Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-08-29
"a dollars per annum.]

Il
learning and consideration Of the high Judge.
| and the lords ofappeals, to discover by what
order of blockade these fish boats could havs
been otherwise confscated II was q singu-
lar return for hostilely Selling Hanover; and
banishing British ships from the Prdssian
states Britain, evidently grasping the mo
nopoly OF the world, under the pretcxt of de-
tending her dominions and Commerce, uses
the occasional power Of her navy, to convert
the avails of that monopoly; into a sn6sfituse
for subsidies to coerce; to win and support
allies. She Disseminated to hair in this
case. Nay, she sfHf the hair.--Fish
to be eaten fresh, might be caught by the
Russians, because commerce does not result
from eating up the fruits of the national in
dustry, but fish, 10 de saited, might not be
caught, even by them, because commerce is
promoted by the sales, expectation & freight.
The neutral Danes; Hamburgers, Breme--
ners. and Oldenbergers, could not send their
own people and fishing boats in and out Of
their own neutral ports, territories and
rivers, to catch and salt fish, lest it should
enable them TO partake, in power, with the
British navy. This little act Of q. Britain
was wofded SO as erfressfs to distinguish.
the PrassaaRs, though for the sake of decen-
cy, 1t extended, by general words, to others.
The whole north of Europe, even blockadcd
neutrals and allies, were Permitted to nou-
rish themselves with fresh fish, bur not to-
trade in fish sailed.
We have next to render manifest, that the
British courts of admiralty have greatly Con-
tributed to the illegitimate injury, and to The
unjust detriment of the powers not engaged
in the war.
Neutral Hamburg ships have been unlaw-
fully condemned as frizes to British cruizers,
because taken in returning from neutral
Russian porto their own home, with neu-
trail cargoes, though the two mouths Of the
river Elbe were owned by the neutral Danes
and the neutral Hamburgers, the sovereigns
of the district of the Rihenbuttei or Rtzbut-
tel. The high court Of admiralty of Great
Britain undertook to infict the penalties Of.
the breach of a legitimate military and hos
tile blockade, dg0insf Tbs manifest rights of
the two independent states of Hamburg and
Denmark, In amity with Great Britain
This high-handed act was su5uersion of
The legal and Judicial order Of rte z1orid, was
calculated to deprive the neutral Hambur-
gers and Danes Of their ,gghf to trade in sup
plies, not only to France and her allies, but
to interior German neutrals and allies, Of
England, not maritime. The trade ofthese
neutrals and allies themselves, in the sales
of their own produce and manu- 6ctures to US,
and in the purchase of foreign goods, for
their own wants Of us and others, was also
Iiforcibly arrested. The dominions of the
crowns of Austria, Saxony, Denmark, and
other states, lie on the blockadedrivers Elbe,
Trave, Ems and Weser.
IN the memorable case OF the Charlotte.
catitain Cotin, taken so long before as Octo-
Der 1913, and never decided upon or con-
demned through the whole war, which was
ended by the peace of Amiens, in October
1908, the British court of admiralty appeals
st. %lxa IL e Ia
1901, and condemned the vessel, thus expli-
City proclaiming to France, that the govern
ment and admiralty tribunals of Great Bril-
tain, intended to deprive France, inthaf neso
zvar, of the benefits of neutral commerce, in
a greater degree, than in the former war of
the year 1898.
The British admiralty courts condemned
vessels which were not In their own proper
ports, orwithn the sphere Of their jurisdic-
! ton, which had not been done before. and
| which were even pronounced to be illegiti-
mate condemnations in the war OF 1793.--
This conduct also proved to France, that the
regard for law and judicial order and regu-
| larity in those courts, had shamefully decreas-
ed, and that this temper was not corrected
| by the British crown.
| The blockade of Havre de Grace and the
Seine, though communicated by lord Gren-
/ vile, to Mr.. King, as a mea8ure to freUe1t a
! French inpaSion, was made the basis Of Con-
dcmnation by the British admiralty tribunals,
perverting the constitutions and the objects
| of those courts, and coDfounding all ideas o1
i legitimate or proper blockades, with proper
or ordinary and even defensive cruising a.
gainst an enemy, to the extreme injury Of
neutral navigation and trade, and so as 70
ensure the just resentment Of adverse
| ~ belligerents, deprived, thereby, of The re-
guar benefits eftte pSdSes q mar among CT
vilized nations.
A new doctrine was set up and adopted in
tire admiralty, A ship, sailing from Yves;
India Island with true and positive bills of la
ding or contracts to deliver in the United
States and no other, real portledge bills OF
sailors contracts expiring there and no other
and under regular British on American
contract of insurance confined IN ha4p and
fIct 10 he ayTiUal in the United Stafes,% e.
ven after landing, settling duties and freight
and taking in goods under those and Other
new bills oflading, freight, policies, and des
tination TO an unblockaded port in Europe
were pronounced to be lawful prize, on apre
tence that the serond voyage was a part o
the first. This plea was first set up in tn
war which followed the peace Of Amiensy--
| The pretence, that the second of these tive
distinct voyages, was a continuity Of the FIRST
was against truth, reason, and law. DurinI
these very strange doings in the British
; courts of admiralty, the British admitted on
ships to be exempted from seizure for a des
D sIf a policy Of insurance made in Londo
: NTH me eo-oherotion NJ TIE subjects IF IA
: caItnTing teil.gcrert, is not accepted {
n prove the precise existence and legItimat
r Termination of the VOYAGE to the exclusion