The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-11-06

Britain herself has taken The benefit of the
maxim--h9w.osten have her ministers ne
gociated with France. Is not Mckenzie,
az TINS moment, adjusting the terms of an
exchange OF prisoners? Aud with what sort
Of grace, can ne ourselves except to the
practice or the Suorld WE, who have en-
tered into so many Conventions with her
we. who have been in the daily habit of ne :
goclatone And with what hecuiiar grace
can. these gentlemen refuse to accept the
wore OF NJ. Champagny-they, who were
so soiicitous to take the word of Mr. Frs
Zine upon trust, and to praise his arrange
mentto the very skies : Are we to be told
that the word of foreign minister amongst
us, is to have more virtue i'm it, than he So
Tenn assurances OF minister, who acts un-
der the immediate eye of his sovereign p
Yet, Mr.. Erskine's promise was not only Ii
able to be broken, but to be disavowed-
whereas, the word of M. Champagny may
be broken, but cannon be disavowed Sure
~, therefore, the chances are against the
Federal policy.
But, Hid. they tell us. that our ships
have been seized in French ports-Tha.
these acts fucre a violation of neutral com
merce how then could the President is
sue his Proclamation, until the seouestered
property had been restored to us %
Ibis will no doubt be the git of the fe
deral clamor on this occasion-,he strepp
ground on which they will principally RELY.
For what have the federal prints declared
with such unblushug pertinacityi
Not word then, (says the Uni,ed
states, Gazette, MIR. Bonds papcr) not
word, It seems, IS to be said TO France about
a restoration of the many millions of Ameri
can property of which we have been blum
dered, in shameless violation of an existing
treaty." (where is it ? 1t died IS months
ago. nor any security demanded against
repetition OF the outrage" -.
Have we no cause of complaint against
France. (says the Commercial Advertiser
OF N Y,) besides her Berlin and Milan de
crees Has she not. in violaion-of our neu
trail rights, in violation OF every priaciple
which is held sacred by the civilized world
sequestered, without even the .pretext of
having transgressed an edict, many millions
OF our property and imprisoned many hun
dreds OF our seamens Must we then say,
that France complies with our law. by sim
ply repeating her tguo DEGREES 90
The Alexandria Daily Gazette asserts
that the President dare not do il, % until our
PROPERTY is restored
but II these Wiseacres had read the Law
on Which they were commenting, they m ght
herchancel have avoided one mis- AXE into
which hey have fallen. The Law EMPLOYS
the .erm " EdietS," and requires that ..they
ShdY cease TO violate the commerce of tn.
u s." Now, will these Interpreters tell ms
that an act OF representation is the same as
an Ed'cfS Or, that the representations, which
were made Ave months ago, will affect any
other vessels in .fltUro-in the words Of
the law, that they " shall violate our com !.
merce 20
But LET us not avail ourselves of the him
Sfc iof,, IL
ton for them as they ought to have nut il.
Ought otIthe President to have insisted
upon the revocation of the RambouilIet De-
cree. by which our. vessels cpere seouester
ed = Surely not. The law directs him tn
make no such .requisiton terms are
s. neutral commerce. But there is very
plain distinction between neutral & ror;onoy
lrlghts--Lhe representation of our vessel,
was rather transgression on cur national
than our neutral rights il is clear.
that even II the X: Decree had been orjei
naHy encouragement on our neutral rights,
II was municipal law, and as such, lost the
character or an outrage, from the very
moment when we had a notice of its exis.
tence-With what truth then can it be Said
thatlt TvtH violate neutral commerce
: ~. But we shall DO told s. that e. b. has
gwen us assurances not less pointed than
those OF France--that the former has re
voked er,Orders, as well az the latter her
Decrees----and that therefore the Procla
nation ought to have issued, or that it
ought to have embraced both % Indeed -,
And will any man seriously believe. tina.
these cases are the same
The pledge of France is certain and sne
c'tc--'hat of G. b. is general, and wraot
up In all the mazes o. diplomatic confusion.
France says, revoke such and such de
crees on such day UT being understood
that II U. Is. does not rescind her orders. Won
will resist hem IN conformity with parti
cular Act OF Congress-" G b. saws, 81
VIII rellnqulsh my SySten--if France does
repeal her DEGREES, and If neutral commerce
shall be brought back to the same footing.
on which 1t stood previously to their pro
mulganon., The act OF France is complete
IN useLf---that of G. b is no. hing; il is
dependent on some after act, which OF course
does: not now exist, and may 7tcper take
place, and If it does take place, will not
probably come up to our just demands.
For, as we have already said, there are not
less than two important antiquities in Lord
Wellesley's letter. He does not inform us.
Fret, whether under the sort of pledge
set forth in his letter, the British govern
ment will revoke their blockade of Nav.
1906. l.f..
And Secondly, what is their precise mean
ing IN requiring, as preliminary, the res
toration OF the commerce of neutraIs to thar
condition in which il stood flreuiouskv TO the
prom ulgation of the Berlin Decree
Until these doubts are cleared IN. how
can IL be said, that the Marouis has eyen