The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-01-08 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. 11.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CLXXXIII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 8th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
The Subscriber
RESPECTFULLY informs the public, that he has removed from George-Town to the Fountain Inn, near Rhodes's City Tavern. Where he is furnished with a good hovel, carriage house, and stabling for eighteen horses, and every thing in his line to render the accommodation of travellers agreeable. His strictest attention will be paid by CHARLES ROGERS.
N. B. Ten or fifteen gentlemen can get board and lodging on moderate terms. Dec. 27. epff
Dissolution of Partnership.
THE partnership of CHARLES VARDEN and THOMAS CARPENTER, did by mutual consent dissolve on the 21st day of November last. It is requested that all persons indebted to the said firm will settle their accounts; and that all to whom the firm is indebted will present the same for payment, either to
CHARLES VARDEN, or THOMAS CARPENTER. City of Washington, Capitol Hill, Dec. 4. epff
THOMAS CARPENTER,
TAYLOR,
SOLICITS a continuation of that generous encouragement which he has experienced from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City and its vicinity. Having procured an elegant assortment of cloths, cassimeres, swansdowns, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents, his unremitting attention shall be given to merit patronage.
Capitol Hill next house east of Mrs. Finch's boarding house, and Pennsylvania Avenue between the President's square and Seven Buildings. Dec. 7, 1801. epff
NOTICE.
THIS is to give notice, That the Subscriber has obtained from the orphan's court of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, letters of administration on the personal estate of James Robinson, late of the county of Washington deceased, all persons having claims against the said deceased, are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber, at or before the first day of June next; they may otherwise be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Given under my hand this 24th day of December in the year 1801.
LEWIN TALBURT, Administrator.
December 28, 1801. epff
To Rent,
And possession given immediately; A TWO STORY
BRICK HOUSE,
North front of the President's House, CONTAINING
TWO Parlours and four Bed-rooms, with Garden, &c. It is convenient to the Public offices, and may be had furnished or unfurnished, with or without board, on reasonable terms, to an agreeable tenant. Enquire of the Printer, or on the premises. Also, Wanted Employment,
For a YOUNG MAN, who would engage as an assistant in a store, having kept one of his own, of course accustomed to it. Would act as Steward and superintend a plantation, or the like—would make himself useful in any situation.—Enquire of the Printer hereof. November 25. etwff
CHARLES VARDEN,
Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia,
GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and flatters himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of,
Best superfine cloths, Cassimeres, Swansdown, Toylenets, Velverets, Fancy Cords, Coatings, Flannels, &c.
N. B. Regimentals, Naval Uniforms, and Ladies' Habits, made in the neatest and most fashionable manner, and at the shortest notice.—Washington City, New-Jersey Avenue, next to Mr. Rapine's book store. Dec. 16, 1801. epff
ROBBERY!!
Five hundred Dollars
REWARD.
GENERAL POST OFFICE, December 18, 1801.
WHEREAS I have received information that the Northern Mail, which was despatched from the post office at Charleston, S.C. on Wednesday evening the 2d instant, was forcibly taken from the post rider near the ten mile house, by four persons whom he believes to be negroes, but who may have been white persons disguised: And whereas I have been informed that several gentlemen had forwarded by said mail sundry Bank notes and bills of exchange to a considerable amount, I do hereby offer a reward of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, to be paid to any person or persons, who will apprehend or give information that may lead to conviction all, or either of the villains concerned in this daring robbery, so that they may be brought to punishment.
The Postmaster at Charleston, having offered a similar reward, this is not to be considered as accumulative but confirmatory of his act.
GIDEON GRANGER, Postmaster-General.
Dec. 21, 1801. ep3w
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Monday Jan. 4, 1802.
[Concluded]
Mr. RANDOLPH considered this question as involving two points: The one, which was of inferior magnitude, whether the representation upon this floor should be increased, by a few members, with a view to the relative weight of this or that state; the other, which was of the last importance, whether it should be so increased for the purpose avowed by the gentleman from Delaware, of augmenting the power, as yet too small, of this government, and of course so far diminishing that of the states. Thus the question, in itself a matter of comparatively small moment, becomes of serious consequence as a test of political opinion. I will to put it upon that issue, to see whether a majority of this house are disposed to advocate the position of that gentleman.—Without entering into the question, whether the power devolved on the general government by the constitution, exceeded that measure, which, in its formation, he would have been willing to bestow, he had no hesitation in declaring that it did not fall short of it—that he dreaded its extension, by whatever means, and should always oppose measures whose object or tendency it was to effect it. The gentleman tells you, Sir, that from the number of its connexions with the people, the state governments possess their confidence in a high degree—that there is danger of an abuse of this confidence; that through it the large states may thwart and control the general government; that it then behoves the small states to come into the measure which he proposes, from a consideration that it will operate, in that way, to reduce the power of the large states. An increase of representation, we are told, will do more towards increasing the power of the general government than a military force. But when military and naval preparations and every other expedient devised for carrying that power beyond the constitutional limit had failed. I trust that this house is not to be seduced on that forlorn hope, at the instance of those whose interest it is in the distribution of power between the several branches of this government, to transfer as much of it as possible to the other branches; who have, in the pursuit of this system, contended that we did not possess a discretion over the public money, but were bound to appropriate it on requisition from the executive. This house I trust, is not become an engine in such hands for engulfing into the vortex of the general government the powers of the states, and then settling the distribution of those powers. They will recollect that the exercise of this power to be wrested from the states, is to be shared by co-ordinate branches of the government, where the weight which regulates this body is felt, either partially or not at all; I mean the population of the states.—If a consolidation into one great national government is to take place; if ever the state governments are to be set aside, if the powers of this government are to extend beyond objects federal in their nature, let us not suppose that the people of the United States would freely consent to the exercise of those powers by a government which, if viewed as the government of an individual sovereignty, and not as that of a number of confederated states, contains principles which are highly objectionable; which are even repugnant to our received truths respecting the nature of government. For, Sir, I hold that if there be a principle fixed in politics, it is that the people of every country should have their equal weight in the direction of their government. But suppose the state governments gone; or existing as the mere skeletons of power, whilst this government, in high political health and vigor, is in the exercise of every right belonging to an individual sovereignty. Look to the distribution of those powers; see by whom they are to be exercised. In this branch alone will you find the republican character—in the other it is not to be seen.—There, is that principle virtually acknowledged which gives to Old Sarum and Newton a representation equal to that of London; a principle which is believed by some essential to the existence of that well-ordered government, or perhaps of any other which they
are willing to bestow upon man; the principle that the governors are not to be under the complete control of the governed; in other words, that the majority ought not to govern. In the appointment of the executive the same spirit prevails although somewhat modified. When a government thus constituted is to exercise the power, our surprise is somewhat diminished that those who would possess so undue a share of that power, were it once consolidated, should feel disposed to augment the influence of the government; nor that those who would be dispossessed, in that event, of their full share in the direction of affairs, should be equally anxious to restrict it. But the committee will perceive the wide distinction between this government and that of an individual state. The one is simple, and all parts of it referable to a great principle; the other is the creature of compromise, instituted for federal purposes, to which the states were incompetent. The proposed devolution of power was so great, so intimately affecting the wealth and population of the states, as to excite in the large states an invincible repugnance to part with it unless its exercise was in some measure regulated by the quantum of that population and wealth; hence the origin of this house, elected by the states, in the ratio of population and wealth—whilst in the Senate the sovereign rights, as such, are allowed an equal representation, and the influence in the appointment of the executive is compounded of these; and even this power of choosing the chief magistrate of the union is in a certain event, which has already occurred, and which will be memorable as long as this government endures, is to be exercised by this house voting not so that the delegations shall represent the population and wealth of the states, but their sovereignty only.—Did not the gentleman from Delaware then feel his weight on this floor to be equal to that of nineteen delegates from Virginia. This spirit of compromise, Sir, I conceive to be the key to this government. It is the principle which pervades it throughout and resolves every question which arises on its nature. This shews, Sir, that it is to exercise federal powers, leaving to the states the regulation of internal concerns. For this object, it is constituted so as to compose the jarring interests of the states. Extend it further, let it embrace objects for which it was not designed, let it trench upon the powers of the states; make it a national government in the sense contended for, and it becomes a government vicious in its organization, since the reasons for that organization cease to apply whenever it ceases to be a government of states, and becomes a government of the people in the aggregate. And yet it is affirmed that we are the representatives not of the states, that is of the people of those states in their respective sovereign capacities, but of the aggregate of the people of the United States, in their national capacity. If that be the case, should we not apply the ratio to the aggregate of persons entitled to representation in the United States, and not to those portions in the respective states. If this be true where is the federal character of this government? and yet the gentleman affirms that he is the representative as much of Virginia as Delaware, and the representatives of the states are equally the representatives of the left.—Wherefore? Because his acts are to bind Virginia as well as Delaware. If this proved any thing it would prove that the Senators of each state represented all the states, for certainly their acts are binding upon them.—But if the gentleman does represent Virginia, certain I am that I do not represent Delaware—I am not elected by the people of that state—I receive no credentials from it to this house; I hold not myself responsible to it. I know it not on this floor, except through the medium of its legitimate organ through which it speaks to us—its representative. Upon this view, Sir, what becomes of the complaint that the gentleman is destitute of a colleague with whom he may consult—possessing as he does the whole committee for his colleagues.
As another motive to accede to his proposition we are told, that it will increase the relative weight of one or more small states. I hope I shall be pardoned for observing that this motive has been selected with singular infelicity, since it is addressed to the large states, who may without improper imputation be supposed of opinion that the weight of the small states is already sufficiently felt, and that it does not behove them to give their aid to increase that weight in this branch of the legislature, to the comparative diminution of their own, to the utmost limits which the constitution will permit.
