Star. — London, England, 1810-01-08 00:00:00

TO THE PROPRIETORS OF EAST INDIA STOCK. Lanus AND GENTLEMEN, AS the Election at. the India-House is fixed for Tuesday, the 16th instant, I take the liberty of earnestly requesting the honour of your attendance and support on that day. My reliance is, and always has been, upon your knowledge of my conduct, as a Proprietor. That conduct has, in no instance, proceeded from a wish to serve myself, but from a desire to main tain the just rights, and to promote the permanent interests of the Company ; and if, by your favour, I should be placed in the Direction' I never will depart from hose principles. It has been my wish to wait personally upon the Proprietors, as much as I possibly could. When, in any instance, I have not done se, I trust that the omission will not be attributed to want of Respect, but to the extensive nature of the Canvass, when compared with the Time in which I had to accomplish it. I am, Ladies and Gentlemen,very respectfully, • Your most obedient and very humble servant, Strand, Jan. 8, 1810. RICHARD TWINING. The Friends, in general, of Mr. Tei;hling are earnestly reques ted to attend a General Meeting, at the King's Head, on Wed nesday, a: One o'Clock precisely. To the PROPRIETORS of EeIJT-INDI4 STOCK. LADIES AND •ENTLIMLN, Though I am seldom inclined to take notice of anonymous let ters, which are much oftener written to answer some private purpose, than to lead to the discovery of truth, yet, upon the present occasion ' it seems necessary for me, not only in justifi cation of myself, but also for the sake of those Directors and those Proprietors who have honoured me with their support, to repel that misrepresentation which is contained in a letter, signed ‘` An Old Proprietor." For, if lam myself doing the very thing which I have condemned in another person, so far from deserv ing that flattering support which has voluntarily been bestowed upon me, I shall unquestionably merit censure ; and some degree of Harm: may attach to those who recommend and support me. Theimpression intended to be made by the " Old Proprietor" apon those Proprietors to whom he addresses his letter, is mani festly this, that having opposed, and successfully opposed that 4,•,1it, which was at one time cl aimed b y some Gentlemen in the Direction, of trading with India in their private capacities, and Laving also maintained, that it made no difference as to the im propriety of such a trade, whether it was carried on by the Di ctor in his own name, or through Trustees in the name of his son, such son being a minor and at school, I now offer myself as a Candidate for the East India Direction, notwithstanding I am concerned either in my own person or in the persons of my sons, in the business of a Tea-dealer. It will save time if I admit, at once, that it makes no differ ence, as to the propriety or impropriety of my being placed in the Direction, whether this business is carried on by me or by my sons. If the business of a Tea-dealer bears any resemblance to that business, which I maintained, in the former instance, was incompatible with the duties of a Director, those duties certainty ought not to be entrusted to me. A fair statement, 1 I wever, of the nature of that business to which I objected, and of that which has been carried on by me and my sons, will I am confident, convince every candid Proprietor, and every per son who is not indisposed to admit the truth, that the two trades which I am considering, differ most completely from each other : that the see was a rival trade ; a trade injurious to the company's interests, and consequently not fit to be carried on by the same persons who were entrusted with the Direction of the Company's trade ; and that the other trade, viz. that of a Tea-dealer, is not only not a rival trade to that of the Ccnoipany, or a trade injurious to the Company,but is, absolutely and indisputably,a trade highly beneficial to it. in the trade to which I objected, the Director would have been concerned as an Agent (and whether as Agent or principal made no difference ; for an Agent must endeavour to promote the interest of his Principal), In imparts from India, and in exports to it. He would have met the Company, as its rival,both in the Indian and in the English market, and when under the new charter, a charter now growing very old ! great ludulgencies were granted to private traders, it never was meant that the business of those private traders should be conducted, in any way, by the very same persons who were to conduct the Com pany's business. An appeal, and it was an appeal which I made to the good sense of the Proprietors, decided this point, and con firmed the resolution, which I then brought forward. Such is the concise, but true, history of the business to which I objected. Let us now examine the business which " An Old Proprietor" compares with this. I zni willing to hope, in candour, that he would not have made the comparison if he had understood the subject upon which he was writing. As a tea-dealer, I can neither import tea from China, nor export any article to that country.