Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-06-22

nd; neutrals being permitted to trade, ,
eely, eastward of Ostehd, and westward !
the mouth OF the Seine, Except in articles
ontraband of war and enemies property
which are seizible without blockade ?" And |
Mr.. Monroe, in announcing this very block
lde OF May 10, 1906, to his own government
speaks OF 1t as measure highly satisfactory
10 the commercial interests. And vet the |
removal OF this blockade against which Mr.. |
Monroe did not demonstrate, of which there |
was no mention in the subsequent arrange
Inent of Mr.. Erskine, which, did not stand |
IN the way of that arrangement, of which no
notice was taken in our proposition to Eng
land for a mutual abandonment of our en-
barge and her orders in council is no4v
by French device and Continuance to be made
sine qua non, an indispensable pre,imina-
~ to all accommodation with G.. Britain.
Mr.. II. had heard with sincere satisfaction
many respectable gentlemen in the House
and out OF it express wish, that, by a re-
vocation of the orders in council, the British
ministry would put it in the power of our
government to come to some adjustment of
our differences with England. The position
which he was about to lay down, and the
proof of which the course oc his argument
had compelled him in some degree to anti
this description, was nevertheless suscepti-
tle of the most direct and positive evidence.
little did those gentlemen dream, but such
was the indisputs,ble fact, that the orders
Sn council had not stood in the way of ac-
tommodation, and that their removal at
this moment would not satisfy our admin
jstration. In Lord Wellesley's letter to Mr..
Pinkney of Dec. %, 1910, he says-"lf no.
thing more had been required of G. Britain,
for the purpose of securing the continuation
of the repeal of the French DEGREES, than
the repeal of our orders in council, / should
not have hesitatcd to declare the perfect rea-
illness of this government to fulfil that condi-
tion. On these terms, the British government
has always been seriously disposed to repeal
the orders in council. 1t appears, however,
not only by the letter of the French minister,
but by your explanation, that the repeal of
the orders in council will not satisfy either
the French or the American governments
The British government is further required
by the letter ofthe French minister, to re-
pounce those principles of blockade which
tie French government alledges to be new"
This fact is placed beyond doubt, by Mr..
Fmkney's answer of the 18th January, 1911.
g If l comprehend the other parts Of your
lordship's letter." says he, " they declare
In effect that the British Government 7uiH
gefieai nothing 6ut The orders in counciP'--
and again, 1t is certainly true that the A
,uerican government has required, as in
dispensable in the view of its acts of inter-
course and non-intercourse, the annulment
ut the British Blockade of MAY 1867
Thus, when the British government stood
pledged to repeal its orders in council, a
question entirely distinct has been dexter
ously mingled with it in our discussions with
England the remuneration of the right of
blockade in the face of Mr.. Madison's con-
struction of the non-interCourse law, and of
Mr.. Smiths instructions to General Arm
strong of July S, and I'd November, 1910,
has been declared indispensable in the view
of that act, and there is the fullest admissi-
on that more than the repeal of the Orders
in Council was required viz. OF that block
ade, against which we had not lifted our
coice. until required TO do so by France,
which Mr.. Monroe $50 far from remonstra-
ting against it, which it would have been
his duty to have done if illegal,) considers
IS as highly satisfdctory to The commercial
interests" A Blockade as legal as would
be that of the ports of Chesapeake, with a
sufficient force stationed in Lynn Haven
Bay. What is alegal blockade! A block
ade with such a force as renders the APP
proach OF merchant vessels dangerous
Mark the wonderful facility with which Mr.
Pinkney not only blends the question of the
blockade OF May 1906, with the repeal of
the Orders in Council but shews his DIS
position to go II he could, the whole length
of the French doctrine Of blockade doc
rrine unheard OF before the reign of Bona
parte. g 1t is by no means clear that it may
hot f:irly be cuntended on principle and ear
" usage that maritime blockade is incom-
plete with regard to states at peace, unless
the place which it affects is inDeated by land
as yell as by sea-" And yet in this same
letter he says, You imagine that the re-
peal is not to remain in force, unless the
British government, in addition to the revo-
cation of its orders in council, abandon it's
system of Blockade am not Conscious of
having stated. as your lordship seems to
think, that this is so, and believe in fact
that it is otherwise. Even if it were admit
ted, however, the orders in council ought
nevertheless to be revoked" The Ameri-
can doctrine of blockade is expressly laid
down in Mr.. Smiths letter to commodore
Prebe Of the 18th of February, 1904. "When-
ever therefore you shall have thus formed
a blockade of the port of Tripol { so as te
create AN evident danger OF entering it,
you will have right to capture for adiuca-
lion any vessel that shall attempt to enter
with a knowledge of the blockade" The
very same doctrine against which, at the in
litigation Of France, we are now about tc
plunge into war.
Mr.. Randolph said he was compelled t.
omit many striking proofs of the truth of hi
positions, from absolute weakness and ina.
biity to read the yeluminous extracts from
the documents befare him. IF the offel
should be made Of repeal Of the orders o
Council, which our people at home, gooC
easy soals, supposed to be the only obstacle
che ,ucnlnd as AFTER the Accommodation n