The enquirer — Richmond, Va., 1810-04-27 00:00:00, page 4

STATE PAPERS.
GREAT BRITaTFFAND AMERICA.
Corretpondence between Mr. See. Canning and the
Aon D M Ertrine.
(Continued J
tCT After the Despatch from Mr. Canning, (in
our last) comprising Instructions in relation to
the Chesapeake, there follows, in the Series of
the Correspondence, the celebrated Des
patch of Jan. 23d, so often quoted and referred
to in our public prints, in relation to the Or
der* in Council, in which the three Conditi
on* arc laid down.—This Documeut has been
already published in our paper.
£lai» aeroes parliament]
No. 4.—Despatch from Mr. Secretary Canning
to the hon. O. M. Erskine, dated Foreign Of
fice, Jan.23 1809.
Sir—In your Despatch No. 47, among the o*
ther important suggestions which you stato your
self to have received from Mr. Gallatin, is one,
the purport of which is, that supposing all the
existing differences bet wish the two countries
to be done away, the system of their commercial
intercourse might lie better regulated by the
short and simple agreement, either to admit each
other** ptoductions on eqilal and reciprocal duties,
or reciprocally to place each other on the footing
•f the most favored nation, than by any more mi
nute and complicated provisions.
-The sentiments on which this suggestion ap
poors to be founded arc so mtrch in unison with
those entertained here, that I am to direct you
in the event ofthe subjects mentioned in my des
patches being put in a train of adjustment, to en
deavor to obtain from the American govern
ment some more precise and authentic exposi
tion of their views upon this subject, to be trans
mitted here for consideration, if possible, at the
same time with their answers upon the subject
of these other despatches
It will not, however, be desirable that those
answers should be delayed for this pfcrpose.
Btit you are authorised to assure the American
Everwnent of the readiness with which we shall
prepared tc enter into the amicable discus- j
sions of the commercial relations of the two ]
countries, on tbs basis of the latter of the two
principles proposed by Mr. Gallatin, whenever
these obstacles, which stood in the way of the
renewal of their intercourse, shall have been
happily removed.
In this case, as in respect to the subject of my
other despatches, you will see that the sinceri
ty ofthe good disposition professed by the per
sons composing the new administration is the
point, most important in the view of the British
government.
If such a disposition really exists, all difficul
ties will (at Mr. Gallatin has expressed himself)
be easily smoothed away.
If unfortunately this hope should be disappoin
ted, Great Britain has only to continue the sys
tem of self defence and retaliation upon her ene
mies, to which She has been compelled to have
recourse with the consciousness of having eager
ly seized the first opportunity that appeared |to
be offered to her, of obtaining through an amica
ble arrangement with America, the object for
which the system was established. I am See
(Signed) GEORGE CANNING.
Ho.12.—Despatch from the Hon. David M. Ers
kine, to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Wash
ington, April 20, 1809.
■* Six—As the instructions contained in your
despatches Nos 1 and 2 directed me to regu
late my conduct in managing propositions on
the part of his majesty to this government, ac
cording to the general disposition which might
be shewn by them to come to a complete and cor
dial understanding with Great Britain, I accor
dingly used all my efforts to discover whether
the professions of such a disposition which had
been so often repeated to me unofficially, and
lately in the most formal manner, were sincere.
The result of further communication persuaded
•me, that the sentiments of this government had
been truly represented to me, and I was confirm
ed in that opinion by th* favorable reception of
the reparation tendered by his majesty for the af
fair of the Chespaeake; the details of which I
have given in my preceding number.
With this conviction upon my mind, I exam
ined, with the greatest attention, the tenor of
your instructions, contained in your despatch
Ho. 1, and particularly the three conditions up
on vhich his majesty was willing to withdraw
thd orders in council of January and November,
IS)/, as respects the U. States.
The first of them I considered would be of
cmrse officially recognized by tbe American go
vernment, since the 14th section of tbe act of
smgress, usually termed the non intercourse act,
irovided for such a contingent proposition.
The second condition named by you, 1 knew
would be acquiesced in ; not only from the de
olarution which had been made to me by the most
of the members of this government, but from the
universal opinion of the members of weight and
influence of both houses of congress, that the
rnnciples and object sought to be established
y that rule were equitable ; and would ever be
insisted upon by £. Britain.
-. I foresaw, however, that a difficulty must a
rise in obtaining a formal recognition on that |
point without any Reference to other commercial,
arrangements, which would form the basis of a I
regular .treaty.
