Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1812-06-18
MR.. RANDoLPH's SPEECH
CONCLUDED.

.,bat seagnen call an iron-bound coast. Il
had been bIockaded ID every war during tue
last century, that short period OF the American
war excepted, when England lost the maste-
~ Of the CHANNEL No British minister wou! a
be suffered TO hold his place who shonlo IAN
strictly TO watch the opposite coast OF France,
Brest, her principal naval arsenal protruoeo
.opt into the Atlantic Ocean, confessed the
xapt5 &c suitable harbors for ships OF war In
the channel while from Plymoutn' FortsT
mouth and the mouth OF the Thames the oP-
posite coast is. easily watched and overaWen,
From Calais tothe Elbethe coasts low, tiataifd
shelving, difficulto access, aHording few good
inlets, indeed none except the Schsi6t. ne
blockade of this coasts as easy as that OF "a
rolipa. But ii mustnot pass unnouced that the
blockade was in point offact, Gas appears from
Mr. Monroe's letters to Mr.. Madison OF the
I7th and goth of May 1860 limited to the
small extent of the coast between HaVre
ard Ostend neutrals being permltted to
trade. freely, to eastward OF Ostend, and
westward of the mouth the Seine except
IA articles contraband of war and enemies
nro,er,v which are seizable without block
ade., And Mr.. Monroe, In announcing this
very Dl0CkaQS OF MA! lo1 AONSi ~ 49,
government, speaks OF 1t as a measure mighty
satisfactory to the commercial interests. And
vet the removal of this blockade against which
Mr.. Monroe did not remonstrate, OF which
there was no mention in the subsequent ar
rancement of Mr.. Erskine, which did not
stand in the way of that arrangement OF which
no notice was taken in our proposition to
Fnoland for a mutual Abandonment OF our
EMBARGO and her orders In council, is moTv by
French device and contriyance to be made
sine AUG non, an indispensable preliminary to
all accommodation with Great Britain.
MIR. Randolph had heard with sincere sa-
t;sfaction many respectable gentlemen IN the
House and out of it express wish, that, by
revocation ofthe orders In council, the british
ministry would put it in the power OF our go
syernn,ent TO come to some adjustment of our
differences with England The position
which he was about to lay down, and the PROOF
nc yhich the course of his argument had COM
pelled him in some degree to anticipate how
ever it might startle persons OF this descflP-
4ion, was nevertheless susceptible or the most
direct and positive evidence Little did those
gentlemen dream, but such was the mdSputa-
HE fact, that the orders In council had not
stood in the way of accommodation, and that
their removal at this moment would not salts
f. our administration. In Lord WelleSley's
letter TO MIR. Pinkney of Dec. 20, 1910, he
savs--a Ifnothing more had been required OF
Great Britain, for the purpose of securing
tbe continuation Of the repeal OF the French
DEGREES than the repeal OF our orders In
council should not have hesitated to declare
the perfect readiness of this government to
fnI6lt that condition. On these terms the Bril-
fish government has always been seriously
disnosed to repeal the orders IN council. It
annears however, not only by the letter OF the
French minister but by your eXplanauon, that
the repeal of the orders In eounch VIII not
satisfy either the French or the American 60
ycrnments. The British government is fur-
Their required by the letter OF the french MI
mister To renounce those principles OF blockade
which the French government aiiedges TO De
new" A..
This fact is placed beyond doubt, by Mr.
pinkney's answer of the 4th January, 1911
g TT comprehend the other parts OF your
Lordshipss letter, ssays he, they declare IN
effect that the British Government, q9A reheat
nothing b.., the Orders in Council, and a.
gain C II is certainly true that the American
Government has required as indispensable IN
the view of its acts of intercourse and non-ln-
tercouyse, the annnlment of the British block
ade of May 1906
Thus when the British government stood
pledged to repeal its Orders IN Councll' a
question entirely distinct, has been dexterons-
" mingled with it in our discussions with
England the pronunciation of the right OF
blockade in the face of Mr.. Madlson's con-
struction of the non-intercourse law, and OF
Mr.. Smiths instructions TO General Arm
strong of July 5. and ID November, $40, mas
been declared indispensable IN the view OF that
act, and there is the fullest admission that
more than the repeal of the Orders In Council
vas required viz. of that blockade, against
which We had not lifted our voice, until re-