The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-02-01 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER
VOL. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAM. EL. HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1297.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DEBATE ON EXTRA SESSION
FRIDAY, JAN. 20.
[CONTINUED]
Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker—I feel myself necessitated to make a very few remarks, in consequence of the observations which have fallen from various gentlemen. Certainly, sir, I did expect that the course of my former argument would expose me to some animadversion. In great and critical periods of society, such as is the present, nothing else can be anticipated. In performing the duty which my station, in my apprehension, made incumbent, my first concern was to satisfy myself that the ground I was about to occupy was solid. Whether it would provoke asperity in reply was a secondary consideration in comparison with the enquiry whether it would bear the scrutinizing eye of the mass of my fellow-citizens; particularly of men of reflection, of judgment and of information; of that class of men which always in a country like this will, sooner or later, take the guidance of public opinion. Having satisfied myself that the principal ground of my argument was solid, my next care was to mark it out so distinctly that it could not be mistaken. Yet those who have undertaken to reply to me, my colleague (Mr. Bacon) perhaps excepted, have scarcely noticed the general bearing of my argument, and have contented themselves with entangling against what, as they suggest, are my motives, or in refuting remarks merely incidental, and illustrative of my leading propositions. Thus the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) has undertaken to deny that all the motives, which I recapitulated, were operative in passing the embargo, & as an evidence of this to assert that some of them were never urged at the time of passing that law, as reasons for its adoption. Sir, I took occasion in the course of my first argument, expressly to declare that in the enumeration of motives I was making, it was not my purpose to call those motives in question, nor yet to confine myself to those which were expressly urged in debate, but to group all, which there was any reason to believe did exist, together, so as to make the conclusion more striking and satisfactory that they did not include those which, I undertook to show, were the causes of the recommendation of that measure by administration. The bearing of my argument, to which this recapitulation of motives was only subsidiary, was to show that embargo, with intention to coerce Great Britain, to adhere to it until it attained its purpose, and to do nothing else effectual were not the motives of this House. This was the first branch of my argument. My second and principal was to show that those were the motives of administration. In executing this last part of my task I stated, that it was my perfect conviction that such motives did prevail with administration. But I did not rest satisfied with mere assertion. I stated the grounds of my conviction. I drew my conclusions concerning the motives of public men from the undeniable course of their public acts. Whether the arguments then urged were sufficient to justify such a conviction, is a question referred to the decision of my fellow-citizens. From that tribunal I shall not shrink; and before it I am not afraid to meet any or all my political opponents. To these arguments certainly neither personal, nor in any respect unparliamentary, what has been the reply? Why, sir, "false"—"malicious"—"defamatory"—"cowardly, base, detraction"—"dastardly act"—"old story"—"friend to Great Britain"—"Nero"—"Essex Junto," and such like. Really, Mr. Speaker, I have no means of reply to such arguments as these. Absolutely, I can make no answer to them, through defect of my education. I never studied at the school of the scavenger. I never took out degrees at the oyster-bench. I never sat down at the feet of fish-women, as though they were so many she Gamaliels for the purpose of teaching my gall to flow through the channels of their boisterous Bilinggate. The gentlemen who resort to such weapons have all the advantage of me. If they think that their cause or their argument gain any thing by the use of such opprobrious expressions, they have perfect liberty to adopt them. I have one consolation, that, so far as respects this House, what I urged, and what
they replied, have both been in its presence, and I fear not to stand a comparison with them, as it respects either matter or manner, in the judgment even of their friends. I have another consolation that my argument and their answers will each be presented, I trust, fairly to the scrutiny of our fellow-citizens. Before them we shall all be appreciated, sooner or later, for what intellectual and moral worth we are worth. For myself, I wish never to be appreciated above my true estimate, and I fear not, that I shall, for any great length of time, stand below it. With respect to administration, sir, I intimated no motive without stating the facts, out of which my conclusions grew. Beyond the limit of those facts and the extent of those conclusions, I pressed none of my observations. As far as this I had not only a right, but it was my duty to advance. If gentlemen expect to prevent investigations of public men and public measures, conducted on such principles, by personal invectives, the nature and tendency of which are too obvious to be misunderstood, so far as respects myself, individually, they have mistaken their weapons, and their antagonist. It is a choice satisfaction of my mind, that it is not in the power of any individual, however malignant (should such a character ever appear on this floor) long to injure the reputation of any one, whose private or public life does not cooperate with their malevolent intentions. And I assure the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Jackson) and every gentleman who has spoken, that I shall never be a half-worker with them, probably in any thing; but certainly not in the attempt to injure my own character. The sting of satire is in the truth of remark. The keenness of asperity is in the justness of the application. Where these fail the sped arrow cuts the air harmless.
It is not my intention long to detain the House, in the remarks I have to offer. Towards those, who have attempted to treat me with personal severity, I feel no passion. If their cause need such auxiliaries, I can only pity them, and rejoice, that such a cause is not mine. My honorable colleague, (Mr. Bacon) in observing upon my remarks concerning the disposition of this House to go to war, was pleased to represent me as disparaging the resources of my country; and as speaking as if we could not maintain a contest with France or Great Britain; or, if occasion called, with both of them together. Certainly, such was neither my intention, nor the tendency of my remarks. I was speaking of the disposition of the majority of this House, as evidenced by their language and preparations, and not at all concerning the resources of this country, when efficiently called into action. It appeared to me, from all the observations I could make, and so appearing, I thought it was my duty to state it to the people, that all the clamor about war, so ostentatiously made, upon this floor, was nothing else than a mean used to induce the mass of our fellow citizens, through dread of the horrors of war, to endure still longer the embargo;—that a continuance of this measure was the unalterable determination of administration, and that all the application of our resources, and all the apparent preparation was directed either to cover that determination, or to fortify that measure. This was the leading position which I took, and attempted to maintain. When I hear men talk about going to war with three millions of dollars in the treasury. [Mr. G. W. Campbell said there were sixteen millions in the treasury.] Yes, sir, there are sixteen millions in the treasury. And the Secretary of the Treasury tells you, that thirteen millions, out of these sixteen, are already pledged, for the expenses of the year, for the appropriations already made, and for the usual annual estimates. Now, if a man, at the beginning of a year, has sixteen millions in his pocket, and has already undertaken to pay in the course of it, thirteen millions, I do humbly conceive, he has but three millions, upon which he can rely to meet any extraordinary expenditure. Indeed this is the express declaration of the Secretary of the Treasury; who tells us in so many words, that there is "a surplus only of three millions of dollars, for defraying all the expenses incident to a state of actual war, or of preparations for war." Now when I see only these three millions effective, in your treasury,—if your revenue from commerce goes—no preparations for loans—no plan devised, or pretended to be in train, to obtain new sources of re-
venue, how is it possible, that I can believe that it is, in the contemplation of this House to plunge into war? I cannot believe, nor refrain from stating this impression to the people, that all this clamor about war, a pretence, under which, and under the fears, which war naturally excites, to rivet this destructive embargo upon the country. How is it possible to read the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and not inevitably reach that conclusion? In his annual report, that officer tells us expressly, that "if, however, the embargo and non-intercourse are to have equal continuance, with the belligerent edicts, indefinite, as that is; if it be determined to rely exclusively on that measure, and, at all events, not to risk a war on account of those aggressions, preparations for war will become useless, and the extraordinary expenses need not be incurred. In that case, the expenditure for the year 1809, ought not to exceed the sum of thirteen millions of dollars, which, as has been stated, is requisite for the support of the present establishment." And again, "It is certainly only with a view to war, either immediate or contemplated, that it will become necessary to resort, at least, to any considerable extent, to extraordinary sources of supply." Now, sir, when a most influential officer of this government, no less than the head of the treasury, expressly tells us as he does, that "in case of war, new resources, to an amount yet unascertained, must be resorted to," when he also tells us, that "if non-intercourse and embargo are to have an indefinite continuance, it will not become necessary to resort, at least to any considerable extent to extraordinary sources of supply; such resort being only necessary, in case of war, immediate, or contemplated," and when this House do not provide any new resources, either of loans or revenues, when it leaves the Treasury precisely in that state, in which the Secretary tells us, it may be left, in case indefinite, non-intercourse and embargo are resolved upon, and precisely in that state in which the same Secretary tells us it must not be left, in case war be the determination, how is it possible that any other conclusion can be imagined than this, that war is not, but that indefinite embargo is contemplated. Sir, these are conclusions concerning intentions from public documents compared with public conduct. If gentlemen choose to fly into a passion on every such exposition, all I can say is, that I shall not follow their example, nor be deterred by their exhibition of wounded feelings, from performing an official duty. An attempt has been made to wrest an observation of mine to imply a doubt of the courage of the officers appointed to the new army. Nothing could be more unfounded than such an attempt. Concerning few of those appointments do I know any thing. And of those few officers with whom I have personal acquaintance, there are some in the propriety of whose appointment I certainly concur. The only tendency of my argument was to show that a party army, whose officers were exclusively taken from a prevailing sect, was not likely to produce that union, to which gentlemen so anxiously invited. If a foreign war was seriously contemplated, the necessity of an union among all parties, would induce naturally, as I thought, a different course of conduct. Such a course, as by practically removing party distinctions, would unite all in that common confidence, which is the only assurance of strength and vigor, in hostile operations. When I found the principle of party exclusion adopted as the rule of appointments, the conclusion I drew from the fact was, that the army was destined only to effect party purposes, and not at all to meet a common enemy. For with all the prejudices which exist against federal men, as they are called, there is no need of argument to convince even the majority of this House, that they are in general men, who, when their country is in danger, will be found and will be trusted, in the front ranks of our armies.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Jackson) asked if I intended to represent this House as the dupe of the Executive. Certainly I drew no conclusion of that kind. But, sir, with respect to this House, I confess I know not how to express my opinion. To my mind, it is a political non-descript. It acts, and reasons, and votes, and performs all the operations of an animated being, and yet, judging from my own perceptions, I cannot refrain from concluding that all great political questions are settled some
