Portland gazette, and Maine advertiser (Portland, Me.), 1809-12-18 00:00:00

PORTLAND GAZETTE, And Maine Advertiser.
PORTLAND, PUBLISHED BY ARTHUR SHIRLEY... FISH-STREET.
No. 36, of Vol. XII.]
MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1809.
[Whole No. 608.]
Poetry.
FOR THE GAZETTE.
ELEGY
On the famous horse, Mars, who had been employed many years in carrying the Mail from the Stage Tavern in Brunswick, to the Post Office. Poor Mars, "unattended and self-moved," attempted to cross the Androscoggin, on the ice, Dec. 5th, 1809, and was found drowned in the middle of the river the following morning. Whether a calculation, that it would be safer to cross the ice, than a rickety bridge in a warm evening, or to save the toll of said bridge; or whether the gloomy aspect of our public affairs drove the aforesaid Mars to deliberate suicide, rather than to continue to be the bearer of "bad news," and to witness the accumulating distresses of the neighborhood, is a question, on which the philosophers of the town are requested to give an opinion the next meeting.
TUNE—'BUCEPHALUS NO MORE.' Adagio.
LET the Father of Poets in glory enshrine And rank with immortals a mere soldier of Troy;
To paint horrid Mars in bloody delight, Raising wars among mortals, and aiding the fight,
The force of his magical numbers employ. Not ambitious my muse in fable to soar, No ideal grief shall your pity implore; I sing; not of strife, nor the patron of wars, But (who will believe it?)—of peaceable Mars.
In the beauty of man, of form, or of face, No index of heart can we certainly trace; In all the externals of elegance drest, How often a serpent inhabits the breast.
The world is in mask, and we frequently see A beast show in conduct, what man ought to be.
Could Homer step back thirty centuries of time, And help me to finish this stanza of rhyme, He would cry, how superior! (he'd say it of course,) To my fam'd warrior god, was this fam'd Brunswick Horse.
How oft have I seen you, when harness'd, to start, Look a bliss more expressive, than speech can impart;
Your canter well known, general joy did diffuse, When you bore through our streets, the great Budget of news.
When surrounded each day by political Geese, You alone shew'd your prudence, by silence and peace.
Our parties, I find, in political jars, Agree in but one thing—lamenting good Mars.
Could the printers but know, could the public at large, How constant you bore to the office your charge,
And a paper ne'er kept, like a Partizan Elf, To give to your neighbor, or read by yourself;
In the poetic corner (so often defied), By encomiums on men, who thy virtues be-guiled.
Of next Monday's paper, they'd give unto you
An "Hic Jacet" Mars, to your faithfulness due. I have seen, trusty Mars, for two years or more,
Thine eye has not sparkled, as in good days of yore; What! couldst thou no longer, thy burden sustain
In bringing sad tidings to poor distressed Maine? Couldst thou but have spoken, before the last hour,
And imparted thy virtues to some men in power, A nation preserv'd from destruction and wars,
Might have given you the honors, now given to old Mars. We, who knew thee, good Mars, when thy memory we toast.
Can say, (what of man we never can boast) So faithful, so steady, so patient and free, Thou ne'er hadst an enemy till death mortgaged thee!
Dec. 6, 1809.
Late Missions.
Gen. Wade Hampton—not dead.
A letter has been received in this city, from Gen. Hampton himself, dated Columbia, (S. C.) Nov. 3, stating that he intended to set off for Natchez on the 5th Nov. and intended remaining a few days at South-West Point on his route.—Fr. Journal.
Married.
In Minot, Mr. Joel Haskell, of New-Gloucester, aged 78, to Miss Phebe Brown, aged 67.
In Saco, by the Rev. Elihu Whitecomb, Mr. George Seaman, merchant, to Miss Elizabeth Atkinson, both of Saco.—Mr. Humphrey Dyer, of Phillipsburgh, to Miss Hannah Hopkinson of Saco.
In Falmouth, by the Rev. C. Bradley, Mr. Samuel Stevens, to Miss Mary Herrick.—Mr. Henry Wilson, to Miss Mary Bailey.—Mr. William Elder, to Miss Peggy Chesley.—Mr. John Bexby, to Miss Margaret Wise.
In this town, Capt. Paul E. Merrill, of Falmouth to Miss Huldah F. Gordon.
Official Correspondence.
DOCUMENTS
ACCOMPANYING THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.
The Secretary of the Treasury to Mr. Erskine.
Washington, 13th Aug. 1809.
SIR—I do not believe, that in the conversations we have had respecting the practicability of an adjustment of the differences between the United States and Great Britain, we ever have misunderstood one another. Yet as from Mr. Canning's instructions lately published by your government, it would seem that some opinions are ascribed to several members of this administration, which they did not entertain, it appears necessary to ascertain whether on any point a misapprehension can have taken place.
I will forbear making any observations on what in the instructions is called the third condition, since it is not asserted that that inadmissible proposition was suggested at Washington.
The points embraced in Mr. Canning's first proposition formed the principal topic of our conversations, relative to a revocation of the Orders in Council. Yet in the manner in which that proposition is expressed, it goes further than had been suggested by the members of the administration. It is sufficiently evident from the proceedings of Congress, both previous and subsequent to the unratified agreement of April last, that the United States intended to continue the restrictions on the commercial intercourse with France, whilst such of her decrees as violate our neutral rights continued in force, and to remove those restrictions in relation to Great Britain, in the event of a revocation of the Orders in Council. But that state of things so far as it related to France was to result from our own laws known or anticipated by your government when they authorized an arrangement; and it was not proposed by us that the continuance of the non-intercourse with France should be made a condition of that arrangement. Whilst on that subject, I will add an observation, though perhaps not immediately connected with the object of this letter. I think that the object of that proposition, so far as it agreed with your previous understanding of the intentions of this government, has been substantially carried into effect on our part. It is true that your government might at the date of the instructions have expected from the incumbent proceedings of Congress, that Holland would be embraced by the restrictive laws of the U. States. Not only however was the omission nominal, since American vessels were at the time by the decrees of that country refused admission into its ports; but under the same construction of our laws by which the commercial intercourse with Holland was permitted, that with Portugal was also considered as legal in the event of that country being occupied by French troops in the name of the Prince Regent.
It is therefore principally as respects the second condition which relates to the colonial trade, that erroneous inferences might be drawn from the expressions used in Mr. Canning's instructions. Although the subject must have been mentioned here incidentally, and only in a transient manner; as it is one to which I had paid particular attention, and on which my opinion had never varied, I think that I can state with precision in what view I have always considered it, and must have alluded to it.
1. I never could have given countenance to an opinion that the United States would agree, or that it would be proper to make any arrangement whatever respecting the colonial trade, a condition of the revocation of the Orders in Council. The two subjects were altogether unconnected, and I am confident that such a proposition was never suggested either by you, or by any member of this administration. Such an arrangement could be effected only by treaty; & it is with a considerable degree of surprise that I see your government now asking not only resistance to the French decrees, but the abandonment of a branch of our commerce, as the price of the revocation of the Orders in Council. This seems to give a new character to a measure which had heretofore been represented as an act of retaliation reluctantly adopted, and had been defended solely on the ground of a supposed acquiescence on the part of the U. S. in the injurious decrees of another nation.
2. In the event of a treaty embracing all the points in dispute, and particularly that of improvements, without which I trust no treaty will ever take place, it was my opinion, and I may certainly have expressed it that if the other subjects of difference were arranged that respecting the colonial trade would be easily adjusted. I had considered the principles recognized in a former correspondence, between Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. King on the subject of the colonial trade, and subsequently again adopted in the treaty negotiated by Messrs. Munroe and Pinkney, as a general basis agreed on under different administrations, by both governments, from which neither could now recede, and susceptible only of modification as to details. The instructions to our Ministers in London on that subject had also been published and were known to
your government. I therefore believe that the United States, in the event of a treaty, would still be disposed to wave for the present, in the manner and on the terms contemplated by those instructions, their right to that branch, and to that branch only, of the colonial trade, known by the name of direct trade , that is to say the trade carried directly from belligerent colonies to the belligerents in Europe, when that trade was not permanently in peace as in war permitted by the laws of the country to which those colonies belonged. The right to a trade between such colonies and the United States generally, and to that in colonial articles between the United States and other countries, never can, or will in my opinion, be abandoned, or its exercise be suspended by this government. On the contrary, it is solely in order to secure, by any express treaty stipulation, that trade against the danger of interruption, and thus by a mutual spirit of accommodation to avoid collisions, that the abandonment of the direct branch can ever be assented to.
Permit me therefore to request, that you will inform me, whether you understood me on those two points, as I certainly meant to be understood; namely, that the relinquishment, during the present war, of what is called the direct trade , was alone contemplated; and that no arrangement on that subject was suggested as a condition of the revocation of the Orders in Council.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and consideration, Sir, your obedient servant, (Signed) ALBERT GALLATIN. Hon. D. M. Erskine, Minister Plenipotentiary, &c. &c.
Mr. Erskine, to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Washington, Aug. 15, 1809.
SIR—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th inst. in which you have been pleased to say that although you "do not believe that in the conversations we have had respecting the practicability of an adjustment of the differences between the U. States and Great Britain, we ever have misunderstood one another. Yet, as from Mr. Canning's instructions, lately published by my government, it would seem that some opinions are ascribed to several members of this administration which they did not entertain, it appears necessary to ascertain whether, on any point, a misapprehension can have taken place."
In answer to your enquiries, I have great satisfaction in assuring you that there appears to have been no misunderstanding respecting the substance or meaning of the conversations which passed between us, as stated in Mr. Canning's instructions alluded to.
After the most careful perusal of your statement of the purport of our conversations, I cannot discover any material difference from the representation which I have made upon the subject to the Secretary of State (Mr. Robert Smith) in my letter to him of the 14th inst. to which I will therefore beg leave to refer you, as I have therein detailed the substance of the conversation according to my recollection of it; which is in every respect essentially the same as that which you seem to have entertained.
During the conversation which we held respecting the practicability of an amicable adjustment of the differences between the two countries, when the relinquishment by the U. States during the present war, of what is called the colonial trade , was suggested by you, I conceived that you meant (as you have stated) "the trade carried directly from belligerent colonies to the belligerents in Europe, when that trade was not permanently in peace as in war, permitted by the laws of the country to which those colonies belonged."
I never supposed that you intended to convey, an opinion that the government of the United States would make any arrangement respecting the colonial trade as a condition of the revocation of the Orders in Council, the two subjects being altogether unconnected; nor have I ever represented to His Majesty's government that such preliminary pledges would be given.
With sentiments of the highest respect, I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. (Signed) D. M. ERSKINE. The Hon. ALBERT GALLATIN, &c. &c.
The Secretary of State to Mr. Jackson, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty.
Department of State Oct. 9, 1809.
SIR—An arrangement, as to the revocation of the British Orders in Council, as well as to the satisfaction required in the case of the attack on the Chesapeake frigate, has been made in due form by the government of the U. States with David Montague Erskine, Esq. an accredited Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty. And after it had been faithfully carried into execution on the part of this government and under circumstances rendering its effects on the relative situation of the U. States irrevocable, and, in some respects, irreparable, his Britannic Majesty has deemed it proper to disavow it, to recall his Minister, and to send another to take his place.
In such a state of things, no expectation
could be more reasonable, no course of proceeding more obviously prescribed by the ordinary respect due to the disappointed party, than a prompt and explicit explanation, by the new functionary, of the grounds of the refusal on the part of his government to abide by an arrangement so solemnly made—accompanied by a substitution of other propositions.
