the wilmington gazette 12tu year ytyyii mj ngton n c tl/ssday june 28 1808 ._-,_-.-..,.- a _. l f-/'ss-*rj-js+''s'*>''j-j r if''''-'s-''~*~-s-*'j *-._--./-./-«/■.- published every tuesday by al t ' mandhall ' at three dollars a year payable in advance or four dollars if not paid within a year number 599 furd to takeiny other notice of it had this policy been flow adopted our trade might have goxlp on bundling as it did fubfequent to and io fp-'te of the french decree which might tiave been poflcd on the piazzas and pods of p-jris but which would ve remained a dead lener and been laughed at by the world how was it now } france had faid that american veflels coming from the ports of this coun try fhould be confiscated and we had de clared that if they did nor fird come to our posts they fhould be liable to capture — thus we had rendered it impofli-tlc for the americans to carry on any trade ; we had driven their commerce from their ports and from the fyllem adopted by the miniflers it feemed as if we fhould foon try the effects of theory fupported in a pamphlet lately publifhed that britain could flourilli independent of commerce the fyllem of miniders in theft regula tions forcibly reminded him ofa circurri f la nee which a hurt time fince occured ia ireland he did not mean any national reflection for he highly refpected the generous and brave character of the na tives of that part of the united king dom but although dilplaying much geni ous they were fumeiimes deficient in precifion a banker in that country who was also a magistrate having offended a number of persons by his punishing one of them who had been concerned in a riot they unani mously agreed to retaliate upon him and after some consideration it was also agreed lhat the most effectual mode of doing this would be to burn as many of the note issued fiom his bank as they could collect by which measure of retaliation the ban ker was a gainer of between 30 and 40 0001 he hoped their lordships would not sanction a systemof retaliation similar in its principle to this irish measure which it should be recollected was adopted by those who had derived little advantage fro n edu cation snd who had but little knowledge of the world their lordships on the contrary were statesmen legislators and men of the world the noble lord contended that one nation had no right to alter the law of na tions ; applying this to the orders in council which id alter the law of nations and quo ting opinions of sir william scott sir dud ley ryan lord mansfield and mr murry then attorney-general and other high legal authorities to prove this point ; k also what was considered the law of the land with res pect to the law of nations his lordship also quoted the work of thejearl of livcrpool.ves pecting the maritime confederacy where the tame argument was mged he hoped that lhat nob.e earl would not live to see the place from whence he had taken his title and which had risen by commerce from a fishing village this argument was besides deducihle both from policy and the reason of the thing what became of the arguments against the maritime confederacy if it were to be allowed that one power had a right to alter the law of nations ? those arguments were founded upon a principle express ly the contrary the marhirne rights of britain had become by long usage incorporated with the law of nations ; it was therefore contended and justly contended that no power had a right to make a new law con trary to these rights . t.hose powers who entered into the maritime confederacy were forced for those who were in the wrong were generally obliged to support themselves hy the same k'^d of arguments to set aside pti-ftadorfr grotius vatel and die other writeri onth'elaw of nation and set up ar guments oflneir own wl-nily contradictor to these established principles ; aud in the same manner he heard that in another place puffendorff grotius vattel and oilier wri ters had been set asi.'e in argument for the purpose of introducing a new law of nations to attempt to introduce such j new law would ke inejfect inhoiluiing a principle which would tend 1 1 barbarize the world the decisions of our courts of admiralty had been inv_m0_liy found on the principle that one power could not alter the law of nations without the con sent of the whole those decisions had been looked to by all europe as being strict ly conformable to the law of nations and 1 had been described by an eminent writer a the most worthy to be regarded because they could not be influenced by the order of the sovereign or the caprice of a minister now the great principles upon which theses decisions were founded wer to be wholly subverted a new law of nations was to b introduced by this country and made sub servient to our own convenience this new law was to be found in these orders in courw cil which stated in their preamble as the reason for issuing them that there had been an increased rigor in the execution of the french lecree in order to support this