Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-19

honest intention, i'm case of finding on her
approach, the fact otherwise, not to attempt
an unlawful entrance. To Condemn YES
sells under such circumstances WOULD be
nanitcstly unjust; and tn restrain them
from distant voyage to port once in a
state of blockade, until information OF a
change shall have travel d a like distance,
must produce delay and uncertainty little
short of an absolute prohibition OF the COM
merce. To require them even to go out
OF their course, to seek at other ports, in
formation OH the subject, would be an I'M
reasonable imposition The British govern
ment can have lit;le objection to this arti
Gle, after defining blockades as is agreed
with Russia, and AS is here proposed since
our distance is of itself security against
any concert with the blockaGed, for sur
ruptitious entries, which migni be attemp-
ted by nearer adVeuturers and since in
the case of blockades by a force actually
present, preliminary notice may he re-
CURED without impairng their efficacy, as
might b. the case with biockades, such
as.the preceding article guards against.
The only difference between the articles
as standing in the different columns, consists
IN the preamble to that which is to be adj
mitted, II the proposition Of the other
should not succeed The article is prefer
able without the recital of any reason par.
touiar TO the United States, because as
naked stipulation, it strengthens instead
of weakening a senearl principle friendly
to neutral and pacific nations.
On arffc ea, VIiI X and X. These are
articles which are known To have been
long wished and contemplated on the part
of Great Britain and together with the
justice, and in many views the expediency
TO Great Britain herself OF the articles
desired On our part, may induce her to
accede 10 the whole. The articles deSir-
ed on our part, may induce her 20 accede
to the whole. The articles are in substance
the same with a project eff, red to the
American administrator in the year 1900,
by MIR. Liston, WHO appears to have boz
rowed i, from corresponding stipulG tons iii
the conV ention between the United States
and France in the year The
project was at that time dropped, owing
perhaps in part to the change in the head
OF the department of state, between whom
and MIR Ljston it had been discussed, and
principally, to the difficulty of combining
with it, proper sipuations against British
impressments on the high seas. Without
such an equivalent, the project had little
10 recommend it to the United States
Considered l.y Itself It was too The les admis-
sible, as one of its articles, under some ob.
security of expression, was thought to favor
the British preteEsion to impress British
seamenf from ATer Can vessels on the high
seas.
A copy of this document is inclosed, as
it may I've not without use, in shelving the
ideas of she British government at that
time, so far at least rs its minister here
was an organ of them
The terms in which these articles are o be
proposed, differ but slightly from those in
which they rnay lie admitted. In the for
mer, the delivery Of deserters is confined
to soldiers aud seamen, without requiring
delivery OF officers, whose desertion will
not be from the service of their country
but on account of offences for which i.
might sometimes be more agreeable to the
United States to be unbound to give them
up for trial and punishment. At the same
time this consideration ought not To BE- a
bar to an arrangement, which in its gene
raj character, will be So important to the
interests of the United States
On article XII This is stipulation which
is not to- be yielded but in the event Of it's
being made an indispensable condition. 1t
Cannot be essential for the object oft, whilst
the British government is left free to take
the precautions allowable within its own
Jurisdiction for preventing the clandestine
departure OF its seamen or IL soldiers in
neutral vessels. And it is very Ineligible
to the u. States, inasmuch as it will be diff
fcult 60 enforce the prohibition, whether
We regard the embarkation of such persons
in British ports, or their landing on the
American shores and inasmuch as he in
efficacy of regulations for such purposes,
though made with due sincerity and care,
may become a source ofsecre jealousy and
dissatisfaction, if not Of controversy ond
reproach
The article is copied fron that in the
arrangement (of which you have copy)
discussed aud brought near 10 a conclusion
between Mr. King and the British ministry,
and you are authorised to accede TO it, on
the supposition that it may again be insist
ed on. IL s to be Tecollected however, that
the article was then understood to be the on.
ly price given for relinquishing the impress
ment Of American seameD. The other Of
fer now substi. uted will justify YOU in pres
Sing tho Omission Of the original one.
On article XII. The law of nations
does nct ex c. Of neutral powers the sro-
hibition specified in this article On the o
Their hand, it does not restrain them from
prohibiting trade which appears on the
face of the Official papers proceeding from
the custom house to be intended to violate
the law Of nations, and from which legiti-
mate considerations OF prudence may also
dissuade a government. All that can be
eyDerted nv belliperpnt from