The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-08-09 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1373.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
The National Intelligencer is conducted by SAMUEL H. SMITH, and JOSEPH GALES, Jun. and printed at the Office of the former, to whom subscribers and correspondents are requested to address themselves.
The annual price, payable in advance, is Five Dollars.
Advertisements, not exceeding one square in breadth, are inserted the first time at fifty cents, and for every subsequent insertion twenty-five cents. If inserted less than three times a dollar is charged. If inserted but once a week, an addition of one fourth per cent is made. Other advertisements charged in the same ratio.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DEBATE.
On the petition of Edward Livingston, praying to be restored to the possession of the BATTURE opposite the suburbs of St. Mary's, New-Orleans.
(Continued.)
MONDAY, JUNE 19.
MR. GHOLSON said he thought it would better become the character of this assembly to discuss every subject with calmness and deliberation, and on its own merits, than to endeavor to influence the decision by an appeal to the passions. It was important that such a course should be pursued, whether with reference to a great political principle or to the interest of the individual whose rights were said to have been wantonly prostrated at the Executive will. I (said Mr. G.) have been early taught, and the doctrine has grown with my years, that the right of property is not one of the least consideration in a free constitution. It is of a nature so sacredly inviolable that, when clearly ascertained, I would never encroach upon it by any means but through the regular constituted authority. It would have been under this impression that, had I been a member of the legislature when the law of 1807 was introduced into the statute book, I should have been opposed to it. But receiving all the sanctions of a law, and as such containing a rule of conduct in certain specified cases, what was the Executive to do? Was he to set at defiance the law of the land? A doctrine like this can never be contended for. It seems, however, that to satisfy gentlemen the President should have refused to carry this law into execution, which I acknowledge does usurp judicial authority.—[Mr. Randolph said that his ground was that the President had not executed the law. If a law were ever so unconstitutional, the President having signed it, it would become his duty to carry it into effect. But he denied that he had carried it into effect.] Upon that point, continued Mr. Gholson, my colleague and I are at issue. I rise not to discuss the merits of the claim, which I have no disposition to do. I rise to defend the late President of the United States, to endeavor, to the extent of my feeble powers, to place this question in a proper point of view. If the President of the United States has gone beyond the letter of the law, which itself tends to encroach on the rights of the citizen, I would be the last person to justify him in thus trespassing on the dearest rights of a free man. But it is very easy to show that he has not exceeded the express provisions of the law in question.
The act of 1807 contains two clauses having a bearing on the subject; the first ascertaining the character of the persons to be ousted, and the second providing the means of ousting them. The President is authorised to exercise this power, either where property was previously in possession, in which case he is to give notice, or where it was subsequently entered on, in which case he is not required to give notice. It is easy to show that this is one of the cases contemplated by that act. It is well known that the feudal law did exist in Louisiana previous to its acquisition by the United States, and that by that law alluvion does accrue to the crown. Now if the feudal law did exist, and by that law alluvion did accrue to the crown of France, does it not follow that the same right did accrue to the United States by the deed of cession from France, who owned the territory? If the claimant was in possession when this act passed, it became the duty of the President of the United States to give him three months notice previous to his removal; if not, no such notice was necessary. On this point I need only refer to the fact that it was not so early as the passage of the
act, indeed not till the 23d of May that the claimants came into possession. They were quieted in possession, so far as the rights of the United States were not concerned, on the 23d of May, 1807.
The decision of the corporation court of New-Orleans is relied on as giving a title to the petitioner. That that decision did at all effect, in the remotest possible degree, the right of the United States, is a position which no man acquainted with the principles of law will contend for. The decision cannot affect the right of the United States because, it was not contested or defended before that court.
It is said that the feudal law does not exist in France. From time immemorial it has existed all over Europe. That it exists at this time in this country there can be no doubt. The right to lands is allodial, but it is inherent in the government. Is it denied that the government can take property from an individual, making him compensation therefor? If the right to land be indefeasible, could the government run a road through it? It certainly could not. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not attempt to say where the real right to the property in question does reside. But I do say, that, according to the treaty of cession, it did become the government of the United States to exercise the power which the President under the law of 1807 did make use of.
If there has been any violation of right, it was in the passage of the law under which the President acted. It was such a one as, under present circumstances, could not have voted for, even to remove a Yazoo purchaser. I would even give to such an one his right to a fair trial. I would not have agreed to pass it, for a reason given a day or two ago, that the right to trial by jury is unalienable; it is a right which descends to us with our other birth-rights; it is one without which liberty is but a name. It was an unfortunate circumstance that such a law did pass. But if the legislature thought proper to enact such a law, let them not, in the name of the great God, throw the blame on their instrument, on the President, who was innocent of fault, and bound to carry the statute into effect. There is undoubted proof that the President only acted in pursuance of the statute. The retroactive part of the statute is the most horrible feature in it.—[Mr. Randolph.—Does the gentleman mean to advance this position, that there is in the government of the United States (not of the state of Virginia for instance) a right to take any property which it pleases on giving compensation to the owners?] Mr. Gholson continued. I mean to advance no such position. This is an external government, and all matters relating to internal concerns fall within the province of the state governments, whose power in this respect will not be doubted. Although the federal government cannot exercise this power in the states, I by no means admit that they cannot exercise it in the territories over which they have a right to legislate. It is a right of such a nature as should be exercised with great delicacy and caution. Yet though it is necessary that privileges should never be invaded but with a hallowed hand, it is sometimes necessary to give up a little for the general good.
But it is said that this is an extreme case, that this small spot was selected as the object of Executive vengeance. I am informed that in almost every instance of intrusion on the public lands, settlement was made by individual claimants. I would rather give up fifty times the value of the land of the U. S. than encroach against law on that of any individual. It was not the execution of the law which encroached on the rights of the citizen, but the law itself. I would ask, how can it be contended to the contrary? Who was in possession of the land when the law passed? It had been used as public property, and had every requisite to that character; and as such, when any one took possession of it, the President would not have done his duty under the act of 1807, had he not caused them to be removed.
