The New Hampshire gazette (Portsmouth [N.H.]), 1798-05-22 00:00:00

THE New Hampshire Gazette.
— OUR COUNTRY'S GOOD OUR CONSTANT AIM —
PORTSMOUTH: (NEW-HAMPSHIRE)—PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY MORNING BY JOHN MELCHER, PRINTER TO THE STATE, AT HIS OFFICE CORNER OF MARKET STREET, WHERE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR THIS PAPER, ADVERTISEMENTS, AND ARTICLES OF INTELLIGENCE ARE THANKFULLY RECEIVED.
Vol. XLII.—Numb. 2164.]
TUESDAY, May 22, 1798.
[One Dollar & half pr. Annum.]
Important Documents.
[On the 4th inst. the President of the United States, transmitted to both Houses of Congress, the following, being all the Communications from our Envoys Extraordinary at Paris.]
(No. 6.)
Paris, Feb. 7, 1798.
DEAR SIR, WE transmit to you in this inclosure, our last letter to the Minister of Foreign Relations; although dated the 17th ult. it was not on account of the time taken to translate so long a letter, delivered until the 21st. In our communications here although we have, agreeably to your instructions, written in our own language, we at the same time have taken the precaution, lest our meaning should be misrepresented or misunderstood, to accompany them with an accurate translation. We have not yet received any answer to this communication, and should no notice be taken of it in a few days, we shall apply in a more explicit manner for our passports.
The councils have passed the decree mentioned in No. 5, as having been recommended by the Directory, to capture and condemn all neutral vessels laden in part or in whole with the manufactures or productions of England, or its possessions. We enclose you the official copy of the report on that subject, and shall represent to this government the injustice and injury which it must inevitably occasion us.
We have the honor to be, with great respect, Your most obt'm humble servants, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, F. Marshall, E. Gerry, Col. Pickering, Secretary of the United States.]
To the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic.
Citizen Minister, THE undersigned Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary, from the United States of America to the French Republic, have been hitherto restrained by the expectation of entering on the object of their mission, in the forms usual among nations, from addressing to the Executive Directory, thro' you, those explanations and reclamations with which they are charged by the government they represent. If this expectation is to be relinquished, yet the unfeigned wish of the United States, to restore that harmony between the two Republics, which they have so unremittingly sought to preserve, renders it the duty of the undersigned, to lay before the government of France, however informal the communication may be deemed, some considerations, in addition to those already submitted, relative to the subsisting differences between the two nations.
Openly and repeatedly have France and America interchanged unequivocal testimonies of reciprocal regard.—These testimonies were given by the United States with all the ardor and sincerity of youth. It is still believed that on the part of France they were likewise the offspring of real esteem. They were considered on the other side of the Atlantic as evidencing a mature friendship, to be as durable as the Republics themselves. Unhappily, the scene is changed; and America looks around in vain for the ally or the friend. The contrast both of language and of conduct, which the present avowedly exhibits to a portion of the past, has been repeatedly attributed by France, to a disposition alleged to exist in the government of the United States, unfriendly to this Republic, and partial towards its enemies.
That government, astonished at a reproach so unfounded in fact, to contradicted by its declarations and its conduct, could scarcely consider this charge as serious, and has ever cherished the hope, that a candid review of its conduct founded on the documents, and aided by the arguments with which the Executive Directory has been furnished, would have retracted it from the injudicious supposition. This hope seems not to have been realized. The undersigned, therefore, deem it proper to precede their application for that justice which they claim from France by an effort to remove the cause, which is alleged to have produced the injuries of which they complain. With this view, they pray the attention of the Executive Directory to a serious and candid reconsideration of the leading measures adopted by the government of the United States, and they persuade themselves, that however various and multiplied the channels may be, through which misinformation, concerning the dispositions of that government, may have been received, yet this reconsideration must remove unfounded prejudices, and entirely exculpate the American nation from an accusation it knows to be unfounded, and believes to be supported by no single fact.
When the war which has been waged with such unparalleled fury, which in its vast vicissitudes of fortune, has alternately threatened the very existence of the conflicting parties, but which, in its progress, has surrounded France with such splendor, and added still more to her glory than her territory; when that war first involved those nations, with whom the United States were in habits of friendly intercourse, it became incumbent on their government to examine their situation, their connexions, and their
duties. America found herself at peace with all the belligerent powers. She was connected with some of them by treaties of amity & commerce, & with France by a treaty of alliance also. These several treaties were considered with the most serious attention, and with a sincere wish to determine by fair construction the obligations which they really imposed. The result of this inquiry was a full conviction, that her engagements by no means bound her to take part in the war, but left her so far the mistress of her own conduct as to be at perfect liberty to observe a system of real neutrality. It is deemed unnecessary to analyze those treaties in order to support the propriety of this decision, because it is not recollected ever to have been questioned, and is believed not to admit of doubt.
Being bound by no duty to enter into the war, the government of the United States conceived itself bound by duties the most sacred to abstain from it. Contemplating man, even in a different society, as the friend of man, a state of peace, though unspulated by treaty, was considered as imposing obligations, not to be wantonly violated.
These obligations created by the laws of nature, were in some instances strengthened by solemn existing engagements, of which good faith required a religious observance.
To a sense of moral right other considerations of the greatest magnitude were added, which forbade the government of the United States to plunge them unnecessarily into the miseries of the bloody conflict then commencing. The great nations of Europe, either impelled by ambition, or by exciting or supposed political interests, peculiar to themselves, have consumed more than a third of the present century in wars. Whatever causes may have produced so affliction an evil, they cannot be supposed to have been entirely extinguished, and humanity can scarcely indulge the hope, that the temper or condition of man is so altered as to exempt the next century from the ills of the past.
Strong fortifications, powerful navies, immense armies, the accumulated wealth of ages and a full population, enable the nations of Europe, to support those wars in which they are induced to engage, by motives which they deem adequate, and by interests exclusively their own. In all respects different is the situation of the United States; possessed of an extensive unsettled territory, on which bountiful nature has bestowed with a lavish hand all the capacities for future legitimate greatness, they indulge no thirst for conquest, no ambition for the extension of their limits. Encircled by no dangerous powers, they neither fear nor are jealous of their neighbours, and are not on that account obliged to arm for their own safety. Separated from Europe by a vast and friendly ocean, they are but remotely, if at all, affected by those interests, which agitate and influence this portion of the globe. Thus circumstanced, they have no motive for a voluntary war. On the contrary, the most powerful considerations urge them to avoid it. An extensive and undefended commerce, peculiarly necessary to a nation which does not manufacture for itself, which is and for a long time to come, will be almost exclusively agricultural, would have been its immediate and certain victim. The surplus produce of their labour must have perished on their hands, and that increase of population so essential to a young country, must, with their prosperity, have sustained a serious check. Their exertions too would not have been considerable, unless the war had been transferred to their own bosoms.
Great as are the means and resources of the United States for self-defence, 'tis only in self-defence, that those resources can be completely displayed. Neither the genius of the nation, nor the state of its finances, admit of calling its citizens from the plough, but to defend their own liberty and their own fire-sides. How criminal must have been that government which could have plunged its constituents in a war, to which they were neither impelled by duty or solicited by interest; in which they committed so much to hazard; in which they must suffer, in order to act efficiently, and could only display their energy too in repelling invasion? But motives still more powerful than the calamities of the moment, have influenced the government of the United States.
It was perhaps impossible to have engaged voluntarily in the existing conflict, without launching into the almost boundless ocean of European politics; without contradicting habits of national conduct, and forming close political connections which must have compromised the future peace of the nation, and have involved it in all the future quarrels of Europe. A long train of armies, debts and taxes, checking the growth, diminishing the happiness, and perhaps endangering the liberty of the United States, must have followed the adoption of such a system. And for what purpose should it have been adopted? For what purpose should America thus burthen herself with the conflicts of Europe? Not to comply with any engagements she has formed, not to promote her own views, her own objects, her own happiness, or her own safety, but to move as a Satellite around some greater Planet, whose laws she must of necessity obey. In addition to these weighty considerations, it was believed that France would derive more benefit from the neutrality of America, than from her becoming a party in the war.
The determination then of the government of the United States to preserve that neutral station in which the war found them,
far from manifesting a partiality for the enemies of France, was only a measure of justice to itself and to others, and did not even derogate from that predilection for this republic, which it has so repeatedly expressed and displayed. Having avowed this determination, increased motives of honor and of duty commanded its faithful observance.
It is not a principle which remains now to be settled, that a fraudulent neutrality is no neutrality at all; and that the nation which would be admitted to its privileges must also perform the duties it enjoins.—Had the government of the United States, declaring itself neutral, indulged its partialities by granting favours unspulated by treaty, to one of the belligerent powers, which it refused to another, it could no longer have claimed the immunities of a situation of which the obligations were forgotten, it would have become a party to the war, as certainly as if war had been openly and formally declared, and if it would have added to the madness of wantonly engaging in such a hazardous conflict, the dishonor of infincere and fraudulent conduct: it would have attained circuitously an object which it could not plainly avow, or directly pursue, and would have tricked the people of the United States into a war, which it could not venture openly to declare.
It was matter of real delight to the government and people of America, to be informed that France did not wish to interrupt the peace they enjoyed.
The undersigned have been induced to rest upon the first necessary and decisive step taken by their government, altho' its propriety may not be controverted, from a conviction, that if the right of the United States, to observe a fair and honest neutrality be established, the general charges of an unfriendly disposition, made against them by France, must be relinquished, because the facts, by which those charges are supported, will be found to have grown inevitable out of that situation.
