Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-06-20
[coNTINUE Ed
[Mr. Tohnston's Speech concluded

ss
But it is said that the late adjustment IS
more advantageous to G. Britain thah 'ne
former proposal by us, because our waters
are not interdicted to British armed YES
sells. and because French armed vessels are
sprohibited. Sir, the interdlct which eA-
cludes British and French armed vessels
still remains in full force and virtue. Al has
not been taken off as to British armed YES
sells. The proclamation OF the fresiash'
has only made the trade renewable on ',ie
tenth of June. He had no control over tue
interdict; nor did the British minister MAKE
it sine qua non, as did Mr.. Rose II. set
fling the affair of the Chesapeake. Here
AGAIN we have renamed firm, and Great
Britain has Welded the improper ground
which she had previously taken. &c IS sald
that French armed vessels are now excluded
our waters, and this was not the case wneh
former propositions were made TO the Dir
tish ministry !; and that we are now IN tne
situation. as it respects France, that Great
Britain wished. Admit all this, and what
is the result? That France had done no.
thing to induce an interdict OF her armed
vessels when the attack was made on the
Chesapeake, which was the principal, tho
not the only event which produced the pro-
clamation of interdict against -bfi-
ta,n-and certainly no American would
wish to take hostile measures against ma
ton without previous aggression. After
this proclamation of interdict, Bonaparte
executed his Berlin decree, issued his Milan
decree, burnt ourvessels onthe high seas, IN
terrupted our commerce inthe Medlterrane-
an and the channel. Congress convened,
and, in CONSEQUENCE of these laggressions,
we passed a law extending the <interdict to
French and English armed vessels. 60
verned by the same policy, we proceeded
against both nations as our injuries multi
piled and not because either nation reqnlr
ed it against the other. The measures OF
this government have been opposed In this
house because it seemed to some that their
effects would be more injurious to Great
Britain than France. 4 presume gentle
men win now, be satisfied of the strict line
ofneutral conduct which has Characterised
the American people towards the two rival
powers of Europe or that our. measures
were equally hostile as it respected both.
nations. since it has been asserted ever in
the parliament of. Great Britain. It has
not only been proclaimed in the parliament,
but by the government of Great Britain,
i through their minister at this place, IN the
late negotiations. This is triumph to
good principles.
1t is painful subject, Sir, but 4 must
speak ofthe conduct of the opposition, since
thew modestly assume to themselves the
credit of saving this nation from Impending
calamity. 1t is novel, though not ssnrpr'-
sing, flor nothing now is to wonds&sN at J
that those who vote against measure
claim the credit of the good arising from
them, while those who supported these
/. measures only should bear the blame, and
be responsible for all the evils watch natu-
rally result from the best measures. his
doctrine once established will make a
new code of politics. Those who oppose
measures are entitled to all the good result
ing from them and those who voted tor
them, are to be responsible to the nation for
any evil they produce. This claim is too
absurd and ridiculous to need a comment
Rnt let us examine the conduct connected
with the politics of the opposition. We are
advised to repeal the partial non-importation
law torescind the proclamation of inter
dict against British armed vessels; to re.
peal the embargo and in short, to retrace
our steps and undo every thing we had
done to resist the aggressions OF Great
Britain. In addition to this, we Were told
81 the opposition that Great Britain was
fighting for existence that IN fact she was
xghdng our battles; that she would never