MR. RANDOLPH said he merely wished to say a few words in answer to his colleague, because he was afraid that he had put the question upon a footing which in justice to the petitioner it ought not to be placed upon. I would ask him (said Mr. R.) whe-
ther he thinks the right of the U. S. so untenable, their title so frail, or the prejudice against the title of the petitioner so weak as to render it necessary to fortify the side which he has taken on this question by making it a question, as it has already been made, between the late President of the U. S. and the petitioner? Ought the feelings of the House to be touched in this manner? Ought that chord to be made to vibrate? It is true that my colleague may say that the law of 1807 was first set on foot by myself. On me, then, let the blame rest, and not on the claim of the petitioner, who has already enough to contend with. On me let the whole weight fall. It does seem, from the uniform practice in this House, that when a man gets up to canvass any act performed by the Executive, under law or no law, he must preface whatever he says, if he means to be listened to with respect, by a disclaimer of any sort of intention to censure the Executive. No matter how great the enormity in question, it is absolutely necessary, it would appear, in order to prevail upon the House to lend a favorable ear to your argument, to disclaim all design of inculpatory the Executive. Do we live in a land of liberty or do we not? I know that in England the throne is interdicted by the constitution from all attack, that the king can do no wrong; and yet, sir, when a wrong is committed there, they are not (to use a strong but expressive epithet) very mealy-mouthed, but arraign his majesty's ministers with all the freedom with which counsel in a court will arraign the credibility of a witness. I want to have some means within my power whereby I can thoroughly canvass the conduct of the Executive branch of the government. Suppose a member to rise in his place, and instead of throwing a blame on the President, were to throw it on some poor head of a department—would he not be told that it was unmanly and unfair—that under the constitution having no king who can do no wrong, it is not fair to lay blame on a secondary officer but upon him who is responsible for the act? And there I have placed it, sir. Could I think of blaming the Governor of Orleans territory? I might as well blame the private who in obedience to his orders dispossessed the party put in possession. If we also would canvass the conduct of our ministers, and the President is our minister, we must drop this way of saving, as I believe they do in Catholic countries, the infallibility of the Pope, of saying "God bless the President! he is always just right, and can never do wrong!" But here, sir, is an enormous wrong—on whose shoulders shall we pack it? In my representative capacity, I shall consider it my duty, fall on whose shoulders it may, to state it. I know that it is an invidious task to charge any man with blame, and that rising to eulogise him is a much more agreeable one. But it seems that I am the cause of all this. The bill in question, it is well known, came from the Senate. It is equally well known to you, sir—if not, be it now known—that I never saw it before it made its entry into these walls. But with what shew or color of justice can I be deemed the father of the bill? If it be meant that I was the cause of its being passed, because I was the humble instrument of arresting that claim till time and a majority of the House could be found to pass that bill, I am obliged to the gentleman for reminding me of what I believe the proudest triumph of my life. It was a glorious triumph, an unprecedented one—for that claim came here, not only with the undivided sanction of the Heads of Departments, but with the sanction of the best talents of the nation, and of integrity equal to any within these walls. I hope it is not the last time that an honest majority in this House shall triumph over Executive influence.
But it seems that a great deal of warmth has been displayed on this subject; that we ought to discuss this matter with great coolness. I should like to know of my colleague, if he were turned out of his house under the obligation of this same law, in a bleak and dreary winter's night, whether he would think a little of this warmth amiss. Whatever may be the opinion or belief entertained in states exempt from that accursed evil, I believe it is notoriously true that there is not a slave (who has no property of his own)
that would not display greater warmth if his little house had been violated by his master in the way in which the property of the petitioner has been. When we are directing the bayonet, pointing the instrument, there is no occasion to be warm; but when it comes to our own throats—and it is coming—I do not mean it is the intention, but, if this principle be sanctioned, it must come—and I trust in God, that, under any circumstances, even under the north pole, I shall never display less warmth on a such occasion than I have done.
My colleague used to say what the law was in the Louisiana territory prior to its cession, and in so doing opens the merits of the claim which he said he did not intend to touch. Whether the feudal law is or is not, was or was not in existence there, cannot affect the question, inasmuch as the very grant of the property was an allodial grant, taken out of the operation of the feudal law of France by the express limitation of the grant itself. It is not true, as I understand it, that the feudal law is in law in all monarchical countries. [Mr. Gholson said that since the reign of Charles II. there had not been that part of the feudal system in existence which required every man to do service, &c. But he had said and did maintain that there is now remaining in every part of Europe a portion of the feudal system. He certainly had only meant that the feudal system yet existed quo ad hoc .] Mr. Randolph continued. It has been much the fashion for a long time in Europe, and particularly since Dr. Robinson published his celebrated history of Charles V. to account for every thing by the feudal system. I do not understand however, that it exists in Spain, but that property is granted as allodial.
Again, Sir—I understand my colleague to advance the doctrine that the federal government possessed the right of taking any private property in the territories which it pleased for public use, paying the owner the value thereof, paying damages. I ask my colleague to shew the grant by which the general government holds the power; for it will be recollected that the power of this government is more straitened than any citizen is in his property. It must shew a grant of all the power it exercises. If the government possess this power, I want to know how it got it.
In his zeal to defend the Executive and throw the whole weight of the blame on the shoulders of those who passed the law, my colleague forgot that the President is as much committed in relation to that law as any man who voted for it. The law must apply to individuals, but it had reference to great tracts of territory. Where was the necessity for this law to dispossess individual settlers, when a single constable was fully competent to that task? The power was granted in such a manner that it might be exercised on an individual, but it was given with reference to such cases as those now occurring in the Mississippi territory, where so many get together as to form an interest stronger than the civil process and capable of resisting it. Can my colleague say, if his title be litigated, and he be put in possession by a decree of the court, that he does take possession "without being thereto duly authorised by law?" Surely not.
We are told that the point in dispute is, has this land been ceded? But have not all the lands in the U. S. been ceded, except such as the grants to which were absolutely perfected at the declaration of Independence? Was not the whole of Kentucky and Tennessee, and by far the greater part of Virginia and Pennsylvania ceded by the treaty of 1783? And to whom? To the individual states? No, sir; to the U. S. in their confederate corporate capacity. The king of Great Britain did not know, neither did France, when she made the treaty, know any state in its individual capacity, but the whole government of the U. S. as united states.
I do say and repeat that this act has not been carried into effect, and the gentleman himself cannot say that it has been carried into effect. Neither can he say that the President was authorised to execute it in regard to this mud bank, without inculpatory him for failing to execute it in the case of the intruders in Madison county. When we speak of this particular case
of the batture, we are told that this law, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, must be executed. If it was only a duty of the President to execute it one case, he has been guilty of a dereliction of duty in not executing it in the other case.
