Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-04-01

convey to you by special messen-
ger:
ANSWER.
"The only conditions required for
the revocation, by his majesty the en-
peror, of the decree OF Berlin, will be a
previous revocation by the British 60
vernment, OF her blockades of Franc e.
or part of France (such as that from
the Elbe to Brest, &C.. of date an
terror to that of the aforesaid decree. %
In page ~ we have the statement of
Lord Wellesley to Mr.. Pinkney:
81 have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your note of the 18th ul-
timo, wherein you request to be in
formed whether any, and if any, what
blockades of France, Instituted by c.,
Britain during the present war. before
the first day of January, 1907, are un-
derstood by his majesty's government
to be in force? I have now the honor
to acquaint you, that the coast, rivers
and ports from the river Elbe to Bresl.
both inclusive, were notified to be I'M
der the restrictions of blockade, with
certain notifications on the 18th of
May, 1906 and that these restrictions
were afterwards comprehended in the
order of council of the 9TH of January.
1907, which order is still in force.n
In page II of the correspondence.
Lord Wellesley declares, in a letter to
Mr.. Pinkney-
The blockade, notified by Great
Britain In May, 1906, has never been
formally Withdrawn. 1t cannot, there
fore, be accurately stated, that the res
trictions which it established, rest all
together on the order of council of the
9TH OF January, 1907 they are COM
pretended under the more extensive
restrictions of that order. No other
blockade of the ports of France was
instituted by Great Britain, between
the 10Th of May, 1906, and the 9TH of
January, 1907, excepting the blockade
OF Venice, Instituted on the 9th of Ju-
ly, 1906, which is still in force"
From this, sir, it appears, that if we
are to credit the President, the Secre-
tary Of State, General Armstrong, the
Due de Galore, and the British minis
ter, Lord Wellesley, the demand was
confined to the blockade of 1906. Was
this blockade such violation of the
neutral rights of the United States as
to come decidedly within the act of
the last session? Let us examine its
features. This blockade is com.
pound one, presenting three distinct
characters.
1. 1t obstructs trade from one
port to another of the same enemy
France for example. This trade has
been denied latterly though not for
merly, by Great Britain, to be free to
neutrals. The United States assert
the neutral right to it.
2. 1t obstructs a trade from the
port OF one enemy, to the port of ano.
ther.-From a French to a Dutch
port for example. This is principle
not before asserted by Great Britain.
The present cabinet of Great Britain
commended against its conformity to
the law Of nations, in opposition to
their predecessors, who attempted to
justify the orders of January, 1907,
on that principle.
3. It obstruets the direct trade of
neutrals from their own country to a.
ny part of the coast from the Elbe to
Brest, coast not less than thousand
miles. For this part of the blockade
there can he no defence which 10 not
applicable to the orders in council.
This blockade has been continued for
four or FIVE years.--No force, either
adequate or inadequate, has been sta.
toned, for carrying it into effect. No
new notification has been given. 1t
is in fact, like the orders in council, a |
permanent regulation of commerce, |
and has nothing Of the character of a |
blockade, except the mere name. This
blockade consists in great part of the