The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-12-22

N-,',H-f - Mig F1sier 1nth;s su'>iset. f%~;
III lid that u. brits:,u - ,plsciisct 20 re
sort to IT; tor maintain her naval power and
I her existence. And it is because am. oppo-
sed to fesorting to the same expcdiene {fnr
will anyman pretend that great navy can
be manned without recurring to it y because
think 1t abhorrent to the genius of a free peo-
pie, th4t am against rushing into that na-
i raj yrar, into which gentlemen wish to pgcci-
pitate US. docs not YOUR own cool under
standing, Sir, dispisc the miserable sophisms
which disgrace this passage! DO volt not
candId.r believe, that the spirit displayed in
the non-importation act is much better calcu-
lated tococrceG O.. b. into some arrangement
tor the security OF our seamen, than .vcirr in
different & neutral system? Was it candid in
YOU to have parricd the investigation of this
subJectby retortiDg accusations upon your op-
poncnts, which you musthave known, they did
not descrye!f gu must have been satisfied, sir,
that those gentlemen, who were most "hos-
IT,: to impressment," were not friendly to
systems which must cventuate in the intro
duction OF this system at home" Your own
understanding must have convinced vou that
these gentlemen were not friendly 10 g ma
val war; and that the controversy in trhich
you were willing to precipitatc your country
with O.. Il. did not necessarily require that
navy should be tue instrument of our at
tacks or that the ocean should be the theatre
of its cXertions.
it would be tedious to detail the volume of
arguments, which may lie urged against the
British encroachmests upon ourcolonial COM
Inerce. It is sufficient to observe, that these
Entertainments can neither be justified bv the
treaties nor the treatises of Europe that
they cannot be comprehended under the only
two avowed restrictions OH neutral commerce.
blockaded ports and contraband of war &
that the present professions of g. Britain
are absolutely inconsistent with the stipulat-
! ons of Lord Hawkesbury himself in 1901.
But notwithstanding these obvious and indis-
putab!e truths, you have avowed yourself the
advocate OF these novel usurpations. There
Is not sentiment in ali your speeches, which
supports the commercial rights of this coun-
try. Amidst all your well founded reproach-
es on the eNorbitant cupidity Of the mercan-
tile class, there is not one generous vndica-
ton OF the rights of the fair, neutral trader
You cody abandon every thing, " relative to
our dispute with Great-Rritain, on the lazy
II nations, on contraband and such SUR"
You have attempted to ridcule one of the a.
blest productions which ever issued from the
American Press, and one OF the most convin-
cling advocates Of neutral rights. You have
lavlshed vour idle abuses On work which
Will hereafter form the textbook of the
laws OF neutrals You have not hesitatcd to
crafty your resentment against Mr.. Madi-
soc by empty denunciations against his pam
phlet VIII you permit me to enquire, sir,
what pretensions can that man have to a dis
passionate love ct truth, who condemns
pamphlet OF upwards OF 100 pages, upon
mere inspection OF four or five pages f; or
what respect can YOU expect from your own
party, when you have thus conspicuouslv ex-
hibited the precipitancy of your judgement
and the impetuosity of YOUR temper
From this extreme indiffence about the two
principal sources Of dispute, your country had
10 reason to expect from you a firm and dig
nihed resistance TO the agsressions of Great
Britain. You have not disappointed them,
Sir. fcu have not only brought forward no
decided measures in opposition 10 G.. Britain,
but You have reserved al your opposition for
the most energetic measure, that was adopt-
ed by Congrcss.-I shall attempt to demon
strate that your objections to this measure
had no real validity, and that this measure
was much better calculated to secure tina
points III dispute and to support the honor of
your country, than the ambiguous and inbe-
Gle system, which you have advocated
Among other objections to the Non-Impor-
tation ACT, you have pronounced it 10 be ihso
jacto war-measure, and that it would be
considered in that light by &. IS.
RAD we issued letters OF marQuc and rcDrl-
sal, for scizirg the British cruisers who were
continually selling American vessels, all the
world might have denominated ,iI.Qt war
measure. Had the Z. States enlisted soldiers
| and equipped ships for the o.tensible purpose
OF attacking G. Britain, either on land or the
ocean, IN Canada or on the Atlantic she
might have denominated that n warmeasure.
Had the L. > prohibited our merchants from
trading TO Great Britain, not for the purpose
OF redresshg our own injuries, but OF grant
ing the exclusive monopoly of our commerce
toherlnveterate enemy, she might have Justly
considered such direct violation of oui. nc,i-
traiity as war measure. She might have
| indeed extended the same denomination to
every measure which might be construed in
to an attack on the territories, the property,
and the persons OF British subjects, or into
tie most indirect violation of the laws of neu-
trality. But it would even puzzle your inge-
nuitY and the sophstry of the British ministry,
to reduce Mr.. Eichoson's resolution under
either of these definitions-All your efforts
to dragon G.. Britain into.a proclamation of
war against your country, have hitherto prov
ed unavailng.
| You must have perceived, sir, that these
! resolutions were not intended 20 land one hos
tile foot upon the territory of G. Britain You
must have known that these resolutions could
not possibly have disturbed the safety Of hey
yes els Or the ppreo,c nF he,. WIZ,