where else other than on this floor. [The Speaker remarked, that it was wholly improper to make reflections on the House.] If the Speaker means that I have not a right to state facts, and leave the people to make reflections upon them, I must appeal from his decision. [The Speaker said that it was not within the rules of parliamentary proceeding to permit a gentleman on the floor to accuse the House of improper motives.] I am saying nothing about motives. In reply to a gentleman, who asks how I intended to represent the House, I am only about to describe what I know concerning it, and to show how I arrived at the conclusion, that great political questions were settled somewhere else, other than on this floor. The fact to which I allude happened on the day when the enforcing embargo law passed. On that day before the House was called into a committee of the whole upon the bill, I was informed that it had been resolved somewhere, I know not where, nor by whom, that the House should be called into committee of the whole immediately upon that bill—that it was to be passed in one day through all the remaining stages—that the bill was then actually engrossed, or engrossing, and that after it was so passed, a bill was to be proposed and passed for calling an extraordinary session of Congress in May next. This was stated to me, previous to going into committee of the whole on the enforcing embargo bill, as the course settled. Well—What happened? Why, agreeably to the information I had received we were immediately called into a committee of the whole, on that bill. We did pass it, through all the remaining stages, at one session, notwithstanding the multitude of its provisions, the greatness of the principle and consequences it involved. So far my previous information proved correct. It will also be recollected, that in the course of the nocturnal session on that bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smilie) did state it as his intention, to bring forward a bill for a meeting of Congress in May, and accordingly, the next day he introduced the motion, which was the foundation of the present bill. Thus again, my previous information was proved by the event accurate. The minuteness of this prophecy, and the precision of its fulfilment, satisfies my mind of the correctness of the opinion before stated, that although, we debate great questions on this floor, that they are sometimes, at least, settled somewhere else. A circumstance strongly corroborative of this opinion is a fact, which happened in the debate on the motion for the committee of enquiry, which preceded this bill. The idea of a session in May, was strongly opposed by the gentleman from S. Carolina (Mr. D. R. Williams). In reply to whom, my colleague (Mr. Bacon) expressed his surprise at his opposition, and said expressly, "that he had given some votes, in the understanding that there was to be an extra session in May, that, if there was not, all he could say, for one, was, that he was taken in." [Mr. Bacon said, that he meant only to be understood as having given such votes, from his own impression that there would be an extra session, and not intending to express any previous agreement.]—If such were the intention of my colleague, I do not wish to avail myself of the peculiarity of the expression. At the time of his uttering it, I did consider it as a strong corroborative circumstance of the fact, that all the proceedings concerning the enforcing embargo law, and the new session had been arranged somewhere else, previous to their being brought into debate on this floor. Indeed, how is it possible for any man to believe otherwise, when he considers, and not only the previous information received, which could hardly have been so minutely fulfilled, unless such previous agreement subsisted, and also, when he considers the rapid and unexampled manner, in which it was passed through all its stages, notwithstanding all the violence of the opposition, and the solid arguments urged against its principles. While I am on this topic, I cannot refrain from observing on a remark made by the gentleman from S. Carolina, (Mr. D. R. Williams). He said, the minority had no right to complain of the manner in which the enforcing embargo law was passed, inasmuch as that they had suffered it to go through the committee of the whole, without a single observation. In reply, I must declare, that I do complain that our privileges were violated. I maintain that it is a right, which belongs to every member of
this House to have a fair and suitable opportunity of debating every question of great national importance; that, unless she has previous notice, that it is the intention of the majority to deviate from the usual course of business, he has a right to choose that stage of the bill, in which he conceives his objections to it can be most forcibly urged. Upon the question of engrossment, or upon that of the final passage, he has a right to have a fair opportunity to be heard. For at these stages the great principles of the bill can be the most advantageously discussed. Now we had not such an opportunity, upon either the engrossment or final passage of the enforcing embargo law. In this instance, I do not hesitate to say, that the rights of the members of this House, and thro' them the rights of this people were grossly violated. Who could have possibly imagined that a bill of the length and importance of the enforcing embargo law, considering also the state of feeling, manifested in some parts of the country in relation to that subject, could have been permitted to go from a committee of the whole, through its final passage at one sitting? Upon that law I was extremely anxious to have expressed my sentiments. I had taken occasion when the resolution for the raising of fifty thousand volunteers was under debate, to state a constitutional objection to the previous supplementary embargo laws, to which I could find, in my mind, no answer. I had hoped some gentleman would have condescended to reply to that objection, but no notice had been taken, except by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Eppes) who only asserted that similar powers to those, to which I had objected, had been exercised under preceding administrations. [Mr. Eppes enquired whether Mr. Quincy was in order to discuss a bill which was already passed, under a question like that now before the House. The Speaker decided that he was. Mr. Eppes appealed from his decision. Mr. D. R. Williams wished that the gentleman from Massachusetts might be permitted to go on—" (and said he) "I have not talent enough in the House to refute his arguments, in the name of God, let us stand convicted." Mr. Eppes withdrew his appeal. Mr. Gardenier asked whether it was consistent with the rules of the House, that when the Speaker had decided a question of order and an appeal had been made from his decision, on the application of any gentleman, the member appealing had a right to withdraw his appeal? The Speaker said that according to usual parliamentary proceedings it was correct.]—
Mr. Quincy continued—I did not intend to argue the unconstitutionality of the enforcing embargo law. I was only illustrating my sense of the violation of the rights of the members on that occasion, by showing that I had been precluded from urging the objections I was prepared to offer against it through the lateness of the hour and the utter incompetency of all after the fatigue of eighteen hours uninterrupted session, either to hear or to speak upon any subject. The constitutional objections to that bill were great, and as I believe insurmountable. The haste with which it was passed, and the little opportunity given for discussion of its principles were little adapted to satisfy the public that the bill would bear a thorough examination. The connection of these observations with the bill under debate is intimate and palpable. The reasons I urge against this bill are, that by providing for a meeting of Congress in May, without providing a limitation of the embargo law, you in fact leave the next Congress in the same bonds to the executive power, in which this House at present stands; that if it be your real intention to raise the embargo after May, as the extra session seems intended to intimate to the people, you ought at once to limit it; otherwise the people ought not to be satisfied; but to examine into the constitutional objections to those laws. If these appear to the people and to the state legislatures as they do to my mind it is their duty—to do what? To rise in insurrection? No, sir. To break the bonds of union? No, sir. To take the constitution, that great charter of their liberties, into their consideration, and to strengthen and support its principles by vindicating them from violation. The gentlemen really think it is "treason" to invite intelligent men, the natural guardians of their own and of the people's rights to take your laws and bring them to the touchstone of the constitution? We have gained little by our independence, if this authority belong not to us. Sir, we perform a high and imperious duty, when those who believe that the constitution is violated say to the people that such is their opinion and call them to an examination of your laws with that reference. All we say to them is, put not off this enquiry until June, under the apprehension the embargo will then be removed. Look to your rights. If they are violated, remonstrate. Maintain the only bond of your union; the constitution. Let it not be broken for the purpose of making of its common chief power an instrument of hostility. For such a purpose the commercial power was never granted. Gentlemen strive to represent those who in this language are hostile to the union. A union can be less founded in truth. Hostility is

may be to the power of an administration, which, for the sake of maintaining a favorite system, seem to value as nothing all those constitutional principles, which the wisdom of our fathers erected as barriers round our liberties. Suppose the present or any future Congress to pass any law, not only manifestly unconstitutional, but so oppressive upon the mass of the people that it is impossible to wait upon the slow processes of the judiciary. The case may certainly be supposed. What is the remedy? Can there be any other than constitutional remedies? And how can this be effected but by calling the people to examine their rights and the alleged invasion of them.
