The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-03-06

-tcS"u HoS' 10 oS Cdiie0 mon at kffefJ. -
(ihe works OF b. Franklin, vol. S, page $50 in
notes.) ttt
My firlt communication did no, charge Mr..
Cowper himfelf, with having intercepted the
iaid letters; Iperfeetly agree with VOC in be-
| l'eving him to have 4 foul above it the infamy
attaches itfelf only to thofe who have rendered
thernielves guilty ofthat v,lanous tranfaclion.
The only part which he has in it, is the ufe
which he has made of property, which he
knew, had been obtained by foul means for,
it thofe by which the faid letters were procu-
red are fair, why does not he difcloie them to
the world
Is Your (sceet and re.oe9abie correspondent. :"
There were no Norfolk papers, by the la!t
nights mail.-We have underitood, that ill.,
teiligence had reached Norfolk, which is CAL
cuiatedt TO excite much alarm among our mer-
chants that two or three American vefiels
bound to ar from Engia had been captured
IN the Engli!h channel by French privateers,
and carried into French ports for adjudication.
Whether this is the fame report with the one
that came via Salem, that three American vef-
tels had been detained at the HE of Rhca, on
iuipcion OF being bound to England we are
unable to pronounce. But If the taa be, as
we have Represented, it is iHpofiible 10 form
put one opinion of the cauf Of this outrageous
violation OF our commerce. That eanf is the
blockadiDg decree of the 2l1 of Nov.
| When that decree frt came into our hands,
we were Immediately truck with the itudied
ambiguity, by which it was diltineuiihe Had
We topped at the l It article alone, we fhould
not have helitated to have pronounced il the
mott dired proclamation of war agant neu-
tral commerce and of courfe agsinitour own
| Tor what other nation is at this time neutral,
out thote which fcarce pofirfs any commerce at
all the Moors, the Danes and the Portu.
grese?
ade." ''''> VI
Words could fcarceiy have been mole ex-
PiIcit. - bioekaded place is one to or from
which no vefel is permitted to fail, without
danger OF interruption or feiZure. 1t was inn
Pohioie TO believe, that the French would have
put different contribution upon this arti.
Gle
!aIieyrand's Report to the Emperor of the
goth Nov. recommending this meafure is Rrict-
" contormabIe to this contraction Tn the
itrIng OF reta!iating mcafures which he recon-
mends to his matter, the frt is, " Since En-
gland has dared to declare that the whole Of
france mould be in a fate of blockade, let
france ceciare IN her turn, that the Britifh l.
Hands are blockaded."
In the next paragraph he fuggeas, that
{" Since England looks on every Frenchman as
an enemy, let every Englifhman or Enelih fub-
}ect round IN the countries occupied by the
french armies be made prifoner of war" -
In the fucceedng paragraph, he recommends
other meafures, which are carefully followed up
by the other articles ofthe decree.
Why this diainetion of meafures if he had
| Imply recommended the blockade of Britfh
ports to be the main principle, of which all
| the other meafnres were only to fpring out as
| 10 many consequences and explanations? No !:
h he mt xIaI 81 Il (.
diftnct ipecihc meafure the arreft of French
men to De another aud 70 on for every mea-
lure, which he enumerates. What then is the
inference
1t we adopt Talleyrand's diftinetion, we
fhoud not hehtate to employ the term blockade,
uted in the III article, in the very fame fenfs in
which 1t is employed by the Britiih cruifers and
Britlih courts. We hould conceive it to be
one compleat meafure, Handing by itfeIf, and
diitnet from all the provifions of the articles
which followit. In the fame manner, we ihoud
fupPofe that every article of the decree enforces
diitinet and fpecific meafure of retaliation
upon Britith commerce. Such then is the firft
and obvious fcene in which we ihould confider
the term Z" blockade" as employed in the LIT
article, and as eSnfequenee, we fllould conclude
| that every vefiel was prohibited from falling to
or from an Engiilb port.
| But how different are the provifions of the
oecree Hell The fIrH article Jeen1J to Law
down one broad, general principle, of which
the others fem to be but as 70 many coroIlares
and explanations. There is not one of thofe
branches, which authorizes the feizure of veE
| ieIs, bound from or to the Eng!ifh lies nor
does the French miniiler of marine in his letter
to General Armftrong, countenance in the
| 0ightef degree, this ufuai inference from the
utual definition Of the right of blockade
Here then is the ambiguity. In the irft
article is employed a term, which according to
the eftabliihed Interpretation Of language and
! to Talleyrand's own report, would jufify the
| mott exorbitant ehoroachments upon our trade.
But the other articles, which are feemingly
put forth as only differences from the firR, do
not in the llighteft degree countenance thefe
entertainments. Why this ambiguity Was
it to prompt the French cruifers TO make de-
| predations npon all vef1eis trading with Eng
land--snd then the government was either to
confirm or difavow them, according as cir.
cumGances which ibould atferzuard5 arife,
would make the one or the other courfe mott
| politic.-We have not 70 exalted An opinion OF
the cabinets of Europe, as wholly to acquit
| the French government of fuch delign.
As 10 Decres's letter to General Armftrong,
| 1t would have given us much more ftisfaetion,
had he not referred the ultimate decifon of our
doubts to Mon. Taileyrand, and thus hang up
the qurftion, for fome other contribution to
| be given, as the convenience of the French go.
vernment might choofe to dietaie.