Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-07-19


explanation of the cause Of its not having
been communicated to this government ant
published at the time of its date, was ever
made to this government, or so far as IT j:
informed to the representatives or agents o1
the U. States i'll Europe. The Minister Of
France has been asked to explain the cause
of a proceeding apparently SO extraordinary
and exceptionable, who replied that his frs,
intelligence oftiat decree was received by
the Wasp. in letter from the duke of Bas-
sano Of May 10th, 1872, in which he express
ed his surprize excited by Mr.. Barlow's
CT Communication, that prior letter of May,
1871, in which he had transmitted a copy OF
the decree for the information this govern
ment had not been received. Further e2,-
plantations were expected from Mr.. Barlow,
but none were given. The light in which
this transaction was viewed by this govern
ment was noticed by the President in his
message TO Congress, and communicated al
50 TO Mr. Barlow in a letter of the 14th Juiy,
1872, with a view 10 the requisite explanati-
OH from the French government. On the
9Th day of May, 1912, the Emperor left Pa
ris for the North, and in two days thereaf-
ter the Duke of Bassano followed him. A
negotiation for the adjustment of injuries,
and the arrangement OF our commerce,
with the government OF France, long depen-
ding, and said 10 have been brought yearly
70 q conclusion, ct the time of Mr.. Barlows
death, was suspended by that event. His
successor. lately appointed, IS authorised to
resume the negotiation, and To conclude it.
lie is instructed to demand redress of the
French government ior every injury, and an
explanation of It's motive fcr withholding
from this government a Knowledge OF the
decree for so long time after its adoption.
It appears by the documents referred TO,
that Mr.. Barlow lost no time, after having
obtained knowledge of the existence OF
the French decree OF the 2Sih April, 1911,
in demanding copy of it, and transmitting
it to MIR. Russell, who Immediately laid il
before the British government, urgiag, on
the ground of this new proof of the repeal
OF the French DEGREES that the British or
ders in Council should be repealed. Mr.
Rcsseii's note to Lord Castlereagh bears
date OIL the Goth of May Lord Castle
reaSh's reply on the Esd, in which ne pro-
missed 70 sabmi; the decree to the consider
alton OF the Prince Regent. 1t appears how
ever. that no encouragement was given ct
that time to hope that the orders in council
would be repealed in consequence of that
decree; and that although it was afterwards
made the ground of their repeal, the repeal
was nevertheless to be ascribed to other
causes. Their repeal did not take effect UNI
til the Esd OF June, more than month al
ter the French decree had been l.id before
the British government /; adelay indicating
in itself, at a period so momentous and cri~
teal, not merely neglect but disregard OF
the French DEGREES. That the repeal of
uhe British orders in council was not pro-
daced by the French decree, other proofs
might be adduced. ! will state one, which
in addition TO the evidence Contained in the
letters from Mr.. Russell, herewith commu>
nicated marked G, is deemed conclusive
In the communication of Mr.. Baker to Mr..
Graham, on the 9Th August, 1912, which
was founded on instructions from his go-
vernment, OF as late date as the 18th June,
III which he stated, that an official dcclara.
ton would be sept To this country, proposing
conditional REPEAL of the orders in coun-
Gil, so far as they affected the u. s. no no.
ticc whatever WAS taken of the French de-
cree. Ohe OF the conditions then coBtem-
PLACED was, that the orders in council
should be revived at the end of 8 months,
unless the conduct Of the French govern
ment and the result OK the communications
with the government of the u. S. should
be such az in tile opinion OF the British go
Yernment to render their revival unneces-
sary Il condition which proves incontesti-
bly, that the French decree was not consi-
dered by the British government suffici-
ent ground on which TO repeal the orders in
council 1t proves also that on that day the
British government had resolved not to re-
peal the orders on the basis ofthat decree
since the proposed repeal was to depend
not on what The French government had al
ready done, but ON what it might do, and
on arrangements TO be entered into with the
u. States unconnected with the French re-
peal.
The French decree of the 2Sth April,
1911, was transmitted TO the u. States By
the Wasp, public vessel, which had been
long awaiting, at the ports Of Great Britain
and France, dispatches from our minister's
relating to these very important concerns,
with both governments. 1t was received ut
the Department Of State on the 18th July,
1912, nearly month after the declaration
OF war against Great Britain. Intelligence
CT the repeal Of the orders in council was
not received until about the middle Of the
following month. 1t was impossible, there
fore, that either of those acts, in whatever
lightthey mightbe viewed, should have been
taken into consideration, or have had any
influence in deciding OH tina. important G.
yent. 1
Had the British government been dispes-
ed TO repeal It's orders in couHcils y. COR.
forinity with the principle on whieaSit g,ff'-
fesSed to have issued them, and on tsie COR
dition which it had itself prescrfbeds there
was no reason to delay the repeal until such
decree as that Of the 23th April. 1911,
sheuld be produced The Declaration of