-- The only connection that I can possibly have with the Company, is that of buyizg tea at their public sale. Every buyer of goods at the Company's public sale, promotesthe Company'sinterest. Theby kws expressly secure this benefit to the Company. !believe' might safely affirm that from the time of my first knowing any thing of the East India Company, the direction has never been without some Gentleman in it, who did thus purchase goods at the Com pany's sale ; and why the purchase of tea should be peculiarly dis qualifying, I ant unable to discover. I can, indeed, assign a rea son why it is more removed from all possibility of objection than the purchase of any Indian commodity. The exclusive right which the East India Company has to the China trade prevents the pos sibility of any clashing of interest between the Company and any private trader. I must just observe, that whoever is acquainted with the publicit y of the Company's sales, and particularly of their tea sales, must be convinced of the utter impossibilty of any collusion or of any conduct which can prove injurious to any per son whatever. Almost every dealer who purchases tea as the Company's sale employs occasionally every broker in the room.— Every Broker buys, occasionally, for almost every tea-dealer.— Every purchase, every reference for decision to the Director, who happens to attend the sale, is made in the presence of several clerks in the India House, of Of fi cers both of the Custom and Excise, and of a great number of Tea-dealers. So that if any Di-, rector shooki be so unprincipled as to wish to decide any question vnfahly and partially, could he possibly dare to do so ? Ha s such a suspicion, I can scarcely refrain from saying so mean a suspicion, been applied to any Director, who purchased at the Company's public sale articles imported by the Company ? As far as I know, the '• OW Proprietor" has made the first discovery of the ineligibility of a Tea-dealer for that situation, in which any other dealer in articles of the Company's importation might be placed. And here I request permission to adduce a reason which, with submission to the " Old Proprietor," might, as it seems to me, be alledged with considerable propriety in favour of having in the direction some person who is ac quainted with, and who has an interest in the China Trade. I have before now maintained that if that trade be considered in its true light, and with resptct to its permanent effects, the Tea dealer:, the Earl-India Company, and the Public at large, have a common interest in its being carried on, exclusively, by the East India Company. He must be a very adventurous, or a very un suceesstul ka-deahr who would wish to resort to the precarious supply of individual importation. 'Do the Company, if, as a pro prietor, I may presume to know any thing of the subject, the China trade has proved, by far, the most beneficial branch of the Company's commerce And the Faille has surely ample cause for leaving the China trade in its present channel,when it is con sidered, that exclusive of the many collateral advantages which the Pt.blic derives from the single article of tea, under the Com pany's exclusive right of importation, that stick affords to the Public a revenue of upwards of three minions a year, which sum is paid to the Public without any expence of collecting. 1 will :mention one circumstance more which, probably, escaped the sa gacity of the " Old Proprietor," or he would scarcely, I think, have imagined, or have endeavoured to make other peewee imagine, that there was a similarity between two tWes whit's are so utterly dissimilar. 1 have the honour, as 1 deem it„, being recommended to the Proprietors by twenty out o f a n . and twenty Directors ; and ot that recommendatim :hall presently take leave to say a few words. They are the twenty Directors who have been longest in the direction, and in the number are all those Gentlemen, in the present direction, who were in the direction when the Charter was last renewed. The ar able Baronet who was in the Chair at that time , and the =lt:arable Director who seconded my motion for preventing any Director from trading with India, are amonpt the Direc tors who have been pleased to afford me their support. tiow can is be bstagined that if the trade in which I am latecomog i wa s &may to that which was dtdared incompatible with a seat in the direction, those Gentlemen, those twenty Din non . would re commend mo to tha Proprietors in the way in which they h ave been pleased to 4 so ? Before I conclude this address to the Pro. weimses, I solo& to make • few remarks upon the Resolutions whisk passed it the City oitiondon Tavern on the gd instant, Of des respectability of the flall= who confirmed those R e .. aalathsas t do not entertain any • and I trod that, In no wo w " will either Colonel Taylor or be treated by me otherwise than with respect. As, however, to which I allude are likely to affect, and were , to affect me, there cannot be any impropriety public notice of them. Their perfect civility knowledge. I shall notice briefly each of the first of the Committee. The first Resolution considers the public region —.onion by the Court of Directors as" an attempt on the part of the Execu tive Body to interfere with and overawe the free choice of the Proprietors at the approaching election." To that remark I reply, first, that the recommendation alluded to, is not the recommen dation of the Court of Directors; it is the recommendation of 20 Directors in their private capacities. Secondly, these Directors, so far from attempting to overawe any Proprietor, or from using any language which can justify such a charge against them, merely, " take the liberty