The New Hampshire gazette (Portsmouth [N.H.]), 1796-02-06 00:00:00

THE New Hampshire Gazette.
HERE TRUTH IS WELCOME—CANDOUR GUIDES THE WAY.
PORTSMOUTH: (NEW-HAMPSHIRE)—PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY MORNING BY JOHN MELCHER, PRINTER TO THE STATE, AT HIS OFFICE CORNER OF MARKET STREET, WHERE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR THIS PAPER, ADVERTISEMENTS, AND ARTICLES OF INTELLIGENCE ARE THANKFULLY RECEIVED.
Vol. XL.—Numb. 2045.]
SATURDAY, February 6, 1796.
[9s. pr. Annum.
FOR THE GAZETTE.
MR. MELCHER, As the case in the Supreme Court of the United States, respecting the capture of the Lufanna, by the armed brig McClary, has been the subject of a general attention, and particularly in this State, and as an application is now made to the General Assembly by the owners of the privateer, and the agent for the mariners, for relief, it becomes important that the citizens should be informed of the reasons for the judgment of the Court—and also of the ground of the applications to the State for a recompense. For these purposes, please to insert in your paper the following sketch of the argument of Mr. Dexter, before the General Assembly at their last session, which will oblige
A CUSTOMER.
January 1796.
VERY few have been the professional engagements, Mr. Speaker, which have given me so much pleasure as this, which now affords to me an occasion of addressing this honorable assembly. Having been counsel against the petitioners in the courts of the United States, I have felt myself executing the severe demands of justice to the claimants of the Lufanna, which must reduce the petitioners to poverty and wretchedness. Doubly welcome then was the application to me to assist them in stating their equitable claim on the State of New-Hampshire, whose will they have punctiliously obeyed, and whose laws have reduced them to their present unfortunate situation. If any labour of mine can promote their relief, I shall consider it one of my most pleasurable duties.
Another consideration, Sir, is of no inconsiderable weight; it is said that the general opinion among the citizens of New-Hampshire has been, that the decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, against the petitioners was wrong; and that the rights of the State are in some degree violated. While I bow with the deepest respect to that many patriotism, which has produced obedience to the law and the strongest expressions of attachment to the government of the United States, even when it has been believed that in this instance the administrators of the government have mistaken their powers, I hope in the sequel in some measure to wipe this aspersion from the officers of the national government, and convince some at least, that they have only obeyed the severe dictates of duty. In this however I am not arrogant enough to expect complete success; fixed opinions are not easily shaken, and they seldom yield to the first attack; the reasoning is abstruse and complicated, and deserves an abler advocate; a short abridgement of an immense train of reasoning is all that the time will afford; and this must necessarily be obscure. It is of importance, tho' not absolutely necessary; in establishing the equitable claim of the petitioners on the State for indemnity, to show that the decree of the Court of Appeals was right; because if this be right, it follows that the law of New-Hampshire, which was in direct opposition to this, was wrong. By wrong I mean founded in a mistake as to the powers then delegated to Congress. If in obeying this erroneous law, the petitioners have been distressed and ruined, equity calls loudly that they, who by their mistaken order have caused their misery, should relieve them. I have said, however, that it is not absolutely necessary for the petitioners to satisfy the assembly that the decree was right; for if they have suffered in a good cause, they perhaps are not less entitled to relief, than if led into a wrong path by the former legislature of the State. The present claim is founded on the sacred dictates of natural justice. It is true, we shew no article in any constitution or civil compact which insures us a recompense; we can produce no written law on which to found our claim; we are possessed of no specific contract to indemnify us. Our application is supported by a law above all these, "great nature's law, to which we are not bred, but born." Our country has suffered two revolutions in its national
government since the present controversy originated; constitutions may change, and laws may be repealed; but justice is eternal and immutable as its author. I have said, Sir, that it is not foreign from our present purpose, briefly to enquire whether the decree of the Supreme Court of the United States was right. The subject probably affords much better arguments in support of the decree, than those which I had the honour of offering to that court; as these however, are most familiar to my mind, I will submit some of their most prominent features to the consideration of this honorable body. It may be premised that as this is the final decree of the supreme judicial authority of our country, and therefore excludes all further investigation and commands the obedience of all good citizens, we might fairly take it to be indisputable right without enquiring into its merits; but as it certainly is not improper in our free country, that the conduct of public officers should be decently examined, and as it may tend to give satisfaction, with the leave of the assembly, I will mention some of the reasoning on which it was founded. The temporary commissioners of appeals, appointed by Congress from their own body, previous to the confederation of 1781, had decided that an appeal to them was lawful, and that they had jurisdiction of the cause; the permanent Court of Appeals appointed under that confederation, which had expressly authorized Congress to appoint such a court, had also decided that the appeal was lawful, and reversed the sentence of the court of New-Hampshire, and ordered the prize to be restored. Two important questions met the Supreme Court of the United States.
1st. Can the final decree of the Court of Appeals be examined, and if wrong disregarded and annulled by this court; when the Court of Appeals was constitutionally appointed by virtue of an express authority in the confederation of 1781, and was a Supreme Court of Admiralty possessing equal power with the present Supreme Court under the present constitution?
2d. Supposing the merits of this decree of the Court of Appeals to be legally a subject for examination, had that Court jurisdiction of the cause?
On the first question, the Court were of opinion, I think unanimously, that they had by law no right to enquire into the merits of the final decree of the Court of Appeals, and regard it as void, if they should think that the Court had no jurisdiction; but that they were bound to respect it as a final decision which placed the question forever at rest, and to carry it into execution. If this opinion was a legal one, as I conceive that it was, it follows that the Judges of the present Supreme Court have done all that the law authorized them to do and no more. If the decision of the Court of Appeals was wrong, the blame rested with them, and died with the constitution which gave them being. Some of the reasons for this opinion were, that from necessity there must be in every country a Supreme Judiciary, where decision shall be final, or else contention must be eternal; hence it has become an established principle, recognized by all civilized nations, that a final decree of a Supreme Court of Admiralty in any country, having a right to decide the question, is conclusive against all the world. It cannot be doubted that if any court could have a right to determine whether the commissioners of appeals had jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals had a right to decide that question. The same Court of Appeals had also a right to determine whether they had jurisdiction, as it is necessarily incident to every court, and in its nature the first question in every cause; decrees of foreign admiralty courts are conclusive—shall we treat with less respect a decision of a Supreme Court of our own country?
Another reason for this opinion is, that the Supreme Court of the United
States has no original jurisdiction in prize causes; but appellate jurisdiction only. If then they could reverse the decree of the Circuit Court, because that court did not regard the decree of the Court of Appeals as void, it followed that it was the duty of the Circuit Court to rejudge the decree of the Court of Appeals, and declare it void; that is that an Inferior Court, and even a District Court, the lowest grade of prize courts, should rejudge and reverse the decree of a Supreme Court. The cause could acquire no new features in travelling on from the District Court, where it originated to the Supreme Court. The decree of the Inferior Court could be reversed only for something wrong in that decree at the time of making it, otherwise the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in prize causes is partly appellate, and partly original, which is contrary to the law establishing that court. Suppose a judgment rendered in a Superior Court when we were colonies, after a plea to the jurisdiction, and judgment that the court had jurisdiction; this judgment remains unassisted, and now since the revolution an action of debt is brought in the court of Common Pleas to obtain satisfaction. None will pretend in this case that the merits of the judgment could by law be examined. Yet this is a case by no means as strong as the present; the supposed judgment being only the final sentence of the court of a colony, whereas in the principal case the sentence was given by the Supreme Court of an independent nation; finally, if the question of jurisdiction was not forever and conclusively settled by the decree of the Court of Appeals, it is not now settled by the decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, and never can be settled, for no reason can be given why one decree should be more conclusive than the other, both were made by Supreme Courts of Admiralty, exercising their functions under written constitutions, fairly made by the people, the source of all legitimate authority. Can it be true that both sentences would be respected as final and conclusive by the courts of all civilized nations abroad; and yet both are to be considered as void, and disregarded by the most inferior tribunal of our own country.
