They had Iust signed treaty with
:snerica. Why did they DO an act which
might tend to prevent the ratification OF the
treaty ? 6, But the refusal to ratify the trea-
ty with America by the President, is NO proof
shat it has not been ratified, because his de-
ponds upon the senate and not upon the Pre-
sident. AS however, it has been returned to
this country by the President the senate can
not be placed in a situation to pronounce upon
&. 1t can never be before the Senate. 1t
must be considered therefore, 70 all lnients
and purposes as d treaty which has been retu-
sed TO be ratified. Z. The argument found
ed upon MIgna Charta, and the statutes of
Edward, IS weak one, because those sta
tutes DO apply TO time C war, and do not al
feet the royal prerogatiye IN time Of wal.
Mr.. Perceyal and the Master Of The Rolls
speeches were extremely abs ones Mr..
W;adharn's reply to the Latter was about IS
victorious one as his reply 10 ilr. Canning.
lie made use of an argument which BY the
frequency with which We have seen Il adapted
by the opposition, is deemed, no doubt to be
q strong che" Was it sufficient answer
On the part OF the present ministers when
they were accused OF doing wrong, to shew
that their predecessors had Gone the same
thing mo ! No man says II Is SUFFICIENT
answer to the country--but. at least 1t 1t Is
sufficient answer to those men who complain
Of ministers, for doing what they themselves
did before them --Cou'fe1.
----..e Is
FACTS
Respecting the treatment Ct Anle,fcaTs BY
tbs commanders of British ofS$eIs q gar
zoitIlin the ncutrs>} sVateys Of the empire
at China, IN 1907.
=, G ,r.n;rC3cbr;et AZ