This measure was accompanied by another, which, in repelling so astonishing a charge as partiality for the enemies of France deserves to be noticed. Soon after the government of the United States had noticed to its citizens the duties which its neutrality enjoined, Mr. Genet, the first minister from this Republic, arrived at Philadelphia: altho' his conduct had been such as to give cause for serious alarm, altho' before he was even acknowledged as a minister, or had reached the authority which could inspect his credentials, he had assumed the functions of the government to which he was deputed. Yet the government resolved to see in him only the representative of a Republic, to which it was sincerely attached, gave him the same warm and cordial reception which he had experienced from its citizens, without a single exception, from Charleston to Philadelphia. The then situation of France deserves to be remembered.
While the recollection adds, citizen minister, to the glory with which your nation is encircled, it establishes the sincerity of the United States.
The most formidable combination the world had ever seen, threatened the extermination of this Republic. Austria, Germany, Prussia, Britain, Spain, Holland and Sardinia, were in arms against France, and Russia was leagued in the coalition. Nor was this all. The Republic, distracted by internal divisions, contained numerous enemies within its own bosom, and a considerable portion of its proper force was arrayed against itself. In such a state of things, the most sanguine might fear, and the most ardent hesitate. Confident in their strength, and relying on success, the coalesced powers sought to arm in their cause the residue of the world, and deemed it criminal to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Republic. The nations of Europe, even those who had not entered into the contest, were either of themselves unwilling to acknowledge this sovereignty, or were deterred by fear from doing so. Had the partialities of America been against France, this example would have been followed. According to the rules of ordinary calculation, the measure would have been safe, and consequently a government feeling the attachments now so unjustly attributed to that of the United States, would have indicated those attachments by its adoption. Far from pursuing such a system, the United States, unawed by the strength of coalition, received with open arms the minister of this Republic, acknowledged with enthusiasm the government which had deputed him, overlooked his extraordinary attack on their sovereignty, and manifested a cordial friendship for his nation and a sincere wish for its success.
Scarcely were the first ceremonies of his reception over, when Mr. Genet, displayed a disposition to usurp and exercise, within the United States, the choicest and most important duties and powers of sovereignty. He claimed the privileges of arming and embodying the citizens of America within their own territory, to carry on from thence expeditions against nations with whom they were at peace, of fitting out and equipping within their limits privateers, to cruise on a commerce defined for their ports, of exercising within their jurisdiction, an independent judiciary, and of arraigning their government at the bar of the people. The undersigned will not ask in what manner France would have treated any foreign minister who should have dared so to conduct himself towards this republic? But in what manner would the American government have treated such a minister, if the representative of a nation is viewed with cold-
ness or even indifference? In what manner would it have treated him, had he been the representative of any other nation than France? No man acquainted with that government can doubt how these enquiries ought to be answered. From the minister of France alone could this extraordinary conduct be borne with temper. To have continued to have borne it, without perceiving and feeling its extreme impropriety, would have been to have merited the contempt as well of France as of the other powers of the earth. The government of the United States did feel it; but far from transferring to his nation that resentment, which such conduct could not fail to excite, it distinguished strongly between the government and its minister, and the representations it made were in the language of a friend afflicted but not irritated by the injuries it complained of. The recall of that minister was received with universal joy, as a confirmation that his whole system of conduct was attributable only to himself; and not even the publication of his private instructions could persuade the American government to ascribe any part of it to this Republic.
At the same time the exertions of the United States to pay up the arrearages of their debt to France, which had been unavoidable permitted to accumulate, to make disinterested and liberal advances to the sufferers of St. Domingo, thrown suddenly upon them, without provisions or money, whose recommendations was that they were Frenchmen and—unfortunate, the perseverance with which they apologized for and ascribed any occasional injuries they sustained to the force of circumstances, the interest which they continued openly to take in all the fortunes of this Republic, manifested partialities of a very different sort from those which have been so unjustly attributed to them.
At this period too, a great principal was brought into discussion, the dispassionate consideration of which is essential to the far estimate of the charges made by France against the government of the United States. The property of French citizens was taken by British cruizers and ships of war, out of American bottoms, and the American government submitted to the practice.
The propriety of submitting to it depends entirely on the naked right of the captors, under the existing circumstances of the case, to exercise such a power. The circumstances were these. In the treaty of commerce made between France and the United States in February 1778, it was stipulated in substance, that neither party should take out of the vessels of the other, the goods of its enemy, but that the character of the bottom should be imparted to its cargo. With England the United States had made no stipulation on the subject.
It follows that the rights of England, being neither diminished or encroached by compact, remained precisely in their natural state, and were to be ascertained by some pre-existing acknowledged principle.
This principle is to be searched for in the law of nations. That law forms, independent of compact, a rule of action by which the sovereignties of the civilized world consent to be governed. It prescribes what one nation may do without giving just cause of war, and what, of consequence another may and ought to permit, without being considered as having sacrificed its honor, its dignity or independence.
What then is the doctrine of the law of nations on this subject? Do neutral bottoms of right, independent of particular compact protect hostile goods? The question is to be considered on its own right, uninfluenced by the wishes or the interests of a neutral or belligerent power.
It is a general rule, that war gives to a belligerent power a right to seize and confiscate the goods of his enemy. However humanity may deplore the application of this principle, there is perhaps no one to which man has more universally assented, or to which jurists have more uniformly agreed. Its theory and its practice have unhappily been maintained in all ages. This right then may be exercised on the goods of an enemy wherever found, unless opposed by a superior right. It yields by common consent to the superior right of a neutral nation to protect, by virtue of its sovereignty, the goods of either of the belligerent powers found within its jurisdiction. But can this right of protection, admitted to be possessed by every government within its own limits in virtue of its absolute sovereignty, be communicated to a vessel navigating the high seas?
It is supposed that it cannot be so communicated; because the ocean being common to all nations, no absolute sovereignty can be acquired in it: the rights of all are equal, and must necessarily check, limit and restrain each other. The superior right therefore of absolute sovereignty to protect all property within its own territory, ceases to be superior when the property is no longer within its own territory, and may be encountered by the opposing acknowledged right of a belligerent power to seize and confiscate the goods of his enemy. If the belligerent permits the neutral to attempt without hazard to himself, thus to serve and aid his enemy, yet he does not relinquish the right of defeating that attempt whenever it shall be in his power to defeat it. Thus it is admitted that an armed vessel may stop and search at sea a neutral-bottom, and may take out goods which are contraband of war, without giving cause of offence, or being supposed in any degree to infringe neutral rights. But this practice could not be per-
mitted within the rivers, harbours or other places of a neutral, where its sovereignty was complete. It follows then that the full right of affording protection to all property whatever, within its own territory, which is inherent in every government, is not transferred to a vessel navigating the high seas. The right of a belligerent over goods of his enemy within his reach, is as complete as his right over contraband of war; and it seems a position not easily to be refuted, that a situation that will not protect the one will not protect the other. A neutral bottom, then does not of right, in cases where no compact exists, protect from his enemy the goods of a belligerent power.
To this reasoning the practice of nations has conformed, and the common understanding of mankind seems to have assented. Vattel, B. 3. Sect. 115, says, positively, "that effects belonging to an enemy found on board a neutral ship, are seizable by the rights of war."
Vattel is believed to be supported by the most approved writers on the same subject. It is deemed unnecessary to multiply citations to point; because France herself is supposed to have decided it. In her maritime ordinance of the year 1744, which is considered as having been in force in 1778, enemy goods in neutral bottoms, generally, are declared liable to seizure and confiscation. From the operation of this rule are excepted the vessels of Denmark and the United Provinces, to whom special treaties secured the exception. In the ordinance of the 26th July, 1778, the first article of which is considered as forbidden the cruizers of France to stop and bring into port neutral vessels, having on board the goods of an enemy, a power is reserved to revoke the privilege granted to neutrals by that article, if the enemy should not grant the same privilege within six months from the publication of that regulation. This clearly indicates a conviction that the exemption from the capture of the goods of an enemy, which should be found on board the vessel of a neutral power, not having stipulated such exemption by treaty, was a privilege granted by the ordinance, and that the mere revocation of the ordinance would abolish the privilege, and restore the ancient rule. It will not be contended that France continued in a long course of practice and legislation opposed to her own opinion of the law of nations. It must then be considered as the opinion of France, that under the law neutral bottoms afford no protection to the goods of an enemy.—This principle, thus admitted to have been established, is supposed by some to have been changed by the armed neutrality. A new law of nations, it is contended, was introduced, by the confederation. But who were the parties to that federation, and what was its object? The northern maritime powers united to protect by force, in their own bottoms, during the then existing war, the goods of either and of all the belligerent powers. The compact in its own nature was confined with respect to its object and its duration. It did not purport to change or could it change permanently and universally the rights of nations not becoming parties to it. It did indeed hold forth the promise of future more permanent and more general engagements for the same object, but such engagements were never formed. How then can this temporary and partial convention be considered as altering, radically and generally, principles which have been universally adopted, and in the modifications of which all have an interest? Would France herself admit that a combination, such as that which constituted the armed neutrality, may rightfully change the law of nations, and establish a new code of universal obligation? It is believed that no nation on earth would more perseveringly oppose such an invasion of its sovereignty. There seems then to be no solid ground for maintaining, that the general law of nations has been all varied by the armed neutrality.
It remains to inquire whether the treaty, between France and the U. States, pledge either nation to assert and establish the principle, that free bottoms make free goods.