With respect to the feelings and sentiments, relative to these laws in the part of the country which I represent, I do not believe that this House realizes the nature and extent of them. The doubt concerning their constitutionality is not confined to men of one particular party. I have reason to believe that a very great number of the intelligent men, who are supposed to differ from me in political sentiments, do agree in questioning their validity. I feel as strongly as my colleague (Mr. Bacon) the hazardous nature of the present crisis. A course of events is advancing upon us, which, I fear, no human power can control; and in what it will terminate certainly no human foresight can tell. But this crisis is not to be evaded by tampering with it, nor by obstinate adherence to the system, which is the origin of this excitement. Let this scheme of coercion be abandoned, if it be necessary to go to war—Let government designate the justice and the policy of hostilities, and bring the resources of the nation into operation.
But I conjure gentlemen, not to sport with the present state of things. I know there does exist in the majority of this House, an honest mistake concerning the sentiments of the people in the Eastern states. It is thought that discontent with the embargo arises solely from party opposition. Let me assure gentlemen, the case is far otherwise. On this account have I spoken. Gentlemen think that the hope of a session in May, will give content to that people. Be assured it will not. They have too deep and universal an interest in this subject to be deluded into a postponement of the consideration of their constitutional rights. If Congress rise without limiting the embargo, they will not have reason to expect its repeal in May, nor will they act on that expectation. When the session in May arrives there will be nothing to choose between but the old alternatives, embargo or war; and an attempt will be made to continue the present system six months longer. Now I do not believe it is within the physical power of New England to endure it for that period.
(Debate to be continued.)
TAMMANY SOCIETY.
A STATED Meeting of the Tammany Society will be held at the Council Fire of its Great Wigwam (Lindsay's Hotel) on Friday evening the 3d inst. precisely at the going down of the Sun.
By order of the Society, B: SMITH, Sec'y. Washington, Month of Snows 1st Year of Discovery 317th, 2d (February 4, 1809.)
A BLACK MAN.
FOR SALE or to RENT by the year, an able-bodied young Negro fellow. Enquire at this office. January 30—3d
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD.
RAN AWAY from the subscriber, in Piscataway, Prince George's county Maryland, on the 31st of May last, two Negro Men, viz. POMPEY, a very black man, upwards of 50 years old, 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high, rather slender made, with a small head and face; his forehead projects considerably over his eyes, and it is believed he has lost an under foretooth; he is much addicted to liquor, and when drunk disposed to talk a great deal; he has been accustomed to driving a carriage and wagon; he had on when he went away a deep blue short jacket of coarse cloth, orange shirt and trousers.
DAVID, a dark mulatto, about 22 or 23 years old, 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, rather stout made; has thick lips and large mouth, the tip of his right hand is stiff and smaller than the other; he had ulcers on his legs, and if healed the scars may be discovered. David was a house servant, and at the time he went off his apparel was the same as Pompey's, but they had each a variety of cloths. They may endeavor to pass as free men, and it is probable that David is in Alexandria or Baltimore, as his father is living in the former place, and he has a brother and sister in the latter. It is conjectured that a black man in the district of Columbia called Jack Neall has contrived to get them away, as the subscriber has been informed that the said Neall about two years ago carried a negro woman of his on board of a vessel at Alexandria, at which time she was a runaway. The above reward (including what the law allows) will be given for securing Pompey and David in any jail, so that the subscriber shall get them again, or Fifty Dollars for either, and all reasonable expenses if brought home. Any person are forewarned against harboring them.
JACOB BUCKETT.
February 1—w3t
TEN DOLLARS.
RAN AWAY from the Subscriber in December last, a Mulatto man named PETER, a blacksmith by trade, about 25 years old, 5 feet 6 inches high, had on when he went away, an old blue broad cloth coat, black waistcoat, and country jeans breeches, filled in with blue and red twisted; he is a forward impudent fellow and fond of spirits; he has a down look when spoken to and cannot utter his words clear. I expect he is lurking about Alexandria on Fairfax Court House, as his mother belongs to Mr. Parker who lives near the Court House. All persons are forewarned from employing or harboring said slave at their peril. Whoever takes up said slave and delivers him to me at Fauquier Court House, shall receive Ten Dollars and all reasonable charges, or if secured in any jail and information given so that I get him again, the above reward.
SAM L. FISHER.
January 30—1r
NOTICE.
ALL persons interested, are hereby notified to attend on Saturday the 15th day of February next, either in person, by agent or attorney, at the Office of James Forrester, Esq. Leonardtown, for the purpose of receiving their dividend in the estate of Henry Lee, deceased, as on that day I shall proceed to make payment and distribution among the creditors of the said deceased.
WILLIAM T. LEE, Adm'r. January 20—w3t
WASHINGTON CITY. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1.
The Secretary of State for foreign affairs of his Royal Highness, the Prince Regent of Portugal has officially informed Mr. Hill, the American consul at St. Salvador, that the vessels of the United States will be treated in the ports of Brazil as those of the most favored nation, and that it will be lawful for them—
1st. To enter all the ports of Brazil, where there are custom houses, and to import all sorts of goods, from whatever part of the world they may come, paying the accustomed duties paid by other nations.
2d. That American vessels are to pay the same anchorage that other vessels pay; and when there shall be a new regulation, they will be put upon the footing of other foreign vessels.
3d. That goods imported in American vessels, as well as those of every other foreign vessel, pay one third more of duty, and this is the only favor granted to the Portuguese mercantile marine, to raise it from the low state in which it is.
4th. That every citizen of the U. States, conforming himself to the laws of police, and making the necessary declarations on his entrance into the ports of Brazil, and taking afterwards the proper passports, may remain in, and transfer his residence to any part of Brazil, without being disturbed or suffering molestation of any sort, and that it will likewise be lawful for them in their own names or in that of any mercantile house of which they may be the agents to transact and to treat of every kind of business, and to make sales and purchases of every kind of goods, on which they are to pay the lawful duties, excepting diamonds, gold dust and wood of Brazil, which are articles belonging exclusively to the crown and royal revenue; the traffic in which is forbidden even to the subjects of his Royal Highness.
5th. The citizens of the United States may export all and every kind of production or manufacture of Brazil—the duty being so very small on some articles, that it might almost be said they were exported without paying duties.
6th. Every American vessel which enters the ports of Brazil ought to declare she brings goods destined to be sold in the country, or if she wishes to carry them to other ports, she is to ask a clearance (Franquia) and in that case is only obliged to pay the duties on those articles really imported for the consumption of the country.
7th. There is no law here which prohibits the owners of American vessels from selling their vessels or disposing of them as they may think proper; and at present they are not obliged to pay any thing, but perhaps a duty may hereafter be laid.
