The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-10-26

usurpations, their retaliatoiy measures will
1t France blocks theus our
6y land, they will block us or 6y sea---not
by, Ships but by placards.-Our views on
these subjects are essentially different. We
claim no sorr of right TO conduct British
commerce. into ports, from which'it is ex :
clnded by the municipal laws of those porss
We contend. if France has &C quired any ju-
risdlction or inhuence in Hamburg, that we
nave no. rightto proles against the internal
laws 'of that territory and that if British
Soffee or Cloth be excluded from those
ports ot, 90 other nations, as either in ALI :
ance with France, or subject TO her DONNA
ton, have by measures of active offence, or
by the exclusion of British ships, taken a
part ia The fsresent svart that our pri
viieges OF vneutrality are not invaded, and
that U. Britain has no right to insist upon
the restoration of this intercourse, as the
condition of her repeats. Il rs equally ap
parent, thatby the laws of ma ions, she has
no sort OF right TO plead the conduct of
France as precedent for her own--the
french blockade in those ports being of a
very dlfferen. nature from her own paper
blockade. 1T France chooses 10 block ont
British commerce. she has right to do il
but it the British ministers resort to the
system OF blockade, they must do it in the
only way recognized by the. law of nations
Tor II the trade to- Hamburg be mot
interdicted as such by the law OF nations it
can no otherwise be made illegal, than by
a gaiblockade of Hamburg. &c but it
must be an actual blockade--ships must
be posted before the ports themselves
IL VIII not be sufficient TO say, as her minis
teriai paper has just said, that as the French
donot post soldiers in the ports, SO the Bri
fish need not station ships ----for the French
as we have seen, may forbid the trade with
out corps of troops. but The British cannot
without an actual force.
such are, however, the grounds which zgiN
be assumed by the ministry-Look back
to the history of the past-See the are;,
ments which her writer's employed in 1905
when her first orders of May were on the
tapis-See them in the following extracts
from pamphlet, then published by the
author OF War in Disguise. in the form of
" CoSerUdHons on the speech of the Hon
John Randolph" on Mr.. Gregg's Resolution.
The notes which follow, are the answers
which We gave at the time-they will show.
at least, that we are consistent in the ground
which we have taken: tca
-, EXTRACTS.
Alter defending his ideas of the Rule of
's6, the writer goes on:
- And here let me notice, with such brief pe
nerality as the urgent necessity of dispatch under
the sense of which now write. prescribe, 70 me
new foundation OF right which arises from the
recent conduct of the enemy.
Let 1t be supposed that all the arguments
which have been hitherto offered by nv own. g.
lar Adler pens, IN defence of the rule of the wa,
| of 1856 are utterly inconclusve & that ,homoh
unans wered (excePt by the grossest misrepre
-ntations of notorious fac.s) thew are CAPABLE of
being clearly refuted still we have anew case
| IN which IT seems impossible that two different
opinions should be held
what IS Bonaparte to exclude British sugar
ana coIfee, from the continent, and is America
= enable nm to do SO, by supplying i, witt
French and Spauis, sugar and coffee, in their
stead Are neutral markets even to be shn;]
~ violence against our planters, that our ens,ies
may establish there monopoly against them
Are the merchants of neutral states, to be laid
uhdes an ln'erdict as to the carriage of British
manufactures or merchandise In friendly ports :
ana While submitting &C they do to that intertlict
can they assert nevertheless against u.s. right 10
carry the manufactures of our eurmies to th.
colonies OF France and Spain Are pe,,trsls in
| a word, to give effect to a system ayowediy A.
ooPtea TOT the destruction of English commerce.
yet louhu on their amlty with England, a
rISht to prevent or trustrate retaliation on our
part against the commerce Of our enemies -
- Z et ths Is, IN truth, bur 8 part Of the enor
NOUS case. BY what means has Frsice acuui
red the power of enforcing her prohibiton, BY
the same ioul means which have enabled her TO
49, ''''o p" fhustIii, 10 Ofe9N up the foundation
! OF the Cermanic empire, and add all Italy 10 he.
usurpauohs by the most audacious violations
| OF n'utTal rights, that ever disgraced the
page OF history, or subYertcd the security of
nations.
" But are other nations responsible fo- theas
outrages = not directly so, admit Whether
Il hS net duty OF neutral powers to unite in CON
trolling them, and protecting those sacred prin
cIples by winch the community of nations is
bound together, from further vioiation IS n oues
ton not hard to decide but all contend fnr
mere, IS the very moderate position that neu
tral nations ought not aclivey( ITO assistn giving
elect TO system, which IL planted. sustain.
ed and expanded by the invssions of neutra,
rights
" II they will tameIy permit Bonapar,e to ex
ciude sluPs when laden with our merchandise
from Hambursh, and such other maritime places
YET permitted to be called neutral, as the terror
OF his arms has already shut agains; us /; and TO
extend az he now threatens, the same system 10
Portugal and Deprnark it is rot neutral, it is
notequa', to deny like latitude tous; & thew
would have no right TO complain, if we should
apply the same introduction as generally. TO the
merchandIze of our enemies, wherever o,tr now
er extends t1at IS, To every maritime part orthe
globe ~
" Colonial produce and supplies alone, are the
subject now IN dispute with America but here
is PHhcpie, on winch we might fairly inter
o'cF the carriage VI French, Spanish and Dutch
S0ousin genetal, whether colonial or European /:
and nei IA particular voyages alone, but in anv
part OF the ocean ~ Ifnol, then tie rights and
duties q mentality are all on one side, aud 10
napsrte has already obtained sjme of the lsral
effects OF that sovereignty, TO which he now r.