Mr. R. concluded by observing, that he thought the House would be sufficiently numerous at the ratio contemplated by the bill for all federal purposes—That to increase the representation to meet the views of the gentleman from Delaware, would in their fullest extent, were it practicable, supplant the State governments. That the difference of five or ten members more or less on that floor was in itself unimportant. That if the ratio had been fixed originally at 30,000 he should have felt little disposed, to increase it, but he would not carry it back merely to answer the purpose, for which it was fixed at 33, the accommodation of certain States, much less with a view to decrease the influence of the State governments.
Mr. GRISWOLD had at first been for a higher ratio than that of 33,000; and he would still be in favor of it did there appear any chance of its success. But as the dispute seemed to be between the ratios of 33,000 and 30,000; and as the former was the worst possible ratio that could be adopted, as it left the greatest aggregate of fractions, and operated with the greatest severity upon the Small States, he should be for that of 30,000 in preference.
He had been surprised at the remark which had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia, that the members on the floor of this House were not the representatives of the people; and he was more particularly astonished at this remark coming from the large states. He deemed the principle on which it was founded a dangerous principle, one subversive of the government, and in the face of the Constitution, one which called upon every friend of the constitution and of the national harmony to repeal it, as calculated to confer on the large States all power.
What does the Constitution say? "We the people of the United States" (not of Virginia, &c.) form a government.—It is afterwards declared to be established for the United States. It is the constitution of the people of the United States. It constitutes a Senate and House of Representatives—whose Senate, and whose House of Representatives, he would ask?—The Constitution would answer, not of the particular States, but of the United States. Is not this the plain reading of the Constitution? Can any gentleman say, he represents only Pennsylvania, or Virginia? No Sir. He comes not to consult the interest of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, but of the whole United States.
If the opposite principle be adopted, viz. that members are the representatives of the States from which they come, then are the effects obvious. A combination of the representatives of four States, composing a majority of this House, may overwhelm the whole interests of the United States. It had been said out of doors that such a project existed. He had not believed it. He did not will still to believe it; and he hoped the committee, seeing the danger of such an impression, would avoid whatever went to countenance it.
Mr. BACON. The question before the Committee is an interesting one, and gentlemen who have risen to speak to it appear to feel it to be such. There is reason to believe that whenever the question is determined, it will be done on uniform and moderate principles. It is to be hoped that few, if any, will be influenced to act by a tonnage for extremes. Because I cannot be gratified by the adoption of one extreme, I will not rush to the opposite one.
A principal reason that is offered in favor of the amendment seems to be, the accommodation of Delaware—It is to relieve that State from a large fraction, and to give her two members in the House of Representatives. I would pay the same respect to the State of Delaware that I would pay to any other State of the Union in like circumstances.—The reason that is urged for striking out 33, with a view to insert 30, so far as it relates to the accommodation of Delaware, must, as I conceive, be predicated, either on the principles of the Constitution, or on the principles of equity.
By the Constitution, they are entitled to two members in the Senate. This, I believe, is about five times their equal proportion of representation in that branch of the Legislature, if the calculation was to be made either on their numbers, or their property. But in answer to this, it is said; and I readily admit that the answer is a just one, "This is a right which they hold by mutual compact," that is, by the Constitution; and
therefore ought not to be taken into consideration in determining the present question.
On the other hand, it must also be admitted, that by the same Constitution, they are entitled to that proportion of representation, and no more, in the other branch of the Legislature, which may fall to them, on any given uniform ratio which Congress are authorized, and may see fit to adopt. This position is no less equitable, found and rational, than the other—consequently no argument can, as I conceive, be drawn from the principles of the Constitution in favor of the proposed amendment, as it may affect the particular case of Delaware.
Again, if leaving the general principles of the Constitution, we recur to mere principles of equity, I believe the result will be nearly the same in both cases. On mere principles of equity, I suppose it will be admitted, that each State in the Union is entitled to a representation in Congress proportioned, either to the number of its inhabitants, or to what it contributes to the support of the government; which are considered as amounting to nearly the same thing. Calculating on these principles then, the State of Delaware, even on the present ratio of 33,000, will have nearly one third more than its equal proportion of representation in the Congress.
I can see no reason, therefore, to alter the present ratio, and thereby to create an annual and permanent expense of 20 or 30,000 dollars, only for the sake of lowering a fraction and thereby adding one more Representative to the State of Delaware; and especially when I consider that, as the ratio now stands, she has more than her full proportion of representation in the Legislature; and that, whether the calculation is made on mere principles of equity, or on the common, or the most rigid principles of the Constitution.
It has also been mentioned as a reason for lowering the present ratio of representation, that the extent of election districts will thereby be contracted, and that, in this way, an opportunity will be furnished for Electors to become acquainted with the sentiments and conduct of their representatives, so as not to be under the necessity of acting wholly in the dark in the exercise of the right of suffrage.
I am apprehensive that this recent experience has taught us it is not necessary, at this day, to alter the ratio, for the purpose last mentioned. From a uniform practice under the present ratio, which has now become familiar, and which have taken place under the object mentioned seems to be already attained.
It is obvious, Sir, that a very considerable degree of lately taken place in the sentiments of our fellow-citizens throughout the United States. This change of sentiment is supposed by some to be for the better, and that it has been effected by a diffusion of information among the people, and a more thorough and competent acquaintance with the sentiments and characters of their Representatives and Candidates. Those therefore, who believe, that such interesting and salutary effects have occurred from a uniform practice on the present ratio, and that the effects of the same practice are ameliorating from year to year, and from one Election to another—such, I lay, who believe this to be our case, while practising on the present ratio, cannot consistently, as I conceive, wish to have it altered with a view to try a different one; since this has been found to answer the end desired.
There are others, no doubt, who very likely believe that the former days were better than these, and that the Elections that were made on the present ratio, when it bore a much greater proportion to the whole number of citizens than it now does, were more wisely conducted, and that they were attended with much more salutary effects, than those are which lately have been made. Those who are of this opinion, I must suppose, cannot consistently wish to lower the ratio, so that it may bear a still less proportion to the whole number of citizens than it even now does—for this would tend to inance, and not to remedy the evil complained of.
Let the subject then be viewed in either of those lights which have now been mentioned; and I cannot see but that if we act consistently, as I presume we shall, it will be almost the unanimous opinion of the Committee, that it is not expedient to adopt the motion, and to
therefore ought not to be taken into consideration in determining the present question.
On the other hand, it must also be admitted, that by the same Constitution, they are entitled to that proportion of representation, and no more, in the other branch of the Legislature, which may fall to them, on any given uniform ratio which Congress are authorized, and may see fit to adopt. This position is no less equitable, found and rational, than the other—consequently no argument can, as I conceive, be drawn from the principles of the Constitution in favor of the proposed amendment, as it may affect the particular case of Delaware.
Again, if leaving the general principles of the Constitution, we recur to mere principles of equity, I believe the result will be nearly the same in both cases. On mere principles of equity, I suppose it will be admitted, that each State in the Union is entitled to a representation in Congress proportioned, either to the number of its inhabitants, or to what it contributes to the support of the government; which are considered as amounting to nearly the same thing. Calculating on these principles then, the State of Delaware, even on the present ratio of 33,000, will have nearly one third more than its equal proportion of representation in the Congress.
I can see no reason, therefore, to alter the present ratio, and thereby to create an annual and permanent expense of 20 or 30,000 dollars, only for the sake of lowering a fraction and thereby adding one more Representative to the State of Delaware; and especially when I consider that, as the ratio now stands, she has more than her full proportion of representation in the Legislature; and that, whether the calculation is made on mere principles of equity, or on the common, or the most rigid principles of the Constitution.
It has also been mentioned as a reason for lowering the present ratio of representation, that the extent of election districts will thereby be contracted, and that, in this way, an opportunity will be furnished for Electors to become acquainted with the sentiments and conduct of their representatives, so as not to be under the necessity of acting wholly in the dark in the exercise of the right of suffrage.
I am apprehensive that this recent experience has taught us it is not necessary, at this day, to alter the ratio, for the purpose last mentioned. From a uniform practice under the present ratio, which has now become familiar, and which have taken place under the object mentioned seems to be already attained.
It is obvious, Sir, that a very considerable degree of lately taken place in the sentiments of our fellow-citizens throughout the United States. This change of sentiment is supposed by some to be for the better, and that it has been effected by a diffusion of information among the people, and a more thorough and competent acquaintance with the sentiments and characters of their Representatives and Candidates. Those therefore, who believe, that such interesting and salutary effects have occurred from a uniform practice on the present ratio, and that the effects of the same practice are ameliorating from year to year, and from one Election to another—such, I lay, who believe this to be our case, while practising on the present ratio, cannot consistently, as I conceive, wish to have it altered with a view to try a different one; since this has been found to answer the end desired.
There are others, no doubt, who very likely believe that the former days were better than these, and that the Elections that were made on the present ratio, when it bore a much greater proportion to the whole number of citizens than it now does, were more wisely conducted, and that they were attended with much more salutary effects, than those are which lately have been made. Those who are of this opinion, I must suppose, cannot consistently wish to lower the ratio, so that it may bear a still less proportion to the whole number of citizens than it even now does—for this would tend to inance, and not to remedy the evil complained of.
Let the subject then be viewed in either of those lights which have now been mentioned; and I cannot see but that if we act consistently, as I presume we shall, it will be almost the unanimous opinion of the Committee, that it is not expedient to adopt the motion, and to

strike out the number 33, with a view to insert 30.
It has been suggested that we ought to increase the representation, because we shall thereby increase the confidence of the people in the government. I suspect this to be a reason that exists in fancy, rather than in fact. So far as my observation has extended, I have not found that the confidence of a people in their government is always in proportion to the number of those who administer it. Nor yet, that the confidence which is reposed in the different departments of the same government, is in exact proportion to the numbers which compose those departments respectively. How is it in our own governments both national and state? I need not descend to a minute comparison—I will only observe, that by shewing a disposition to increase our own numbers beyond what is necessary, would in my opinion, tend rather to diminish, than to increase the confidence of the people in their government.