8th. No law prohibits the citizens of the United States from disposing freely of their property, either by donation, by will, or by succession—the Droit d'aubaine does not exist here, nor in matters of this kind are they treated differently from the subjects of his Royal Highness.
9th. The citizens of the United States, as well as those of every other state, will not be molested or disturbed in Brazil, or in the other dominions or territories of his Royal Highness, for their religious principles, which they may profess, particularly in their houses and in those of their ministers and consuls—nothing more being required from them on this point than the greatest respect in public for the general established religion of the country, and that they should avoid finding fault with it, or endeavoring to make proselytes for any new sect, which is strictly prohibited by the laws of his Royal Highness, and will be vigorously chastised by immediate expulsion, or by a severer punishment, if the crime is aggravated.
10. The citizens of the United States may appear, and establish their rights in any tribunals of the country, in the same manner as the subjects of his Royal Highness; their persons and property being equally protected by the laws; and his Royal Highness will be able to assign them a judge to forward their causes, if the United States should so require.
Extract of a letter, dated Havana, January 12, 1809.
"At this time, and for some time past, this government seizes and detains all vessels arriving in port from any port or place, with cargoes not having on board the usual or accustomed documents granted by the officers of the nation to which the vessel belongs, for her safe conduct on the high seas; and it is the general opinion that such vessels as are now in port, as well as those which may hereafter arrive under such disability, will be confiscated for the benefit of the state."
The King of England has issued a proclamation for the convening of Parliament on the 16th of January.
The Senate, in the absence of the Vice President, have chosen JOHN MILLEDGE, of Georgia, President pro tempore.
The following letter, the genuineness of which may be fully relied upon, shows, in part, the effects of the Embargo on Great Britain, and may, possibly, co-operate with other sources of discontent in producing a change in the administration of her affairs, from which alone any radical alteration in her policy is to be expected. The meeting of Parliament on the 16th of January will offer a fit occasion for embodying this dissatisfaction, and for striking dismay even into the royal breast.
Copy of a letter from a respectable house in Cork, to Messrs. Wilson & Sons of Baltimore, dated Cork, Dec. 3.
"We have received your much respected favor of 29th Sept. and fully coincide with you in opinion, relative to the policy as well as propriety of your Embargo; it is the act of an independent yet pacific government, and we cannot look to its being raised, except through the concession in some degree of one or both the European belligerent powers. Viewing your Congress in the consistent light we wish them to appear in, we hope our ministers will relax the Orders in Council, and thereby remove this grand objection, for we consider it highly detrimental to the interest of both countries to have their commercial intercourse restricted. Your produce has advanced to prices unprecedented. We got 47l. and 94l. per thousand [from 188 to 376 dollars] a for a few thousand New York barrel and pipe staves this week, and our coopers will soon be idle if the embargo continues. Upland cotton 34. [5 cents] lb—tobacco of good quality 2s. 6d. per lb. [56 cents per lb.] —tar 50s. [11 dollars 74 cents] —rosin 70s. per bl. [15 doll. 1-2] —pine timber 6s. per foot, [1 doll. & 33 cents] —We shall be very badly off for flaxseed also. A spirited holder in Dublin refused 10 guineas per bhd. [46 doll. 38] for 250 bds. last year's import."
NOTE. The following, we are advised, are the usual prices of the above articles in this country.
   Dolls. Cts.     (a) Barrel and pipe staves 10 —   (b) Upland Cotton — 20   (c) Tobacco — 6   (d) Tar 2 —   (e) Rosin 3 —   (f) Pine Timber — 2   (g) Flaxseed 16 —  
The Citizens of Baltimore have convened to the number of 5,000, and unanimously passed resolutions of the highest toned patriotism. After warmly approving the Embargo and the measures of the general government, they adopted the following resolutions:
Resolved, That we should hold in abhorrence, & unworthy of the name of an American citizen, any individual who either in word or deed, shall suggest or devise, any other mode of altering or opposing the measures of government, than is authorised and permitted by the constitution and laws of our country.
Resolved, That we should view with horror, and resist to extremity, any attempt to dissolve the union of these states, the basis of our unvalued prosperity.
It is with the deepest mortification we record the following humiliating proceedings of the towns of Boston and Newbury Port, in the state of Massachusetts, and the popular proceedings in Providence, Rhode Island. We have neither room nor disposition, willingly to comment upon them. It is of infinite importance that the proceedings of Congress, which must fix the destinies of the nation, should be given fully and correctly; and for the accomplishment of this end, objects of secondary importance must for a time be waived. If those proceedings, with the documents imported by the Executive, are dispassionately attended to by the people of the United States, all serious division will cease, and they will unite heart and hand in defence of their rights. It is their entire suppression or mutilation that has produced all the misconception of New England. The great question, now pending, ought to command universal attention. If the embargo is raised, war must ensue ; and it will only remain with this nation, either itself to strike the blow, or to wait until a blow, perhaps a mortal blow, shall be received. In such an awful posture of affairs, we will still hope that the legislature of Massachusetts, uninfluenced by the fury of demagogues, and looking with a single eye to the happiness, if not the salvation of their common country, will stay the strides of faction, will confine political degeneracy to its proper orbits, will remember that we were once a band of brothers, fighting for our rights against a foreign tyrant, will remember that that tyrant still lives, and that those rights are only safe under the empire of the laws. Glorious will be the opportunity, and we trust in God it will be seized, that will, on this occasion, offer itself, for demonstrating to the foreign world that we are not, in great national concerns, a divided people. It is, at all events, a precious consolation, that this spirit of disorganisation is local. To their honor be it spoken,
all parties, south of Massachusetts, appear to deprecate with the keenest sensibility the resistance of the laws. "The state of New York," says the Citizen," witnesses, with indignation, but without alarm, a disposition in the commonwealth of Massachusetts forcibly to oppose the laws of the union. Not a man can be found in this state favorable to the turbulent proceedings of the metropolis of that." Mr. Poulson of Philadelphia, who conducts a print decidedly federal, makes this just remark. "No correct federalist will knowingly violate the laws, or do any thing that shall disturb the tranquility, or impair the integrity of our country."
Resolutions of the town of Boston. [After a long preamble.]
Resolved, That we will not voluntarily aid or assist in the execution of the act passed on the ninth day of this month, for enforcing the several embargo laws; and that all those who shall so assist in enforcing upon others the arbitrary and unconstitutional provisions of this act, ought to be considered as enemies to the constitution of the United States and of this state, and hostile to the liberties of this people.
Resolved, That the raising a large standing army in a time of profound peace, with the name and title of "Volunteers," for the purpose of enforcing arbitrary and unconstitutional laws, and the attempt to place the military above the civil authority—though it cannot overawe nor dismay this great and powerful people—yet must be considered as dangerous to liberty, and ought to call forth the most pointed disapprobation of all its friends.
Resolved, That the example given by that veteran soldier, Gen. LINCOLN, and other undeviating patriots, in resigning offices intended to be prostituted to subserve the purposes of oppressing the citizens, and enforcing arbitrary edicts, ought to be imitated by all public officers, and that the inhabitants of this town consider it as an highly honorable sacrifice of individual emolument to public welfare.
At a meeting of the citizens of Newburyport and the towns adjacent, held at the Court House in Newburyport, on Friday the 20th day of Jan. 1809.
The following resolutions were unanimously agreed to:
Resolved, That we consider the acts laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary thereto, and more especially the last act, as unconstitutional, unjust and oppressive, and that we recommend that all legal steps be taken to prevent the execution of the same.
Resolved, That we will not aid or assist in the execution of the several embargo laws, especially the last, and that we consider all those who do, as violators of the constitution of the United States and of this Commonwealth; and that they be considered as unworthy of the confidence and esteem of their fellow citizens.
Voted, That the subject of making compensation by subscription, to those who should, by a non-compliance with the last embargo law, suffer a loss, be recommended, and that the committee report at the adjournment of this meeting.
Resolved, That we do not consider it the duty of any soldier to aid and assist in carrying into execution the last embargo law.
From the Boston Centinel of Jan. 25. Extract of a letter dated Providence, January 23.