The third condition, it was obvious, could not
be objected to, because an American owner o< a
vessel captured by a British cruizer, on account
of its destinaffon to France, or to any other coun
try with which an intercourse was prohibited by
the laws of tlie United Stales, could not complain
to this government of such seizure, as the only
answer would be, that the enterprise being illegal
he had no claim to redretis.
Upon my submitting the three conditions to the
consideration of the Secretary of State, lie made
the answer to the first which I had anticipated,
namely, that the President would of course as
sent to it, and in pursuance of the power vested
in him by the congress would issue a proclama
tion for that purpose, to take effect on the same
day that the orders in counsel should cease to o*
perat* as respects the U. S.
With regard to the second,. he said, although
he was persuaded that no difficulty would arise
in the adjustment of that point, conformably to
Views of his majesty’s government, when the va
rious ai tides of a commercial trea'y should be
brought under discussion, yet it was impossible
for the American government to give an ortlcial
recognition of tnat principle as a previous step,
fee-.ause there was Ho commerce of any kind at
prvsent permitted by laws of the United States,
to be earned on with France or her dependencies
—and that the question therefore must uecessari
!y belong to another state of things, or remain to
he adjusted by treaty.
The third con<ylu>n, Mr. Smith observed, ap.
poured to him to require no recognition, since it
waa evident that the interference of the govern
ment oi the United States would never he recog
nized by any of its citizens for r»dfes!i for an in
jury sustained in consequence of a dire.ct breach
of the laws ■, and that in the event of any such ap
peal being made, the only answer given would lie
that -the government would immediately order
the bonds of th<- petitioner 16 be put inioetcecu
tion against him fora violation of the laiVs.
Ite sieved however that the circumstance of the
government of the United States stipulating that
■<«reat-Hritain should he allowed to execute their
taw» would W degrading, ar.d attended with no
advaotagr; to the latter.
, Under these e'lrcueistauecs, it became my duty
to consider whether the spirit of your instructi
ons woiMd he accomplished by my obtaining *n
ottiend recojt»'.,on on the part Of thu (pvera
Tent of the first condition, and an understanding
respecting the two others, in conformity with
the views ol' his majesty’s government, though
lot given in a formal manner, (for reasons before
detailed) or whether it was incumbent on me td
Forbear £>m making any proposition, as I could
not obtain a compliance with the exact letter ot
your instructions.
Various consideration* of great weight urged
me to endeavor to bring about an adjustment ol
the differences between the two countries, upon
Lhc points entrusted to my discretion, as far as it
was possible, without departing from the order*
1 had received.
The strongest inducement was derived from
the communications which 1 hail lately received
from Mr. Smith of the dis*-itisfactton of the
French minister here with the non-intercourse
set, the particulars of which I have given in mv
No. 17, also from the general aspect of the relat'i
ons of this country with Great-Britain &. France,
as detailed in my No’s. 17 and 18, anu in some
previous dispatches.
The circumstance of the cbngress being about
to assemble very shortly, was another reason for
wishihg to have an amicable arrangement conclu
ded, since the majority of both houses had pled
ged themselves to a resistance of the restrictions
upon neutral commerce, if it could be pointed a
gainst either of the two great belligerent powers
separately, and that it Was only on account of the
impossibility of any successful effort being made,
thUt they were prevented from asserting their
rights against both during the last session.
As this government thought that any linger
delay in the time for the renewal of tne inter
course between Great-Uritain and tae U. States,
would deprive such an arragement of many of its
mutual advantages, as I fully agreed in that opini
on, a day certain (the 10th of June next) was ac
cordingly fixed upon.
The notes which passed between the secretary
of state and myself, and which I have now the
honor to inclose (marked A, B, C,D,) will ex
plain the course pursued in the arrangement that
was concluded.
Should his majesty’s government consider that
I have exceeded the limits of my instructions in
the engagement i have made on his majesty’s be
half, l am aware that no advantages which might
se derived from it to Grcat-BriUm could justify
my conduct.
1 therefore rest my vindication upon the reasons
detailed in the foregoing part of this despatch
for believing that I have adhered to the spirit, &
as far as I could, to the letter of my orders-—but
I place my chief reliance on the viell knovin libe
rality of his majesty, in appreciating the conduct
of his servants.
