The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-12-22

rigorous scrutiny into its measures. He was
for laying the Preamble on the table.
9He Question for laying it on the table was
carried-aHd $50 copies Of the Report were
Greeted to be printed for the use of the
members.
| We have promised a Copy of all the Pre-
sentiments, which were made BY the Fede-
raj Grand Jury of this district, for violations
ofthe Embargo Laws. These presentments,
however, are found to be so completely sim
liar to the one which appeared in this pa
per OF the Cd instant, that it is unimportant
to publish them in full. The following brief
statement of facts will be sufficient for the
| public curiosity:
On the LIST Inst. Messrs. Leslie, ]. Lynch,
Hall, and Barclay were presented for a
violation OF the Embargo Laws. IL This
presentment has already appeared in this
paper.
On the 18th additional presentments were
| made, against the following persons: 49,.
Against John K. Hill, James Falkper,
and John. Hollingsworth, jr.-ou the test-
mony of Laurence Muse, Esq. Collector of
the Port of Tappahannock.
Against William Smith, Edmund Brown;
and James Badger-on the testimony of
Messrs. Laurence Muse, Anderson McWil-
liams. and David K. Benson. :.
Against John Brownlow, Robert Brown
low, and Hezekiah Collier-on the testimo-
ny of Messrs. Laurence Muse, Anderson
McWilliams, John Hall, jr. and John AL.
cock.
An additional presentment was made a
gainst Messrs. John Leslie and Robert
Brownlow the first, the testimony of
Major James Gibbon and others; and the
last, ON the testimony OF Mr.. L. Muse and o.
theirs.
The Grand 1nry adjourned CT the I4s!.
Inst.
We have seen the Speech of Mr.. T. Pick
eriDg in the Senate of the United States, on
Mr.. Hillhouse's Resolution. This extraor-
binary composition shall appear in its pro-
per place in the Series ofSpeeches.
More than one fourth ofthis speech is devo-
ted, to the proof of Il position which Mr. p
assumed in his letter addressed during the
last winter to the governor of Massachusetts,
and which Mr.. John ] Adams has so tri-
umphantiy refuted. This proposition is that
the British Orders in Council "were not
known, and that the news paper reports con-
Corning them never entered into the views
of the President and congress. as motive
for laying the Embargo; and thatas no sub
sequent disclosure has been made of other
dangers known at tie time the message
was communicated, the reel cause or motive
from the eye of Congress and the nation"
This question is certainly of very little
Importance, considered on it's own merits "a
lone /; because, as Mr.. Giles says, whether
the embargo be considered "as lucky hit or
dictate of WISDOM" the subsequent ap-
pearance OF these orders in council has e.-
| tablishcd its policy and propriety beyond
the reach of cavil This view of the cues
ton, however, does nor suit the genius or
purposes of Mr.. P. This insidious di-
plomatist, affecting to believe, that the
{" real cause of the embargo has been veil
ed from the eye of Congress-" has pretend
ed to hunt out its real motives. The gentle
mans inslnuation is, that" the people of the
u. s. would have been shocked at an open
proposition to shut their ports against the
English commerce, at the command orinvi-
tation of the French Emperor; they would
not have endured it. The measure could
be accomplished only by an embargo, and
that wrapped up in the mystery which he
has endeavored to unfold This advocate
is certainly worthy of the cause which he
supports. The Logic of Mr.. Pickering and
the charges of French influence are Just a
dapted to each other. e.
In spite of the reasonings ofthe hon. Sena-
tor, however, it is still true, that the idea
of the British Orders of Council did really
enter into the motives which dictated the
Embargo. The existence of these orders
was not officially known in this country, but
there are other circumstances known OF
&" great :pith and moment" 1t was known,
LIST. That the principal members of the
present ministry, were long attached to that
system of entertainments on which the Nov.
Orders were built that on the 9Th February,
1907, in debating in the III. of Commons, on
the " Restrictions on the trade of France by
Neutral Vessels. Mr.. Percval ridiculed
the mildncss of the retaliating Orders of ia
nuary 7, and insisted upon their extension on
a plan nearly similar to those of Nov that
Lord Castlereah in the H. of Peers, at the
same time, avowed the same sentiments &
that in this paper of May 10Th, 1907, mea
sures breathing the spirit of the Orders of
Nov were predicted to come into effect a
gainst. the trade of the Y. States.-The mind
therefore that was familiar with this course
of events, would naturally and easily have
acccded to the truth Of those reports, which
the prints of London had poured so thickly
upon us last winter.
2. 1t is known, that these reports mere
published at the Seat of Government. from
various public, respectable Journals of Lon
don--geveral days before any proposition
was made for an Embargo Various ex-
tracts Of this purport are now on the files of
the Enquirer. 49,.
5. But lwhat plscesths point Beyond the
| rSOeeihilitv of a doubt are the sentimept.