"We are under martial law. Our Governor has this day ordered out four military companies to protect the embargo. The companies met, and resolved that they would dismiss and return to their houses. Information having been lodged with the collector that an attempt would be made to get off a small sloop that had lately been seized by the custom-house officers, was the reason for calling in military aid. The sensations excited among the inhabitants by this act are not to be described. The streets were soon thronged; and had a single shot been fired, the whole military force would have been massacred, & many houses demolished. At 9 o'clock, P. M. a party of men, from 200 to 300, took possession of the sloop—cut a passage of about a mile through the ice—bent her sails—and hung her rudder, and she is now under way with a brisk breeze."
On Monday the President communicated to the two Houses of Congress, the following Message—
"To the Senate, and House of Representatives of the U. States. "I transmit to Congress, a letter recently received from our minister at St. James's, covering one to him from the British secretary of state, with his reply. These are communicated as forming a sequel to the correspondence, which accompanied my Message to both Houses, of the 17th inst."
"TH: JEFFERSON. "January 30, 1809."
London, November 23, 1808. Sir—I have the honor to send enclosed, a copy of a letter, received last night from Mr. Canning, in answer to my letter to him of the 10th of last month.
The tone of this letter renders it impossible to reply to it, with a view to a discussion of what it contains; although it is without farther inadvertencies as to facts, and many of the observations are open to exceptions. I intend, however, to combine, with an acknowledgment of the receipt of it, two short explanations. The first will relate to the new and extraordinary conjecture, which it intimates, that my authority was contingent, and the second will remind Mr. Canning, that my letter of the 10th of October, does not, as he imagines, leave unexplained the remark, that "the provisional nature of my offer, to make my proposal in writing, arose out of circumstances;" but, on the contrary, that the explanation immediately follows the remark.
The Union is not yet returned from France, Lieut. Gibbon arrived in London, more than three weeks ago, and delivered your letter of the 9th of September, with duplicates of papers in the case of the Little William and copies of letters which lately passed between the department of state, and Mr. Ewline.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration—Sir—your obedient humble servant, WM. PINKNEY. The Hon. James Madison, &c. &c.
London, December 3, 1808. Sir—I have the honor to send enclosed, a copy of my reply, to Mr. Canning's letter to me, of the 22d ultimo. A copy of the letter, to which it is an answer, was transmitted a few days since by the British Packet, and a duplicate has been sent to Liverpool.
The Union is not yet arrived from France, and we have no intelligence of her.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration—Sir—your most obedient humble servant, WM. PINKNEY. The Hon. James Madison.
Foreign Office, November 22, 1808. Sir—I regret exceedingly that an unusual and unintermitting pressure of official business, has prevented me from finding an earlier opportunity to reply to your letter, of the 10th of last month.
The observations which I have to offer upon some parts of that letter are not, indeed, of such a nature, as to make it matter of any great importance, whether you receive them a week sooner or later, as they refer less to any point of public interest to our two governments than to what has passed personally between ourselves.
But I should have been much mortified if you could have been led to believe me deficient in attention to you; the manner, as well as the substance, of the communication from which I have had the honor to receive from you, entitled it to the most prompt and candid consideration.
Your understanding of the motives, which induced me to accompany my official note, of the 22d of September, with my letter of the same date, is so far imperfect, as that you seem to imagine that the wish to guard against misrepresentation was the only motive, which induced me to write that letter; and that, from that motive alone, I should, in any case, have troubled you with it—Whereas, I must have expressed myself very incorrectly indeed, if I did not convey to you the assurance, that, if what had passed between us in conversation, had not been referred to by you, in your official letter of the 22d of August, I certainly should not have thought it necessary, or proper, to preserve any written record of your verbal communications, which I understood at the time to be confidential; and which I certainly was so far from attempting to "disavow," that I have no doubt but what I expressed myself (as you say I did) in favor of "the course which you adopted as well suited to the occasion." But you state, at the same time, most correctly, that it was a "preparatory" course that I understood and encouraged this verbal and confidential communication. I never did, nor could understand it as being intended to supersede or supply, the place of an official overture. I never did, nor could suppose, that the overture of your government, and the answer of the British government to it, were intended to be entrusted solely to our recollections. Accordingly, when the period arrived at which you appeared to be prepared to bring forward an official proposal I did, no doubt, express my expectation, that I should receive that proposal in writing.
It is highly probable that I did not, (as you say I did not) assign to you, as the motive of the wish which I then expressed, my persuasion that written communications are less liable to mistake than verbal ones, because that consideration is sufficiently obvious, and because the whole course and practice is in that respect so established and invariable, that I really could not have supposed the assignment of any specific motive to be necessary, to account for my requiring a written statement of your proposals, previous to my returning an official answer to them.
I had taken for granted all along that such would, and such must be, the ultimate proceeding on your part, however you might wish to prepare the way for it by preliminary conversations.
In framing your note, I did not pretend to anticipate, how much of what had been stated by you in our several conferences, you would think it proper to repeat in writing. But, whatever the tenor of your note had been, I should have felt it right to conform strictly to it, in the official answer, avoiding any reference to any part of your verbal communications, except such as, by repeating them in writing, I should see that it was your intention to record as official.
I confess, however, I was not prepared for the mixed course which you actually did adopt, I am persuaded (I am sincerely persuaded) without any intention of deceiving or misrepresenting, that of referring generally to what passed in your conferences, as illustrative of your official proposition, and, as tending to support and recommend it, but without specifying the particular points to which such reference was intended to apply; a course which appeared at first sight to leave me no choice except between the two alternatives of either recapitulating the whole of what you had stated in conversation, for the purpose of comprehending it in the answer, or of conforming myself to your written note, at the hazard of being suspected of suppressing the most material part of your statement.
The expedient to which I had recourse, of accompanying my official note with a separate letter, stating to the best of my recollection the substance of what I had heard from you in conversation, appeared to me, after much deliberation, to be the most respectful to you.
Such having been the motives which dictated my letter, I cannot regret it was written, since it has produced, at a period so little distant from the transaction itself, an opportunity of comparing the impressions left on our minds respectively, of what passed in our several conferences.

of correcting any erroneous impressions on either side.
There are two points in which our recollections do appear to differ in some degree. The first relates to the authority which you had, and that which I understood you to state yourself to have, at the time of our first conference for bringing forward a direct overture, in the name of your government, the second to the expectation which I stated myself to have entertained "more than once," of your opening an official correspondence on the subject of the orders in council.
With respect to the first point you will give me credit when I assure you that my understanding of what was said by you, not only in the first, but in our second conference, was precisely what I have stated it to be in my letter; and you will (I hope) forgive me, after the most attentive perusal of your letter of the 10th of October, and after a careful comparison of different passages in it, while I am compelled by your assurance to acknowledge that I have misapprehended you, I find grounds in your statement to excuse, if not to account for my misapprehension.
According to your recollections, you told me explicitly, in our first conference "that the substance of what you then suggested, that is to say, that our orders being repealed, as to the U. S. the U. S. would suspend the embargo as to G. Britain, was from your government; that the manner of conducting and illustrating the subject (upon which you had no precise orders) was your own," and you even quoted part of your instructions to me which was to that effect.
In a subsequent paragraph you state, that "nothing can be more correct than my apprehension that you did not make, nor profess to intend making an overture in writing, before you had endeavored to prepare for it such a reception as you felt it deserved, & before you had ascertained what shape it would be most proper to give to that overture, & how it would be met by the British government."
And in another part of your letter you admit that, "when you expressed your readiness to make your proposal in writing it was (as I have stated) provisionally;" & you informed me that "the provisional nature of your offer arose out of circumstances," the nature of which circumstances you do not explain, nor have I any right to require such an explanation.