earnestly to recommend" a particular Candidate " to the favour and support" of the Proprietors ; and this, as the Directors are pleased to say," from a sense of duty." Surely-melt language, addressed to persons who are to vote by ham, has not even the semblance of language which was intended to overawe, or which could overawe any human being. Besides it is well known that two Directors, of the three who did not join in recom mending me, have exerted their influence in favour of another Candidate. But if two Directors have a right to cement* ono Candidate (and I do not call that right in question), why should not 20 Directors have an equal right to recommend another? The publicity of the recommendation may make it, and was I con ceive intended to snake it, more effectual, but it cannot make it improper; as the publicity may be considered as proceeding from a conviction of its propriety. The second Resolution says—" That it is not the duty of the Court of Directors to interfere in the election of persons to fill vacancies in their own body."—lt certainly is not the duty of Di rectors to interfere, when they think their interference Would be useless or do no ha rm. But if at any time the Directors should have reason to think that an avowal of their opinion would prove beneficial to the Company, it is surely their duty to make such avowal. That information " undermines" se prejudices the" Tree choice" of any man, is a most un doctrine. After is p ei ldeal all, I might perhaps, without any .y, ask whether the framers and supportereof than would not have been very glad of the avowed telemilisdoelee el 20 Directors, if they could have obtained it t Of the motive which is attolionted in the third resolution, to the three Directors, who withheld their demure from the recom mendation in question, I know seddeg ; and I should be very uncandid indeed, if I were to csndemn, or to suspect their mo tives, because I am unacquainted with them. The Gentlemen who drew up and confirmed this resolution, were doubtless more enlightened upon this point than I am; for itis not prudent to assign motives for tbeconduct of another personovithout being expressly informed by him what his motives were. I must just add, re specting one of the three Gentlenlen alluded to, that though be declined adding his signature to the public reco mmendation of the twenty Directors, I have never had reason to think that he would not concur with them by honouring me with IV support. The Fourth Resolution is, in a great degree, replied to by my obeer. rations on the First and Second. The "Court of Directors" has not interfered. But individual Directors, at least, have not only u a right" to interfere, but their duty absolutely requires them to in so whenever they may feel a conviction that their interference Irsuld be likely to prove materially beaeficlal to the Company.- 1 must deny, however, that the interference of the Directors was " particularly unnecessary upon the present occasion ; because the reason assigned by themselves (the Directors) is what every Proprietor has had equal opportunity to judge of." There are many Proprietors who, unless the Directors had thought fit to make an open avowal of their opinion, and of the reason upon which it was founded, would have known neither the one nor the other. The Fifth Resolution informs us, that in the opinion of the Meeting, Colonel Taylor " is, on account of his local and mili tary knowledge and abilities, at this particular juncture, pecu liarly fit to tucceed to the present vacant seat in the Direction." I am most ready to give credit to any praise which the friends of Colonel Taylor may bestow upon his " local and military know ledge," or upon his conduct as an Officer in India. But I will not acknowledge, that "at this particular juncture," " military knowledge" is the species of knowledge most wanted in the Di rection. I esteem such knowledge highly; and the Direction ought never to be without Gentlemen who possess ft. But, if I mistake not, there are already more military Gentlemen in the Direction than have usually been there at any one time. And, what is the actual situation of the Company "at this particular juncture ?" Ibis well known, that many important points, not particularly cennected with military knowledge, are, or must soon be brought under the Court's consideration; and in particu lar, that most important subject, a subject upon which our exis tence, in asy thing like our present form, may depend—the rot newel 1 the Company's charter. If those Directors wi o have honoured me with their public recommendation had thought military information was the sort of information most wanted in the Direction, " at this particular juncture," they would not, I am sure, have made me the object of their recommendation. Upon this point then, and it is a very important point—two opinions, widely diffeting from each other, are entertained. And they are recommended to the Proprietors, under circumstances which are also widely different. One opi nion comes front Gentlemen whose numbers and whose names we know not. The other opinion comes from Gentlemen who have signed their names in support of it, and who have unques tionably, as Directors, the best means of judging what the situa tion of the Company "at this particular juncture;' actually is; and consequently, what quali fi cations in a Candidate , would likely to render him most