Under the influence of this reasonable expectation, the President has learned, with no less surprise than regret, that in your several conferences with me you have stated;
1st. That you have no instructions from your government, which authorise you to make any explanations whatever to this government, or to the reasons, which had induced his Britannic Majesty to disavow the arrangement lately made by your predecessor, and that therefore you could not make any such explanations.
2d. That in the case of the Chesapeake, your instructions only authorise you (without affixing any reason whatever why the reasonable terms of satisfaction tendered and accepted, have not been carried into effect) to communicate to this government a note tendering satisfaction, with an understanding that such note should not be signed and delivered by you until you should have previously seen and approved the proposed answer of this government, and that the signing and delivery of your note and that of the answer of this government should be simultaneous.
3d. That you have no instructions, which authorise you to make to this government any propositions whatever in relation to the revocation of the British Orders in Council; but only to receive such as this government may deem it proper to make to you.
4th. That at all events, it is not the disposition or the intention of the British government to revoke their Orders in Council, as they respect the United States, but upon a formal stipulation on the part of the United States, to accede to the following terms and conditions, viz.
1st. That the act of Congress, commonly called the non-intercourse law, be continued against France, so long as she shall continue her decrees.
2d. That the navy of Great Britain be authorized to aid in enforcing the provisions of the said act of Congress.
3d. That the United States shall explicitly renounce, during the present war, the right of carrying on any trade whatever direct or indirect, with any colony of any enemy of Great Britain, from which they were excluded during peace; and that this renunciation must extend, not only to the trade between the colony and the mother country, but to the trade between the colony and the United States.
If, in the foregoing representation, it should appear, that I have in any instance misapprehended your meaning, it will afford me real pleasure to be enabled to lay before the President a statement, corrected agreeably to any suggestions, with which you may be pleased to favor me.
To avoid the misconceptions incident to oral proceedings, I have the honor to intimate that it is thought expedient, that our further discussions on the present occasion, be in the written form. And with great sincerity I assure you, that whatever communications you may be pleased thus to make, will be received with an anxious solicitude to find them such as may lead to a speedy removal of every existing obstacle to that mutual and lasting friendship and cordiality between the two nations which it is obviously the interest of both to foster. With the highest confidence, &c.
(Signed) R. SMITH. The Hon. FRANCIS JAMES JACKSON &c.
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith.
WASHINGTON, OCT. 11, 1809.
SIR—I have had the honor of receiving your official letter of the 9th inst. towards the close of which you inform me, that it had been thought expedient to put an end to all verbal communication between yourself and me, in discussing the important objects of my mission—Considering that a very few days have elapsed since I delivered to the President a credential letter from the King my Master, and that nothing has been alleged to have occurred, to deprive me of the facility of access, and of the credit to which, according to immemorial usage, I am by that letter entitled, I believe there does not exist in the annals of diplomatic precedent for such a determination between two Ministers, who have met for the avowed purpose of terminating amicably the existing differences between their respective countries; But, after mature reflection, I am induced to acquiesce in it by the recollection of the time that must necessarily elapse before I can receive His Majesty's commands upon so unexpected an occurrence, and of the detriment that would ensue to the public service, if any ministerial functions, were in the interval, to be altogether suspended. I shall therefore content myself with entering my protest against a proceeding which I can consider in no other light, than as a violation, in my person, of the most essential rights of a public minister when adopted; as in the present case, without any alleged misconduct on his part.
As a matter of opinion, I cannot, I own, assent to the preference which you give to written over verbal intercourse for the purpose of mutual explanation and accommodation. I have thought it due to the public character with which I have the honor to be invested, and to the confidence which his Majesty has most graciously been pleased to reposes in me, to state to you unreservedly my sentiments on this point. I shall now proceed to the other parts of your letter, and apply to them the best consideration that can arise from a real proportioned to the increase of difficulty thus thrown in the way of the reformation of a thorough good understanding between our respective countries. You state, Sir, very truly that an arrangement had been made between you and Mr. Erskine, and that his Majesty had thought proper to disavow that arrangement. I have, here in the outset, to regret the loss of the advantages of verbal intercourse with you, as I should have availed myself of it to inquire whether by your statement, it were your intention to complain of the disavowal itself, or of a total want of explanation of it, or of the circumstances of that explanation not having been made through me. I observe that in the records of this mission there is no trace of a complaint, on the part of the United States, of His Majesty having disavowed the act of his Minister. You have not in the conferences we have hitherto held, distinctly announced any such complaint, and I have seen, with pleasure, in this forbearance, on your part, an instance of that candour, which I doubt not will prevail in all our communications, in as much as you could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of an act, done under such circumstances, as could only lead to the consequences that have actually followed.
It was not known when I left England, whether Mr. Erskine had, according to the liberty allowed him, communicated to you enough his original instructions. It now appears that he did not. But, in reverting to his official correspondence, and particularly to a despatch addressed on the 20th of April to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I find that he there states, that he had submitted to your consideration, the three conditions specified in those instructions, as the ground work of an arrangement, which according to information received from his country, it was thought in England might be made, with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine then reports verbatim of seriatim your observations upon each of these three conditions, and the reasons which induced you to think that others might be substituted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded between you that these latter were an equivalent for the original conditions; but the very act of substitution evidently shews that those original conditions were, in fact, very explicitly communicated to you, and by you of course laid before the President for his consideration. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions and those contained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th April, is sufficiently obvious to require no elucidation; nor need I draw the conclusion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint, on the part of the American government, viz. that under such circumstances, His Majesty had an undoubted and incontrovertible right to disavow the act of his Minister. I must here allude to a supposition, which you have more than once mentioned to me, and by which, if it had any, the slightest foundation, this right might perhaps in some degree have been affected. You have informed me that you understood that Mr. Erskine had two sets of instructions, by which to regulate his conduct; and that upon one of them, which had not been communicated either to you or to the public, was to be relied the justification of the terms finally agreed upon between you and him. It is my duty, Sir, solemnly to declare to you, and, through you, to the President, that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which you have made the basis of an official correspondence with the latter Minister, and which was read by the former to the American Minister in London, is the only despatch, by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement with this country on the matter to which it relates.
To return to the immediate subject of your letter.—If, Sir, it be your intention to state, that no explanation whatever has been given to the American government of the reasons which induced His Majesty to disavow the act of my predecessor, I must, in that case, observe, that in the instructions conveying to him His Majesty's intention, those reasons were very fully and forcibly stated; and if he has not transmitted them to you, I can only attribute it to the peculiar delicacy and embarrassment of his situation, for which he probably trusted to the President's goodness to make some allowance; and he might the more reasonably be led to that reliance on it, as a full and ample communication was also made upon the subject by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Mr. Pinkney, to whom the whole of Mr. Erskine's original instructions was read, and who it was natural to suppose, would convey to his government so much information upon a very momentous occasion, as would relieve Mr. Erskine from the necessity of entering into minute details of the misunderstanding that had occurred. At all events, no complaint can be substantiated against His Majesty's government on this score, seeing that they not only instructed the Minister who had made the disavowed arrangement as to the motives which occasioned the disavowal, but also with frankness, promitude, and a most scrupulous regard to national honor, gave notice to the American Minister in London of the disavowal, of the motives of it, and of the precautions spontaneously taken by his Majesty to prevent any loss or injury accruing to the citizens of the United States from a reliance on any agreement, however unauthorized, made in His Majesty's name. The more allusion to this latter circumstance, dispenses me from further noticing the effects which you decribe as being produced upon the United States by the circumstances of this agreement. How far they are irrevocable, it is not for me to determine—but the word irreparable seems to imply that a loss had been sustained on the occasion by the public or by individuals of this country. So far as

Majesty could be by possibility supposed answerable for such an eventual loss, he has, as I have before stated, taken the utmost precaution to avert it.
As to the expectation entertained here, that the explanation of his Majesty's share in this transaction should be made through me, I might content myself with simply observing, that I was not provided with instructions to that effect, because it was known that the explanation in question had already been given. — But it accords with the sentiments of his Majesty towards this country to observe also, that he considered, that as some time must necessarily elapse between my appointment and my entrance on the duties of my ministry, it would be a more friendly mode of proceeding to defer without delay, and through the channels I have already mentioned, the motives that compelled his Majesty to disavow the agreement, than to leave the American government in uncertainty in these respects, till the unavoidable protracted period of my arrival in America. I lay this in regard to the original notification of his Majesty's determination, and of the motives of it, which being already made it could not be supposed in London that a repetition of them would be expected from me; and of course no such case has been foreseen in my instructions. But if, beyond this any incidental explanation or discussion should be wished for by this government, I came fully prepared to enter into them. I even consider them to have taken place between us. I have certainly derived great satisfaction from the several hours, which we have spent in conference upon these subjects, because they have enabled me to remove some misunderstandings, and to refute many misrepresentations, which you yourself informed me of, in regard to the conduct of the British government. I consider such mutual explanations as highly beneficial to a right understanding of the views and interests of the two countries, and I should with much pleasure have renewed them, if you had not informed me that the President had been pleased to prefer another and a different mode of conducting our negotiations.
I will nevertheless avail myself of that mode which he still permits to repeat to you that his Majesty has authorized me, notwithstanding the ungracious manner in which his former offer of satisfaction for the affair of the Chesapeake was received, to renew that which Mr. Erskine was instructed to make. You have said that you to fully understand the particulars of that offer, that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate them here: I regret that they were so clearly understood by you, you should not yet have been enabled to state to me either in our personal communications, or in the letter which I am now answering, whether they are considered by the President as satisfactory, or whether they are such as he ultimately means to accept. You seem not so distinctly to have understood the form of proceeding in this affair, which I took the liberty of suggesting as likely to lead to a satisfactory result, without however at all prejudging any other method which might appear preferable to you. My proposal was, not to communicate a note tendering satisfaction, but to agree with you before hand upon the terms of a declaration on the part of his Majesty, which should actually give the satisfaction (the conditions of which I informed you I was authorized to carry into immediate execution) and of a counter declaration to be signed by you on the part of the United States for the purpose of accepting such satisfaction. I expressly stated that this interchange of official documents was not meant by me as the means of conveying to each other our respective sentiments; that I understood it, as is usual, the object of our conferences; and I imagined that the papers to be signed by us, respectively, would be the result of those sentiments so communicated, and that by being reciprocally corrected and modified, and simultaneously delivered, they would form one compact by which the two countries would be equally bound. This course of proceeding is conformable to the practice of the courts of Europe on similar occasions. You did not at the time appear to object to it; you even requested me to come the next day, prepared with a draft or project of a paper, framed in pursuance to these ideas, and although you desired to refer the subject to the President for his approbation, I do not find in your letter either an expression of his sentiments, upon it, or the substitution of any other form that might be more agreeable to him, than the one which I have proposed. I touch with considerable and very sincere reluctance upon that part of your letter, in which you state that I had not assigned "any reason whatever why the reasonable terms of satisfaction tendered and accepted have not been carried into effect."
I believe that I had observed to you, in the words of my instructions, that if his Majesty were capable of being actuated by any desire to retract an offer of reparation which he had once made, his Majesty might be well warranted in doing so both by the form in which his accredited Minister had rendered that reparation, and by the manner in which that reparation had been received. I believe that I elucidated this observation by a reference to the particular expressions, which made the terms of satisfaction appear to be unacceptable even to the American government, at the very moment when they were accepted, and which at all events put it totally out of his Majesty's power to ratify and confirm any act in which such expressions were contained.
On the subject of his Majesty's Orders in Council, I have had the honor of informing you that his Majesty having caused to be made to the government of the U. States certain proposals founded upon principles, some of which were understood to originate in American authorities, and others to be acquainted in by them; and having afterwards ascertained, in the manner mentioned in a former part of this letter, that the sentiments of the American government were so different from what they were at first understood to be, I was not instructed to renew to you those proposals, nor to press upon your acceptance an arrangement which had been to recently declined, especially as the arrangement itself is become less important, and the terms of it less applicable to the state of things now existing.
