Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-11-11

A0iSu .iVr 10 Nl'AlolJ- ne rctaiallOit or u.
Britain was not therefore urged 10 the full ex-
ent OF her right, our pcOkibition of French
rade was not absolute but modified and in re-
urn for the absolute prohibition of all trade with
Jreat Britain, we prohibited not all commerce
with France, but all such commerce with France
AS sheHId not be carried on through g. Britain
II was evident that this system must prove
prcjudici'd TO neutral nations this calamity
was fcreseen, and deeply regretted Put the
INJURY to the neutral nation arose from the aa,-.
gression of France, which had compelled Great
Britain IN her Own defence to resort TO adequate
retalatory measures OF war. The operation
on the American commerce of those precauti-
ons which the conduct Of France had rendered
indispensable to our security, is therefore to be
aScrlbed 90 the unwarrantablc aggression of
France, and not to those proceedings on the part
OF Great Britain, which that aggression had rem
dered necessary and just
ihe object of our system was merely to coun-
teract an attempt to crush the British trad, c.
britain endeavored to permit the continent to
receive as large portion of commerce az might
be practicable through Great Britain; and all
her subsequent regulations, Snd every modi6-
cation OTHER system by new orders or modes Of
granting or Withholding licences, have been
calculated for the purpose of encouraging the
trade on neutrals through Great Britain, when
ever such encouragement might appear advan-
tageous to the general interests of commerce,
and consistent with the public safety Of the ma
ton.
The justification of his Majcsty's Orders in
Council, and the continuance of that defence
nave always been rested upon the existence of
the DEGREES ofIserlin and Milan, and Oh the per-
severance ofthe enemy in the system of hostili-
" which has subyertcd the rights of neutral
commerce on the continent; and it has always
been declared on the part ofhis Maiesty's gov
hat IL.
tectually repealed the dcctees of Berlin and
Milan, and should have restored neutral COM
merce to the condition in which it stood pre-
Fously to the PRONUNCIATION of those DEGREES,
we should Immediately repeal our Orders in
Council.
France has asserted that the Decree of Berlin
was measure of just retaliation on her part,
oc0asloned by our previous aggression, and the
French government has insisted chat our system
OF blockade, as il existed previously 10 the de
cree OF berlin, was a manifest violation of the
received law of nations; we must therefore, SIR
reiar to the articles Of the Berlin Decree TO find
the principles Of our system Of blockade WI oh
france considers 70 be new, and contrary TO the
law of nations.
). BY the 4th and 9Th articles it is seated as a
Justification Of the French Deere, thatsS Bri-
tam extends tuunfortised towns and CONNER
: eiai por.s, to haibcrs, and 70 the mouths ofrv-
: ers, those rights of block de, which by reason
: and the usage OF nations are appiicahie.oniy 30
: fortified places and that the Fights of bock-
AIDE ought to be limited 20 iortresscs really IN
vested by sufficient iorce'
II IS added ~ the same articles that C. Britain
has declared pisces 20 be in state ol boo al,
before which she has II. n snrte shin OF wa,
and evenplsces which, the whole British force
would be ms . eat 70 blockade, entirc COSTS
and a whole E.apige.'
Neither the practice of Great Rritain nor the
law OF nations has ever sanctioucd the role now
laid down by France, p,st no 5,iaee exceptnq
.ortrcsseS IN coniPlcat stats OF ipycatitule cah
be deemed iswiuiiy bloclsaded BY yea
1t such = rule were 70 DC Omitted it would
become nearly mpractics6le for C. Britain to
attempt the block Sc OF any port of ,he eonsi-
nent, and oar submission TO this perversioa OF
the law of nations, Nh.c Il would DESTROY one {
tic principal advantages Of our ma Auperio-
ritz, would sacrifice the common rigffy ana in
Lerests of all maratinlc states.
IL was evident tlist the blockade Of Nav fs06, /
WIS the princip1 pretended Qualification Q, the
Decree OF Berlin, though neither the principles
On which that .ockaGe was founded, nor its prac-
-ietl operation, afforded any cnlss for the pro-
;eediHgs of France
In point fdst. the blockade of Nav, 1906.
preceded the Berlin Decree; but il vas Just and
egal blockade according 20 the estsbi aed law
3 nations, because it was intended to be main
.ired, aud was actually maintained, by an
adequate force appointed to guard the ,thole |
coast described IN the notification, and
20 enforce the blockade
Great-Britain has never attempted 20 dis |
Pute that III the ordinary course Of the law OF
nations, no blockade can be justifable or va
nd unless it be supported by an adequate
force destined 70 maintain it, and to expose |
TO hazard ali vessels attempting to eyade it's |
operation. The blockade OF May, 1906, was |
notified by Mr.. Secretary Fox on this clear
nor was that blockade announced
until he had satisfied himself by communi-
cation with his Majcsfy's Board of Amralty, |
that the Admiralty possessed the means and
would employ them, Of watching the whole |!
coast from Brest to the Eibe, and of efectu-
ais enforcing the blockade.
The blockade Of May, 1906, was there
fore (according to the doctrine maintained
by Great-Britatn) just and lawful in It's ORR |
gin. because it was supported both in inten-
lion and fact by an adequate naval force
This was the Justification Of that blockade
until the period Of time when the orders in
council were issued.
The orders in council were founded on |
distinct principle. that of defensive retalia
ton. France had declared blockade 81
all the ports and coasts Of Great Britain, and
her dependencies, without assigning, or be-
ing able to assign any force to support thai
blockade such an act Of the enemy wonIc,
have justified a declaration Of the blockade
ofthe whole coast OF France, even withou,