useful. Thus such as reply, I hope as inoffensive reply, to the roans dons of the meeting of the 2d instant. It now only remains for me to assure the Proprietors, that I have not hastily obtruded myself upon their notice. I came for ward under an assurance that my doing so would be acceptable to a great majority of the Directors. Those Gentlemen have given me, of their own accord, their support in the way which they have deemed right ; and though I am ready to confess that the commendation which they have bestowed upon me farexceeds my deserts, yet is true that, for many years, I have endeavoured zealously and disinterestedly, to render the Company servile ; and if 1 should obtain a seat in the Direction, those endeavours shall be at least equally zealous and equally disinterested. I had also, and still have, good reason to think, that my offering myself as a Candidate for the Direction would not be unacceptable to the Proprietors, of whom many had witnessed, and as far as I could judge, approved my conduct. It is upon their approbation, concurring with the very honourable support, as 1 feel it, of a great majority of the Directors, that I rely for success. I remain, Ladies and Gentlemen, with much respect, Your must obedient, and very humble servant, Strand, Jan. 5, 1810. RICHARD TWINING. DOCUMENTS, ACCOMPANYING THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THZ UNITED STATES-(CONCLUDED.) MR. SMITH TO MR. PINKNEY. Department of State, November 25. Sir—My letters, in the correspondence with Mr. Jackson, already transmitted to you, sufficiently evince the disappointment that was felt, on finding that he had not been charged to make to this govern. meat either the frank explanations or the liberal pro positions which the occasion manifestly required. In stead of this obvious course of proceeding, it was in ...the outset perceived, that his object was to bring us to resume the subjects of the arrangement of April, in a way that would imply that we were aware that the arrangement was not binding on his Government, because made with a knowledge on our part that Mr. Erskipe had no authority to make it, and thus to con vert the responsibility of his Government for the dis avowal, into a reproach on this for its conduct in the transaction disavowed. In the first instance it was deemed best, rather to repel his .observations argu mentatively, than to meet them as en offensive insi nuation. This forbearance had not the expected ef. feet of restraining him from a rdpetition of the ofr fence ; and even on his farther insinuations, nothing I snore was done than to premonish him of the inad missibility of so indecorous a course of proceeding.—: This also being without effect, nothing remained but the step finally taken ; and there was the less besitiv tion in shutting the door to further opportunities fur , precision __ cession ; nor on the manner or the time of his de. that he bad given any room at all for a state ment, which, In order to guard against the miscon. ceptions incident to verbal conferences, rhad placed before him in writing, with a request that he would poise out any inaccuracies, and to which he did not then object otherwise than by intimating, that he could not have made the statement with the partku. kr view ingirk mind t k Armond. Nor dwell on the various instances in Which partial of inconsis tent views of the subject have taken place of its real merits. But it may not be amiss to make some ob servations on the correspondence, as it relates to the jerfOcatim of his government is h aving disavowed the act of his predecessor. With respect)to the Orders in Council, the ground of the disavowal is the difference between the ar rangement and the printed dispatch of Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January. According to this dispatch then, the arrangement-failed in three points. Ist. In not relinquishing the trade of the United States with enemies colonies. With respect to this point, it is not necessary at this time to discuss the right of that trade. It irsull `cient to remark, Ist, that as the trade is admitted to have become, in the view of Great Britain, of little practical importance,' why has it been made a ground of the disavowal, and, especially, as important consi derations only could, upon principles of public law, have justified a measure of so serious a character ?..- 2d. That as the colonial trade is a subject no wise connected either with the Orders in Council, or with the affair of the Chesapeake, why has it been permit ted to frustrate an arrangement relating to those sub jects, and to those only ? 3d. That as this condition is allowed to have originated in a supposition, that it would be agreeable to the American Government, why has it Leen persisted in after the error was made known by the repeesentation of Mr. Erskine to his Government, that neither this nor the other condi. tions of the dipsatch of the 23d January, were attain-. able here ? 