The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-02-20


an infa.uation. which still endures, Sc which
| our convoy bill cannot be expected 20 slissi.
pate. WIN then, either of these nations,
exchange those advantages. which they pro
, mise themselves from their DEGREES, for tie
mere chance of entrapping us into a war
with his opponent9 Is ikis chance worth
the sacrifices, which they make to purchase
TITS this the degree of {" firmpess."
winch Mr.. Champagny speaks of, in the Ges-
patch 70 Gen. Armstrong-in witch he
announces "the. unalterahie principles" by
watch his majesty would continue to be go
verncd? IL is not.
Let the bill then be so amended rs to go
" on ehe broad ground of forcing by convoy
irg and arming commerce with all places,
zchere, by me local regulations of The sove-
rciSntp, our commerce is ddnitfed.'
3, The "a section of this bill enumerates
the contra6and Of 7rQr-As have not seen
the bill itself. i cannot, of course, know
whether this specification is a proper one
IT 1T be, in the main, copied from the Russi-
an Convention OF 1901. it may be adopted
though there is a doubt whether "salt pc
tire and sulphur" which are the mere ma
terials OF war, and not the munitions them
selves, should be placed On the list of contra
band.
q. The Sd section "provides that no port
shall be- considered as 6iocSadcd. unlexs ac-
tuaily invested with sufficient force to rem
der the entrance 10 it dangerous"
merely touch this definition, to make
one remark upon the late crifigues which
have been thrown out by some of the fed-rai
prints against this and similar definitions
They are SO anxious to ceior over the Bri
fish pretensions of paper blockade, that they
ridlcuie any attempt to set bounds to it
What, cries the Boston Centinei, is an ac-
tual blockade Is it To be settled according
to the armed neutr atty OF 1880 where there
Is an imminent danger of entry Upo,ithis
rule, what part of France is not no4v actu
aHy blockaded When not one ship in fifty
can get in without speaking an English cruz
Ger e What poor sophist is this A
blockade is instituted with view of starving
particular port into submission-all modes
OF relief may of course be justifably excluded
Ii Is not then because ship may chance TO
be spoken on any part of coast, that the
whole OF 1t may be blockaded but because
particular port may be actually invested,
70 force Its surrender, by a competent saua.
dron, that the general freedom of trade j. 20
be circumscribed in that particular instance
but though this is really the plain sense of
such phrase, yet it is curious that t., is
writer should have even mutilated the quo
tation, to prove his point. The treaty of
armed Vemtrahty says, " in order TO ascer-
tain what constitutes the blockade of any
place or port, it is to be understood TO be in
such predicament, when the assaiilng pow
er mas taken such station, as to expose TO
imminent danger, any ship or ships that
would attempt to sail in or out of the said
Ports"-by which it appears. that coasts
cannot be meant. as ships cannot sail in and
our OF them, and moreover, that the assail-
ing power is to take a Sfation-not to be
rowing about and speaking whomsoever it ]
Chance sto meet.
"A still clearer definition than this, occurs |
in the Declaration made by the Empress of
Russia TO the courts of London, Versailles
ard Madrid. on the Goth February, 1880: |
That TO determine what is meant by a !
"blockaded port. this is only to be under
"stood of one which is so we'll kept in. by the
"ships of the power that attacks it, and
" 7ohfch KEEP their Places, that it is danger
" GUS to enter into it"
IS The 4th section gives the right of visi- |
tatlon and search TO the fu6Hc armed vessels |
OF any beliigerent nation--the 5th forbids il
to "any privateer or other than a national |
vessel. These provisions seem to be copied |
from the 4th Article of the Russian Conven |
ton of 1901.
So far, therefore, G. B. can have no cause
TOR dispute-for it is provision, signed by |
her own ministers-we have fears, howe |
yer, least this regulation should be too bold an
aodnuohtheht OF neutral rights + or this is |
one OF those cases, which has given rise to |
one OF the most memorable dspures on re
cord, respecting the law of nations.
The world have not forgotten the case of |
the Swedish convoy, which excited so much !
interest few years sipce.--One of the |
Federal prints of Philadelphia has at least
taken care to retreshcn our me mories at this !
time, by publishing the judgment of Sir w. |
scott IN that transaction---witht the express |
view OF showing, that we must abandon our
rights, because we should otherwise come !
into coHtiIct with the claims of Britain. The |
case is briefly this--Capt. Lawford com
manding a small English squadron in the |
Channel, met with a Swedish merchant feet I
under convoy of Swedish frigate--and !
dispatched a messenger on board the frigate |
to demand information of the destination & |
cargo of the fleet. He was answered, that |
1t was destined for different parts of the |
Mediterranean, and laden with hemp, iron,
pitch and tar. After unavailing remonstran |
ces against the detention and examination of |
his convoy, the captain OF the Swedish fri
gate was deferred by the impossbility of |
defending himself against so superior
force and consented to yield up his convoy
without firing single gun. When the case
came ON for trial before the English ADM
rally Court Sir w Scott decreed the confis
cation of the vessels and cargoes, on two
grounds--one of which was. that they had
refused in violent manner to suffer them
seiUes TO be searched.
This drew forth mastery reply from J.
NJ Srhln L., 1T