But, comparing these several statements together, seeing that, in our first interview, you declared no intention of making a proposal in writing—that in our second interview, (a month or five weeks afterwards) you described that intention as "provisional" and contingent, and protesting at the same time (as I do in the most solemn manner) that I cannot find any trace in my memory of any communications whatever of any part of your instructions, communicated to me as such, seeing also that whatever might be the nature and extent of your instructions from the President of the U. S. as to the substance of the overture to be made to the British government, the manner, the time and the conditions of that overture were evidently considered by you as left to your own discretion—it surely may be pardonable in me to have mistaken, (as I most unquestionably must have done) the precise limits at which the authority of your government ended, and your own discretion began, and to have imagined, (which I very innocently did) that a proposition of which you appeared to have a power so nearly absolute, was a proposition in a great measure, of your own suggestion. I do not mean that I supposed you to bring forward such a measure without reference to the knowledge which you must of course have had of the general feeling, disposition and intentions of your government, but without its specific instructions, for that purpose, at that time.
In attributing to you this exercise of judgment, in addition to the many others, and which it is confessed you were at liberty to exercise, I really intended to convey no imputation disrespectful to you; I can conceive abundance of cases in which it would have been, not only excusable, but highly meritorious.
My mistake, at least, was a very harmless one; as, whether the fact were, that you had no precise authority to give in an official proposal, or that you had such an authority, but subject to contingencies which had not occurred, the practical result must be, of necessity, the same.
What these contingencies might be, it is not for me to enquire; but, if they were of the nature, of which I now cannot but conjecture they may have been; if the overture, which you were authorised to make to the British government, was to be shaped and timed according to the result of any other overture, I am then at once able to account for those appearances, which misled me into a belief of the want of a precise authority on your part. This consideration leads me to the other point, on which alone there appears a difference between us, upon any matter of fact, but a difference by no means so wide as it appears.
Admitting the general correctness of my statement of the expectation which I was taught to entertain of a written communication from you on the subject of the orders in council, you add that it was however only in November last, and immediately after the publication of the orders in council, that you had directly announced to me your intention of opening a correspondence upon them; an intention from which you afterwards desisted, "until you should receive the pleasure of your government." The correctness of this statement I do not dispute; but you, I am sure, will agree with me, in recollecting how many times "more than once" since the period of that first intention of yours being announced & withdrawn, my expectations that you were about to "receive the pleasure of your government" upon this subject, have been excited, by the notification in America, & the destination hither, of ships employed by the U. S. as it was generally supposed, for the special purpose of conveying representations or proposals, from the American government, to the government of France and G. Britain, upon the subject of their respective maritime decrees and orders.
Such was the universal belief, both in America and in England, upon the arrival of the Osage, upon that of the Hope, of the St. Michael, and of another vessel, named, I think, the Union. I have certainly no right to affirm that you shared in the expectation which so universally prevailed. I have no right to say the government of the U. S. designedly created that expectation. But that it did prevail, and that I very sincerely believed it to be well founded, you I think must do me the justice to recollect; as, in one instance at least, that of the Osage, so strong was my persuasion that you must have received instructions from your government, that I took the liberty of sending to you to enquire whether you had not some communication to make to me; & received for answer that you had none.
It was to these missions that I particularly referred, when I said that I had "more than once expected you to open a correspondence with me upon the orders in council." This expectation it was, that alone prevented the sending instructions to Mr. Erskine, to reply to the note addressed to him by Mr. Madison, on the 25th of March, in answer to that note of Mr. Erskine's, in which he communicated the orders in council, and in allusion to these missions, particularly to that of the Osage, and to the expectation which had been founded here upon the return here of that vessel, after its voyage to France, it was, that I made that declaration in parliament, which I see, has been the subject of some misapprehension, (I will not say misrepresentation) in America, that "since the termination of Mr. Rose's mission, the American government had not made any communication here in the shape of remonstrance, or in a tone of irritation." I am not aware, sir, that there is any other part of your letter which requires that I should trouble you with many observations. Your report of your answer to the enquiry, which I took the liberty of making, "whether the orders in council of November, were known to the government of the U. S. previously to the message of the President proposing the embargo, so as to be a moving consideration to that message," does not appear to differ, in any material degree, from my statement of it. That your answer to such an enquiry was official, or authorised by your government, I did not assert nor presume. I have already said, that it was not till you had, in your official letter of the 23d of August, referred to what passed in conversation, that I should have thought any such reference allowable on my part, and even then the generality of your reference precluded me from judging correctly, how much of what you had stated in conversation was from official authority, how much from your own personal information or opinion. You inform me that your answer to this question was of the latter description only: But, even if it were only from your own individual authority, it was very material, and highly gratifying to learn, that the embargo, which had been sometimes represented, both here and in America, as the direct and immediate consequence of the orders in council of November, and as produced solely by them, was in your opinion "a measure of precaution against reasonably anticipated peril."
The purpose of this letter is not to renew the discussion upon the subject of your proposal, but merely to clear up any misunderstanding which had existed between us in the course of that discussion. I cannot conclude it, however, without advertizing very shortly to that part of your letter, in which you argue that the failure of France in the attempts to realise her gigantic project of the annihilation of the commerce of this country, removes all pretext for the continuance of the retaliatory system of Great Britain.
This impotency of the enemy to carry his projects of violence and injustice into execution, might, with more propriety, be pleaded with him, as a motive for withdrawing decrees at once so indefensible and so little efficacious for their purpose, than represented as creating an obligation upon G. Britain, to desist from the measures of defensive retaliation which those decrees have necessarily occasioned. If the foundation of the retaliating system of G. Britain was (as we contend it to have been) originally just, that system will be justly continued in force, not so long only as the decrees which produced it are mischievously operative, but until they are unequivocally abandoned. And if it be thus consistent with justice to preserve in that system, it is surely no mean motive of policy for such preservation, that a premature departure from it, while the enemy's original provocation remains unrecalled, might lead to false conclusions, as to the efficacy of the decrees of France, and might hold out a dangerous temptation to that power to resort to the same system on any future occasion. A result which, not Great Britain alone, but all commercial nations are deeply interested in preventing.
I have now, sir, only to express my sense of the candor and liberality with which this discussion has been conducted on your part, and my acknowledgements for the justice which you render to my disposition to treat you at all times with reciprocal respect, and, to listen to you with the attention, to which personally as well as officially you have every claim.
I cannot forego the hope that it may yet fall to our lot to be instrumental in the renewal of that understanding between our two governments, which is as congenial to the feelings, as it is essential to the interests, of both countries; which nothing but the forced and unnatural state of the world could have interrupted; and which there is, on the part of the British government, the most anxious and unabated desire to restore.
I have, the honor to be, with the highest consideration, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, GEORGE CANNING. Wm. Pinkney, Esq. &c. &c. &c.
Great Cumberland Place, November 23, 1808.
Sir—I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 22d inst. and to transmit a copy of it to my government.
Without desiring to protract a discussion in the conduct of which neither your sincerity nor mine, will, I feel assured, be doubted by any one, I may be permitted to say, that the authority under which I acted in our late communications, was not contingent, as you now appear to conjecture; and that the remark, contained in my letter of the 10th of October, "that the provisional nature of my offer, to make my proposal in writing, arose out of circumstances," will be found explained in the same letter, by passages which immediately follow the remark.
I have said in my letter of the 10th of Oct. that "I had no precise instructions as to the manner of conducting and illustrating the subject" confided to my management; but you will suffer me to enter my friendly protest against all suppositions that "the manner, the time and the conditions of the overture were left to my own discretion," that I had the power nearly absolute over it, or that it was "in a great measure of my own suggestion."
I will trouble you no further, sir, on this occasion than to assure you that nothing could give me more sincere pleasure than to see fulfilled the hope which you express, that it may yet fall to our lot to be instrumental in the renewal of a good understanding between our two governments.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, &c. (Signed) WM PINKNEY. The Rt. Hon. George Canning, &c.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, JAN. 30.
Mr. Holmes, from the committee of Claims, presented a bill concerning invalid pensions; which was committed to a committee of the whole House to-morrow.
Mr. Newton, from the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, presented a bill to prohibit in certain cases the entry of foreign vessels into the ports and harbors of the U. S. (in conformity with a resolution offered by Mr. D. R. Williams) which was read and referred to the committee of the whole House on Wednesday next.
Mr. Say presented a letter from John Hills, of Philadelphia, presenting a map of that city for the Congressional library.
PREPARATION FOR WAR.
On motion of Mr. D. R. Williams the unfinished business (the 50,000 volunteers bill) was ordered to lie on the table.
