Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1810-07-18

TO Mr.. Pinkney' letter Of the Cd OF March
is, that esthe blockade notified by Great
Britain in May, 1906, has never been for
nally Withdrawn; it cannot therefore be
accurately stated thar the restrictions which
il established rest altogether on the order,
Of council Of the 9Th Of January, 1907
They are comprehended under the more
extensive restrictions of that order. No
other blockade Of the ports of France was
instituted between the 18th OF May, 1906,
and the 9TH of January, 1907, excepting the
blockade of Venice instituted on the 9Th
of July, 1906 which is still in force"
seEere them says the National Intelli-
gencer, with an air of triumph 6 is broad
and unequivocal acknowledgment by the
British government, that some OF her llle-
gal blockaGes against France, OF a date an
terror to the Berlin decree, are still in
force"
: For this 6 broad and unequivocal acknow-
Judgement" however, we may search in
vain tie letter which has been recited. 1t
is to be found only in the National 1ntelll-
gencer.
The blockades mentioned in the letter are
two: the blockade of the coast Of France
from Brest to the Eibe, and the blockade Of
Venice. There is no abroad and unequi-
vocal acknowledgement thar either Of
these is Illegal. The National Intel!ieencer
assumes this fact, and thinks himself war
raatsd in bottoming this assumption, not
on his own confidence, but On concessions
which were never made. Having fashion.
ed the proposition Of the due de Galore to
suit his purpose, the work would be incom-
pfesc did not the letter of the marquis of
Wellesley go through the same operation.
We are therefore told Of 6 broad and une-
guivocal Acknowledgements" which have
never be>n made.
But putting out Of the Question the mani
fest ina propriety of transferring his swim
ferences to the marquis Of Wellesley, upon
what grounds does he SO positively pro-
nounce the two blockades alluded to, lille.
gaa Why, for instance. is the blockade Of
Venice illegal Did no squadron invest the
place Or was the blockade illegal because
Venice was not also invested by land !" The
National Intelligencer does not take the
trouble to give US the fact, but deems it
quite sufficient to assert the illegaity Of the
blockade, and TO support himself on a
" broad and unf q1vocaI acknowledgement"
which exists 10 where but in his own jaun.
diced imagination.
The bloc katle Of the coast Of france
from the Elbe to Brest has been uniformly
and triumphanty cited by all those who are
solici,ous to palliate the Berlin decree. 1t
is the particular measure on which the ad.
vocates of French aggression found their
accusations Of England and 1T has been
generally represented as an absolute and
unqualified blockade, not defended as q
measure Of retaliation, but containing an
assertion ofthe naked principle that mere
paper blockade is legitimate. 1t is there
fore entitled TO more particular considera-
ton.
This measure was adopted by the Fox
administration, an adminis,ra,ion noted for
its respect for neutral rights and for its a
waved partially to the United Str .s,--
This is not mentioned as justhying pro-
ceeding in itself censurable, but as furnish
ing an additional inducement for euquiring
into the real character of the measure and
into the motives assigned for its adoption.
In his letter of the 10th of May, 1906,
Mr.. Fox notifies to colonel Monroe the
Z" blockade of the coast, rivers and ports
from the river Elbe to the port of Brest,
both inclusive" But the letter adds; his
majesty is please to declare that such
blockade shall not extend to prevent neutral
ships and vessels laden with goods not be-
ing the p oiefty of his majssty's enemies
and nc, being contraband of war, from ap-
preaching the said coasts and entering into
I'D sa;Enn from the said river and norris