The New Hampshire gazette — Portsmouth [N.H.], 1810-05-15 00:00:00, page 2

- TGREAT BRITAIN AND AMERICA.
gu@,gch_f;mfgge‘?gg&; 0. M. Erskine to
-/~ MrSecretary Canning, dated Washington, .
" August 3 x%og gl
- SBir—Vhave the honor to acknowl- "
edge the receipt of your dispatches,
No. 10, 11 12, of the z;,c»_l-z 3(11, and
th of May, original and duplicates,
g:cformér.%féugsht’f;in his Majesty’s
Packer Windsor Caltle, whicharrived
“at N. York on the 25th ult and the
“latter, which ‘were delivered to me
yesterday by Lieut. Gregory, com
manding his majelty’s gun brig Con.
test which arrived in. Hampton roads,
“in the Bay of Chesapeake on the 29th
ult. \ _
Iloft no time in complying with
‘your’ igftru&ions contained.m your
“ "N 0713 to deliver a copy of his Maj .-
ty’s Order in Council of the 24th of
May last, to the Secretary of State of
this governmant, which I accordingly
{ént 1o M Rabert Smith in a written
_ mote, of whicf the inclofed is a copy.
In obadience 1o your commands, I al
so used all the means in my power to
make the above mentioned Order pub
licly known throughout the United
States, : , |
I: s with the dcepelt regrat that I
fi. . {-om.your defpatches, Iﬁ’ 10 &
10 of the 224'and 23 ' May, that his
M j~&y Ylas :Ziﬁppmved Of' the man
nerin which 1 executed the inftirud@ions
which you sent ne by Mr Oakley and
has becn compelled to difivow the
provisional agreement which I had
larely entere! into- with this govern
“ ment, unier the rperfuafion that it
would have met with his maj=ity’s ap
probation.
The daty and high refpe& which I
“owe.to his fhajeity, would restrain me
from making any reply to the an
imadversions upon my condu& which
- you have conveyed to me by his Ma
jeity’s command ; but I coafifer that
-1t is incumbent on me to offer some
observations upon certain points of my
-megociation which appear to have
been mifunderfiood in confiquence I
-foppofe of my having given them an
infufficient or imperfe& explanation.
It is Gated by you in your No.
10, of the 224 of May, that with ref
pedt 1o the inftrudtions relating to the
Chefapeak, which formed the fubje&
of your defpatch, No. 1, of the 234
of January last, Ihad omitted a pre
liminary of the most material impor
tance, as the condition of ¢ his ma
32fty’s no longer insisting on the recal
of the proclamation of 1807, as a
preliminary to the adjustment of the
difference arising from the affair of
the Chesapeake, and the ships of war
shall, in point of fa&, have been ex
cluded from the ports of the United
States, and such ships of that déferip- i
as were in those poris thall have been
warned to depart. 1
Of this coadition you observe, that
I appear to have taken no notice what- i
ever ; youadd also that the non.inter
courfe bill operated to the profpetive
-1 beg leave to refer you to the firft l
exclusion. A
fe@ion of the non intercourse law,
which you will find exciudes the thips
of war, from the pafli g of that a&
on the firft of March ; the prohibition,
theretore, was not profpe@ive but im
mediatg, and in fa& had been in op
eration fix weeks before I commenced
the ‘negociation. S
- Upon the fubj=& of the warning
which thould be ¢iven to any French ]
dhips i the ports of the U. States, the |
secretary of state, Mr Robert Smith 1
informed me, that there were no
French thips at present in the waters. i
of the United Scates. and that it was
to be prefiimed, that the goverment
would caufetheir laws to be executed ;
in the propristy ‘and juttice of which
statement I sally acquiesced. -
The preliminary condition above
mentioned was therefore, I conceives
fulfilled. ‘ R . ~
- Your next obje&ion fates, thatthe
proclamation of the president of July,
1807, is neither withdrawn, nor its
operation declated to be at an end.