as sertion it should have been proved first that there was a rigor ; and then that that rigor was increased ; this assertion in the preamble could alone authorise the execu tion of those orders in courts of admiralty contrary to the established law of nations and yet the documents laid before the bouse by ministers wholly failed in proving thi very assertion which mu9t form ihe ground of carrying the orders into effect hut then it was said that all this was done under the authority ofthe king's war prerogative the law of nations was only operative int time of war and it were an absurdity in rea soning and a contradiction in principle to say that it could be abolished by the king war prerogative ; that that which only existed in force in time of war could bc stifled itt its birth could bc in its very origin abroga ted by an opposing prerogotive which also derived his existence - from the same source his lordship quoted statutes of the reign o_f edward iii and richard if to prove t$ac by the distinction there made between the property of denizens foreigners and ene mies that the principles of the law of na tions as existing in time of war were even then clearly understood and seemed in hi opinion to negative the coun*er operation of any such prerogative in latter times alsc such a prerogative had not been exercised in 1609 upon an emergency queen ann called her parliament together it not seem ing to be conceived at that time that sho could exercise any such prerogative he could not conceive that it existed now in the manner prescribed ia support of those orders if however these orders were thought se necessary to ministers why did they not communicate them in due season to ameri ca i instead of this mr monroe was suf fered to sail and mr rose was sent there without being informed of the intention of issuing them a pacific mission was sent and in the mean time our ships were ent out to capture american vessels or to force them into our^prts why was this resor ted to thuttwas no secret expedition there was no necessity for concealing infor mation of an expedition directed against ships not rigged we had forced america io resort to an embargo in ber own defence ; lo keep her vessels in her own harbors to prevent their being captured and thus to cause the great em distress for want of that trade which had been to them and to us so greatly beneficial he contended that every power had a right to make laws with respect to the entrance of vessels into its own harbors and in »' . * paint of view the provision in the or •*"* council with respect to certificates uers ! n his opinion unjust another nv - w . as ' . in able point was the warning st objection aid on a former night th * l hud been tended to compel ame t lhis »" " ot in * into our ports but 4 - ican vessells to come sed return to the t t might if they plea he considered i ' e own ports t vas this to cans ? the ** satisfactory to the ameri and they / come u p * tra ling voyage intern * r ': to y u cannot gc » where you p 0 ,. ed without first coming into a british . it but you maf if you j ilease return flome if when he practised in the court o the following speech en the fubjeft of the orders in council is intcrciting ftom the view which it takes of tbe flag rant idjuttice of thefe orders and of the confequences that mu(i inevitably enfue if the miftaken policy at prefent purfued by the britifh minifiry is per mitted in wc recommend it to the perufal of cur readers lord erflur.e rofe and in a moft elo quent and brilliant fpeecb of upwards of two hours of w.iich we regret being un able to give more than a faint outline took a luminous view of the law of na tions which he contended was violated by the orders in council the que(t<on itis lord(hip obferved which the hon ft bad now to decide was one of the grcat ttt importance that could occupy the at tention of the legiflature it was no lefs than whether placed in that proud pre-eminence on which we had hitherto flood we fhould continue that courfe of conduct towards other nations marked byjuftice honor and good faith which bad hitherto characterised this nation ; or whether we fhould now defcend from that exalted fit uation and declare to the world that the injudice of fra ce fhould become a general injuftice and that ail thofe moral lan&ior.s which had hitherto fop ported laws from whence the nations ofthe world had derived fecurity and hap pinefs fhould be at once abrogated and annulled ? let him not be told upon fuch a qucftion ofthe order in council of th 7th of january and that that was a juftih cation of thefe orders let him rot be lold of what the preceding adm'oidratioti had done let not jiny fuch argument be advanced this was not a quedion be tween two adminidrations — a quedion between adminiftratio.i and the public between them and the nations ot the world all of whom anxioufly looked to the tlecifwns of that houfe and of parlia ment upon this momentous fubjecl two of the resolutions he intended .«.