Having thus, I hope satisfactorily shown that the present Supreme Court of the United States could do only what they did; let us see whether even the old Court of Appeals did wrong, or in other words, whether they had jurisdiction of the cause.
In every civil society there must be a sovereign power; the right of making war and peace is an essential and necessary part of sovereignty, and prize jurisdiction must be incident to this, otherwise in time of war, the sovereign power cannot do justice to a neutral nation. The question is whether the United States were one sovereign power before the confederation, or whether they were thirteen distinct sovereignties. To decide this question, we must go back a little in our history. Before the commencement of hostilities we were confessedly colonies, and sovereignty was in the British King; the provincial assemblies never exercised or claimed it. They never interfered in questions of prize, but Vice Admiralty Courts were appointed by the King of Britain, and an appeal lay to that country. When hostilities commenced between the two countries, the sovereignty, or in other words the supreme will which dictated and governed our opposition, could no longer remain in the King with whom we were at war; a new sovereignty in fact was created from necessity. This sovereignty reverted to the people of America, where the God of nature had placed it. Did the people delegate it to the provincial assemblies? Did these assemblies in fact exercise it by the acquiescence and consent of the people? Where is the solemn act of the people which transferred the sovereignty from the people to these assemblies? State Constitutions were then no more in
being than a national compact; the former charters were dead with the regal power which created them. At this juncture the people by their organs, sometimes the provincial assemblies, sometimes conventions, and mere voluntary associations, appointed a new body called a Congress; and they did this as I conceive, because they had a new power, viz. the sovereign power, to delegate and no body of men before existed, with whom it was proper to deposit it. It is difficult to account for the existence of Congress on any other principle. It is true the people were not enough at leisure correctly to define the powers of their rulers; but their commissions generally expressed all necessary powers for carrying on the war, the New-Hampshire instructions to their delegates were to this amount. Accordingly we find thro' the course of the war Congress declaring the public will, and the people assenting and obeying with enthusiasm. They did all necessary acts of sovereignty; they published a declaration of war, in substance, tho' not in form; they made paper money, and pledged the faith of the union for the redemption of it; they raised and regulated the army and commissioned its officers; they authorized and prescribed regulations for captures at sea; they sent and received ambassadors; they made the treaty with France; which probably saved our country; they made us a nation by the declaration of independence. It is true that in some instances the provincial assemblies were the organs of the people by which these powers were conveyed to Congress; it is equally true that in other instances they were not. In either case Congress no more then derived their authority from the instruments employed by the people, than the President and Vice President now derive their power from the electors who choose them. It is worthy of remark here that the right to capture property at all was under a resolve of Congress; that the M c Clary was fitted out under this resolve; that her commander received her commission from Congress and gave bond to the President of Congress to obey this resolve. It would seem strange that Congress should give an authority and take a bond to be accountable to them, and yet have no right to enquire how the authority had been executed. It would seem more strange still that the Governors of the respective States should receive these commissions and bonds blank from Congress, fill them up as agents appointed by Congress and transmit the bonds to be kept in the office of the secretary of State, when the several States had the right to grant such commissions, & call the commanders to account, and not the Congress of the United States. Yet all this was constantly done, and even in the particular instance of the privateer M c Clary. Such a strong implication that the State governments disclaimed, the power has great weight. In two written forms of national government, viz. the confederation of 1781, and the present constitution, the people have expressly delegated to the national government, prize jurisdiction; this is full proof of the propriety of it, and also raises a strong presumption that in the first instance when they created a Congress and gave them general undefined powers, they intended this should be included. It is a good rule for construing a general undefined authority that it shall be adequate to the purposes for which it was given; Congress were appointed to conduct the war, prize jurisdiction is necessary to this, we conclude then that it was granted.
It is a great and essential principle of republicanism that the will of the majority must govern public measures and control the minority. We cannot deviate from this principle without running either into anarchy or despotism. A majority of the States had given appellate prize jurisdiction to Congress; if New-Hampshire did not choose to do the same, she ought to have withdrawn from the union. It was inconsistent and contradictory to suffer her members
to remain there and annually appoint new ones, if she did not intend to submit to those powers, which the majority had consented to give. It was still more so for her members to exercise these powers over citizens of other States, if their constituents had never invested them with such powers. Yet in the resolution respecting the Sloop Active of Pennsylvania we find the delegates from almost all the States in the union asserting their appellate jurisdiction, and New-Hampshire delegation concurring. Did the New-Hampshire members usurp power on this occasion; or had they authority over Pennsylvania which they had not over their immediate constituents? A question here arises which deserves consideration. We will suppose for the sake of argument that the individual members of one joint deliberative assembly hold portions of authority each different from the other. On a question where some members have power to act & others not, what is to be done? If the unauthorized members should vote, it is gross usurpation of power; they must be silent then on such a question. We will suppose then that in the exercise of the right of determining what portion of power should be granted each State, had differed from every other State; for instance that New-Hampshire gave only the power of raising an army; Massachusetts only the power of emitting money; Connecticut only the power of making treaties, and in like manner every other State shall be supposed to give a different portion of power, the members meet in Congress, each delegation thus possessing a fragment of sovereignty, when one delegation deliberates on a matter committed to them, no other delegation can interfere at all on the subject; the result of their deliberation can only be in force, with respect to the State from whence they came. Is this union? As the members of one State only can act on any question, and that State only can be affected by their doings, might they not as well have deliberated and determined at home. It is no answer to say that it is highly improbable that such a State of things would be produced, by admitting the principle that the members from different States might possess different powers. It is enough for my purpose that such a state of things might happen, and it is a fair way of trying the principle; for truth, tho' pursued into its most remote and improbable consequences, will never lead us into absurdity. We owe our present independence and happiness to a more manly and generous system; had we practiced on such disorganizing opinions, we should have failed in our revolution. Feeble must have been our disunited efforts against the common enemy; internal disorder must have taken place between so many equal authorities. The history of the world is one uniform confirmation of this, equal powers have ever waged perpetual war, like contending elements, until one has reigned supreme. Order is heaven's first law. One supreme will made and governs the universe. Chaos could not continue, all things found one common centre. Planets are attracted to the centre of their system, and systems probably revolve round a still more general centre of gravity. When the ancients worshipped many gods in heaven, they corrected the anarchy of their polytheism by ordaining Jove to reign Supreme among the gods. The wildest flights of fancy have not been able to connect order with numerous equal supreme powers; when devils waged war with heaven, even they are represented as submitting their turbulent spirits to one mighty chief in evil. Fabulous antiquity represented the discord which reigned in hell by painting the Keeper of the gate with three heads; can we believe that enlightened Americans have appointed a monster with thirteen heads to be the keeper of the temple of liberty.
[To be concluded in our next.]
Blanks for sale at J. MELCHER'S Office.

CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, Jan. 15.
A Petition relative to Snuff. Referred to Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
W. Frost's petition, was referred to the Committee of Claims.
The petitions of White, Deverreaux, M'Neil, Smith, and Carter, were reported upon, Read, accepted, and the Petitioners have leave to withdraw their petition.
S. Brown's petition was withdrawn from the Committee of Claims, and referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
Mr. Smith's Resolution for preventing foreign vessels from bringing to the U. S. produce or manufactures of any other country than that to which they belong. Underwent some Debate, at length was referred to a Committee of the whole on Wednesday.
According to report from the Committee of Claims, the petitions of Johnson, Leil, Weeks, and Glen, were negatived.
The Appropriations for the Civil List of 1796, were this day under consideration. A bill was ordered to be brought in pursuant to the List of Appropriations.
MONDAY, Jan. 18.
William Little's petition was discharged from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures; and referred to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Richards, a member whose election was contested, was authorized to hold his seat.
Mr. Clopton, also allowed to continue his seat.
The Appropriation Bill is ordered to make the order of the day to-morrow.
Mr. Smith (M.) made the following motion which was agreed to.
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury do report to the House, a comparative view of the tonnage employed in the trade between the United States and foreign countries, in the years '90, '91, '92, '93, and '94, and also the actual tonnage of vessels of the United States and foreign countries, beginning for each year agreeably to the practice at the Treasury.