The treaty of amity and commerce, concluded the 6th February, 1778, stipulates reciprocally for the right of trading with and protecting the goods of the enemy of either party in the vessel of the other, and in turn surrenders its own goods found in the vessels of an enemy, but it contains no clause imposing on either party the duty of extending the principle or of supporting its application to other nations. The stipulations of that treaty are negative as well as affirmative. They specify as well the disabilities intended to be created and the duties to be imposed as the privileges designed to be granted. Had it been intended that either nation should have been bound to maintain this principle in its intercourse with others, or should have been in any degree incapacitated from prosecuting freely that intercourse, without the previous admission of the principle, a stipulation to that effect would have been made. No such stipulation having been made, the parties cannot be presumed to have intended it. Indeed it would have been madness in the United States, under their actual circumstances, to have formed such an agreement. There being no express stipulation to this effect, it cannot be supposed to have been implied. Nations forming a solemn compact which ought to regulate their conduct towards each other, which is to be referred to for the standard of adjusting their differences, do not leave to implication such delicate and important points. Indeed if a great

principle not mentioned is permitted to be implied, the object of a written agreement, which is itself to evidence all the obligation it creates, is totally defeated. But who is to make the implication, and to what extent is implication to be allowed? It is very easy to perceive, that the doctrine of implying in contracts stipulations never formed, would destroy all certainty of construction, and open a boundless field of controversy to the contracting parties.
It results from the very nature of a contract which affects the rights of the parties, but not of others and from the admission of a general rule of action, binding independent of compact, which may be changed by consent, but is only changed so far as that consent is actually given, that a treaty between any two nations must leave to all others those rights which the law of nations acknowledges; and must leave each of the contracting parties subject to the operation of those rights. For the truth of this position, believed to be so clear in itself, and which it is supposed the history of all Europe with illustrious, the ordinance of 1744 already quoted is considered as furnishing an unequivocal authority. By that ordinance the law of nations is applied to all those neutrals with whom France had not stipulated, that the quality of their bottoms should be imparted to their cargoes, while those with whom such stipulations had been made are exempted from the application of the law.
The desire of establishing universally the principle that neutral bottoms shall make neutral goods, is perhaps felt by no nation on earth, more strongly than by the United States. Perhaps no nation is more deeply interested in its establishment. It is an object they keep in view, and if not forced by violence to abandon, they will pursue in such manner as their own judgment may dictate as being best calculated to ascertain it; but the wish to establish a principle is essentially different from a determination that it is already established. The interests of the United States, could not fail to produce the will, when deciding on a mere right. However solicitous America might be to pursue all proper means, tending to obtain for this principle the assent of all or any of the maritime powers of Europe, she never conceived the idea of obtaining that consent by force.
The United States will only arm to defend their own rights; neither their policy nor their interests permit them to arm, in order to compel a belligerent to the rights of others. These and other considerations, which have been submitted to the government of France, produced on the part of the United States a decision, that their bottoms could not of right protect the goods of a belligerent power from an enemy not bound to respect the principle. This decision was founded on the most perfect conviction that it was enjoined by the law of nations, and that good faith, respect for truth, and for the duties of an upright and honest judgment render it indispensable. This conviction remains unshaken. If these arguments, which still appear conclusive to the American government, have not the same operation on the judgment of France, they must at least be sufficient to evince the sincerity with which that government has acted, and to prove that its conduct, in this respect, was produced by a sense of duty, and not by any partiality for a nation against which it was at that time considerably irritated by other causes.
The undersigned, citizen minister, rely too implicitly on your candour and discernment, to apprehend that you will estimate improperly the motives which on this essential point have influenced and guided the United States.
The early decision of the American government on this subject was immediately openly avowed and amply supported by Mr. Jefferson, the then Secretary of State, in his letter to Mr. Genet, dated the 24th July, 1793, and in his letter to Mr. Morris, dated 16th August, in the same year. The arguments which those letters contain were supposed to have satisfied the government of France, since its ministers in the U. States no longer controverted the principle they supported. Indeed those arguments appeared too conclusive to permit a doubt concerning the success which would attend them.
In August 1794, when Mr. Munroe, the then minister of the U. States to this republic, was received into the bosom of the convention. France obviously did not consider the acknowledgment of this established principle of the law of nations as indicating a partiality towards her enemy. The language used on the occasion could only have been used to the minister of a nation whose friendship was valued, and whose conduct had evinced the sincerity of its professions. It was then declared, "that the sweetest, the frankest fraternity united in effect the two republics," and that "their union would be forever indissoluble." These declarations, made long after America had avowed its neutrality, and had avowed its acquiescence under the principle that a belligerent power, unretained by particular treaty, may of right take out of the bottoms of a neutral the goods of its enemy, demonstrate that neither that neutrality nor that acquiescence induced the want of a proper regard for France. The government of the U. States still cherishes the hope, that this true and fair estimate then made of its conduct may be soon resumed by a nation whose friendship it has assiduously and unremittently cultivated by all those means which good faith and justice could permit it to use.
After the discussion of this interesting question was supposed to have been closed, and France was believed to have been entirely content with that system in which the United States found themselves bound to persevere, some complaints were made, not against the principles adopted by the government, but against the application of those principles to particular cases supposed not to come within them. The neutrality of the United States could not permit prize to be made of those vessels belonging to nations with whom they were at peace, within their jurisdiction, or by privateers fitted out in their own ports. Regulations to this effect were necessarily made, and to enforce the observance of those regulations was a duty not to be dispensed with. The right of one of the belligerent powers, to obtain the release of a vessel captured under such circumstances was as sacred as the right
of the captor to a vessel taken on the high seas and which according to the usages of war was lawful prize. The United States were bound to respect the rights of both. To do so, it was necessary to examine the facts for which purpose, a Tribunal, in which both parties might be fairly heard, was unavoidable. Some complaints were made of particular vexations, and each complaint has heretofore been particularly attended to. It is believed to be unnecessary to review these several cases, because the undersigned are entirely persuaded that explanations already given must have been completely satisfactory. Should any one of them be still considered as furnishing subject for complaint, the undersigned will proceed to its investigation, with the most sincere desire to attain truth, and to redress the wrong, if any has been committed.
During this period, the causes of complaint against France, on the part of the United States, were by no means inconsiderable. Their commerce was not to exempt from depredations, believed to be entirely unwarrantable, made upon it by the Cruisers of this Republic.
On the 9th May 1793, the National convention passed a decree relative to the commerce of neutrals, the first article of which is in these words, "The French ships of war and privateers may stop and bring into the ports of the republic such neutral vessels as are loaded, in whole or in part, either with provisions belonging to Neutrals, and destined for enemy ports, or with merchandise belonging to enemies." In consequence of the remonstrances of the American Minister, the convention, on the 23d May, declared "that the vessels of the United States are not comprised in the regulations of the decree of the 9th May." On the 28th of the same month the convention repealed the decree of the 23d—On the 1st July they re-established it. On the 27th July it was again repealed. Under the decree of the 9th May, the vessels of the United States were captured, brought into the ports of France, and their cargoes disposed of. Could this decree, citizen minister, be regarded otherwise than as infringing the laws of nations, the rights of neutrals, and the particular engagements, subsisting between France and the United States?
When on the 8th June in the same year the British government issued a similar order, its injustice produced a ferment throughout America indicating strong dispositions immediately to oppose its execution by force. The letter of Mr. Jefferson, the then Secretary of State, to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at London, dated the 7th Sept. 1793, and remonstrating against the order of the 5th June, contains so much justness of sentiment and strength of argument, as to have been quoted by your predecessor, in his letter to Mr. Munroe of the 9th March 1796.
It cannot escape you citizen minister, that the arguments of Mr. Jefferson, concerning the order of the 8th June, apply conclusively to the decree of the 9th May; and that to them are to be added those arguments which are to be drawn from the hardship of being absolutely compelled, without any alternative, to part with the cargoes in France, and those also which are drawn from the duties imposed by an express and solemn treaty.
Nothing can demonstrate more conclusively the real temper of the United States, than the difference between the reception given to the decree of the convention of 9th May, and that which was given to the order of the British cabinet on the 8th June. A large number of American vessels too, were for a long time detained at Bourdeaux, very much to the injury of the owners, without assigning a motive for such detention, or putting it in the power of the government to conjecture the cause of a measure which so deeply affected the interest of their fellow citizens—These and other embarrassments were experienced, but they could not diminish the attachment of the United States to France. In the midst of them, prayers were offered up, through the whole extent of the American continent, for the success of this Republic. The government feeling the same sentiment, displayed it, at least as far as was compatible with the decent deportment required from a nation not a party in the war, and professing neutrality. Such would not have been the conduct of a Government and people in secret unfriendly to France.
Very strong and just resentments were at that time inspired by the hostile conduct of Britain. The instructions of June 1793, whereby the American vessels laden with provisions for France, were brought into the ports of Britain, there to sell such cargoes, or to give security to sell them in other ports in amity with England, and the still more offensive order of November the 6th, in the same year, whereby vessels laden with the produce of a French colony were ordered to be brought in for adjudication, added to the pre-existing causes of mutual irritation, had produced such a state of things as to render it obvious that the injuries complained of by America must be entirely done away, or that war was the inevitable consequence.
This state of things was not so altered by the order of the 6th of Jan. 1794, revoking that of the 6th of Nov. 1793, as to promise a different result. But as a nation preferring peace to war will ever make a peaceful demand of reparation for injuries sustained before that reparation is sought by the sword, and the policy of America has ever been, "to pursue with unremitting zeal before the last resource which has so often been the scourge of nations, and could not fail to check the advanced prosperity of the United States was contemplated," an Envoy Extraordinary was deputed to his Britannic Majesty. "Carrying with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of his country, it was expected that he would vindicate its rights with firmness and cultivate peace with sincerity."