2d. Another point in the dispatch, and not in the i arrangement, is, that the British navy might capture our trade to ports prohibited by the United States. This condition too appears to have had its origin in a mistake of your meaning in a conversation with Mr. Canning, as noted by yourself, and in an infe rence thence deduced as to the dispositionsof this Go vernment. But this double mistake must have been brought to light in time to have been corrected in the new mission. In urging it, Mr. Canning has taken a ground, forbidden by those principles of decorum, which re gulate and mark the proceedings of governments to wards each other. In his dispatch the condition is stated to be for the purpose of securingthe bond fide in tendon of America to prevent ker citizens from trad ing with France and certain other powers ; in other words, to secure a pledge to th,at effect against the, sada fide intention of the United States. And this dispatch, too, was authorized to be communicated in esitsisto, to the Government of which such language was used. Might it not have been reasonably expec ted that such a condition and such observations would at least, on such an occasion, have been given up by a Government willing to smooth the way to an ami cable settlement of existing differences ? In his zeal to vindicate his government, Mr. Jack son too has attempted a gloss on this most extraordi nary idea of calling on a foreign sovereignty, not indeed to make laws for us, but, what is equivalent in principle, to supply a supposed inability to execute them. He calls such an interposition of his govern ment, not an execution of the law of Congress, but of a compact binding as a public law on both parties, and which both would have a common interest in seeing duly executed. On his own principles there ought to be a reciprocity, not only in the execution of the compact, but in the obligation and interest re suiting from it. Besides, where there is a reciprocity in compacts between nations touching attributes of sovereignty, there is always as much of sovereignty gained as is parted with, so that there be no loss nor indignity on either side. 3. The remaining point in the dispatch, not secur ed by the arrangement, is that which required, that whilst our prohibitory laws should be repealed as to Great Britain, they should be left in force as to France and the Powers adopting or acting under her decrees. This is the condition which alone properly belongs to the subject ; and it is to be remarked, in the first place, that the British project, of which this condi ' tion makes a part, contemplated two things in their nature incompatible; one, a repeal of the pruhibitory , acts as to Great Britain, without waiting for the con elusion- of a regular treaty ; the other a pledge, or engagement for their continuance as to the other 1 powers. Now, from the nature of our constitution,l which, in this particular, ought to have been at I tended to by the British Government, it is manifest shat the Executive authority could have given no such pledge ; that the continuance of the prohibitory Acts, being a subject of Legislative consideration t l could not have been provided for until the meeting of the Legislature ; and that the condition could not, therefore, but have failed, either in the immediate renewal of commerce with Great Britain, or in the immediate engagement that it should not renewed with France. British Government ought to have acquiesced in, and, indeed, ought to have been satisfied with the attainment of the important object of an immediate repeal of our prohibitory laws; and with the consideration, that the other object, not ism. mediately attainable, was unnecessary at the time,l because the prohibition as to France was then in force, and because there was every reason to infer not only from this fact, but from the spirit of the conunnnica dons made from title to time, and from the overtures before submitted to the British Government, that, without a repeal of the French decrees, tor prphibi-1 pry laws would be continued in force against France, and especially in the case of a repeal of the British Orders, which would necessarily renckr a (patina once of the French decrees doubly obnoxious, But if on this brad doubts cos4d have boost enter tained, into of re Ling the a ought the the Repealing Actin' our gant=rt.san gimminnomi , . . • . . ... . - * 7t, • . . sr, the ItssiWas ir dm.sitsittncietussi he hat/mh o evident i l I'm" tit,- 4 Ass' dfasepsksts, Ind so entirely shut . , r in my, tallies**. k awaiadi ..: - ...7,... dwell air l o i : r hi . s fil 7 ra eloct b a l t e ic r e eg t: i g t i v from enp his to met readily *fi- rst five Resolutions 11111.10101. e"mmen4adais by uncertainties of verbal for the precision of written dis- _ L F- 3.Pseltqpirp - , - 4 ', , sp - , a tin ar t least; ef the,Orders hi Council, u nt il it could have been seen Whether the next-intercourse law would or would not have been continued against France ? Such a suspension could net have given, in any point of view, more advantage to the United States, than was given to Great Britain by the repe a l, which had taken place on their Irt. If this reasonable course could not have been sub. stituted for the disavowal, why was not a final Cs, avowal suspended with a proposition, that the ar rangement would be executed by Great Britain, in the event of a compliance on the part of the United States with the condition required as to France ? I am not unaware, you may be told, that the non. intercourse law of the United States did not extend to Holland, though so intimately connected with France, Ind so subservient to her decrees against neutral corn. erce. / i It would not be improper on this occasion to ob. !serve, that this objection can be the less urged by ' Great Britain, as she has herself never in her al ed ge d retaliations adhered to the principle