Mr. Bourne, (R. I.) made also a motion for information, which was modified and agreed to as follows:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury do lay before the house a statement of the goods, wares and merchandise imported annually into the United States, with their value since the 30th of September '89; discriminating the amount of the articles imported in ships or vessels of the United States, from the articles imported in foreign ships or vessels.
Both resolutions tend to bring forward information wanted to elucidate the propriety of Mr. Smith's (M.) commercial resolution.
JAN. 19.
Sundry private petitions were presented and referred.
The House then resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. Mullenburgh in the chair, on the appropriation bill for 1796—When the Committee came to the appropriation respecting the mint, some members expressed their doubts as to the utility of the establishment, and wished a fair discussion of the merits of such an institution before any appropriation was passed for its support, except for the payment of the salary officers. A motion to that effect, however, was lost in the committee. It was then moved to strike out an appropriation of 10,000 dollars for the purchase of copper for the mint. It was stated in support of this motion, that the coinage of copper as it had been conducted, was an expense to the public without producing any general benefit; there were persons who found it their account to melt up the cents and sell the copper to the mint again. This item of appropriation was reported to be struck out by the committee. No decision was made in the House on this amendment proposed by the committee, before an adjournment took place.
[The debate in committee and in the House took twice or thrice an unexpected and very interesting turn, involving the discussion of a principle which is like to be a prominent feature in the debate that must take place when the TREATY comes before the House of Representatives. We have therefore culled from the discussion, what dropt from different members on this head, constituting indeed the whole of the interesting part of the debate.]
Upon the motion of Mr. Williams, to strike off part of the appropriation relative to the support of the Mint.
Mr. Sedgwick observed, that this was not the time to introduce a motion of that nature. The Mint was established by law, and by law alone the support of the establishment should be withdrawn. For whenever a law had authorized a certain expense, the House was bound to appropriate a sufficient sum of money to defray the same.
Mr. Gallatin felt alarmed at the principle advanced by Mr. Sedgwick, for if admitted, it might be applied in future on some other and important occasion—The motion made by the Member from New-York ought not perhaps to be adopted; but there was certainly a discretionary power in the House to appropriate or not to appropriate for any object whatever, whether that object was authorized by law or not. It was a power which however inexpedient on the present occasion, was vested in this House for the purpose of checking the other branches of government whenever necessary. That such a right was reserved by this body, appeared from their making only yearly appropriations both for the support of the civil list
and of the military establishment. Had they meant to give up the right they would have made such appropriations permanent. There was one instance in which this House had thought it proper to abandon the right. In order to strengthen public credit, they had consented that the payment of interest on the debt should not depend on their sole will and they had rendered the appropriation for that object not a yearly but a permanent one. Whenever that was not the case and the right had been reserved, it was contradictory to suppose that the House were bound to do a certain act, at the same time that they were exercising the discretionary power of voting upon it.
Mr. Sedgwick in answer to Mr. Gallatin observed, that when a law was passed, neither branch was at liberty to refuse passing an appropriation bill to carry it into effect. He instance, a law passes allowing the President a certain salary, if an appropriation is refused by either branch the law becomes a mere dead letter by the will of one branch. The public faith once pledged, he conceived it was no longer discretionary with the House whether they would or would not satisfy a claim made under the sanction of a law. If when the public honor is pledged in a contract, one branch could withhold the means of fulfilling that contract, he had, he said, been much mistaken in his ideas of legislation.
Mr. Dayton concurred in the question brought under discussion, of too delicate a nature to be decided at the present time. He however expressed it as his opinion that the power of making appropriations was intended and ought to be a check on establishments.
Mr. Nicholas conceived the House bound to weigh the merits of every law when an appropriation was to be passed to carry it into effect, and no appropriation should obtain the sanction of the House unless they were convinced of the propriety of the law.
Mr. Giles said he did not expect to hear a doctrine so novel broached in the House as that advanced by the member from Massachusetts (Mr. Sedgwick.) He had declared, that he conceived the House could exercise no discretionary power, when about to pass an appropriation bill.
Mr. Sedgwick rose to explain. The principle he advocated was—That when a law was made pledging the public faith, the House had no discretion to withhold, or not an appropriation; at least as long as common honesty was more than a name.
Mr. Giles said that if this doctrine was admitted in its full latitude, the House would become a mere office for the registering of edicts. He contended, that the House had a right by withholding appropriations to put an end to an institution without the concurrence of the Senate. He would not say that the present was a case that called for the exercise of that right, but they had in all cases of this nature a right to exercise their discretion.
Mr. Murray considered the laws of the land as depending upon two other branches of the government besides this house, and conceived it highly improper in the house to attempt to obstruct them by withholding necessary appropriations. What would be the effect of a contrary doctrine? It must contain the seeds of governmental anarchy. While a law remained in force, it was the duty of the House to do what was needful to carry it into operation. He made some allusion to the British House of Commons, who by privilege contend for the right of withholding supplies in order to be a check on the patronage of the crown. But such a principle, he contended could not proceed if it were admitted.
As long as a law exists it is the duty of the House to make the needful appropriations. The whole wisdom of the government is not in this House. The same power is required to repeal laws as to make them. It is true the constitution has given to the House the more immediate command of the purse strings; but they were under an obligation to open them when necessity required. There is a constitutional way of repealing laws; but the House has no right to obstruct their operation while in force. A member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gallatin) he observed, appeared on a former occasion to coincide with his opinions on this subject; for he argued that the house was bound to pass such an appropriation, as a law existed giving the salary to the officer which it was meant to provide for.
Mr. Gallatin in answer said, that his observation had simply been, that the committee of ways and means, and not the House, conceived itself bound to report an appropriation for an item established by law; But he never doubted the power of the House to pass or not, an appropriation. In such cases the line of duty must remain to be drawn by opinion. With what degree of consistency can the House be called on for a vote, if some members contend, they cannot have an opinion? Why are they obliged to say yea or nay if they are obliged to say yea?
Mr. Murray conceded that a member might say yea or nay; but his duty must in cases of this nature clearly point to one of the two; for he could not mistake the black and white marks in the court of conscience. He has the physical power to say yea or nay; but if he does his duty, he must say yea. The contrary principle would go to this, that the house had a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just debt.
Mr. Gallatin observed in reply, that each member will be the sole judge whether it was or was not his duty to say yea or the contrary. The constitution, he said, declares, that no money should be drawn from the treasury but by appropriations made by law; this did not look as if the voting of appropriations was intended to be merely a matter of form. In the second place, the constitution declares, that no appropriation for the support of an armed force shall be made for more than two years. Thus though a military establishment may be formed by enlistments for three or more years; yet the constitution
provides that the question shall be submitted to the House every two years; and this surely is not as a matter of form; but in order at such short periods, by voting on an appropriation bill, to determine, whether such an establishment should exist longer or not. He conceived the power which he advocated as residing in the House of great consequence, and to be used in important occasions only.
Mr. Nicholas who had risen at the same time with Mr. Gallatin, and had given way to him, observed, that when he first rose he was going to read the clause of the constitution which the member last up had referred to. As to the black and white marks the member from Maryland spoke of, they were differently placed in different persons; in matters of opinion men will differ; but the constitution is a guide not to be departed from. The power of appropriation was vested by that instrument chiefly in the House, and no power on earth would prevent his exercising his discretion when that power was to be put in activity.
Mr. Giles observed, that the member from Maryland had got into the doctrine of checks, and seemed to think that if the House exercised its constitutional check, it would produce governmental anarchy.
Mr. Murray explained. He had alluded to the mode of getting rid of an establishment by refusing appropriations to carry it into effect. The constitutional mode of procuring the repeal of the law should always be had recourse to; but he insisted that the House could not, as they were bound by their duty, obstruct a law in force by refusing an appropriation.
Mr. Giles and Mr. Murray said a few words, when the debate was interrupted by a motion for adjournment, which was carried.
JANUARY 20.