Truly desirous as the American government were of preserving peace with Britain, its determination was unalterable, not to preserve it, nor to receive compensation for injuries sustained, nor security against their future commission, at the expence of the smallest of its engagements to France. Explicit and positive instructions to this effect were given to Mr. Jay, and those instructions were freely communicated to the minister of this Republic then at Philadel-
phia. The negotiation of the American Envoy terminated in a treaty in many respects desirable to the United States.
But however desirable its objects might be, the Government of the United States would not have hesitated to reject them had they been accompanied with any stipulation violating or weakening its engagements with France. But it has been able to discern no such stipulation. The twenty-fifth article of that treaty guards the rights of this Republic by the following clause. "Nothing in this treaty contained shall, however, be construed to operate contrary to former and existing public treaties with other sovereigns or States." The treaty with France being "a former and existing public treaty," and it being thus provided that nothing contained in the treaty with Britain "should be construed to operate contrary to it," the Government of the United States did not apprehend that the treaty with Britain could be considered as effecting its relations to France. But such was its attention to its ally that the instrument was previous to its ratification submitted to the consideration of the Minister of this Republic, who was invited to communicate freely to the United States, such observations upon it as he might judge proper. Mr. Adet in a letter addressed to Mr. Randolph, dated 12th Messidor 3d year of the French Republic, (30th June 1795) expresses his sense of this procedure in the following words: "This frank measure is to me a sure guaranty of the friendship of the American government towards France, and of the fidelity with which it always marks its conduct towards a faithful ally." He then stated those reflections to which the reading of the treaty had given birth. The articles which relate to enemy goods in neutral bottoms, are mentioned without a comment. He contended that the list of contraband was swelled, and that the 23d, 24th and 25th articles of the treaty with Britain, ceded to that power advantages inconsistent with the previous cessions to France. This letter was answered by Mr. Randolph on the 6th of July following, who proves that no article was enumerated in the list of contraband in the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, which was not of that description previous to the formation, and independent of it, noticed briefly, the subject of enemy goods in neutral bottoms, and demonstrated that the objections of Mr. Adet to the 23d, 24th and 25th articles were entirely founded on a misconstruction of them. This misconstruction was so apparent, that Britain has never claimed it nor would the American government ever have admitted it. The letter of Mr. Randolph closes the subject of enemy contraband and of enemy property taken out of neutral bottoms, with a paragraph to which Citizen Minister, your attention is solicited, "Hitherto however (says he) I have spoken upon principles of right. Upon any other principles, and more especially upon those of hardship and injury to a friend, it shall be a topic of the negotiation now opening between us. With the temper which will pervade the whole of it; I cannot doubt, that some modification may be devised, and it may be separated from the general treaty so as not to be delayed by it."
It was then apparent that the government of the United States, actuated by that friendship which transcends the line of strict obligation, was willing gratuitously to release her ally from those stipulations of a former treaty, which in the course of events were deemed to operate unfavourably to her. This readiness to concede marked that friendship the more strongly, as the situations in which the two nations found themselves could not have been unforeseen, but was the very situation for which the article provides. The answer of Mr. Randolph concludes with requesting an opportunity to remove any remaining doubts, should there be such, by further explanation: no remaining doubts were stated, and therefore as well for its contents the letter was believed to be entirely satisfactory to Mr. Adet, and it was hoped that this government as well as that of America would consider the treaty with Britain as an accommodation desirable by the United States and not disadvantageous to France.
It is not easy to express the chagrin felt by the American government on learning that in this treaty the United States were supposed to have "knowingly and evidently sacrificed their connection with this Republic and the most essential and least contested prerogatives of neutrality." With the firmness of conscious integrity the United States aver that they have never knowingly sacrificed or impaired their connections with this Republic nor the prerogatives of neutrality, but that they have, according to their best judgment, invariably sought to preserve both. The undersigned will endeavour faithfully to state the impressions of the government they represent on this interesting subject. The objections made to this treaty by your predecessor in office in his note to Mr. Munroe, dated 10th Ventose, 4th year of the French Republic, one and indivisible (9th March '96) are:
1st. That the United States, besides having departed from the principles established by the armed neutrality have given to England, to the detriment of their first allies, the most striking mark of an unbounded condescension, by abandoning the limits given to contraband by the law of Nations, by their treaties with all other nations and even by those of England with the greater part of the maritime powers.
2d. That they have consented to extend the denomination of contraband even to provisions. Instead of pointing out particularly as all treaties do, the cases of the effective blockade of a place, as alone forming an exception to the freedom of this article they have tacitly acknowledged the pretensions raised by England to create blockades in the colonies, and even in France, by the force of a bare proclamation.
Mr. Adet in his letter to Mr. Pickering dated Brumaire 5th year of the French Republic one and indivisible (15th Nov. 1796) has repeated the same objection, and has been pleased to superadd some observations relative to the formation of such a treaty generally, and the circumstances attending its negotiation, in terms not to have been expected by the first and almost [only] voluntary friends of the Republic.
These having been the only specific objections officially made to the Treaty with Britain by the government of France either in Paris or Philadelphia, are necessarily sup-
posed to be the only objections which have occurred.
They have often been discussed on the part of the United States, but that discussion will be renewed, because, although the undersigned may be unable to suggest any argument not heretofore urged, they cannot resist the hope that an attentive reconsideration of those arguments may give them a success which has not yet attended them.
The first objection may be supposed to consist of two parts. First, the abandonment of the principle that neutral bottoms make neutral goods, an objection rather insinuated than expressed, and slyly, the addition to the catalogue of contraband.
1st. On the first part of the objection, it is observable that the statements of late Minister of exterior relations, and of Mr. Adet, seem to admit but certainly do not controvert the position, that previous to the formation of the armed Neutrality, a belligerent power could rightfully take out of the bottoms of a neutral the goods of its enemy. This position is believed to be uncontrollable, some of the arguments in support of it have been already detailed, and it is deemed unnecessary to repeat or to add to them. To this principle of the armed neutrality with a departure from which, the United States seem to be implicitly charged, the note of Mr. de la Croix does not assign any obligation whatever; nor does he appear to consider it as having been engraven by that confederation on the law of nations. On this point Mr. Adet has not been more explicit. He seems to have been content with vague insinuations, and not to have been willing to commit himself by a direct averment that in consequence of the armed neutrality the law of nations on this subject is changed. The undersigned are unwilling to combat at length a proposition not positively advanced, which they deem so clearly indefensible, and will therefore refer to the brief observation already made respecting it.
It may however be improper here to notice that in February 1778, when the treaty between France and the United States was entered into, the armed neutrality had not been formed: of consequence the state of things, on which that treaty operated, was regulated by the law of nations, as it clearly existed previous to the formation of the armed neutrality. It is supposed to be admitted, that according to that state of things neutral bottoms could afford no protection to the goods of an enemy. The stipulation then of the article of that treaty was understood at the time by the contracting parties, to form an exception to a general rule; which would retain its obligation in all cases where it was not charged—If then the contracting parties had designed to impose on each other the necessity of extending this exception to other nations, so as to convert it into a general rule, they would have expressed this intention in their contract; not having expressed it they must be considered as intending, that this exception should form a rule as between themselves, while the general rule should govern as with other nations who had not consented to change it.
It is also worthy of observation that when this treaty was made, the United States were at war, and France at peace with Britain. In this state of things, which might have continued, had not war been declared or hostilities commenced by England, the bottoms of France would have protected from American cruisers, English property, while they would not have protected from British cruisers, American property. This was the necessary result of that state of things under which the treaty was formed; America had consented to it and neither could or would have complained.
(To be continued.)
HARTFORD, May 14.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Philadelphia, to his friend in this city, dated May 10.
"As reports may exaggerate the events of yesterday and last night, and excite an unnecessary degree of alarm, I will endeavour to give you the best account of them which my information, and what I saw will enable me.
"You have heard that several letters have been thrown into the President's house within a few weeks past, intimating intentions to set fire to the city, and plunder it on the day of the National Fast; and other violences have been threatened. The National Cockade of France has been long, and latterly more especially, considered as a badge of an open avowed attachment to that country; and the black Cockade, which is the American, that of attachment to our own country, and government; and has been chiefly worn by the young citizens who so handsomely addressed the President a few days since.
"Yesterday afternoon, after service, about 40 young men in a body, wearing the French Cockade, made large and flourishing, came down the streets from the Northern Liberties, and went directly to the President's house; where they were observed to be loitering about, and seemed to have no particular object. They soon attracted the public attention, and a crowd of people assembled about them. A Magistrate came and inquired of them their business, and receiving an evasive reply, he desired them to go away, they answered it was a land of liberty, and they should go where they pleased. Very soon they came to blows with the people about them, who in obedience to the Magistrate, attempted to seize some of them. One of the rioters was apprehended and sent to gaol; and the rest had their three coloured cockades pulled out of their hats, and stamped under foot; they threatened their assailants with vengeance, and said they expected several hundred of butchers, and carpenters from the Northern Liberties, Spring Gardens, and Kensington, every moment to join them, and then they would pull out all the
black Cockades. The citizens flew to arms, and the villains were dispersed. Several other squads of fellows with French Cockades were observed in different parts of the city, which increased the alarm; but no further disturbance took place. A large body of horse paraded in front of the President's house all the evening; and a vast number of citizens assembled. Several bodies of volunteers, horse and foot patrolled the streets all night. A strict look out is kept for them, and it is probable the next appearance of the French Cockade in the hats of Americans will not pass over so quietly.
