Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-26
A PLANTER.
Chesterfield. Sept. IS, 1893.
BLOCKADE OF C.4DIz.

4
| What may be the strict right i'll general, is
one question how ii should be exercised tin-
der the notifications il may receive from the
circumstances ofthe particular case, is another
| Nattei does say, that however sacred he the
right of one nation to-send ministers TO anoth-
er, I" II is to be understood only in time of
peace; that war introduces other rights that
there are even occasions when the ministers
of Il neutral nation, going To an enemy, may
he refused passage; that there is no obliga-
ton OF suffering them To carry tn him perhaps
| sautary m!urnations, and to concert measures
for assisting him; that this admits oi no doubt,
| Tor Instance, In case uf a besieSed town that
no right can authorize the minister of IA neutral
power, nor any other person whatsoever, To go
INTO II without the besieger's leave; hut TO
prevent offence, good reasons must be given To
soverelgns for this refusal Of letting their min
Isters pass, and with such they are to be salts
fed, If they are disposed TO continue neutral"
! The inference from this whole passage GER
taInly Is that unless the beliigerent is satisfied
the Minister is about To carry Ssiutdry fnfOr-
nation orto concert measures for assisting has
tnemy, he ought not to refuse his leave: and il
he does refuse his leave, he is bound 10 have
and 10 assign good reasons for his refusal.
| But Admiral Hamelin could scarcely have
ever suspected that Mr.. Nelson was about TO
| carry salu;ary information or concert measures
no adequate reason, therefore, for the French
to have put the strict law into execution
gainst our minister.-It was, to say the least
OF ii, under the general circumstances of the
blockade, Il harsh and discoufeous enforcement
of a brllgerent principle.-It is an act, for
which we ought Immediately To call in the
most emphatic terms for good reasons"
But what shall we say, when we take into
consideration the other circumstances Of the
1 a. INN Il
with partiality, still more dscourteous TO
ourselves, permitted Portuguese frgate Ia
pass into the port lciih minister on board
and also British fIigate With what face can
| Admiral Hameln have declared To Captain
| Biddle, las the National Gazette reports him
TO have done,) that " his orders would not al
low him To let the ship pass that they
peremptory, and did not leave him at liberty
to exercise any discretion" How then did he
extend different rule In the frigates Of Portu-
gal and G.. Britain ? Could this partiaty be
the order OF his court Ii would then become
still more marked, and would call on our part
! for still more severe Ieprehension.-Mr Nell
SON, II seems, has addressed aremoDstrance TO
the Duke d'Angouieme. The Dukes orders,
too, we presume, are peremptoiy-or he has
no discretion.
We confess, this gross rartialty which is
said TO exist, stirs our gall not a little Ii
| has the air, OF great discourtesy even of
dIsrespeci and contempt 1t is calculated To
call Tor vigorous remonstrance from our go
vernment and perhaps eventually for some
vigorous measure. Great Britain is said 10
be dspaiching naval force to Cadiz, wheih-
er to keep the French To their good behaviour,
or TO protect the safety of his NEST catholic
majesty we are puzzled 20 know. Two ar
three of Our IDS or trigates might find conve-
nlent sailing ground in the same vicinity.