on which they were founded. Thus she has from the date of them, until very lately, directed them against the American trade even to Russia, although Russia had never adopted the French decrees, nor otherwise violated our neu tral trade with Great Britain. So, in her order of April last, she has discriminated, not only bete et the countries devoted to France by the ties of blood, and other powers, but between Holland, Westpha lia, and Naples, in enforcing her prohibitory order against the first and not the two last. Whilst, there fore, she finds it expedient to make these distinctions, she ought to presume, that we too may perceive equal propriety an the distinctions we have made. But it may be of more importance here, to com pare the British Order in Council of April last, with the arrangement of April, made by Mr. Erskine. It will thence be seen how little is the real difference, and how trivial it is when compared to the extensive and serious consequences of the disavowal. • Under the Order in Council of April, all the ions of Europe, except Franco, including the kingdom of Italy and Holland, with their dependencies, arc opened to our commerce. Under the arrangement of April, combined with our Act of Non-Intercourse, all the ports of Europe, except France and her dependenci es,including the kingdom of Italy, would have been opened to out commerce. The difference then is reduced merely to }Wand, and that again is reduced to the difference bowel a direct trade to the ports of Holland, mid an indirect trade to Holland through Tonningen, H* burgh, Bremen, and Embden. Now, as the injuring of the enemies of Ortet lci, min is the only avowed object of her inordiedng order against our trade, let a computation be abet of the effect which this difference between the ' Order in Council and the arrangement could pomibit have in producing such an injury. And then /at the question be candidly answered, whether, laying aside all considerations of right and justice, losdkese4ls ducements could have been found in desereseitio rejecting the arrangement, and for pesolube . tall sequent embarrassments, as well to Greg ES to the United States. 2f it be necessary, at Mr. Jackson his stated. to set bounds to a spirit of encroachment Isnd universal dominion, which would bind al thin gs _ to its own standard ; and to falsify, by bothnraMe and merely resistance, an annunciation that all Europe is saw dug by degrees ! effort must be feeble indeed, which is to be found an the inconvenience I=l*t IP the formidable foe from the operation of tlds Mkt in Council ; and especially when we combine with it the strange phenomenon of substituting for the Imisi trade of the T,lnited States, a trade of Bodsla sok je,ete. contrary to the lays of the adverse party, anti amounting, without a special licence, in the eye ti British law, to high treason. • Thus much for .be Orders in Council. What ins taken place with respect to the case of the Chensrah will equally engage your attention, You will perceive, that throughout the MIT star of the correspondence, this case was, in some improperly confounded with, in others im pra y parated from, that of the Orders in Council ; and pat. titularly that pains had been taken by Mr. Jackson to substitute verbal and vague observations on the disavowal of this part of the arrangmmt, for an em plicit and formal explanation suck as was obviossll due. It will be seen also, th a t, when fi hast to the point, he referred for a justiScation na lbe vowel to the departure of Mr. Erskine from his is structions, without shelving what those instruction were, and to allusions to an expulsion in.tbe artier meet, without giving to hisaaemung the pre-requisite to a Just reply. It appears, however, that he lays eposit AMMO es the proposal enclosed in his letter of therthiffashr , as at once indicating the departure of Mr. Erskine flonis his instructions ; andas containing - the condi, dons op the basis of which he was ready to enter en an adjustment. And from a note from the Secretary of the British Legation, it apron that he has caw pleined of not having received• an answer to hit puo papal, as be bad before complained that no mug bad he . en given to his verbal disclosure on this hod in his interviews with me. With respect to his intimations in conversation, as they were preceded by nu proper suairment of the reasons for not having executed the original adjust. meat ; kt cannot be necessary to remark, that no sack notice, as he wished to obtain, Could, with any get of ropriery, have been taken of them, with respect to his written project, it will suffice to I remark : Ist, That, besides bis reinmest and indistinct et planation of the disavowal ofdieoriginal adjustment. he did not present his proposal, estl be had made such progress in his efaiiive insinbation as Made it proper to wait the issue of the reply about to be given to it; and that this issue had necessarily put s atop to further communications. Wly, That aldso be had given us to understand that the ordinary .athth, such plait as he bad ile• -contd oat hind his Gooscoment in such s case, his oinil had neither Wes preakied by na ac cod with the exhibition of odor comaiii o or full power : Nat, indeed, has he tier given sefil. ' cient reason to suppose , that be , i lm ir dz ar soch ait power Wait in Motion to ths cee!l It is trus. Vast in bis heir Of dal Ottatie th e sI On 0.1•11ty spy so eemitOle a t