"The citizens discover a noble solicitude for the safety of the President, and the support of the government. There are a great many Frenchmen in and about the city, and with the assistance of such of our own people as are attached to France, and may be deluded into violent measures, might very much disturb the public peace; but we hope nothing disagreeable will again happen.
"I ought to add that it is believed, beyond a doubt that this was an attempt set on foot by persons out of sight, to see what could be done, how great a force they could raise, and how vigorously the friends of government would meet and oppose them; and had not a very spirited and powerful opposition been made immediately, it is believed the consequences would have been disastrous indeed."
BOSTON, May 15.
From AMSTERDAM.
Capt. Elbridge, sailed from this city March 18, which was before the New Elections took place in France. He heard, that our Envoys had had, or were like to have an audience of the Directory. The free election by the Citizens of Amsterdam, of their Municipal Officers, had been set aside by De la Croix, the French Minister Plenipotentiary. They were driven from their place of sitting by a detachment of soldiers, and the creatures of the Minister placed in their stead. The people of Holland are extremely discontented with their situation.
Extract of a letter from Amsterdam, March 20, 1798.
"We have had a dreadful shock in the Hague, 26 members of the National Convention and different Committees are under arrest, for what cause is not yet known, but they were generally of the moderate party, and it is thought our form of Government will become the same as that in France.
"West India goods have got up, and there is no knowing where they will stop. We are now busy in this town, in drawing up a petition to the Dutch Government, which is to be signed by all those interested in the American trade, to request this Government to use all their influence with the French Directory, so as to prevail on them to order their cruisers not to molest American ships coming to this country. What effect this may have towards the safety of the American flag, I know not, but I fear they will listen but little to the too submissive voice of this country.
"Letters from Paris say that your Agents have at last had two or three conferences, but the result is not known."
FROM ALGEZIRAS.
Capt. Rich, from thence, informs, that the principles for the capture and condemnation of American vessels are not improved. The Spanish privateers, it was said, were about to resign their present Commissions and to take French, as they could then be certain of always having their prizes condemned; but now they were sometimes acquitted. The account of the Death of the Dey of Algiers is contradicted.
From a Paper received at Baltimore.
LONDON, MARCH 16.
By our Falmouth letter we have the satisfaction to hear, that the fleet under the command of Sir J. B. Warren, have fallen in with a convoy bound from Bourdeaux to Brest, and, according to the report brought by one of the prizes arrived at Falmouth, had taken several sail and the frigate which convoyed them.
From a Dublin paper rec. at N. York.
DUBLIN, March 21.
Extract of a letter from Dublin, to a gentleman in this city, dated March 19, 1798.
"A vessel which failed yesterday from Liverpool, and arrived here at 3 o'clock this day, brought the London papers of last Friday, which are later than those by the Packet. They state from authority that a fleet, which was sailing from Toulon to Brest, consisting of 7 frigates and upwards of 60 sail of transports, with provisions and stores, had been all taken or sunk, by Sir John B. Warren. As this may not have reached you by the regular course of the post on Wednesday I write this to convey the earliest information."

CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, May 10.
PROVISIONAL ARMY.
THE bill from the Senate, authorizing the President to raise a Provisional Army, was again debated. Mr. Gallatin moved, in effect, to reject the bill wholly; but his motion was lost 47 to 44.
Much business of a local nature, and several acts passed various stages.
FRIDAY, May 11.
The Provisional Army Bill
was re-discussed. Several amendments were made: Mr. Sewall proposed, instead of the President having the power to raise this army for three years, to insert "before the next Session of Congress." The words "whenever he shall judge the public safety requires the measure," were struck out, and supplied with these words, that this army should be raised, "in the event of a declaration of war against the United States, or of actual invasion of their territory by a foreign power, or of imminent danger of such invasion, discovered, in his opinion to exist."—68 were in favour of this alteration.
A motion was made to insert 10,000 instead of 20,000. Mr. Gallatin moved to reduce them to 5,000, this was negatived 47 to 41; and that for inserting 10,000 instead of 20,000, carried, by 54 votes.
Some discussions then took place on the proposition for giving the President power to call out the detached militia, not exceeding 20,000 men in a detachment, to be trained and disciplined; but some doubts of a constitutional nature being suggested, the committee rose, reported progress, and had leave to sit again.
On motion of Mr. Harper, who mentioned that business would require the attention of the committee of Ways and Means to-morrow;—The House adjourned until Monday.
Foreign Articles.
LONDON, MARCH 17.
IT is with great satisfaction we are enabled to confirm the account which we gave yesterday, of Sir J. B. Warren having fallen in with and destroyed a French Convoy. Our accounts of to-day, we observe with peculiar pleasure, go much farther than those of yesterday—they state that the convoy which Sir John had fallen in with, consisted of sixty sail of vessels, all of which he had taken, sunk, burnt, or destroyed, with the frigate that was convoying them.
It would appear that Sir John, in the Canada, of 74 guns, had chased some of these vessels under the Batteries of the Isle of Bas, with one of which that ship had a warm contest, but which she at last silenced and beat to pieces by the superiority of her fire. The vessels of the convoy taken, sixteen in number, are on their passage home under convoy of the Sylph brig. By the last accounts from Sir R. Strachan, who is now blocking up the port of Havre, it appears, that there are nine frigates and corvettes in that port, ready to put to sea. There are also a very considerable number of gun-boats, but nothing goes in or comes out since Sir Richard's squadron has remained off that port.
From Brest we learn, that there are twenty sail of the line in that port, of which eighteen are supposed to be fit for sea, and of these, nine were ready to sail at a moment's warning. The Berwick of 74 guns, with ten frigates, was in the Outer Harbour with sails bent on the 4th of this month, and the whole seemed to be preparing for sea but we have not heard that any of these vessels have yet come out.
Invasion of England.
Accounts from Brussels, say that an Admiral, with a number of marine officers, had examined the sea coast, from the mouth of the Scheldt, and it was said the armament was to sail from Dunkirk. The right wing, of the expedition against England, was to be increased with 35,000 men.
On the 5th March 50 vessels were laid under requisition at Rotterdam.
We learn off Brest, that 20 sail of the line are at that port, 18 of which are fit for sea, and 9 under sailing orders. A 74 and 10 frigates were in the outer harbour, and all appeared equipped for sea.
An embargo is laid on all vessels at Calais, and strictly observed.
Invasion of France.
Several squadrons have failed to intercept on the French coast, the punishment they have threatened the English. The commanders are men of the most daring intrepidity, and the French have already experienced the disasters of invasion. If these expeditions are carried into prompt execution, as they
unquestionably will be, it will serve to perplex and appal our insolent and implacable foe—a foe that will listen to no honorable terms of peace; but appears determined to lay the world prostrate at its feet.
Sir Richard Strachan, is now blocking up the port of Havre; where there are 9 French frigates and corvettes, besides gun-boats, ready for sea. But Sir Richard completely embargoes the port.
BOSTON, May 15.
AUTHENTIC.
Consular Office of the United States of America, Amsterdam, March 20, 1798.
Mr. Benjamin Russell, Boston,
SIR,
I AVAIL myself of the first opportunity to acquaint you that the ship America, Capt. Henshaw, from New-York, lately brought in here by a French cruiser, has been immediately released by the Consul of that nation; and I am happy to add, that every thing will be done here to support and protect the intercourse with the United States.
My letters by the last mail from Paris mention, that our Envoys have lately had several conferences with the Minister of Foreign Affairs—result not known.—I am, your obedt. servt.
SYLVANUS BOURNE.
Another letter from the above gentleman says, that Mr. Gerry had informed him, that the Envoys had had three conferences with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and that the negotiation appeared to be in good train.
OBSERVATION.
The above release was, probably, in consequence of proceedings of the Dutch government, respecting captures made by French privateers, on the coast; and in the ports of Holland. The America, Capt. Henshaw, was, we learn, bound to Amsterdam, and carried in there;—so that her release, may not be an indication of a general amelioration of French conduct towards our commerce. The information respecting our Envoys is pleasing, and appears direct.
A Spanish fleet, consisting of two 90 gun ships, three 74's and 3 frigates, arrived at Porto-Rico from Spain, on the 10th April, having under convoy about 60 sail of merchantmen.
The British have 10 ships of war on the American coast, in search after French cruisers.
From NEW-YORK, May 10.
An unfortunate rencounter has taken place. In consequence of a publication in the Argus, by Mr. Brochest Livingston, reflecting on the conduct of Mr. James Jones, in the proceedings of the young citizens when addressing the President, a duel took place, and Mr. Jones was shot in the groin, and expired on the spot.
Presidential Addresses.
It is impossible for us duly to notice the various addresses which honor every part of the Union. At Hamilton an address was nearly unanimously signed on Fast-day. At Cambridge, an address of the Students is preparing, and Messrs. Sazer, Story, Welch, Channing and Williams, are the committee to draft it. At Lancaster, Penn. the Address had 1800 Signatures.
The young men of Baltimore, are not behind those of the other capitals of the United States.
The spirited Address from the Young Men of Boston, which would do honor to the pen of a Junius, and to the spirit and firmness of an Adams, has received above ELEVEN HUNDRED signatures.
Our patriotic Seamen flock to join the Constitution's flag.
Portland has petitioned Congress for an aid of 10,000 dollars, for fortifying that port.