Those considerations which were first intimated in Mr. Canning's official letter to Mr. Pinkney of the 23d September, 1808, and which, in the course of the following six months acquired greater weight and influence, induced his Majesty, before the result of Mr. Erskine's negotiation was known, to modify the Orders in Council of November 1807, by that of the 26th of April 1809.
The effect of this new order is to relieve the system under which the former orders were issued, from that which has always been represented in this country, as the most objectionable and offensive part of it—the option given to neutrals to trade with the enemies of Great Britain through British ports on payment of a transfer duty. This was originally devised and intended as a mitigation of what is certainly more correct but more rigid in principle—the total and unqualified interdiction of all trade with the enemy. If, however, this mitigation was felt as aggravation, and, as has been sometimes warmly asserted, as an insult, that cause of complaint is now entirely removed. By the order in Council of the 26th April, 1809, all trade with France and Holland, and the ports of Italy comprehended under the denomination of the kingdom of Italy, is simply prohibited altogether. No option is afforded, and consequently no transfer duty is required to be paid. In another respect the order in Council of the 26th April must be admitted to be more restrictive than of November 1807.
The trade with enemies' colonies which was opened to neutrals at the commencement of the present war by the order in Council of the 24th of June 1803, was continued to be left open by those of November 1807. — The order in Council of the 26th April, retracts this indulgence. But it is to be observed, that, since the period, when the orders in Council of November 1807, were issued, the opening of the ports of Spain, of Portugal, of the south of Italy and of Turkey, has afforded a more ample scope to neutral commerce, and that by the capture of Martinique, in addition to that of almost all the colonies of the enemies of Great Britain, together with the blockade of Guadeloupe, the extent to which the liberty of commerce with enemies' colonies applied has been so far narrowed, that there is little of practical hardship in recurring to the rule which, however occasionally mitigated in its application, Great Britain can never cease in principle to maintain. It is farther to be observed, that the order in Council of the 26th April, has this operation highly favourable to neutrals, that restricting the regulations of blockade to France, Holland and their colonies, and to the territories denominated the kingdom of Italy, it lays open to the direct trade of neutrals, the ports of the north of Europe. — Under the order of the 26th April, therefore, while there are on the one hand fewer points of difference to stand in the way of a satisfactory arrangement between Great Britain and the U. States, it is possible that there may be less temptation to the latter to enter into such an arrangement, as the extent of their commerce may be if they please, nearly as great under the order in Council of the 26th April, as it would be under any arrangement which should affect the indispensable objects, to which that order applies, or as it would be even without any such order, so long as France and the powers subservient to France continue to enforce their decrees. It is in the same proportion, matter of indifference to Great Britain, whether the order in Council be continued or an arrangement by mutual consent substituted in its room.
Such Sir, are the grounds on which it has appeared to His Majesty to be unnecessary to command me to propose to the government of the United States any formal agreement to be substituted for that which His Majesty has been under the necessity of disavowing; but I am directed to receive and discuss with you, any proposal which you may be authorized to make to me on this head.
As no disposition has hitherto been shown on your part to make any such proposal, it has been impossible for me to state by anticipation, (nor was I instructed to do so) what might be the answer that I should eventually think it my duty to return to you; consequently I could not have made with that view the statement contained in the 4th section of your letter, and the three subdivisions of it. Such a statement would have been obviously inconsistent with the former part of my overture, which you very correctly record in the 3d section, viz: That I was not instructed to make to you any proposal whatever upon this subject. I must necessarily reserve, until I hear from you what proposals it may be deemed proper to make on behalf of the U. States, to state in how far they do or do not accord with the instructions, which it has pleased His Majesty to give me for my guidance in this negotiation.
I will only add, Sir, in conclusion of this letter, that His Majesty is very sincerely desirous of maintaining a perfect and cordial understanding with the United States, and of bringing to a complete and satisfactory adjustment, all the points of difference that have arisen between the two governments; and that, agreeing as I do with you, most heartily, as to the interest which both nations have in fostering a mutual and solid friendship and cordiality, no zeal or exertions shall be wanting on my part to carry into effect His Majesty's commands for this most salutary purpose.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, F. J. JACKSON.
written form. And with this view I take the liberty of recalling your attention to the subjoined extracts (See A: & B:) of letters that passed on that occasion.
On the present, as on that occasion, the change from verbal to written communications was requested after two conferences, and when the subject appeared to one of the parties to have, by those verbal discussions, been brought to a point, which required a precise understanding of the views and positions of the other.
You will, Sir, I perceive, that in maintaining the right, which every government has as to the rules of intercourse with foreign functionaries near it, no encroachment has been made or intended on any right or customary privilege belonging to you in that character, nor any thing done to impede the proper and usual course of negotiation.
You have been sufficiently apprised, by my letter of the 9th, of the light in which the President views the arrangement lately made by your predecessor with this government, and of the grounds on which he has expected a formal and satisfactory explanation of the reason for the refusal of his Britannic Majesty to carry it into effect. He persists in that expectation, and in the opinion, that there has been given no explanation that is adequate, either as to the matter, or as to the mode.
When one government has been solemnly pledged to another in a mutual engagement by its acknowledged and competent agent, and refuses to fulfil the pledge, it is perfectly clear, that it owes it, both to itself and to the other party, to accompany its refusal with a formal and frank disclosure of sufficient reasons for a step, which, without such reasons, must deeply injure its own character, as well as the rights of the party confiding in its good faith.
"To refuse with honour (says a high authority on public law) to ratify what has been concluded on by virtue of a full power, it is necessary that the government should have strong and solid reasons, and that he shew in particular that his minister has violated his instructions."
Although it is particularly incumbent on the Sovereign in such case to shew that his instructions have been violated, yet it is not a mere violation of them on immaterial points that will be sufficient. It is indispensably requisite, moreover, that the reason be strong and solid, that they manifestly outweigh not only the general obligation to abide by what has been so done, but also the disappointment and injury accruing to the other party. And it is worthy of notice that the case under discussion is of higher character, and appeals with greater solemnity to the honour and justice of the refusing party, than the case stated in Vattel, inasmuch as the transaction, now disavowed, was not a treaty or convention to be ratified by both parties, previous to an execution by either. It had according to the terms it (and this peculiarity appears to have been contemplated by your government) been actually and immediately carried into effect by the U. States. The refusal of his Britannic Majesty is, therefore, not simply to ratify what had been ratified by the other party, but to carry into effect on his part an arrangement which had been carried into full effect with good faith on the part of the United States. Nay, the case is strengthened by the further peculiarity, that some of the circumstances attending the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States renders it unsusceptible of a full equivalent for the refusal to execute it on the other side.
It has not escaped observation, that the obligation of your government to tender explanations on this occasion is admitted by your attempt to shew that it has been sufficiently done in what passed in conversation between Mr. Canning & Mr. Pinkney, and by the instructions given to Mr. Erskine to communicate such explanations.
With every disposition to view in the most favourable light whatever may effect the relations between the two countries, it is impossible to mistake the conversations of those ministers for a discharge of such a duty to the good faith and reasonable expectations of the United States. Besides that they were mere conversations in a case requiring the precision and respect of a formal communication, it is certain, that it was neither understood by Mr. Pinkney, nor intended by Mr. Canning, that those conversations were so to be regarded. Mr. Pinkney is explicit on this point. And Mr. Canning himself, after declining to recapitulate in writing what he had verbally remarked, signified to Mr. Pinkney in a letter dated May 27th, that his observations on the subject would be more properly made through the successor of Mr. Erskine who was about to proceed to the United States.
With respect to the instructions on this point, given to Mr. Erskine, it might be sufficient to remark that they were never carried into execution; but it may be asked, whether it was a mark of friendly respect to the United States to employ for such a purpose a minister from whom his government had thought proper publicly to withdraw its confidence, and to the peculiar delicacy and embarrassment of whose situation you have yourself referred, as accounting for his not having executed the task imposed upon him.
I must here repeat, what was suggested in my former letter, that the successor of Mr. Erskine is the proper functionary for a proper explanation. Nor can I perceive the force of your remark, that the delay incident to your arrival in the United States rendered it more consistent with the friendly sentiment of His Majesty to prefer the other channels for communicating the motives for his disavowal. To your own reconsideration I appeal whether the course most consonant to those friendly sentiments was not the obvious one of employing the new organ, guarding at the same time against any misconstruction of the delay by apprizing the American government through its minister of the cause of it. The supposition, that the delay incident to your mission gave rise to the conversation of Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, is not reconcilable to the correspondence of the latter, which contains no such indication. On the contrary it distinctly shews that he was apprized of the intention to replace Mr. Erskine by a successor, whom he regarded as the proper channel for the explanatory communications, that he understood Mr. Canning to be under the same impression, and that he learned from yourself, not more than two
days after his conversation with Mr. Canning, that you were to sail for the U. States within three weeks.
Although it may not have been your intention to have given to this subject a posture which it would not have naturally assumed, yet such has been the tendency of some of your remarks, and particularly of the conclusion you have drawn from the two circumstances. 1st. That no trace of complaint from this government against the disavowal appears in the records of the British mission, or was distinctly announced by me in our conferences, and 2d. that from the official correspondence of Mr. Erskine with his government, it appears, that although he did not communicate in extenso his original instructions, he submitted to me the three conditions therein specified and received my observations on each.
If there be no trace of complaint against the disavowal in the archives of the mission, it is because this government could not have entered such complaint before the reasons for the disavowal had been explained, and especially as the explanations were justly and confidently expected through the new functionary. And as to the supposed reserve on my part on this subject in our several conferences I did imagine, that my repeated intimations to you of the necessity of satisfactory explanations, as to the disavowal, were sufficient indications of the dissatisfaction of this government with respect to the disavowal itself.
The stress you have laid on what you have been pleased to state as the substitution of the terms finally agreed on, for the terms first proposed, has excited no small degree of surprise. Certain it is that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which now appear in the printed document—that he was disposed to urge them more than the nature of two of them (both palpably inadmissible) and one more than merely inadmissible could permit, and that on finding his first proposals unsuccessful, the more responsible terms comprised in the arrangement respecting the orders in council were adopted. And what, Sir, is there in this to countenance the conclusion you have drawn in favor of the right of his Britannic Majesty to disavow the proceeding? Is any thing more common in public negotiations than to begin with a higher demand, and that failing, to descend to a lower? To have, if not two sets of instructions, two or more than two grades of propositions in the same set of instructions, to begin with what is the most desirable and to end with what is found to be admissible in case the more desirable should not be attainable. This must be obvious to every understanding, and it is confirmed by universal experience.
What were the real and entire instructions given to your predecessor, is a question essentially between him and his government. That he had, or at least that he believed he had sufficient authority to conclude the arrangement, his formal assurances, during our discussions, were such as to leave no room for doubt. His subsequent letter of the 15th June renewing his assurances to me "that the terms of the agreement so happily concluded by the recent negotiation will be faithfully fulfilled on the part of his Majesty," is an evident indication of what his persuasion then was as to his instructions. And with a view to shew what his impressions have been since the disavowal, I must take the liberty of referring you to the annexed extracts (See C.) from his official letters of the 31st July and of the 14th of August.
The declaration "that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January is the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed by Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it relates" is now for the first time made to his government. And I need hardly add, that if that despatch had been communicated at the time of the arrangement, or if it had been known that the propositions contained in it and which were at first presented by Mr. Erskine, were the only ones, on which he was authorized to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not have been made.
