The New Hampshire gazette (Portsmouth [N.H.]), 1808-04-26 00:00:00

Important Letter.
A LETTER to the Hon. Harrison Gray Otis, a member of the Senate of Massachusetts, on the present state of our National Affairs; with remarks upon Mr. Pickering's Letter to Governor Sullivan: BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
Dear Sir, Washington, March 31, 1808. I HAVE received from one of my friends in Boston a copy of a printed pamphlet, containing a letter from Mr. Pickering to the Governor of the commonwealth, intended for communication to the Legislature of the State, during the Session, recently concluded. But this object not having been accomplished, it appears to have been published by some friend of the writer, whose inducement is stated, no doubt truly, to have been the importance of the matter discussed in it, and the high respectability of the author.
The subjects of this letter are the Embargo, and the differences in controversy between our Country and Great Britain—Subjects upon which it is my misfortune, in the discharge of my duties as a Senator of the United States to differ from the opinion of my Colleague. The place where the question upon the first of them, in common with others of great national concern, was between him and me, in our official capacities, a proper object of discussion, was the Senate of the Union—There it was discussed, and, as far as the constitutional authority of that body extended, there it was decided—Having obtained alike the concurrence of the other branch of the National Legislature, and the approbation of the President, it became the Law of the Land, and as such I have considered it entitled to the respect and obedience of every virtuous citizen.
From these decisions however, the letter in question is to be considered in the nature of an appeal; in the first instance, to our common constituents, the Legislature of the State—and in the second, by the publication, to the people. To both these tribunals I shall always hold myself accountable for every act of my public life. Yet, were my own political character alone implicated in the course which has in this instance been pursued, I should have forborne all notice of the proceeding, and have left my conduct in this, as in other cases, to the candour and discretion of my Country.
But to this species of appeal, thus conducted, there are some objections on constitutional grounds which I deem it my duty to mention for the consideration of the public. On a statement of circumstances attending a very important act of national legislation, a statement which the writer undoubtedly believed to be true, but which comes only from one side of the question, and which, I expect to prove in the most essential points, erroneous, the writer with the most animated tone of energy calls for the interposition of the commercial States, and asserts that "nothing but their sense, clearly and emphatically expressed, will save them from ruin." This solemn and alarming invocation is addressed to the Legislature of Massachusetts, at so late a period of their session, that had it been received by them, they must have been compelled either to act upon the views of this representation, without hearing the counter statement of the other side, or seemingly to disregard the pressing interest of their constituents, by neglecting an admonition of the most serious complexion. Considering the application as a precedent, its tendency is dangerous to the public. For on the first supposition, that the Legislature had been precipitated to act on the spur of such an investigation, they must have acted on imperfect information, and under an excitement, not remarkably adapted to the composure of safe deliberation. On the second, they would have been exposed to unjust imputations, which at the eve of an election might have operated in the most inequitable manner upon the characters of individual members.
The interposition of one or more State Legislatures, to controul the exercise of the powers vested by the general Constitution in the Congress of the United States, is at least of questionable policy. The views of a State Legislature are naturally and properly limited in a considerable degree to the particular interests of the State. The very object and formation of the National deliberative assemblies was for the compromise and conciliation of the interests of all—the whole nation. If the appeal from the regular, legitimate measures of the body where the whole nation is represented, be proper to one State Legislature, it must be so to another. If the commercial States are called to interpose on one hand, will not the agricultural States be with equal propriety summoned to interpose on the other? If the East is stimulated against the West, and the Northern and Southern Sections are urged into collision with each other, by appeals from the acts of Congress to the respective States—in what are these appeals to end?
It is undoubtedly the right, and may often become the duty of a State Legislature, to address that of the Nation, with the expression of its wishes, in regard to interests peculiarly concerning the State itself. Nor shall I question the right of every member of the great federative compact to declare its own sense of measures interlocking to the nation at large. But whenever the case occurs that this sense should be "clearly and emphatically" expressed, it ought surely to be predicated upon a full and impartial consideration of the whole subject—not under the stimulus of a one-sided representation—far less upon the im-
pulse of conjectures and suspicions. It is not through the medium of personal feasibility, nor of party bias, nor of professional occupation, nor of geographical position, that the whole truth can be discerned, of questions involving the rights and interests of this extensive Union. When their discussion is urged upon a State Legislature, the first call upon its members should be to cast all their feelings and interests as the Citizens of a single State into the common Stock of the National concern.
Should the occurrence upon which an appeal is made from the Councils of the Nation, to those of a single State, be one, upon which the representation of the State had been divided, and the member who found himself in the minority, felt impelled by a sense of duty to invoke the interposition of his Constituents, it would seem that both in justice to them, and in candour to his colleague, some notice of such intention should be given to him, that he too might be prepared to exhibit his views of the subject upon which the difference of opinion had taken place; or at least that the resort should be had, at such a period of time as would leave it within the reach of possibility for his representations to be received, by their Common Constituents, before they would be compelled to decide on the merits of the case.
The fairness and propriety of this course of proceeding must be so obvious, that it is difficult to conceive of the propriety of any other. Yet it presents another inconvenience which must necessarily result from this practice of appellate legislation—When one of the Senators from a State proclaims to his constituents that a particular measure, or system of measures which has received the vote and support of his colleague, are pernicious and destructive to those interests which both are bound by the most sacred of ties, with zeal and fidelity to promote, the denunciation of the measures amounts to little less than a denunciation of the man. The advocate of a policy thus reprobated must feel himself stimulated by every motive of self-defence to vindicate his conduct: and if his general sense of his official duties would bind him to the industrious devotion of his whole time to the public business of the Session, the hours which he might be forced to employ for his own justification, would of course be deducted from the discharge of his more regular and appropriate functions. Should these occasions frequently recur, they could not fail to interfere with the due performance of the public business. Nor can I forbear to remark the tendency of such antagonizing appeals to distract the Councils of the State in its own Legislature, to destroy its influence, and expose it to derision, in the presence of its sister States, and to produce between the colleagues themselves mutual asperities and rancours, until the great concerns of the nation would degenerate into the puny controversies of personal altercation.
It is therefore with extreme reluctance that I enter upon this discussion. In developing my own views and the principles which have governed my conduct in relation to our foreign affairs, and particularly to the Embargo, some very material differences in point of fact as well as of opinion, will be found between my statements, and those of the letter, which alone can apologize for this—They will not, I trust, be deemed in any degree disrespectful to the writer. Far more pleasing would it have been to me, could that honest and anxious pursuit of the policy best calculated to promote the honour and welfare of our Country, which, I trust, is felt with equal ardour by us both, have resulted in the same opinions, and have given them the vigour of united exertion. There is a candour and liberality of conduct and of sentiment due from associates in the same public charge, towards each other, necessary to their individual reputation, to their common influence, and to their public usefulness. In our republican Government, where the power of the nation consists alone in the sympathies of opinion, this reciprocal deference, this open-hearted imputation of honest intentions, is the only adamant at once attractive and impervious, that can bear, unshattered, all the thunder of foreign hostility. Ever since I have had the honour of a seat in the National Councils, I have extended it to every department of the Government. However differing in my conclusions, upon questions of the highest moment, from any other man, of whatever party, I have never, upon suspicion, imputed his conduct to corruption. If this confidence argues ignorance of public men & public affairs, to that ignorance I must plead guilty. I know, indeed enough of human nature to be sensible that vigilant observation is at all times, and that suspicion may occasionally become necessary, upon the conduct of men in power. But I know as well that confidence is the only cement of an elective government—Election is the very test of confidence—and its periodical return is the constitutional check upon its abuse; of which the electors must of course be the sole judges. For the exercise of power, where man is free, confidence is indispensable—and when it once totally fails—when the men to whom the people have committed the application of their force, for their benefit, are to be presumed the vilest of mankind, the very foundation of the social compact must be dissolved. Towards the Gentleman whose official station results from the confidence of the same legislature, by whose appointment I have the honour of holding a similar trust, I have thought this confidence peculiarly due from me, nor should I now notice his letter, notwithstanding the disapprobation it so obviously implies at the course which I have pursued in relation to the subjects of which it treats, did it not appear to me calculated to produce upon the public mind, impressions unfavourable to the rights and interests of the nation.
Having understood that a motion in the Senate of Massachusetts was made by me, requesting the Governor to transmit Mr. Pickering's letter to the Legislature, together with such communications, relating to public affairs, as he might have received from me, I avail myself of that circumstance, and of the friendship which has so long subsisted between us, to take the liberty of addressing this letter, intended for publication, to you. Very few of the facts which I shall state will rest upon information peculiar to myself—Most of them will stand upon the basis of official documents, or of public and undisputed notoriety. For my opinions, though fully persuaded, that even where differing from your own, they will meet with a fair and liberal judge in you, yet of the public talk neither favour nor indulgence. Pretending to no extraordinary credit from the authority of the writer, I am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or stand by their own strength.
The first remark which obtrudes itself upon the mind, on the perusal of Mr. Pickering's letter, is, that in enumerating all the pretences (for he thinks there are no causes) for the Embargo, and for a War with Great Britain, he has totally omitted the British Orders of Council of November 11, 1807—those orders, under which millions of the property of our fellow citizens, are now detained in British hands, or confiscated to British captors—those orders, under which ten fold as many millions of the same property would have been at this moment in the same predicament, had they not been saved from exposure to it by the Embargo—those orders, which if once submitted to and carried to the extent of their principles, would not have left an inch of American canvas upon the ocean, but under British licence and British taxation. An attentive reader of the letter, without other information, would not even suspect their existence. They are indeed in one or two passages, faintly, and darkly alluded to un-
der the justifying description of "the orders of the British Government, retaliating the French imperial decree:" but as causes for the Embargo, or as possible causes or even pretences of War with Great Britain, they are not only unnoticed, but their very existence is by direct implication denied.
It is indeed true, that those orders were not officially communicated with the President's message recommending the Embargo. They had not been officially received—but they were announced in several paragraphs from London and Liverpool Newspapers of the 10th, 11th and 12th of November, which appeared in the National Intelligencer of 18th December, the day upon which the Embargo Message was sent to Congress. The British government had taken care that they should not be authentically known before their time—for the very same newspapers which gave this unofficial notice of these orders, announced also the departure of Mr. Rose, upon a special mission to the United States. And we now know that of these all-devouring instruments of rapine, Mr. Rose was not even informed. His mission was professedly a mission of conciliation and reparation for a flagrant—enormous—acknowledged outrage. But he was not sent with these orders of Council were as invisible, as they are on that of Mr. Pickering's letter.
They were not merely without official authenticity. Rumours had for several weeks been in circulation, derived from English prints, and from private correspondence, that such orders were to issue; and no inconsiderable pains were taken here to discredit the fact. Assurances were given that there was reason to believe no such orders to be contemplated. Suspicion was lulled by declarations equivalent nearly to a positive denial; and these opiates were continued for weeks after the Embargo was laid, until Mr. Erskine received instructions to make the official communication of the orders themselves, in their proper shape, to our Government.
Yet, although thus authenticated, and even although thus in some sort denied; the probability of the circumstances under which they were announced, and the sweeping tendency of their effects, formed to my understanding a powerful motive, and together with the papers sent by the President, and his express recommendation, a decisive one, for assenting to the Embargo. As a precautionary measure, I believed it would rescue an immense property from depredation, if the orders should prove authentic. If the alarm was groundless, it must very soon be disproved, and the Embargo might be removed with the danger.