I know that there are gentlemen far more adequate than I am to do justice to the merits of this case as connected with law. But I declare, that according to the construction given to this law, there is no individual in the U. S. States who may not be brought under the operation of that law, which is well known was not passed with that intention, for it is to be gathered from the face of it that military power was not intended to be exercised unless the civil power was insufficient; and I defy any man under a fair construction to place it in any other point of view. Suppose the Secretary of War takes possession of your farm—you say it was never ceded to the United States—but will that declaration put you in possession against an armed force? Your property is taken from you under color of law; military despotism is established under color of law. There is nothing in imagination which can exceed this. Telling a man making a complaint to go to the Attorney General is something like telling a slave, making a complaint of ill-usage to go to the overseer, the man who has already made up an opinion against the complainant.
With respect to maxims in law, in which no doubt my colleague is much better versed than I am, it is unquestionably true, as respects the doctrine of escheats, that the feudal system prevails in some of the states; but it never has been applied to the extent contended for by my colleague in any state in the union, and certainly not in the state which we represent.
I am afraid, sir, that I have done a mischief where I meant to have done a good. If my object had been to favor the views of the petitioner, I certainly should not have taken the course which I have pursued. Whether the petitioner succeed in his object or not, is a secondary affair, compared with the great constitutional privilege which has been violated in his person. I repeat it again and again. Let any man come forward and complain that his property never was ceded—you are told that the rights of the United States are not to be contested by the courts below, and in the mean time leave the rights of the citizen to contend against a file of grenadiers with fixed bayonets—and this, we must do it seems, for fear that incidentally some blame should fall on the President of the United States. Sir, we had better establish a principle in our government that the President can do no wrong, but hold his ministers responsible for all he does, than hold our rights by this tenure. There will be then some sort of society. I dislike this business, when we find fault with subordinate officers, of being told that they are not responsible; and when we find fault with the President, being told that he is not responsible. Sir, I know as well as you or any other member can know, that he is a king in masquerade . I feel it; I know it. I speak not of the late President of the United States or of the incumbent. Every question which is brought up touching the liberty of the citizen serves but to confirm me in the opinion that this government has an awful squinting towards monarchy!
Mr. Gholson said that so far from clothing any President with an inviolability of character & assigning to him an incapacity to do wrong, he would go as far as his colleague or any other man in support of private and personal right, and to secure the inviolability of private property. Sir, said Mr. G. did any expression escape me to the disparagement of the right of the claimant? I only said that under color of a title derived from the previous laws of the country, the President had considered it his duty to take possession of this land. I pledge my word even to go further. I would give the claimant possession, if he would give security to abide the result of a fair trial of the title. I conceive the law under which he was dispossessed to have been a most execrable one; I was desirous too that the blame should be placed on the right horse, and never said my colleague was the cause of it. But I believe, in an honest zeal against Yazoo perjury, he and his then colleague did subscribe their assent to a

law which they would not otherwise have consented to pass. The law cannot be vindicated. It does invade judicial powers; because it invaded the principle, which we inherit, that possession is prima facie evidence of the right to property; and that the citizen cannot be deprived of it but under the law of the land and by the intervention of an impartial jury of his countrymen. (Debate to be Continued.)
LATE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
JUNE 13.
TREATY WITH AMERICA.
Lord H. Petty rose, pursuant to his notice to move for certain papers relating to the attack on the Chesapeake, in addition to those already on their table. The instructions given to Mr. Erskine on that subject he thought ought to be produced, as well as the communications he must necessarily have made to government, explaining the motives for his recent conduct, for without them, no judgement could be formed of the degree in which he had violated his instructions, or indeed the general conduct of the American government. It was necessary that the House should be informed of the instructions given to Mr. Erskine on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake, he would therefore move that the subject of a motion. If the right hon. gentleman opposed, from information which he might possess, but which (Lord H. Petty) had not, should state to the House, that the instructions given to that gentleman could not be made public without detriment to the public service; he would not press his motion, for the present, but the communication from Mr. Erskine, in which he assigned his motives for making those arrangements with America, which had excited so much attention, he thought of such importance, that it ought to be immediately laid on their table; the noble lord concluded by moving, "that there be laid before the House a copy of the instructions given to Mr. Erskine on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake, as also any communication that his majesty's ministers might be possessed of from Mr. Erskine, explaining his motives for making the late arrangements with America."
Mr. CANNING thought the reasons he should give for not concurring with the motion, would be satisfactory to the noble lord. It had been rumored abroad that Mr. Erskine had not deviated from his instructions. He thought it was proper to prove to this country, to America and to the world, that such a report was not founded in fact. The fact, whether the arrangements he had made, were or were not in conformity to the instructions he addressed to him, was not the point in question. How far those arrangements might be improved might be hereafter the subject of consideration. The papers already produced were he thought sufficient to substantiate the fact of Mr. Erskine's having gone beyond his instructions. The propriety of giving those instructions might become a political question; but that the arrangements he had made were unauthorized by the instructions he had received, the documents already before them he thought completely established. When the intelligence of the arrangements entered into with America first came over, not transmitted by the minister to government, but through the medium of the American papers, and by them immediately laid before the public, it only remained for ministers to acknowledge a treaty the conclusion of which the instructions given by them did not authorize, or disavow it altogether. It had accordingly been stated by them, that it was not sanctioned by the instructions they had issued; but nothing had been said with respect to the conduct of Mr. Erskine that could be avoided while they did justice to themselves. It had been said, that probably Mr. Erskine had received some verbal assurances from the American government which, in his own opinion, might justify him in concluding such a treaty. He did not know what verbal assurances he might have received; but that verbal assurances should be taken in a case of such importance, he thought, was more than any government could expect, or than any ministers would consent to. Of the three points laid down as the price of the repeal of our orders in council not one had been obtained by the treaty concluded by Mr. Erskine. Even the sine qua non of our propositions had not been gained. With respect to England's being left at liberty to capture American vessels trading to the ports of our enemies, the accepting that as concession was merely courtesy on our part. Whatever might be the laws of America with respect to the belligerent powers, Great Britain could enforce her right of capturing neutral vessels trading with her enemies when in a state of
