The Enquirer

BRITISH INTRIGUE.

When the Loungers Erskine and Mansfield who came from England with Rose, went to Boston, it was plain enough that something more was intended than mere curiosity, or the desire to see Boston notions. Pickering's intimacy and incessant closenings with Rose at Washington, would have been but poorly revenged by his seditious letters, and the money expended in printing and circulating them to the number of 60 or 100,000 copies, would have been a mere ephemeron, if the intrigue was to terminate with that imbecile effort

The calculations made in England, upon an insurrection in the eastern states, in consequence of Pickering's letter, beside required something to be done to cover the mortification, and to palliate the frustration of all their hopes and promises of exciting a civil war in the very cradle of the revolution.

The English ministers have been taught to think that the resistance to the stamp and tea acts from 1763 to 1775, were not the effects of a love of virtuous liberty, nor a dread of tyranny, nor a love of national independence, but a thirst for avarice or power, or as John Wilkes said of the people north of Tweed—an itch for rebellion.

The British government have been so fully persuaded of this, that their emissaries and hirelings, with the exception of a few Englishmen, such as Cobbett, Cheetham, Cullen, alias Carpenter, have been very generally selected from the eastern states; and it is towards the eastern states, and in the very focus of the revolution, that they have established their head quarters—and there it is that the "king's troops" rally round the standard of Pickering and the Essex Junto, as the king's troops of yore rallied round Hutchinson and his satellites.

The failure of Pickering's letter, and the fatal stab which the spirited and magnanimous letter of Mr. Adams, gave to the treasonable treachery contemplated against the United States, must have sunk the hopes, and blasted the character of the seditious—indeed by the Morning Chronicle of London, which we have received by the last ships, it appears that the British public are completely undeceived, for in that paper it is stated that the "best informed Americans, say, that Pickering is a man neither distinguished nor respectable in his own country."

It was necessary then that to keep up appearances and to attract attention, some new measures and objects should be brought forth.

It appears then that this new measure is as novel in its nature as the design is absurd and futile. A simple examination of the proceedings at Boston, separated from every consideration of the members, characters, and politics of the men who appear in front of it, may perhaps aid the sober part of the country in duly estimating this new operation of the king's troops in Boston.

The first subject that presents itself, is the vote—"that it is expedient to petition the "president to suspend the embargo wholly

"or in part, according to the power vested

". in him by congress; or to call congress to-

"gether."

Here are two propositions—

1. Suspension of the embargo wholly or partially.

2. Calling of Congress.

On the first of these—it is only necessary to ask the question—Upon what grounds and for what ends was the embargo established?

The message of the president of the United States and the laws themselves, answer the question. The British had issued orders of council, followed by a proclamation, interdicting the whole commerce of America from the continent of Europe; subjecting American ships to old grievances openly asserted to be acts of right, and imposing new grievances, imposts, and restrictions before unknown among civilized nations.

The French Emperor, retaliating upon those orders, by a decree issued at Milan subjected American commerce (for it was the only neutral commerce then existing) to the same treatment as the British, and interdicting American commerce from intercourse with France, after having had intercourse with England; and declaring that these restrictions should continue in force until the British orders of council were revoked.

Upon the knowledge of these facts, it was that the President recommended, and that congress established the embargo; and the law expressly declares, that the president shall have power to suspend the embargo only when the powers of Europe, by returning to the due observance of the law of nations, and respecting the rights of neutrals, render it safe for a pacific people to risk their property on the seas.

What do the voters at Boston do; Why before the British orders of council are revoked, before the Milan decree is recalled; before the cause of the embargo has ceased, they ridiculously vote to call upon the executive to do what he has not the power to do!

But this is not the only part of the project that is absurd, for they see themselves that it is absurd, and endeavor to guard against the contempt they incur by urging that the president may have doubts about the sufficiency of his powers—they knew very well that there could be no doubt on the subject, since until the British orders of council are revoked, there can be no alteration of the law, unless by congress—and they knew very well that if congress were now called by public proclamation, that were congress disposed to repeal the embargo laws, it could not make a difference of more than 20 days, between the regular meeting of congress in November.

The Boston vote therefore, was not intended to effect what it professes—because we cannot suppose that as there were among the promoters of the measure, men so long and particularly conversant in public law, in practical legislation, and even in decorum, that they could be so ignorant, as not to know they were voting to ask what it is impracticable legally, to grant, and in point of time impracticable to accomplish in their provisional mode, that is by the calling of congress—supposing that these proceedings and addresses were forwarded on the 12th August from Boston, they reach the President by the 24th: in the course of a week the proclamation is issued from Washington, calling congress to meet in forty days, after the proclamation should reach the extremes of the union; that is to say—on the 30th Aug it is issued, ten days may circulate it to the extremes of the union, say the tenth or twelfth of September—forty days brings it to the 20th October—and congress is to meet according to law on the first Monday in November! so that this expedient proves to be as ridiculous as the project itself is in contempt of their knowledge of law.

Now it is worthy of remark that Mr. Mason, one of the movers, was for several years a senator of the United States. Mr. Gore was for several years a commercial agent of the United States at the court of London, and little chatterbox Otis, every one knows, was a long time a member of congress. The objects of the meeting and votes, as they were absurd because impracticable according to law of the land and the law of time, the wheels of whose government they cannot stop—there must have been some other object.

What is that other object?

For this other object we have to look into their address: and it will not be difficult to shew that the same absurdity, only more aggravated by its wanton nakedness, from the strong features of the address.

We might pass over the assertion with which their address begins, with the emotion of indignant pity which it excites, were it not necessary to exhibit in its language the heavy sentence of falshood which they pass upon themselves.

"Uniformly influenced by a sense of patriotism and respect for the constituted authorities."

Who are these that have been uniformly so influenced—where is the evidence of this uniformity—this patriotism—this respect for the constituted authorities—are we to look to feasts of the Pilgrims—or to the newspapers of Boston—is it to Pickering's letter—or their incessant machinations to stir up sedition and disaffection to the government—what is to be the criterion of their patriotism, when in the very phrase with which they open their address to the chief magistrate, they tell him what they know, and what they know he must know is false—and that the very sentence involves this dilemma, either that their speeches in the legislature and at town meetings, and their toasts and newspaper writings, were all false and hollow professions, because they are libels on the government and on patriotism; or that they only feign this respect for the constituted authorities now to add a new insult to the demand made upon him to violate the laws of his country.

No other rational construction, separable from the most inveterate hypocrisy, can be given to the proceeding ..Aurora.