Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-05-13

light, in two words.-We all avowed, that a
Themselves considered, our Orders in Council
were violation of the neutral rights OF Anne
RIGA but, we asserted that they were JUSTIFIED
By the violation of those same rights commit.
ted by Napoleon ; and we declared we woult
cease our violation the moment France ceaset
| hers. France did cease we had, according
to our own declaration, proof that France hao
y! ceased before we made the repeal. We ther
ceased but put it to the common sense the
reatcr, whether this cessation ought to be
called 4 CONCESSION. Thus, according to
| our own doctrine according To our own diplo
matte correspondence; according TO our own So
! lemn acts, the Orders themselves and the de
ciaraton OF repeal according to all these, We
| made NO CONCESSION at All to America
| Why, then, talk about concessions 1t may
| have an effect here but, assredis, it will hare
1 none in America, where the government "A go
vernmcnt chosen b. and resting upon the free
and ulbought voice of the people have con-
stantly protested against our Orders in Coun-
Gil as an open and gross violation OF the known
and acknowledged rights of America, and us
receiving not ashadow of justification from the
violent snd unjust conduct OF France. rotalk
| therefore OF concessions seems TO me 10 be some
| thing intolcrable but, To expect that the pco-
pie OF America would, after the solemn deci..r-
alton OF Congress to tile contrary; to expect
that they would disarm upon our ceasing to
| NtoiNiC OHcOi titlE WING Il Slill more
J grave subject of complaint existed; to entera
| tar, sucn an expectation as this, appears un-
| accountable upon any suppostion than that of
! our ministers and members of parliament be-
! ing wholly deficient III knowledge relative TO
| the opinions and feelings of the American peo-
| pie, and the means OF the American govern
| ment. Besides, there was another considerable
on connected with the repeal of the Orders in
| Council and that by the repeal we merely an
i NJ ttNto As.N,,t< IL
| We said nothing about compensation for the
past. This was very material; Tor, it was i'm
! possible II should be overlooked by the Ameri-
| can government, without an abandonment of all
| the principles upon which it had resisted the
| Orders in Council. i also pointed this out at
| the time, for which was treated as fool and
! friend OF France by Scotch newspaper.
! The manufacturers of Paisley, WILL by this
| time have discovered that was better friend
OF England than their impudent couutrymcn
| and that foresaw an obstacle to peace which
| had escaped the eyes of both the parties in
| parliament for, Lord Castlereagh now tells us,
| that such compensation was demanded as a pre-.
| limnary to cessation of bostlites. 9" The
| Orders in Council he said, "were notu who'll
| ly out of the question, by the owe rture for an
armstice on both sides; but even on the ground
| of the repeal of the Orders in Council, the A.
| mercan government had pressed the matter
Il
/ amicable arrangement MIR Russell had put
in claims TO have indemnity for al! captu,es.
BY our crnisers under The Orders in Council since
| 1896. He did not say that this might nor have
| been given up, but, the question stood, 1T
| evidently appeared that America had shewn no
disposition TO be satisfied with the .for6earasce
of this country" Well, if this nrighr have been
Sioen mp on our side, why not giveitup at Jfrsf,
| and what it would do However, the de-
1 u1lnd ua m te and 4 eatd wnuf
| be made. The American government could not
| avoid making it, without exposing Itself to
! the detes;aton OF the people, as base aban-
| doner of thcirrights tights so long commended
| for, and sought 10 be redressed by means OF
| so many aud such large sacrifices. Now, our
! ministers and Mr.. tonsonby and Mr.. Brougb-
(. am ought to haze foreseen that this demand
would be made. In not foresceing ii, they
| Showed want of knowledge as to tie circum-
| stances in which America stood with regard
| to France, from whom she was, and still is, de
manding indemnity upon exactly the same
| principle that she makes the demand on US
! The reader cannot be too often reminded of
| tie origin and nature of the Orders in Council
| They arose, as we alIedge, out oft he French de
crees oil Berlin 4 Milan, the two places at which
! the Emperor was when he signed them. These
| DEGREES violated neutral rights on the sess ;
| but it was declared in the preaml;les 10 them
| that this violation was rendered necessary by
| certain orders in Council of England which
| enforced a greater violation OF neutral rights.
| We, upon the appearance Of these DEGREES, is.
| sued other Orders in Council. enforcing other
| violations of neutral rights. Both part es were
| complained of by America. Both parties call
their measures yeialiafory. Both parties al.
iOsVed that their measures vioiated neardirighfs.
| Both parties said they regretted that the mea
| sures had been (orceG upon them. Each party
l ed oyC n M owe
Tenn manner, that the moment the other reno.
Ved or relaxed his measures, lie should find q
| joyful imitator in the party declaring
America protested against the conduct of both,
She said to MS that bad no right 10 violate her
rights because they were violated by France and to
France slle said, that she had norght to violateher
rglts because they we're violatcdby us. At last TO
pat the sincerity of the two parties 10 the test she
passes law which says, that il, before the 1st Of
| November, 1910, both parties have repealed their
DEGREES, their commercial and friendly intercourse
with her shall continue that Il one party does re-
peal and the other does not repeal by that DAY, then
| her ports shall be shut against the nOu.repcang
/ power in Feb. 1St1.-NapoeOn, in the month OF
August. 1910, Issued decree, by which his viola
! ting DEGREES stool repealed the ist of the fol-
| lowing Nov This new decree was communicated
| tn our ministers by The American minister in Jon-
don, who expressed his hope that agrecably to our
many solemn declarations we should hasten to fol-
| low the example OF France. Our ministers answer
elin sort OF vague way, but at any rate they did
/ MT rebcai aud ia February. 1911, the law vent
| Into elect against Our goods and our vessels
| shut out Of the American ports, while those
J Of France were admitted. We asserted, that Ma
| polenn had not repealed his dscrecs. America as
serted that I've had, but we would not believe her.
We insisted, that she did not know tic fact nearly
| 50 well did. Ia short we continued 10 refuse
to repeal At last, the great distresses and cousc
quent complaints of the manufacturers led to an IN
quiry, at the bar Of the house Of commons, into te
| effects OF the orders in council when such mas,
| Of evidence was produced by Mr.. Drougham in sup