The omission of all notice of these facts in the pressing enquiries "why the Embargo was laid?" is the more surprising, because they are of all the facts the most material, upon a fair and impartial examination of the expediency of that Act, when it passed—And because these orders, together with the subsequent "retaliating decrees of France and Spain, have furnished the only reasons upon which I have acquiesced in its continuance to this day. If duly weighed, they will save us the trouble of resorting to jealousies of secret corruption, and the imaginary terrors of Napoleon for the real cause of the Embargo.—These are fictions of foreign invention—The French Emperors had not required that our ports should be shut against British Commerce; but the orders of Council, if submitted to, would have degraded us to the condition of Colonies. If resisted, would have fattened the wolves of plunder with our spoils. The Embargo was the only shelter from the Tempest—The last refuge of our violated Peace.
I have indeed been myself of opinion that the Embargo, mult in its nature be a temporary expedient, and that preparations manifesting a determination of resistance against these outrageous violations of our neutral rights ought at least to have been made a subject of serious deliberation in Congress. I have believed and do still believe that our internal resources are competent to the establishment and maintenance of a naval force public and private, if not fully adequate to the protection and defence of our commerce, at least sufficient to induce a retreat from these hostilities and to deter from a renewal of them, by either of the waring parties; and that a system to that effect might be formed, ultimately far more economical, and certainly more energetic than a three years Embargo. Very soon after the closure of our ports, I did submit to the consideration of the Senate, a proposition for the appointment of a committee to institute an enquiry to this end. But my resolution met no encouragement. Attempts of a similar nature have been made in the House of Representatives, but have been equally discountenanced, and from these determinations by decided majorities of both houses, I am not sufficiently confident in the superiority of my own wisdom to appeal, by a topical application to the congenial feelings of any one—not even of my own native section of the Union.
The Embargo, however, is a restriction always under our own control. It was a measure altogether of defence, and of experiment—If it was injudiciously or overhastily laid, it has been every day since its adoption open to a repeal; if it should prove ineffectual for the purposes which it was meant to secure, a single day will suffice to unbar the doors. Still believing it a measure justified by the circumstances of the time, I am ready to admit that those who thought otherwise may have had a wiser foresight of events, and a sounder judgment of the then existing state of things than the majority of the National Legislature, and the President. It has been approved by several of the State Legislatures, and among the rest by our own—Yet of all its effects we are still unable to judge with certainty. It must still abide the test of futurity. I shall add that there were other motives which had their operation in contributing to the passage of the act, unnoticed by Mr. Pickering, and which having now ceased will also be left unnoticed by me. The orders of Council of 11th Nov. still subsist in all their force; and are now confirmed, with the addition of taxation, by act of Parliament.
As they stand in front of the real causes for the Embargo, so they are entitled to the same pre-eminence in enumerating the causes of hostility, which the British Ministers are accumulating upon our forbearance. They strike at the root of our independence. They assume the principle that we shall have no commerce in time of war, but with her dominions; and as tributaries to her. The exclusive confinement of commerce to the mother country, is the great principle of the modern colonial system; and should we by a dereliction of our rights at this momentous crisis of encroachment surrender our commercial freedom without a struggle, Britain has but a single step more to take, and she brings us back to the stamp act and the tea tax.
Yet these orders—thus fatal to the liberties for which the heroes of our revolution toiled and bled—thus studiously concealed until the moment when they burst upon our heads—thus issued at the very instant when a mission of atonement was professedly sent—in these orders we are to see nothing but a "retaliating order upon France"—in these orders, we must not find so much as a cause—nay not so much as a pretence, for complaint against Britain.
To my mind, Sir, in comparison with those orders, the three causes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly limits our grounds for a rupture with England, might indeed be justly denominated pretences —in comparison with them, former aggressions sink into insignificance. To argue upon the subject of our disputes with Britain, or upon the Embargo, and keep them out of sight, is like laying your finger over the unit before a series of noughts, and then arithmetically proving that they are all nothing.
It is not however in a mere omission, nor yet in the history of the Embargo, that the inaccuracies of the statement I am examining have given me the most serious concern—it is in the view taken of the questions in controversy between us and Britain. The wisdom of the Embargo is a question of great, but transient magnitude, and omission sacrifices no national right. Mr. Pickering's object was to dissuade the nation from a war with England, into which he suspected the administration was plunging us, under French compulsion. But the tendency of his pamphlet is to reconcile the nation, or at least the commercial States, to the servitude of British protection, and war with all the rest of Europe. Hence England is represented as contending for the common liberties of mankind, and our only safe-guard against the ambition and injustice of France. Hence all our sensibilities are invoked in her favour, and all our antipathies against her antagonist. Hence too all the subjects of differences between us and Britain are alleged to be on our part mere pretences , of which the right is unequivocally pronounced to be on her side . Proceeding from a Senator of the United States, specially charged as a member of the executive with the maintenance of the nation's rights, against foreign powers, and at a moment extremely critical of pending negotiation upon all the points thus delineated, this formal abandonment of the American cause, this summons of unconditional surrender to the pretensions of our antagonist, is in my mind highly alarming. It becomes therefore a duty to which every other consideration must yield, to point out the errors of this representation. Before we strike the standard of the nation, let us at least examine the purport of the summons.
And first, with respect to the impressment of our seamen. We are told that "the taking of British seamen found on board our merchant vessels, by British ships of war, is agreeably to a right, claimed and exercised for ages." It is obvious that this claim and exercise of ages, could not apply to us, as an independent people. If the right was claimed and exercised while our vessels were navigating under the British flag, it could not authorize the same claim when their owners have become the citizens of a sovereign state. As a relic of colonial servitude, whatever may be the claim of Great Britain, it surely can be no ground for contending that it is entitled to our submission.
If it be meant that the right has been claimed and exercised for ages over the merchant vessels of other nations, I apprehend it is a mistake.—The case never occurred with sufficient frequency to constitute even a practice, much less a right. If it had been either, it would have been noticed by some of the writers on the laws of nations. The truth is, the question arose out of American Independence—from the severance of one nation into two. It was never made a question between any other nations. There is therefore no right of prescription.
But, it seems, it has also been claimed and exercised, during the whole of the three administrations of our national government. And is it meant to be asserted that this claim and exercise constitute a right? If it is, I appeal to the uniform, unceasing and urgent remonstrances of the three administrations—I appeal not only to the warm feelings, but cool justice of the American people—nay, I appeal to the sound sense and honorable sentiment of the British nation itself, which, however it may have submitted at home to this practice, never would tolerate its fancied by law, against the assertion. If it is not, how can it be affirmed that it is on our part a mere pretence?
But the first merchant of the United States, in answer to Mr. Pickering's late enquiries has informed him that since the affair of the Chesapeake there has been no case of complaint—that he could not find a single instance, where they had taken one man out of a merchant vessel. Who is it, that enjoys the dignity of first merchant of the United States we are not informed. But if he had applied to many merchants in Boston as respectable as any in the United States, they could have told him of a valuable vessel and cargo, totally lost upon the coast of England, late in August last, and solely in consequence of having had two of her men, native Americans taken from her by impressment, two months after the affair of the Chesapeake.
On the 15th of October, the king of England issued his proclamation, commanding his naval officers, to impress his subjects from neutral vessels. This proclamation is represented as merely "requiring the return of his subjects, the seamen especially, from foreign countries," and then "it is an acknowledged principle that every nation has a right to the service of its subjects in time of war." Is this, Sir, a correct statement either of the Proclamation, or of the question it involves in which our right is concerned? The king of England's right to the service of his subjects in time of war is nothing to us. The question is, whether he has a right to seize them forcibly on board of our vessels while under contract of service to our citizens, within our jurisdiction upon the high seas?—And whether he has a right expressly to command his naval officers to so seize them?—Is this an acknowledged principle? certainly not.—Why then is this proclamation described as founded upon an uncontroverted principle? and why is the command, so justly offensive to us, and so mischievous as it might then have been made in execution, altogether omitted?
But it is not the taking of British subjects from our vessels, it is the taking under color of that pretence, our own, native American citizens, which constitutes the most galling aggravation of this merciless practice. Yet even this, we are told is but a pretence—for three reasons.
1. Because the number of citizens thus taken, is small . 2. Because it arises only from the impossibility of distinguishing Englishmen from Americans. 3. Because, such impressed American citizens are delivered up, on duly authenticated proof. 1. Small and great in point of numbers are relative terms. To suppose that the native Americans form a small proportion of the whole number impressed, is a mistake—the reverse is the fact. Examine the official returns from the Department of State. They give the names of between four and five thousand men impressed since the commencement of the present war.—Of which number, not one fifth part were British subjects.—The number of naturalized Americans could not amount to one tenth—I hazard little in saying that more than three fourths were native Americans. If it be said that some of these men, though appearing on the face of the returns, American citizens, were really British subjects, and had fraudulently procured their protection; I reply that this number must be far exceeded by the cases of citizens impressed, which never reached the department of state. The American Consul in London estimates the number of impressments during the war, at nearly three times the amount of the names returned. If the nature of the offence be considered in its true colors, to a people having a just sense of personal liberty and security, it is in eyes?

single instance, of a malignity not inferior to that of murder. The very same act, when committed by the recruiting officer of one nation within the territories of another, is by the universal law and usage of nations punished with death. Suppose the crime had in every instance, as by its consequences it has been in many, deliberate murder. Would it answer or silence the voice of our complaints to be told that the number was small?
2. The impossibility of distinguishing English from American seamen is not the only, nor even the most frequent occasion of impressment. Look again into the returns from the Department of State—you will see that the officers take our men without pretending to enquire where they were born; sometimes merely to shew their animosity, or their contempt for our country; sometimes from the wantonness of power. When they manifest the most tender regard for the neutral rights of America, they lament that they want the men. They regret the necessity, but they must have their complement. When we complain of these enormities, we are answered that the acts of such officers were unauthorized; that the commanders of men of war, are an unruly set of men, for whose violence their own government cannot always be answerable; that enquiry shall be made—A Court Martial is sometimes mentioned—and the issue of Whitby's Court Martial has taught us what relief is to be expected from that. There are even examples I am told, when such officers have been put upon the yellow list. But this is a rare exception—The ordinary issue when the act is disavowed, is the promotion of the actor.
3. The impressed native American citizens however, upon duly authenticated proof are delivered up. Indeed! how unreasonable they were complaint! how effectual a remedy for the wrong! An American vessel, bound to a European port, has two, three or four native Americans impressed by a British Man of War, bound to the East or West Indies. When the American captain arrives at his port of destination, he makes his protest, and sends it to the nearest American Minister or Consul. When he returns home, he transmits the duplicate of his protest to the Secretary of State. In process of time, the names of the impressed men, and of the ship into which they have been impressed, are received by the agent in London. He makes his demand that the men may be delivered up—The Lords of the Admiralty, after a reasonable time for enquiry and advisement, return for answer, that the ship is on a foreign station, and their Lordships can therefore take no further steps in the matter—Or, that the ship has been taken, and that the men have been received in exchange for French prisoners—Or, that the men had no protections (the impressing officers often having taken them from the men)—Or, that the men were probably British subjects. Or, that they have entered and taken the Bounty; (to which the officers know how to reduce them.) Or, that they have been married, or settled in England. In all these cases, without further ceremony, their discharge is refused. Sometimes their Lordships, in a vein of humour, inform the agent that the man has been discharged as unserviceable . Sometimes in a flatter tone, they say he was an impostor . Or, perhaps by way of consolation to his relatives and friends, they report that he has fallen in battle, against nations in amity with his country. Sometimes they coolly return that there is no such man on board the ship ; and what has become of him, the agonies of a wife and children in his native land may be left to conjecture. When all these and many other such apologies for refusal fail, the native American seaman is discharged—and when by the charitable aid of his Government he has found his way home, he comes to be informed, that all is as it should be—that the number of his fellow sufferers is small —that it was impossible to distinguish him from an Englishman—and that he was delivered up, on duly authenticated proof .