As you have disclaimed any authority to offer explanations for the disavowal, as you have been willing to ascribe the want of such authority to the consideration, that other channels had been preferred, and as you have even considered the circumstances under which the arrangement took place to be such as could only lead to a disavowal, and therefore as superseding the necessity of any explanation whatever, it is to be regretted, that you had not deemed it proper to render precise and explicit, that part of your letter which seems to imply that you had in your conversations, in relation to the affair of the Chesapeake, following the words of your instructions, held out not only the manner in which the reparation had been accepted, but even the form in which it had been tendered, as warranting his Majesty in even retracting the offer of reparation, and that you had elucidated the observation by a reference to the particular expressions which at all events, put it totally out of his power to confirm any act containing them.
Whatever may have been your intention in this part of the passage to which I have just alluded, I have now the honor of signifying to you, that I am, authorized to receive in a proper form whatever explicit explanations you may choose to make with respect to the grounds of this part of the disavowal; and without enquiring whether your authority be derived from instructions that have been addressed to yourself, or that have devolved on you as the successor of the minister who had declined to execute them.
To such a suspension no reasonable objection can be made, if, as you have stated, the Orders in Council as now modified leave the trade of the United States nearly as great as it would be without the existence of such orders, so long as France and the other powers confessedly require an immediate and entire revocation of the Orders in Council.
That a suspension of the Orders with a view to their being brought into a general negoti-
ation is more reasonable than a temporary submission to their authority, by the United States with that view, is obvious from the reflection that such a submission would necessarily involve a relinquishment of the principle which they have steadfastly asserted; — whereas, a continuance of the Orders in Council, in the present actual state of things would not be incompatible with the principle on which they were originally founded.
This principle was, as you well know, the necessity of retaliating through neutrals, injuries received through a violation of their rights by another belligerent. In the actual state of things, and under the modification of the Orders in Council produced by it, it is admitted by you, that the Orders have no practical effect in abridging the commerce of neutrals, and can of course have no retaliating effect on the other belligerents.
Although it cannot be allowed to be true that the Orders in Council are no longer injurious to the commerce of the United States, it is certainly true that they produce no degree of injury to the enemies of G. Britain that can countenance the retaliating plea alleged in support of them.
What, permit me to ask, is the degree of injury actually accruing to the enemies of G. Britain from her retaliating? According to those orders, as now modified, and more especially taking into view along with them the prohibitory law of this country in relation to France, the essential difference between their repeal and their existence consists in this—that in the case of their repeal, as pledged by the arrangement of April, the trade of the United States might be carried on directly with the ports of Holland, whilst during their existence, as at present, it is to be carried on through contiguous and neighboring ports. To your own calculations, Sir, I submit, whether the inconsiderable effect of this circuit of the prices in Holland and in the countries supplied through her, can any longer sustain the plea of inflicting distress on an enemy, or palliate the injuries done to a friend by a proceeding so contrary to his sentiments of justice, and which subject his regular commerce not only to inconvenience channels, but to all the abuses which may result from the suspicion real or pretended, of interest cruizers. You cannot but be sensible, that a perseverance under such circumstances in a system, which cannot longer be explained by its avowed object, would force an explanation by some object avowed. What object might be considered as best explaining it, is an enquiry into which I do not permit myself to enter, further than to remark, that in relation to the United States, it must be an illegitimate object.
It remains to make a few observations which are due to the just interests of the United States, and which are invited by yours relating to the Orders in Council of May last.
You seem to consider that measures as comprising the utmost precaution that was in the power of his Britannic Majesty to take, for preventing losses from his disavowal of the engagement of your predecessor, to citizens of the United States, who had resumed their commercial pursuits on the faith of that act.
Without entering into a full view of the inadequacy of the Order in that respect, I take the liberty of pointing out the following instances in which it falls essentially short of its declared intention.
As you have at the same time, been pleased to say that his Britannic Majesty had authorized you to renew the offer of satisfaction which Mr. Erskine was instructed to make, it was also naturally expected that you would in your letter have stated with precision in what that offer differed from the reparation solemnly tendered by Mr. Erskine and accepted by the United States, and that you would have shown in what the reparation thus tendered differed from his instructions. And when I had the honor to intimate that in order to avoid the misconceptions, incident to oral proceedings, it was thought expedient that our further discussions on the present occasion should be in the written form, there was no part of the subject to which that intimation applied with more force than the case of the Chesapeake; none on which it was more desirable to avoid misconceptions and to obtain a precise knowledge of the propositions which you were authorized to make; not only because, I did not really understand the particulars of the offer as distinctly as you seem to have supposed, but also because, on that point, and on that alone you had expressly stated that you had propositions to make, and that you were authorized to carry them into immediate execution.
On the subject of the Orders in Council, the President perceives with sentiments of deep regret, that your instructions contemplate, neither an explanation of the refusal of your government to fulfil the arrangement of that branch of the existing differences, nor the substitution of any other plan of adjustment, nor any authority to conclude any arrangement on that subject; but merely to receive and discuss proposals, that might be made to you on the part of the United States to relinquish the trade with the enemies colonies, even in branches not hitherto interrupted by British orders for capture, and also a fashion to the enforcing of an act of Congress by the British navy.
Were the way properly opened for formal propositions from this government a known determination on the part of his Britannic Majesty to adhere to such extraordinary pretensions would preclude the hope of success in such advances, whether regard be had to the conditions themselves, or to the disposition they indicate, in return or the conciliatory temper which has been evinced by the United States.
As to the demand in relation to the colonial trade, it has been the less apprehended as it is not itself connected, nor has it ever before been brought into connexion, either with the case of the Chesapeake. And it was reasonably to be presumed, if the idea of such a condition had the first instance proceeded from the erroneous belief that it was not objectionable to the United States, that it would not have been persisted in after that error had been ascertained and acknowledged.
The other demand could still less have been apprehended. Besides the inevitable,
the effect of this new order is to relieve the system under which the former orders were issued, from that which has always been represented in this country, as the most objectionable and offensive part of it—the option given to neutrals to trade with the enemies of Great Britain through British ports on payment of a transfer duty. This was originally devised and intended as a mitigation of what is certainly more correct but more rigid in principle—the total and unqualified interdiction of all trade with the enemy. If, however, this mitigation was felt as aggravation, and, as has been sometimes warmly asserted, as an insult, that cause of complaint is now entirely removed. By the order in Council of the 26th April, 1809, all trade with France and Holland, and the ports of Italy comprehended under the denomination of the kingdom of Italy, is simply prohibited altogether. No option is afforded, and consequently no transfer duty is required to be paid. In another respect the order in Council of the 26th April must be admitted to be more restrictive than of November 1807.
The trade with enemies' colonies which was opened to neutrals at the commencement of the present war by the order in Council of the 24th of June 1803, was continued to be left open by those of November 1807. — The order in Council of the 26th April, retracts this indulgence. But it is to be observed, that, since the period, when the orders in Council of November 1807, were issued, the opening of the ports of Spain, of Portugal, of the south of Italy and of Turkey, has afforded a more ample scope to neutral commerce, and that by the capture of Martinique, in addition to that of almost all the colonies of the enemies of Great Britain, together with the blockade of Guadeloupe, the extent to which the liberty of commerce with enemies' colonies applied has been so far narrowed, that there is little of practical hardship in recurring to the rule which, however occasionally mitigated in its application, Great Britain can never cease in principle to maintain. It is farther to be observed, that the order in Council of the 26th April, has this operation highly favourable to neutrals, that restricting the regulations of blockade to France, Holland and their colonies, and to the territories denominated the kingdom of Italy, it lays open to the direct trade of neutrals, the ports of the north of Europe. — Under the order of the 26th April, therefore, while there are on the one hand fewer points of difference to stand in the way of a satisfactory arrangement between Great Britain and the U. States, it is possible that there may be less temptation to the latter to enter into such an arrangement, as the extent of their commerce may be if they please, nearly as great under the order in Council of the 26th April, as it would be under any arrangement which should affect the indispensable objects, to which that order applies, or as it would be even without any such order, so long as France and the powers subservient to France continue to enforce their decrees. It is in the same proportion, matter of indifference to Great Britain, whether the order in Council be continued or an arrangement by mutual consent substituted in its room.
Such Sir, are the grounds on which it has appeared to His Majesty to be unnecessary to command me to propose to the government of the United States any formal agreement to be substituted for that which His Majesty has been under the necessity of disavowing; but I am directed to receive and discuss with you, any proposal which you may be authorized to make to me on this head.
As no disposition has hitherto been shown on your part to make any such proposal, it has been impossible for me to state by anticipation, (nor was I instructed to do so) what might be the answer that I should eventually think it my duty to return to you; consequently I could not have made with that view the statement contained in the 4th section of your letter, and the three subdivisions of it. Such a statement would have been obviously inconsistent with the former part of my overture, which you very correctly record in the 3d section, viz: That I was not instructed to make to you any proposal whatever upon this subject. I must necessarily reserve, until I hear from you what proposals it may be deemed proper to make on behalf of the U. States, to state in how far they do or do not accord with the instructions, which it has pleased His Majesty to give me for my guidance in this negotiation.
I will only add, Sir, in conclusion of this letter, that His Majesty is very sincerely desirous of maintaining a perfect and cordial understanding with the United States, and of bringing to a complete and satisfactory adjustment, all the points of difference that have arisen between the two governments; and that, agreeing as I do with you, most heartily, as to the interest which both nations have in fostering a mutual and solid friendship and cordiality, no zeal or exertions shall be wanting on my part to carry into effect His Majesty's commands for this most salutary purpose.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, F. J. JACKSON.
The Hon. ROBERT SMITH, Sec. of the Navy.
Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson.
Department of State Oct. 19, 1809.
SIR—I have had the honor of receiving your letter of the 11th instant.
Before I proceed to the more material topics, which it embraces, it is proper that I should take some notice of your construction, which has unhappily converted an intimation of the expediency of conducting in a written form our further discussion, on this particular occasion, into a general prohibition of all verbal communications whatever, and into an unprecedented violation of the most essential rights of a public minister, requiring a formal protest and a resort to the commands of your sovereign.
A recurrence to that intimation cannot fail to shew that its sole object was to avoid, in the further discussions of a case of unusual delicacy, and importance, the misconceptions well known to be incident to oral proceedings, and of which the diplomatic intercourse between the two governments had furnished so many and such serious proofs,—nay, of which your letter itself is an additional illustration. That a change in diplomatic discussions from an oral to a written form is not without precedent. I cannot refer to one which will be more satisfactory to you than the intimation recently given by Mr. Canning, in the case of the proposal by Mr. Pinkney on the subject of the orders in Council, and the Embargo, that the discussions which had been previously verbal, must thenceforth take a
written form. And with this view I take the liberty of recalling your attention to the subjoined extracts (See A: & B:) of letters that passed on that occasion.
On the present, as on that occasion, the change from verbal to written communications was requested after two conferences, and when the subject appeared to one of the parties to have, by those verbal discussions, been brought to a point, which required a precise understanding of the views and positions of the other.
You will, Sir, I perceive, that in maintaining the right, which every government has as to the rules of intercourse with foreign functionaries near it, no encroachment has been made or intended on any right or customary privilege belonging to you in that character, nor any thing done to impede the proper and usual course of negotiation.
You have been sufficiently apprised, by my letter of the 9th, of the light in which the President views the arrangement lately made by your predecessor with this government, and of the grounds on which he has expected a formal and satisfactory explanation of the reason for the refusal of his Britannic Majesty to carry it into effect. He persists in that expectation, and in the opinion, that there has been given no explanation that is adequate, either as to the matter, or as to the mode.
When one government has been solemnly pledged to another in a mutual engagement by its acknowledged and competent agent, and refuses to fulfil the pledge, it is perfectly clear, that it owes it, both to itself and to the other party, to accompany its refusal with a formal and frank disclosure of sufficient reasons for a step, which, without such reasons, must deeply injure its own character, as well as the rights of the party confiding in its good faith.