blockade, and capture them she would. The instructions given to Mr. Erskine, with respect to the "non-intercourse and non-importation acts," had two distinct branches. It was not enough that those acts ceased to remain in force against England, but it was further to be stipulated that they should remain in force against France, and those powers who were under her influence. It might be said that Great Britain was put out from the number of those to whom those acts were to extend, while France remained one of them. But it should be remembered, the "non-intercourse and non-importation acts," were but a temporary measure. They were to expire on the 20th of May. Through the treaty, therefore, concluded by Mr. Erskine, we might be made to pay for the repeal of it, by recalling our orders in council, while France would enjoy the advantages resulting from it for nothing at all. It was therefore necessary that some pledge should be given that those acts would be renewed, and continued in force against France, and, if we were to pay all the expenses our enemies might reap half the benefit. For America, by the treaty concluded, was not bound to continue those acts against France, and perhaps at the present time her ports were as open to the French as to the English. Was it to be supposed his majesty's ministers could agree to withdraw those retaliatory measures which they had been compelled to adopt against France with respect to America, leaving her ports alike open to both the belligerent powers? When our often repeated offer of reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake was first made, Mr. Rose was only instructed to procure the recall of the proclamation interdicting our ships from their waters. Every power when aggrieved had a right to revenge the injuries it might have received, or to expect an atonement from the offending party; but it could not possess a right to both. If an atonement were expected, revenge was not to be attempted, and if revenge were attempted, an atonement could not be expected. America thought proper to revenge herself. Our ships were interdicted from her waters while those of France were allowed an asylum in her harbors. This resolution on the part of America made a great difference between the belligerent powers, as it gave France a great advantage which Great Britain was denied. When the interdiction was extended to both, had a disposition to cavil existed on our side, we might have found even then cause for complaint, as while they interdicted our enemies, they excluded us also. But this the British government was far from doing; our offer of reparation was then again renewed. That proclamation had never been properly recalled; it had only been merged in the "non-intercourse and non-importation acts," and thus put the two belligerents, England and France, on a footing of equality. The non-intercourse and non-importation acts being, as he before stated, but a temporary measure, and expiring on the 20th of May, agreeing to the treaty made by Mr. Erskine, we should have paid the price of our orders in council for having about six weeks the advantage of France, in being admitted to enter the harbors of America exclusively; at the expiration of that time we might have been excluded, and France permitted to have the advantage over us in her turn. Could it be thought that government ought to have confirmed such a treaty as this?—Could they have been justified had they been content to have waited six weeks to learn the effect? Surely it could not be thought of. Had Mr. Erskine transmitted to ministers the treaty before he concluded it, their disapprobation of such an arrangement would have been immediately expressed, and there never would have been a question of such a nature before the House. Mr. Erskine would have been instructed to have set forth, as he was sure no disposition existed on the part of government to take it out of his hands. But the treaty being concluded as it was, they had only to adopt it or not to adopt it, and not adopting it, they were bound to prove that it had been concluded contrary to the instructions they had given. Thus situated, they were compelled to make the disclosures which had been made, but to go further, to communicate every circumstance at present, might tend to embarrass and mar the negotiations still pending between the two countries, which he still cherished a hope would be finally terminated to the satisfaction of both parties. Mr. Erskine was instructed to obtain a conference of the interdiction of commerce, not only with respect to France, but to every power dependent on her; who ever imagined that any one would have been extravagant enough to view Holland as not under the influence of France? Holland could only be considered as an exemption, from two
opposite admissions; as, if dependent on France, she must share the fate of France; and if independent, she was the more offensive to England, as voluntarily espousing the cause of her enemy. Mr. Erskine, on signing, might have been led into an error by verbal assurances as to France, but not so with respect to Holland, as she must have known that she had been exempted from the "non-intercourse act." It might be said, that he expected Holland would be placed on the same footing as France. But this, if true, would be strange indeed, when the neutrality of Holland had been distinctly recognized, while that of Italy, (Italy, whose crown was on the head of Bonaparte) was only doubted.
Mr. Erskine was instructed to require, not only that the non-intercourse act should be repealed, but that England should have the benefit of a partial repeal. If such were the instructions given, he would ask the noble lord if they had been fulfilled, when though he had gone to the full extent of the concessions he was authorized to make, he had not gained even one of the conditions he was instructed to obtain, as would appear on a perusal of the papers before the House. If those did not carry conviction of the fact, nothing he could bring forward would. For reasons already stated, he should decline entering at present farther into the subject. Before he resumed his seat he must however state, that he did not personally know Mr. Erskine; he never entertained any prejudice against that gentleman; but with respect to his conduct on receiving a note from the American secretary of state, he thought him censurable. He ought to have returned it unanswered, and put an end at once to the correspondence on receiving such an extraordinary communication.
Mr. NAPIER would not have risen, had not the right hon. gentleman stated that it had been rumored out of doors, that Mr. Erskine had not exceeded his instructions. He did not think such rumors could originate with the relations of that gentleman, nor did he believe that Mr. Erskine had written a line to them on the subject. He would not then enter into a defence of his relation, as he was certain that he would rather suffer any thing, than have one word uttered in his behalf, that might be detrimental to the public service.
Mr. CANNING did not make the assertion from his own knowledge. An hon. gentleman had stated, when making a motion on the subject, that such rumors had gone abroad.
Mr. MORRIS said, he was not in the House when that motion was made.
Mr. MARRYATT defended ministers, and objected to the production of the communication from Mr. Erskine at present; as if the pleadings were heard on one side, they ought also to be heard on the other, to enable them to judge of the case from the facts that came out.
Mr. BARKING, in a speech of some length, defended the conduct of the American government, and spoke in favor of Mr. Erskine.
Mr. STEVENS replied to the arguments of the last speaker, and defended ministers. The hon. member did not think that discussions on this subject in this House were likely to promote conciliation on the part of the country in question. He should therefore oppose the motion of the noble lord altogether.
Lord H. PETTY stated in reply, that all he desired on this subject was, that disclosure which, to the justification of the parties, was absolutely necessary. The question, as offering a defence of that country, rendered the papers he moved for of necessity in the elucidation of the matters connected with it. But from the speech of the right hon. gentleman he felt subject of congratulation, in learning that a negotiation was now pending; and as it was not his intention or his wish to throw any impediments in its way; he hoped the House would agree with him in delaying the production of those papers, the necessity of which it was his object to convince the hon. gentleman of.—The noble lord consequently withdrew his motion.
LONDON, JUNE 18.
