The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-09-06

common sense and is accessible to those mo-
| tives which ordinarily direct such men, no
thing can be more remote from his wishes
than an unprovoked hostility with Great
Britain.
~ yS;i Id been told that his measures
| are not to be mistaken that Mr9 bcspeak
anineXpiable spirit OF hostility towards G
Britain. Before this conclusion can be adj
| mitted, let the conduct of Great Britain tow
| ards oUrSeiocs be examined Is there no.
| thing In that conduct, which justifes and e.
ven demanded those measures? Must AN
| individual be prccipitately condemned for
his department. towards another, before all
| the provocations he has received, have been
duly Appreciated. The conduct of Great
Britain towards us has been tissue of me-
ditated insult or wanton injury. She has i'm
lpresscd thousands OF our seamen condemn
| ed our vessels Tor Carrying on q trade, JUS
tined by every law of nations, and bv her
own explicit avowals violated our lurisdic-
| ton, murdered our countrymcn Oh our
coasts, and exacted taxes without our own
consent, Suppose that we had tacitly &C
| guessed In these encroachments and insults,
| what would have become of the honour and
| spirit of our nation' Nothing, however is
more strongly indicative of Mr.. Jcflerson's
1
course of restriction, which has been pur-
sued. What are the objections urged to this
system
| 'eRy proclamation, he has forbid British
armed ships from entering our harbours.'
| But il MIR. ]. had any hostile designs "a
g;iinst q. Britain, Why did he not sooncr'ex-
ercise this pow err! 1t belonged to him.
Though poor Pierce was murdered on ou,.
shores tho the L'lmpetueux was barnt
within our jurisilictional limits; Though the
insults and Entertainments of British arm
ed ships were numerous and vcXatious Mr.
Jefersons power still slumbered. 1t was
not until the attack on our national frigatc
! had reused the blood of every honest man
in America, that this proclamation was issu-
| ed but why has it not been extended to
some other nations l. was because none O.
| Their deserved it.
But he rejected the treaty of Messrs.
| Monroe & Pinkney s. thereby endangered &
invited a war with G. Britain. The fact
| that he did endanger war, is not CONCEDED
but even if he did, who womld reproach him
for mourning such risk by the rejection OF
a treaty SO liable to objections That trea-
ty was excessively Objectionable:
Because it placed our East-in,la trade OF
a worse footing, than Jays; the latter res
tricting our vessels to return to The u States
N'S ic'H'ci iNoe'iSN'i.S NtSili liOI OU.N W CDHt
6ack to, but sail from the ports of the u. D.
Because it made no provision for the in
mnDcation of orr merchants for previous
losses:
i Because it made no provision agairs. 4. e
impressment OF our seamen. And as to what
Mr.. M. & the friends of his treaty have said a
10 the informal understanding contained in III,
informal note OF the 3. commissioners il
may be shown i'll the 1st place, that it was
not understood between the two government.
to form any part OF the treaty, because Mi
tanning, the succeeding minister, cXpiicitl,
states in his noe of October %, 1907, tina
no arrangements were entered into on the
part OF lis majesty, as connected with thS
treaty, except such as ahfear on The. face O
10 & II 1t was so to be considered, then the
President might informally make whateve,
arrangements he pleased without the conc ur
renee ot the Senate, and contrary to the con.
| stitution-and in the I'd place, if it was ever
so considered, 1t was no effectual protect
against the impressment CT our seatuen be
cause Great Britain did not abandon th,
right of impressmeht; on The contrary, il
this note, and more especially in the eXpla-
nations Oh 1t subsequently, sent by the British
commissioners to MIR. Canning, this right il
| expressly reserved and retained !; and al
that the commissioners promised fer thu
tNhSh NHiot'Isl MINISTRY, WAS 10 G&efCiSe tnl!
practice with due caution and forbearance
but 1t is well understood from the generu
tpractice OF tie British government, what il
meant by British canton and forbearance
land as particular Interpretation in this case
II appears, whilst the British government
were Boosting that 'no recent causes ofcoln.
plant had occurred" and declaring tina
. instructions had been given, for the great
est caution in the imprcssiBg of British sea
men :" that they were under an egregious mis-
take-that in the American seas, includins
the w. Indies, the impressments have per
haps at no time been more numerous & pea-
dtious." The letter from the Secretary u
State of Feb. 5, 1907.
Because an official note was attached tC
it, 6efore The signature OF our commission
ers, which reserved to Gil at-pritain tl,i
right Of counteryailing the French Decree
whenever she Thought proper-and as Z
proof OF the manner in which she would
exercise this right, look at her Orders il
Council, which are supposed to have beer
these countervaiiing Orders.
But che sanctioned the non-importatior
law. Look to the reasons for this policy ;
seek them in the conduct Of Great Britain
towards ourselves. Seek them in the CON.
mUnications of our minister, in London, who
was Oil the very spot where it was intended
TO operate, and could calculate its effect
What says Mr.. Monroe in his letter of March