"To refuse with honour (says a high authority on public law) to ratify what has been concluded on by virtue of a full power, it is necessary that the government should have strong and solid reasons, and that he shew in particular that his minister has violated his instructions."
Although it is particularly incumbent on the Sovereign in such case to shew that his instructions have been violated, yet it is not a mere violation of them on immaterial points that will be sufficient. It is indispensably requisite, moreover, that the reason be strong and solid, that they manifestly outweigh not only the general obligation to abide by what has been so done, but also the disappointment and injury accruing to the other party. And it is worthy of notice that the case under discussion is of higher character, and appeals with greater solemnity to the honour and justice of the refusing party, than the case stated in Vattel, inasmuch as the transaction, now disavowed, was not a treaty or convention to be ratified by both parties, previous to an execution by either. It had according to the terms it (and this peculiarity appears to have been contemplated by your government) been actually and immediately carried into effect by the U. States. The refusal of his Britannic Majesty is, therefore, not simply to ratify what had been ratified by the other party, but to carry into effect on his part an arrangement which had been carried into full effect with good faith on the part of the United States. Nay, the case is strengthened by the further peculiarity, that some of the circumstances attending the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States renders it unsusceptible of a full equivalent for the refusal to execute it on the other side.
It has not escaped observation, that the obligation of your government to tender explanations on this occasion is admitted by your attempt to shew that it has been sufficiently done in what passed in conversation between Mr. Canning & Mr. Pinkney, and by the instructions given to Mr. Erskine to communicate such explanations.
With every disposition to view in the most favourable light whatever may effect the relations between the two countries, it is impossible to mistake the conversations of those ministers for a discharge of such a duty to the good faith and reasonable expectations of the United States. Besides that they were mere conversations in a case requiring the precision and respect of a formal communication, it is certain, that it was neither understood by Mr. Pinkney, nor intended by Mr. Canning, that those conversations were so to be regarded. Mr. Pinkney is explicit on this point. And Mr. Canning himself, after declining to recapitulate in writing what he had verbally remarked, signified to Mr. Pinkney in a letter dated May 27th, that his observations on the subject would be more properly made through the successor of Mr. Erskine who was about to proceed to the United States.
With respect to the instructions on this point, given to Mr. Erskine, it might be sufficient to remark that they were never carried into execution; but it may be asked, whether it was a mark of friendly respect to the United States to employ for such a purpose a minister from whom his government had thought proper publicly to withdraw its confidence, and to the peculiar delicacy and embarrassment of whose situation you have yourself referred, as accounting for his not having executed the task imposed upon him.
I must here repeat, what was suggested in my former letter, that the successor of Mr. Erskine is the proper functionary for a proper explanation. Nor can I perceive the force of your remark, that the delay incident to your arrival in the United States rendered it more consistent with the friendly sentiment of His Majesty to prefer the other channels for communicating the motives for his disavowal. To your own reconsideration I appeal whether the course most consonant to those friendly sentiments was not the obvious one of employing the new organ, guarding at the same time against any misconstruction of the delay by apprizing the American government through its minister of the cause of it. The supposition, that the delay incident to your mission gave rise to the conversation of Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, is not reconcilable to the correspondence of the latter, which contains no such indication. On the contrary it distinctly shews that he was apprized of the intention to replace Mr. Erskine by a successor, whom he regarded as the proper channel for the explanatory communications, that he understood Mr. Canning to be under the same impression, and that he learned from yourself, not more than two
days after his conversation with Mr. Canning, that you were to sail for the U. States within three weeks.
Although it may not have been your intention to have given to this subject a posture which it would not have naturally assumed, yet such has been the tendency of some of your remarks, and particularly of the conclusion you have drawn from the two circumstances. 1st. That no trace of complaint from this government against the disavowal appears in the records of the British mission, or was distinctly announced by me in our conferences, and 2d. that from the official correspondence of Mr. Erskine with his government, it appears, that although he did not communicate in extenso his original instructions, he submitted to me the three conditions therein specified and received my observations on each.
&lt;

and inevitable abuses incident to such a license to foreign cruizers, the stipulation would touch one of those vital principles of sovereignty, which no nation ought to have been expected to impair. For where would be the difference in principle between authorizing a foreign government to execute and authorizing it to make laws for us? Nor ought it to be supposed that the functions & precautions, of a law of the U. S. in the cases of the prohibited trade in question would prove inefficacious for its purposes.
Had none of those obstacles presented themselves to the course corresponding with the sentiments and dispositions of the president, I should have felt great pleasure in giving you formal assurances of his readiness to execute the conditional authority with which he is invested for restoring in its full extent, as far as it may depend on the U. S. the commercial intercourse of the two countries, & that he would moreover, be disposed to extend the experiment of a friendly negotiation to every point of difference and of mutual interest between them. If, indeed, in the event of a successful termination of what relates to the case of the Chesapeake, it be thought that a removal of the difficulties arising from the orders in council might be facilitated by comprehending them in a general negotiation and the operation of the orders can in the mean time be suspended the door might be considered as immediately open to that course of proceeding.
[Mr. Smith's letter to be concluded and other Documents to be continued in our next]
By the Sails.
FROM THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL. An Important Question. —Upon the Documents which have just been submitted by the President to Congress, we say, decidedly, that Great-Britain, in her diplomatic intercourse with the United States, continues to advance pretensions utterly inconsistent with our national independence. Anti-Gallican as we are, with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our strength, we are Anti-Gallican in an equal degree, so far as American honour and American right are in question. But to have broken off the negotiation in consequence of the pertinacious adherence of the British Government to inadmissible pretensions would have been one thing, and to refuse to negotiate further with the British Minister in consequence of his letter of the fourth of November, was another. We have examined that letter carefully and coolly, and cannot for our souls discover in it any such "gross insinuation" against our own executive as can justify the course which has been pursued.—To us it appears a temperate and respectful document, especially when we reflect that Mr. Smith had absolutely insulted Mr. Jackson, by accusing him of having made observations which were not only irrelevant, but improper. But although we look in vain for the gross insinuations which that letter was supposed to contain, we find in it the statement of A FACT, for which the administration, judging from the former part of the correspondence, was not perfectly prepared. It is there stated that Mr. Jackson was in possession of FULL POWERS, under the great seal of his Sovereign, to CONCLUDE A TREATY. Now, in stating the question which hence arises in our minds, we certainly do not intend any "gross insinuation" against our own government, nor even to insinuate that an affirmative answer ought to be given to our inquiry. But we have a right to ask an important question, particularly at this important time.
American Orders in Council.
Mr. Troup's resolutions certainly possess the principle of impartial retaliation upon the two belligerent powers, but, with our means of enforcing them, the idea appears to most men here not a little ridiculous. If we cannot fight, it seems we can retaliate triangularly. Every thing in politics is now referred to the doctrine of Triangles, as every thing in philosophy was once referred to the Occult Qualities of ARISTOTLE. No one expects Mr. T's resolutions will be adopted, but they may have one good effect. Suspicion, which is ever sporting with the fair fame of its betters, hints that certain great characters are pregnant with War Speeches, and it is considered as quite immaterial upon what occasion these speeches shall be delivered. We may therefore expect, in the language of that admirable new satirical poem, "The Epics of the Ton," soon to see, every two or three hours,
A midwife speech come posting to the House And from lab'ring bills produce a mouse.
From a Correspondent at Washington, dated Monday, Dec. 4.
"Since the reading of the documents
our good friends the democrats have been very still about Copenhagen Jackson. They seem not to have their lesson perfectly. The burst of indignation which was to break out against Mr. Jackson has not yet exploded. And although the government like the showmen have been several weeks crying, locus locus, go, come, run, fly, up, hear, disappear, change and begone! and the president has declared that the people shall see what they shall see! But no one is yet able to comprehend the exhibition. Perhaps when Mr. J. G. Jackson has digested his Monday's breakfast, he will be able to point out the "gross insinuations" in his namesake's letter to Mr. Smith."
Portland,
Monday, December 18, 1809.
FOREIGN.
European intelligence has been received the past week a few days later than our former dates, but it is not very interesting or important.
The account of Peace having been concluded between France and Austria is confirmed; it took place on the 14th, and not on the 3d of October, as was stated in a late paragraph. Austria cedes Galicia, Fiume, Trieste and Iria . The fortifications of Vienna are to be destroyed.
Bonaparte was at Fontainbleau October 18th, where he expected to remain till the middle of December, when he intends to proceed to Spain. The guards, and the troops under the command of Oudinot, Marmont, and Junot were about to march for that country.
ENGLAND & SWEDEN.
It is reported that War has been commenced between England and Sweden. This information is received by capt. Spaford , arrived at Baltimore, who had the account from the Captain of a British cruiser, off the Texel, Nov. 1st.
This account was not unexpected, as the new government of Sweden has lately been compelled to join France.
The Russians have obtained some advantages over the Turkish army in Moldavia.
The English Minister at Constantinople has demanded of the Turkish Government a free passage through the Dardanelles for the vessels of England and her allies, which the Turks refuse to comply with.
Thirty Thousand conscripts have been ordered to join the French army in Spain—Marshall Soult is next in command to King Joseph.
More French "Liberty of the Seas."
Bonaparte has blockaded by proclamation all the ports in Europe, left open by the British orders in council of the 20th of April last. This is a specimen of that liberal and enlightened system of policy which democrats say the French government is pursuing towards neutrals.
CONGRESS.
Until the publication of the documents which accompanied the President's Message, is completed, we can give but a very concise account of the proceedings in Congress.
Thursday, Dec. 30. The House was occupied with the reading of sundry petitions.
Friday, Dec. 1.—Mr. Mason offered a resolution to instruct the committee of Commerce and Manufactures to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the entry of any vessels into the ports of the U. S. from any part or place to which our ships are excluded by a permanent regulation—also, for registering anew vessels built in the U. S. After commenting on the various subjects mentioned in the President's Message, the House adjourned to Monday.
Monday, Dec. 4.—Mr. Troup offered his war resolutions; and Mr. Nicholson a resolution for a general system of Banking throughout the U. S.
Tuesday, Dec. 5.—Mr. Gold presented the petition of the widow of General Alexander Hamilton, deceased, praying to be allowed the a mount due for half pay to her deceased husband, which in his life time had never been applied for. Referred to the committee of claims.
Mr. McKim moved for a committee to report on the expediency of prohibiting American vessels from trading under foreign licenses belonging to the power granting them.
Wednesday, Dec. 6.—Mr. Whitman offered a resolution requiring the President to favor the House with such information as he may think proper respecting the capture and condemnation of our vessels under the orders of the government of Denmark—Mr. Newton moved to add Great Britain and France—carried.
Mr. Whitman presented a petition for a uniform system of Bankruptcy, which was refused commitment.
Most of the proceedings in Congress, thus far exhibit an awful squinting towards England and Mr. Jackson. Mr. Giles of Virginia has submitted a resolution in the Senate, which declares Mr. Jackson's letters to Mr. Smith, to be highly indecorous, insolent and affronting, and proposes "to call into action the whole force of the U. S. if necessary to repel these insults." Mr. Giles presented a bill, also, which enacts that if any foreign minister shall have committed, or may hereafter do such an act as by the laws of nations justify the President in ordering such minister to quit. In such case the President may require the aid of all officers (we presume including the whole naval and military force) to drive him out of the country.