A bill was read from the Senate, to amend the act for encouraging the useful arts by granting patents to inventors, &c.
The appropriation bill was taken up in the House. The motion for striking out the items for the mint establishment, in order to defer the appropriation on this head till the subject was generally examined, was lost 40 to 45. The motion for striking out the item of 18,300 dollars, the deficiency of last year's appropriation for the mint, was also lost. The motion for striking out an item of 10,000 for the purchase of copper, was also lost, 38 to 44. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.
Mr. Williams observed, that he had made an estimate of the expenses of the mint, and the sums coined, which he begged leave to state to the House, in order to aid them in their determination.
   Expenditures. Dols. Cts.     In the year 1792, 7,000   1793, 18,648 28   1794, 32,746 33   58,394 61   Credit.   Cents and Half Cents. Dols. Cts.   Cents coined, 1793, 1,281 79   1794, 9,593 21   10,875 0  
   Appropriations Dols.   in the year 1793, 24,600   Deficiencies now called for, 18,300   42,900 42,900   Deduct for the purchase of lands, buildings, apparatus, machines, &c. 28,887 9  
From this statement, the sum of 61,532 dollars and 52 cents, hath been lost by the establishment; excepting a small sum which hath arisen from the coining the precious metals. The total amount of the issues of the mint, from its first establishment is as follows:
   Eagles. Half Eagles Dollars.     2,795 8,707 323,144   Half Dimes Cents. Half Cents.   86,416 1,066,033 142,534   Total, in Dollars, 453,541 50  
This has cost the United States, 61,532 dollars and 52 cents, which amounts to more than 13 per cent. for coinage.
A communication was read from the war department, relative to the fortifications, which was ordered to be printed, and was referred to the committee on that subject.
The report of the Committee of Elections, in the case of Mr. Clopton, was taken up. The petitioning candidate making no opposition to it, the report was accepted, which confirms Mr. Clopton in his seat.
One of the petitions presented in this sitting was from the port of Albany, praying to be made a port of entry and delivery. The resolution of Mr. Smith, (M.) was not taken up for want of time.
JANUARY 21.
The Clerk informed the House that the Speaker was ill, and unable to attend. The House, after some conversation, adjourned.
JANUARY 22.
This day when the House met, the clerk read a letter from the Speaker. He informed Mr. Berckley that his indisposition was abated, and he had every reason to think that he should be able to attend his duty on Monday. At present, it would be unadvisable for him to venture abroad. We understand that he has got a cold, and that his face has been considerably swelled. Mr. W. Smith immediately moved for an adjournment 'till Monday. Fifty-two members rose in the affirmative, and the motion accordingly passed.
Adjourned.
LONDON, Nov. 19.
The pious theft: or, the widow and her orphans, a true story, founded on the facts of Bread.
While our school books are full of the generous instances of life to principle in an heroic age, and among a people for whom futurity had no terror, let us record a late event to which Birmingham was witness, and upon the authenticity of which our readers may rely.
A widow woman went one morning to a baker's, during the delivery of bread to the people, and taking up a loaf hurried away with it to her home. The baker observed it, and followed her immediately.
The house to which he traced her wore the appearance of a neat poverty—fluthiness was not there to degrade misfortune.
When he entered the room, he saw the loaf divided between three children, who devoured it with the most ravenous haste.
He raxed the woman with the fact, which she did not hesitate to acknowledge.
"I know, (she said) I must suffer for the theft, and I am content to do so, but not to see my children perish."
It is not easy at all times to verify the complaints we hear, and the baker doubted the widow's story.
"I fear (said he) you are accustomed to such actions, and live by theft—What have you in that cupboard?"
"Look (said she) and satisfy yourself."
He perceived a dish, which he thought had meat in it, and exclaimed, "I suppose this was stolen also!"
"Look nearer it and judge," said the wretched mother!
The man approached, and beheld the remains of a dog!!
He shuddered! His eyes filled with tears! His hand spontaneously sought his pocket; he put half a crown into her hand; and charged her to call frequently upon him!
The man went to the wealthy part of his customers, and told the story with the plain eloquence of truth. He produced a liberal subscription for this poor family; and has been the happy instrument to preserve worth, beyond what Poets have immortalised in past ages.
Lord Mayor's Day.
Yesterday was observed as Lord Mayor's Day, the annual festival.
At noon the Lord Mayor went off from Guildhall to the Court of Exchequer, at Westminster Hall, where he was sworn into office, before the Barons, with the usual forms: after which, the old and new Lord Mayor returned together, by water, to Blackfriars' Bridge where they landed, and went in their respective carriages to Guildhall, where there was an entertainment and ball in the evening as usual.
As the processions passed off Cheapside, the carriage of Mr. Pitt. (N. B. It was not his own carriage) was accompanied by an immense concourse, with hissing, groaning, hooting and execrations, and though he was attended by a guard of soldiers, in our opinion not less than 200, it was with the utmost difficulty the populace could be prevented from breaking in upon the carriage, so great was the public resentment.
The poor Lord Mayor followed soon after with little attention from the people, guarded by an extraordinary number of constables, seventy additional ones having been sworn in for the purpose yesterday.
The late worthy chief magistrate, Mr. Skinner, succeeded, drawn by his fellow-citizens! his carriage could not afford room for a thousandth part of those to lay a hand, who seemed anxious to shew him this mark of affection and respect. The applause of the multitude was unbounded, and the contrast between him and the unfortunate minister was such, as to exceed the powers of description. The first guarded by a chosen band of soldiers, (soldiers in the city!!) execrated by every voice, and shunned even by his parasites and toad-eaters. The second, Mr. Skinner, attended by the exultation and applause of the multitude! the windows waving with handkerchiefs! not even a constable to guard him! but the united voice of his fellow-citizens, seeming to exclaim, "thou art not a burthen to the starving poor! thou hast not three sinecure places! and thy good wishes for thy fellow citizens are worthy of the Lord Chancellor." The judges, and the other officers of the crown, passed with little notice.
The hum-drum Aldermen excited no more attention than the horses that drew them. It was not so in the days of Barnard nor Beckford—and those are the magistrates of the best, indeed of any mark and likelihood, since the time of queen Anne.
The present man is the first mayor we have had who was a biscuit-baker.
Nine o'clock, Temple Bar.—An immense multitude waiting with the utmost eagerness to see the minister there!
Quarter past 9 o'clock.—The king's own regt. on patrol through all the dependent fleets! the king's own regiment, for the first time since the UNION! the king's own regiment, with fourteen pence per day, as entertainment for man and horse; and not one of them in arrears to their tradesmen!
"Rather known
"By others follies than his own." The minister and the duke of Portland, (it did them great credit) left their own carriages, and were carried incog. by other people!! this would have been admirable, if it had been from humiliation and contrition. But how much more admirable is it, as a voluntary renunciation of popularity & their due reward! [Telegraph.]
A petition for peace, from the citizens of Sheffield, was presented to his Majesty at the Levee yesterday, by Earl Stanhope. It is subscribed by several thousand persons of that important manufacturing town. It is hoped that their example will be followed by the rest of the nation.
The first division of the West-India fleet has failed, according to the Portsmouth letters, for Cork. The whole fleet is to rendezvous at that port and there to wait for the events which are to retard or accelerate their progress.
Several pieces of light brass ordinance are fitting up in the great armoury at the Ordnance office in the tower with necessary apparatus, which do not appear to be intended for foreign service.
More guards to the capital!—The Scryr Fencibles were on Friday sent for: and on Saturday morning they arrived at the Queen's house.
By a letter from Copenhagen, dated 10th Oct. we learn that the Danish and Swedish squadrons have separated, the Swedish is returned to Carlscrona, and that the Danes have begun to dismantle their ships and sent their crews back to Norway.
When the people want Bread, it is no doubt sagacious in the Minister to stop their mouths.
SPRINGFIELD, Jan. 19.
Extract of a letter from Philadelphia, to the Editors of this paper, dated Jan. 9.