Mr. DAVIS. Two ratios are brought to our view, those of 30,000 and 33,000. The former leaves unrepresented fractions amounting to 157,000; the latter leaves fractions amounting to 221,000. It would be most equitable to adopt the former, but for its operation upon a number of States. Six States, of which Kentucky is one, will be peculiarly affected by it. They will relatively lose their portion of representation in a great degree. They will lose as many members as the ten remaining States: whereas by the ratio of 33,000 the evil will be as to those States, greatly diminished. For this reason, notwithstanding the unpleasant situation of Delaware, Mr. Davis must vote for the ratio of 33,000.
Mr. MACON never had considered this a consolidated government, which might be inferred from the arguments of some gentlemen. The Constitution established a directly opposite principle. It declared the constitution to be established for the United States, not for the people. And in all its parts it bore a federal complexion. In the arguments made use of when it was adopted, it had always been declared by its friends to be federal; and the representatives were particularly designated as the representatives of particular States.
Mr. MACON did not think 30,000 too small a ratio. He wished the people to know their Representatives, and the more numerous the better, the greater the chance of this knowledge. Nor did he think that the enlarged representation would augment the expenses of the government. The House knew that he had never been prodigal of public money. He believed we should save money by an enlarged representation, for the public expenses did not proceed so much from the compensation rendered to the members of this House, as from the adoption of improper measures, which an enlarged representation would defeat.
With regard to abstract arguments made, did not we all know that different numbers of representatives in particular States, if we were as the minimum and the maximum? This demonstration is a refutation to be one entirely of calculation.
GENERAL S. HUNTER listened to the discourse of the gentleman on the abstract question introduced, and yet he had found that every man, before he sat down, proved it to be the representative of a particular State, after all that he had said. The truth was, the point was one of calculation. The gentleman on the abstract question had been strong for 30,000, now, after making his calculation, he agrees with his friend from Delaware, preferring 33,000, not, perhaps, because it peculiarly benefits Connecticut, but because it benefits the party with whom he acts.
Let us view the gentleman from Delaware, and we see him pursuing the interests of Delaware, and caring nothing for other States, and thus he shows us that he is the representative of the State of Delaware. The gentleman from North Carolina, therefore always economical of the public money, is for once prodigal in wishing an enlarged representation; and why? Because he thereby will promote the interest of his State. This was perfectly fair and right; and if he, Mr. Smith, were similarly situated he should act in the same way. But Maryland happened to be differently situated. The ratio of 30,000 would leave a fraction to her of 29,000. Could it therefore be expected that any member of that State would be for that ratio?
Mr. SMITH observed that he had originally been in favor of the ratio of 33,000 from the influence of general principles. But since one gentleman had shifted from 40,000, to 30,000 from considerations of policy, and other gentlemen seemed to feel the same motives, he thought it was high time for each State to take care of itself. He would, therefore, vote for the ratio of 33,000.
Mr. DANA said he would not question the purity of the principles of the gentleman from Maryland or Pennsylvania. Yet he must say that however honorable to the frankness of character of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was the avowal of his sentiments, yet it did no honor
to the principles of equity which ought to govern that House. As to the question of confidence, or consolidation, he deemed it a mere question of words. It was right that we should consult the interests of our constituents, because we were better acquainted with them than with those of other States. But that we should exclusively consult them, to the disregard of the general principles of justice, of the great interests of the United States;—such a principle ought not to be tolerated. Though the question was in a great measure one of calculation, yet he was astonished at an avowal of one gentleman to conform to unjust principles because another gentleman had in his opinion adopted the same course.
Mr. D. then went into a detailed comparison of the different bearings of the two ratios, from which he was in favor of 30,000.
He then proceeded. The question between the two ratios is not simply important as it relates to this House; but as it settles the relative weight of the States in the election of our two first Executive magistrates. Just as you diminish the ratio you increase the weight of the large States. And this may be done until you shall give the large States the entire monopoly of executive power. He would not say that the large States were not entitled to a monopoly of this power. He would not say, that a majority of talents and virtue corresponded to the magnitude of the States did not subsist; but until he was sure of this, he would not be for conferring a monopoly of power on four States. Those States being the most important, it may be thought right to take the chief executive magistracy from them, and the other chief officers; and this may become so much a matter of course, that it may be deemed injurious to disturb the established harmony of things. For these reasons Mr. D. was against the ratio which gave undue weight to the large States.
Mr. EUSTIS laid, there was a found principle which applied itself to the elucidation of this question. The present ratio had given general satisfaction. As to the abstract questions which had been discussed, they were wholly immaterial. Let us go back, and view the circumstances under which this House was organized. It was so constituted as to afford the people of the United States an opportunity of expressing their feelings, and representing their interests. Has any inconvenience resulted from the ratio of 33,000 long since adopted? Has it not been recommended by experience? And will not any desire to augment the representation be fully satisfied by the increase from 106 to 142. Whether the number was great or small, he had no idea that the powers of the House could receive correspondent augmentation or diminution. He believed that a body of 50 men would not want decision to oppose unconstitutional encroachments, and that a body of 1000 would not dare to transcend constitutional powers.
Though he felt for the situation of Delaware, yet if the principle was correct that the ratio of 33,000 would constitute a body sufficiently large, we must of necessity abandon any particular regard to that State.
There was another circumstance worthy of mention. A diminution of power was abhorrent to all bodies. If a great increase of the members of the House increased its power, and a precedent be now set of greatly enlarging our number, it may be followed in future until the House becomes so large as to render it a nuisance.
The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Adjourned.
TUESDAY, January 5, 1802. On the petition from 1200 citizens claiming Wyoming property under Connecticut rights, and praying the interposition of Congress to enable them to obtain a just settlement of their claims, a debate of some length took place.
It was moved by Mr. Goddard to refer it to the committee appointed to enquire into the expediency of making any alterations in the judicial establishment of the United States.
Mr. Smilie opposed the reference. Those who supported the reference were Messrs. Goddard, Bayard, T. Morris, Hemphill, Rutledge and Bacon.
Those who opposed the reference were Messrs. Smilie and Randolph.
In support of the reference it was declared that all petitions couched in decent terms ought to be referred, else the house would be precipitated into decisions without possessing correct information; that this case was important in its effects upon a large class of citizens, who had a right to be attended to by Congress; that the controversy to which the petition related was of long standing, and that it became that house to treat the prayer of the memorialists with respect; that it was believed that Congress neither could nor would interpose; and that, if such were the determination of Congress, expressed after mature consideration, it would tend more effectually than a present suppression of the petition to deprive the memorialists of any expectations derived from the hoped for interposition of the federal legislature; that in this re-
sult Pennsylvania was as deeply interested as the petitioners.
On the other hand, it was declared that Congress had no power to interfere; that the question was entirely judicial, and had been decided by the first judicial authorities of the nation; that the rights of Pennsylvania were conclusively established; and that Congress could do nothing that would impair them.
A reference at last obtained, by general consent, under the suggestion that the memorial prayed for a revision of the judiciary system, so far as relates to the selection of juries.
A memorial was presented from Lewis du Pre, of which the following is a copy:
To the government of the United States, in Congress assembled.
DEAR FRIENDS, It has pleased Almighty God (for purposes most extensively benevolent) to discover to me the principles of the perfect motion (vulgarly called perpetual motion) for which I trust I am thankful (as, no doubt, every citizen of the super-eminently favored land of Columbia ought to be) for the peculiar blessing.
In prosecuting a suit for the customary exclusive pecuniary advantages which the practice of ancient liberality has established, as the reward of persevering ingenuity and industry, I meet with difficulties insurmountable without the aid of legislative interference.
I therefore trust that your justice and republican patriotism will induce you to take the subject into consideration, and as speedily as possible obtain, from the critical casket where it remains deposited, the precious bounty, to effectuate which you hereby possess a promise of the cordial co-operation of your real friend and fellow-citizen.
LEWIS DU PRE. 50th day of perfect motion. January 1, 1802.
On a motion to refer the above petition to a select committee,
Dr. MITCHELL said if there was ever a case in which it was proper to decide against the reference of a petition to a committee, that this was such an one. It was evident on the face of the petition just read, that it was a strange disordered composition; & the object which the petitioner pretended to have attained, was contrary to the physical laws of matter. All experience and all philosophy was opposed to the notions of the kind contained in the paper before the house. He hoped there would be no reference of such a visionary scheme to any committee whatever. It was not worthy of the dignity of the national legislature to give a serious attention to physical impossibilities.
After some debate about the disposal of the petition, it was ordered to be referred to a select committee; and Messrs. Southard, Lowndes and Mitchell were appointed.
The house resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the Apportionment Bill; Mr. L. R. Morris in the chair. (Debate in our next)
WEDNESDAY, Jan. 6, 1802. According to the order of the day, the third reading of the Apportionment Bill, was called for.
On which a motion was made to re-commit the bill to a committee of the whole House.
On this motion a debate of length ensued, during which almost every member accustomed to speak, took the floor.
[As during a portion of the debate, the Editor was in the Senate chamber, and as the debate was very declamatory after he entered the House of Representatives, no attempt will be made to pursue the succession of speakers. We shall confine ourselves to a very concise notice of the leading grounds alleged for commitment, and those against commitment.]
In favor of commitment, it was said that as the subject was acknowledged to be of great importance, deliberation correspondent to it should be had; that as there appeared to be informality in several of the returns of the marshals, it became the House to be circumspect before they acted upon them; that some of these informality required legislative provision; that in the case of Tennessee the return made was made beyond the legal period; that in the case of Maryland there had been an additional return recently made; and in the case of South-Carolina, the marshal did not appear to have been sworn in the time prescribed by law. That it was a serious consideration, whether the House could receive and act upon informal returns. But that, at any rate, such informality might require the interposition of Congress, before the passage of this act.