This is squinting with a vengeance at Mr. Jackson, and it is not impossible that the redoubtable hero of the Spurs and late commander in chief at New-Orleans may be employed to force "Copenhagen" Jack-
son, as the democrats call him, out of the country.—But we do not believe it will be necessary to employ either civil or military power to induce the British Minister to quit the U. S. From the time it was known he was to be the successor of Mr. Erskine, the administration papers have not ceased to load him with calumny and abuse. They did not wait for any official act, but resorted to every base and blackguard mean to exasperate public opinion and widen the breach which has too long been permitted to exist between the two countries. If the Editors of Government newspapers in England should treat the U. S. Minister, Mr. Pinkney, in the manner the democratic papers in this country have Mr. Jackson, would not our government consider it as a gross insult and as full evidence of a hostile disposition? Most certainly they would, if they had not one half that high sense of national honour they pretend to have. But our "exclusive patriots" tell us, Mr. Jackson has insulted our Executive in his late correspondence, and therefore they have a right to abuse him; in answer to this we say, let any impartial man read the letters of Mr. Smith and Mr. Jackson, and if they do not find as much crimination and as many "indecorous insinuations" on the part of our secretary as there are on the part of the English Minister, then we will say Mr. Madison had some reason for dismissing him.
Monday the 4th inst. Mr. Troup, of Georgia, offered the following resolutions, which were read and ordered to lie on the table for the consideration of the House. Unless all the members are as mad as Mr. Troup appears to be, these Resolutions will meet the same fate that Bob Wright's famous bill did, which offered a bounty for shooting Englishmen. Mr. T's. war resolutions will of course go over the dam.
 "1st. To authorise the capture of all vessels belonging to France or England, who should be found trading to any ports, other than those of their own colonies.  "2d. To authorise the detention of all British vessels, for the purpose of securing such augmented duties as may be judged proper to levy on their cargoes; and until they receive due licence to depart.  "3. To authorise the detention of all French ships, with their cargoes, until the further decision or order of the government in relation to the same.  "4.—That an augmented duty be levied on all British manufactured goods.  "5.—That the President be authorised to grant licenses for the departure of British vessels, on their paying the duties authorised to be levied and collected on the goods laden on board such vessels." 
Southern Spunk.
John Randolph once uttered a sentiment in Congress rather unfavorable to American spirit; he observed, if the multiplied insults, heaped upon the citizens of the U. S. by foreign powers, were not resented, it would be impossible to "kick the government into a war." But we think the transactions at Washington since the commencement of the present session, sufficiently evince that our Legislators are not wanting in courage to fight each other. On the first day of the session, Mr. Coles, late Mr. Jefferson's secretary, horse-whipped the famous Nelson , M. C. who so boldly advised, during last winter session, to make the experiment of blood-letting upon the citizens of New England, if they were not very quiet as to the continuance of the embargo.
On the second Monday a duel was fought betwixt the Hon. Jos. Pearson , Member from N. Carolina, and the Hon. John G. Jackson , Member from Virginia, brother-in-law to President Madison, and a leading democrat, in which the latter was dangerously wounded. After these repeated instances of southern heroism, let not their Yankee brethren charge them with fearing the mighty Napoleon, when they show so much readiness to "take the field" to resent personal insults.
Payton Smith, son of Gen. Smith, M. C. from Virginia, has been killed in a Duel with Mr. Holmes, of the same state.
Mr. Madison in his message, intimates that it will be necessary to resort to a loan, to meet the future expenses of government—but the democrats say, if Congress will adopt the resolutions offered by Mr. Troup, the wants of government may be supplied with the money obtained by the capture of English and French vessels, and the sale of Licences. But least these wise financiers should be too sanguine in their cash calculations, might it not be well for them to attend a little to Hannah Glass's directions for cooking a Dolphin, "First catch a Dolphin."
ALSTON K. PARRIS, has been admitted to practise as an Attorney at the Court of Common Pleas, and has opened an office in the town of Paris, Oxford county.
Married,
At Boothbay, by the Rev. Kiah Bailey, of Newcastle, the Rev. Jabez Pond Fisher, to Miss Francis Auld.
Died,
In Washington City, CALEB SWAIN, Esq; late Paymaster Gen. of the U. States army. On his passage from St. Bartholomews to the Bay of Honduras, 24th Oct. last, Capt. Joseph Danforth, of the brig Albert, of this port, aged 32. He and several of his crew took the fever at St. Barts, which proved fatal to him on the 6th day after he sailed. Those who knew him can bear abundant testimony to his many virtues, to his ability, integrity and enterprise. In Cape-Elizabeth, on the 2d inst. Mr. Moses Hunsun, aged 89. On the 11th. Mrs. Cash, aged 35. In this town, Mrs. Abigail McLellan, consort of Maj. Hugh McLellan, aged 46; A Child of Mr. Henry Green, aged 3 months.
Shipping Intelligence.
Saturday, Dec. 16.—Arrived schr. Union, Stephenson, 18 days from Havana; sailed in company with brig Mechanic , Small, and schr. Dolly , Kelly, of this port. Dec. 8, lat. 38, lon. 70, spoke Augusta , Pierce, Portsmouth, 33 days from London, for Charleston. Left ship Gen. Hamilton, Robinson; brig Rufus King , Elliot; brig Retrieve , Jordan; brig Catharine , Drinkwater, all of this port; brig Polly , Pain, of Charleston; brig Mary , Herrick, of Gloucester. Nov. 28.—Arrived at Camden, schr. Rebecca , capt. Ames, 90 days from Liverpool. Oct. 25, saw the wreck of a brig dismasted, and deserted. Nov. 19, lat. 41, long. 63, spoke brig Augusta , capt. Davis, of Gloucester, who very generously supplied capt. Ames with provisions.
Enoch Moulton,
HAS for sale, "Odoriferous HONEY WATER, for cleaning, perfuming, thickening, strengthening and preventing the hair from TURNING GREY." Also—genuine ESSENCE of LEMON—Together with some celebrated COLD CREAM, which cleanses, softens and beautifies the complexion. Dec. 18.
Joseph Shelton,
OFFERS for sale, at the head of Union Wharf, 130 quintals Pollock Fish, of the first quality, 200 butts Turks Island SALT, 2000 lbs. of the first quality of Caricas Cocoa. —ALSO— Other articles in the GROCERY & PROVISION line, at retail, as usual. The above goods will be sold very cheap for Cash. Portland, Dec. 18.
NOTICE!
T. & A. VINTON, again request all persons indebted to them to make immediate payment. As they are closing business in town, the necessity of having every demand either paid or put into the hands of an Attorney for collection, must appear obvious to all; and as nothing but the settlement of their accounts now retains them here, one or the other must be done very soon. All persons willing to comply with this request, and thereby avoid unnecessary trouble & expense, may find them at the Commission Store of Capt. RICHARD MOTLEY, bottom of Fifth street or the House of A. VINTON, Federal street, near the Friend's Meeting House. Dec. 18.
NOTICE!
ALL persons indebted to the late firm of DAY & ILSLEY, are requested to call on either of the subscribers before the first day of March next and make payment. All Accounts and Notes which may remain due at that time, will be put in suit without further notice.
EZEKIEL DAY, PARKER ILSLEY, Jun. Portland, Dec. 18, 1809.
Portland Library.
THE Proprietors of the PORTLAND LIBRARY are hereby notified, that their next annual meeting will be held at the Office of the subscriber, on TUESDAY the second day of January next, at six o'clock, P. M. SAMUEL FREEMAN, Librarian. Dec. 18.
TO LET,
HALF of a HOUSE in High-street, consisting of seven rooms, handsomely finished, very convenient for a Family—Apply to HOSEA ILSLEY. Dec. 18.
NOTICE!
THE Friends of George Platt, mariner, lost from on board ship Thomas, Nathaniel Whittemore, master, on her passage from Barbadoes to Portland, may receive his wages & effects if duly authorised, by applying to G. WHITTEMORE, No. 12, Union Wharf. Dec. 18.
NOTICE!
ALL persons are forbin purchasing a Note of Hand, given by the subscriber to Job Cushman, for the sum of fifty Dollars, as I have never received the consideration for the same. Said note being all the note that I ever gave said Cushman, and he underlined the same. WILLIAM TRUE. Mind, Dec. 8, 1809. (18)
To be sold at Auction, by order of Samuel Freeman, Judge of Probate for the County of Cumberland, at the Dwelling House of the subscriber in Gorham, on TUESDAY the sixteenth day of January A. D. 1810, at 9 o'clock in the forenoon, ALL the PERSONAL ESTATE of Samuel Whitmore, late of Gorham, deceased, consisting of one Yoake of Oxen, one Horie, three Cows, one Heifer, seven Sheep, together with Farming Utensils and Household Furniture. JOEL WHITMORE, Adm'r. Dec. 18.
TO BE SOLD,
By order of Court, on MONDAY the fourteenth day of January, at 10 o'clock A. M. to the highest bidder, a Lot of LAND, on the south east side of Cumbe land street. Sale on the premises. Portland, Dec. 18, 1809.
TAKE NOTICE!
To be sold at Public Vendue, at the house of Adams Merrill, in Falmouth, on THURSDAY, the 11th day of January next,
ALL the PERSONAL ESTATE lately belonging to the said Adams, consisting of Household Furniture, Stock, Hay, and Farming Utensils of almost every kind, and one Pew in the new Meeting-House. A liberal credit will be given, and articles of sale made known at the time and place. ROBERT A. MERRILL. Falmouth, Dec. 13, 1809.
To be sold by order of Court, on WEDNESDAY, the 31st of January next, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at the Dwelling House of Mrs. Clarissa Minot in Falmouth street.
ALL the REAL ESTATE whereof Thomas Minot, late of Portland, gentleman, died seized and possessed, excepting that part thereof which has been set off for the widow's dower. Said Real Estate consists of a Dwelling House and Lot on said Danforth street, a House Lot adjoining the same, with a Barn thereon; one half of a Store, Wharf, and Flats, owned in company with the heirs of Barzillai Delano; one hundred acres of Land in New Portland; one Pew in St. Paul's Church. Also—two lots of Land, and a Store in Bangor, on Penobscot River, and the reversion of the widow's dower.
At the same time and place will be sold ten SHARES in the Stock of the United Marine and Fire Insurance Company. A more particular description of the premises, together with the conditions of sale may be known on application to the subscribers, administrators on said Estate, or to DANIEL TUCKER, their attorney. CLARISSA MINOT, WILLIAM MINOT. Portland, Dec. 18, 1809.
NOTICE!
THE Proprietors of Union Wharf are hereby notified that their annual meeting will be held at Mrs. Chadwick's Tavern, in Portland, on the first Tuesday in January next, at 6 o'clock, P. M. when they will act upon the following articles:—
 1st—To choose a Moderator.  2d—To choose a Clerk for the year ensuing, and such other officers as they may judge necessary to manage their affairs.  3d—To receive accounts and allow the same if they think proper.  4th—To see if the Proprietors will vote any sum or sums of money to be assessed to defray any expenses that may be incurred in managing their affairs or improving the interest of said proprietors—and generally to act on all matters that they shall judge necessary for the interest of the concerned. 
THOMAS WEBSTER, Proprietor's Clerk. Portland, Dec. 11, 1809. (18)
COLLEGE LANDS.
THE Subscriber offers for sale, the following Tracts of LAND, belonging to Harvard College, the title to which is direct from the Government, viz.
 IN FRYEBURG,  Lot No. 35 1st Div. 53 acres, interval.  18 2d do. 35 do. do.  22 2d do. 54 do. upland.  10 3d do. 50 do. do.  4 4th do. 50 do. do.  18 5th do. 60 or 70 do. do. 
 IN TURNER,  Lot No. 36, 135 acres.  86, 125 do.  166, 150 do.  277, 125 do. 
 IN PARIS,  Lot No. 27, 7th Range, being 28, 7th do. hundred  29, 9th do. acre  29, 8th do. lots 
 IN LIVERMORE,  Lot No. 73, 100 acres.  93, 100 do.  149, 100 do. 