"Gentlemen,
"I observe a paragraph in the Boston Chronicle, reflecting upon the majority of the Senate, for negativing the President's nomination of Mr. RUTLEDGE for Chief Justice—the writer imputes it to a vindictive and party spirit; this is a wrong representation; the majority of the Senate of the United States, have certainly more magnanimity than to seek vengeance upon any one, and more especially upon an individual, merely because he had, when in a fit of lunacy, manifested a high degree of indifference—the fact is, however painful it may be to relate, Mr. Rutledge frequently incapacitated himself, and plunges into voluntary lunacy, and not only so, but we are credibly informed, that he lately made an ATTEMPT UPON HIS OWN LIFE!
"The former of these circumstances the Senate were acquainted with, before they negatived his nomination; the latter, it is true, came to their knowledge within two or three days after. Certainly the Senate are justifiable in not placing a lunatic at the head of the Judiciary—but it may be asked, why the President nominated such a man? the reason is, he did not know his infirmities at the time he made the nomination. The President knew Mr. RUTLEDGE was a man of great legal knowledge, and of splendid abilities, and that he had been a Patriot, and deserved well of his country, he therefore nominated him? in this respect, as in all others, the PRESIDENT has acted a prudent and magnanimous part."
Departure of the Automatons.
Mademoiselle Moderate, Mr. Aristocrat and The citizen Democrat,
THE pleasing wonder of all the principal cities in America, not having received that encouragement at Portsmouth, which Mr. Maison, their proprietor hoped for, he therefore announces their departure, on the next Saturday; and consequently, they will be exhibited only five times more. The last exhibition will be on Friday next.
The former price of admission is reduced one half, it is now one quarter of a dollar for grown persons and gd. for children.
The Exhibition is continued at the Assembly-Room, and commences precisely at 7 o'clock, P. M.
Mr. Maison had determined to gratify the inhabitants of Portsmouth, with a superb aerostatical experiment, the work of the celebrated voyager Blanchard, but the trivial encouragement which his Automatons have received, has nearly altered his design: nevertheless, as several respectable gentlemen have greatly interested themselves, that Portsmouth might not be the only town, which was debarred of this astonishing sight, Mr. Maison, therefore, still keeps his subscription book open, and if it shall be filled this week, he will defer his departure, and publish in next Saturday's Gazette, a satisfactory account of the proposed experiment, and then fix the day, the hour and the place: but if the subscriptions should not amount to the defrayment of the expenses, those who subscribe will have nothing to pay, and the project will be abandoned.
Subscriptions are received at a dollar, and at half a dollar by Mr. Maison; also at the Assembly-Room; the subscriptions will be continued until Friday next, 12 o'clock.
Portsmouth, Feb. 6, 1796.

BALTIMORE, Jan. 19. Mr. FARAN who arrived in the brig John, on Sunday, from Berbice, informs, that the negroes employed by the British to act as pioneers to the expected forces, had been disbanded, a circumstance which had originated a report, that the West-India expedition was given up—that he was at St. Bartholomews on the 23d ult. when flour was selling there & at St. Thomas's, at but 12 dols. per barrel, coffee 16 pence half penny per pound—and that he was in sight of St. Vincent's two days, and could easily see the Caribbean and French camp, at the distance of about two cannon shot from the British, the latter of which, as he was informed by the lieutenant of a British ship of war who boarded him, consisted of about 3000—skirmishes took place frequently; but both parties were afraid to attempt any thing decisive.
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 20. On Monday last, arrived in town Major Lewis, Aid-de-camp to Major General Wayne, and Capt. Britts, from the Legion of the United States.—The Major, left head-quarters the 1st of December, came by the way of Ohio—informs that the troops were remarkably healthy, and that a constant intercourse is kept up with the Indians who conduct themselves in a peaceable and friendly manner. One of them accompanied Major Lewis to the city, for the purpose of seeing his father, the President of the United States.
Capt. Taylor, of the Dragoons, and several other officers, are also in town, and we learn that the Commander in chief himself is daily expected, having left the army about the 10th ult. The gentlemen of the three Philadelphia troop of horse will hold themselves in readiness, to meet the General a few miles from hence, to pay their respects to him, and to escort him to town.
The following is the state of duties, bonded for in the respective States, and of net duties paid into the Treasury, taken from the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, for the year 1794.
Duties bonded for. Amount in dols. Net amount of duties as paid to the Treasury. New-Hampshire, 51,803 38,798 Vermont, 1,958 1,480 Massachusetts, 1,465,428 1,036,587 Rhode-Island, 144,547 89,424 Connecticut, 186,535 171,829 New-York, 2,146,818 1,360,903 Jersey, 15,596 15,392 Pennsylvania, 2,000,091 1,473,996 Delaware, 28,307 24,590 Maryland, 1,226,139 795,700 Virginia, 422,517 380,973 N. Carolina, 83,656 78,796 S. Carolina, 718,431 651,916 Georgia, 95,475 88,194
The following statement will show the relative trade of the large towns in 1794.
N.York, (city) bonded for duties, 2,140,453 2,003,091 Philadelphia, 1,198,238 1,198,238 Baltimore, 1,000,164 1,000,164 Boston, 716,922 716,922 Charleston, 270,000 270,000 Norfolk,
NEW-LONDON, (CON.) Jan. 28. Capt. Morgan, arrived in 16 days from Portorico, relates that letters were received there from Barbadoes, informing of the arrival of a packet at that island from England, which brought the interesting intelligence of a general peace in Europe. The route of this news will be sufficient with many to stamp it as falsehood; it certainly is not in its favor. We would however observe, that it is now 77 days since our last direct intelligence from Europe; that Capt. Morgan's passage was remarkably short; and that a sufficient time has elapsed for the news to have reached us in this circuitous manner, even with a common passage.
To the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES.
Winchester, 22 Dec. 1795.
Sir, It is with real pleasure we comply with the request of our fellow-citizens of Frederick county, by forwarding to you the enclosed resolutions*, which express the sentiments they entertain of your conduct, in a situation the most delicate, and upon an occasion the most interesting and important that has (perhaps) occurred during your administration.
Permit us, Sir, to seize this opportunity of expressing our sincere and anxious wish, that you may long continue to preside over the interests of these States with that wisdom and firmness which have hitherto adorned and supported your official conduct; and that you may, in an eminent degree, partake of that happiness which you have been so instrumental in procuring and preserving to your fellow-citizens.
We have the honor to be, with sentiments of real esteem and respect, Sir, your humble servants,
DANIEL MORGAN, CHARLES M. THRUSTON, ROBERT WHITE, CHARLES MAGILL, JOSEPH CALDWELL.
* The Resolutions have been published in this paper.
THE PRESIDENT'S Answer. Philadelphia, Dec. 16, 1795.
GENTLEMEN, I RECEIVED with great satisfaction your obliging and affectionate letter, dated the 22d inst. at Winchester, inclosing a Resolution of the citizens of Frederick county, who met the preceding day at the county Court-House, expressing their entire approbation of my conduct, in ratifying the treaty lately negotiated between the United States and Great Britain.
Next to the approbation of my own mind, arising from a consciousness of having uniformly, diligently and sincerely aimed, by doing my duty, to promote the true interests of my country—the approbation of my fellow citizens is dear to my heart.
In a free country, such approbation should be a citizen's best reward; and so it would be, if truth and candor were always to estimate the conduct of public men. But the reverse is so often the case, that he who, wishing to serve his country, is not influenced by higher motives, runs the risk of being miserably disappointed. Under such discouragement, the good citizen will look beyond the applauses and reproaches of men, and, persevering in his duty, stand firm in conscious rectitude, and in the hope of approving Heaven. I am, gentlemen, with much respect, your fellow-citizen and friend.
GO: WASHINGTON. To Daniel Morgan, Charles M. Thruston, Robert White, Charles Magill, and Joseph Caldwell.
DELAWARE LEGISLATURE.