A more ridiculous farago could not be palmed on the public, than the Hamburg humbug about Y, and Z, copied into the Chronicle, from the Argus.
SHOOTING ACCIDENT.
On Saturday last, at Malden, the following unfortunate event took place:—As Mr. John Hancock was sitting in a chair after dinner, sportively instructing a young man, who had taken up a gun, which had been charged the day before, in the manual exercise; when Mr. H. directed him to take aim and fire, he received the contents into his head, which instantly put an end to his existence, Æt. 37. Let this be a solemn caution to young people, how they sport with arms, and heedlessly trifle with instruments of death.
MAY 18.
We hear that Capt. Isaac Collins is appointed Sailing Master of the frigate Constitution, and Mr. John Thompson, Boatwain.
The young men of Philadelphia are enrolling themselves into Military Companies.
It perhaps behoves every man, at the present crisis, to make himself competent in every military science. Such accomplishments at any period serve to complete the gentleman.—
They are conducive to health; and now they will increase our country's means of defence. "Bello Parati, Pacem Paramus."
50 or 60 dwelling houses and stores besides small buildings were lately destroyed by fire at Wilmington, N. C.
MAY 19.
Highly Alarming!
The French are putting in execution the threats of M. Talleyrand, to harass our coast with cruisers, from St. Domingo.—Read the following:— "Providence, May 18, 1798."
"Major Benjamin Russell, SIR,
"Last evening arrived here the sloop Hannah, Capt. Swift, from Georgetown, S. C. On the 8th inst. in lat. 39. 32. Capt. Swift was boarded by a French privateer sloop of 10 six, and 4 twelve pounders, which put on board him part of the crew of 2 ships she had taken off New-York, viz. ship Merchant, outward bound from N. York, for Bristol, out 29 hours; and ship Thomas, from Liverpool, bound to Philadelphia. Another ship heaving in sight, the privateer left Capt. Swift and went in chase of her. The commander told Capt. S. that if he had been worth taking he would have sent him off too. Capt. S. put the people on shore at Stonington, (Connecticut.)
"I received these particulars from Capt. Swift,—so that you may depend on their correctness.
I am, Sir, with esteem, your most obedient servant, WILLIAM WILKINSON."
These accounts are confirmed in the New-London papers. And the mail of last night, added to these captures, almost within our ports, the ship Favourite, of Charleston. There are 6 French cruisers now on the coast. One has been captured by the British, and ordered for Halifax.
Latest from France.
Yesterday arrived here brig Union, Capt. Smith, from Bourdeaux, 50 days.—This attentive Captain has furnished Bourdeaux papers, to the 25th, and Paris to the 20th March.
Translations for the Centinel.
BOURDEAUX, March 25.
A private letter from Paris informs, that the three American Envoys still remain in that city, without having been received by the Executive Directory. Several propositions have been made them on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It appears that he has exacted from them many sacrifices. They have written on this subject to the government of their country, and are waiting for definitive answers. THE DIRECTORY APPEAR DETERMINED TO TAKE VIGOROUS MEASURES, IF THESE PROPOSITIONS ARE REJECTED. From present appearances every thing will be decided within two months.
This paragraph confirms the official letter from Mr. Consul Bourne, to the Editor, as far as relates to an interview with Talleyrand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs; but contradicts the paragraph which mentions, that Mr. Gerry had informed Mr. B. that the negotiation assumed a favorable aspect. That paragraph was not official.
PARIS, March 29.
We are assured, that the "army of England," keeps continually encamped in huts, and that they are daily exercised, in detachments, embarking and debarking, in order to make them accustomed to the sea, and to give greater precision to their manoeuvres. The Pope has arrived in Tuscany. He had with him 200,000 crowns.
Switzerland is completely revolutionized; and the colours taken from the troops of the Helvetic Oligarchy, have been presented to the Directory.
COPENHAGEN, (DENMARK) MARCH 1.
After it was known that the Legislature of the French Republic had decreed on the seizure of English Merchandise, found on board of all vessels belonging to neutral nations, the Danish government equipped two sail of the line, to carry to a certain latitude such of our merchantmen as were bound to the East-Indies.
NEGOTIATION.
RASTADT, MARCH 7. The deputation of the Empire yesterday held a conference to deliberate on the last note of the French Ministers. We are assured, that a majority of votes were in favor of granting to the French Republic, all the left bank of the Rhine; on the conditions proposed in the note transmitted to citizens Trielland and Bonnier, for the cession of one half; and without the proposition being divided; that is to say, in default of the French government's accepting these conditions, the offer is to be considered as null and void.
Mr. Putnam, lately confined at Pa-
ris, was released the 17th March, by order of the Directory.
A conspiracy has been discovered in Ireland. A secret Directory had been formed, of which Earl Fitzgerald was head.—A general massacre to have been made the 17th of March. It is said O'Comer developed the wicked plan.
IMPORTANT APPOINTMENTS
Winthrop Sargent, Governor of the Mississippi Territory—John Steel, of Virginia, Secretary—Peter Bryan Bruin, Second Judge—Daniel Tilton, of New-Hampshire, 3d Judge.—Thus it appears that government and order will soon be established in this flourishing part of the United States, and an opportunity offer for a rapid and extensive settlement.
Richard Dale, Stephen Degatur, of Pennsylvania, Silas Talbot, of New-York, and James Sever, of Massachusetts, to be Captains in the Navy.
John Ruth, of Pennsylvania, Surgeon.
Daniel Carmeck, do. 2d Lt. Marines.
Capt. Dale commands the Ganges, and Capt. Decatur the Hamburg packet, 20 gun ships.
Colonel Rochfontaine, late commander at West-Point, has been dismissed from office, by a Court-Martial; and Captain Daniel Ingerfol now commands that important post.
SPECIE.
Four hundred and thirty thousand Crowns (not 130,000 as has been mentioned) have been transported, under a military escort, from New-York to Philadelphia, to be recoined at the National Mint.
PORTSMOUTH, May 22.
Answer of the PRESIDENT of the United States, to the Address of the inhabitants of this town.
To the inhabitants of the town of Portsmouth in the State of New-Hampshire.
Gentlemen,
I thank you for the assurances, in your Address to the President and Congress, of your most determined and unequivocal support in maintaining measures that have been or may be adopted, for the interest, honor, & independence of the United States, the high sense you express of the wisdom and probity, which have characterized the various efforts of our Executive Government, for effecting a permanent reconciliation with France, is very acceptable.
The offer of your property to support, and your lives to defend, your dear-bought, sacred, and unalienable rights—your national interest, honor, and independence is very honorable to you, and must be very satisfactory to the Government.
Those who know you best, will readily believe, that in these sentiments you are not a divided people, and that you will never be the slaves or dupes to any nation upon the face of the Globe.
JOHN ADAMS.
Philadelphia, May 12, 1798.
On Saturday the Circuit Court was opened in this town, after the throne of Grace was addressed by the Rev. Doctor HAVEN.—The Honorable Chief Justice ELLSWORTH gave the Grand Jury a short but very comprehensive and pathetic charge, the jury then retired for a few minutes, there appearing no business for them, they returned and were by the Court dismissed. Jeremiah Mason, Esq. of this town, and Charles Walker, Esq. of Concord, were admitted to practice in said Court, and were accordingly qualified by having the necessary oaths administered to them.
Sunday arrived at his seat in this town, the Hon. JOHN LANGDON, Esq. one of the Senators for this State, in the Congress of the United States.
By the returns made for Senators for the ensuing year, the following gentlemen are chosen, viz.
District No. 1. Moses Leavitt, Esq. 2. Jeremiah Pogg, Esq. 4. Michael McClary, Esq. 5. William Hale, Esq. 8. James Flanders, Esq. 12. Moses Baker, Esq.
CANDIDATES.
3. Joseph Blanchard and John Bell, Esquires. 6. Nathan Hall and Joseph Parsons, Esquires. 7. John Orr and Timothy Taylor, Esquires. 9. Ephraim Hartwell and John Duncan, Esquires. 10. Elisha Whitcomb and Daniel Newcomb, Esquires. 11. Amos Shepard and Samuel Stevens, Esquires.
An arrival at Portland, states, that two commissioners sent from France to supersede HUGUES and LEBAS, arrived at Guadalupe, but were compelled to re-embark, with a menace, that if they attempted to reland they should lose their heads.
The Federal House of Representatives have been employed for several days on the Provisional army bill. It has passed—authorizing the President to raise and officer an army of 10,000 men, during the recess of Congress, if any exigency occurs which he conceives may make such troops necessary.
CONNECTICUT. His Excellency JONATHAN TRUMBULL, is elected, nearly unanimously, Governor. The honorable JOHN TREADWELL, Esq. Lieutenant-Governor. All the elections are genuinely federal-American.—The Governor has pronounced an animated Speech to the Legislature—"We have," says he, "indeed been agitated—agitated, beyond our expectations—our national honour and interests have been outraged and insulted—our rights as an independent and neutral nation have been violently infringed—and our commercial enterprises have been unjustly interrupted and impeded. These injuries have been borne with unexampled patience and forbearance. In the spirit of peace and good will, our national Executive has endeavoured to remonstrate and conciliate; but our Envoys at France have not only not been attended to, but, contrary to the laws and customs of civilized nations, have been treated with unprecedented, haughty influence, silence, and contempt."
FIRE.—The city of Wilmington, N. C. has suffered very severely by fire. It broke out at midnight, and consumed between 50 and 60 dwelling-houses, besides out buildings, &c. The whole town was saved as it were, by miracle. The whole loss is estimated at not less than 140,000 dollars.