Against the commitment, and in favor of the passage of the bill, it was contended that there existed no disposition to precipitate a decision on this, or any other subject; that, in truth, it had been delayed from day to day, and even from week to week, to allow the fullest time for reflection; that after this time had been allowed, the discussion had been patiently entered upon, and the various arguments of gentlemen had been heard without interruption; that a decision had at length been made in favor of a particular ratio; and then, and
not till then, after some gentlemen had been thwarted in their favorite measures, charges of precipitation had been urged by them. What were the reasons assigned for recommencement at this period? Not that the ratio agreed to was an improper one, but that there were certain informality in some returns which required a cure. But how were these informality to be cured? Was it to be done by delaying the passage of this law until such cure was made? If such delay were sanctioned by the House, where would it end? Would a few days or a few weeks accomplish it? The fact was, though there might be some irregularity in a few returns, that there was no reason to believe, or even suspicion whispered, that there was any fraudulent return. The House must act upon the returns they had, as to open the door to further enquiry would be an act of injustice to remote states, and might entirely defeat the passage of any law on the subject this session.
The debate was conducted with uncommon warmth, and personal insinuations and political reflections were made and repelled with keenness. As it has been the invariable effort of the National Intelligencer, to repress rather than to extend matter calculated rather to irritate the feelings, than to enlighten the understanding, no other apology will be required for declining a minute notice of the debate.
The question was taken by yeas and nays on the recommencement and lost—Ayes 34—Nays 54.
The yeas and Nays were also called on the passage of the bill; and were, Ayes 35—Nays 44. The Nays were Messrs. Davenport, Van Rensselaer, Walker, and T. Morris.
THURSDAY, Jan. 7, 1802. Gen. S. SMITH presented a memorial from a committee appointed by the Society of Friends at Baltimore, relative to the introduction of the useful arts among the Indians, and stating that no progress can be expected therein, unless the great quantity of spirituous liquors at present spread among them by traders is entirely suppressed. The memorial is accompanied by a speech made by Little Turtle, stating the injurious effects produced by spirituous liquors.
Ordered, That the memorial, and documents accompanying it be printed, and that they be referred to a committee of 5 members.
A memorial from 38 delegates of aliens in Chester county, Pennsylvania, praying a modification or repeal of the naturalization laws, was presented by Mr. Smilie, and referred.
Gen. S. SMITH reported a bill for the protection of American commerce and seamen in the Mediterranean and adjoining seas, which empowers the President fully to equip and employ such vessels of the United States, as he shall deem requisite; that they be empowered to capture Tripolitan vessels; and that the President be authorized to commission private vessels, with power to capture vessels of Tripoli.
Read a second time, and referred to a committee of the whole.
Mr. NICHOLSON presented a letter which he had received from the governor of Maryland, enclosing a letter from the commissioners of the City of Washington, addressed to the legislature of that state, stating their present inability to defray the interest accruing on loans of about 250,000 dollars, made by Maryland, and suggesting the expediency of that legislature, offering to receive from Congress, who had guaranteed the loans, 6 per cent. stock at par, the loans having been originally made in 6 per cents. with an engagement that repayment should be made in specie—Also resolutions of the legislature of Maryland, agreeing to the proposition of the commissioners. Referred to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. GREGG moved the taking up of the report of the committee of the whole, which on the 22d ult. had reported their agreement to two resolutions submitted by him; which was done, and the house concurred in the first, viz. the appointment of a committee to consider and report what additions are expedient to be made to the military stores of the United States.
The second resolution, for appointing a committee to enquire whether any, and what alterations ought to be made in the laws respecting the fortifications and harbours of the United States was agreed to, and a committee of five appointed.
The house went into committee of the whole, on the standing rules of the house—Mr. Davis in the chair.
Mr. Leib moved the addition of the following rule:—The Speaker shall assign such places to the stenographers on the floor, as shall not interfere with the convenience of the house.
On which a debate of considerable length ensued, which we shall give in our next.
Mr. HUGER moved to amend the motion so as to read as follows: "Stenographers shall be admitted, and the Speaker shall assign such places to them on the floor, as shall not interfere with the convenience of the house."
Dr. Leib agreed to this modification. So modified, the motion was agreed to—Ayes, 47—Nays, 32.
The committee then rose, and reported the rules with the above amendment.
The amendment was immediately taken up.
When Mr. Rutledge moved to amend the report of the committee by making it read as follows:—
"Stenographers may be admitted under the direction of the Speaker, who shall assign to them such places on the floor, as shall not interfere with the convenience of the House."
On this amendment, a further debate of length ensued, on which the Yeas and Nays were called; and were, Ayes 27—Nays 51.
The question was then taken by Yeas and Nays on the above additional rule reported by the committee, and carried. Yeas 47—Nays 28.
The report, as amended, was then agreed to.
LIST OF LETTERS,
Remaining in the Post Office, Washington City, on the 1st January 1802.
A. Thomas G. Addison.
B. Lieut. Lewis C. Bailey, 2, Joseph Boone, David Brown, James Burnside, Mary Betton, Parker Bowen, junr. John Buchanan, Thomas Boys, Hetta Bankson, Richard Bainboule, David Bates, William Bayley, capt. Lloyd Beall, John Brown, Edward P. Ball, Ignatius Boone.
C. Dabney Carr, 2, James Clarke, 2, John Coles, Chancey Camp, hon. William Cushing, Chaeol Grose, Michael Clarke, David Chiles, Charles Collins, James Campbell, Joseph Coffleton, Dr. Crocker, Commissioner of the navy loan, Lieut. Richard Chandler, care of Caleb Swan, Lieut. Howell Cobb, Gabriel Christie.
D. John Dawson, Messrs. Duncanlon & Ray, Cato Duy, 2, Lucy Deaton, Philip Delany.
E. Nathan Edmondson, Robert Eagan, Joseph Evans, Eli Elston.
F. Robert Flinn, 5, Joseph Field, 2, James Frazer, 2, Zephaniah Farrell, Robert Flanagan, Gabriel Ford, Fidilla Frond, (care of William Vidler) Samuel B. Fagan, or Joseph Swiles, Michael Forman, (care of Mr. Garboos) Philip Fitzhugh.
G. Samuel Gothard, Jacob Grose, Bennett Green.
H. Walter Hellen, 3, Richard Hatcher, son, William Howard, Upton Hobbs, William Hull, capt. Charles Hyde, John Hall.
I. Capt. James Johnston, Joseph Jeffries, Sarah Jacques.
K. Peregrine Knotts, William Keeffe, John and William Kennedy, John L. Keais, Mrs. John Kane, Alex. Kelly.
L. Capt. John Legatt, E. W. Laight Nicholas Long, Joseph Levy, Townsend Lamborn, (care of Messrs. Sharpeless & Smith) Samuel Llewellyn, Messrs. William and John Lee, Capt. C. Lyman.
M. Charles Minisire, Cormac McNancy, James M'Neon, Richard M'Clure, Elizabeth M'Goy, Capt. M'Keel, (care of Messrs. Gibbs and Ross.)
N. Samuel Nicholson, John Neilson, 2, Edward Neufville, Thomas Niles, Lewis Nicholas.
O. Alexander Offutt.
P. Richard Peters, junr. John H. Purvis, Capt. Pratt, Winlow Parke, junr. J. A. Pearson, Charles P. Polk, Daniel Patterson.
R. Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Relf, John Rodgers, Robert Ritchie, John Richards, Benjamin Rhodes, John H. O. Rideout, John Read, John Ross, William Ross.
S. Peleg Sanford, 2, Thomas S. Stephens, 2, Mr. Spalding, Erickson Hale Stone, John C. Scott, James Shanly, John W. Smoot, Margaret H. Scott, John Stickney, Matthew Shaw, James Stevens, William Slater, 2.
T. John Tayloe, 2, Emily Thompson, Thomas Tracey, Francis L. Taney, James Taylor, Jane Isabella Thompson, William Thorn, Capt. John Thompson, Mrs. Tidymann, 2, Dr. Philip Tidymann, Thomas Truxton.
W. Eli Whitney, 2, maj. Jonathan Williams, 2, Almon Wading, Miss F. Williams, Amos Wilkinson, Mrs. S. Wrang, Hugh Wilton, Capt. W. H. Washington, Richard W. West, Thomas White, (care of Mr. Duckworth) Mr. Wilde, Basil Wood, William Wright.
Y. Patrick Yznardy, Jacob Zimmer. Z. Jan. 8, 1802. cp2.12w32

WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 1802.
On Monday last the Editor addressed a letter to the President of the Senate, requesting permission to occupy a position in the lower area of the Senate chamber, for the purpose of taking with correctness the debates and proceedings of that body.
It may be necessary to remark that heretofore no Stenographer has been admitted in this area; and the upper gallery, being open to the admission of every one, and very remote from the floor of the House, has prevented any attempt being made to take the debates, from the impossibility of hearing distinctly from it.
The contents of the letter were submitted by the President to the Senate; and a resolution agreed to, to the following effect; Resolved, that any Stenographer, desirous to take the Debates of the Senate on legislative business, may be admitted for that purpose, at such place, within the area of the Senate chamber, as the President shall allot.
Whereupon, a motion was made to reconsider the above resolution, and agreed to. The yeas and nays being taken, which were yeas 17—nays 9.
It was then moved to amend the resolution by adding after the word "Stenographer"—"he having given bond in the sum of with two sufficient sureties in the sum of each for his good conduct."
On which the yeas and nays were called, and were as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse, Howard, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Sheafe, and Tracy—10. NAYS—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Brackenridge, Brown, Cocke, Colbourn, Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumner, White, and Wright—18.