Enough, of this disgusting subject—I cannot stop to calculate how many of these wretched victims are natives of Massachusetts, and how many natives of Virginia—I cannot stop to solve that knotty question of national jurisdiction whether some of them might not possibly be slaves, and therefore not citizens of the United States—I cannot stop to account for the wonder, why, poor, and ignorant and friendless as most of them are, the voice of their complaints is so seldom heard in the great navigating states—I admit that we have endured this cruel indignity, through all the administrations of the General Government—I acknowledge that Britain claims the right of seizing her subjects in our merchant vessels, and that even if we could acknowledge it, the line of discrimination would be difficult to draw. We are not in a condition to maintain this right, by War, and as the British Government have been more than once on the point of giving it up of their own accord, I would fain hope for the day when returning justice shall induce them to abandon it, without compulsion. Her subjects we do not want. The degree of protection which we are bound to extend to them, cannot equal the claim of our own citizens. I would subscribe to any compromise of this contest, consistent with the rights of sovereignty, the duties of humanity, and the principles of reciprocity; but to the right of forcing even her own subjects out of our merchant vessels on the high seas, I can never assent.
The second point upon which Mr. Pickering defends the pretensions of Great Britain, is her denial to neutral nations of the right of prosecuting with her enemies and their colonies, any commerce from which they are excluded in time of peace. His statement of this case adopts the British doctrine, as found. The right as on the question of impressment, so on this, it surrenders at discretion—and it is equally defective in point of fact.
In the first place, the claim of Great Britain, is not to "a right of imposing on this neutral commerce, some limits and restraints"—but of interdicting it altogether, at her pleasure, of interdicting it without a moment's notice to neutrals, after solemn decisions of her courts of admiralty, and formal acknowledgements of her ministers, that it is a lawful trade—And, on such a sudden, un-notified interdict of pouncing upon all neutral commerce navigating upon the faith of her decisions and acknowledgements, and of goring with confiscation, the greediness of her cruizers—This is the right claimed by Britain—This is the power she has exercised—What Mr. Pickering calls "limits and restraints," he calls relaxations of her right.
It is but little more than two years, since this question was agitated both in England and America, with as much zeal, energy and ability, as ever was displayed upon any question of national law. The British side was supported by Sir William Scott, Mr. Ward, and the author of War in Disguise. But even in Britain their doctrine was refused to demonstration by the Edinburgh reviewers. In America, the rights of our country were maintained by numerous writers profoundly skilled in the science of national and maritime law. The Answer to War in Disguise was ascribed to a Gentleman whose talents are universally acknowledged, and who by his official situations
had been required thoroughly to investigate every question of conflict between neutral and belligerent rights which has occurred in the history of modern War. Mr. Gore and Mr. Pinckney, our two commissioners at London, under Mr. Jay's Treaty, the former, in a train of cool and conclusive argument addressed to Mr. Madison, the latter in a memorial of splendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore, supported the same cause; memorials, drawn by lawyers of distinguished eminence, by Merchants of the highest character, and by statesmen of long experience in our national councils came from Salem, from Boston, from New-Haven, from New-York and from Philadelphia, together with remonstrances to the same effect from Newburyport, Newport, Norfolk and Charleston. This accumulated mass of legal learning, of commercial information and of national sentiment from almost every inhabited spot upon our shores, and from one extremity of the union to the other, confirmed by the unanswerable and unanswerable memorial of Mr. Monroe to the British minister, and by the elaborate research and irresistible reasoning of the examination of the British doctrine, was also made a subject of full, and deliberate discussion in the Senate of the United States. A committee of seven members of that body, after three weeks of arduous investigation, reported three Resolutions, the first of which was in these words: "Resolved that the capture and condemnation, under the orders of the British government, and adjudications of their courts of admiralty of American vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, is an unprovoked aggression upon the property of the citizens of these United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroachment upon their national Independence."
On the 13th of February, 1806, the question upon the adoption of this Resolution, was taken in the Senate. The yeas and nays were required; but not a solitary nay was heard in answer. It was adopted by the unanimous voice of all the Senators present. They were twenty-eight in number, and among them stands recorded the name of Mr. Pickering.
Let us remember that this was a question most peculiarly and immediately of commercial , and not agricultural interest; that it arose from a call, loud, energetic and unanimous, from all the merchants of the United States upon Congress, for the national interposition; that many of the memorials invoked all the energy of the Legislature, and pledged the lives and properties of the memorials in support of any measures which Congress might deem necessary to vindicate those rights. Negotiation was particularly recommended from Boston, and elsewhere—negotiation was adopted—negotiation has failed—and now Mr. Pickering tells us that Great Britain has claimed and maintained her right! He argues that her claim is just—and is not sparing of censure upon those who still consider it as a serious cause of complaint.
But there was one point of view in which the British doctrine on this question was then only considered incidentally in the United States—because it was not deemed material for the discussion of our rights. We examined it chiefly as affecting the principles as between a belligerent and a neutral power. But in fact it was an infringement of the rights of War, as well as the rights of Peace. It was an unjustifiable enlargement of the sphere of hostile operations. The enemies of Great Britain had by the universal Law of Nations a right to the benefits of neutral Commerce within their dominions (subject to the exceptions of actual blockade and contraband) as well as neutral nations had a right to trade with them. The exclusion from that commerce by this new principle of warfare which Britain, in defiance of all immemorial national usages, undertook by her single authority to establish, but too naturally led her enemies to resort to new and extraordinary principles, by which in their turn they might retaliate this injury upon her. The pretence upon which Britain in the first instance had attempted to colour her injustice, was a miserable fiction—it was an argument against fact. Her reasoning was, that a neutral vessel by mere admission in time of war, into Ports from which it would have been excluded in time of peace, became thereby deprived of its national character, and ipso facto was transformed into enemy's property.
Such was the basis upon which arose the far famed rule of the war of 1756—Such was the foundation upon which Britain claimed and maintained this supposed right of adding that new instrument of desolation to the horrors of war—It was distressing to her enemy—yes! Had she adopted the practice of dealing with them in poison—Had Mr. Fox accepted the services of the man who offered to rid him of the French Emperor by assassination, and had the attempt succeeded, it would have been less distressing to France than this rule of the war of 1756; and not more unjustifiable. Mr. Fox, had too fair a mind for either, but his comprehensive and liberal spirit was discarded, with the Cabinet which he had formed.
It has been the struggle of reason and humanity, and above all of Christianity for two thousand years to mitigate the rigors of that scourge of human kind, war. It is now the struggle of Britain to aggravate them. Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself and in its effects was one of the deadliest poisons, in which it was possible for her to tinge the weapons of her hostility.
In itself and in its effects, I say—For the French decrees of Berlin and Milan, the Spanish and Dutch decrees of the same or the like tenor, and her own orders of January & November—these alterations of licenced piracy, this eager competition between her and her enemies for the honor of giving the last stroke to the vitals of maritime neutrality, all are justly attributable to her assumption and exercise of this single principle. The rule of the War of 1756 was the root, from which all the rest are but suckers, fill at every shoot growing ranker in luxuriance. In the last decrees of France and Spain, her own ingenious fiction is adopted; and under them, every neutral vessel that submits to English search, has been carried into an English port, or paid a tax to the English Government is declared denationalized , that is to have lost her national character, and to have become English property. This is cruel in execution; absurd in argument. To refute it were folly, for to the understanding of a child it refutes itself. But it is the reasoning of British jurists. It is the simple application to the circumstances and powers of France, of the rule of the war of 1756.
I am not the apologist of France and Spain; I have no national partialities; no national attachments but to my own country. I shall never undertake to justify or palliate the insults or injuries of any foreign power to that country which is dearer to me than life. If the voice of Reason and of Justice could be heard by France and Spain, they would say—you have done wrong to make the injustice of your enemy towards neutrals the measure of your own. If she chastises with whips, do not you chastise with scorpions—Whether France would listen to this language, I know not. The most enormous infractions of our rights hitherto committed by her, have been more in menace than in accomplishment. The alarm has been justly great; but the anticipation threatening; but the amount of actual injury small. But to Britain, what can we say? If we attempt to raise our voices, her Minister has declared to Mr. Pinckney that she will not hear. The only reason she assigns for her recent orders of Council is, that France proceeds on the same principles. It is not by the light of blazing temples, and amid the groans of women and children perishing in the ruins of the sanctuaries of domestic habitation at Copenhagen, that we can expect our remonstrances against this course of proceeding will be heard.
Let us come to the third and last of the causes of complaint, which are represented as so frivolous and so unfounded—the unfortunate affair of the Chesapeake. The orders of Admiral Berkeley, under which this outrage was committed, have been disavowed by his Government. General professions of a willingness to make reparation for it, have been lavished in profusion; and we are now instructed to take these professions for endurances ; to believe them sincere, because his Britannic Majesty sent us a special envoy; and to call the odium of defeating these endeavours upon our own government. I have already told you, that I am not one of those who deem suspicion and distrust, in the highest order of political virtues. Baseless suspicion is, in my estimation, a vice, as pernicious in the management of public affairs,
as it is fatal to the happiness of domestic life. When, therefore, the British Ministers have declared their disposition to make ample reparation for an injury of a most atrocious character, committed by an officer of high rank, and, as they say, utterly without authority, I should most readily believe them, were their professions not positively contradicted by facts of more powerful eloquence than words. Have such facts occurred? I will not again allude to the circumstances of Mr. Rose's departure upon his mission at such a specific point of time, that his Commission and the orders of Council of 11th November, might have been signed with the same pen of ink. The subjects were not immediately connected with each other, and his Majesty did not chuse to associate distinct topics of negotiation. The attack upon the Chesapeake was disavowed; and ample reparation was withheld only, because with the demand for satisfaction upon that injury, the American Government had coupled a demand for the cessation of others; alike in kind, but of minor aggravation. But had reparation really been intended, would it not have been offered, not in vague and general terms, but in precise and specific proposals? Were any such made? None. But it is said Mr. Monroe was restricted from negotiating upon this subject apart; and therefore Mr. Rose was to be sent to Washington; charged with this single object; and without authority to treat upon or even to discuss any other. Mr. Rose arrives—The American government readily determine to treat upon the Chesapeake affair, separately from all others; but before Mr. Rose sets his foot on shore, in pursuance of a pretension made before by Mr. Canning, he connects with the negotiation, a subject far more distinct from the butchery of the Chesapeake, than the general impressment of our seamen, I mean the Proclamation, interdicting to British ships of war, the entrance of our harbours.