Oan' explanation of this point, I ,bh;eﬁg'
leave to remark: that the Non-Inter-:
on which the President’s proclamation -
was founded, by the words at the end
of the 3d fe@ion of that aét, inserted
by congress for thatpurpofe, which
circomltance 1 communicated to you
in my No. 18 of the 17th of March,
and again in- my No. 19 of the 13th
- of April, #n which I mentioned that
-the Secretary of State declared {0 me,
that the proclamation was merged in
. the non-intercourse. . I believe 1 omits
~ ted in my No. ig to informy you, that
M. Smith added that it wis impoffi
'bleto ifflusa proclamation to recall’
oAPWE g eady o kel
“aud couldnotbe revived.
pon 2’ pointof 1o delicate a nature,
- shae T procsed 1o on explangtion of it
with the ‘greateft caution and defet
s m?m% r, to requel %;Am
RS
L g g AR AR T T e e
Pek R S LR S A TR IS SRR Rk N
.It would be an ﬁkexcufabkpf&,
fomption in me to attempt to put a
different conftru@ion on the expref.
“fions contained inthe latver part ofMr.
- Smith’s firft letter to me, or to view
the meaning of the words in a differ
“ent light from that which you have
~been- pleased to inform me his maj<f
ty hasdone ; but I think it my duty
to declare, that I do not believe any
intention whatever existed in the mind
ot the president of the United States
to convey a disrefpedtful meaning to
wards his majesty by those aprelgoné.
Upon my being informed by the
Secretary of State. that the President
would agree to wave any demand or
~further punithment of the Britith offi
cer who had caused an attack to be
made on the United States fiigate
Chesapeake, bat it would be impofible
to refrain from ‘exprefling "an opinion
that he deserved it. Lufed all my en
deavours to parfuade this government
to give up such an insinuation, not
from any idea that I entertained of its
being disrefpe@ful to his mujslty, but
as it ‘might seem less conciliatory
jthan the disposition of the President
had been represented to me, ani of
“ the sincerity of which I was fully
-~ persuaded. B i (
- After I had received Mr Smith’s
note, I deliberated upon the propriety
of making any observations in answer
- to those expreflions, but I was induced
to forbear from fending any reply by
-consideration ‘of ‘the policy and pro
pricty of not blending . irritating
discuflions with amicable acjuitments.
It appeared to me that if any in.je
cort a could jaftly be atuributed to
the expreflion in the official note ‘of
this government theceafure due would
fall uvpon them, and that' the public
opinion would condemn their bad taste
or want of propriety,in coldly & un
graciously giving up what they cen
fidered as a right, but which they are
not in a condition to enforce,
- The feelings of his mzjefty upon
that point are a fufficient proof that I
have tformed an_erroneous judgment
relpe@ing it and I have to lament not
only that any a& or omission on my
part thould have incurred his muj=l
ty’s displeasure, but that it should have
beenthecaufe(thoughunintentionally)
of conveying anyexprefion personally
disagreeable or even apparently difref
pe&fulto the sovereign of my country.
I have omited to mention one cir
cumstance, which is, that the reason
why I did not put in a claim on the
part of his M.jefty to recover from
the Amcrican goveinment, ; deserters
from his Majelty’s service was, that
they had always declared themfzlves
willing t 0 be guided by the laws of
Nations upon’ that fut jo& g
- My motives for deviating from the
precise lines of my infiruéhons relative
to the bounty intended by his M jefty
for the relations of the killed & wound
ed on board of the Chesapeake, will I
hope, upon explanation bg found to
be fatisfa&ory.