It was then moved, to agree to the original resolution amended, by adding the word, "Or note taker" after the word "Stenographer,"—which passed in the affirmative. The yeas and nays being required were as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Brackenridge, Brown, Cocke, Colbourn, Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumner, and Wright—16.
NAYS—Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse, Howard, Jonathan Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Sheafe, Tracy, and White—12.
On Wednesday the Editor had, accordingly, assigned to him a convenient place in the lower area, from which he took notes of the proceedings of the Senate.
On the adoption of the above resolution, which opens a new door to public information, and which may be considered as the prelude to a more genuine sympathy between the Senate and the people of the United States, than may have heretofore subsisted, by rendering each better acquainted with the other, we congratulate, without qualification, every friend to the true principles of our republican institutions.
SENATE
OF THE UNITED STATES.
A message was received from the President of the United States by Mr. Lewis, his Secretary; which was not read, being apparently on Executive business.
Mr. Brackenridge moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the President's message, delivered at the commencement of the session.
Agreed to. General Mason called for the reading of the message, which was in part read; when the further reading of the whole document was suspended, and that part only read, which relates to the Judiciary System.
Upon which Mr. Brackenridge from Kentucky, rose, and stated that two days ago he had given notice that on this day he would submit to the consideration of the Senate two resolutions respecting the Judiciary establishment of the United States. As however those resolutions were not necessarily connected, and as they might be distinctly discussed, he would at present confine himself to moving the first resolution; without however foreclosing to himself the right of submitting the second after the disposition of the first. He therefore moved, that the act passed last session respecting the Judiciary Establishment of the United States, be repealed.
[This is the act which created 16 new circuit judges.]
The motion was seconded by general Mason.
After the resolution was read by the President,
Mr. Brackenridge said, he did not desire to precipitate a vote on the question. But having given notice two days since of his intention to move this resolution, he was himself prepared, if other gentlemen were prepared, to offer his sentiments on the subject. But if this were not the case, if gentlemen were not pre-
pared to enter into a discussion of a point of such importance, he was not anxious for immediate consideration.
Mr. Tracey observed that the ordinary mode of procedure in Senate had been to refer in the first instance, each substantive member of the President's message to a select committee. But though this was the usual course, yet he felt in no way hostile to any mode of doing business, which should be most agreeable to the gentleman from Kentucky, or to the House. With an adherence to the ordinary course, he would have been better pleased, for the substantial reason, that by a reference of the subject to a select committee, on receiving a report, the minds of the House would be drawn more precisely to the points involved in it, than could be expected from a resolution so loose as the present, which could only give rise to verbal discussions.
Another course of procedure had not been unusual; that of obtaining leave to bring in a bill; in which event, the same result desired by Mr. Tracey would be insured, viz. the reference of the bill to a committee.
Mr. F. Mason differed from the gentleman from Connecticut. He believed the mode, now pursued, was perfectly correct, and conformable to a principle, adopted this session, that the Senate was to be considered as in a committee of the whole on the President's message, whenever taken up. Nor did he discern the necessity, in a body so select as this, of referring each subject to a select committee. But as the subject is extremely important, and some gentlemen seemed unprepared for the discussion, he moved its postponement till Friday.
Mr. Brackenridge said, that though he had given notice, in his opinion sufficient, of his purpose, yet, not wishing a precipitate discussion, he would agree to the desired delay.
The consideration of the resolution was then deferred to Friday next.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman at Kingston Jamaica, dated 9 Dec. 1801, to his correspondent.
"While I am upon this subject, I beg leave to observe, that was the article of beef from America judiciously attended to, this Island alone would take off in time [there appears to be an omission here in the original] twenty thousand barrels. What hitherto has been landed will not keep, which, I am well convinced arises from the following causes viz—"
Cattle in America are generally killed too late in the year, when the frost renders it so hard as to prevent the meat absorbing the salt; and when meat has once taken the frost even in a slight degree, altho' a thaw comes on, yet the salt cannot sufficiently penetrate; and in general the packers are too sparing of salt and nitre. I have been credibly informed that the late Mr. Darby of Salem, Massachusetts, constantly slaughtered and packed all the beef that was made use of in his vessels to India, and in many instances the beef after being packed near two years was as good as any Irish beef."
BALTIMORE, January 6.
Another INSURRECTION at GUADALOUPE.
Arrived on Tuesday, Schooner Exchange, capt. Vibert, from Guadaloupe. Left it on the 11th ult. at which time Point Petre and the whole of the island was in confusion; another insurrection having taken place there, which, had it not been fortunately discovered at the moment, would have involved the total destruction of every white and mulatto in the island.
The rebels in the present insurrection were the country blacks against the whites and mulattoes. The former, having lent a helping hand in the revolution which had been just effected, expected a total emancipation from their masters; but not finding that event confirmed or even contemplated in the proclamation of the yellow general, Pelege, they had determined to achieve their own liberty, through the blood of Pelage and his party.
For this purpose, 11,000 were to have been organised on the night succeeding that on which the plot was discovered—to have burnt the towns and to have murdered every man, woman and child of Pelage's party! At that very moment only when it could possibly have been defeated, was the plot discovered by a black woman, who was the kept Miss of a white man, when four of the ring leaders were apprehended.
Notwithstanding the bloody project had been discovered, and for the present warded off, yet every thing was apprehended from the vengeance and ferocity of the blacks, and all was in the utmost confusion. In such haste was the Island deserted by those who could get off, that the Exchange came away on the 11th with only 2 hands on board. An English and a French frigate were at that time off the Island, cautioning vessels not to go in. Accounts had also been received that general McDonald, with 18,000 men had failed for the windward, and gen. Rochambeau, with 40,000 for the leeward Islands.
Philadelphia, January 4, 1802.
Philosophical Hall, January 1st. 1802
The following persons were duly elected officers of the American Philosophical Society, held at Philadelphia:—
PRESIDENT.
THOMAS JEFFERSON. VICE-PRESIDENTS, Robert Patterson, Calpar Wister, Benjamin Smith Barton,
SECRETARIES, John Redman Coxe, Adam Seybert, Thomas C. James.
COUNSELLORS FOR THREE YEARS, James Woodhouse, John Bleakly, B. H. Latrobe, Samuel Duffield.
CURATORS, C. W. Peale, John R. Smith, Robert Leslie. TREASURER, John Vaughan.
JOHN REDMAN COXE, Secretary.
NATCHEZ, November 24.
Yesterday his Excellency W. C. C. Claiborne, Governor of this Territory arrived, after a tedious passage down the Mississippi River.
A glow of joy seemed to animate each citizen, on the arrival of the man, whom we look up to as our political Sun and future shield from oppression and tyranny.
He came like the messenger of peace and concord, without pomp or parade. No sound of trumpet, or beat of drum, or herald sent before to proclaim his coming; by this we may calculate the happiness which flows from an administration truly republican, under which we enjoy equal rights and equal laws, and merit and integrity are the only badges of distinction.
Yesterday W. C. C. Claiborne, present Governor of this Territory, arrived here with his Family and Suite; and this day was presented with the following Address, signed by a number of respectable citizens—to which he returned the annexed answer.
To his Excellency William C. C. Claiborne, Governor of the Mississippi Territory.
The citizens of the town and vicinity of Natchez take this early opportunity of felicitating your excellency on the safe arrival of yourself and family in this territory.
Reposing entire confidence in the government of the United States, we cannot doubt but its territorial provisions are founded in wisdom and dictated by reason. Far detached from the Atlantic states, on the confines of a foreign nation, and as yet but few in number, we are fully impressed with the necessity of that unanimity which facilitates the due administration of justice, and promotes the safety and happiness of society; and we assure ourselves that your excellency's administration will be calculated to harmonize the community and advance their growing prosperity, believing that every citizen will cheerfully co-operate in the attainment of an object so desirable and essential, not only to general, but individual happiness.
On our internal situation we offer no comment—your excellency's own observation will, on that subject, be your surest and best source of information. As we are too remote to have taken any part in the political dissensions by which our parent states have lately been so greatly agitated, to those differences have been rather observed as at a distance than felt by the citizens of this territory—we can, however, assure your excellency, that as a part of the American people, we rejoice in that rising prosperity which has hitherto marked the progress of the nation under whose powerful protection we enjoy the blessings of peace and safety.
Wishing you every satisfaction in performing the duties of your high and important office, and praying for an uninterrupted continuance of the health and prosperity of yourself and family, we have the honor to be, with due respect, your excellency's most obedient and humble servants.
To the Citizens of the town, and vicinity of Natchez.
Gentlemen, I pray you to receive my most grateful acknowledgements, for this respectful and friendly address.
The confidence you repose in the wisdom of the government of the United States; will I trust, continue undiminished; and you may rest assured, that its territorial provisions, so far as may depend upon my co-operation, I shall endeavor to execute with all that propriety which you are pleased to anticipate.
Unanimity and mutual confidence are desirable to every people; they contribute to the safety of society, and greatly add to the quietude of both the magistrate and the citizen. Thus impressed, I shall consider it a circumstance peculiarly fortunate, if my administration
should tend to tranquilize the public mind, and to promote in the community harmony and good will.
Those political differences which have of late years agitated our mother states, frequently occur in elective governments, and are in a measure inseparable from them. But there is surely good grounds to hope, that those dissensions have nearly expired—they cannot long exist among a people, who are free from oppression, and in the enjoyment of peace and safety.
With best wishes for your social, and individual happiness, I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your most obedient servant.
William Charles Cole Claiborne.