Every day gives birth to events, which the sagacity of the politician seems to have little foreseen and which still affords a reasonable ground of hope that the independence of Europe may yet be reasserted. It is now ascertained beyond a doubt (what but a very few days ago would have been rejected as incredible,) that Prussia has not only determined upon war with Bonaparte, but that 40,000 Prussians have actually entered Saxony and proceeded to acts of hostility.
Copies of the declaration of war by Prussia against France have within the last few days been circulated, in which the grounds urged for again appealing to arms are, the retention of Silesia, Custrin, and Glogau, by Prussia, in violation of the stipulations
of the late peace, the detention of a considerable number of prisoners, under various pretences, the exactions of France, and the further injustice and exorbitancy of her demands.
June 20.—Some vessels which recently arrived in Holland, with tobacco, oil, &c. upon the faith of the late Dutch decrees, we understand have been seized, and their cargoes landed into the government warehouses. It is apprehended they will be condemned.
The brig Hanna of New York, from Holland, lately detained at Dover, has got liberty to proceed on her voyage home.
The dead body of Schill is said to have been exposed at Stralsund and recognized by some of his soldiers.—This shows the importance attached to the death of this distinguished "Robber," whose influence in Germany must have been greatly dreaded by the French party.
London, June 19.—This morning arrived a mail from Heligoland, by which we have received the following:
Banks of the Elbe, June 2.
The Austrian head quarters are, according to private accounts received this morning, at Lintz.
The emperor Francis, previous to the battle of Aspern, received proposals from Napoleon, to conclude a truce on certain conditions, which on receipt he instantly forwarded to the archduke Charles, who returned it with the following note:
'Brother, take my Marshal's staff from me, and let me rather know the Austrian name no more, nor your's, but let me retire with my brothers to Hungary.'
The duke of Valmy (Kellerman) has, it is said, received orders to occupy Prussia.
Two very important reports have got into circulation. It was confidently stated on Saturday, that the king of Prussia has declared war against France; and it was at the same time asserted, that another battle had been fought on the left bank of the Danube, in which Bonaparte had proved successful. The former of these reports obtained considerable credit in the city, and letters, containing what was stated to be the substance of his Prussian majesty's declaration, were shewn. It was observed, however, that differences so material appeared in those descriptions of the pretended Prussian manifestos, that no reliance could be placed on the accuracy of any of them.
The arrival of the young Prince of Orange in this country has tended, we believe, to spread an opinion, that the king of Prussia has resolved to take a part in the war against France; and it is said that he has been determined to take this course, in consequence of Bonaparte having expressed himself dissatisfied with all the explanations that have been offered by the cabinet of Koningsberg, respecting the conduct of Schill. The rumor, however, must be accompanied by better evidence than any that has yet been adduced in its support, before the doubts which it is calculated to excite can be removed. If the king of Prussia has determined to go to war, it is probably in consequence of a conviction that Bonaparte has resolved to strip him of the small remains of power he has still left. It must be a last effort of despair. With regard to the latter report, it is certainly not improbable that a battle has taken place on the Danube; but the authority for that fact is not better than that for the Prussian declaration of war. The rumor is stated in letters from Holland, and is said to be corroborated by a gentleman who arrived on Friday at Harwich, in a neutral vessel, from the Continent.
Col. Washington Morton, a gentleman of very considerable influence in America, arrived at Portsmouth, from London, last week, in six hours, and sailed with dispatches of great importance from Mr. Pinkney, the American minister, to Gen. Armstrong, at Paris.
We understand that government is making vigorous preparations to equip another armament. Reinforcements are daily proceeding to Portugal, both from this country and Ireland; and it is said especially that cavalry is to be forwarded, the want of which has been so loudly complained of in every part of the peninsula. An opinion is likewise entertained, that government purposes to send succors in arms, and possibly in men too, to the insurgents in Germany.
JUNE 20.
A telegraphic dispatch yesterday afternoon was received at the Admiralty from Plymouth, stating that the French had been forced out of St. Andrew's. This event was naturally to be expected from previous accounts of the condition of the enemy in the north of Spain, and we trust soon to hear that they have been entirely driven from the Asturias and Gallicia.
Strasburg, May 19.—There is still a remnant of from 8 to 9000 Austri-
ans in the woods of Bohemia, who sometimes pass the frontier in detachments; and after levying contributions on the towns in their way, return to their hiding places. The military along the line of the Danube, from Ratisbon to Passau, is extremely harassed by these attacks, which, from the rapidity and secrecy with which they are made, defy prevention, and elude pursuit.
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9.
There will be found in our preceding columns a short debate in the British House of Commons on a call for further parts of the correspondence between Mr. Canning and Mr. Erskine, from which it appears that Mr. Canning has resisted their production on the ground of prejudice, a pending negotiation, with what color of justice we leave it to the reader to determine. Until such stronger light is shed on the subject, we must continue to believe that Mr. Erskine has been, either formally or verbally, authorised to make the propositions submitted to him by our government. We partially assigned our reasons for this belief before the appearance of the note of Mr. Canning to him. This note, from the astonishing complexion of its contents, strengthens our first impression.
Its date naturally gives rise to the suspicion that some other instruction, formal or verbal, issued above twenty days having elapsed between its date and the departure of Mr. Oakley for this country.
It does not, as usual, recognise Mr. Oakley as its bearer, thence strengthening the inference that subsequent instructions were penned, of which he was the bearer.
It does explicitly recognise instructions heretofore given. Why are these withheld?
It contains no allusion to the affair of the Chesapeake, which, from the strain of Mr. Erskine's correspondence with the Secretary of State, made so important a feature, if not indispensable preliminary to the propositions relative to the revocation of the Orders in Council.