SENATE, &c. Jan. 13. IT being impossible for the Legislature to view with indifference, the frequent attempts which have been made, to alienate from the First Officer and Great Patriot of our country, the much deserved esteem of his fellow-citizens: Therefore,
Resolved, 1st. By the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, that although as a Legislature, they do not recognize the propriety of approving or condemning the measures of government; yet in cases of great political consequence, and in time of great agitation in the public mind, they think it their duty thus publicly to testify their entire approbation of the measures adopted by THE PRESIDENT of the United States, in the administration of the general government; and their undiminished confidence in his integrity, judgment and patriotism.
2d. That the Senators of this State, in the Senate of the United States, and the Constituted Authorities of the general Government, have merited the approbation of their fellow-citizens, by a faithful discharge of their duty.
Attest, JAMES BATTELL, S. S.
NEW-YORK, Jan. 28. Extract of a letter from Jamaica, dated Kingston, 26th December, 1795.
"We have the satisfaction of acquainting you, that tranquility is again restored to this island, after various severe actions between the whites and the maroons, in which a good many lives were lost on both sides; the latter thought proper to beg for quarters, which was granted upon promise of asking pardon upon their knees, of his Majesty, and delivering up all runaway negroes, all their arms, ammunition, &c."
BOSTON, Jan. 30.
CAPE OF GOOD-HOPE &c. Capt. Gardner from the Cape of Good Hope, arrived here since our last, confirms the accounts of the capture of that territory by the English, and that they have from 3 to 4000 troops there. He mentions also, the arrival of news of the capture of Ceylon, as before announced; and of the report that an expedition against Batavia, the capital of the Dutch dominions in India, was in contemplation.—That the English having received information, by the capture of a Dutch packet, of a considerable fleet of Dutch Indians, about to sail for Europe, had dispatched all the ships of war at the Cape, to intercept them—and that the English treated the Americans very civilly, but would not allow them to take cargoes on board at the Cape.
The Western Army,
Now under Gen. Williamson, are making, we learn, preparations for taking possession of the "Western Posts," in June next;—these posts being seven or eight in number, will require the chief part of the army to garrison them; though, except at Detroit, and those on Lake Champlain, there are not any settlements around them. [Of these posts, the first beginning at the east, are Point Aufer, and Dutchman's point, on Lake Champlain—The others are Oswego, Niagara, the Miami, Detroit, and Michillimackinac. In the surrender of these posts, by the treaty, it has been objected, that the British subjects round them, have it at their option, to continue such. An elegant writer on this subject, has stated, that all the persons embraced by the privileges stipulated, do not amount to more than three thousand, men, women, and children, chiefly French Canadians, and their descendants—a number too inconsiderable to admit of attaching any political consequence whatever to the stipulation. This writer, then proceeds to ask, "Of what importance can it possibly be to the United States, whether two or three thousand persons, men, women, and children, are permitted to reside within their limits, either as British or American subjects, at their option? If the thing was an object of desire to Great Britain for the accommodation of the individuals concerned, could it have merited a moment's hesitation on our part? As to residence, it is the ordinary courtesy of nations at peace, to permit the mutual residence of the citizens of each other within their respective territories. British subjects are now free, by our laws, to reside in all parts of the United States. As to the permission to become citizens, it has been the general policy and practice of our country to facilitate the naturalization of foreigners. And we may safely count on the interest of the individuals, and on that desire to enjoy equal rights which is so deeply implanted in the human breast, that all who resolve to make their permanent residence with us, will become citizens."
The expense of holding the Posts it is expected, will ere long be a subject for Jacobin complaint.
From NEW-YORK, Jan. 20. It is true, that it has been moved in the House of Assembly of this state, to adopt the amendments proposed by Virginia; but you are not from thence to conclude that a measure dictated by party spirit, against the principles which Mr. Madison and other Virginia delegates, advocated in the Federal Convention, will be adopted; on the contrary, I anticipate, that they will meet their merited fate—be wholly discarded.
William Danbridge Peck, Esq. of Kitery, is elected Member of the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia. Citizen Adet, and La Rochefoucault Liancour, were elected Members at the same time.
The benefits of the Canals at the northward, are beginning to be extensively felt. From many towns in the west of New-Hampshire, produce can be boated to the ocean, except at one fall, where there is a carrying place, and where locks and canals have been begun, and will be prosecuted.—The farmer reaps the rich harvest of nature, in the blessings of peace.
A Canal from this harbor to Roxbury, is also in contemplation. Reciprocal benefits will result from the enterprise. In the enumeration of articles sent to and from this town, and Roxbury, are 4000 hogheads of salt, annually carted out, and 80,000 barrels of provisions carted in.
The crops to the westward have been excellent.—But the fear of the fly prevented many farmers from sowing so much wheat as was intended.
February 1.
[AUTHENTIC.] Extract of a letter from a merchant of Havre, dated Nov. 7, to his friend in Philadelphia, received by way of New-Port.
"Our new Constitution is in full activity, as also the two Legislative councils and the Executive directory. Our countryman Reubell is the first President of the directory."
"The Royalists (not Jacobins as has been said) who since Robespierre's fall had taken up the masks of Republicans, in order the easier to effect the ruin of the Republic have given a terrible influence of their pretended love for order, humanity, and justice; let out of the prisons after the 27th of July as innocent victims of the tyranny of the Dacimvirs they made no other use of their liberty than to prove their guilt by attempting to assassinate their benefactors and enslave their country; but the reign of hypocrisy and intrigue is overthrown; the present government without being arbitrary promises to become vigorous & terrible to the enemies of the Republic as that of 1794. Protection to the innocent, pardon to the deluded, and inexorable severity against the conspirators and abettors of despotism; this is what every Republican wishes for, the friends of Kings alone claim indulgence, because they are afraid of justice."
"The Republican armies are about to be reorganized as they were in 1794, in those days when victory invariably attended the defenders of the Republic. The generals and officers who had made the glorious campaign in Belgium and Holland, and were afterwards dismissed as terrorists, have already set out to join their respective corps, and the intriguers who have been placed in the army in order to disorganize them, are driven away in their turn as unworthy to serve the Republic."
From PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 22.
Treaty with Spain.
The Executive of the United States yesterday received from Mr. Simpson, at Gibraltar, a letter dated in November, which mentions, that a treaty with Spain had been concluded at Madrid by our commissioners, Messrs. Pinckney and Short, who upon the conclusion of it left Madrid for Paris.
The navigation of the Mississippi, is one of the principle advantages we look for in a treaty with Spain, and a free navigation of that river is of immense importance to us. It remains to be known, whether in the cession of this advantage, the British are not excluded from a participation. This may be expected to be the case, (our British Treaty notwithstanding,) if French influence has been exerted to obtain the treaty; and that it has, there is at least great probability.
Extract of a letter from James Simpson, Consul of the United States, at Gibraltar, dated at that place, Nov. 14, 1795, and received by a vessel lately arrived at New-York, to the Secretary of State.
"If this vessel has a speedy passage to New-York, she may carry the first news of the treaty between the United States and Spain being signed, which took place at Madrid the 27th of last month; and the 3d inst. Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Short, I understand set out for France."
FEBRUARY 3.
The exports for Baltimore, the last five years and nine months, amount to 17,356,297 dollars. The exports from that town in July, August and September, 1790, amounted only to 343,584 dollars; but in the same months, in 1795, they amounted to 1,675,748 dollars!
Marine Intelligence.
A brig from Jamaica, bound to St. John's, N. B. was cast away in a late storm, on Block-Island. She was the property of Messrs. McGregor and Ward, of St. John's. The vessel will be lost—part of the cargo, viz. rum and sugar, damaged, will be saved—as was all the crew.
From Pool's Marine List. —The following vessels were left at Surinam, Dec. 12. Ship Gen. Washington, Sheldon, of Providence; ship Nancy, Perry, S. Carolina; 1st and 2d mate sick with a fever—ship Two Sisters, Andrus Bolton; ship Illustrious President, Richmond, Virginia; ship Pacific, Kennedy, Charleston, S. C. Barque—Sloman, Bolton; snow Essex, Tucker, Gloucester, Cape-Ann; brigs Rebecca, Moore, Portsmouth, N. H. Aurora, Clapham, do. Charlotte, Cook, Providence; Elizabeth, Russell, Newburyport; Polly, Boffon, Bolton; Joseph Francis, Apollo, Providence; schooner Lucky John, McLean, N. London—cargo on board, to fail in 8 days, all well—and will make an East-India voyage.—Schooners Hector, Kent, Bolton; Ballahoo, Bennet, New-York.