The great obstacle which has always interfered in the adjustment of our differences with Britain, has been that she would not acquiesce in the only principle upon which fair negotiation between independent nations can be conducted, the principle of reciprocity, that she refuses the application to us of the claim which she asserts for herself. The forcible taking of men from an American vessel, was an essential part of the outrage upon the Chesapeake. It was the ostensible purpose for which that act of war unprovoked, was committed. The President's Proclamation was a subsequent act, and was avowedly founded upon many similar aggressions, of which that was only the most aggravated.
If then Britain could with any colour of reason claim that the general question of impressment should be laid out of the case altogether, she ought upon the principle of reciprocity to have laid equally out of the case, the proclamation, a measure so easily separable from it, and in its nature merely defensive. When therefore she made the repeal of the Proclamation an indispensable preliminary to all discussion upon the nature and extent of that reparation which she had offered, she refused to treat with us upon the footing of an independent power. She insisted upon an act of self-degradation on our part, before she would even tell us, what redress she would condescend to grant for a great and acknowledged wrong. This was a condition which she could not but know to be inadmissible, and of itself proof nearly conclusive that her Cabinet never intended to make for that wrong any reparation at all.
But this is not all—it cannot be forgotten that when that atrocious deed was committed, amidst the general burst of indignation which resounded from every part of the Union, there were among us a small number of persons, who upon the opinion that Berkeley's orders were authorized by his government, undertook to justify them in their full extent—These ideas probably first propagated by British official characters, in this country, were persisted in until the disavowal of the British Government took away the necessity for persevering in them, and gave notice where the next position was to be taken. This patriotic reasoning however had been so satisfactory at Halifax, that complimentary letters were received from Admiral Berkeley himself highly approving the spirit in which they were inculcated, and remarking how easily Peace, between the United States and Britain might be preserved, if that measure of our national rights could be made the prevailing standard of the country.
When the news arrived in England, although the general sentiment of the nation was not prepared for the former avowal and justification of this unparalleled aggression, yet there were not wanting persons there, ready to claim and maintain the right of searching national ships for deserters—it was said at the time, but for this we must of course rest upon the credit of inoffensive authority, to have been made a serious question in the Cabinet Council; nor was its determination there ascribed to the eloquence of the gentleman who became the official organ of its communication—Add to this a circumstance, which without claiming the irrefragable credence of diplomatic note, has yet its weight upon the common sense of mankind; that in all the daily newspapers known to be in the ministerial interest, Berkeley was justified and applauded in every variety of form that publication could assume, excepting only that of official Proclamation. The only part of his orders there disapproved was the reciprocal offer which he made of submitting his own ships to be searched in return—that was very unequivocally disclaimed—The Russian right of superior force, was the solid basis upon which the claim was asserted, and so familiar was this argument grown to the causers of British national Jurisprudence, that the right of a British man of war to search an American frigate, was to them a self-evident proof against the right of the American frigate to search the British man of war. The same tone has been constantly kept up, until our accounts of late date; and have been recently further investigated by a very explicit call for war with the United States, which they contend could be of no possible injury to Britain, and which they urge upon the ministry as affording them an excellent opportunity to accomplish a dismemberment of this Union —These sentiments have even been avowed in Parliament, where the nobleman who moved the address of the house of Lords in answer to the king's speech, declared that the right of searching national ships, ought to be maintained against the Americans, and disclaimed only with respect to European sovereigns.
In the mean time Admiral Berkeley, by a court martial of his own subordinate officers, hung one of the men taken from the Chesapeake, and called his name Jenkin Ratford—There was, according to the answer so frequently given, by the Lords of the Admiralty, upon applications for the discharge of impressed Americans, no such man on board the ship . The man thus executed had been taken from the Chesapeake by the name of Wilson. It is said that on his trial he was identified by one or two witnesses who knew him, and that before he was turned off he confessed his name to be Ratford and that he was born in England—but it has also been said that Ratford is now living in Pennsylvania—and after the character which the disavowal of Admiral Berkeley's own government has given to his conduct, what confidence can be claimed or due to the proceedings of a court martial of his associates held to sanction his proceedings. The three other men had not even been demanded in his orders; they were taken by the sole authority of the British frigate lieutenant, after the surrender of the Chesapeake. There was not the shadow of a pretence before the court martial that they were British subjects, or born in any of the British dominions. Yet by this court martial they were sentenced to suffer death . They were reprieved from execution, only upon condition of renouncing their rights as Americans by voluntary service in the king's ships—they have never been restored. To complete the catastrophe with which this bloody tragedy was concluded, Admiral Berkeley himself in sanctioning the doom of these men—thus obtained—thus tried—and thus sentenced, read them a grave moral lecture on the enormity of their crime, in its tendency to provoke a war between the United States and Great Britain.
Yet amidst all this parade of disavowal by his government—amidst all these professions of readiness to make reparation, not a single mark of the slightest disapprobation appears ever to have been manifested to that officer. His instructions were executed upon the Chesapeake in June—Rumours of his recall have been circulated here—But on leaving the station at Halifax in December, he re-
ceived a complimentary address from the colonial assembly, and assured them in answer, that he had no official information of his recall. From thence he went to the West-Indies; and on leaving Bermuda for England in February, was addressed again by that colonial government, in terms of high panegyric upon his energy, with manifest allusion to his achievement upon the Chesapeake.
Under all these circumstances, without applying any of the maxims of a suspicious policy to the British professions, I may still be permitted to believe that their ministry never seriously intended to make us honorable reparation, or indeed any reparation at all for that "unfortunate affair."
It is impossible for any man to form an accurate idea of the British policy towards the United States, without taking into consideration the state of parties in that government; and the views, characters and opinions of the individuals at their helm of State—a liberal and a hostile policy towards America, are among the strongest marks of distinction between the political systems of the rival statesmen of that kingdom—The liberal party are reconciled to our Independence; and though extremely tenacious of every right of their own country, are systematically disposed to preserve peace with the United States. Their opponents harbour sentiments of a very different description—Their system is coercion—Their object the recovery of their lost dominion in North America—This party now stands high in power—Although Admiral Berkeley may never have received written orders from them for his enterprise upon the Chesapeake, yet in giving his instructions to the Squadron at Norfolk, he knew full well under what administration he was acting. Every measure of that administration towards us since that time has been directed to the same purpose—to break down the spirit of our national Independence. Their purpose, as far as it can be collected from their acts, is to force us into war with them or with their enemies; to leave us only the bitter alternative of their vengeance or their protection.
Both these parties are no doubt willing, that we should join them in the war of their nation against France and her allies—The late administration would have drawn us into it by treaty, the present are attempting it by compulsion. The former would have admitted us as allies, the latter will have us no otherwise than as colonists.—On the late debates in Parliament, the lord chancellor freely avowed that the orders of Council of 11th November, were intended to make America at least tributary of the policy of joining England against France.
This too, Sir, is the substantial argument of Mr. Pickering's letter—The suspicion of a design in our own administration to plunge us into a war with Britain, I never have shared. Our administration have every interest and every motive that can influence the conduct of man to deter them from any such purpose. Nor have I any thing in their measures bearing the slightest indication of it. But between a design of war with England, and a surrender of our national freedom for the sake of war with the rest of Europe, there is a material difference. This is the policy now in substance recommended to us, and for which the interposition of the commercial States is called. For this, not only are all our outrages of Britain to be forgotten, but the very assertion of our rights is to be branded with odium.— Impressment—Neutral trade—British taxation —Every thing that can distinguish a state of national freedom from a state of national vassalage, is to be surrendered at discretion . In the face of every fact we are told to believe every profession—in the midst of every indignity, we are pointed to British protection as our only shield against the universal conqueror. Every phantom of jealousy and fear is evoked—The image of France with a scourge in her hand is impressed into the service, to lash us into the refuge of obedience to Britain—insinuations are even made that if Britain, "with her thousand ships of war," has not destroyed our commerce, it has been owing to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened in her name with the "destruction of our fairest cities."
Not one act of hostility to Britain has been committed by us, she has not a pretence of that kind to alledge—But if she will wage war upon us, are we to do nothing in our own defence? If the issues orders of universal plunder upon our commerce, are we not to withhold it from her grasp? Is American piracy one of those rights which she has claimed and exercised until we are foreclosed from any attempt to obstruct its collection? For what purpose are we required to make this sacrifice of every thing that can give value to the name of freemen, this abandonment of the very right of self-preservation? Is it to avoid a war? Alas! Sir, it does not offer even this plausible plea for pusillanimity—For, as submission would make us to all substantial purposes British colonies, her enemies would unquestionably treat us as such, and after degrading ourselves into voluntary servitude to escape a war with her, we should incur inevitable war with all her enemies, and be doomed to share the destinies of her conflict with a world in arms.
Between this unqualified submission, and offensive resistance against the war upon maritime neutrality waged by the concurring decrees of all the great belligerent powers, the Embargo was adopted, and has been hitherto continued. So far was it from being dictated by France, that it was calculated to withdraw, and has withdrawn from within her reach all the means of compulsion which her subsequent decrees would have put in her possession. It has added to the motives both of France and England for preserving peace with us, and has diminished their inducements to war.
It has lessened their capacities of inflicting injury upon us, and given us some preparation for resistance to them—It has taken from their violence the lure of interest—It has dashed the philter of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it is distressing to ourselves—that it calls for the fortitude of a people, determined to maintain their rights, is not to be denied. But the only alternative was between that and war. Whether it will yet save us from that calamity, cannot be determined, but if not, it will prepare us for the further struggle to which we may be called. Its double tendency of promoting peace and preparing for war, in its operation upon both the belligerent rivals, is the great advantage, which more than outweigh all its evils.
If any statesman can point out another alternative, I am ready to hear him, and for any practicable expedient to lend him every possible assistance. But let not that expedient be, submission to trade under British licences, and British taxation. We are told that even under these restrictions we may yet trade to the British dominions, to Africa and China, and with the colonies of France, Spain and Holland. I ask not how much of this trade would be left, when our intercourse with the whole continent of Europe being cut off would leave us no means of purchase, and no market for sale? I ask not what trade we could enjoy with the colonies of nations with which we should be at war? I ask not how long Britain would leave open to us avenues of trade, which even in these very orders of Council, the boasts of leaving open as a special indulgence? If we yield the principle, we abandon all pretence to national sovereignty. To yearn for the fragments of trade which might be left, would be to pine for the crumbs of commercial servitude. The boon, which we should humiliate ourselves to accept from British bounty, would soon be withdrawn. Submission never yet sat boundaries to encroachment. From pleading for half the empire, we should sink into supplicants for life—We should supplicate in vain. If we must fall, let us fall, FREEMEN—If we must perish, let it be in defence of our RIGHTS.
To conclude, Sir, I am not sensible of any necessity for the extraordinary interference of the commercial States to contravene the general Councils of the nation—If any interference could at this critical extremity of our affairs have a kindly effect upon our common welfare, it would be an interference to promote union, and not division—to urge mutual confidence, and not universal distrust—to strengthen the arm, and not to relax the sinews of the nation. Our suffering and our dangers, though differing perhaps in degree, are universal in extent. As their causes are justly chargeable, so their removal is dependent not upon ourselves, but upon others. But while the spirit of Independence shall continue to beat in unison with the pulses of the nation, no danger will be truly formidable. Our duties are, to prepare with concerted energy, for that which threaten us, to meet them without dismay, and to rely for their issue upon Heaven.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

LATEST FROM EUROPE.
