The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-10-10

delivered to Pichegru.
AS TO money, if Pichegru did actually tranE
NIT twelve louis TO David, 70 imall a FUN could
only have been an offering to friendfhip in diff.
trefs.
The agent of conrpiracy to which it is faid
England was no ftranger, and which was intend
ed TO reverie the French government, could ne
yer have been at a lofs for twelve louis, to ena-
bic him to make journey whole Object was To
unite the two chiefs of the confpiracy.
And general Moreau, pe4slFng an iDfnnenje far
tunes would never have left his emiilary Il. the
mercy of every necefiity.
David had himfelf declared that the letter OF
Pichegru, which would have enabled himto draw
the twelve louis, was intercepted, and that he
borrowed, from general Donzelo., ten louis to
pay the charges of his journey which was to
determine Pchegru to come to Paris, journey
which was in fact to convey the able to an eftab-
lifhment ofs5o rounds fterling year in England
as tutor to the fon Of a nobeman.
The journey of David involved 70 little OF myf-
terry that he made all the generals of his acquan-
lance, who were friendly to Pichegru, cquan-
ted with it F.; and was even charged by mem
Der of the Senate with 4 letter for that general.
Areifed at Calais, even after he had obtained
his palfport, they found upon him, neither let
tiers, nor ntructions, which could in the flighteR
pofible degree bring Moreau's name into quec-
ton.
General Moreau was heard to regret the con-
fnement of David in the temple. But fince
when has it been declared trearonable TO lament
the misfortune of one who lad been friend !?
How long sit iince ihackies have rendered fenli-
bility ciimeo
Ii David had been the agent of a plot in which
Moreau was concerned, when arrefted, what
ought to have been the conduit of Moreau
Either he would have endeavoured to remove
from himfelf every fifp;cion which the arreft
might have occaioned or he would have faved
himielf, by fight, from the punithment attend
ing the diicovery OF his crime: or he would
have endeavoured TO accomplish his object, be-
fore the government had become wholly polien-
ed of his views. Nothing of the kind has been
attempted.
The General took no pains to afcertain whe-
Their he-was. compromised by the papers found
upon David. He remained unconccrnedly at
home, without in any thing varying his mode of
life. He held no correspondence on this iubjeGt !;
nor was David, that atifan Of intrigue, replaced
by any other.
For it mutt be borne in mind, that Laiolais,
who is denomnated his fucceaor, on his own
confeffon, and as appears by the proofs at the
trial, had no intercourse with Moreau for nine
months after the imprisonment OF David.
Nevertheless the peace was not difturbed by
the arreft of David. All the ufnal fources of
communication with England were open. IN
two weeks the plot might have been renewed at
Paris, approved at London, and returned to the
capital for execution.
When all are iilcnt, fiIence cannot be 4
crime.
And no one will, we apprehend, pretend to fay
that the preience merely of Pichegru in London,
and of Moreau at Paris, en- contitute a confpi-
racy.
As to the ex-general Lajolais, he did not fee
general Moreau till towards the month of Pra-
rial, year IL; when he delivered him an open
letter of introduction from Pichegru, requefting
the aid of the general in procuring him an en-
ployment. This letter was not brought from
London by Lajolas Pichegru fent it to him in
France CIRCUMSTANCE which ihoud be care
fully remembered, for, until the time of trial,
the public was taught to believe that Laiolais
had made two journies to England, and that it
was on bis return from the rft of thefe iourrlies
that he delivered this letter.
Gen. Moreau corrected the memoir by which
Lajolais ioiicitcd place.
They fpoke of Pichegru ); and Moreau has
not denied that he espreiled to Laiolais, as he
had done TO the Able David, the GatisfaGtion he
would derive from his free return into France.
Ifthis intereft for Pichegru is a crime let it
find its execute in the reconciliation lately efec-
ted, and in the ingenious nature OF the Gener-
al.
Lajolais declared, on his fri examination that,
about this time, he dw Moreau three or four
times ; that he had e%preiled with to have an
interview with Pichegru: and faid he was about
to requeftit.
The delire of this interview has been held up
as fure indication of treafonable uDderftand-
ing between Moreau and Pichegru the proof
Of which 10 faid to be efabhlhed by the Wits at
Paris.
Dol the folly and improbabihty of this
contribution Of Lajolais ftrike at firf fight?
We can well conceive an interview between
two perfons living in the fame place, or in places
adjoining. But for perfon in Paris to ak an
interview of another living in London ard to
take place in Paris, is too ridiculous.
Yet at the trial Laiolss gave this teftimony,
and perifted in Il three times. Such teaimony
requires to be explained.
Laiolais is an Alfaci1n, and does not fpeak
good French. He oblerved, at the time, that
the true force of each expreiiion was not fami-
liar to him, and, therefore, that when he ufed
the word mtcr7Ie7v, he ail>ed TO be underftood
as indicating, byit, merely the defre unaffected
by Moreau TO fee Pichegru reforsd TO France.
Which preciftly correfponds with the terms u
fed, and the idea intended.
It is quibbling to fay that there is a difference
between this declaration, and that of Laiolas
when confronted with Moreau, until which
time he pcrffted in his fri replies. The diff
ference is not contradictory but explanatory