It contains allegations which we believe to be totally unfounded. It ascribes to Mr. Madison, Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Smith, on the authority of Mr. Erskine, the declaration that the American government were prepared to "renounce during the present war the carrying on all trade with the enemy's colonies from which she was excluded during peace," a principle for which Mr. Madison, as Secretary of State, had strenuously contended, as strictly conformable to the law of nations, and as all important to the American merchant. We do not believe that the members of the Cabinet named ever authorised Mr. Erskine to make this assurance to his government. And as Mr. Canning has already, in a memorable instance, been convicted of misrepresenting the declarations of our government, we must, until a full disclosure of the correspondence is made, ascribe this misrepresentation to him. The other assurance, said to have been derived from Mr. Pinkney, that his government would agree to authorise the capture by British cruisers of all American vessels trading with France, and the powers adopting and acting under the French decrees, is alike incredible. We do not believe that Mr. Pinkney ever gave it; we do not believe his government authorised it; we do not believe the American nation would have acquiesced in it if it had. But to what rational motive can we ascribe this allegation of Mr. Canning, supposing Mr. Erskine not to have authorised it? To the same motive, we reply, that prompted Mr. Canning solemnly to declare on the floor of Parliament, that our government had not offered to remove the embargo so far as it affected England on her revoking her orders, when, in truth, the offer had been long since made; to the same motive that prompted the more recent publication in this country of his celebrated letter to Mr. Pinkney, without publishing the reply; both of which steps had the effect for a time of flagrantly misrepresenting the opinions and conduct of our government. As in these two instances, so in that now under notice, Mr. Canning has endeavored upon instilling into the minds of the American people suspicions of the virtue or firmness of those who administer their affairs; and certainly nothing could more admirably subserve his purpose than the general belief that Mr. Madison, Gallatin, Smith and Pinkney made the propositions inquired into.
Mr. Canning no where expressly declares that this note was the whole instruction given to Mr. Erskine even relative to the orders in council. He says, "you are at liberty to communicate this dispatch in extenso to the American Secretary of State" or what purpose? Doubtless, to inquire if favored by circumstances, a recog-

ation of the three stipulations made essential conditions of the revocation of the orders. A government so constantly in the habit of yielding to circumstances as that of Great Britain entertained a hope that events in this country would arise that might lead our government to yield even to those unqualified terms. Their friends here, no doubt, advised them, that our people were on the eve of rebellion, & their government on the brink of dissolution. It was judged that no price would be deemed too great that should avert these awful calamities. Under this state of things, Mr. Erskine was authorized to communicate this dispatch to the Secretary of State. Did he communicate it? No. Why? Because, a different state of things existed from that it contemplated; a state of things which he must have well known, would have rendered its presentation in the highest degree insulting; a state of things which justified its being under some other dispatch, framed to meet different events—events which manifested the true spirit of principle and the abolition of British hopes in this country. "For this purpose," says Mr. C. "you are authorized to communicate this dispatch." What purpose? To obtain a distinct and official recognition of the above-mentioned conditions from the American government. Well, if this purpose could have been answered by communicating this dispatch, Mr. Erskine would have communicated it. His not having communicated it, is proof that it could not be effected; and if it could not be effected, he was not at liberty to communicate it. This view of the case acquires no mean strength from being the only one which satisfactorily accounts for Mr. Erskine's not having communicated this dispatch. If we suppose that there was another dispatch issued to other circumstances, all difficulty vanishes, the more than Egyptian darkness is dispelled, and we are enabled to reconcile the correspondence and arrangements of Mr. Erskine. The lofty and insolent tone of the note of the 23d of Jan. from its not being communicated, presents no obstacle to an adjustment, and the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions between this note and the propositions of Mr. Erskine no longer stare us in the face. Whereas, supposing this to have been the only instruction, we perceive nothing but opposition and inconsistency. For instance—
Mr. Erskine's first letter to Mr. Smith breathes a spirit of amity and confidence towards the American government—Mr. Canning's dispatch, on the contrary, manifests nothing but distrust, and cunningly offers an opportunity to our government to give proof of its sincerity!
The dispatch notices the interdiction of French ships of war from the waters of the United States, a topic on which Mr. Erskine's letter is totally silent.
The dispatch commands the extension of the "non importation act" to the other belligerents, adding "these measures remove those preliminary objections, which must otherwise have precluded any useful or amicable discussion." Not final agreement, but merely discussion. Mr. Erskine, in his correspondence and arrangement, is again silent on this head, and does not even make an effort for what is pronounced indispensable even to amicable discussion.
The dispatch says "In this state of things, it is possible for G. B. to entertain (not definitively adopt) propositions," of the humiliating complexion we have stated. Mr. Erskine, without a scruple, definitely agrees and pledges his government, under an authority vested in him for that express purpose, to propositions, totally different and equally honorable to both governments.
The dispatch says, on receiving an official recognition of the above-mentioned terms "his majesty will lose no time in sending to America a minister fully empowered to conclude a formal and regular treaty." Mr. Erskine announces his majesty's determination of sending an envoy "invested with full powers to conclude a treaty on ALL THE POINTS of the relations between the two countries."
FROM THE ENQUIRER.
LAST BRITISH ORDER.
As the last orders of Mr. Erskine have been published in England we may expect them in a few days. We shall therefore lay over the question, how far he has transgressed them.
But even on the supposition that Mr. Erskine has really transgressed his instructions—the British government have equally transgressed the most solemn obligations of justice and good faith.
Even if they were not bound by the unauthorised acts of their minister—as they are at least bound to replace us as near as possible in the same situation from which they had drawn us.
What right have they to take an advantage of a situation into which the acts of their own minister had betrayed us?—Here is an arrangement, which we had concluded with their own agent—with one who represented the sovereignty of his country. It was merely from a full confidence in the character, with which they themselves had invested him, that this arrangement was formed. Is it not then most infamous to say, that they have a right to make this very agreement subservient to their own enslavement and to our injury?
Do not these things speak for themselves? Is there a man of common sense or honesty, who will not pronounce the same decision?—Is it not the only basis, on which that branch of the law relating to contracts through agents, can fairly be built?
If we put the writers on the laws of nations, as far as they have touched this case, taught the very same doctrine?—Vattel declares, that "when a state believing that it has concluded a peace with the enemy's general, has, in consequence thereof, delivered up one of its strongest places, or given a sum of money, the sovereign of that general ought to restore what he has received, if he is willing to ratify the agreement. If he acts otherwise, he enriches himself with another's property, and deprives that property without having any title to it."
Few discussions, however, of this sort present themselves in the books—because it is now the general practice of sovereigns to keep a check upon the acts of their ministers, by reserving to themselves the right of a ratification of those acts.
Surely Mr. Canning is not weak enough to say, that this act is not binding upon his majesty—because it wants the seal of ratification. Yet there is an expression in the late orders of the 24th of May, which seems to shew that the British ministry would even descend to this miserable subterfuge. Why is this contract of Mr. Erskine called "a provisional agreement?" Is it not customary to use PROVISIONAL, in opposition to FINAL; that is an instrument either not dependent upon the ratification of a sovereign, or that has already passed through it? Does not however the very nature of the transaction at Washington evidently prove that it must have been a final adjustment? It was not, as in the case of a treaty, to have been laid over for ratification. The interest of both countries required that it should go into effect as soon as possible. The letter of Mr. Erskine itself forbids a ratification. It was on the 10th of June that this agreement was to take effect. And there was not time enough to receive the ratification on the part of Great Britain, before the 10th of June was past, and the deed was done for ever.