I will only beg leave to remark, that the agree,
ment has been concluded in the persuasion that
an amicable understanding would be settled by
the special mission, and with a view to promote
so desirable an object.
Should unexpected difficulties occur inform
ing a treaty, or should his majesty’s envoy extra
ordinary find reasons to doubt the friendly dispo
sition of the United States, it will then rest with
his majesty to take such measures as may be dee
med proper, according to the actual state of
things.
In the moan time no injury <San be derived, 1
conceive, from that conditional agreement.
I have the honor to be, &c.
(Signed) D. M. ERSKINE.
Despatch from Mr. Secretary Canning to the
hon. D. M. Erskine, dated Foreign Office, May
22, 1809. 3
SIK,
Your despatches, Nos. 19 and 20, of the
19th and 20th of April, have been received here
this day, and laid before the king.
1 have lost no time in receiving his Majesty’s
commands to Signify to you his Majesty's senti
ments, on the manner in which you have execut
ed the instructions conveyed to yoii in my des
patches by Mr. Oakley.
It is much to be regretted, that in the executi
on of instructions upon the points of so much
delicacy and importance, you should have
thought yourself authorised to depart so wide
ly, not only from their letter, but from their spi
rit.
With respect to the instructions relating to the
Chesapeake, which form the subject of my des
patch, No. 1. I have to remark, first, the total
omission by you of a preliminary of the most ma
terial importance. 2ndly, a departure from tiie
terms of your instructions in the manner of con
ducting the Negocialion j and 3dly, the admis
sion by you, and so far as appears, without re
monstrance or observation, ofa Mote containing
expressions offensive to his Majesty’s dignity,
such as no Minister of his Majesty ought to have
submitted to receive, and to transmit to bis Gov
ernment.
1st. It is distinctly stated by me, as the condi
tion of his Majesty’s" no longer insisting upon
the recall of the Proclamation of July 1807, as a
preliminary to the adjustment of the difference a
rising from the affair of the Chesapeake,” " that
the ships of war of France shall, in point of fact,
have bem excluded from the ports of the United
States, and such ships ot that description as were
in those ports, shall have been warned to de
part.”
Of this condition you appear to have taken no
notice whatever. The Non Intercourse bill op
erated only to the prospective exclusion , but as
to the warning to be given to any ships of war of
France (if any such there were) in the ports of
the U. States, it no where appears that even a
question was put by you on ttiis subject, much
less that you received any satisfactory assurance
upon it.
2il!y But if this preliminary condition had been
fulfilled, your instructions proceeded to state,
that even then, ** it would still be necessary that
either the Proclamation should be withdrawn or
its operation formally declared to be at an end,”
“ though it would be sufficient that such with
drawal or declaration should be recorded in the
same instrument, or at the same time with the
terms of reparation-”
So far from this indispensable condition having
been obtained by you, Mr. Smith, in the answer
returned by him to your note, studntusly avoids
anv thing like a recognition of the principle on
which alone the demand of the formal recall of
the Proclamation, ay-ts to be waved i neither is
the Proclamation itself withdrawn, nor its opera
tion declared to be at an end.
The obvious consequence of this omission is,
that If the Non Intercourse Act, which is a
temporary Act, were to be suffered to expiie,
the Proclamation mignt revive, and the inequali
ty between the two Belligerents be thereby res
tored.
It was obviously your duty, before you com
mitted his Majesty’s name by a written offer of
reparation, to ascertain in what manner that offer
would he received, and answered , and if you
found that the express condition either of the
withdrawing the Proclamation, or declaring its
operation to be at an end, would not be complied
with, to abstain from proceeding one single step
in the negociatiou until you h.ul referred home
for further instructions.
That part of your instructions which directed
that this arrangement, ii'not made the subject
of consideration, should he settled by the ex
change of Ministerial Notts dated on the same
day, and reciprocally delivered at the same lime,
was expressly intended to guard against the
possibility of your committing yourself liy a
written proisosal, in the uncertainty of wind
might be thu nature of the answer to be returned
to d.
His majesty will not suppose it possible that Mr.
Sindh's intruded answer can have b *.en commu
nicated to you picvnusly, and f ive obtained youi
approbation.
In the proposal fur restoring the mon taken i
from on board the Chesapeake,-d was not intend
cd that ike condition of his Majesty's right to1
declaim them in arcgulcr way from the Attfcri*
can government, if either natural bom subjects
of hi* Majesty, or deserters from His Majesty**
service, should have been omitted. 1 dwell,
however the loss on this point, as Ins M ijesiy’s
right, in this respect, is founded on public law,
and does not require to be fortified by the rccog
nition of any other government.
