The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-11-12

tention aud fact by an adequate naval force
ms was the justification OF that block adt
ii'iti the rellod OF time when the orders il
Gouucii were issued.
The orScrs i'll Council were founded on a
distinct principle, that CT defensive retalia-
ZION. France had declared blockade Of
81. The ports and coasts OF Great Britain,
| an" her dependencies, without assigning, or
ceiaS able to assign any force TO support
| that blockade. Slch IN act Of the enemy
would have justified a declaration of the
| blockade o. the whole coast OF France. even
without the application OF any particular
force 10 that service. Since the prorul-
CATION o. the Orders IL Council, the blocx-
acc Of May, 1906, has been sustained and
extended by the more comprehensive svs-
| tenn OF defensive retaliation ON which those
regulations are founded. But if the Orders
III Council should be abrcgatcd, the block
ade or May, 1906, could 40. continue under
cur construction OF the law OF nations, M
less that blockade should be maintained by
q due application OF ain adequate naval force
! America appears TO concur with France
IN asserting that Great Britain was the
original ag5Sfessor in the attack IN neutral
rights, and has particularly objected TO the
blockade OF May, 1906, as an obvious m
STANCE o. that aggression OH the part Of
Great Britain.
| Although the doctrines of the Berlin de-
cree respecting the rights of blockade, are
not directly asserted by the American
government, Mr.. Pnkmey's correspondence
would appear TO countenance the principles
on which those doctrines are founded. The
objection directly stated by America against
the blockade cf May, 1906, rests ON a SUI
| pcsiuon that 10 naval force which Great
britain possessed, or could have employed
Tor sucn purpose, could have rendered
that blockade eficCtuaI, and that there
lore 1t was necessarily irregular, and could
not possibly be maintained III conformity to
the Jaw OF nations.
I Reviewing the course of this statement. it
Will appear that The blockade of NAV. 1906.
Cannot be deemed Contrary to the law OF ma
ions, elmer under the objections urged by
the French, or under these declared or in
sihuateu by the American government, be-
Cause that blockade was maintained by a
suHcient naval force; that the decree of
Berlin was not therefore justified either
unuer Tie preteXt alleged by France, or I'M
Ger those supported by America, that the
orders i'll Council were founded Oh inst
principle OF defensive retaliation against the
violation Cf the law CT nations committed by
france IN the decree OF Berlin, mat the
blockade OF May 1906 is now included am
the more extensive operation OF the orders
III Council, and lastly that the orurry IL
council will net De continued be, ond the
ehecIual duration OF the hostile DEGREES Of
france, ntr Will the blockade Of Nav 1906
Commune after the repeal Of the orders in
council unless his Majesty's government
shall think 1T to sustain it by the special
| apphcnri1f 1T Sufficient naval fOTCe.
MS IaCC VIII hot be suffered 10 remain in
doubt; and if the repeal OF the orders in
council should take place, the intention of
MS maJcsty's government respecting the
blockade or May 1906 VIII be notified at
the same time.
need not recapitulate to you the senti-
ments OF Ills Majesty's government so often
repeated on the subject of the French
MINISTER'S note to Gen. Armstrong, dated
the 9th ct last Ang. The studied ambI
guity OF that note has since been amply ex-
planned by the conduct and language of
the government of France, of which one
OF the most remarkable instances is to be
found III the speech of the chef of the
French government On the 18th of last
month To certain deputies from the free
ciues or Hamburg, bremen, and Lubbock,
wherein ne declares that the Berlin and
Milan decress shall be the public code of
! France as long as England maintains her
orders III Council OF 1906 and 1907. Thus
prCnuuncihg as plainly as language Will
admit, that the system of violence and III
Justice Of which ne is the founder, viii
be maintained by him until the defensive
measures oi retaliation TO which they gave
rise On the part OF G.. Britain shall be aban-
doned.
II other proofs were necessary to shcw
the Continued existence of those obnoxious
DEGREES, they may be discovered in the Inn
peIiai Edict dated at Fontainbleau in Octo-
Der 10, 1910, thai monstrous production of
violence, IN which thcy are made the basis
OF system of general and unexampled ty-
ranhy and oppression over all countries
subject to, allied with, or within reach of
che power Of France III the report If the
French minister for foreign affairs dated
last December, and in the letter cf the
French Minister Of Justice to- The President
of the Council If Prizes. To this latter,
81, would wish particularly TO invite
your attention the date is The 25th Decetn-
Der, tnc authoIityit comes from most UNI
qUesuonab,e, and you will there find, sir,
the Duke OF flassl IN giving his inStruc-
tons TO the Council OF Prizes in conse-
! quence OF the President OF the United
States proclamation q Nov. 5, most cau-
! tlously avoiding 70 assert that the French
DEGREES were repealed, and ascriDing not
I 10 such repeal, but 90 the ambiguous pas
/ sage which he quotes al length from NJ.
/ Champagny's letter OF Aug. ). the new
atotudc taken b. America and = on Will
also ind an evidence III the sane lester
Of the Continued Capture of American hips
af;er NOV ombcr, e d under tho iccT1n and
/ Milan DEGREES, having been contemplated
.s.s q. r.-.r.f,