MARRIED.—At Connecticut Farms, on the 22d ult. by the Rev. Mr. Fish, Mr. Moses Mooney, aged nineteen, to Miss Rhoda Sayre, aged forty.
DIED.—In this town, Mrs. Elizabeth Mace, aged 87.
At Exeter, of the county, Miss Deborah T. Peabody, youngest daughter of the Hon. Oliver Peabody.
ENTRIES at the CUSTOM-HOUSE. District of PORTSMOUTH, N. H.
ENTERED FROM Sloop Harmony, Prowse, Philadelphia. CLEARED FOR Schooner Hope, Moore, Surinam; Schooner Eliza, Shaw, Baltimore; Brig Ann, Pender, Edenton; Brig Maria, Watts, Surinam.
New Goods.
Oliver Briard
Has just received a general assortment of European GOODS, which are now for sale at his Store in Market Street, cheap for cash. Portsmouth, May 22, 1798.
Richard Evans
Has received and is now opening for sale a general assortment of cheap Goods. Portsmouth, May 22, 1798.
New Goods
JUST RECEIVED BY Phineas Ellis,
At his store in Market Street, and for sale on very reasonable terms for cash. N. B. Good Tow Cloth received the same as cash. Portsmouth, May 22.
Wanted immediately, An Apprentice to the Joiner's business; one from the country would be preferred; Inquire of the Printer.
AUCTION.
Wednesday and Thursday next At 10 o'clock, A. M. will be sold at Abraham Isaac's
Auction-Room,
A GREAT variety of Dry and Hardware GOODS.—Half dozen elegant new silver Watches; 55 pieces India cottons; several doz. yd. wide muslin handkerchiefs; 30 yd. black sewing silk; several pieces white silk gauze; 50 pieces Dutch hair-ribbon; beaver and felt hats; broad cloths;—A great variety of coat and vest buttons; 100 bags mowhair buttons; 114 pair shoes; horse and shoe brushes; paint ditto; curry combs; a variety of pictures; shoe and knee buckles, &c. &c. With a variety of other articles too tedious to enumerate.
OUT DOOR SALE.
An elegant swell'd front mahogany Bureau; chamber Chairs; a handsome Cradle; Dining Tables, &c. &c. N. B. Vendue kept every Wednesday.
POCKET BOOK FOUND.
PICKED up in the road leading to Greenland, by the subscriber, a few days since; a black leather Pocket Book, containing a sum of money and several notes of hand. The owner may have it again without any expence, save paying for this advertisement. J. DAVENPORT. Portsmouth, May 21, 1798.

Treasury Department, March 1, 1798.
Public Notice is hereby given,
IN pursuance of the Act of Congress passed on the sixth day of July one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, entitled "An act laying duties on Stamped Vellum, Parchment and Paper," and the Act passed on the 15th day of December, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, entitled, "An Act to postpone for a limited time the commencement of the duties imposed by the Act entitled "An Act laying duties on Stamped Vellum, Parchment and Paper," that from and after the first day of July ensuing, the several Stamped Duties hereafter enumerated, will be levied and collected throughout the United States.
I.
For every skin or piece of Vellum or Parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, upon which shall be written or printed any or either of the instruments or writings following—to wit:
   Dolls Cents ms     Any Certificate of Naturalization, 5   Any License to practise, or Certificate of the admission, enrolment or registry of any Counsellor, Solicitor, Attorney, Advocate or Proctor, in any court of the United States, 10   Provided, that a Certificate in any one of the Courts of the United States for one of the said Offices, shall so far as relates to the payment of the duty aforesaid, be a sufficient admission in all the Courts of the United States, for each and every of the said offices.   Any Grant or Letters Patent, under the seal or authority of the United States (except for lands granted for military services) 4   Any exemplification or certified copy of any such grant or letters patent (except for lands granted for military services) 2   Any Charter-Part, Bottomry, or Respondentia Bond, 1   Any Receipt or other discharge for or on account of any Legacy, left by any Will or other testamentary instrument, or for any share or part of a personal estate divided by force of any statute of distributions, other than to the Wife, Children or Grand Children of the person deceased, the amount whereof shall be above the value of fifty dollars, and shall not exceed the value of one hundred dollars, 25   When the amount thereof shall exceed the value of one hundred dollars and shall not exceed five hundred dollars, 50   And for every further sum of five hundred dollars, the additional sum of 1   Any Policy of Insurance or instrument in nature thereof, on any ship, vessel or goods insured from one district to another in the United States, 25   From the United States to any foreign port or place, when the sum for which Insurance is made shall not exceed five hundred dollars, 25   When the sum insured shall exceed five hundred dollars, 1   Any Exemplification, of what nature soever, that shall pass the seal of any Court, other than such as it may be the duty of the Clerk of such Court to furnish for the use of the United States or some particular state, 50   Any Bond, bill single or penal, foreign or inland bill of exchange, promissory note or other note, other than any recognizance, bill, bond, or other obligation or contract, made to or with the United States or any state, or for their use respectively, 10   If above twenty dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, 10   If above one hundred dollars and not exceeding five hundred dollars, 25   If above five hundred and not exceeding one thousand dollars, 50   And if above one thousand dollars, 75   Provided, that if any bonds or notes shall be payable at or within sixty days, such bonds or notes shall be subject to only two fifth parts of the duty aforesaid, viz.   If above twenty dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, 4   If above one hundred dollars & not exceeding five hundred dols. 10   If above five hundred dollars & not exceeding one thousand dols. 20   If above one thousand dollars, 30   Any Notes issued by the Banks now established, or that may hereafter be established within the United States, other than the notes of such of the said Banks as shall agree to an annual composition, of one per centum on the annual dividends made by such Banks, to their Stockholders respectively, according to the following scale.   On all notes not exceeding fifty dollars, for each dollar, 6   On all notes above fifty dollars, and not exceeding one hundred dollars, 50   On all notes above one hundred dollars, and not exceeding five hundred dollars, 1   On all notes above five hundred dollars, 2   Any Protest or other Notarial act, 25   Any Letter of Attorney, except for an invalid pension, or to obtain or sell Warrants for Land granted by the United States as bounty for military services performed in the late war, 25   Any Certificate or Debenture for drawback of Customs or duties, for less than five hundred dollars, 1   For five hundred dollars & not exceeding two thousand dollars, 2   For more than two thousand dollars, 3   Any note or bill of lading for goods or merchandise to be exported, If from one district to another district of the United States, not being in the same State, 10   If from the United States to any foreign port or place, 25   Any Inventory or Catalogue of any furniture, goods or effects, made in any case required by law, (except in cases of goods and chattels distrained for rent or taxes, and goods taken in virtue of any legal process by any officer) 50   Any Certificate of a Share in any Insurance Company, of a Share in the Bank of the United States, or of any State or other Bank, 10   If above twenty dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, 10   If above one hundred dollars, 25   If under twenty dollars, at the rate of ten cents for 100 dollars.  
II.
The duties aforesaid will be collected and received by the Supervisors, Inspectors and other Officers of Inspection, in the several Districts, Surveys and Divisions of the United States, and by such other persons as shall from time to time be specially appointed and employed by the Supervisors of Districts for that purpose.
III.
The Supervisors of the several Districts will, prior to the first day of July ensuing, and as soon as may be practicable, mark or stamp, without fee or reward, any quantities or parcels of Vellum, Parchment or Paper, with any of the rates of duties before enumerated, on payment of the said duties; Or stamped vellum, parchment and paper may at the option of the Citizens of the United States, be obtained at the rates prescribed by law, by application to any Supervisor, Inspector, Officer of Inspection, or other person appointed for the distribution of Stamps, by the Supervisors of Districts.
Given under my Hand, at Philadelphia the day and year abovementioned.
OLIVER WOLCOTT, Secretary of the Treasury.
100 hogheads Molasses of a good quality— To be sold by Thomas Chadbourn, jr. At his Store at the North-End, Where may be had a general assortment of W. I. Goods and Groceries, Cheap for cash. Portsmouth, March 29, 1798. 6w.
TO BE SOLD, The ship Florenzo's CARGO, Now landing at the Portsmouth Pier, by wholesale or retail—consisting of SIXTY-EIGHT hhds. Sugar, 115 bags Coffee, 6 hhds. Rum, 3d proof, Entitled to drawback. May 14.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 30th, 1798.
Public notice is hereby given,
THAT by an act of Congress passed on the 19th day of March 1798, the following alterations and amendments have been made to the act passed on the 6th day of July 1797, entitled "An act laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment and paper."
I.
The stamp duties on debentures or certificates for the drawback of Customs or duties on Imports, are repealed.
II.
A discount at the rate of seven and one half per centum, will be allowed by the Supervisors or Inspectors respectively, to any persons other than Officers of the Revenue, who may purchase at one time or procure to be stamped, any quantities of Vellum, Parchment or Paper, upon which the duties shall amount to Ten Dollars or upwards.
III.
Stamped Paper, will be provided, and sold at the rates prescribed by law, without any additional charge or expense on account of the price of Paper; but for stamped Parchment or Vellum, an additional price will be demanded at the rate of Fifty Cents for each skin of Parchment, or Two Hundred Cents for each skin of Vellum of medium size, which may be furnished at the expense of the United States and proportionally for any lesser quantity.
Given under my hand, at Philadelphia, the day and year abovementioned.
OLIVER WOLCOTT, Secretary of the Treasury.