But I cannot forbear observing with regret
that the bounty of his Majesty, in the intended
provision for the relations of the men killed on
board of the Chesapeake, is not only stated by you
without a similar restriction, but is brought fir
ward at once as a part of the reparation original
ly offered ; and thus converted by you from an
act of spontaneous generosity, into one of positive
obligation.
3J!y. In addition to the mibstance or Mr.
Smith’s Note, which 1 have already mentioned,
it remains for ms to notice the expressions so fpll
of disrespect to his Majesty, with which that
note concludes And I am to signify to you the
displeasure which his Majesty feels, that any
Minister of his Majesty should have shewn him
self so far insensible of whit is due to the digni
ty of his Sovereign, as to have been contented to
receive and transmit, to belaid before his Ma
jesty, a note in which such expressions were con
tained.*
1 am, See.
GEORGE CANNING.
* The following is the offensive passage in Mr.
Smith's letter to which Mr. Canning allude*
“ I have it ill express charge from toe President
to state, that, while he forbears to insist on a
further punishmani of the offending officer, ( Ad
miral Berkley) he is not the less sensible of
the justice and utility of such an example, nor
the less persuaded that it would best comport
with what is due from his Bi itanoic Majesty to
his own honor.
I have, &c.
R. SMITH.”
Despatch from the Hon. David Erskine to Mr.
Sec. Canning, dated Washington, August 3,
18.-9.
SIR,
I have the honor to ackno\vie«l£*» the i e
ceiptoryour despatches, No. TO, 11, 12, of the
22d, 23d, and 30th of May, original and dupli
cates, the former brought in his Majesty's packet
Windsor Castle, which arrived at New York on
the 25th ult: and the latter which were deliver
ed to me yesterday by Lieut Gregory, command
ing his Majesty’s giln brig Contest, which arriv
ed in Hampton Roads, in the Bay of Chesapeake,
on the 29th ult.
I lost no time in complying with your instruc
tions contained in your No. 13, to deliver a copy
of his Majesty’s Order in Council of the 24th of
May last, to the Secretary of Sta^e ofthiaGov
eminent, which 1 accordingly sent to Mr. Robt.
Smith in a written note of which the inclosed is
a copy. In obedience to you. commends, 1 also
used all the means in my power to make the above
mentioned Order publickly known throughout
the U. S. b
It is with the deepest regret that I find from
your despatches, Nos. 10 and 11, Oft’u 22dund
23d May, that his Majesty has disapproved of the
manner In which 1 executed the instructions
which you sent me by Mr. Oakley, and has been
compelled to disavow the provisional agreement
which I had lately entered into with this gov
ernment, under the persuasion that it would have
met with his majesty’s approbation.
The duty and high respect which I owe to his
majesty, would restrain me from making any re
ply to the animadversions upon my conduct,
which you have conveyed to me by his majesty’s
command, but I consider that it is incumbent on
me to offer some observations upon certain points
of my negotiation, which appear to have been
misunderstood, in consequence, I suppose, of my
having given them an insufficient or imperfect
explanation. It is staled by you in yoUr No. 10,
of the 22i of May, that with respect to the in
structions relating to the Chesapeake, which for
med the Subject of your despatch, No. 1, of the
23d of January last, I had omitted a preliminary
of the most material importance, as the condition
of “ his majesty’s no longer insisting upon the
recal of the proclamation of 1807, as a prelimi
nary to the adjustment of the difference arising
from the affair of the Chesapeake, tha t the ships
of war, shall, in pointof fact, have been exclu
ded from the ports of the United States, and
sucli ships of that description as were in those
ports shall have been warned to depart.”
Of this condition you observe, that I appear to
have taken no notice whatever ; you add also that
the non-intercourse bill operated to the prospec
tive exclusion.
I beg leave to refer you to the first section of
the non-intercourse law, which you will find ex
cludes the ships of war, from the passing of that
act on the first of March ; the prohibition there
fore, was not prospective hut immediate, and in
fact had been in operation 6 weeks before I com
menced the negociation.
Upon the subject of the. warning which should
be given to any French ships, in the pom of the
United Stales, the Secretary of State, Mr. Robert
Smith, informed rne, that there were no French
ships at present, within the waters of the United
States, and that it was to be presumed, that the
Government would cause their laws to be execu
ted ; in the propriety and justice of \Vhich senti
ment, I fully acquiesced.