By an arrival at Boston from Liverpool, regular files of London papers to the 13th March, have been received.
In the debates of the British Parliament, we find the relations between the United States and Great Britain were made the theme of interesting and repeated discussion. The immediate cause of these discussions was the passage of the renewed American Inter-course Bill, and a bill to enforce the execution of the late orders of Council.
An offensive and defensive alliance was contemplated between the Emperors of France, Russia and Austria. No doubts seem to be admitted of their full concurrence in the present measures of Europe, as at Vienna the Swedish envoy was preparing to take leave in consequence of the new arrangements of the North. What the movements of the Russians have been we are not particularly told, but the general statement is that they have advanced upon the territory of the Swedes in Finland, and that Gen. Von Klingspoor was to command the Swedish army. The English have granted immense subsidies to Sweden, and an expedition was preparing in England for that country. As the Swedish troops sent to Finland had left Sweden much exposed, appearances were kept up in Denmark of an intended invasion of Sweden by the French and Danes, at the same time that it was reported that the Swedes would profit by their situation and would attack the Danish dominions in Norway. It is evident that in the North preparations are made for a serious war, and the French continue to hold full possession of the southern coasts of the Baltic so as to command all favorable operations in that quarter. [Register.]
The English still rule as sovereigns of the sea. They have their military and naval establishment at half a million of men. They are able to prevent commerce into whatever seas they pass, and they can effectually prevent what they are not allowed to share. The commerce of the Turkish Archipelago is entirely prevented. The English have been able to hold a Russian fleet shut up in Trieste. The warfare then is of commerce, by interrupting by land as well as sea. The French hold their decrees, and the British their orders. Some relaxations favorable to neutral powers have been reported, but they rest upon no public liberty, if they have indeed happened. The British Orders have at length obtained the authority of Parliament. The question on the bill to carry into execution the orders of Council, was in favor at the third reading, by 163 to 63. The bill in the upper house will experience a great but unsuccessful opposition. But the sense of the nation is not in the spirit of these orders. A petition for peace from Manchester, it was expected on good grounds would have 50,000 subscribers. The Liverpool petition represents that last year, in the American trade of that port, 128,000 tons of shipping were employed. [Ibid.]
The latest information from France states, that Bonaparte was on the eve of leaving Paris, to head an army of 200,000 men for the purpose of penetrating Africa. It is said to be his purpose totally to subvert the government of Algiers and the other Barbary States. If this information be correct we presume one of his leading views is to possess himself of the immense treasures which have been there hoarded up for centuries, which has been long since estimated at a hundred millions of dollars. [Nat. Intell.]
FROM HALIFAX.
Friday last arrived in Boston harbor, the British sloop of war Emulous, of 18 guns, Capt. Stupart, in three days from Halifax, with dispatches.
By a gentleman who came passenger in the Emulous, we learn, that Sir George Prevost had arrived at Halifax and taken upon himself the civil and military government of Nova-Scotia. That three regiments, of 1000 men each, (the 7th, 8th, and 23d, Welch Fusiliers) arrived with Sir George; the 13th regt. which left England in company, had proceeded to Bermuda. That there had been several recent arrivals at Halifax, from England, bringing London dates to the 19th March, six days later than before received. That by those papers it appeared, that Bonaparte having drawn immense bodies of troops into Spain had suddenly seized upon the arsenals and fortified towns. That the commandant at Pampeluna (a frontier town of Spain) attempted to resist the entrance of 6000 French troops, but the city was immediately taken possession of by force. That Bonaparte was expected to be in Madrid, in 12 or 14 days, when it was supposed he would put a period to the last remaining branch of the Bourbon family; and place some member of the new dynasty on the Spanish throne. That the French troops had taken possession of the cities of the Church; and that an Ambassador from the Ottoman Porte, for Paris, laden with presents, had been ordered back by Bonaparte; supposed to have been in consequence of the conclusion of a Partition Treaty between France, Russia and Austria, for the division of the Turkish Empire. That Russian troops had entered Swedish Finland; and that a French and Danish force was collecting in Holstein to attack Sweden from that quarter; that a large force was preparing in England for the relief of Sweden; but that it was doubted whether the Baltic would be sufficiently clear of ice, in time, to render the assistance effectual; and that the King of Sweden had sued for peace. [Cont.]
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Liverpool, dated March 12, 1808, to his brother in Boston.
"The Orders of Council touch the very life strings of the commercial interest. Meetings of the merchants are very frequent, both here and in London. The manufacturing interest in the interior, to the number of upwards of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND, have petitioned the King for Peace. The debates in Parliament are the most lengthy and animated on the side of the opposition, ever known; and if the American Government continues the Embargo until midsummer, it is the general opinion a relaxation of British commercial restrictions must take place. The voice of the people grows louder and louder every day."
National Legislature.
TENTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
The following are the Yeas and Nays on the following resolution in the case of John Smith.
Resolved That John Smith, a Senator from the state of Ohio, by his participation in the conspiracy of Aaron Burr against the peace, union, and liberties of the people of the United States, has been guilty of conduct incompatible with his duty and station as a Senator of the United States, and that he therefore, and hereby is expelled from the Senate of the United States.
YEAS—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Conditt, Crawford, Franklin, Gailard, Gilman, Gregg, Kitchel, Maclay, Mathewson, Middleidge, Moore, Robinson, Smith of Md. Smith of Tenn., Sumner, Tiffin, Turner.—19.
NAYS—Messrs. Giles, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Howland, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith of N. Y., Thruston, White.—10.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13.
THE EMBARGO.
The resolution to empower the President to take off the Embargo, was under consideration. Messrs. Masters, Love and Key were against the Embargo. Messrs. Fisk and Sloan appeared to be in its favor.
THURSDAY, APRIL 14.
The house resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on Mr. G. W. Campbell's Embargo motion.
At 5 o'clock, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. But Mr. Randolph moved a modification of Mr. Campbell's motion.
FRIDAY, APRIL 15.
Death of Mr. Crowninshield.—Mr. Bacon announced the death of his colleague, the Hon. JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, a delegate from Massachusetts. The House resolved to appoint a committee to superintend the funeral; to wear crape for one month; to attend the funeral to-morrow, and to notify the Senate.
Extract from a letter of an American gentleman in London, to the Editors of the Boston Chronicle, dated March 12, 1808.
"The Bill to carry into effect the orders of Council, of the 1st of November last, had its third reading last night, in the House of Commons. The debate continued until past six o'clock this morning! It is to be debated in the House of Lords, where it will receive great opposition. However, the ministry will finally carry their point, as they have a majority in both Houses. Those orders are put in force, in order to distress the enemy; but in the end it will hurt the trade of this country the most; as most of the great manufacturing towns have petitioned Parliament against their being put in force; and the day before yesterday the merchants trading to America had a meeting at the London Tavern, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament against the orders. The petition was presented to-day."
"I love my country; and let me beg that you will use all your influence to satisfy the people that the continuation of the Embargo will save the liberties of America; and that the orders of Council will be repealed if that remains on. This letter goes direct for Liverpool. I have not time to say more."
We understand, that letters from Washington state, that both the English and French ministers have given to our government strong assurances that they will each make representations to their courts in favor of a repeal or a relaxation of the respective maritime decrees, which have operated so injuriously on the American commerce. We cannot state upon what authority this interesting information is founded. —Phila. paper.
[Continel.]
From Washington City, April 13.
Mr. Hillhouse, from Connecticut, yesterday laid before the Senate sundry propositions of amendment to the constitution of the United States, materially altering the organization of the Executive and Legislative departments, by which the Representatives are to be elected annually, the Senators triennially, and the President to be every three years taken from the Senators by lot.
When amendments to the Constitution have been heretofore proposed by the republicans, federalists have affected to consider them as so many vital flaws to that instrument. We shall see whether the extravagant proposal of their leader Hillhouse will be so considered. [Democrat.]
To shew the inexpediency of Hillhouse's motion, it is sufficient to imagine it carried, and to go into operation immediately. We might have a Pickering, or a John Smith in the Presidential chair! For heaven's sake let the curtain be drawn over the imaginary scene! A friend to his country cannot look on it with patience! [Ibid.]
It is said Smith has been honorably acquitted, as but 19 out of 29 voted against him! The Baltimore Post says, from such honor may the good men of our country be preserved!
A paragraph in the Aurora says, that the English promise every thing "on condition that we follow the path of the king of Naples and Prussia, and the Emperors of Austria and Russia, and if we refuse—COPENHAGEN!"
The Hon. Aaron Hill, of Cambridge, (Mass.) is appointed Post Master in Boston, in the room of JONATHAN HASTINGS, Esq. removed.
Smuggling, it is said, is extensively carried on near the British lines. We are informed that the Collector of Moose Island lately seized a British sloop, with a cargo of American flour.
MR. ADAMS' LETTER.
This learned and patriotic production, inserted in this day's Gazette, should be read with particular attention by every friend to the honor and welfare of the American Republic.
The papers of the Opposition abound with remarks on Mr. Adams' letter. It is much against them, that one who has wished to conceive well of their purposes, has been obliged to expose their glaring misrepresentations. The talents of this gentleman are equal to a host of his enemies, and though they offer any thing deferring of notice, they will be sure of a just and sufficient reply. What we have seen already, promises little against the force of his invaluable letter. Excepting a few comparisons, and a few quibbles to confound the uninformed, we have seen nothing entitled to the least notice. [Register.]
THE EMBARGO.
Becomes every day more and more popular. The hue and cry, the senseless clamor, raised against it by the agents of faction, and intended to have a premature effect upon unreflecting citizens, is now subsiding. The tone of the public mind remains unaltered. The people are now convinced, that this measure was dictated by necessity—and will be repealed, whenever the interest and the honor of the nation will allow.
Yet—while the general voice speaks loudly in its favor, it is disgusting and even distressing to see a considerable body of our fellow citizens still bound in the chain of prejudice—still riveted with the ties of foreign attachment.
It is idle to talk to the winds—and it seems nearly as idle to preach to those who now remain deaf to reason. The letter of Mr. Adams is a last address to the faithless and unbelieving. If they hearken not to that, nothing short of a miracle can convince them. They must be left in the thick shades of passion that cover them, till some more powerful influence than present circumstances can afford, shall break the darkness. [National Regis.]
The lecture which was to have been attended this evening at the South Meeting-house, is postponed on account of the indisposition of the gentleman who was to have officiated.
.....DIED.....
At Washington, on the 15th inst after a long and distressing sickness, the Hon. JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, Esq. aged 38, Member of Congress from this District.
In the death of this worthy man, the community at large have reason to lament the loss of a most valuable member of society, deservedly honored for his correct opinions, his sound judgement, his firm integrity, his faithful services, and his great and increasing usefulness. [Sentinel paper.]
At Charlestown, Mass. Capt. Thomas Oliver Larkin, aged 38.
At Newcave, George Frost, Esq. aged 57. In this town, Mrs. Tamson Mudge, aged 67.
Portsmouth Female Asylum.
THE members of the Portsmouth Female Asylum are hereby notified, that their annual meeting for the choice of Managers, will be held at the Asylum in Pleasant Street, on the first Monday of May next at 3 o'clock P.M.; at which time and place a general and punctilious attendance is requested. April 25.