The following Speeches were delivered in the British House of Commons, on an address to the King being moved, congratulating him on a return of peace.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he hoped his right hon. Friend would pardon him, if he expressed an opinion that he had gone into rather more minuteness than the question now before the House called for, even in his own view of it, as explained by himself, and particularly at the conclusion of his speech, by which it appeared he concurred in the address. The observations of his hon. friend were (he would pardon him for saying so) a little premature; That subject was not now before the House; even in his majesty's most gracious speech from the Throne, there was expressed no other sentiment on the peace, but such as was conveyed by these words: "That his majesty trusts the Arrangements will be found conducive to the general interests of this country, and to the honour of the British Empire." In this address there was no reference whatever even to that sentiment so conveyed from the Throne. Indeed it would be irregular, and indecorous to ask of the house an opinion upon a subject not fully before it. His hon. friend very well knew that Preliminary Terms of Peace had been signed on the part of his Majesty and the French Republic, but the terms were not before the House. His hon. Friend had entered into the subject of the Peace, however, and expressed some lamentation over it. He should not follow him in answer to what he urged now, although he might, in some measure regularly do so. Nor should he enter into any dispute now upon the general proposition laid down by his hon. Friend, not because he was unprepared, but because another opportunity would offer for the purpose. He should then enter on the discussion with his hon. Friend, but he should do it under a painful feeling, for painful it was to him to differ in opinion from one who had proved himself to be a zealous advocate for, and a virtuous guardian of the Constitution; and to whom (whatever difference of opinion might subsist between them) he would add, the country was under deep obligation for many great services, particularly when he warned the Court of its danger, when its safety was at stake, and to the efforts he made to preserve it. His hon. Friend had said that we ought to consider the extension of our Commerce as the only counter-balance in our power against the extension of Territory of the French Republic. He would not now refer to the terms of the Peace, for that he could not do with regularity, but he would aver, that all that we had given up, would have afforded to us no sort of security against the danger which was apprehended by his hon. Friend. He did not agree with his hon. Friend on the subject of the extent of the power of France, and of our mode of balancing that power, for he thought the best counterpoise of this country, against the growing power of France, was in the preservation of our Constitution—to our industry and skill, to our frugality and temperance, much was to be also confided:—To the right direction and preservation of what remained of the faculties, abilities, & resources of the country; and happily much indeed remained of such resources, much was to be looked for as a security for us in time of peace, for a continuance of its blessings. His hon. Friend had said, he should abstain from saying many things, which would occur to him to deliver on a future occasion. Nothing less could be expected from his liberality, candour, or justice; but he hinted at one thing which ought not to pass without a direct answer: he would therefore say, it never was in contemplation of those who had the honour of advising his majesty to sign the preliminaries of peace, that what they did was the effect of necessity. His hon. Friend had stated, that some unknown necessity might have been the cause—"I disclaim that plea," said Mr. Addington; "I will be no party to such a statement. I do not seek my own justification, nor will my colleagues, I am persuaded, seek theirs, in any such way—that would be really undervaluing the resources of our country. If instead of acceding to the terms agreed upon, and which are likely soon to be finally settled, the Enemy had made it necessary for us to continue the contest, we should, I am confident, have continued the con-
test; and I am confident also, that we should have proved to the world that we have still sufficient faculties and resources to maintain the honor, and preserve the security of the British Empire. I could not forbear saying this, for the purpose, chiefly, of disclaiming that species of justification which my hon. Friend supposed to arise out of necessity. I hope my justification, and that of my colleagues, will be found in the actual state of things in which, I hope, it will appear we have had prudent regard to the true interests of our country; & I aver also, that if we had not advised his majesty to conclude these terms, we should not only have been wanting in what we owed to our Constituents, but of a gross perversion of our duty to his majesty as the Father of his people." He then observed that he should defer the observations he had to make on the present state of the Continent of Europe, as well as many other topics, which would come into discussion at a future day; and observed that what he had already said, had been called for by what had been delivered by his hon. Friend who had just preceded him.
MR. SHERIDAN said, he felt a wish, he believed, in common with the house, to defer a Debate upon the peace until the proper period for that purpose; and he was therefore a little surprised, that the Right Hon. Gentleman did go into the discussion. He should vote for the address, because it was not an echo of the Speech. He gave credit to the Framers of the address for the moderation of it, and its good sense; there were some things in the speech, which, if they were in the address, would have prevented him from voting for it. He hoped the vote to night would be unanimous; at the same time, though unanimity was likely to appear by the vote, he believed, if men were to speak fairly out it would appear there was a subject in the house on which there was less unanimity of sentiment. He differed from those who thought this peace honourable and glorious—He differed still more from those who thought that peace ought not to be made at all—He thought it was a peace which every man ought to be glad of, but no one could be proud of—it was a peace fit for the war which it terminated. The war was the worst that ever was entered into, and he did not know, that out of such a war, any man, or set of men, could have made a better peace.
** The inhabitants of Capitol Hill and its vicinity, are earnestly requested to meet at Mr. Stell's tavern, Jersey Avenue, on Saturday evening next at 6 o'clock, to devise some suitable mode for establishing a permanent school and teacher, for the education of youth.
A FEW CITIZENS. Jan. 4, 1802.
By virtue of a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia in the county of Washington, in chancery sitting, in the case of George Walker, complainant, against Overton Carr, defendant,
WILL BE SOLD,
To the highest bidder, for ready money at Tunnicliff's tavern in the City of Washington, on MONDAY the eighth day of February next, the following squares and lots, or so much thereof as will satisfy the decree aforesaid, viz: Squares 86; 86a 86b, lots 1 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
PHILIP T. BAKER, Trustee. Jan. 5, 1802. eptf
FOR SALE.
A superb Curricule with plated Harness. ALSO a pair of young, handsome and fleet PONIES, and a capital saddle horse, who never was in harness. Enquire of the Printer. Dec. 18. eptf
JOHN MINCHIN,
BOOT-MAKER, (From Philadelphia) New-Jersey Avenue near the Capitol. JOURNEYMEN SHOEMAKERS wanted—also two apprentices. Dec. 7. eptf</

PROPOSALS,
For carrying the MAILS of the UNITED STATES on the following Post-roads, will be received at the General Post-Office, in Washington City, until the 30th day of January next, inclusive.
IN DELAWARE.
1. From Wilmington by New-Castle, St. George's, Cantwell's Bridge, Duck Creek, Dover, Frederica, Milford, Georgetown, Trap, Snowhill, Horntown and Accomac c. h. to Northampton c. h. three times a week—Leave Wilmington every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at 1 P. M. and arrive at Duck Creek the same days by 10 P. M.—Leave Duck Creek every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, at 4 A. M. and arrive at Dagsboro the same days by 8 P. M.—Leave Dagsboro every Wednesday, Friday & Monday, at 4 A. M. and arrive at Northampton c. h. the next days, Thursday and Tuesday by 8 P. M.—Returning, leave Northampton c. h. every Friday, Monday and Wednesday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Dagsboro the next days, Saturday, Tuesday and Thursday by 8 P. M.—Leave Dagsboro every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Duck Creek the same days by 8 P. M.—Leave Duck Creek every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Wilmington the same days by 11 A. M.
2. From Wilmington by Christiana, Middletown, Warwick, Md. Sassafras, Md. and Georgetown, Md. to Chester-town, Md. three times a week—Leave Wilmington every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Chestertown the same days by 3 P. M.—Returning, leave Chestertown every Wednesday, Friday and Monday at 3 A. M. and arrive at Wilmington the same days by 5 P. M.
IN MARYLAND.
3. From Chestertown by Centreville, to Easton, twice a week—Leave Chestertown every Wednesday and Friday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Easton by 5 P. M.—Leave Easton every Thursday and Saturday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Chestertown by 5 P. M.
4. From Easton by New-Market, Cambridge, Vienna and Salisbury to Snowhill, to return by Princess Ann, once a week—Leave Easton every Thursday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Snowhill on Friday by 1 P. M.—Leave Snowhill on Friday at 3 P. M. and arrive at Easton on Monday by 6 P. M.
5. From Harford to Belair, once a week—Leave Belair every Tuesday at 7 A. M. and arrive at Harford by 10 A. M.—Leave Harford every Tuesday noon, and arrive at Belair by 3 P. M.
6. From Baltimore by Libertytown to Fredericktown, to return by New-Market, twice a week—Leave Fredericktown every Wednesday and Monday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Baltimore by 5 P. M.—Leave Baltimore every Friday and Wednesday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Fredericktown by 5 P. M.
7. From Baltimore to Annapolis, three times a week—Leave Baltimore every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at 9 A. M. and arrive at Annapolis by 5 P. M.—Leave Annapolis every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Baltimore by 3 P. M.
8. From Baltimore by Ellicott's Lower Mills, Montgomery c. h. and Charlesburg, to Leesburg, Va. once a week—Leave Baltimore every Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Leesburg on Saturday by 6 P. M.—Leave Leesburg every Thursday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Baltimore on Friday by 10 A. M.
9. From Annapolis by Lower Marlboro, Huntingdon and Calvert c. h. to St. Leonard's once a week—Leave Annapolis every Tuesday at 6 A. M. and arrive at St. Leonard's on Wednesday by 10 A. M.—Leave St. Leonard's every Wednesday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Annapolis on Thursday by 6 P. M.
10. From Washington City by Montgomery c. h. Clark'sburg, Fredericktown, Hagerstown, Boonsburg and Green-castle, Pa. to Chambersburg, Pa. twice a week—Leave Washington every Thursday and Saturday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Fredericktown by 5 P. M.—Leave Fredericktown every Friday and Monday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Hagerstown by 11 A. M.—Leave Hagerstown at half past 11 A. M. and arrive at Chambersburg the same day by 7 P. M.—Returning, leave Chambersburg every Tuesday and Saturday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Hagerstown by half past 12 P. M.—Leave Hagerstown at 1 P. M. and arrive at Fredericktown by 3 P. M.—Leave Fredericktown every Wednesday and Monday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Washington by 5 P. M.