The preliminary condition above mentioned
was, therefore, I conceive, fulfilled.
Your next objection states, that the proclama
tion of the President of July, 1807, is neither
withdrawn, nor its operation declared to be at an
enrl.
On explanation of this print, I beg leave to re
mark, that the Non Intercourse Law abrogated
even the act upon which the President’s Procla
mation was founded, by the words at the end of
the 3J section of that act, inserted by the Con
gre.ss for that purpose, which circumstance I
communicated to you in my No. 13, of the 17th
of March, .nd again in my No. 19, of the 13lh of
April, in which 1 mentioned that the Secretary of
State declared to m<*, that the proclamation was
merged in the non-intercourse. I believe I omit
ted in my No. 19, to inform you, that Mr. Sindh
added, that it was impossible to issue a proclama
tion to recal an Edict, which was already revoked
and could not he revived.
The '.bird objection taken by you is upon a
point of so delicate a nature, that I proceed to an
explanation of it with the greatest caution and
deference.
Permit me, sir, to request that you will lay be
fore his maj sty iny most earnest assurances,
that 1 would not have allowed any expressions
which I thought dotrespcctful towards hi* inajcs
ty to have remained unanswered in any note, I
may Slave received.
It would be an inexcusable presumption in me
to attempt to put a different construction on the
expressions contained in the latter part of Mr.
Smith’* first letter to mi, or to view the meaning
of the words in a different light from that which
you have been pleased to inform me his majesty
ms done, but 1 think it my duty to declare, that 1
do not believe any intention whatever existed in
the inmd of the president of the United butt*,
to convey a disrespectful moaning towards Ins
majesty by those expressions.
Upon my being informed by the Secretary of
State, that the President would agree to wave a
uy demand or further punishment ul the British
officer who had caused an attack to be midcon
the United States’ frig./c Chesapeake, but that it
would he iinpossihh' to refrain from expressing
an opinion that he deserved it, I used all my en
deavors to persuade this government to give up
such .n insinuation, not from any idea that I en
tertainel of its being disrespectful to his maj sly,
but as it might seem loss conciliatory than the
disposition of the president, had been i cpi estr.u*.
rdte me, and of Utc sincerity of winch 1 was ful
ly persuaded.
Af*i*r 1 had received Mr. Smith** note, 1 ileli
beiatevl upon tile propriety ot nuking anyohser
rations in answer to thosecX^irvssio.-.a, but I was
induced to fovbear froth sending any reply hy con
sideration of the policy and propriety of not bten
ling- ii mating discussion, with amicable adjust
ments.
It appeared to me that if -my indecorum could
justly be attributed to the expression in the ofli
cial note of. this government, the censure du«
would fall upi.i them, and that the public opini
on would condemn their bad tame or want efura
priety, in boldly and ungraciously (firing up wkat
they considered as a right, but which they are
nut in a condition to enlorce.
The feelings of his nr jesty upon that point asc
a siitricieut proot that i nave lormed an ■ -roncous
judgment respecting it, and 1 have to lament not
only that any actor omission on iny part should
have incurred his majesty's displeasure, but that
it should have been me cause (though unintenti
onally) of conveying any expression personally
disagreeable, or even apparently disrespectful to
tlie sovereign of mv count'-y.
1 have omitted to mention one circumstance,
which is, that the reason why I did not put in „
claim o:i the part of his mijesty to recover from
the American Government, deserters from his
majesty’s service was. that they had alway- de
clared themselves witling to be guided by the
laws of nations, upon that subject.
\iy motives tor deviating from the precise line
of my instructions relative to the bounty intended
by h.s majesty for the. relations of the killed and
wounded on board of the Chesapeake, will, 1
hope, upon explanation, be found to be satisfacto
ry
When 1 mentioned his ma jesty’s liberal views
upon that point, the Secretary of State informed
the, tiiat it would be highly satisfactory if the of
ter was expressed in general terms, although the
Government never meant to accept the provision
tendered, but would acknowledge the liberality
of his msjeitv, when they might hereafter decline
to avail themselves of it, but that, if it was put
upon the footing of spontaneous generosity, it
would not at nil b ; acceptable to the U States.
With sentiments olthe highest respect,
1 have the honor to be.
