Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-04-21

| small vet, to counterbalance it. we
had imported from our own colony OF
Canada, more of timber, lumber, and
Iall those articles which we usually OBJ
tain from the closed ports; than we
had before imported from those states.
his, he need not saw, was one advan-
ltage arising from the embargo, as it
led us to improve our own resources,
& rendered us independent. Hislord-
ship then adverted to the justice and
|expediency of the orders, and argued.
that they were perfectly according to
the law of nations, and that it was the
necessary consequence of the state of
warfare, that neutrals must suffer in
the enjoyment oftheir commerce, when
their neighbours were engaged in war
fare.
Lord SidmoAsh defended the lera-
lity OF the orders ofthe 9TH OF January,
1906, which related to the coastinq
trade, which he said neutral had no
fright to carry on, for the benefit of
one OF the belligerents, at the expcnce
OF the other. For neutral could ac-
quire no new rights by the stare of
war; and that was trade which in
peace be could not pursue. But he
insisted that a new aera arose in the
question when the Americans offered
to rescind their embargo, with respect
to US and continue 1t only with respect
to France, if we would abandon our
orders in council he thought then it
became the duty of this country to at
tempt conclliation, and tn that pacific
proposition, we ought to assume suit
able disposition to Cancellation. He
insisted that this was not done minis.
ters had shewn a hostile disposition,
snd, therefore, he concurred in tine
motion of his hon. friend.
Lord Melville said he should not
intrude upon their lerdships' time but
he wished to observe, that TIE questi-
on seemed to be wholly misunderstood
both by the noble mover and the no.
bic viscount (Sidmouth,) The one
said that his object was to discuss the
cntire merits Of the case; the other.
that he was DESTROYS of submitting to
he notice of his majesty, the distrust
lie felt OF the persons at the head of
govern nent the former abiding to
the transactions, and the latter to those
who were concerned In conducting
them. He (Lord Melville) should
have thought it more manly to have
taken direct course, instead of at.
tempting to pass vote of censure thus
blended, In which the real design was
rendered obscure. He resisted thi
address, because it was an unnecessa.
ry interposition of the house, during
a negotiation now pending with the U.
States. Other motives he had for
opposing the motion of the noble bar
on, which he would briefly explain :
the origin ofthe orders in council was
he .edicts of Berlin, which violated
all the maritime rights which had been
recognized in Europe for centuries.
The first proceeding in consequence
Iof those edicts was on the 9TH Ian.
1907, and the nature of it had been
Inexperienced. The rule of the war
In 1856 was supposed to be the effect
OF the order In council but if this
were all, the order itself would have
been unproductive and nugasory il
such were the whole result, it would
have been incompetent to encounter
with it the Berlin decree, which exten.
ded not only to France but to all natl.
ons dependant upon her authority.
The rule of the war of 1856 might
merely be considered as a coastinc
REGULATION the orders of council were
founded on the just principle Of reta-
llation, and so they were corr city ex.
planned to Id. Howick's admirable let
ter on the subject. He (Lord Mel
iville) had stated that the Berlin edicts
were violation Of all maritime and
neutral rights. But there were ueu.
trail duties as well as neutral rights.
A neutral state should hold the bal
ance even between the belIgerent pow
ers and il this duty were neglected,
the neutral rights would be forfeited.
Lord Howick properly contemplated
these duties and seeingthe preference