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

sanctionlRg the pr1ucip2 pVsscs4 ttse'
/ me law Of nations by Bonaparte, that 70
! constitute legitimate blockade, tie place
must be invested by land as well as by sea.
| 10 what motive are we TO ascribe tins
| nroposition Was il possible that France
could reject, or that England could accede
1 20 its Aud is this our boosted test Of the
sincerity OF the professions respectively
made by the two beNigerents is the pro-
,po,s;tion That one belligerent shall coacede
TO the other an acknowledged and imPor-
tant belligerent right, the act OF an impart raj
neutral Or does its acceptance by the oe1-
Iiiperent whose viewsit promotes, or ITS re-
lection BY the other, prove the lnnslncerlty
| of the latter, or the sincerity OF the Tor
mer
The answer ;,t ms made BY the Du: de Galore,
as was undoubtedly foreseen if not prear--
/ ranged, was; that " the only condition re-
CURED for the revocation by his majesty the
emperor of the Berlin decree, viii be pre-
vious revocation by the British government
of her blocksdes Of France or part of France
(such as that from the Elbe to Hest, &c.)
of date anterior to that of the aforesaid
decree"
!" These blockades," the National Intel
ligencer informs us, " are paper blockades,
| as eontradistinguished frota actual block
AIDES"
What means the National Tntelligencer
by this bold assertion? Does he mean to
saw that, with navy, which almost covers
the coast of France, Great Britain has ne
YER instituted real blockade Does he
mean to say that with an immense Feet per-
petualy watching Brest, that harhor has
never been actually blockaded! Does he
mean to say shat Dunkirk, Havre and Bou-
logne nave never been blockaded II ne
means to make these assertions. the fact is
so VIGOROUSLY against him, that it woul': BE
waste OF time to bestow one word on Their
refutation.
Ifthis be not his intention, whaeia il -
Does he mean to say that either the letter
of Gen. Armstrong, or that OF the Duc de
:Cadore, is confined to paper blockades =
Such an assertion those letters themselves
most conclusively refute: The terms used
are general, and have no ether Limitation
Sut the date Of the blockade. IF the block
aiding order be subsequent to the commence
ment Of the present war and previous to the
Berlin decree, ii is comprised within the
express letter Of the propositions.
If such were not the intention, why was
not the term $ blockade" restricted by the
annexation Of some word which would IL
NIT It's application to such as existed only
on paper!
There is much reason to believe that the
terms of these notes were previously ar
ranged, and that this ccmPl ehensive Ian
guage was purposely used. Be this as It
may, it is the grossest imposition to pretend
that something to which there is no allusion
was intended, that this something was
omitted by accident, and may now be sup.
Piled bv the National Intelllgencer.
Suppose the letter of the Due de Galore
had been laid before the marquis of Welles-
ley, with request that the British cabinet
would take the step It indicated: Would
not the natural answer to this request have
been this letter presupposes every block,
ade made by England to be unlawful, and
demands what would implya tot&! snrren"
der of the right of blockade!" 49,,
But suppose the British minister, Ike
the writer in the Ns,ioral Intelligence, had
thought himself at liberty to fashion the
proposition according to his own taste, and
had declared that no blockade previous TO
the Berlin decree, except such as are au-
thorised by the law of nations, was in force
would this have satisfied the emperor Of
France? Would this declaration, short as
it is of his demands, have been considered
compliance with those demands, and have
produced revocation of the Berlin decree?
Prejudice itself can scarcely be so hardy as