Sir,
Your most ob’t humble servant,
I). M-JilUSK-iNE
Viftoirit a—At a i>upenr>r Court ot Chance
ry, holden at *he C*pi»ol, in the city of
Richmond, the 26lh day of February, 1810.
Janies Ritchie 8t Co. Plaintiffs.
Against
_ Moses Green, who was executor of William
Green, Ann Green widow and relict of William
Green, dec’d. Elizabeth Green, widow, devisee
and executrix of William Green, jr. dec’d Fran
cis Wyatt Green, Peter Mayre and Eleanor his
wife, John Poindexter, Henry Camp and Eliza
beth his wife, George Tfiomas 8c Mary his wife,
Daniel Stringer and Milly his wife, Nathaniel
Pinkard and Lucy Coleman his wife, and Eliza
beth Slaughter; and tile heirs of John Green, to
wit: the. same Moses Green, Thomas Hooe and
Elizabeth his wife, John W. Green, only son and
heir of William Green, who was son and heir of
the said Johrt Green, dec'd. and
daughters and co-heiresses of Robert Green, who
was also a son of the said John Green, deceased,
Defendant*.
THE defendants, Elizabeth Green and Fran
ces Wyatt Green, net having entered their ap
pearance and given security according to the act
of assembly, and the rules of this court, and
it appearing to the satisfafct'oii of the court, that
they are not inhabitants of this 'country ; on mo
tion of the plaintiffs by counsel; It is ordered,
That the said defendants do appear here on the
first day of the next term, and answer the bill of
the plaintiffs; ar.d that a copy of this order be
forthwith inserted in some newspaper published i
in the city of Richmond, for two ruontns succes- i
sively, ar.J posted at the front door of the Capi
tol in the said city.
A Copy. Tette,
PETER TINS LET, c c.
April 13. w8\v
V'IRGINI A :—At a Superior Court of Chan
cery lioiden at the Capitol in the City of
Richmond, the 24th day of February, 1810.
Thomas Miller, jr. Plaintiff.
Against
Joshua Owens and Francis Lynn, Elizabeth
Joner, James Jones alias Macaboy, M’.lly;Jones
alias Macaboy, Nancy Jones alias Macaboy, John
Jones alias Macaboy, Robert Jones alias Maca- \
boy, Kowzie Jones alias Macabny,_Wil- j
son and Betty his wife, Benjamin Macsboy, j
Polly Macaboy, Thompson Macaboy, Murtliy!
Macaboy, John Macaboy ai.J CUthbcft Owens,
Defendants.
The defendants Thompson Macaboy and Ro
bert Jones alias Macaboy not having entered their
appeurance and given security according to the
actof assembly, and the rules of this court, and
it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that
they are not inhabitants of this country, on moti- j
on of the plaintiff by counsel, It is ordered. That;
the said defendants do appear here on the j
first day of the next term, and answer the bill of
the plaintiff'; and that a copy of this oi ler be
forthwith inserted in some newspaper published
in tlie city of Richmond, for two months succes
sively, and posted, at the frontdoor of the Capitol
in the said eity
A Copy Teste,
PETER TINS LET, c. c.
April 13. W8v»
VmoiMiA—At a Superior Court of Chan
cel y, holden at the Capitol, in the city of
Richmond, the first day of February, 1«10.
Champs Urockenbrough, Plaintiff.
Against
Thomas Miller* William Miller, Edmund Pen
dleton, James Dunlop, survivor of Dunl ps’ and
Cross, Henry Wright and Robert Wright, exe
cutors of James Wright, d~c’d. George Calbtt,
W illiam Sale, John G Catlett, Samuel Sale. John
Rout well, William Beniard, executor of John
Hipkins, dec’d. Jarif Sale, Margaret H<»rd, exe
cutrix of John Hord, deed. Reuben Turner, Ysl
vei-ion Stern, executor of Peyton Stem, dec’d
Reuben Saunders, John Turner and George Ter
rell, firmer high tlierilf of Caroline county,
defendants.
THE defendants, John Dunlop and Samuel
Sale, not having entered their appearance and gi
ven security according to th e act of assembly, and
the rules of this court, and it appearing to the
satisfaction of the court, that they arc not
inhabitants of this country ; on Motion of the
plaintiff, by counsel : It is ordered. That (lie said
defendants do appear hereon the first day of the
next term, and answer the bill of tnc plaintiff; t:
that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted In
some newspaper published in the city of Rich
mond, for two months sucres vely, and posted
at the front door of the ctpitvl in the said city.