.When I roentioned his Maj-fiy’s lib.
eral views upon that point, the fecre
tary of ttate informed me that it would
be highly fatisfa&tory if the offer was
exprefled in general terms aithough
the governmept pever ineant to ac
cept the provision tendered bur would
acknowledge thefliberality of hisM:jef
ty. when they might hereafter dectine
to avail themselves of it, bat that if
it was put vpon the footing ‘of spon
taneous generosity it would not be at
all acceptable to the U States. With
sentiments of the higheß refpeét, 1
bave the honor to be, firy your most
obedient humble servant. i ¥
o - D M. ERSKINE.
N ——— OAt ;
From the Nativnal Intetligencer.
Mz. SmitH, ‘ ~
1 learn that {ime misconcep
tions have gone abioad. concerning
the proceedings of the Supreme court
in some casts gnder the embargo laws,
“and partic ulérly those from New. Or
leans. " Itheretore think it proper to
give to the public,through your paper,
a' corre@ but concise. Ratement of
those procgeedihgie. - s =0
. The firfl case decided of this des
cription was from Philadelphia. It was
an aé&tion on a bond under the em
ba'rg_é{?;g,g, given on ‘the clearing ont
of a veflcion a coasting voyage ; and
the cordition of the bond was to re
land the cargo in some port of the
United States, “ the dangers of the
i o oPR R e L
The'detendant -alleged and proved.
at the trial that the vessel was coma
pelied by firefs of weather and una.
voidable peceflity, arising from ¢ the
dangers of the seas,” to pur into a
foreign port, where the cargo was
seized and detained, so that he conld
ot reland it'inthe U. States. The
gueftion was whether this was a fuffi-.
cienit defence.. ' The circuit conrt of
-Pennsylvania deeidedihat it was. There
~was an appeal,and the supreme toust,
after a very foll argument, sfirmed
Ahe decision. 50 L oo T dr
- Nobédy I presume will find fault
with this decision 3 or will contend
thdt men ought 30 be punithed for rioy
gty R s SRR STR R i el R S eAR XA
“thecont had pothingto dobat declare.
e, LA
. The next embargo cases were from
Baltimore ; the cases of- the Juliana
“and Aligator, and their cargoes seized
| for,‘;giol"‘gtipg the embaigo laws, and
‘condemaed by the diltri®& court of
Maryland. - The featence, of condem.-
nation were affirmed ‘ny”»épq@nt m the
circuit court, and appeals Brought to
the supreme court. When the causes
‘came on there the Attorney General
after bearing them opened.'and taking
time to in{peé the records, gave
them up, admitting that the law had
not bezn violated. . The decree of the
diftriét court was therefore reverfeds
Nobody ivis presumed will find faule
with the court, for deciding a case a
gdinft the U. States, when the Attor
ney General had given it up ia court.
Nexrt came the New Orleans cases.
They were eleven in number ; oane
. under the Saint Domingo “nopigter-.
course law ;-one under the aftfor
biddipng the importation of {lives into
Louisiana 3 and nipe under the em
bargo laws. All these cases had been
degided in the dithli& court of the
U. States for the diftri&t of Orleans,
and wot in the territorial court as has
- been repref:nted: _
JA preliminary queflion arose in
them all, whether an appeal or writ of
ca‘or lay from the diftri& court of the
rited States for the diftri& of Or
leins,to the supreme court. This quef:
tign had been already decicded, in the
cak of Morgan v. Callender, repor
‘ted in 4 Cranch ; but not on argu.
ment. That decision was therefore
qot\cnnﬁv;‘cred as conclusive 3 and the
point {was argued at length by the
Attorney General and Mr. Jones
againlt the jurisdiQion ; and by M.
Liviogßon, Mr. Harper and Mr. Lee
ih support of it. The court took
ime o confider, and unanimouily
¢onfirmed the frrmer decision.
The cafcs then cameon. Ofthe
. mine embargo cases eight were nearly
similar to thatfromPhiladelphia. They
were suits on bonds given on the
clegring out of veflels for coasting
voyages with condition to reland the
goads in some port of the U. States
e tlle'dangers of the seas excepted.”