 IN OTISFIELD & HARRISON,  Lot No. 116, 3d Div. 100 acres.  1, 2d R. 4th D. 100 do.  5, 8th R. 5th D. 100 do.  15, 
 IN POLAND,  Lot No. 82, 2d Div. 100 acres.  99, 2d do. 100 do. 
 IN LOVELL,  Lot No. 125, 1st Div. 100 acres.  122, 2d do. 100 do.  128, 3d do. 100 do.  12, 4th do. 100 do. 
 IN BALDWIN,  Lot No. 3, 1st Range, East, 100 acres.  68, Pond lot, 100 do.  8, 3d Range, East, 100 do.  10, 7th Range, East, 100 do.  10, 8th do. 100 do. 
IN BROWNSFIELD, Two Lots in Brownfield, containing about 300 acres each.
 IN RUMFORD,  No. 25, containing 20 acres, 1st Div.  16, do. 80 do. do.  88, 2d Div. 100 acres.  47, 3d do. 148 do. 
 IN JAY,  No. 20, Range 2d, 100 acres.  10, - 4th, 100 do.  8, - 13th, 100 do.  8, - 14th, 100 do. 
 IN WILTON,  No. 195, containing 155 acres.  207, - 17th do. 
 IN NEW-SHARON,  One Lot, containing 320 acres, in the north part of the town. 
The above Lands will be sold on a liberal credit, and Settlers now on any of the Lots will be accommodated if they wish in For particulars, apply to the Subscriber, at his Office, in Middle-street, Portland, where he may be found until the middle of January next. PRENTISS MELLEN. Dec. 4, 1809. (18)
THE subscriber hereby gives public notice to all concerned, that he has been duly appointed and has taken upon himself the trust of administrator on the estate of NATHAN DAVIS,
late of Portland, in the county of Cumberland, mariner, deceased, by giving bond as the law directs:—He therefore requests all persons who are indebted to the said deceased's estate, to make immediate payment; and those who have any demands thereon, to exhibit the same to Dec. 14, 1809. (18) MOSES DAVIS

ANECDOTE. Manchester improved. —Some few years since, Jack Aljaw, brother to Sam Aljaw, "wint home to oald Ireland jist to maik the boys stare by tiling them that great men he and brother Tam had become in Ameriky. Jack, by way of astonish- ing the guid folks, told them that brother Tam lived in the biggest street in all Philleydelphia, in a nine story house . Some of their relatives came over with Jack, and as soon as they had done shaking hands with Tam, asked him, 'when he had moved?'—'I have not moved at all at all,' replied Tam. 'Ogh, Tam dear, but you have though!' rejoined one of the new comers. 'Not I, indeed cried Tam, 'I lived in this place be- fore Johnny went out till ye.' 'Well then Tammy,' said the relative, 'what have you done mid t'other se- ven stories of your house?'—Tickler.
New Goods, for Sale. WILLIAM SMITH, RESPECTFULLY informs the Public that he has for sale, at his Store bottom of Fifth Street, a few doors from Messrs Quincy & Ba- ker, a general assortment of West-India Goods and Groceries ; among which are the following: 50 bds Turks Island Salt—40 quintals best Dumb Table Fish—50 quintals Pollock—Fifth—Cognac and Spanish Brandy—Hollands and American Gin—West India and New-England Rum—Hylon, Young Hylon, Hylon Skin, Souchong and Bohea Teas, first quality—White and brown Havana Sugar—Mar- tinique ditto—Coffee—Chocolate—Ginger—Alspice—Pepper—Mustard and Cloves—Fresh Cask and Box Raisins—20 bds fresh Superfine New York Flour—Sea-Island and Georgia Cotton—Loaf and Lump Sugar—5 bds first quality Retailing Molasses—Fig, Pigtail and Smoking Tobacco—a general as- sortment of Iron Ware—Iron and steel Sho- ves—a few Casks worth proof Powder—Brunswick Patent Shot—Indigo—Logwood—Redwood and Fustic—Alum and Copperas— together with a small assortment of ENGLISH GOODS , which he offers for sale as cheap as can be ob- tained in this town or Boston. N. B. Families that buy Teas from this store, may depend on its being the very first quality, if it is not they are welcome to return it, and receive their money again. (t) Dec. 11, 1809.
Ladies' London Beaver Hats & Bonnets, FOR SALE BY JOHN MAHAN, At the Hat-Store, bottom of Fifth-Street. Portland, Dec. 11
EZEKIEL GOODALE, PROPOSES to publish the Whole Trial of Elijah Barton, Jabez Mays, An- sel Mays, Nathaniel Lynn, David Lynn, Prince Kean, and Adam Pitts , for the murder of PAUL CHADWICK , in the county of Kennebec. He having previous to the Trial engaged an able Stenographer to take down the whole proceedings, has no doubt it will be highly in- teresting to the Public. The work will be printed on good paper and a fair type, in a handsome octavo volume, bound in boards, and delivered to subscribers at about one dollar, payable on delivery of the book. Gentlemen holding subscription papers will return them to E. GOODALE, by the first of January next. Hallowell, Nov. 28, 1809 Subscriptions for the above Trial, re- ceived at the Book-store of ISAAC ADAMS, No. 7, Fifth-Street, Portland.
NEW EDITION OF THE MAINE SPELLING BOOK, JUST published, containing a variety of words accented and divided, with moral and entertaining Lessons, Tables, &c.—To which is added a Geographical description of the United States in general, and the District of Maine in particular. Notwithstanding the number of School Books of this description in print, the Maine Spelling Book is in general use, and highly approved of in the Schools throughout this District. In many respects, is better calculated for instruction, than any other Spelling Book; being cheaper, and exceedingly printed on good paper; containing a great variety of Lessons in Spelling and Reading; and the arrange- ment and division of the matter is such as greatly to lessen the labor of the master, and facilitate the progress of the learner in ac- quiring the rudiments of the English language. The above Book may be had in sheets by the hundred, or thousand, or bound by the gross, dozen, or single at the Book-store of ISAAC ADAMS & STEPHEN PATTEN, Fifth Street, Portland, on advantageous terms.— Sold also, by CHARLES METCALF, Bath;  JOHN PATSON, Wiscasset—EZEKIEL GOODALE, Hallowell, and by Traders in the Country. Dec. 11. (3m)
Maine Fire and Marine Insurance Company. ANNUAL MEETING. THE Stockholders in the Maine Fire and Marine Insurance Company , are hereby noti- fied that their Annual Meeting for the choice of nine Directors, for the ensuing year, will be held at their Office, in Fifth Street, on TUES- DAY the second day of January 1810, at two o'clock in the afternoon. By order of the President and Directors. ELIJAH MORSE, Secy. M. F. & M. Insurance Office, } December 7th, 1809.
ROYAL LINCOLN, Head of Fifth Street, HAS just received an extensive assortment of fresh SEASONABLE GOODS , of the latest importations—among which are Black, navy blue, dark Linens mixed, bottle, Len- don brown, corbeau and drab, superfine Broadcloths, Common, all colour, and qualities ditto. Double milled, black, & d. ab Kerfameres, first quality Black, drab, fawn, mixed, blue, and brown low priced ditto Maroon, pearl, fawn, bottle, black, & im- perial blue, ladies' Peliece Cloths Scarlet, crimson, fawn, pearl, black & green Peliece Flannels Superfine and common Coatings Fearnoughts Red, white, yellow, & black Flannels Baizes Dark Swan-down Vest- ing Virtuel ditto—newest style Real Devonshire Ker- feys Sarinetts Forest Cloths Serges Woolled, lambwool & Angora Hosiery Black & white silk do. Cotton ditto Scarlet, maroon, fawn, slate, brown, green, & black Bombazetts Black and mulberry Wildboars Shalloon Ratinetts Black, mulberry, and scarlet, Tabby Vel- vets Black and olive Vel- vets—first quality Velveteens Corduroys Thicksets English and Derry Di- apers 6-4 Huckabucks Huckabuck Towels White Threads, from No. 10 to 70 Fashionable coat and vest Buttons Glas Buttons Cotton Umbrellas Black and white Mil- linets Black Gaioons Hair Ribbands 1 bale of BLANKETS, of an excellent qual- ity, and very low; assorted from 6-4 to 11-4. Every article of the above Goods will be sold on the very lowest terms for Cash.
JOSEPH BARBOUR, remains at the above Store for the purpose of collecting his Debts. Those against whom he still holds Demands, are requested to call immediately, if they wish to save Expense.—Forbearance cannot last forever. November 6. (t f)
HENRY SMITH & CO. No. 4, Museum-Row, HAVE FOR SALE, Black, Blue, Brown, Corbeau, Claret, Bottle green, and Drab Black, Drab, Blue, Olive, Green, Buff & white One bale KERSEYS. Blue, Green, Brown, and Smoke coloured Afh, Fawn, Drab, Green, and Crimson Crimson, Scarlet, Blue, Green, Laitock State, Green, Laitock, Blue, Purple, Brown & Crimson Hunters' Cloths Duffels Plains Coatings Sarinetts Flannels Baizes Bankets Scarlet, Crimson, Blue, Purple, Green, Brown, & Black Lustrings, and Black Bombazette Rufflets, and Rufflets Shalloon Durants Duroys Calimancoes Velvets Velveteens Corduroys Tabby Velvets Silk, cotton and worf- ted Hosiery Children's Socks Ladies' & gentlemen's silk & leather Gloves Linens Shirting Cottons 5-4 Cotton Shawls Silk and cotton Hand- kerchiefs Dumalk Table Cloths 6-4 cotton Diapers India Cottons 4-4 printed Cambricks Cambric and common Dimities Muffins Cambricks Calicoes Gingham Furniture ditto Dimities Factory Ticking Sheeting Shirting Checkd and Stripes Cloth Facts, Warp, and coloured Threads Nov. 6.
NEW STORE. C. CURRY, RESPECTFULLY informs the public, that he has taken a store opposite Messrs Howe & Evans , Middle Street—where he has received and opened for sale, a general assortment of European & India Piece Goods , of the latest importations, among which are: Blue, black, mixed, bot Fashionable coat and tie, London brown, and corbeau super- fine Broadcloths common do Double milled black, and drab Kerfey- meres Black, mixed and drab common do Superfine and common Coatings Duffels, Baizes Red, white, yellow and black Flannels 3-4, 4-4, and 10-4, milled Rose Blue kets Fancy and common Vesting Devonshire Kerfey Serges—Sarinetts Forest Cloths Woolled, lambwool, and Angora Hosiery Cotton do Scarlet and black Bom- bazetts Rufflets; Calimancoes Durants and Duroys Black and mulberry Tabby Velvets Black and Olive Vel- vets Corduroys and Thick- sets 6-4 and 8-4 Diapers 6-4 and 3-4 Hucka- bucks White Threads Hyson, Young Hyson, Hyson Skin, and Souchong TEAS; Coffee; white and brown Ha- vanna Sugars; Sherry and Lisbon Wines; Cognac and Spanish Brandies; Hollands and American Gin; Rum, and Molasses; fresh box and cask Raisins; Chocolate; mould and dip Candles; 10d and 20d wrought Nails; Cotton Wool; cotton and wool Cards; Fifth, and Salt; yellow Corn; fresh Flour, &c. 200 casks Thomasina LIME. * Cash given for FLAX-SEED. The above Goods will be sold for a very small advance for cash or a short appre- credit. Portland, Nov. 15.