PROVIDENCE, Jan. 30. A vessel, it is said, was last week cast away in the Eastern Sound, and the people it is supposed were all lost. She was loaded with Pork, Hogs Lard, &c. some of which drifted ashore.
From NEWBURYPORT, Feb. 2.
The sloop Merrimack Carlton, of Portsmouth, arrived at Philadelphia, in 38 days. Arrived at Boston, on Saturday last, schooner Hector, Capt. Kent, in 45 days from Surinam; lat. 38, long. 73, Jan. 18, spoke ship Mary, Samuel Sweat, master, from Lisbon, bound for Newburyport, had been out 106 days, lost one man, foremast and Main-topmast; being short of provisions, put away for Norfolk. In lat. of Dominique, was boarded by the Huzzah ship of war, and detained 4 hours, during which, it blowing very hard, the Hector lost her fore mast and foretop mast, then put away for Marigalante, to refit.
The Hope, Russell, 60 days from Liverpool, arrived at New-London, Jan. 14. Sailed in company with the Catharine, Cazneau, Newburyport.
Brig Elizabeth, Russell, of Newburyport, and Bethiah, Brown, of Boston, were at Surinam, 26th Nov.
From CHARLESTON, Jan. 4.
The ship Harmony, Capt. White, from Havre-de-Grace, arrived in this port in distress, having a passage of 110 days. After having met with 14 successive heavy gales of wind, which compelled Capt. White to heave the ship too as many times; from the violence of the weather, the ship was so strained and weakened as to oblige Capt. White, for the preservation of the lives of his passengers, crew and ship, in lat. 43, long. 61, to alter her course and steer southward, after having been strongly urged thereto, by all persons on board.
Falling in with the Trades afterwards, and meeting with more favorable weather, Capt. White thought it more advisable to steer for this port for repair, in preference to the West-Indies, his first intention. She was bound to Boston.
PORTLAND, Jan. 28.
FROM EUROPE.
Saturday night last, arrived here, brig Fame, Capt. Jordan, 68 days from St. Ubes. He informs, that a packet arrived at Lisbon, two days before he failed, in three days from England—the brought the account of the capture of 14 English Indians, off Cape Good-Hope by a French squadron. Just before Capt. Jordan left Lisbon, our consul there informed him that they had received accounts of the defeat of the Austrian army—a few days before they had received the account of the defeat of the French, and the court of Portugal had ordered rejoicings, but their joy by this reverse of fortune, was turned into mourning. The Austrian army had got the advantage of the French and pursued them across the Rhine, but the French being met by reinforcements, turned upon the Austrians, pursued them across the Rhine, with immense slaughter, and were in full pursuit of them. Great talk of peace, at Lisbon.
A very large privateer, schooner rigged, mounting 30 heavy pieces of cannon, is cruising in the bay of Biscay, and has made very great havoc with the English and Portuguese trade—her object is to destroy all the meets, and to land the prisoners on the nearest coast. She belongs to Bourdeaux.
LONDON, Nov. 10.
Yesterday morning the Swedish Charge d'Affairs for managing the business of the Court of Stockholm during the absence of Mons. Le Chevalier Engerstrom, the envoy of the Swedish nation, who is gone on political business to France, attended by Mons. Chev. M. S. Chapellies, had an audience of Lord Grenville, the Secretary of State for foreign affairs, at his office in Downingstreet. It appears that Messrs. Chevalier Engerstrom and Chapellies are safe arrived at Paris, where they found that city in the most profound tranquility; the new government beginning with every pleasing symptom of establishment—provisions in abundance, particularly wheat, corn; so that the Parisians have good bread at a much less price than they experienced for many months, owing not more to the goodness of their harvests than to the wise endeavors of their government. Shops are all open, and the people appear to be prosecuting business of every kind with as much industry and coolness as at any period whatever. Not the smallest opposition to the new system which the people conceive to be planned for the more complete exclusion of the monarchical system which was taking root again in that country.
PORTSMOUTH, Feb. 6.
Thursday arrived here the brig Olive Capt. John Palmer, of this port, in 105 days from Poole, (England) and 20 from Statia—Capt. Palmer, after sailing from Poole, experienced several very heavy gales, and on the 22d Dec. was obliged to bear away, arrived at Statia 7th Jan. lay there three days, heard of two ships &
two brigs being there, which had been blown off the coast, their names nor the Captains he could not learn; heard there were several other vessels at different islands which had been blown off the coast.—In lat. 20, 21, north, spoke a British 74 gun ship, who took an English sailor from on board the Olive.
A new sloop, belonging to Major Tibbetts, of Dover, which, with her cargo, estimated at ten thousand dollars, accidentally caught fire at Cape Ann, on Sunday evening last, and was wholly destroyed.
The legislature of Pennsylvania have granted the sum of 1500 dollars for the relief of distressed French emigrants.
◆◆◆◆◆ Each moment plays His little weapon in the narrower sphere, Of sweet domestic comfort, and cuts down The fairest bloom of sublunary bliss. OLIVIA's fled! the lovely mind, Faith, sweetness, wit, together join'd, Kind parents! brothers! sisters!—here! Oh! view the change and drop a tear.
On Saturday morning the 23d ult. bade adieu to all terrestrial scenes, and on Wednesday following was deposited in her mother earth (after upwards of two years confinement, during which she bore with uncommon patience and fortitude, the most excruciating pains) Miss OLIVE LORD, daughter of Mr. MARK LORD, of Berwick, aged 16. As eulogies most commonly succeed the obsequies of those worthy characters who take their stand in the rear of life; perhaps to be totally silent on such an event as the present might appear a fault to those who knew her worth:—but to do ample justice to the character of the deceased, to delineate her many good qualities, is not our present design; suffice it to say, she was in her whole deportment towards parents, relatives and acquaintance, such an ornament to her sex, as that her memory will never be obliterated. In this shape, or in that, has fate entail'd The mother's throes on all of woman born, Not more the children than pure heirs of pain.
New Wholesale STORE.
Lang, Brienly, & Co. Inform their friends and the public, that they have removed to the westerly apartment of the
New Brick Store, in Ladd-Street, where they have just received, and are now opening in addition to their former stock,
A large quantity of fresh GOODS,
Suitable for the season; The whole forming an extensive assortment of
WOOLENS, Stuffs, Linens; plain and printed Cottons; Checks; Hosiery; Cutlery; Hardware, &c. &c.—which they will dispose of at a low advance for cash or approved credit.
—ALSO— A few Pipes of choice London Market Madeira Wine.
TO BE SOLD AT
Public Auction,
On THURSDAY 23th of February next, at 4 o'clock, P. M. at Greenleaf's tavern,
A well finished commodious Dwelling-House,
IN good repair, situated in a pleasant part of the town, has a large garden, stable and every other convenience necessary.
Conditions of sale, &c. will be made known at time and place of sale.
ALL persons indebted to, or that have any demands against the Estate of ALDAD LANGLEY late of Nottingham, husbandman, deceased, are requested to exhibit the same for settlement to BENJ. LANGLEY, Administrator. Nottingham, Feb. 6, 1796.
State of New-Hampshire.
PUBLIC notice is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of lands in the following towns, viz. Andover and Cockermouth, for the years 1794 and 1795; Concord (alias) 1790 and 1795; Hollis 1794; Kezarfage Gore, from 1784 to 1795 inclusive; Littleton, from 1775 to 1795 inclusive; Orange 1795, and for deficiency of soldiers; Sutton, 1795, and for building a Meeting-House; Washington, from 1791 to 1795 inclusive; Antrim, Barnstead, Eaton, Heaver, Meredith, Middleton, Northumberland, New-London, New-Hampton, Piermont, Rochester, Springfield, Sandwich, Wentworth and Warren, for the year 1795; that the lists of taxes on lands of non-residents in said towns for said years, and for said purposes, are left with the subscriber; that unless they either pay the same to him or the collectors thereof, within eight weeks from the first publishing this advertisement, their lands will be advertised for sale for the payment of the same. NATHL PARKER, Rec. N. H. taxm. Exeter, Jan. 25, 1796.