What is there, then, in all these refinements to change the true state of this question?—If the British minister has transgressed his instructions, the British government is bound to replace us as nearly as possible, in that situation from which she has seduced us—or at least, to let the blow fall as lightly upon us as possible. This principle is so very clear, that even the British ministry themselves dare not openly deny it. Mr. Canning is all alive to the interests of the merchants! He forsooth wishes to "prevent any inconvenience or detriment to them"—& "to secure them indemnity in these speculations." And the subsequent order of May 24th, in pursuance of the same hypocritical system of mercy, is gravely introduced "to prevent any inconveniences that may ensue from the circumstances above recited."
What is the fact? In consequence of the most solemn pledges of an accredited minister at Washington, the American merchants feel a new spirit of confidence and adventure—50 or 60 millions of our property are shipped, upon the high seas, for different ports and markets—there are insurances against the dangers of the seas, but not against the cruisers of Great Britain—for on that head the word of a British minister is supposed to be a sufficient protection.
What then is the species of indemnity which the British government are now tending to us? They permit us for a short time to carry on one branch of trade—they prohibit a great many others. They suffer the vessels which clear out from the U. S. between the 19th of April and the 20th July for "certain ports and places of the kingdom of Holland," to pursue their destination. But on the other hand, extraordinary orders are sent to Portsmouth and Plymouth to fit out all their privateers with all possible dispatch—and these like hungry hounds are let loose upon every other American vessel, which equally sails under the faith of this provisional agreement, but which may be bound to ports interdicted by the orders of April—these very orders too which were declared by their accredited mi-
nister at Washington to have had not the "least connection" with his agreement.
Is this the "indemnity which is secured to our merchants;" Is this the "inconvenience and detriment," which is prevented? Is this the generosity of Mr. Canning?
What will our East India merchant say to it, when his vessel has been taken on her way to Batavia?—$3,000,000 of our property, perhaps much more, are computed to have been sent beyond the Cape of Good Hope—not a cent of it is protected by the order of May.
Millions have gone into the Mediterranean—how much of this is safe?
Already has the proclamation of his Britannic majesty, disavowing the agreement of his minister, been seen at Algiers. Already are his cruisers let loose upon us in those seas.
As to the favored ports of Holland themselves, what wonderful immunities will our merchants enjoy? This order is not "to extend to protect vessels which shall attempt to enter any port actually blockaded by his majesty's ships of war."
Will the British admiralty be so much under the influence of mercy or inactivity, as not to lay all the important ports of Holland immediately under blockade? What then? If our vessels attempt to go in, they are bon pris—if they go into British ports for a market, their cargoes will almost be sacrificed for a song—British merchants will purchase it, procure a license, and smuggle it into the continent. Thus they will run off with all the profits of our cargoes—and we shall receive indemnity with a vengeance!
It seems scarcely necessary to notice the short date at which the clearances of vessels in this country for Dutch ports is to expire. Amidst such a mass of atrocities, one feature may at least be spared from the group, still it is a fact, that the orders of May will not arrive in many of our ports until after the 30th July—all those vessels of course, which may happen to sail within this interval, are "good prize."
From the United States Gazette. A friend has favored us with the following extract of a letter from an American gentleman who came passenger from France to New-York in the Mentor.
From the Siren's departure to the 9th July, the day the Mentor sailed, nothing remarkable took place relative to our relations with France, though letters from well informed bankers of Paris stated that the government of that country appeared to be more inclined to come to an arrangement with the U. States, and that some interviews had in consequence taken place between the French minister and Gen. Armstrong. This conciliatory spirit (if sincere) was rather on the part of the ministers who are opposed to the measures latterly pursued than on that of the emperor.
In the event of an arrangement taking place it was thought that our vessels would at first be only allowed to import into France and the countries under her control the products of our own soil—but should an arrangement take place, (which I much doubt) it is likely things would be placed on the former footing.
The news carried out by the Siren of the accommodation with England which ought to have occasioned a great sensation did not produce any, because information of the refusal of the English to ratify the proceedings of their minister reached France at the same time. An English armament was stated by private letters to have arrived in the river Weser and landed a body of troops. The emperor Napoleon was still at Vienna and did not advance. It was said the Austrians had been greatly reinforced from the other side of the Danube, & advantageously posted, and that he feared to attack them till he received reinforcements, though his army was still immense, notwithstanding the severe losses he had sustained.
Russia had not yet taken any active part in the war—she appeared to have three armies ready to take the part of the strongest, and in the mean time contented herself with fighting against Sweden and Turkey. These circumstances and the raising the prohibition which existed to the importation of colonial produce from Holland into France, naturally produced a great stagnation in the markets of the latter country.
New-York, August 5.
Further—by the Mentor.—Letters from Paris, of the date of the 4th July, state, that negotiations commenced on the 2d between Mr. Armstrong, our minister at Paris, and Monsieur Hauterive, appointed by the emperor to negotiate in the absence of count Champagny, the minister of foreign affairs—and, it was said, with a prospect of success.
Letters are also received from Amsterdam, dated the 21st June, which mention the arrival, at Amsterdam, of the Urania, and ship Susan, Delano, from N. York, and brig Hannah, from Newburyport. The articles of the above cargoes, permitted to be imported by a decree of the king of Holland, were delivered to the consignees; and the other goods were stored in the king's warehouses, to remain till a peace takes place. The commercial intercourse between Holland & France had been opened; which caused a rise in colonial produce of 20 per cent.
We have received from a passenger in the Mentor, a list of fifty-six American captains and seamen, detained in the prisons of France. Among the number is George F. Smith, of Phila. who was nine years in chains in Algiers. [The list shall be published in our next.]
A. Y. Gazette. Letters received in this city from Paris, of so late a date as the 4th of July, mention that negotiations for a commercial treaty between the United States and France had commenced between Gen. Armstrong and M. Hauterive, who, during M. Champagny's absence at Vienna, fills the office of minister of exterior relations. An issue favorable to this country was expected with confidence.
The decree of September had been repealed; and colonial produce was permitted to go from Holland to France. This had caused a rise in the article of coffee from 10 to 25 per ct.