A Copy. Teste,
PETER Tins LET, c. c;
April 13. ^_ W8t»
FOR SALE, at the Vendue Office of the
Subscriber,
30 hlidf. I ...
2d bids. S Sugars,
10 hlids Philadelphia Loaf Sugar,
20 lihds Antigua Rum,
4 pipes real Cogniac Brandy,
20 ► bU Apple Brandy, x
H ire's lleer in htuTeis a.nl half barrels,
600 Sacks Liv< rpool ground halt.
Green Coffee in bnt^x, barrel* and tierces,
A quantity Of SemcTnine,
Imperial, Hyson, Voting Hyson, Hyson Skin,
and Souchong i ea«,
20 h Xes brown Soup,
Raisins in boxes a;ul kegs, a”.d munjr other
articles.
JAMES JJRO ',V X Jr- AuPY.
Mcrcbfc tf
VIFCIKIA—At r Snprrior Curt i r Ch*'
trry, i'clJi'S at the i'apitol, in lliriiiy ol
Kicfrtium), Hie I5th day ti Ktfrua. t, lftltf.
William Triplett, ‘ I'taintijf.
AcAintr
William Garrard and Fiances Ids v'.fe, late
France; linUetl, Juines Hm- n.t ll his vrie,
iatr Helen iiu'ktt, Wilbam llame> sf. 1 S -ran Ids
wife, late Sa’ah Bulht*., } lioin i J Built it end.
Sophia Uuiktt, dftVi&ccs cl CuikUrt &'b!p‘.tf<lo
ceased, Dtf.xdntt*.
THE defcndfi.’s, Thus J litilVu, L tViilimfc
Garrard and h,' res his w'l'vnht haxifc^ enter
ed then* appe»i-.n-e( and giwn itcur-ty .■■cc.nrd*
ing- o the-act of assembly, a'ui lha usn.» id this
court, and it appearing m Hie sa‘r-fic'.iui of the
court, that the) ait not inhabitants «<’ Inin coun
try ; oil motion ot the plaintiff, by cour.Acl ; It
»s ordered. That toe said defend, ids do appear
here on the first day of the next terra, ar.d an
swer the bill of the plaintiff; and tost a copy of
ttiis order be forth With inserted in some newspa
per published in the city of ltichn;on;k for two
months successively, and posted at the /toot
door of the Capitol in the said city.
A Copy. Teste,
PETER TINSLEY, c. c.
April 13._ w8*r
VIRGINIA—At a Superior Court of Chan
cery, holJen at the Capitol, in the city of
Richmond, the 22-.i Usy of February, lolO.
Lawrence berry and John Tayloe Lomax.
Plaintiff*.
At.aivst
Robert L Ulackbu.n, Tosrnshcnd S. Dade,
administrator of Robert M issey, deceased, and
Frances Short, executrix of Thomas Short decca
se‘l* . Defendant*.
THE defendant, Robert L. Blackburn, not
having entered his appearance and given securi
ty according to the act of assembly, ft thi i ulesof
tins court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of
the court, that lie is ri.it an inhabitant of tki#
country, on motion of the plaintiffs, by counsel j
It is ordered, That the said defendant dir- appear
here on the first day of the next term, and an
swer the bill of the plaintiffs; and that* copy of
this cider he forthwith inserted in sr me news
paper published in the city of Richmond, for two
months Successively, and posted at the froftt
duor of the Capitol in the said city.
A Copy. Teste,
„ . PETER TINSLEY, c. e.
April 13. w8w
Virginia— At a Superior Court ot Chan
cery, holder at the Capitol, in the city of
Richmond, tlie 14lh day cf February, 1810.
Jamrs S: rot bur, ' Plaintiff\
Against
John Stevenson, Defendant.
1 WE defendant not having entered his appear
ance and given security according to the act of
assembly, and the rules cf this court, nnl it ap
pearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he
is notan inhabitant of this country, on motion of
the plaintiff by counsel, It is ordered, That tha
said defendant do appear here on the first day
of the ncaft term, and answer the bill of the
plaintiff ; ami that a copy of this order be forth
with inserted in some newspaper published in
the city cf Richmond, for two months succes
sively, and posted at the front door of the Capi
tol in the said ciry.
A Copy. 'Piste,
PETER TINS LET, c. c.