And the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. MACON in the chair, on the resolution submitted by Mr. Nicholas a few days ago in the following words:
Resolved, As the opinion of this House that the U. S. ought not to delay beyond the day of _____ to repeal the embargo laws, and to resume, maintain and defend the navigation of the high seas against any nation or nations having in force edicts, orders or decrees, violating the lawful commerce and neutral rights of the U. States.
Mr. Milnor moved for a division of the resolution, so as to take the question first on repealing the embargo; and moved to fill the blank with the fourth day of March.
Mr. Randolph said he had risen for the same purpose as the gentleman from Pennsylvania; and he submitted to the committee whether, if the embargo laws were to be repealed, it should not be done with all possible speed. His sources of information, he said, were neither very numerous, nor, possibly, very correct: but he did understand it to be a fact that in certain parts of the Eastern states the embargo was daily and hourly, in the broad glare of day-light—not evaded, but disregarded; that sleighs to an immense number were daily passing from the U. S. into Canada, laden not only with the product of that part of the union bordering on Canada, but also with the product of the Southern states, which was carried by a long and expensive carriage from the Atlantic states to Montreal for exportation. There were two points of view in which Mr. Randolph said it appeared to him that, if this law was to be repealed at all, it ought to be done with all possible expedition. The first was, that those persons in our own country, who had set the law at defiance, who had been guilty of the most incivile conduct, should not reap the exclusive benefit of the commerce carried on. The other reason was, that it was well known that the S. Lawrence was frozen up, and would remain frozen long after our own waters were open. Adventurers, lured by the hope of great profit, had at a vast expence transported products not the growth of that part of the country into Canada, knowing that
the plan of embargo, if continued, would amply repay the extra expence of carrying it. This produce, Mr. Randolph said, to an immense amount, was deposited, as he understood, at Montreal, for the purpose of exporting it, as soon as the ice broke up; and he presumed it was already paid for in British gold or commodities of some sort. And this, he said, was one of the ways in which he should have no objection to finger some of their gold, viz. by getting to market before them, underselling and forestalling them, which might easily be done from the expence of the transportation by land. He submitted it therefore to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, whether, if the committee determined to repeal the embargo, it should not be as soon as possible. If immediately removed, it must shake, and severely too, the capitalists of Canada; but if the removal was procrastinated, they would reap the profits, whilst we should carry our produce to a market already glutted, or if not glutted considerably gratified. When the resolution came before the House, if the committee of the whole agreed to it, he said he should certainly move the earliest day possible for the removal of the embargo.
Mr. Milnor said the gentleman from Virginia must be fully persuaded that he was as willing to get rid of the embargo as the gentleman himself could possibly be; for he had been opposed to the embargo system from the first day the original embargo law was passed. He said he had moved to fill the blank with the 4th day of March for several considerations. The resolution contemplated a repeal of the embargo at a future day and not at the present day; and from conversation which he had held with gentlemen heretofore friendly to the embargo and now disposed to remove it, he had supposed that an earlier day would not be agreed to. One other consideration he said had considerable influence with him. At present there was a natural embargo on a considerable number of the ports of the U. S. By the fourth day of March it was pretty certain that nature would have repealed that embargo. To place the merchants upon an equality, he had supposed, he said, that it would be proper to fix a day for the removal of the embargo, which would give to all equal advantages.
Mr. Swan gave one reason in addition to those urged by the gentleman from Virginia, why the embargo should be speedily repealed. It was a fact known to many members on the floor that large speculations had been made in consequence of a belief that the embargo would be continued for a great while. Articles of foreign produce, which, though not absolutely necessary, had become necessary by habit, were up to an extravagant price. An early removal of the embargo would tend to remove the sufferings of the honest part of the community in consequence of the high price of these commodities.
Mr. Nicholas, who had been absent, when the subject was taken up, wished to modify his resolution. This being considered out of order, Mr. Nicholas moved to amend the resolution under consideration by striking out the whole of it after the word "Resolved," and inserting the following:
Resolved, as the opinion of this House, That the United States ought not to delay beyond the day of _____ to resume, maintain and defend the navigation of the high seas; and that provision ought to be made by law for repealing on the day of _____ the several embargo laws, and for authorizing at the same time
LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL against G. Britain and France—provided on that day their orders or edicts violating the lawful commerce and neutral rights of the U. States shall be in force—or, against either of those nations having in force such orders or edicts.
Mr. Lyon opposed the striking out the substance of the original motion, under the idea that it would deprive the House of an opportunity of taking a direct vote on the repeal of the embargo.
Mr. Nicholas said that the object of both resolutions was the same. The object of the resolution first proposed was to repeal the embargo laws, to assert & prepare to enforce our rights. The only object in proposing the amendment was to bring the subject to a close in one way or other. It had been said that the other resolution was not specific enough—that it could not be understood; that it would take up much time of the House, and when it came before a committee to draft a bill in pursuance of it, their construction of its terms might differ from that of the House, and the whole subject must be gone over again. He wished the question to be decided, and that the whole nation should know as soon as possible what was to be done. Gentlemen who thought that we ought to take a determined stand against encroachments on our rights, he said would vote with him; gentlemen of a contrary opinion would vote against him.
Mr. Dama said he was for striking
out the words of the original resolution, because he did not wish to vote on them, scarcely knowing what construction to put upon them himself, or what construction others would put upon any vote which he might give on them. The resolution as it originally stood he said did not contain an affirmative proposition, but a sort of compound negative one. It declared that the United States ought not beyond the day of _____ to delay repealing the embargo. Now any gentleman who might wish it to be repealed to day, would be clearly of opinion that it ought not to be delayed for six months or a year. So that a vote on the resolution, supposing the day of June, to be inserted as the day beyond which repeal ought not be delayed, would give no definite idea of the sentiments of any gentleman who should vote for it. He was therefore really obliged to the gentleman that he had brought forward a resolution which he could understand, and which had a specific practical bearing. As it respected the character of the proposition, it was a declaration of war by political means. He could not express an opinion on the substitute proposed, but would vote to strike out the original words, because they were liable to a diversity of construction.
The House agreed to strike out the substance of the first resolution.
A division of the substitute offered by Mr. Nicholas, was called for, so as to take the question first on the question of repealing the embargo laws.
(Debate to be continued.)
Tuesday, Jan. 31.
Mr. Munford presented a memorial of sundry citizens of New York, remonstrating against the act of enforcing & making more effectual the several embargo laws.—Referred to the committee of the whole to whom had been referred Mr. Nicholas's resolution.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Messrs. Varnum, Seaver, Cook, Hisey, Barker, Cutts and Green, on this day and yesterday, presented petitions from various towns in the state of Massachusetts, remonstrating against the mode in which the late election of Electors was conducted in that state.
Mr. Cutts moved as the time was fast approaching when it would be necessary to decide on the subject of these petitions, a reference of all the petitions on this subject to a joint committee of the two Houses; which was withdrawn to make way for a resolution to the same effect offered by Mr. Bacon, which was ordered to lie on the table.
PREPARATION FOR WAR.
The House resumed the discussion of Mr. Nicholas's proposition; and the motion pending when the House yesterday adjourned, was debated till five o'clock, when the House adjourned without taking the question.
We are happy to inform the public, that every merchant in the district of Salem and Beverly, has complied with the late law of Congress to enforce the embargo, either by given bond as the law requires, or unloading their vessels. Salem Reg.
The persons against whom indictments were, preferred as being concerned in tarring and feathering an Englishman of the name of Beaty, for reviling the American government and people, have been sentenced to three months imprisonment, to pay a fine of $50 each and find security for their good behavior for one twelve month—except the Drummer, who was fined $20 and one month's confinement. It incontestibly appeared in court by different testimony, that Beaty did utter the treasonable words ascribed to him. Balt. pap.
Annapolis, Jan. 24, 1809.
This day two of the transports with troops for New Orleans, sailed from this place.
Jan. 25.—Yesterday Gen. Wilkinson arrived here in the Charleston packet, Wolf, and this morning he left town in high spirits with the residue of the troops. Charleston, Jan. 20.