11. From Washington City by Upper Marlboro' and Queen Ann's to Annapolis once a week—Leave Annapolis every Tuesday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Washington by 5 P. M.—Returning, leave Washington every Thursday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Annapolis by 5 P. M.
12. From Washington City by Upper Marlboro, Nottingham, Lower Marlboro, Aquasco, Benedict and Charlesburg to Chaptico once a week—Leave Washington every Saturday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Lower Marlboro' on Sunday by 7 A. M.—Leave Lower Marlboro' every Sunday at 9 A. M. and arrive
at Chaptico by 6 P. M.—Returning, leave Chaptico every Monday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Washington on Wednesday by 3 P. M.
13. From Annapolis by Kent Island, Sharptown and Queenstown to Centreville once a week—Leave Annapolis every Friday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Centreville by 3 P. M.—Leave Centreville every Monday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Annapolis by 2 P. M.
14. From Washington City by Piscataway, Port Tobacco, Allen's-Fresh, Newport, Chaptico, Leonard-town, Great Mill and St. Inigoes to the Ridge once a week—Leave Washington every Thursday at 5 A. M. and arrive at the Ridge on Friday by 7 P. M.—Returning, leave the Ridge every Saturday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Washington on Sunday by 7 P. M.
15. From Fredericktown by Wood-boro', Taneytown, Petersburg, Pa. and Hanover, Pa. to York, Pa. once a week—Leave Fredericktown every Saturday at 5 A. M. and arrive at York on Sunday at 9 A. M.—Leave York Monday at 9 A. M. and arrive at Fredericktown on Tuesday by 6 P. M.
16. From Fredericktown to Leesburg Va. once a week—Leave Leesburg every Friday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Fredericktown by 2 P. M.—Leave Fredericktown every Friday at 5 P. M. and arrive at Leesburg on Saturday by noon.
17. From Hagerstown by Hancock and Old-town to Cumberland, once a week—Leave Hagerstown every Tuesday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Cumberland on Thursday by noon—Leave Cumberland every Sunday at 11 A. M. and arrive at Hagerstown on Tuesday by 10 A. M.
IN VIRGINIA.
18. From Hagerstown, Md. by Williamsport Md. Martinsburg, Winchester, Stevenburg, Strasburg, Woodstock, Newmarket and Harrisonburg to Staunton once a week—Leave Hagerstown every Tuesday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Winchester on Wednesday by 10 A. M.—Leave Winchester at 11 A. M. and arrive at Staunton on Friday by 10 A. M.—Returning, leave Staunton every Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Winchester on Sunday by 2 P. M. and arrive at Hagerstown on Monday by 10 A. M.
19. From Alexandria by Matildaville, Leesburg, Waterford, Charlestown, Shepherd's-town and Martinsburg to Winchester, to return by Battletown to Shepherd's-town, and from thence by the same route to Alexandria once a week—Leave Alexandria every Tuesday at 3 P. M. and arrive at Charlestown on Thursday at noon, at Martinsburg by 5 P. M. and at Winchester on Friday at noon.—Returning, leave Winchester every Saturday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Alexandria on Tuesday by 9 A. M.
20. From Alexandria by Centreville, Middleburg, Goshen, Paris, Milwood and Winchester to Romney once a week—Leave Alexandria every Friday at 3 P. M. and arrive at Winchester on Sunday at 3 P. M. and at Romney on Monday by 7 P. M.—Returning, leave Romney every Tuesday by 6 A. M. and arrive at Winchester on Wednesday at 10 A. M. and at Alexandria on Friday by 9 A. M.
21. From Romney by Western Port and Green Glades to Morgantown once a week—Leave Romney every Tuesday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Morgantown on Thursday by 7 P. M.—Returning, leave Morgantown every Saturday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Romney on Monday by 6 P. M.
22. From Romney to Moorfields once a week—Leave Romney every Tuesday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Moorfields by 3 P. M.—Leave Moorfields every Monday at 10 A. M. and arrive at Romney by 6 P. M.—Contract to continue until October 1, 1802.
23. From Centreville by Haymarket, Buckland, Fauquier c. h. and Jefferson-ton, to Culpeper c. h. once a week—Leave Centreville every Monday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Culpeper on Tuesday by 10 A. M.—Returning—Leave Culpeper every Tuesday at noon and arrive at Centreville on Wednesday by 3 P. M.
24. From Frederickburg by King George c. h. Broadfield, Mattapexbridge, Leedstown, Templeman's cross Roads, Richmond c. h. Farnham, Kinfafe, and Northumberland c. h. to Lancaster c. h. once a week—Leave Frederickburg every Wednesday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Lancaster c. h. the next Saturday by 6 P. M.—Leave Lancaster c. h. every Saturday at 10 P. M. and arrive at Frederickburg the next Wednesday by 10 A. M.
25. From Frederickburg by Port Royal, Laytons, Lloyds, Tappahannock, Urbanna, and Gloucester c. h. to Yorktown, once a week—Leave Frederickburg every Wednesday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Tappahannock on Thursday by 6 P. M.—Leave same in one hour and arrive at Yorktown on Saturday by 6 P. M.—Returning—Leave Yorktown every Saturday at 10 P. M. and arrive at Tappahannock on Monday by 7 P. M. and at Frederickburg on Wednesday by 10 A. M.
26. From Frederickburg by Orange c. h. Milton, to Charlottesville, once a week—Leave Frederickburg every Wednesday at 10 P. M. and arrive at Charlottesville on Friday by 10 A. M.—Returning—Leave Charlottesville every Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Frederickburg on Saturday by 7 P. M.
27. From Charlottesville by New-York, Staunton, Middlebrook, Brown-
burg, Lexington, Fincastle and Montgomery c. h. to Englishville on the west side of New River, once a week—Leave Charlottesville every Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Staunton on Saturday by 10 A. M.—Leave Staunton at half past 10 A. M. and arrive at Fincastle on Sunday by 1 P. M.—Leave Fincastle by half past 1 P. M. and arrive at Englishville on Monday by 7 P. M.—Returning—Leave Englishville every Tuesday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Fincastle on Wednesday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Staunton on Thursday by 2 P. M.—Leave Staunton at half past 2 P. M. and arrive at Charlottesville on Friday by 10 A. M.
28. From Staunton by Kincaids, the Warm Springs, or Bath c. h. Morris's, Callaghan's, Sweet Springs, Sulphur Springs and Lewisburg, to Uniontown, and from Uniontown by Lewisburg, Callaghan's, Morris's, and the same route to Staunton, once a week—Leave Staunton every Saturday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Sweet Springs on Monday at 2 P. M.—Leave Sweet Springs in 2 hours and arrive at Uniontown the next Tuesday by 7 P. M.—Returning—Leave Uniontown every Wednesday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Staunton the next Saturday by 10 A. M.
29. From Englishville by Wythe c. h. Aspinwall, Abingdon, Sevierville, T. Sullivan c. h. T. Rossville, T. and Hawkins c. h. T. to Ormsville, T. once a week—Leave Englishville every Tuesday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Sullivan c. h. on Thursday at 10 A. M.—Leave Sullivan c. h. at 11 A. M. and arrive at Ormsville on Friday by 10 A. M.—Returning—Leave Ormsville every Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Sullivan c. h. on Saturday by 3 P. M.—Leave Sullivan c. h. at 4 P. M. and arrive at Englishville on Monday by 7 P. M.
30. From Richmond by Goochland c. h. and Columbia, to Charlottesville, once a week—Leave Richmond every Wednesday noon, and arrive at Charlottesville on Friday by 10 A. M.—Returning—Leave Charlottesville every Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Richmond on Monday by 6 A. M.
31. From Charlottesville by Warren, Warminster, New Market, New Glasgow and Madison, to Lynchburg, once a week—Leave Charlottesville every Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Lynchburg on Monday at 5 A. M.—Leave Lynchburg every Wednesday at noon, and arrive at Charlottesville on Friday by 10 A. M.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 1801.
Notice is hereby given,
THAT in pursuance of the act passed the 18th Feb. 1801, regulating the grants of land appropriated for the refugees from the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, the priority of location hath been determined by lot agreeably to the following schedule; and that the office of the Register of the Treasury will be opened on the second Tuesday in January next, (being the 12th) precisely at 9 o'clock, for the purpose of making locations.