April 13. w8w
Virgini a—At a superior c ourt of Chan
cery, liolden at the Capitol, in the city of
Richmond, the first day of February, 1810.
Thomas Crutcher Sc Sebert Crutcher, Charles
Foushee and Lucy his wile, Benjamin Ficklin 8c
Susanna his wife, Robert Crutcher, administra
tor of John Foushee, and Sarah Foushee, Eliza
beth Sneed, Coleman Crutcher, William Crutch
er, and Robert Crutcher, Henry Crutcher, Mar
garet Tureman, Achilles Sneed, administrator of
Mary Sneed, Sarah Crutcher and Suiufield Pitts
and Elizabeth his wife, Plaintiffs.
Against
Thomas Crutcher, executor of Thos. Crutch
er, dec’d. Christopher Blackburne and Reuben
Chapman, Defendants.
THE Defendant, Thomas Crutcher, not hav
ing entered his appearance and given security ac
cording to the aci of assembly, and tiie rules of
this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of
the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this
country : On motion of the plaintiffs, 'jy counsel.
It is ordered, That tho said defendant do appear
here, on the first day of the next term, and an
swer the bill of the plaintiffs ; and that a copy of
this order be forthwith inserted inkomo news
paper published in the city of Richmond, for
) wo months successively, and posted at the front
door of the capitoh in the said city.
A Copy. Titte,
PETER TINSLEY, o. a:
March 30._ w8w
VIRGINIA —At a Superior Court of Chao
eery, holden at tire Capitol, in the city of
Richmond, the first day of February, 1L1Q.
Joseph Field, administrator of Belay Field, de.
ceased, his late wife, who was formerly the re
lict of John Knox, deceased, Plaint-ff.
Against
William Dent, administrator of George Dent,
and John Shumate, junior, and Joseph Shumate,
Defendant!.
THE Defendant, William Dent, not having
entered his appearanoe and given security kccgt
dina' to the act of assembly, and the rules of this
court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the
court, that he is not an inhabitant of this country,
on motion of the plaintiffby couns; 1, It is order
ed, That the said defendant do appear here, on
ttie first day of the next term, and answer the
bill of the plaintiff; and that a copy of lb’i3 or
der he forthwith inserted in some news paper
published in the city of Richmond, lor two months
successively, and posted at the frontdoor yf the
Capitol, in the said city.
A Copy. True,
PETER TINSLEY, c. c.
March "0. w8 v
r 5 "HIE SUBSCRIBERS have for aale—First
and second quality brown Sugar, in Hhcls.
and barrels,
I.oaf Sugar in barrels,
Prime green Coffee in hogsheads, hairels 8t hsg3,
10 Hogshea.la Antigua Ruin,
15 Boxes Imperial Tea,
5 Quarter casks Madeira Wine,
5 Do. do. L■ P. Teu^riffe Wine,
10 Do. do. Sherry 'Wine,
ft Do, do. Alai »g:t Wine,
10 Hogsheads prime Molasses,
20 Barrels rectified Wlhskey,
50 Boxer, Raisin#,
20 Boxes Chalk Pipes,
JO Boxes Mustard, 10 bags Proper, 10 brg1: rar g
Ginger, IS boxes Window Class, 8 by 10, 2 *>
kegs I„ciper’s Snuff, 1 ton Shot, German & Bli. -
tered Stevl, 8 f* xes Brim tone, writing 8c wrap .
mg Paper, 400 sacks salt, 10 hlid*. stone War; ,
15 b« .;<•« Spanish Cigars, 20 boxes Soap, and 1st t
Grind Stones. A11 of which will be sold on mo
derate terois, for cash, country prodace, or ap
proved paper.
WHITE & SHELTON.
March 20. fk
' I Mfii bUBSCRIUEH, ofiers lorsde, a g*rc
1 rid assortment if GROCERIES, >t h j
Store, opposite tlie 5wan Tavern. The at i ■.. <■-.
■e of giod quality, ami carefully laid m L ■ %.
ral terns will lie allowed to any ;ne d:sr. •-.a v
purchase tiie enure block on ha;.c. lr.;» ■
is equal to any on Shock ce HM . c .• v
two M inrip I Taverns, and in a v/v.«(.b , - ^ .
boiliotxJ. Possession given to >ny i i ♦ r.-<p.
to purchase, on the fi. at d <y ct .Y •
A jjdv-Ji■ y* jj., j ■i-mni t.
April 54, 4^