THEFT.
THE person who last Sabbath took the Thermometer from C. PEASE's door, is requested to return it, unless they wish to see their name published at large in every newspaper in town. They were seen from a neighboring window to cut the string, and take the Thermometer down, and carry it away at mid day. April 26.
The subscriber informs the public,
that he has lately opened a TAVERN in this town near the Bell Tavern in the House lately occupied by Mr. BENJAMIN HILL, and like wife for BOARDING—He flatters himself that such attention will be paid as will be acceptable to his customers. GILMAN FOLSOM. Portsmouth, April 16, 1808.
NOTICE is hereby given that the subscribers have been duly appointed Executors of the last Will and Testament of
ICHABOD WEEKS,
late of Greenland in the county of Rockingham, physician, deceased, and have taken upon them that trust by giving bonds as the law directs—All persons having demands upon the estate of said deceased are requested to exhibit them; and all persons indebted to said estate are called upon to make payment to
BRACKETT WEEKS, } Executors. and STEPHEN M. WELLS. Greenland, April 20, 1808.
State of New Hampshire, Grafton ss.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of land in the town of ORANGE, who have not paid their county, town, school, and highway taxes for the year 1807; that so much of their lands as will pay said taxes, and incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue, to the highest bidder, on Tuesday the 19th day of July next, at my dwelling-house in said Orange, at ten o'clock, in the forenoon, unless prevented by previous payment to me the subscriber.
   Grantees Names. Number. Acres. Town tax. School tax. Highway tax.     Daniel Knappe Esq. undivided 0 32 0 6 20   Daniel Folsom undivided 32 0 6 2 45   Rev. Abner Leonard 1st division 100 2 0 6 24   Forney Folsom 1st divn 100 2 0 6 24   Gore Land taken off from Hebron. 30   Samuel Emerson 11 1 50 8 25   Do. 12 1 50 8 25   Do. 13 1 50 7 21   Do. 14 1 50 7 21   Samuel Emerson 15 1 50 8 25   Elnathan Blood Jr. 13 2 50 8 25   Elnathan Blood 14 2 50 8 25   Abner Keyes 15 2 50 8 25   Gerrhon Hobart 8 3 50 8 25   Gerrhon Hobart 9 3 50 8 25   LEVI MERRILL, Collector.   Orange, April 19, 1808.  
Garden Seeds
Warranted of the last year's growth, and best quality—just received and for sale at THOMAS & TAPPAN'S Bookstore. Portsmouth, April 26.
NOTICE.
Benjamin Floyd,
INFORMS his friends and the public that he still carries on the BOOK-BINDING Business in all its various branches, at his Bindery over Mr. Nathan B Folsom's opposite the Court-house, Congress street.
Account and Record Books of all sizes, ruled and bound to any pattern; all kinds of Binding in morocco or calf, gilt or plain. He would recommend to all persons who have old Books in their Houses (as there must be great numbers in this town, sufficient to employ the subscriber considerable time) to collect, and send them to the above Bindery, to be made new, for one third the cost of new ones.—There is an opportunity now offers to encourage a Mechanic, these hard times, as every little helps.
He flatters himself that his work will be done equal to any in Boston or other places, and the small size favours the thanks acknowledged. Portsmouth, April 26, 1808.
FOR SALE BY
Jos. & Benjn Swett, In the fore opposite Messrs. N A & J Hovey's, 20 hds. Retailing SUGARS, 15 bds. ditto, 10 hds RUM. 10,000 lbs. Carolina COTTON, of superior quality. Portsmouth, April 26, 1808.
TO LET,
HALF of a convenient two story HOUSE in Washington-street; also, an apartment in Congress-street, suitable for a waiting off, or mechanic. Inquire of G. J. OSBORNE, Washington-street. April 26, 1808.
BOARD OF HEALTH.
AT a meeting of the Board of Health of the town of Portsmouth, held April 14th, the following rules and regulations were adopted, which are to take effect after twenty days from their publication, agreeably to a law of this state passed in June, 1799 (together with an additional act passed in June, 1803) entitled an act empowering the inhabitants of the town of Portsmouth to appoint Health Officers, and for preventing nuisances in said town.
As every individual must consider himself interested in the preservation of Health in the town; the Board presume the acknowledgment thereof will be discovered, by readily aiding in the execution of, and in conforming to said rules and regulations.
ART. 1. Waste water of houses yards, &c. shall be directly conveyed into a sewer, or vault.
ART. 2. No person shall be allowed to throw any dead animal, or offals of animals, or any vegetable matter into any street, alley or dock, or upon any wharf, but shall bury, or throw them into the river beyond low water mark.
ART. 3. The Board do order all sellers of fish at the Markets in this town, not to leave the offals of fish in any street, lane, alley, or any dock, or upon any wharf; but that these be thrown into the river beyond low water mark.
ART. 4. Persons vending meat at the stalls, shall not be allowed to leave any offals of animals over night.—Persons vending vegetables, in or around any of the markets, shall not be suffered to leave any refuse thereof, but shall deposit it in some place directed for nuisances generally.
ART. 5. The contents of vaults and privies too near the surface, must be removed.
ART. 6. The offals of animals must be removed from slaughter houses and the yards connected therewith, once in twenty-four hours.
The Board give notice that neglect in complying with the above rules and regulations will be prosecuted as the law directs. Portsmouth April 23, 1808.
BENJAMIN SHERBURNE, } Health Committee. JAMES H. PIERREPONT, } SAMUEL JONES, }
State of New-Hampshire.—Rockingham ss.
We the Subscribers two of the Justices of the Peace, and of the Quorum, within and for said county, do hereby approve of the foregoing rules and regulations.—Witness our hands the 15th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1808.
SAMUEL PENHALLOW, } R. CUTTS SHANNON. }
Piscataqua Missionary Society.
THE Members of the Piscataqua Missionary Society are hereby notified, that their annual meeting, agreeably to charter and act of Incorporation, will be held in Portsmouth on the first Wednesday of May next, at 10 o'clock A.M. That a Sermon will be preached in the afternoon or evening; and at the close of the exercises an opportunity will be given to contribute in aid of the pious and charitable designs of the Institution.
JOSEPH BUCKMINSTER, Secretary. April 26, 1808.
THE Subscribers being appointed by the Hon. Stephen Thacher, Judge of the Probate of Wills, &c. for the county of York, commissioners to receive, examine and adjust all the claims of the creditors to the Estate of JOEL FERNALD, late of Kittery, in said county, blacksmith, deceased, represented insolvent; do hereby give notice that six months are allowed to said creditors to bring in and prove their respective claims; and that we shall attend said service at the dwelling-house of Capt. Enoch H. Lewis, in said Kittery, on the first Mondays in May next, and the five following months, from three to five o'clock P.M. on each of said days.
WILLIAM CUTTS, } Commissioners. ELIAS MAIN. }
Kittery, April 19th, 1808.
John Connor's Estate
THE Subscriber being appointed administrator de bonis non, upon the Estate of JOHN CONNOR, late of Exeter, yeoman, deceased, requests all who have demands upon, or are indebted to said estate, to call on him, the said administrator and settle immediately. DAVID SANBORN. Exeter, April 30th, 1808.
NOTICE.
The Sale of English
GOODS, advertised to be at the Store lately occupied by W. H. Wilkin & Co. will commence on the day appointed (to-morrow) at Store No. 8. Merchant's Row, lately occupied by Mr. William Garland, April 26. S. LARKIN, Auc.
Sheriff's Sales.
TO-MORROW,
To be sold at Public Auction, at the Store lately occupied by Mr. William Garland, No. 8. Merchant's Row a large and valuable assortment of
English, India and Scotch
GOODS,
Comprising almost every article in that line—the Goods are well chosen, and are suitable to the present and approaching season—and every article will positively be sold, without the least reserve—The terms will be very liberal, and will be declared at the sale, which will commence at 10 o'clock on Wednesday the 27th inst. and be continued from day to day, till the whole are sold. TIMOTHY GERRISH Dep. Sher. S. LARKIN, Auc. Portsmouth, April 26.
ON FRIDAY NEXT.
To be sold at Public Auction, one half the dwelling House of Joshua Brewster opposite the pound in Portsmouth with the cellar under the same, and three acres of LAND adjoining—a good and never failing well of water handy to said House.—Conditions of sale to be made known by applying to PATRICK DALY, living on the premises, or on the day of sale, which will be on the 29th inst. at the said House. April 26.
On MONDAY 23d, May next,
at 12 o'clock.
(If not previously disposed of at private Sale)
Will be Sold at AUCTION—
A COMMODIOUS and roomy Dwelling House, pleasantly situated at the head of Vaughan-street, having on the first floor, a handsome dining room, parlour, two kitchens, pantry and sink room; an excellent cellar, and smoke house, and the Aqueduct in the cellar and sink room; five chambers on the second floor; in the upper story, one large chamber and three smaller ones; a Barn, handsome front yard paved, a back yard and garden, with a never failing well of excellent water, &c.—For further particulars enquire of April 26. S. LARKIN, Auc.
NOTICE is hereby given, that so much of each of the following original proprietors rights of land in the town of ORANGE in the county of Grafton, and State of New-Hampshire viz—the rights of Isaac Fellows, Rollwell Morgan, Daniel Foster Rev. Abiel Leonard, Ebenezer Craft, George Hodges, Andrew Spalding, Oliver Spalding, Daniel Warner Esq. and Daniel Rudge, Esq.—will be exposed for sale at public vendue at my dwelling house in said Orange on the 19th day of July next, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, as will raise the sum of two dollars on each of said rights with all legal costs; and also on the following right, one dollar and fifty cents viz Rev. Abiel Leonard—unless said sale is prevented by previous payment for collection of two proprietary taxes voted at legal meetings of said proprietors on the 19th day of September A.D. 1804, and on the 12th day of August, 1807; said taxes were each of them duly assessed and committed to me to collect, and I have advertised for payment for each of them, as the law directs. THOMAS WOOD Proprietors Collector. Orange, March 16, 1808.
List of LETTERS remaining in the Post Office Portsmouth (N H) April 9th, 1808.
 B. Richard H. Burnham; Jacob Barney; John Baker; William Brown; Samuel Beckett; James Brown.  C. William Call; Hepzibah Cobb.  D. Simon Dearborn, North-Hampton; Samuel Davenport; Nathan Dow, jun'r; Joseph Dearborn, North-Hampton; Jonathan Downing.  E. Daniel Eaton.  F. Mark Fernald; James Folsom.  G. Isaac Gage; Asa Grosvenor; William Gray; Charles Groves.  H. Samuel Hooper; Mary Hooper; Cyrus Hix; William Harper.  I & J. Jacob Johnson, Newington; Richard Jennells, Rye; Tho's Johnson; John Jordan.  K. Abel Keyes.  L. Samuel Libbey, Rye; Samuel Lane; Joseph Lerebly.  M. Aaron Man; Wm W. Messer; Nancy Molineaux; John Moles; Wm. Marshall.  N. N. Mason Norton, Northwood; John Nelson, Greenland; Job Norton, jun'r; Nath'l B. Neal, North-Hampton.  O. Lucy T. Odiorne.  P. James Partridge; William Pease; John Pitman, jun'r; William P. Pickering; John Peak.  R. James Rollins; James Robinson; Dolley Rollings.  S. Thomas A. Stacy; Henry Southwick; William Smith; Edward Staples.  T. Joseph Tetherby; William Tedderan; John Tracy, jun'r; Michael Tucker; George Tuttle, Lee.  U & V. Abijah Usher; John Veasey; W. Newton Willey; Nancy Walker; William Whitewell; Hannah Webster; Samuel White; Samuel Woodman.  N.B. Those names with no towns annexed, are for Portsmouth.
