In opposition to those arguments in favour of the neutral powers, it has been urged, that the new system of naval annoyance, introduced by Great Britain in 1806, was legal according to the strictest construction of the law of blockade, because the proclamations for interrupting all intercourse between the different parts of the French coast, were not issued until it was ascer tained, by the most particular inquiries, that Great Britain possessed an effectual naval force to blockade the enemy's coast from Brest harbour to the mouth of the Elbe. It is solely upon this principle that the ministers of this country maintained the legality of -those blockades, and any breach in the line of blockade, they admitted, would'be sufficient to con stitute 'them illegal. Such, then, is the present state of this important controversy, which seems to resolve itself into a mere question of fact, namely, whether the blockading power has actually carried into effect the blockade, of which notice by proclamation has been given to the neutral powers.
At the conclusion of the last treaty between Great Britain and America, no settlement took place of those disputed questions. The main war between the European belligerents, out of which the American dispute had incidentally sprung, being at an end, the controversy respecting rights, which could only be exercised in a state of war, had lost all practical im portance. It had become a mere question of abstract right, the decision of which was wisely adjourned by the powers at war, and not suffered to clog the great work of a general peace. It is likely, however, that on the breaking out of ttny new war, this and other questions of a like nature would recur ; and on this account it might be of importance to the future ' peace of the world, if, in the present interval of uni versal Peace, while men's passions are at rest, these questions could be settled according to some ac knowledged rule of equity or policy, and not left, in the case of another war, to the rude arbitration of force. (o.)