Butbefore these bonds were taken ano
thez a& had pafled enabling the party
in luit on bond to excuse himfelf
from the penalty, by producing proof
of the relandiag of the goods * or of
‘ lofsiby sea, or other unavoidable acci
dent.” \
In some of these cases it was al
leged.ar the trial by the defendants,
and admitted by the attorney for the
U. States that the veflels had been
compellsd by fQirefls of weather, she
danger of the seas and ¢ unavoidable
accidents” to put into a forergn port,
where the cargoes were seized and
detained so that they could not be
relanded in the United States The
defence in others was that the veflels
had been t:ken onthe high seas, by
foreign armed viflels, and the cargoes
detamned,fo that vhat they.could not be
relanded in the U. States ; and these
f.&s also were admitted by the Attor
ney for the U. Srates. All the cases,
howeser, were decided in favor of the
.U. S by the diftri&@ court of New.
Orleans ; and the question upin* the
appeals was, whether thofz fa&s, be.
ing admitted to be true, fainithed a
“fufficient excuse for the defendants,
under the a@s of Congress, for not
relan ing the goods in the U. States.
The supreme conrt cecided that they,
di iy in other. words that these faéls,
being proved or admitted, amount to
a loss of the goods by sea or other un.
avoidable accident. With this de
cision, 2s a‘quettion of law, it is pre
sumed that no man will find fault.
As to the frash of the &5, it nei
ther made or could make any part of
the enquiry, in the supreme court.
It was established by a. jury in the
Philadelphia cafeand admiited on the
part of the U. 8. in those from New
aOrieany. S :
These cases being disposed of, the
‘ninth and last embargo case came on.
It was a case is-wihich-gdodstoa very
large amount had been seized and con
~demned for supposed violatiens ’of
the embargo laws. The case was
opened in the afternoon and the court”
adjourped. The Attorney General and
‘My. Jonesappeared in behalf of the
United States ; the latter ‘gentleman
having been retained by the officers
~who, in case of final condemnation,
‘would be entitled to a part of the for
feiture. These gentlemen having
conferred together and infpe@ed the
record and proofs, came. into court
the next “morning, and gave up the
‘caufe ; expressly admitting that no vio
lation of the law had taken place.
The judgement of the diftriét court
‘was ‘theréfore reversed ; of which:
it is presumed that nobody will com.
AR 2 i SRR
. Next cameon the ’ e
Saiae-Domingo non intercourf act,
Thisalf the Attorney General gave.
Up; beeapfe it appeated that the .a&.
had- WM veflel " was
eined ; £ thas Mrc iad oabiboriy;
b Al Selungl "0 E Y L R
Frtorlai e Importation of layess
{;;%F%th‘cAttoMcyr General also gave
up, being fatishied” on an infpe&ion
of the record and the proofs, that it
‘ dif{&*% come within thelawe v
This, fir, is the simple Ratement
of what took place in alt vhefe cales,
"The correétnefs of it w ‘&%“@s& from
o o A e %g;sf G S
the records, and fromgMr, Cranch’s
notes, who always atteids the court,
for the purpele of reportingirs deci
sions. T eanvouch for it becauf: [
was present the whole time, and be
ing ot in the Baltimore cases, and
i ,g: f gho{e from New Otleans,
‘had a parsicular interefl in observing
allthat passed. -~ i
o AMember of the 3ar.
. Falfehoad: Refuted.
_“As the tory papers, with their characer
-Iftic coatempt for truth, continue to aflert
that France was the original propagator of.
restrictive Comymercial Edi&s, we republith
from the Republican Argus, the following
brief, compreheniive, and correct history of
these unjult and anfﬁt(:«’:ih‘cutral prdceedings.