NEW HAT AND FUR STORE, At the lower end of Fifth Street, adjoining Messrs. Quincy & Baker. JOHN MAHAN AND DAVID BILL & COMPANY, OFFER for sale 1600 FUR HATS of dif- ferent kinds and qualities, from 10/6 to 7 dollars; a large assortment of Children's Hats. Likewise—Coarse Hats, suitable for the Southern market. Arrangements are made to receive Hats from the first Manufacturers in the United States, particularly from the Providence and Boston Factories—Hats will be manufactured at a short notice in the most fashionable man- ner, and warranted to give the wearer satis- faction. Muffs and Tippets, A large assortment, consisting of every kind fashionable and useful—warranted free from damage. 18 boxes real SPANISH SEGARS. Portland, Oct. 23 (t f)
WILLIAM CROSS, No. 1 & 3, Long-Wharf, HAS just received by the fchr. Midas, 300 Bds. Superfine FLOUR 70 half Bds. do Do The above Flour is of a superior quality; and of this year's growth—which will be sold as low, or lower, than can be purchased in town, of the same quality. Also—in Store, 1000 bushels yellow Maryland CORN, 12 Hds. James' river TOBACCO, 15 kegs FIG TOBACCO, 45 bags green COFFEE, which will be disposed of on terms that can- not fail to suit purchasers. Nov. 13. (tf)
FOR SALE, THAT valuable Estate situated in North- yarmouth, twelve miles from Portland, and about one hundred rods from the head of the tide in Northyarmouth, lying on the Post Road from Portland to Wilcasset, and has been occupied by the subscriber for a term a number of years past. Said Estate con- sists of a very convenient three-story House, a Stable, Barn, Shed, and other out houses, with a good well of water, and an aqueduct leading to the house, with about one hundred and ten acres of excellent Land, having a young Orchard on the same, said Farm is un- der excellent improvement. A FARM in the town of Freeport, at Frost's corner, so called, within one mile of Porter's landing, consisting of fifty-four acres of excel- lent land, a convenient Dwelling house, Barn, &c. Said Farm is under good improvement, is well watered, cuts about fifteen tons of Hay, and has an Orchard which bears consid- erable fruit yearly, and is well situated, either for a Farmer, Merchant or Mechanic. The above Farms will be sold together or separate as may best suit the purchaser. For terms (which will be made easy) please to ap- ply to the subscriber at Northyarmouth. SETH MITCHELL Northyarmouth, August 21, 1809. (t f)
CAME into the inclosure of the subscriber, on the 25th ult. a small black ITINERANT MARE. The owner is desired to prove prop- erty, pay charges, and take her away. Ap- ply to BENJAMIN HERRICK. Northyarmouth, Dec. 4, 1809.
Enoch Moulton, No. 8, 'Jona' Row, Fifth-Street, HAS just received by the Packet, from Liverpool, a handsome assortment of Plated and Japaned Ware, Jewelry, &c. &c. PLATED WARE. Elegant Cret Frames—Candlesticks, Tea Pots—Sugar Basins & Cream Pots, Soup Ladles—Fifth Knives, Snuffers and Trays, Table and Tea Spoons, &c. &c. JAPANED WARE. Elegant cream ground gold bordered Wai- ters, Red and black ground do do. Bread and Knife Trays, Cheese and Snuffer do. Britannia Tea Pots—Tumblers, &c. &c. MILITARY ARTICLES. Gilt and plated mounted Swords, Saddle Pistols, White and yellow Epaulets, do. do. Chords do. do. Prussian Binding, Crimson Sashes, Military Plumes, elegant and common JEWELRY. Black and Pearl set Brooches, do do Finger Rings, Plain Brooches and Rings, Hair Ear Hoops, do Bracelets, various patterns, Gold Ear Hoops, Knobs, and Drops, do Watch Chains, Seals, and Keys, Tortoise Shell Combs, Coral Beads CUTLERY. Table Knives and Forks, Penknives—Scissors—Steel Snuffers, Saddle and Chaise Whips, & constantly on hand, Silver Ladies, Ta- ble and Tea Spoons, of the most fashionable patterns. Gold Necklaces, Pocket Books, and Purse, &c. &c. Hair Work, of all kinds executed with neatness and dispatch. He has in addition to the above, almost ev- ery article in the Jewelry & Fancy line, generally in use—which will be disposed of on terms that cannot fail to meet the views of purchasers. Portland, Dec. 4. (tf)
WILLIAM M'LELLAN, Jun. INFORMS his friends and the public, that he is now opening a large assortment of SEASONABLE GOODS , among which are—black, blue, bottle- green, brown and dark mixt Broadcloths—black, blue, brown and fawn Kerfeymeres—bottle green Queenscloth—bottle-green, blue, fawn and crimson Peliece cloths—plumb and black Peliece Velvets—red, green, black and white Flannels—ditto Baizes—ditto Bom- bazetts and Wildboars—Parent Cords—assort- ment of Velvets—men's Velvets—Fearnoughts and Coatings—Forest Cloths & narrow Plais and Coatings—Shirting Cottons—India Cottons—black, white, and plumb Cambricks—black twill'd do.—a large assortment of Mullins—Lustrings, Persians, Modes and Sat- ins—cotton Shawls and Hdkfs.—Camels-hair long Shawls—figured Turbans—brown Pla- tilas—cotton Sewings—Silk Twill—sewing Silk—Ferrits and Ribbons—short silk Gloves—velvet Bindings—Dimities—Calicoes—Stuff Goods of all colours—worsted Hosiery—mor- rocco Shoes—best of silk work'd Buttons. Also—Knives and Forks—Bellows—Pock- et-Books—Spectacles—Patent Lamps—Shov- els and Tongs—Pins and Needles—Elastic Knitting Needles—Spoons—Thimbles—Muffs and Tippets, &c. &c.—all of which he will sell very low, and invites Purchasers to cal and see for themselves. Nov. 4. (tf)
NEW GOODS. JOSEPH CROSS, Jun. has just received from Boston, a general assort- ment of ENGLISH GOODS , suitable for the present season. Also—WEST INDIA GOODS. Portland, Dec. 4. FOR SALE, THE Hull of a BRIG, about 150 tons burthen, together with a complete set of Masts, Spars, and Blocks. Said Brig is new, and built by a good workman, of the best materials. Her timbers are seasoned white oak—she is high deck and handsomely drafted; has a patent windlass, and is partic- ularly calculated for a fast sailer.—Inquire of Batchelor Hufsey, Who has for sale, wholesale and retail, Spermaceti OIL and CANDLES, of the first quality. Dec. 4.
Paper-Hangings & Upholstery, AT NO. 1, TITCOMB'S BUILDINGS. Edward Howe, WOULD inform the public that he has just received the best and most elegant assortment of Paper-Hangings and Borders that has ever been offered in this town, which he will sell very low. Likewise—An elegant assortment of Looking-Glasses—Chaise Laces , of the best patterns. Also—FRINGES, LACES, and TASSELS, for Curtains, Sofas, Easy and Lolling Chairs. Hair and Mols MATTRESSES, of all sizes & prices. Live Geese & Common FEATH- ERS—BED TICKING, &c. &c. Portland, Nov. 13. (gw)
Take Particular Notice! IMPERIOUS necessity obliges the subscri- ber to call for a settlement of his outstand- ing debts—All those, therefore, against whom he has accounts of a longer standing than three months, are requested to call and adjust the same; and thereby prevent the ac- cumulation of unnecessary costs. ENOCH MOULTON. Portland, Dec. 4.
SAMUEL WATSON, Opposite Mr. Enoch Moulton's Jeweller's Shop, Fifth-Street, ACQUAINTS his friends and the public, that he continues to carry on the Tailoring Business , in the most fashionable and expeditious man- ner. He has just received from Boston, a small assortment of fashionable superfine and com- mon Broadcloths, Cassimeres and Vest- ing ; together with an assortment of TRIMMINGS suitable for the same—which will be disposed of on the most reasonable terms. Portland, Nov. 6.
DR. REES' NEW CYCLOPAEDIA, Vol. X, Part 1st and 2d, and Vol. XI, part 1st and 2d are in the possession of the subscriber, and will be delivered to subscribers in the District of Maine, at Store No. 23, Long Wharf. THOMAS CROSS. Portland, Nov. 13, 1809 (t)
A FARM FOR SALE, IN the town of Falmouth, in the county of Cumberland, consisting of one hundred and five acres of 1 and 2, of which thirty is interval, and lying on Presumpscot River, and five miles from the town of Portland, and on the post road that leads from Portland to Augusta, and into many of the back towns. Said farm is conveniently situated for a Public House, with a large two story House and Barn, with- out houses. The soil of said farm is inferior to none.—Inquire of OLIVER WINSLOW. Oct. 17. (t f)
WANTED, IN the town of Georgetown, (Maine,) one or two good SCHOOL-MASTERS , for the winter season, to teach Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and English Grammar; good rec- ommendations will be expected, and a teach- er of Sacred Music will be preferred, to whom generous encouragement will be given; any application addressed to the Postmaster, at Georgetown, within a few days, shall be im- mediately attended to. Georgetown, (Me) 25th Nov. 1809.
FLATS FOR SALE. To be sold by order of Court, on THURSDAY , the eleventh day of January next, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at the dwellinghouse of the late Widow Hodgins , A CERTAIN piece of FLATS , situated be- tween the heirs of — Sturton , and Mary Dinsfield , for payment of the debts of the late Samuel Hodgins , deceased. MARY YOUNG, Administratrix in the Dec. 11, 1809. Estate of said S. Hodgins
To ARCHELAUS LEWIS , one of the Justices of the Peace within and for the County of Cumberland. WE the Subscribers, being proprietors of the common and undivided Land in the town of Falmouth, Portland and Cape-Elizabeth, judging a Proprietor's Meeting necessary, do hereby request you to issue a Warrant calling a meeting of said Proprietors to be held at the Dwelling House of Isaac S. Stevens , in said Falmouth on the last Monday of January A D. 1810, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, to act upon the following articles—viz. 1st To choose a Moderator. 2d To see if the said Proprietors will allow, approve and confirm the Proprietors' Meeting which was held at the Dwelling House of the late Andrew P. Foss , in said Falmouth, on the 13th day of December 1805. 3d To see what the Proprietors will do with the common and undivided Land, after one hundred and four acres be completed to each Proprietor, to sell at Public Auction or dispose of any other way they shall see fit; & to act upon any other article or business they shall see fit. NATHAN WINSLOW, WILLIAM WINSLOW, JOE WINSLOW, JAMES WINSLOW, BENJAMIN BAILEY, JOHN McLELLAN
CUMBERLAND, ss—To NATHAN WINSLOW, one of the Proprietors of Falmouth, Portland and Cape-Elizabeth, in the County aforesaid. YOU are hereby required in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to notify the Proprietors of Falmouth, Portland and Cape-Elizabeth, aforesaid, in manner as the Law di- rects, to meet at the time and place and for the purposes mentioned in the foregoing application. Given under my hand and seal this 13th day of November A. D. 1809. ARCHELAUS LEWIS, Justice of the Peace.
IN pursuance of the foregoing warrant to me directed, I hereby notify the Proprietors of Falmouth, Portland, and Cape-Elizabeth, to meet at the time and place mentioned in the foregoing application, and for the pur- poses therein expressed. NATHAN WINSLOW. Dec. 9th, 1809. SAMUEL TRASK, HAS FOR SALE, At No 6, Long Wharf, 150 Barrels, Mss, Cargo No 1 and 2, NEW BEEF Portland, Nov. 27, 1809. For a Just Settlement. AS two gentlemen in Portland hold a deed of security against the subscriber, for 3000 dollars, in which there is a large mistake, he now stands ready to take up said deed as the mistake shall be a justified, and done with Courts to be troubled with it, and that no person purchase said deed if they wish to avoid trouble. ROBERT McDONALD. Stanifield, Dec. 3. (t) BLANKS Of all kinds for sale at the Bookstore of I. ADAMS. Nov. 27