The Spanish 74, St. Justa, sailed from Havana the 1st inst. for Cadiz, with the late Vice-Roy of Mexico, & family on board. The Vice-Roy was not permitted to land at Havana, and was proceeding to Spain to take his trial for his recent conduct in the kingdom of Mexico. The St. Justa has on board eight millions of dollars, for the use of the patriotic Junta of Spain.
A GREAT BARGAIN
May be had in A LIGHT COACHEE, newly painted and lined in a neat manner with harness for two horses. Apply to the subscriber at this office.
ARMSTRONG CHARLTON.
Washington, Feb. 1—3t.
ANY LADY OR GENTLEMAN
Properly qualified to Teach the
PIANO-FORTE,
May probably hear something that may tend to their advantage by applying to the Printer hereof. None need apply who cannot be well recommended. January 3t.

MR. NELSON said it was with very considerable reluctance that he rose to make a few remarks on this subject...
But the gentleman has said that the embargo and not the orders in council and decrees have destroyed the commerce of this country.
I ask pardon of the gentleman (said Mr. Nelson) if I misinterpreted him...
No, sir; and yet the gentleman tells you, "take off the embargo—I want no substitute."
But the gentleman talks about the pressure of the embargo. That it does press hard is beyond doubt.
The gentleman says, that if produce be offered for sale, on condition that the embargo be raised, it will bring a higher price...
But the gentleman says that the pressure is so great that some of the states have passed laws for suspending executions.
On the subject of revenue I can only say that at present there appears to be no deficiency of money in the Treasury.
But the gentleman says that the President recommended this measure to Congress as a measure of precaution...
I shall enter into no calculations on this subject, sir. When the great question is presented to us whether we will submit or maintain our independence...
As to the embargo, Mr. Nelson said he was not wedded to it. If any better system were devised, he would give up the present system...
TO GLASS MANUFACTURERS. THE Subscriber begs leave to inform those who have or may establish a Glass Manufactory...
THREE PIPES OF MADEIRA WINE To be Exchanged for FLOUR
Delivered in Georgetown or Baltimore, by the 10th of May next. For further particulars, apply to TOPPAN WEBSTER...
PIPPIEN APPLES. Washington, January 30—1m
VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR SALE. WILL be offered for Sale at Public Auction at Rhodes's hotel, on the 11th day of February next...
TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. ON Thursday the 2nd of March next, on a credit of 6 and 12 months...
NEW STORE. The commodious new store, counting room and cellar on F street, near the Treasury Office...
A NEW PAMPHLET, Just received and for sale at D. Rapine's Book Store, Capital Hill.
Charles H. Varden, Merchant Taylor, Respectfully informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia...
THE Subscriber has an assortment of Garden Seeds, and mostly of his own saving last summer...
THEO. HOLT. Washington city, January 18—2m 2m
RICHARD PARROTT. Has just arrived at Georgetown, on board the Sea-Fox...
JUST PUBLISHED And for sale at R. C. Weightman's Book Store, Pennsylvania Avenue.
THE EXILE OF ERLIN—A NOVEL. By Mrs. PINKNEY, late Miss Gunning.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
THE STOCKHOLDERS of the Commercial Company of Washington are hereby notified...
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
Price ONE DOLLAR. Jan. 27—3t.
THE COMMERCIAL COMPANY OF WASHINGTON. Have received by the Schooner Citizen, capt. Sturges, from New York...
Table with 3 columns: Item, Quantity, Price. Items include: 20 hds. Muscovado Sugar, 6 Pipes Holland Gin, 9 hds. Rum, 3 pipes Cognac Brandy...
JOSEPH FORREST, Pres.
JUST RECEIVED And for Sale by R. C. WEIGHTMAN Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sketch of a Plan and Method of Education founded on an analysis of the human faculties...
This book may also be had of D. Rapine, Capitol Hill, and Jos. Mulligan, Georgetown.
January 20—6t
LUKE KENT, CLOCK & WATCH-MAKER. (FROM PHILADELPHIA)
F. Street between the Bank & Treasury. Informs his friends and the public, that he continues to repair Clocks and Watches...
Washington Jan. 20—
Alexander Greer & wife vs. Rebecca Bond, Caroline Cecelia Bond, Martha Vancoorenigen, Elizabeth Mary Vancoorenigen...
THE object of the bill is to obtain a sale of certain tracts of land of which the said John Jordan, died, seized & possessed...
It is thereupon adjudged and ordered, that the complainants, by causing a copy of this order to be inserted...
True Copy, Test, NICHOLAS BREWER, Reg. Crim. Com.
Jan. 4—16t.
NOTICE. The Taxable Inhabitants of Washington city, and all others concerned, are hereby informed...
The Treasurer returns his thanks to those who have usually called at his Office and settled their accounts...
HENRY WHETCROFT, Treasurer of Washington City.
January 20—2w
FOR SALE. A valuable Family of NEGROES, consisting of a Man, who is a carpenter...
Prince George's county, Dec. 16—f
50 DOLLARS REWARDED. RANAWAY from the subscriber, on Sunday 11th day of September...
More than probable, said Fellow has made for the state of Pennsylvania or for the state of Virginia...
NATHAN SOPER. Prince George's county, Nov. 23—2awf
Table with 3 columns: Item, Quantity, Price. Items include: 20,000 DOLLARS, MAY BE GAINED FOR 2 1-2 DOLLARS!! In the Third Class of the Lottery...
50,000 tickets at 2 1-2 dollars, 125,000
To draw 500 tickets each day at the State House in Philadelphia, and the prizes to be paid by Thomas Albion, esq., the treasurer...
Part of the above prizes determinable as follows:
Table with 3 columns: Prize Amount, Number of Tickets, Total Price. Items include: The 1st drawn ticket on the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th, 45th, 50th, and 55th, days $200 each...
The two $10,000 prizes to receive each its part payment 25 shares of the Lehigh Stock, at 100 dollars each.
The two 5000 dollars 10 shares
The two 2500 do. 5 do.
Societies, associations, and individuals purchasing not less than 50 tickets will be allowed to pay for them by instalments...
Letters post paid, and enclosing the cash, will be duly attended to, and prizes of Lotteries in the cities of Philadelphia, and New York...
GEORGE TAYLOR, Jun. No. 85, South Second street, Philadelphia, and JOHN DAVIDSON, Washington city.
December 12—wtf
PIANO FORTES. The subscriber has just received from Philadelphia.
Three Piano Fortes, with additional Keys, American manufacture, equal to any well imported, which he offers for Sale on reasonable terms.
P. MAURO. December 30—wtf
PRINTING INK. SUMMER, WINTER, and First Quality of Book Printing INK, for sale at the store of Mr. Thomas W. Patro...
October 10—3sp&w3m
BY HIS EXCELLENCY ROBERT WRIGHT, ESQ. Governor of Maryland
A PROCLAMATION. WHEREAS the Executive of the state of Delaware, hath lately demanded...
PURNEL CARTY, as a fugitive from justice, alleged to be at large in Talbot county, and hath transmitted an affidavit...
Given under my hand and the seal of the state of Maryland, at the city of Annapolis, this ninth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine...
ROBERT WRIGHT, By his excellency's command.
NINIAN PINKNEY, Clerk of the Council.
Ordered, That the foregoing proclamation be published twice a week for six weeks in the American & Federal Gazette at Baltimore...
January 27—2m 2m
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE. THAT I intend to petition to the next County Court of Charles, for the benefit of an act of insolvency.
GEORGE BOARMAN Charles County, Jan. 6—2awm3.
BY HIS EXCELLENCY ROBERT WRIGHT, ESQUIRE, GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND.
A PROCLAMATION. WHEREAS the Executive of the state of Virginia hath lately demanded...
GEORGE GORDON, of Virginia, as a fugitive from justice, alleged to be at large in this state, and hath transmitted an inquisition...
Given under my hand and the seal of the state of Maryland, at the city of Annapolis, this twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine...
ROBERT WRIGHT, By his excellency's command.
NINIAN PINKNEY, Clerk of the Council.
Ordered, That the foregoing proclamation be published twice a week for six weeks in the American & Federal Gazette at Baltimore...