“Fhe tory papers, in absolute defiance of
truth, realon, jultice and common feafe, may
continue to (tate that Frauce was the original
aggreflor—they may also affitm that the
mgon is a 2 milflone—and their poor deluded
followers may continue to believe them;
but for the benchit of men. of common fonfz,
men who have judgment enough to leok for
themselves, and 1o form 'their oqua opinim, we
give the following summary. It wif here
be seen, that Great Britain is not onl\ ori
ginat aggrefior, but the sole cause of thl cre
ation of the French Deckees
Ift. Previous to the aGual declarkion
of war between 'France and Great Bri\in,
the latter country gave orders Fro capturehll
veffelt of WeaTeveß NATION ladén wi
provisions and bound to French coafk
this was made one of the fubje@s of co
plaint in-the French declaration of war, Feb,
Ift. 1793. This interdi®ion of provifi¢n
veflels was again enforced by inftruion sos
June Bth, 1793.
2ndly. Oa the Bth of April, unde;lhc
administration of Charles Fox and Lbrd
Grenville, N?r. Fox wrote to Mr Mogroe,
that his majelty had judged it expedicht to
efiablifh the most rigorous blockade at the
entrance of the Ems, the Wefcr. the 'Elbe
and the Trave, and enforce the {ame in the
ftriceflt manuer. s
3dly. On the 16th May, 1806, Mr Fox
wrote to Mr. Monroe that. his majelty had
thought fit to extend the blockade ta all the
coasts, ports, and rivers of France from the
Elbe to Brest, j
4thly. The Freach waited patietly for
fix months and five aays before th:}' retali
ated by the Berlin Decree of Nov. bl, 1806.
sthiy Oon Fanuary 7th and Magrch 12th,
187, the Britith interdi®ed th coasting
trade of France and her dependencies to
neutrals In OQ&ober of the famg year, she
promulgated the reca'ling prpclamarion
of the 16th, and by consequence the
seizure and impreflment of our4eamen. On
thie 11th Nov. issued the fii & set of the well
known orders ia council: on the 26th the
rest.
6thly. On the 17th Dec. 18 7. and not
before, the French were provoked into the
“Milan Decree. :
. 7thly Onthe 17th of April, 1808, passed
the Bayonne Decree. |
. Bthly. On the 26th of April, 1809 the
blockade modifications of the British srders
of January and November Ifo7, were a
dopted in confequcnce of the mistake bee
tween Mr Erskine and our government.
In the above ecoumeration, the prinetpal,
but by no means @// the violations of necu=
tral and belligerent rights adopted by Great
Britain are noted Mr Madison’s meflage
of the 2:ft December, 18c8, contains many
more, particularly relating to blockade ; for
infltance, the blockade of arr the portsof
Hoiland 22d March, 1799 ; instructions con
cerning blockade, fcommunicated by Mr
Mervy, 'April 12, 1801, The blockade of
Curracoa, Feecamp, &c. all of them paper
blockades, some in whole, others in part, and
all preceding the Milan Decree.—Clron. .
PROM THE AMERICAN MERCURY
“ A penny saved is two pence clear.” - Franklin-
Mg Basco ck—By gen. Dering’s publica
tion in a late paper, it appears that the ex
pence of MAKING broadcloth 2g inches wide,
at Mr Scoficld’s excellent faétory, is 1 dollar
19 cents per yard. Though lam neither 2
farmer nor mechaaic, yet believing that do
mestic manufactures are more interetting
thar any ethers. to our country, and that
nothing is wanting to ifiduce our ciiizens to
supply their own wants, but a knowlege that
the means are within their own power, and
may be profitably ufled, |l fend you for pub
hication the result of an experiment lately
made in my family. npou 6 pounds of finc |
wool, (not m¢rino) of my-ewn raising, which |
has produced me a coat, vest and pantaicons, |
of as good quality as generally worn by |
men of M¥ cLOTE,anc might have been fold |
for more than two dollarﬁga yarde—viz. {
Cash paid for carding Glb. wesdat &
AN T ’ 36
For {pinning 10 runs yarn, at 8 cts.' .1 44 |
For weaving 12 yardsildnnel, 36 inches . | !
