The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-12-11

'S'SuIC vi suCu oioCkaueS, particularly That
of May 1906, with a failure to revoke it. or
even TO admit the constructive extinguish-
ment of 1T held out in your letter to the mar.
quis Wellesley, give to the subject new as
pect and decided character.
As tie British government had constant.
iy ailedged. that the Berlin decree WAS the
original aggression on our neutral com
metce; that her orders in council were but
a retaliation on that decree, and more
over, on tina, ground, asserted IN obli-
CATION ON the U. States TO take efTectual
measures against the decree, as :; prelimi
nary to repeal OF the orders, nothing could
be 'note reason able than to expect, that the
condition In the shape last presented would
be readily accepted. The President is
therefore equally disappointed aud dissatis..
ned at the abortiveness of your correspon
dence with lord Wellesley, on this impor-
tant subject. he entirely approves the de-
termination you took TO resume it, with a
view TO the special and immediate obiigati-
on lying on the British government 10 can.
Gel the illegal blockades. aud you are in
strncted, in case the answer to your letter
OF the 3olh April, should not be satistacto.
ny, to represent to the British government
IN terms, temperate but explicit. that the
u. ,. consider themselves authorised, by
strict and unquestionable right, as well as
supported by the principles heretofore ap
piied by G. to the case, in claiming and
expecting revocation of the illegal block
AIDES OF France. of a date prior to that of
the Berlin decree. as preparatory to a
iurther demand OF the revocation Of that de
cree
1t ought not to be presumed, that the Ri
t'sh government, in reply to such a repre-.
sentation, will contend, that a blockade Iik q
that OF May 1906 from the Eloe to Brest.
coast OF not less than one thousand miles.
proclaimed four years since, without hav
'ng been at any time attempted to be duly
executed by the application of naval force.
is blockade conformable to the law of ma
tions and consistent with neutral rights
such pretext is completely barred, not on
~ by the unanimous authorities, both of
writers and of treaties on his point. not ex :
cepting even British treaties but bv the
rule OF blockade, communicated by that go -.
vernment to this, in the year 1904 in which
IL is iaid down, that orders had been given
not to consider any blockade of those is
lands, martinique and Guadaloupe) as ex.
l'tlng unless IN respect of particular ports,
which may be actually invested. and then
not to capture vessels bound to such ports
unless they shall previously have been
warned not to enter them, and that thew
the lords OF the admiralty had also SEN,
the necessary directions on the subject to
tne Judges OF the vice admiralty courts in
the west Indies and America. In this com
munication, 1T is expressly stated, that the
RUE TO the British courts and cruizers was
furnished in consequence of the representa-
tons made by the government of the u. s.
against blockades NOT unlike that now in
question, and with the express view of re-
HTesslng the grievance complained of -
Nor ought 1T to be presumed, that the Bri
tish government will finally resort to the
plea, that her naval force, although unap-
pied, is inadequate to the enforcement NJ
the blockade of Nav 1906. and that ,h;s
forms legal distinction between tina, and
the Berlin decree of November follow;ng
Were 1t admitted, that an adequate force ex
isted, and was applicable to such purpose.
the absurdities of confounding the power To
DO thing, with the actually doing of If
speaks for itself. In the present case. the
a6surdity is peculiarly striking. A bort
olockaded by sea, without a ship near If
being contradiction in terms, as well as a
perversion of law and of common sense:
From the language of lord Wellesley's
Two letters, 1t is possible he may endeayor
70 evade the measure required, by subtle
comments ON the posture given to the block
ade OF May 1906. by the succeeding orders
- ~oN' A1ot SNCh uCFc lie IS met DV the
case OF the blockade of Copenhagen and the
other ports of Zealand, in the year 1908, at
time when these, with all Danish ports.
were embraced by those very orders of 1907 !:
proof that, however the orders and block
AIDES may be regarded as in some respects
the same, they are regarded, in others. as
having distinct operation, and may Con
sequently co-exist without being absolute
ly merged in or superseded, the one by the
other.
In the difficulty which the British govern
ment must feel in finding gloss for the ex
travagant principle of ner paper block AIDES
1t may perhaps wish to infer an acquies
cence on the part OF this government, from
the silence under which they have in some
instances. passed Should a disposition to
draw such an inference shew itself. Won will
be able to meet it by an appeal, not only &c
the successful remonstrance in the letter &c
Mr. ~Ihornton. above cited, but to the an
The following is the letter to M. Thornton