Bargains for ready money.
FOR SALE AT
Bayley's Variety Store,
Sign of the Spinning Wheel, Daniel Street, In addition to his assortment particularized in the late papers,
A NUMBER of pieces of real Devonshire Kerseys, blue & drab colors; No. 3 & 1/2, 4, and 4 & 1/2 Pins, R 4's. Packet do. Crapes and German Sarge.
State of New-Hampshire.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of lands in Dorchester, who have not paid their county tax for the year 1791, that unless they pay said tax to me the subscriber, on or before the 22d day of February next, so much of their lands as will pay the same together with the incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue, at the dwelling-house of Joseph Burley, Esq. in said town, at ten of the clock, A. M. on said day.
Table with 4 columns: Name, 1st div. 2d div. 3d div. d.q. d.q. d. Lists names like Samuel Parker, Richard C. Shannon, Joseph Patterson, etc.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident owners of land in Epsom, who are delinquent in paying their taxes for the years 1789 and 1790, that so much of their land as will pay the tax with incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue, at the house of Jonathan Locke, in Epsom, on the 16th day of February next, at 10 of the clock before noon, unless prevented by previous payment.
Table with 4 columns: Name, No. R. Q'ty. d. d. d. Lists names like Joshua Brackett, Geo. Kenniston, Jonathan Locke, Collector.
THE heirs of the Estate of JOHN HALL, late of Somersworth, deceased, are notified that the account of SARAH HALL, of her administering the same, will be presented at a Court of Probate, next to be held at Dover, in and for the county of Strafford, on the 3d Tuesday in February next for allowance.
W'm K. ATKINSON, Register. Dover, Jan. 13, 1796.
NOTICE.
A QUANTITY of good and large Cellar Stones with some Beech and Pine Wharf Timber to be delivered at the opening of the river. Any person inclining to contract for the same, and for doing the Wood and Stone Work may make application to JONATHAN WARNER.
Portsmouth, Jan. 1, 1796.
NOTICE is hereby given to the owners of land in the town of Lime, that at a proprietors meeting held in said town on the 6th day of Sept. 1783, a tax of one pound ten shillings was voted to be raised on each right or share of land in said town, for the purposes of paying the survey, laying out the remainder of the land in said town, and for defraying other necessary charges of the proprietors, the same is committed to me the subscriber with a warrant to collect the same, therefore unless said tax is paid to me their lands will be advertised for sale as the law directs.
JOHN TOMSON, Prop'r's Collector. Lime, Jan. 25, 1796.
Land in Tuftonborough for sale; apply to John Goddard, Portsmouth.
State of New-Hampshire. Grafton, ff.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of lands in Dorchester, who have not paid their State tax for the year 1795, that unless they pay said tax to me the subscriber, on or before the 25th day of February next, so much of their lands as will pay the same, together with the incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue, at the dwelling-house of Joseph Burley, Esq. in said town, at ten of the clock, A. M. on said day.
Table with 4 columns: Name, No. of 100 ac's. cents. dimes. Lists names like John Wright, Thomas M'Donough, Wyleman Claggett, etc.
State of New-Hampshire. Grafton, ff.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of lands in Dorchester, who have not paid their State tax for the year 1789, that unless they pay the said tax to me the subscriber, on or before the 24th day of February next, so much of their lands as will pay the same, together with the incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue, at my dwelling-house in said town, at 10 of the clock, A. M. on said day.
Table with 4 columns: Name, 1st division. 2d div. 3d div. Spe. In. Spe. In. Spe. In. d.q. d.q. d.q. d.q. d.q. d.q. Lists names like Benjamin Salter, Joseph Ward, Paul Langdon, etc.
Wanted a quantity of good SCHREWD HAY, For which the cash will be paid, Inquire of JACOB SHEAFE. Portsmouth, Jan. 26.
ALL persons indebted to, or that have any demands against the estate of Col. Jeremiah Lock, late of Rye, deceased, testate, are requested to exhibit the same for settlement to the subscriber, Executor of the last Will and Testament of said deceased. SAMUEL JENNESS. North-Hill, Jan. 26, 1796.
To be sold at Public Auction, On MONDAY the 8th day of February next, at 3 o'clock, P. M. at the house of Gen. James Hill, in New-Market, 175 acres of Land In Nottingham. A number of Pews In New-Market new Meeting-House, with sundry other articles. DANIEL HILL, Auctioneer. New-Market, Jan. 26, 1796.
FOR SALE AT Public Auction, On THURSDAY 25th day of February next, at 3 o'clock, P. M. at Greenleaf's tavern, The Dwelling-House, BARN and LAND OPPOSITE the Assembly-House, now in possession of Doct. N. A. Haven; A Farm of about 60 acres of LAND near Downing's Plains, now occupied by John Hodgdon, with a piece of Cedar Swamp and Salt Marsh belonging to the same, about 4 acres of Pasture land, adjoining Mr. Nathaniel Jackson's pasture. Also one twelfth of a proprietors share of divided or undivided land that remains unfold in Mason's patent; the above estate was formerly the property of George Meserve, Esq. deceased. EDWARD HART, Auctioneer. Portsmouth, Jan. 29, 1796.
Table with 4 columns: Original proprietors Names, No. of house & meadow lots, Tax thereon, No. of range of 100 acre lots, Tax thereon. Lists names like Timothy Whitney, Benjamin Mann, Elisha Crosby, etc.
Table with 4 columns: No. of house & meadow lots, Tax thereon, No. of range of 100 acre lots, Tax thereon. Lists names like Timothy Whitney, Benjamin Mann, Elisha Crosby, etc.
WHEREAS JOHN PHILLIPS GILMAN, of Dover, in the county of Strafford, in behalf of himself, and as agent for JACOB CURRIER of Hampton, in the county of Rockingham, has petitioned the Judge of Probate, stating that they are seized of the one moiety of a certain mill privilege, at the lower Cochecho Falls, so called, in Dover aforesaid, containing one acre of land, be the same more or less, which they hold in common and undivided with the devisees of THOMAS WESTBROOK WALDRON, Esq. late of said Dover, the said Waldron having died of the other moiety thereof; and they prayed that their said moiety might be divided and set off to hold to them, as their right and share therein, agreeably to law. Whereupon the said Judge did order, that the petitioners be heard thereon, at a Court of Probate, next to be held at Dover in and for said county of Strafford, on the 3d Tuesday in February next, and that in the mean time notice be given to all the interested, by publishing the substance of the said petition and order thereon, in the New-Hampshire Gazette, three weeks successively, then and there to appear if they think proper, and show cause if any they have, why the said prayer should not be granted, and freeholders be appointed to make the said division, as the law directs. W. K. ATKINSON, Register. Dover, Jan. 28, 1796.
Table with 4 columns: Original proprietors names, No. of house & meadow lots, Tax thereon, No. of range of 100 acre lots, Tax thereon. Lists names like Timothy Whitney, Elisha Crosby, Benjamin Mann, etc.
Table with 4 columns: No. of house & meadow lots, Tax thereon, No. of range of 100 acre lots, Tax thereon. Lists names like Timothy Whitney, Elisha Crosby, Benjamin Mann, etc.
State of New-Hampshire. Strafford, ff. NOTICE is hereby given to all the non-resident proprietors and owners of land in the town of Effingham, in said State, that are delinquent in paying the taxes assessed thereon, for the year 1795, that unless they pay said taxes to me the subscriber on or before the 29th day of February next, so much of their lands will be sold at public vendue, as will pay said taxes with incidental charges, at the dwelling house of the subscriber in said town, at ten of the clock, A. M. on said day. Table with 4 columns: Name, No. Div. Q'ty Dim. Cents. Lists names like Josh. Wingate, Thomas Nudd, John Johnson, etc.