The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-11-10


ed to war by secret understanding with
France. who seeks peace with the enc
! my and. when disappointed in that wish
resolves to prosecute the war. faithful (
Yourselves, and entangled in no connection.
with the views of other powers ?"
BIT the terms of the Armlstice! Aye,
what are they: He proposes a suspension
OF host:lities. butt0med on certain conditi.
Z ons: like the great Franklin in 49,, who
disapproved at amy ar,nistice whatever un-
less 1t recognised the independence of A.
merica. 1t the present proposition be wrong.
It must either be because, no conditions
should have been asked, or those Conditions
were eXorbitant. Hut would 1t have been
proper to have laid down our arms as soon
as they were taken up, and resume that
empty negotiation Which had SO repeatedly
and SO lately ended IN smokei Were We to
have paralyzed the energies of the war,
without having ANY sort OF assurance of the
probability Ut peacef The only question
then is this; were these conditions such
as we ought to have proposed!
They WE'RE LIST. That the orders i'm couu-
Gil should be repealed, as to the u. S. with
out a " revival ct bio, kaIes violating acknow-
Iledg. d rights And 3D. That our citizens
should be immediately discharged from Bri-
tish ships, anu Il )" stop fput) to imp.ess-
ments fgom American ships, with an nnde r.
standing that an exclusion Of seamen from
each nation from the ships of the other
should be stipulated"
|. ihr first is certainly not improper, when
liz is considered that the o. i'm e.. was one
lot the main causes of the war; and that
their repeal had been previously wooed in a
variety OF ways. but wooed in vain. Yet,
u seems. this question is not now likely to
d-teat any armls,ice, or indeed pacificati-
ON. Provided the repeal which has been
lpub.icly announced receiyeS those e.tf,tanon-
ons OF which it is susc htibie.
| As to the second, (our seamen) it is more
| oifai to us than the other while there is
probably much smaller chance of adjust
ing 1t to our satisfaction. In reply to the
propositions of Mr.. Russell, Lord Castle
reagh gives no Sort of hint that the arrange
ment would be, ultimately accepted; while
he even refuses to suspend (during the ar
mistice3 Z" the exetcise of a right upon
which the naval strength of the empire
manly depends, until they are fully con-
sinced that means can be devised, and will
be adopted, by which the object to be OBJ
tanned by the exercise of that right can
DE- effecthally secured" Sir John b. War
rem. in his letter to Mr.. Monroe, does
not drop une syllable about our seamen.-
SO, that as the British ministers do not seem
disposed, to come, on proper terms, into
/ tiC al WHICH VIC nave OHSTGu, tneTG
seems no other chance of peace at present,
chan for Sir J. B. Warren to avail himself
of the last opening made by Mr.. Monroe in
his love OF peace, viz. To proceed, gvuhout
the armlstict, to an immediate discussion
and arrangement of an article on the sub
ject OF impressment.-Her the affair rests
az fresent.
| For our own parts, we do not believe that
Sir John will avail himself, at present, of
| this opening. Nor do we believe that the
administration will sw erve from the ground
which they have taken, as to this cardinal
point of dispute. We have made propositi-
"ns which all impartial men must pronounce
TO be just: We have demanded nothing
which is not essentially required by our ow
interests, without any material Injury to those
otG. b. Cease to take your seamen from
loar ships; and we will eEctitde them frtrn
our ships by our own laws" This is the
sum and substance of our proposition.
Now, do we ask any thing that is nezv !?
Is this the first case in which nations have
consented to let others do that for them
which they had been in the habit of doing
for Themselves? Is this the first time that
one sta,e has permitted the mu,lcihdi rules
OF another to stand in lieu OF It's own hrac
tices or rights? We have'a case, of this de
scription in the treaty of '78 between France
and the T.. 5, In lieu ofthe right of search
in all cases for cOntraband goods, the Con
tracing parties agreed to respect the Gus
house papers of each other. Each
ship was to have sea letter or passport,
desc riptive of its bulk, property, name, &c. ;
and when laden, she was also to have Ger
tfcate " containing the several particulars
OF the cargo, that SO IL may be kno7Dn whe-
tlier any fOrbiddan or contrabaud goods
were on board" And {" to the end, that ali
ldissention and quarrel may be avoided and
prevented" the simple exhibit of t, csc pa
pers was to supersede the right of search ;
these municipal papers being as much res.
pected, as it the matches he'd been broken
up and the cargo itself laid bare to the eye
1t indeed "by exhibiting Of these certifi
Gates the other party discover" there were
any contraband on board, the vessel IVA;
then to be taken in for further proof These
stipulaiions are also to he found in the Tea
ty of '82 between ourselves and the Dutch.
We can cite also similar substtutions
under the sanction of England herself
For example a few years since the famou.
tween her and the Baltic States. She claim
ed the right of searching merchantmen, 10,
contraband of war; when they were in
der the protection of national vessels. -
At length the question between her * Rus
sia was set at rest by the Convention O
1901 in which she gave up the right I,
search them, and in lieu of 1t, consented t,
receive as proof certain custom house pa
pers. which were merely TO identify the shil
OF war and the merchant ship under its con
voy. On her part and ty way Of comunta
ton fer this pretensiop, Russia entere,
..4Nx. al