Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1813-08-07

Wr6ster's Resolutions. !.
Mr. Monroe is now about to enter up
on The main question, and to prove that
the orders in council were not repealed
10 consequence of the revocation OF the
French cccrccs Let US yield him our
respectful attention, and listen whlle, he
speaks:
:" 1t appears by the documents refer
red to, tha, Mr.. Barlow lost no time, at.
ter having obtained knowledge of the
existence OF the French decree of the
2s,h Of A2rii, 1911, in demanding CO.
py of is..and transmitted it to NJ Rus
sell, who Immediately laid it before the
Britisa government, urging, Oh the
ground ct this pew proof of the repeal
OF the French d-crees, that the British
orders in council should be ,repes,ed.-
NJ Rassrlrs note 10 Lord Castlereagh
bears date on the 10th Of May; Lord
Castieteagh's reply on the esd, in which
he pr,uu5ed 70 submit the decree to the
consideration Of the Prince Regent. 1t
appears, however, that no encourage
ment was given at that time 70 hope that
tic orders in council would be repealed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
raises Their repeal did not take effect
nnii the 23I OF June, more than month
af:er the French decree had been laid
before ,be British government delay
indicating, IN itself, 1T period so mo-
naltous and critical, not merely neglect
but disregard of the French decree"
As Mr. Monroe has not attempted to
puzz.c US on this part of the subject
with Nj Fosters pGzzIng letters TO
him. in their puzziing correspondence,
as Mr.. Moproc's friends in congress at
tempted to puzzle the friends OF the re-
solution, (for il he had, he might, with
the lcgician Of Strrne, have led US the
same nee, that is from Burglsdccius
TO Thomas Aquinas, aud from Thomas
Aquinas To the deYil0 we will merely
thank MIR Monroe for his ci,ility, and
pass IN, combining ourselves precisely to-
what he has here advanced. He con-
tends that The orders in council could
not have been repealedin consequence
of the revocation of the French DEGREES,
for two reasons, LIST that when Mr. Rus
sell laid the repeal before the Brush
government, no encouragement was
given by Lord Castsereagh to hope that
tho orders would be repealed. But, o"
the other hand, neither does 1t appear
that any thing was sad to discourage
such hcpe, and the inference, there
focc, is Just as strong enc way as the
other Away with such trifling AND i'm
pertineOce. The second reason Is, that
thSc was such delay between RusselPs
communication and the repeal, as shew-
ed " Tot merely neglect but disregard Of
tho French decree" AS to this argu-
fncnt, Mr.. Monroe Stall answer it hin-
se!E, ADD that hope will be satisfactory
20 all parties. say nothing for the pre-
sent, cf the singular circumstances In
which Great Britain stood as 10 her adj
mia.stration, during the period OF delay
which he speaks of, as having passed
away without any notice being taken OF
Mr. Barlow's communication Mr.
Monroe cannot but know that she bad
no responsible ministry at that tine,
lust alter Mr. PerciYai's ASA ,sinatlon,
but was assiduously engaged in forming
one; aud that among their mrs: acts
afterwards, her ministry entered upon
the very business thus communicate.
,nd repealed the orders IN council But
as Mr. Monroe has furnished two COM
plcat answers to- his own argument,
avail noi myself of this fcct, conclusive
aud satisfactory as it is; but turn di
rect,y to.h;mself
On the Esd of June the Prince Regent
announced to che world, that the French
Emperor having promulgated that the
DEGREES Of Berlin and Milan were re-
pcaled, as TO the United States, the or
ders in council were consequently re-
peaked also. But our Secretary asserts
that the repe,I was nevertheless to be
sscrihed to other causes" | must nov
ask the favor Of the reader to skip over
. lew Paragraphs and accompany me 10
tbs, part of the report which treats of
the Duke Of Cadore's famous letter OF
the 5th of August, 1910.
{" l, ~ss objected that the declaration
Of the French government of the SIN "'
August 1910, was not such an act AS the
B selfish governE ent ought 10 have re
pardcd The Secretary of State is tho
ughIy satisfied that this objection is
altogether unfounAed. 1t was comwu-
nicated hy the Emperor through his
highest cificial organ, the Secretary OF
Foreign Nff;irs. to the minister plenipo-
Tertiary Of the United States at Paris
], is impossible to conceive an act more
toraial, authentic or obligatory on the
French government than that alluded
to-"
And again: