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

will now fly, who have constantly la.
bored to impose belief upon the pab-
lie mind, that the British orders in
lcoQncil were only rstaliating measures.
Th13ast correspondence places the
lque3ion on narrow grounds. We
have now the facts authenticated in
che most formal manner. Mr.. Arm
strong calls ON the duke of Galore to
know what conditions the Berlin de-
cree would be revoked upon. The
answef of the French minister is clear
and AEplicit. Z" The only condition
required will be the previous revoca.
ton by the British governments, of her
blockades OF France, or part of France
(such as that from the Elbe to Brest,
&c. } of date anterior to the Berlin
decree"
This is the frank and explicit an.
swer; let England repeal her paper
blockades, which preceded and were
the cause of the Berlin decree, and the
Berlin decree shall he also repealed.
There is no subterfuge, no diaiculsy,
no ambiguity in this. The orders of
council to which he refers as antece-
dent, was particularly that of the 10th
lIay, 1906; the Berlin decree was is
sued in the November following.
Here we have the question settled
between the American minister and
the FSench minister, and had the Bri.
fish Ssernment been seriously dispo-
sed render us justice or to do any
thing u tyrannize over the commerce
of the world, lord Wellesley might, by
barely disavowing the existence of
those blockades which gave riae to the
Berlin decree, have put an end to the
question at once.
But it was not to be expected from
the justice or policy of Great Britain.
and it required man as feeble minded
as Mr.. Pinkney, to expect it, much
less to seek it in manner SO abiect.
General Armstrong directly dispatch
ss this answerto Mr. Pinkney, who af.
ter palavering and powowing with the
great nabob, about subject which
there is not man who can read could
have the least doubt about; after learn
ling the fact from the lips of lord Wei
lesley, he returns home, and writes hin,
letter asking the same question.
| A question which he not merely un.
derstood already, but which the per.
son addressed had.~eviousIy answer.
ed in personal discourse. He asks
"Whether any, and if any, what block.
"ades of France instituted By G.. Bri.
"tain during the present war and be.
"fore the 1st of January 1907, are now
in force ?"
Here the Question determines by it.
answer the principal fact, SO long ridi.
culously disputed as to the priority oil
the British orders of council, while i,
detsyIJines also, that these orders o.
coureA have continued and still CONT
nue. In force, and this too after. the So
Tenn declaration of Mr.. Erskine to the
contrary.
But +" my lord Wellesleys coon
clears up the honcst doubts of Mr..
finkney, by declaring in these words,
The coasts, rivers, and ports from
"the Elbe to Brcst inclusive, were no.
tihed to be under blockade TN. B.
this took place during the adminis,ra,i-
on of lord Grenvillc and Charles T.
FOX Son the 10Th May, 1905, and
these restrictions were afterwards
comprshended in the orders of coun.
Gil of the 9TH January, 1907, which
order is still in force.''
This it is presumed is tolerabIy ex.
plicit and clear to plain common men.
1t is said that ambassadors should
be all ears and eyes, what shall we
say to MIR Pinknsy, who could no,
understand the words "were notified
to be IN blockade on the 18Th May,
and afterwards comprshended in o.
tlsesArders, which are still in force. -
Mr. 6nkney answers and says, 81
infer HPp your answer that tits not In
iorce," although lord Wellesley ex-
lPres-!y says it is, and that it is even
comprehended in another subsequenr-
| ly issued.
But not content with "inferring,"
what perhaps no other man on earth
could conceive to be reasonable infer
ence; he either endeavors to provide
a bubble for lord Wellesley or for
| himself. bV irotp,at.ro, &C., 49,. ,hoe