MARK SIMES, Post-Master.
ALL persons indebted to, or that have any demands against the estate of GRET HUNT, late of

Miscellaneous Repository.
From an English Print. ON THE PEERAGE OF LORDS GATHCART & GAMBIER. Bold Robin Hood and Little John, As ancient legends say, Their neighbor's chattels seized upon, And robbed on the highway; But in those rude and distant times, Plain honesty was taught, The king proclaimed them—"wicked crimes," And thieves were hung'd, if caught. Cathcart and Gambier, better known, As modern tales repeat, Attack our neighbors, burn their town, And rob them of a fleet; Alas! how chang'd are England's laws, Vice triumphs in our days, The king proclaims it—"honors, naught," And makes them British peers.
RELIGION.
NECKAR, the celebrated financier of France, says, "The more we know of the world, its phantoms, and vain enchantments, the more we feel the want of a grand idea to elevate the soul above discouraging events, which continually occur." When we come to experience what is the life and substance of Religion, then we have this grand idea, which will raise up our souls even in this life, to behold the beauty of holiness, and keep our heads above the surging waves of misfortune's element; and at our passage hence we shall find it a support, as a bridge whereon the soul may pass with safety into that country of everlasting happiness where all arrive who "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly."
At a late court of quarter sessions, held some days ago at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Thomas Smith, president of the circuit, delivered a charge to the grand jury, adapted to the occasion. In the course of further proceedings, the president declined receiving any address from the gentlemen of the law, present, that had the least aspect towards the titular forms , in use under the old monarchical government.—"May it please your honors"—and even the term "honorable court" were alike reprobated by the president. If we possess sufficient legal abilities (said he) and an intimate and accurate knowledge of the practice—if we administer the laws with decision, dispatch, and rigid integrity—if we consult and promote the real and permanent interests, and social happiness of our fellow citizens, as far as in our power in our present station; the public will respect us without any titles . But, should we appear unequal to our office—should we betray the want of legal abilities, or should our judgments be led or influenced by our affections, by any personal or party considerations, no titles or appellations, however pompous, could secure to us the respect of an enlightened people." [Philadelphia paper.]
DANVILLE, (Vt.) April 11. CANADA NEW EMISSION. On Friday last was committed to Gaol in this place, one Allen Bryant, a transient person, by virtue of a Warrant issued from Elijah Strong, Esq. of Brownington, for aiding and assisting in the passing of Counterfeit Bank Bills. There were found in possession of said Bryant, 7.538 dollars—in bills on nine different banks, viz.—216 of 50 cents—126 of 3 ds.—196 of 10 ds.—16 of 1 dollar—25 of 6 ds. of the Vermont State Bank, well executed; 67 of 5 ds. on the Merchants' Bank New-York; 386 of 1 dollar—58 of 3 ds. of the Coos Bank; 83 of 3 ds.—2 of 1 dollar—168 of 3 ds. of the Farmers' Bank at Troy; 104 of 20 ds. of the United States Bank; 52 of 1 dollar of the Union Bank (Mats.) 8 of 3 ds. of Trenton Bank, (N. J.) and 83 of 3 ds. of Concord Bank, (N. H.)
Said Bryant was meanly habited, traveling on foot, and was arrested in the woods of Glover—his trunks concealed under his jacket. He is supposed to be a carrier for some more gentlemanly speculator in this nefarious traffic. This completes the number of twelve confined in this place.
Garden Seeds
A general assortment of GARDEN SEEDS , kept constantly for sale at C. PEIRCE'S Book-store, Daniel-street, Portsmouth. Letter and Writing Papers, At C. PEIRCE'S Bookstore. LETTER PAPERS 25 cts. 31 cts. 37 cts. 43 cts. 50 cts. and 63 cts. per quire, or at a reduced price per ream. WRITING PAPERS 20 cts. 25 cts. 34 cts. 50 cts. 75 cts. per quire; by the ream at a lower rate. WANTED an active LAD from 23 to 25 years old, as an apprentice to the Painting business—enquire of Henry Bufford. March 29. Wanted, two active Lads from 14 to 16 years of age, as apprentices to the Baking business. Apply to Robert Eustis.
Grand Lodge.
THE Officers & Members of the Grand Lodge of the State of New Hampshire, the district Deputy Grand Masters, and the Masters and Wardens of subordinate Lodges, are informed that the annual Election of Officers, and the Grand Quarterly Communication of the Grand Lodge, will be held at the Lodge room in Portsmouth, on Wednesday the 27th inst. at 7 o'clock, P. M. By order, L. SPALDING, G. Secretary. Portsmouth, April 12. 1808.
At a meeting of the committee of the subscribers for re-building St. John's Church, held on Monday the 11th of April, 1808—
VOTED, that an Eleventh assessment of Twenty Dollars, on each and every share, be and is hereby made—payable to the Agents, or their order, on or before the twentieth day of the present month of April.
Attest, WILLIAM GARDNER, Chairman
Now landing and for sale, On board the brig John Adams, at Thompson's wharf Spring-Hill, 400 Hogheads of Liverpool SALT; Apply to EDWARD J. LONG. Portsmouth, April 12.
FRESH FLOUR. Just landed, and for sale by E. WENTWORTH. Head of Buck Street, 100 bbls. Alexandria superfine FLOUR; Also, on hand best of Baltimore superfine ditto. April 12.
CORN & FLOUR, Now landing from Schooner Washington, and for sale by WILLIAM GARLAND. April 12, 1808.
JUDKINS & SENTER, Respectfully inform the public that they have taken the shop directly over N. B. MARCH's saddlery shop, and nearly opposite the Post Office, Broad Street, where they intend carrying on the Cabinet-making Business in all its various branches. All orders punctually attended to, and the small costs favorably acknowledged. April 12, 1808.
LOISA CARTER, INFORMS the Ladies of Portsmouth, that she has taken a chamber over the shop lately occupied by Charlotte Chapouil, where is carried on the Millinery, Mantua-making and Seemstring, in the newest fashion—where she hopes to be favored with a share of patronage from the Ladies of this town. April 12.
To be sold at Public Auction on Wednesday the 4th day of May next, at 3 o'clock, P. M. at the meeting-house belonging to the north or first parish in Portsmouth, the following pews in said house, for the taxes due thereon for the year 1807, unless prevented by previous payment.—viz— On the lower floor, No 25, 10 dolls. 45 cents; 4 No 10, 5 dolls. 25 cents. In the lower gallery, No 26, 3 dolls. 8 cents; No 36, 3 dolls. 30 cents; No 41, 3 dolls. 30 cents. JOSEPH AKERMAN, Jr. Paris Collector. Portsmouth, April 12, 1808.
LETTERS remaining in the Post Office at EXETER, April 1st. 1808. THOMAS Folsom, Benjamin C. Gilman, Abigail Gilman 2, Nathaniel Gorden, Samuel Gilman, Phillips Gilman, Benjamin Lovering, Mary Hall, Nathaniel A. Haven, Sophia Carlton 2, Mary Carlton, Eliza Phelps, Colcord, J. C. Smith, Joseph Smith, Samuel G. Smith, David Sanborn, Nathaniel Peabody, Samuel Philbrick, John Marble, John R. Maddison, Sally Newman, Samuel Woodbury, Enster, Richard York 2, E. Flint 2, Bean and Smith 2, John Thing, Brentwood, Samuel Marble, John Marble, Stratford—Rebeckah Law, Poplin. J. W. GILMAN, P.M.
State of New Hampshire—Grafton ss. NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of land in the town of GROTON, in the State and county aforesaid, who have not paid their highway, school, town and county taxes for the year 1807; that unless they previously pay the same, so much of their lands as will pay said taxes and all legal charges, will be sold at public vendue, at the dwelling-house of the subscriber in said town on the 14th day of June next, at 1 o'clock P. M.
   Names. Amount. Amount. Amount. Amount. Amount.     Samuel Hobart Esq. 30 1 100 50 25   John Hale Esq. 4 6 80 20 10   Henry Thompson 6 7 30 15 8   James H. Latten 8 3 100 50 25   Steven Frewer 8 3 100 75 38   Ezra Wright 13 2 100 75 38   Henry Thompson Jr. 7 14 100 50 25   Samuel Maxson 7 9 100 75 38   Dr. Ephraim Laurence 3 3 100 90 45   William Taylor 7 2 100 75 38   William Tenney 10 18 10 5   Abraham Burnham 7 5 100 100 50   A part of Benning 100 100 50   Wentworth's farm 100 100 50    ASA RIDER, Collector. Grafton, April 4, 1808.
Gentlemen's Silk HATS.
MARY BRYANT, HAS a neat assortment of Silk HATS, purchasers are requested to call and look at them. April 5. Now landing from Sch'r Washington from Baltimore, and for Sale by Isaac Waldron, Jr. 250 Bbls. Superfine and Fine FLOUR of a superior quality. Portsmouth, April 12, 1808.
Fresh Lemon JUICE, For Sale at the Portsmouth Shoe and Leather Store, by the Gallon or less quantity, warranted pure, by J. & S. MUDGE. N. B. Customers, SHOES, BOOTS & SLIPPERS, made at the shortest notice. Portsmouth, April 12, 1808.
Quaker Garden Seeds. WM. WALKER has received one case containing an assortment of real Quaker Garden Seeds, raised at Canterbury and warranted of the last years growth,—which are for sale at No. 1, Bow Street—Also as usual, English, Dutch & American Gunpowder, Patent Shot, West India Goods, GROCERIES, &c. &c. April 12, 1808.
ANY person belonging to the first Regiment of Militia, in N. H. who can bring good recommendations for habits of industry and sobriety, who may wish to be taught to play on any instrument of martial music free of expence, are requested to call on either of the subscribers and leave their names. JOSEPH DROWN, JOHN B. HILL, JOSHUA HAVEN, Committee. Portsmouth, April 12.
NOTICE is hereby given, that MARY MOORE has been duly appointed administratrix of the estate of SAMUEL MOORE, late of Portsmouth, mariner, deceased, and has taken upon herself that trust by giving bonds as the law directs;—All persons having demands on the estate of the said deceased, are required to exhibit them, and those who are indebted to said estate are called upon to make immediate payment to WILLIAM WALKER, Attorney to MARY MOORE, Administratrix. Portsmouth, April 9, 1808.
TO LET, HALF of a convenient two story HOUSE, near the Goal,—Inquire of STACY KENNISON. Portsmouth, April 12.
EDUCATION. MRS. HART informs Parents, that she continues to receive YOUNG LADIES for the purpose of Instruction in the following branches of EDUCATION, Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, English Grammar, Geography & use of the Globes, Embroidery, Plain and fancy needle works, Drawing, Painting, &c. &c. March 22, 1808.