- wide, atécta_ L ey
'Na'th;hifcl Cornwall, Efq._for df’ing 9o
black, fulling and drcfling 9 yards ‘
broadeloth, 24 inches wide, ~ = 300 1
st { ; b ? T
e . Dollars. 576
B “ i+ Dollars 8 76"
~ Very little more than the duty on a suit
of foreign cloth. of cqual guality, and a
mercantile profit thercon, always paid by
the wearer. T ePR B R
~There are probably, nearly one hyndred |
thousand females.in this slate, capable of
fpinning—How few of our fair ones would
fuffer a father, bufband, or brother te appear
in JOREIGN LIVERY, if thcy would: reflect
‘that “a’;'ifgmhigh't"a spinning; would not only
clothe him in American’ broadcloth, but
‘make a nett saving of at fedfl ten dollars—
and. it each would spin four weeks in a year -
inflead of two. it would add not enly twen
ty dollars to her fortune wozwmm v
<o the commonwealth, which would inereafe
in proportion to the finencts of the wool, ad
.the perfetion of thework == © 7,
‘Hebyow, March 27, JOHN T. PETERS,
A e R Y
- Stephen Thather Efg is appoiited Past.
Master at. Kenncbunk, vice: Joseph Sioree,
)TPRS LS TN T o T T S reaa
f;é?mﬁ .?:b,eﬁm?m' vt&ﬁ'@ﬁﬁ“% angrefr
L 7}%:5: Qﬁ' ted States. S,
.. Anaq to authorifc the tranfportaticn of
certain documcnts free of pollage, .~ =5
~,»-{-_fjvwaétjt‘ai“t“o'an act edtitled
“*an att extend ng the zgt of fuffrage in
. Ana& cg‘tcnding' the time for ifluing and
) Ocdtiag mihitary land warrants, .
BL A'o@ sos the.relict of Wllhom and Hiss
%Or . : o
| :‘f“kfefolution relating to the official corre
fpondénee. between the fccrc‘tary\” of state
aud Frangis } Jacklou, minifier piegpoten
tiary of his Britannic majesty, | Y
I~ An actto revive apd coutinue fn force
for a further time, the firft fetion o thea&,
entitled *“ an a& further to protect the
commerce and seamen oi the United States
against the Barbary powers.” ‘
Aa act for the relief of Harry Caldwell
aud Amafa Jackson, Jeremiah Reynolds and
Levia Jones. S :
“An act authorifing the discharge of Wil
liam Hawkins from his imprisonment.
An act to preferibe the mode in' which
application shall- be inade for the purciafe
of land at the several land offices; and for
the relics of Joab Garret
An actto revive ao a&, entitled“an act
for the relief of the refugees from the Britith
provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, and
for other purposes.” '
An a& making appropriations for the
{upport of government during the year one
thoulamd eizht hundred and ten. ;
An adk for the appointmeae of an addi
tional judge and extending the right of fuf
frage to the citizens of Madison county, in
the Miflidippi territory i
An act making appropriations for the
support of the military eftabiithment of the
Uuited States for theyear one thouland eight
hundred and ten.
An a& making appropriations for the sup
port of the navy of the United States for
the year one thousand eight hundred and ten.
An a& to extend the time for locating Vir
ginia mili!ary land warrants, and for return
ing the surveys thereon to the secretary of
the department of war. :
An act providing for the third census or
enameration of the inhabirantsof the U .
Anact to prevent the issuing of fea-ietters,
except to certain veflels,
An a& to make pablic a road in Walhe
ington county in the district of Columbia.
“in ac for the relict of Triftram Huffey.
An 3& to alter and amend an/aét, entitled
“ An act providing for the third census or
enumeration of the inhabitants of the United
Siates,”’ pafled the 26th day of March, 1810
An act authorifing the discharge of Joha
Kerr from his imprisonment i ;
Ar ad for the relief of Williamßaynham,
An act to amend a 0 a@ entitled ¢ in adk
for the establishment of a turnpike company,
ic the covaty of Aiexandria, in the diftrick
of Columbia” .