< propofc went to the point that the power of legiflation was veded exclufively in the king by and with the advice of parlia ment but that the king had no right in council to alter or fufpend any law ex cept in cafe of certain emergency and then that parliament ought forthwith to be called together to conftder of fuch e mergency how was it in this cafe _*— parliament inftead of being called toge ther were further prorogued at the time thefe orders in council were iftucd the nlfiftance of parliament might have been immediately had ; parliament was at the threfhold and ready to enter their chambers but miniders chofe to fend them back and to lfgiflate without them ; and now after all this they came to parliament to give effect to the orders which they chofe to iflue without the au thority of parliament when they might ftavchad that authority he would foon cr throw the patent by which he came there as a peer of the realm into the fire than confent to fancvion the exercife of fuch a power in the crown as had been advifed by miuift^rs who when they had done this art had now come to parlia ment to eke out the meafure and to add legiqativc enactments to what had been done without regard to the authori ty of parliament this aft bad alfo been flbtic in violation of the law of nations which was a part of the law of the land under which neutrals had hitherto traded to our ports in fecurity the'f tra.tc and the property embarked in it having been protected by the law ot the land — the law of naticjiis confided of tbofe lord erskwe's speech provifjons which had been agreed upon by nations for mutual fecurity and prottdtion which had been in many inllanccs con firmed by treaties a didin&ion had been attempted to betaken on a turner e vening between the taw of nations and the ufa^cs of nations : he apprehended however that the former grew in a great decree out ofthe latter tliis law had been found mutually be neficial had been mutually fanclioned & clearly defined and had according tu the opinions and decifiom of eminent lawyers become a part of the law of the land he did noi mean to contend that the law of nations did net give to a bellige rent the light of retaliating upon another belligerent ; but in what way i iuftead ofthe complex fenfe which had been giv en to the word retaliation let its real meaning be looked to as deduced from its derivation ; it would th«n be found that it meant the doing a like a<_f to the enemy which he did to us an infer ence had been drawn from this interpreta tion on a former evening that we were therefore to ad prccifely in the fame man ner as the enemy ; and that if he violated a neutral territory in order to make a more convenient attack that we were to follow him ffep by ftep ; no fuch thing if a truck him he had a right to drike a not for the fake of hiking but in order to prevent him from continuing the attack ; but was ic becaufe he was truck by a that therefore he was to trike b ? sj wc had a right to retaliate the violence or ihe injii-iice of france but wc had no right to nuke an attack upon the innocent and unoffending neutral if a neutral vo luntarily acquit feed in and agreed 10 car ry into elfect an ad of hodilify by one belligerent againft another then fhe be came a p^rty in the war if alfo a neu tral was fo weak that he mult fubmit to the evils of one belligerenr and the belli gerent aclually proceeded to carry intoef fe his hodi'c defigns by means of the weaknefs of the neutral then an aft of re taliation hy the other belligerent mud in volve the neutral he would not howe ver fatigue their lordfhips by citiig fup pofed cafes but would go at once to the cafe of america : it was clearly proved that america had noi acquiefced in tbe berlin decree but had remonflrated a gain(l it ; and was it to be believed that at theditiance of upwards of three thou fan-t miles america was to be compelled by france with fcarcely any navy to aflifl in carrying he french decrees into execution but what could judify the ad of retaliation ? nothing but the ex ecution ot the obnoxious decree it rnuft be executed ojuflify retaliation it was nothing that the french emperor chofe to iltue a bold ing decree he had not the means of carrying it into effect he had not veflels to cxecu.e it wc it framed had determined to fupply veflels and to capture our own goods upon the ocean the french emperor could not dtftroy the trade of neutrals for want of vellels but we were to put the fin idling hand to it america with a tonnage amounting to half our own carried on a trade to every quarter of thk globe took 10,000 oool cf our xporn fend carried them aud would have continued to carry thrm to the ports of the enemy in fpite of the de cree but our orders in council mud put an end to this trade and reduce america to did refs for want of the means of difpo fing of her produce when a meafure in fomc degree fimilar was retorted to by the french government in the year i795 a right hon gentleman then in adminif nation laughed al it and thought it ah