Public Auction at Chester. BY virtue of an order from the Honorable Nathaniel Rogers, Judge of Probate of Wills, &c. for the county of Rockingham, State of New Hampshire, granted to the subscribers, executors of the last will and testament of TIMOTHY DEXTER, late of Newburyport, in the county of Essex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, merchant, deceased.
NOTICE is hereby given that all the real estate which belonged to the late TIMOTHY DEXTER, aforesaid, lying in Chester, State of New Hampshire, will be sold at Public Auction, on Thursday the fifth day of May next, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, consisting of a lot of land of one acre and an half with the buildings thereon, viz.—a large convenient Dwelling-house, two stories high, four rooms on a floor, well built and finished, an excellent cellar under the whole, with two good arches under the chimneys—a large and convenient Stable and Shed, with a yard paved with flat stones, a Wood house & Barn with a good well of water near the house—Also, A good Store well fitted for the sale of English and West India Goods, situated on the main street in Chester, about a quarter of a mile below the turnpike from Pembroke, on the post road from Concord to Boston and Newburyport. Also,
A Pew on the broad aisle in the Rev. Mr. Brattle's meeting-house, which is within a quarter of a mile of the estate aforesaid,—and a good Hay-scale near the dwelling-house. The above estate is very pleasantly situated for a gentleman's seat, a trader, or taverner, and was formerly owned by Mr. Toppan Webster, who built the house. Sale to be on the premises, when the conditions will be made known. ENOCH TITCOMB, NATHAN HOYT, Executors. Newburyport, 13th Jan. 1808.
RAGS. Cash given for RAGS, at the Book-store of C. PEIRCE.
Mr. Charles Taft.
HAVING commenced his Academy for the instruction of Young Ladies, at that commodious room recently occupied by the Rev'd Mr. Alden, informs the inhabitants of Portsmouth and its vicinity, that he still continues to receive Pupils for the several branches of Education, viz. Orthography, Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, English Grammar, Composition, &c. &c. Those Parents, who would avail themselves of the present opportunity, will please to make early application. The Preceptor flatters himself, that, by his unremitting endeavours to impress on the minds of his Pupils, not only the principles and use of science, but those of morality and virtue, he shall meet the approbation and acceptance of his generous Patrons. Portsmouth, April 19, 1808.
TAKE NOTICE.
THE several Collectors in the county of York to whom hath been a county tax committed to collect in either of the towns for the last year 1807, who have not yet collected and paid over the same into the Treasurer's Office in York; that they are now earnestly called upon to complete their collection, and to pay over the same by the 14th of April instant, when the several Term Courts are by law established doth commence to sit in York—the money will then be wanted for their use to enable the Treasurer to pay off the several Grand Jurors for their travel and attendance for one whole year past; also for sundry other Petit Jurors, Committees on highways, &c. all and every of them will then expect to receive their several and respective fees, and have right to it. The last cent of that tax was to have been paid into the Treasurer's office by the first day of January last now past , and no one hath yet been distressed by me for it, as the circulation of cash hath been in the time past rather dull, every order drawn by me on either one Collector in part thereof, is directed to be brought in and be received in part—I have however paid and advanced out of the treasury on the sundry bills since rendering and settling of my accounts at September Term at Alfred; twenty-eight hundred and forty five dollars and sixty-four cents; and our Court-House at Alfred is completely boarded and shingled, and it is expected that every necessary article of lumber and materials are now prepared in the same and on the spot for the finishing of the same against next September Term there—Any thing in design or intention in any individuals in the cutting off the fifteen hundred dollars from the county tax of 1806, that was granted by the Legislature for the use of the county to the contrary notwithstanding. WILLIAM FROST, Treasurer. York, April 5, 1808.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
NOTICE is hereby given to the proprietors and owners of land in the township of Alexandria as originally granted, now called Alexandria and Danbury , situate in the county of Grafton and State of New Hampshire, that each and every lot and half lot of land which are called one draft, situate in said township of Alexandria and Danbury , allotted and set to the rights of the following original grantees, as will pay a tax of Three Dollars on each lot and each half lot which are called one draft, with incidental charges will be sold to the highest bidder on Monday the twenty-seventh day of June next at ten of the clock A. M. on said day, at the dwelling-house of David Atwood, inholder in said Alexandria , in the county and State aforesaid, if payment be not previously made to me at my dwelling-house in Alexandria in the aforesaid county and State; which sum was voted by the proprietors of Alexandria and Danbury at their meeting on the twenty-fifth day of September, A.D. 1806, to pay the expence of lotting land and other proprietary expences, and also to resist an encroachment which New-Chester has made on said township—which has been affected and committed to me to collect, with a warrant annexed, and by me advertised for payment, and still unpaid. The original grantees names and lots and half lots called drafts are as follows, to wit: John Moffet Esq' No 38 1 in 3d division; Thomas Packer Esq' No 47 in 3d division; John Wentworth Esq' No 60 in 2d division; Blank Lot No 24 in 2d division; Thomas Wallingsford Esq' No 8 48 in 1st div'n, No 22 in 2d div'n, No 28 7 in 3d div'n; Meservey and Others No 62 28 in 1st div'n No half 16 in 3d division; George Jeffery Esq' No 34 in 2d division; Thomlinson and Mason No 60 in 1st div'n, No 46 2 in 2d div'n, No 2 in 3d div'n; Soley & March No 69 in 1st division, No 43 61 in 2d division; William Parker Esq' No 34 in 1st division; Joshua Peirce Esq' No 15 79 in 1st div'n, No 69 in 2d div'n, No 21 in 3d division; Richard Wibert Esq' No 4 29 in 1st division No 29 8 in 3d division; Unknown Blank No 55 in 1st division; John Rindge Esq' No 58 in 1st division No 35 in 2d division; Blank No 27 in 1st div'n No 3 in 3d div'n; Peirce and Moore No 41 in 2d division, No 49 in 3d division; Joseph Blanchard Esq' No 66 77 in 1st div'n No 70 in 2d division; Jotham Odiorne Esq' No 45 11 in 1st division No 44 in 2d div'n No 5 22 in 3d division; Theodore Atkinson Esq' No 61 81 in 1st div'n No 67 in 2d div'n No 17 in 3d div'n; Unknown Blank No 3 in 3d division; Mark H. Wentworth Esq' No 64 54 in 1st div'n No 40 15 in 2d div'n No 15 in 3d div'n; Mill Lots No 74 in 1st div'n No 2 in 2d div'n; Ministerial or Unknown No 42 in 1st div'n No 71 in 2d div'n; Jonathan Bagley Esq' No 20 35 in 1st div'n No 37 39 in 2d division; Jonas Minoi No 1 23 & 24 26 all over 100 acres of 39 in 1st division; Ditto in the 2d div'n No 19 31 38 65 ditto in 3d division No 46 39; Matthew Livermore No 35 in 1st division No 48 in 2d div'n No 35 in 3d division; Matthew Thornton Esq' No 6 16 18 72 in 1st division; John Telford Esq' No 37 38 68 in 1st div'n No 11 36 in 2d division; William Tolford No 2 56 73 in 1st division No 1 46 in 2d division; Daniel Rindge Esq' No 25 in 3d division; Capt. William Baley No 14 67 in 1st div'n No 51 in 2d division; Unknown No 44 in 1st division; Unknown No 55 62 in 2d division; Joshua Tolford No 24 in 3d division.
DAVID ATWOOD, jun'r. Proprietor's Collector. Alexandria, April 14, 1808.
Drawing School.
G. DAME'S SCHOOL for Drawing & Painting will be opened, on Monday the 2d of May next, at the Assembly Room, at 2 o'clock, P. M. where those young LADIES who wish to take lessons, will please to attend. April 19. Now landing from Sch'r Scythian, and to be sold by NATH'L ADAMS & SONS, Superfine & common FLOUR; Leaf, fig and Ladies fine twilt TOBACCO,—and Richmond COALS of very superior quality, April 19, 1808.
Fresh Garden Seeds.
JACOB WENDELL, Has just received at his store in Bow-street, on Church hill, an excellent assortment of Real Shaker GARDEN SEEDS, warranted to be of the last years growth—viz. Drumhead, Imperial Lettice Low Dutch, Sage, Parsley, and Savoy, Peppergrass, CABBAGES, Radish, Low Balsam, Blood red Beet, Lavendish, Onions, Carrot, Summer Savory, Parsnip, Burnet, excellent Cucumber, for Saled. Long Ditto, Saffron, Dedham Turnip, Water and Musk French Ditto, MELLON, Summer & Winter, H tipar Peas, &c. Squash. —ALSO— Pork, Hogs-lard, excellent Butter, white Beans, yellow & green Peas, Rye, Oats, a small quantity of good Cheeses, Cod and Pollock Fish, Fine Salt, mens thick Boots, mens, womens, boys and childrens Leather Shoes, best Sperm. Oil, Teas, Spirits, and a general assortment of W. L. GOODS & GROCERIES as usual.
TO BE SOLD.
At PUBLIC VENDUE, on Monday the 9th of May next, (if not previously disposed of at private sale.)
That valuable lot of
LAND, with the Buildings thereon in Rochester, formerly the property of Wm & G. Dame, and now occupied by the Rev'd Joseph Haven. Sale on the premises, to commence at 12 o'clock, terms liberal, may be known by applying to EBENEZER CHADWICK or GEO. DAME, of Portsmouth. April 16th, 1808.
State of New Hampshire—Grafton ss.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of land in the town of PLYMOUTH, in said county, who have not paid their State, county, town, school and highway taxes for the year 1806; that unless said taxes are paid to me the subscriber, on or before the 15th day of June next, so much of their land as will pay said taxes, with incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue, at my dwelling-house in said Plymouth, at ten o'clock, A. M. on said day.
All in the last Division of land in said Plymouth.
   Proprietors & Owners of Land. No. of the Lot. No. of Ranges. No. Acres land. School tax. Town tax. Highway tax.     James Underwood. 3 8 50 10 25 25   James Underwood & paid, 4 8 50 10 25 25   Samuel Thompson. 2 4 50 10 25 25   One half of a hundred acre lot, sold out of the common land to Benjamin Taylor, together with fifty acres more adjoining it, lying near Hebron line, supposed to be owned by Peter Taylor. 100 20 50 75    WINCOL WRIGHT, Collector. Plymouth, April 8, 1808.
State of New Hampshire—Grafton ss.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-residents and owners of land in ALEXANDRIA , in the county and state aforesaid, who have not paid their taxes for the year 1807; that so much of each original right will be sold at public vendue at the dwelling-house of Capt. David Atwood, in said town, on Monday the 18th day of July next, at 10 o'clock A. M. as will pay said taxes together with incidental charges unless prevented by previous payment.
   No. Divisions. Quantity. Value. Highway tax. School tax. Town tax.     Soley & March 12 1 28 50 25 12 1/2   Theodore 81 1 110 100 50 24 1/2   Atkinson 61 1 110 150 75 36 24 3/4    MOSES SIMONDS, Collector. Alexandria, March 29, 1808.
To the Gazette patrons.
Our country friends are informed that the 17th April, 1808—has arrived, and completes three years since the present proprietors of the N. H. GAZETTE have been at the expence of printing and publishing said paper; and we would now ask, whether the labourer is not worthy of his hire!—As we anticipate from every honest man, an answer in the affirmative;—we will only add, pay that thou owest unto us, that we may be enabled to "do likewise." Editors.