Anad& to ailow the benefit of drawhack
on merchandize transported by land convey
ance from Newport to Boston, and from
Boston t¢ Newport, in like manner as if the
lame weve transported coafiwifc
An 2& for the re icf of Moses Young.
Ap act to cltabiith polt roads
Amack regulating the poli-office eftablifk
meant :
An a& concerning invalid pensioners.
An act (0 extend certain privileges there
in mentioned to Juieph-jofliua Dylcr.
Ana& in addition to the ad, to regulate
the laying out and making 2 road from
Curhberiand, in the state of Maryland, to the
ftaic of Ohio
An aCt to incorporate 2 company for ma
‘king ecertamn turnpike roads in the diftrik of
Columbia.
An act making an appropriation for the
purpose of trying the practical use of the
torpedo or submarine explosion.
An ait for altering the time for holding
the/diftrit court in Chio.’
! Ao a& providing for the printing and
diltributing of such laws of the United
States, as respect the public lands.
An act for the relics of John N. Stout.,
Ap a& providing for the better accoms
modation of the General Post Office, Patent
Office and for otker purposes.
-An alt providing for the sale of certain
lands in the Indiana territory, and for other
purpoles. ’ ) '
An a&t inaddition to an ‘ad&, entitled
“ An a& concerning the library for the use
of beth Hqufes of Congress.”; :
An a to extend the time for making
payment for the public lands of the U S.in
‘certain cases. ] , ;
An ad& avthorifing a loan of money, for &
sum not cxcecding the amonnt of the pyn
cipal- of public debt, reimbursable curing
the year one thoufaud eight hundred & tén.
An a& making appropniations for carrying
into efle@ certain Jndian treaties,
_An actfixing the enmpenfation of pub
lic ministers and of consuls residing on the
coast of Barbary, and for other purposes
£pack for the relief of William W. Way«
meuth and Joseph P. Weceks. .
An act to erect a hght-boufe at the ens
‘trance of Scituate harbor, a stone colomm
en a {pit of sand at the entranceinté Beflon
havbor, & , Reini
An ad allowing compensation to Robers
Robinson. r :
Ap a& further to alter and amend ¢ An
a& providing for the third census or enn
meration of the inhabitanis of the U. S
A rcf@ution for an’ amendment to the
constitution of the U. S. respecting titles of
pdßliisy ) b U e N e )
An a& concerning commercial inter.
ceurfe between the United States asnd Great
Britain and France and their dependenciesy
', An a& for the ri?f sos P»is;.d L’Enfant.
and for ether purposes. : PR Ky
- Ana& for the rél?cf of Arthur St Clair,
~An a& making further, "apprqpviatigng
to complete the public buildings in the city
‘of Wafhingten, &e. . -~
. Am a& confirming the degifions 'in favor
" foz;’e claimants to land in the district of
S s o Bxivaorainar) family., v
~ Andréw Pearfe, a very induftriont man,
“who-works, at Mc{lrs. lane and Son's ficor
_eloth, maouta@ory, Briltol, was matried
Jon:20¢1801, to Hannal W&sbﬁﬁm om:
‘he has had fourteen children in little more.
than ¥ yean, with 4 ?::3’ P'ig,ﬁ;'g:ﬁfm
‘ther.inereate to the family. The childreny
confilt o three Boys, born Oaber v, 180 r;
two boys ‘O&ober @”ﬁ%ﬁ‘*myw‘nﬁs %
sy 18 1805 s e buyd Mk t 5
18043 one boy and a' girl, Februsry 14,
1805 3 one boy - 'iﬁ agirly “‘ﬁ
-18¢6; ouc boy, November * S
SN e o T R e e .