The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-06-29

the English and French ministers frequent
y deciared, that, as the measures taken by
their respective governments were en,ire
" retaliatorv, either would. on the previ
oIs repeal OF the orders of tin. ether, reyoke
itsHwn.
| 40 put the sincerity of this assurance &c
the test. we find that General Armstrong il,
virtue OF an instruction from Mr. Smith of
the first OF December last, enGnired Of the
DUO de Cadore. what were the conditions
Oh which his Majesty the Emperor would
annui ms decree, commonly called the Der
I'm decree j; and whether, If Great Britain
revoked her 6iock0des of date anterior ,c
that decree. his majesty would consent TO
revoke the said decree"
10 this enquiry the due de Cadore return
| ed for answer:
ne oHly condition required for the re
vocation by his majesty the emperor OF The
decree OF Berlin, will be previous revoca
ton by the British government of her block
o7cS OF France or part of France (such as
that from the Elbe to Brsst, Scc) ofa date
anterior 10 thaf ef fhe aforesaid dceree.''
hese 6fockdcos, it vii! be held in mind
are faher blockades, as contr.gtiistingu;sheci
from acfuat blookades. which (the Haf.es-
6iockades) it is allowed on all hands. are
not authorised by the laws of nations.
This answer, then, of the due de Cadcrc
brought the pending case to a point. All
room for subteriuge vas removed bv il,
he Condition of the French government is
SIN pic and precise. --,Et does not comDre..
hend the wide class of alleged or real viola
TONS OF neutral rights committed b, Eng
isnd 1t is made To apply exclusively 20
blockade and not to those at present in force,
out only to those of a date anterior 10 that
Of the Berth decree.
This 7yr; tt,,, ,ioc r,.;o, e A., -,
vernment, solemnly made in the name of
the Emperor, reached Mr.. Pinkney on the
10Th of Feb
On the 18th of February Mr. Pinknev
writes to lord Wellesley, ana enquiries of
MN, IN pursuance of previous intimaton.
=" whether any, and if any, what blockades
e. 'ance, instituted by G Britain during
tue present war, before the first f January
1917, are understood by his majesty's gov
eminent 10 be in force" l. the previous in:i-
NATION alluded to, Mr.. Pinkney had explain
ca 70 lord wellesley the probability afforded
oy General Armstrong; letter that a decla.
ration by the Brit::h government that no
such blockades existed would be followed by
the REGAL Of the Berlin d cree.
10 ne letter OF Mr.. Pinkuey Lord Wei
esiey replies, on the 81 of March, "that
tne coast rivers, and ports from the river
Eloe to Brest, both inclusive, were notified
to beunder the restrictions of blockade. with
CERTAIN notifications, ON tie 18th Of Nav.
1906 and that these restrictions were al
forwards comprehended in the order of conn
cii OF 'he |ih OF Jan. 1907, which order is
still'in forCe.''
An explanation of this note having been
asked by Mr. rinkney, Lord WELLESLEY, on
the 26ih OF March, most explicitly ans wers
as follows
!" The blockade. notified by G Britain in
May, 1906, has never been formally with
drawn Cannot therefore be accurateky
stated. fhat The restricucRs. (Which IL esta5.
H$hed, rest altogether on the orCler Of coun
Gil OF the 1th OF January, 1907 they are
comprehended under the more extensive re-
str'c!lons OF that order. No other blockade of
me ports otFranCe was instituted bv Great
Britain between the 18Th of Nav, 1865 and
the IN of Jan. 1907, ercehting n. 6lockaae
"a pentce, Instituted on tie 27lh Of JuLy.
1906, 7vhich IS stiU in force"
Here tbeu is a broad and uneqnivocal &C.
acknowledgements, by the British government.
mar some Of her Illegal block ades against
tiance. ot date anterior 10 the Berlin de-
cree. are SILL in force
From these facts, admitted by himself. the
following infetences are irresis. lille.
L. lhat England VAS the original aggles
sor upon neutral righ,p.
ma ShC sun persists ID some al her o.
riPinai aggfessi"Ds, enforced and ex,endrd by
subsequent orders.
5 That tfe pretext that they are retail
iatinn upon France, is fI!se.
that when brought to the point, and
me sincerity OF her assurances are put to
the tess, it appears that she is unwilling to
give validity to those assurances, by revok-
IHg her paper blOcktdes of dare anterior, n
the Berlin decree, as. if she were so dispos
ed, she might revoke hem by new order
in the same summary way in which they
were originally passed