Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-06-26

!" or that If any other was instituted
during that period, lis not now in
Z" force .
Had ! proud m,f been seeking for
oPpor aitics for, b lf century, to es-
tablist his own q bsequence upon the
humiliation of aYosber intrinsicaIlv as
good as himse sud- a man could not
have found an bccasidp to raise him
self and PROSTATE the Other in the most
humiliating condition, more essectual
than this occasion afforded to the os
tentatious nabob, and enemy of repub-
lies, to cover above the minister of the
American republic! 1t is disgusting
to ld&k and reflect upon it. .
TN eastern nabob did not lose his
advantage, he very laconically tells Mr.
Pinkaey, not merely that the blockade
which he had supposed to rest ,alsoge-
ther on a subsequent order in Mich it
was Compensated, had nevA been
Withdrawn, but with the prigmStileert.
ness which has been already exempli-
fed by Rose and Jackson at Wishing
ton, he undertakes to exhibit be mac
curacy of Mr. Pinkney's nfe3knces &
he gives to boot the demonstration {;
which leaves MIR Pinkney the choice
of either passing for servile syco-
plant or fool. Hear what Welles-
ley says in reply
The blockade of May 1906, has
never been Withdrawn, it cannot there
tore be accurately stated, that it rests
altogether on the order of January
1907, being expressed that one was
comNs4 ended in the other"
MrHnkney appears to have trans
lated the word comprehend, by the
idea of excluding or cutting out; but
the nabob was determined that the
+" kings English" shosld be accu-
rately stated" and that comprehend
should be understood contrary to the
inference, as meaning retained, kept,
within the meaning and intent of alb
solute blockade.
But not content with exposing the
incorrectness of Mr. Pinkney's FIRST, in-
ference, he falls without mercy upon
his second, and tells Mr. Pinknev. bv
stating fact, that there was another
blockade, although Mr.. P. had infer
red there was no other instituted be-
tween the 10th May, 1906, aud the
7th ] January, 1907, that is to say, the
blockade of Venice of the 81 h Iuly,
1906, which is also still in force.
There is one more particular in this
correspondence. Although Mr. Pink
ney had received the answer of ma
quis Wellesley, dated, the I'd March,
and wrote again on the 9TH March his
interences yet he addresses letter
to General Armstrong of the 2sd
March, wherein he declares, he is not
able to send General Armstrong the
result of his application concerning
British blockades, prior to the Berlin
decree, although he had been three
weeks in possession of this answer of
Wellesley, of the I'd March, complete.
Iiy putting the point out of dispute, as
to the existence OF the blockade of 10th
May, 1906, it being again REINFORCED
and Ee-strengthened, by the decree of
?tHRnuary, 1907, and of Its being
stIlF force.
/ To " it appears in the sight of an
odious juggle'; whether the ridiculous
enormity Of the correspondence itself !;
the shallowness of understanding dis
played in it; or the period of the sail.
ing of the John Adams for France,
and the date of Welleslcy's last letter,
are considered for il will be observed
the John Adams reached France on
the 2ath March; Wellesley's letter is
dated the Goth, the very day she sail
ed.
This business, or we are much mis-
taken, will hereafter call for some fur
Their investigation.