The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-09-02
Scdly. Tbatthese had always iirs. " toGch-


TIC HESt point Is RIDICULOUS. II Is an cS-
taSlished fact, that remonstrances have been
made against the Orders in Council, 5oth in
this country and in Lyndon. This ;s proved
by the extracts which We this day republsh
from the National Intclligencer. 1t is GER
tam, that Mr.. Pinkney made a very strong
and animated remonstrance against them TO
Mr.. Canning These were contained in the
VERY dispatches which the Vice-Presdent
OF the q. 5. read through mistake in the SEN
ate some Of Mr.. Roses suite being then in
the gallery. 1t is said too, that the British
| government wished to dupe Mr.. p. into some
arrangement about the details OF these Or
ders a course, which would have in fact ia
City admitted their principle, but which
Mr. r. indignantly and promptly rejected.
Mr.. Madison too was called on to pen a re-
| monstrance on the same subject, in reply 70
the letter of Mr.. Erskine, of Feb. %. This
reply must have reached London after Mr..
Roses return, and before the delivery of Mr..
Canning's speech What candor then is there
in the insinnation of this minister, that no
remonsfrc'ice or COMPLAINT has been made
| by the American government on this point
since Mr.. Roses mission. His expression
may be Hlitcrally correct" but his "mean-
ing is much too "equivolent."
b III such rcmonstranCes were made, why
rcfeat them to the British government p?
Why dispatch =" several special messengers"
to remonstratc,- and to complain of Orders,
against which the first remonstrance had
proved unavailing! No doubt, these mes
sengers carried dispat.h hes for our minister
IN London; but these may have contained
instructions for his own guidance; and not
dispatches for the British Government
why not then suppose, that the very same
vessels carried out similar dispatches for
our minister at Paris 1t is bat liberal to
suppose, that our government has treated
France and G.. Britain OH the same grounds
of liberality and civility. Is it vet known,
| that France has treated our remOnstrances
as Or. Britain has done; or having done so.
that our government has not treated France
In the same way, as Mr.. Canning says we
have treated his own nation How does it
appear, that Mr.. Armstrong has renewed his
remonstrances to the French government
How does it appear that the special messcn-
gers, who have visited France, haze carri-
ed out dispatches for the French Gopern-
ment Ferhahs if the French minister
were just as communicative as Mr.. Canning
has been, he would make precisely the same
declaration as Mr.. &. has done. How then
can the federalists pretend to say, that we
have treated France differently from En-
gland Where is the proof of that great
distinction prevailing between the two cases,
whilii justitirs them in uttering the charge
of French Influence?
5. But they say here sis that proof Our
messengers have always touched at France,
before they went to England. This seems too
much like calling for Orders. Why is not
this thing reversed 4? Why not first touch
at England, and afterwards go to France ?"
1t is then, upon such contemplate trihcs, as
these, that the Federal.sts will erect suck
serious charges against the administration
Nothing Is easier than to account for this ar
ragement. France DID not and does not
permit any vessel, Though charged with an
ofhclal messenger, to enter her ports, after
having touched at those of England. Let
the case OF the minister Of the Prince of
Hesse be here called to mind. But England
has adopted no such arrangement. with res
pect TO such vessels. 1t is not therefore very
astonishing, that our messengers should have
touched at France, before they proceeded to
England But if they had first gone to En-
gland, it would have been the very course to-
have debarred them from the ports of France
and prevented Mr.. Armstrong from recei-
wing his dispatches.
We shall publish in cur next paper, the add
tisnai documents from the North American res
PectinS gen. Wiikinson-These documents are
intended to aid Mr.. ID. Ciark's deposition which
was laid before the H. of r.
1EUo distinct charges have been brought againz
Gen. w.
/. That he was apensioner of Spain,
2. That he was accessory to the schemes cf A.
Burr.
The essay and documents published in this pa
per s5rne time last fall, under the signature of
Hehtuesian contributed to convince us that the
first charge was ur,erly groundiess that gen
W. had been merchant, not pensioneri and
tiiat the sums received by him from N. Orlean:
were not OH account of pension, but of certain
commercial transactions. Nothing has since oc
eufred to shake this conviction. The course
pursued by Clark, SC. during the last winter
was more stamped by the features of persecution
and resentment, than those of liberal, delibc
rate and conscientious prosecution.
, rs to the second charge, the evidence has no
been sufficiently full and explicit to lead t.
a satisfactory state of conviction on eithe
e. Links are struck out of the chain o
testimony documents yet wanting TO eluci
date the history of this transaction. The conduc
OF gen. w. does not appear in broad and gla
ring Sunshine. There are certain parts Of it
over which suspicion hovers. After a very care
fui {; unsatisfactory investigation our ownopIior
: IS, that the original conduct of gen. w. was sus
Picous-that the probability turns in favor OF al
original understanding with a. B.--but that G
70 views extended no further than the conqes
of Mexico, and never to the occupation of New
Orleans or the dismemberment of the union
The services which he subsequently rendered IL
, REFRESHING the intended enterprises of Burr, arr
too great TO be denicd.-Throughou these sub