Profit of location of half sections of 320 acres
NAMES. 1 Thomas Faulkner, 2 Benjamin Thompson, 3 Jonathan Eddy, 4 John Haffed, 5 John Allen, 6 Ambrose Cole, 7 John M'Gown, 8 Martha Walker, widow of Thomas Walker, 9 Joseph Bindon, 10 Daniel Earl, jun. 11 John Edgar, 12 Seth Harding, 13 Jonathan Eddy, 14 Martha Walker, widow of Thomas Walker, 15 Seth Harding, 16 Lieut. Col. Bradford, 17 Seth Harding, 18 John Starr, 19 Parker Clark, 20 Col. James Livingston, 21 Noah Miller, 22 Lieut. Col. Bradford, 23 Col. James Livingston, 24 Thomas Faulkner, 25 John Starr, 26 John Edgar, 27 Martha Walker, widow of Thomas Walker, 28 P. Francis Cazeau, 29 Isaac Danks, 30 James Price, 31 John M'Gown, 32 Edward Faulkner, 33 Lieut. William Maxwell, 34 P. Francis Cazeau, 35 John Allan, 36 John Edgar, 37 James Price, 38 John Edgar, 39 Atwood Fales, 40 John Allan, 41 Atwood Fales, 42 Seth Harding, 43 The heirs of John Dodge, 44 John Allan, 45 Joseph Levittre, 46 Seth Noble, 47 Martha Bogart, relict of A. Bogart, and formerly relict of D. Tucker, 48 Lewis E. Delesdernier, 49 Martin Brooks, 50 The heirs of John Dodge, 51 Joseph Bindon, 52 Ebenezer Gardner, 53 John D. Mercier, 54 P. Francis Cazeau, 55 The heirs of John Dodge, 56 Edward Chinn, 57 John Edgar,
58 Martha Walker, widow of Thomas Walker, 59 Jacob Vander Heyden, 60 Seth Harding, 61 William How, 62 David Gay, 63 John Edgar, 64 William How, 65 Noah Miller, 66 Adam Johnson, 67 The heirs of John Dodge, 68 Seth Harding, 69 John Allan, 70 John D. Mercier, 71 Lewis E. Delesdernier, 72 P. Francis Cazeau, 73 James Crawford, 74 Joshua Lamb, 75 David Jenks, 76 David Gay, 77 John Livingston, 78 Major B. Von Heer, 79 Ditto, 80 Seth Noble, 81 John Allan, 82 Martin Brooks, 83 Jonathan Eddy, 84 The heirs of Simeon Chester, 85 Jonas C. Minot, 86 Joshua Lamb, 87 Martha Walker, widow of Thomas Walker, 88 John M'Gown, 89 Jonas C. Minot, 90 John Edgar, 91 Lewis E. Delesdernier, 92 Edward Faulkner, 93 Jonathan Eddy, 94 Atwood Fales, 95 Thomas Faulkner, 96 Ebenezer Gardner, 97 John Haffed, 98 Martha Walker, widow of Thomas Walker, 99 David Gay, 100 James Cole, 101 Ebenezer Gardner, 102 Jacob Vander Heyden, 103 Martha Walker, widow of Thomas Walker, 104 Joshua Lamb, 105 Martha Bogart, relict of A. Bogart, and formerly relict of D. Tucker, 106 Joseph Levittre, 107 James Crawford, 108 John Packell, 109 Col. James Livingston, 110 P. Francis Cazeau, 111 Isaac Danks, 112 Lieut. William Maxwell, 113 John Livingston, 114 Seth Harding, 115 Lieut. Col. Bradford, 116 Noah Miller, 117 The widow and heirs of col. Jeremiah Duggan, 118 Col. James Livingston, 119 Edward Faulkner, 120 William How, 121 Jonas C. Minot, 122 Parker Clark, 123 The heirs of Simeon Chester, 124 Ditto, 125 P. Francis Cazeau, 126 John Starr, 127 P. Francis Cazeau, 128 Martin Brooks, 129 Joseph Cone, 130 Parker Clark, 131 Ditto, 132 John Fortrey, 133 Samuel Fales, 134 John Allan, 135 Benjamin Thompson,
* Note—This is only one fourth of a section or 160 acres. Dec. 30, 1801. ep4t.
NOTICE
For locating the Canada and Nova-Scotia Refugee Lands.
WHEREAS said lands are to be located on the 12th instant, the subscriber begs leave to acquaint his friends and the public in general, that he has employed a gentleman residing in the country near said lands, to explore them, they having been explored by half sections, and all the minutes transmitted to him here, describing the soil, timber, situation, &c.
Will be ready to make the locations on the day appointed.—Any person wishing to have their lands located, can have it done on reasonable terms, by applying at the Washington City Tavern, near the Treasury Office, to PETER MILLS. Washington, January 2, 1802. At.
GEORGE BROWN,
Has received at his store opposite to the house lately occupied by capt. Burch, New-Jersey Avenue.
A handsome Assortment of DRY GOODS, Suitable to the present season—Earthen Queens, and Glass Ware—Also
Groceries and Liquors,
Among which are the following articles—Loaf and brown Sugars, teas, coffee, pepper, mustard, nutmegs, box raisins, figs, soft shell almonds, oranges, lemons, cranberries, Holland gin, and spirits, &c.
The above goods are laid in on such terms as will enable him to sell low for cash—He keeps a regular supply of the best superfine flour from the back country. Dec. 11, 1801. ep6w
TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC SALE,
At the Union Tavern in George-Town, at 5 o'clock in the evening on the fourth Thursday, viz. 28th of January next,
The brick house formerly occupied as a Tavern by Mr. Semmes, on a credit of six, nine, and twelve months. Negotiable notes, with approved endorsers, payable at the bank of Columbia or Alexandria, to be given at the time of sale. An unquestionable title will be made, and the papers laid before the purchasers. Any person desirous of purchasing this very desirable and valuable property at private sale in the mean time, may know the terms by applying to either of the subscribers. PHILIP B. KEY, WILLIAM THORNTON. Dec. 23, 1801. ep1s
IMPORTED,
In the Ship Thomas, from Liverpool, Ironmongery, Cutlery, Saddle-ry and Brass Ware— which are now opening for sale at the subscriber's store on New-Jersey Avenue, Capitol Hill, viz.
IRON and brass kim locks, rock ditto, butt and HL hinges, screws, bolts, saws, files, chisels, curriers knives, waggon boxes, frying pans, patent metal tea kettles, pots and fauce-pans, chafing dishes, iron pots, knife cases, knives and forks, bras and iron candlesticks, shovels and tongs, brushes, ladies dressing cases, mathematical instruments, mill, pit and cross-cut saws, japanned ware, large feale beams, &c. &c. HENRY INGLE.
October 19.
The CABINET and CHAIR-MAKING Bu-finess is carried on by Ingles and Pelton, at their shop next to the above store, where orders in that line will be thankfully received and punctually attended to.
N. B. A good steady Journeyman Cabinet-Maker will meet with employ by applying as above. zwatf.
MICHAEL ROBERTS,
Has just received from Europe and Philadelphia, a large supply of the best Stationery, &c. which he is now opening at his store, High-Street, George-Town, viz.
ATLAS, imperial, Military fathers, lace superroyal, royal, cord, &c. medium, demy, folio Travelling pouches and post, fools cap, hot pressed, dressing cases, red, gilt, wove, & plain Ivory tortoise shell and 4to post papers of a su- horn combs, and a ge- perior quality, nerous assortment of Folio and 4to post for periumery, the copying press, Bailey's patent shoe Royal cartridge, demy, blacking, French marble & blot- Curling tongs, & crimp- ting ditto, ing irons, Pale boards, Morocco skins, Blank books, suitable for English bend and cork foals, chants counting-hou- Boar and girth web- tes, bing, Belt Holland quills and Buckskin gloves, ready made pens, Portaloons and breeches, Black and red ink, and Elastic braces, ink powders, Gentlemen's, ladies', and Sealing wax and wafers, children's beaver hats, Large red and white ol- Ditto green silk umbrel- fice wafers, las, Silk Tale, Travelling trunks, Carnation Tape, Patent shoe latches, Ball and hank twine, Sagar boxes, and silver tubes, Parchment, Scuttle fish bone, Patent, plated, and com- mon spurs, Coach lamps, Brazing knives and pe- Gigg springs, and plated per scifars, furniture for harness, Round and flat rulers, Green wire senders with India rubbers, brass tops, ornament- Black sand, ed, Gum Arabic, Fashionable brass and- Slates and slate pencils, rons, Middleton's black lead Shovels and tongs, ditto and silver cases, Coal hods and cinder f- Sheet almanacs, iters, Ladies' and gentlemen's Japaned hearth, sweep- pocket do. for 1802, ing, scrubbing, dust- sheep and calf skins ing, clothes, hat, and dressed for book-binder's use, Switch and chair whips, Portable writing desks, Walking sticks & sword cases, with apartments for dressing apparatus, Elegant plated tea and Printers ink in kegs, coffee urns, with an English and American assortment of plated playing cards, ware, Ivory chessmen, Uphollers ware, Back gaumont tables, Mills, cross cut, whip, Cribbridge boxes, and hand saws, Billiard balls and dice, Spades and shovels, Drum battle doors, Locks and hinges, Fine Cutlery of every description, Taylors shears, Fowling pieces, Shoemakers knives, Pills and sportmen's Awls and tacks, apparatus, navy, shoe and horse brushes, dressy, horsemen, and Curry and main combs, and an assortment of Officers camp equipage, carpenter's plains, &c. Gold and silver epaulets, and sword knots,
Also for sale at the above store, by EDGAR PATTERSON,
Madeira and sherry wines, best French brandy, and cherry bruscé, imperial and hyson teas, loaf sugar, cheese, liquor cases, demijohns, &c. Dec. 28, 1801. ep6t
The subscriber respectfully ac- quants the public, that he has removed to the corner of Ninth and B streets, where he continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of Ornaments for Chimney pieces, Door Caps, Frontispieces, Metal Safes, &c. which may also be had at his store No. 51, Barclay street, New-York, and go Mr. Wild's store, Market street, Baltimore. GEORGE ANDREWS.
Who has gold leaf for sale by the package or book. May 8, 1801. xy
For sale, or to be rented.
A House and lot on the Capitol Hill—the lot is 20 feet 2 inches on Delaware Avenue, and about 190 feet deep extending back to a 30 feet Alley. The House is a handsome well furnished convenient three story brick house, containing 2 sealed garrets, 5 chambers, 2 parlours—kitchen with a pantry and cellar.
It is directly opposite to the Buildings of WASHINGTON, occupied by Gen. Dearborn, near adjoining to a number of houses belonging to Mr. Carroll, rented to Mr. Dalton and others From its vicinity to the Capitol, it is well calcu- lated for a private family; or a person attached to the offices of the Federal Legislature.—Ad- joining is a lot of about 40 feet front on same Avenue, and running same depth back, (the whole under a good post and rail fence) which, if required would be sold at same time. If rented, the Tenant may have the use of the whole of the lot, which would make an excellent garden, hav- ing a South and Eastern exposure, as long as con- venient to the proprietor. This property would be sold a Bargain for satisfactory payments, or well situated property in Philadelphia would be taken in exchange.
Apply to Benjamin Burch, New-Jersey Avenue, or to the Editor of the National Intelligencer— or to Karrick and Percival, Philadelphia. Nov. 21. tf.