NOTICE is hereby given to the proprietors and owners of land in the township of Franconia, situate in the county of Grafton, in the State of New-Hampshire that a tax of twenty shillings equal to three dollars, thirty three cents and three mills, on each original right of land in said township is duly assessed and committed to me to collect for the purpose of paying the proprietors' debts agreeable to their vote of May 20th, 1794, that if said tax is not paid to me at my dwelling house in Waltham, in the county of Middlesex in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on or before the first day of June next ensuing, the same will be levied by sale of so much of the interest and property of the proprietor or owner who shall be delinquent in payment fourteen days after the third and last week of this advertisement, and the delinquents land will be advertised for sale accordingly.
JOSEPH NIXON, Collector of taxes for the proprietors of Franconia aforesaid.
April 12, 1798.
State of New-Hampshire.
Hillsborough, ff.
NOTICE is hereby given to the non-resident proprietors and owners of land in the township of Hancock, that their lands are taxed to the town and county for the year 1797, agreeable to the following list, and unless said taxes are paid to me the subscriber before Monday the 2d day of July next, so much of each delinquent owner's land as will pay said taxes with incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue on said day, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, at the dwelling house of Andrew Seaton, innholder in said town.
   No. R. Q'ty. cents.     Charles Cavender, 1 1 98 53   Thomas Danforth, 6 1 52 32   William Nutting, 1 1 98 40   Lemuel Marden, 13 1 50   Capt. James Davis, 6 4 25 11   Joseph Howard, 13 5 100 27   John Moor, 8 2 100 27   Reuben Ball, 16 1 65 18   Charles Miles, 100 27  
LEMUEL LAKIN, Collector.
Hancock, April 23, 1798.
District of New-Hampshire, to wit.
BE it remembered that on the third day of May in the twenty-second year of the independence of the United States of America, SAMUEL LAKIN, of the said District, hath deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as proprietor, in the words following, to wit, "The Columbian Songster and Freemason's pocket companion; a collection of the newest and most celebrated sentimental, comical, humorous, satirical, pastoral, hunting, sea and masonic Songs, being the largest and best collection ever published in America; Selected by S. LAKIN," in conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, intitled, "an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned."
JONATHAN STEELE, Clerk of the District of New-Hampshire. A true Copy of Record, Attest, JONATHAN STEELE.
State of New-Hampshire.
NOTICE is hereby given to the proprietors and owners of land in the town of Barnstead, who have not paid their proprietary tax for the year 1797, that unless they pay the same to me the subscriber on or before the 14th day of July next, so much of their land as will pay the same with incidental charges, will be sold at public vendue at 10 o'clock, A. M. on said day, at the dwelling house of John Bickford, innholder in said town.
   First division. No. Q'ty. cts.     Clement Meservey, 1 15 1 8   Andrew Wiggin, 13 60 5   John Wallingford, 20 22 1 86   Benjamin Clarke, 22 60 5   Peter Weare, 31 60 5   George Jaffey, 33 50 5   Andrew Peters, 46 60 5   John Thompson, 47 60 5   John Gilman, 54 60 5   George Walton, jr. 59 30 2 50   John Odior, 70 60 5   Shadrack Walton, 76 60 5   John Frost, 81 60 5   Gilman M'Fredrick, 90 60 5   Archibald M'Fredrick 93 60 5   John Faybens, jr. 99 60 5   Theodore Atkinson, 101 30 2 50   Col. Mark Hunking, 116 30 2 50   Timothy Gerrish. 117 30 2 50  
Second division.
   Jonathan Downing, 24 25 2 25   Cyprian Jaffey, 26 75 6 25   John Thompson, 27 100 8 34   Joseph Sanborn, 29 75 6 25   Peter Weare, 30 75 6 25   John Plaisted, 34 100 8 34   Joseph Faybens, 35 100 8 34   James Jaffey, 36 6 0 50   Richard Jennens, 40 19 1 58   John Decker, 46 25 2 8   John Walton, 47 100 8 34   Jethro Bickford, 49 75 6 25   Theodore Atkinson, 50 75 6 25   Samuel Tibbetts, 51 7 0 58   Hunking Wentworth, 53 30 2 50   Capt. John Knight, 54 10 0 86   James Davis, 55 100 8 34   James Nutter, 56 75 6 25   Robert Auchmuty, 57 8 0 68   Timothy Bickford, 61 45 3 75   John Downing, 63 100 8 34   Samuel Thompson, 64 65 5 42   Ebenezer Colman, 68 77 6 41   Ephraim Dennett, 69 88 6 88   Joseph Downing, 70 100 8 34   Moses Furbur, 71 25 2 8   Samuel Huntress, 72 100 8 34   Richard Downing, 73 100 8 34   Samuel Walton, 74 15 1 25   Samuel Faybens, 75 100 8 34   Richard Wibird, 76 100 8 34   Richard Waldron, 83 100 8 34   Elathan Dame, 85 100 8 34   Timothy Gerrish, 88 40 3 33   Benja. Downing, 90 100 8 34   John Wentworth, 95 43 3 58   Nathaniel Morrill, 96 50 4 16   George Wentworth, 97 100 8 34   Zebulon Dame, 103 100 8 34   Mark Ayers, 106 100 8 34   John Redman, 107 38 3 8   Isaac Downing, 109 50 4 16   Matthias Nutter, 110 100 8 34   John Pickering, 111 100 8 34   John Shackford, 112 68 5 67   Benjamin Bickford, 114 100 8 34   Benja. Wentworth, 115 100 8 34   Lemuel Bickford, 116 100 8 34   George Walton, jr. 119 100 8 34  
Common.
   Nicholas Dudley, 83 6 92   Jeremiah Morrill, 10 0 86   Richard Sinkler, 100 8 34   William Lord, 48 4   Joseph Elkins, 6 0 50   Obediah Bunker, 4 0 33  
PELATIAH DANIELS, Jr. Collector
Barnstead, April 27, 1798.
CANTAB
WILL cover this season, at the stable of James Sargent in Candia, the noted full-blooded horse CANTAB, formerly kept by Maj. Samuel Mooers, rising eight years old this spring, full sixteen hands high, of a beautiful dark chestnut colour, his movement exceeding Jofy, brought from the State of Virginia, and has a pedigree that will prove him of the first flock; he is remarkable for his strength, and his colts are the most elegant without exception of any in the State. May 2, 1798.
Rockingham ff.
NOTICE is hereby given that I have appealed to the next Superior Court of Judicature, to be held at Exeter, in and for said county, on the third Tuesday in September next, from a decree of the Judge of Probate for said county, made the 16th day of April last, revoking a decree by him made on the 25th day of December last, granting to me the administration of the estate (in this State) of Barlow Trecothick, late of London, in the Kingdom of Great-Britain, Esq. deceased, and that said appeal will be prosecuted at said court. JONATHAN WARNER. May 7, 1798.
WHEREAS I the subscriber some time last summer advertised the public that my wife Sarah, had left my bed and board, and forbid any person to trust or harbour her, if they would avoid the law; I now wish to revoke the above, and set her on the same footing that she was before, as we have settled all disputes between us. SAMUEL FISK. Allenstown, April 26, 1798.
PURSUANT to a legal request to me the subscriber, proprietors clerk for the township of Millsfield, in the county of Grafton, and State of New-Hampshire, from more than one sixteenth part of the proprietors of said township; I do hereby notify said proprietors to meet at the dwelling house of Mrs. Wells, innholder in Hampton-Falls, in the county of Rockingham, in said State, on Wednesday the 4th day of July next, at 10 of the clock in the forenoon, for the following purposes, viz.
 1st. To choose a moderator, proprietors clerk, assessors, treasurer, and a collector or collectors.  2d. To see whether the proprietors will reconsider and annul all their former votes, for lotting and dividing said township, and annul all their proceedings in consequence of said votes.  3d. To see if the proprietors will agree to give a certain quantity of land in said township, or make any other compensation to any person or persons that will agree to settle in said township.  4th. To see if the proprietors will agree to raise money by a tax on each right, to satisfy any demand or demands which may exist against the proprietors, & direct their treasurer to satisfy the same demand or demands.  5th. To see if the proprietors will agree to raise any sum or sums of money by a tax on each right, to be appropriated to any purpose or purposes, which they may think proper.  6th. To see if the proprietors will agree to make compensation to those proprietors and proprietors attorneys, who may attend the present or future meetings, or both.  7th. To choose a committee to settle with every former treasurer and collector, and receive what money may be in their hands, and obtain from any former clerk, treasurer or collector, any books or papers belonging to the proprietors which may remain in the hands of the same officers. 
JOHN JENKS, Proprietors Clerk of said Millsfield.
Salem, May 12, 1798.
PURSUANT to a legal request to me the subscriber, proprietors clerk for the township of Errol, in the county of Grafton, and State of New-Hampshire, from more than one sixteenth part of the proprietors of said township; I do hereby notify said proprietors to meet at the dwelling house of Mrs. Wells, innholder in Hampton-Falls, in the county of Rockingham, in said State, on Wednesday the 4th day of July next, at 10 of the clock in the forenoon, for the following purposes, viz.
 1st. To choose a moderator, proprietors clerk, assessors, treasurer, and a collector or collectors.  2d. To see whether the proprietors will reconsider and annul all their former votes, for lotting and dividing said township, and annul all their proceedings in consequence of said votes.  3d. To see if the proprietors will agree to give a certain quantity of land in said township, or make any other compensation to any person or persons that will agree to settle in said township.  4th. To see if the proprietors will agree to raise money by a tax on each right, to satisfy any demand or demands which may exist against the proprietors, and direct their treasurer to satisfy the same demand or demands