Mer. Ad.
London, June 21. Orders have been issued by the Lords of Admiralty for the immediate recall of the Lieutenant of the frigate who impressed the American seamen at Cadiz.— London. Ad.
LATER STILL.
Cork, June 26.—We have American papers to the 26th ult. by the arrival of American ships at this port, and at Greenock. The extra-session of Congress commenced at Washington on the 23d May. On the 23d the President's Message was read in Congress, according to procedure at assembling that body. The message is directed chiefly to the relative state of Great Britain and America—and acknowledge the President's satisfaction at the adjustment of the differences between both countries. The repeal of the British orders in council had been communicated to the French government, and a similar policy required from it. The message, as it regards Great Britain, is temperate and conciliatory.
THE KING'S SPEECH.
On Wednesday evening the following Speech was delivered by the Lords Commissioners to both Houses of Parliament.
"My Lords and Gentlemen, We are commanded by his majesty to acquaint you, that his majesty has great satisfaction in being enabled by the state of the public business, to release you from your laborious attendance in Parliament."
"His majesty doubts not, that on your return to your respective counties you will carry with you a disposition to inculcate both by instruction and example a spirit of attachment to those established laws, and that happy constitution, which has been his majesty's wish to support and maintain, and upon which, under Providence, depends the welfare and prosperity of the kingdom."
Gentlemen of the
House of Commons,
"We have it in command from his majesty to thank you for the liberal provision which you have made for the services of the present year; & to express the satisfaction which his majesty derives from your having been enabled to provide for these services, without any great and immediate addition to the burthen upon the people."
"His majesty particularly commands us to acknowledge your prompt attention to his wishes respecting an increased provision for the poorer clergy, an object in the highest degree interesting to his majesty's feelings and deserving the favorable consideration of Parliament."
My Lords & Gentlemen,
"The atrocious and unparalleled act of violence and treachery by which the ruler of France attempted to surprise and enslave the Spanish nation, while it has excited in Spain a determined and unconquerable resolution against the French, and the usurpation of the French government, has at the same time awakened in the other nations of Europe a determination to resist by a new effort the continued and increasing encroachment on their safety and independence."
"Although the uncertainty of all human events, and the vicissitudes attendant upon war, forbids too confident an expectation of a satisfactory issue to the present struggle against the common enemy of Europe; his majesty commands us to congratulate you upon the splendid and important suc-
cess which has recently crowned the arms of the Emperor of Austria, under the able and distinguished conduct of the archduke Charles."
"To the efforts of Europe for its own deliverance, his majesty has directed us to assure you, that he has determined to continue his most strenuous assistance and support, convinced that you will agree with his majesty in considering that every exertion for the re-establishment of the independence and security of other nations is no less conducive to the true interests, than it becomes the honor and character of G. Britain."
We understand that it is the intention of government to send a strong force to occupy the island of Rügen in the Baltic, so as to be able to afford prompt assistance to the general fight of insurrection which has broken out in the North of Germany against French oppression.
London, June 21.
It is said that government have come to the determination to send immediately on foreign service, THE WHOLE DISPOSABLE FORCE OF THE COUNTRY, and with this view, has instructed all commanding officers to recall the absentees of their respective regiments, and to hold themselves in readiness to march at a moment's notice.
The loss of the Austrians on the 21st and 22d May, was between 13 and 16,000 men.
NATIONAL GUARDS. Are requested to attend PARADE on Saturday the 12th inst. precisely at Half past Three o'clock, (in uniform) at the Captain's quarters.
By order of the Captain. LUKE KENT, Sec.
August 9—
SCHEME OF THE BALTIMORE COLLEGE GRAND LOTTERY. HIGHEST PRIZES TWO OF 20,000 DOLLARS, THREE OF 10,000 DOLLARS, Not near two Blanks to a Prize.
   Prizes Number Prize Amount     2 20,000 Dollars 40,000   3 10,000 do. 30,000   3 5,000 do. 15,000   2 2,500 do. 5,000   10 1,000 do. 10,000   15 500 do. 7,500   20 300 do. 6,000   50 100 do. 5,000   100 50 do. 5,000   200 20 do. 4,000   3500 15 do. 52,500   3500 12 do. 42,000  
7405 Prizes. 14595 Blanks.
22,000 Tickets at 10 dollars is 220,000 Discount at 15 per cent, leaves for the institution and expenses, 33,000
Part of the Capitals will be determined as follows.
   First drawn Ticket Amount     Do. after 1,000 tickets are drawn 500   do. 2,000 do. 500   do. 3,000 do. 500   do. 4,000 do. 500   do. 5,000 do. 500   do. 6,000 do. 500   do. 7,000 do. 500   do. 8,000 do. 500   do. 9,000 do. 500   do. 10,000 do. 500   do. 11,000 do. 1,000   do. 12,000 do. 1,000   do. 13,000 do. 5,000   do. 14,000 do. 1,000   do. 15,000 do. 1,000   do. 16,000 do. 10,000   do. 17,000 do. 1,000   do. 18,000 do. 1,000   do. 19,000 do. 1,000   do. 20,000 do. 1,000   do. 21,000 do. 1,000  
Last drawn ticket 1,000
TICKETS, HALVES, QUARTERS AND EIGHTHS.
FOR SALE AT JOSEPH MILLIGAN'S, GEORGETOWN
Distant adventurers by enclosing blank notes post paid shall have the tickets and shares forwarded to any amount with the utmost punctuality, & the earliest information of their success. During the drawing, a correct Check book will be kept for the examination of tickets gratis.
Prizes in the late Philadelphia, and New-York Lotteries taken in payment. Present price of ticket's 10 1/2 dols. but will shortly advance.
J Milligan has now on hand, and constantly keeps for Sale, a large supply of Books and Stationery.
School Books, Writing paper and Playing Cards.
The Subscriber will SELL at the old Auction Room near the Centre Market, on Saturday the 12th of August at 5 P. M.
 20 pair Stockings,  20 pieces Nankeen,  100 Counterpanes,  1 Secretary,  1 pair Card Tables,  11 Gold Bar Rings,  6 dozen Shaving Boxes,  20 pieces Muslin,  10 dozen Muslin Handkerchiefs,  5 dozen Fans,  3 dozen Gold Breast Pins,  1 silver Watch, 
With sundry other articles too tedious to mention.
SAM. SPEARE, Auctioneer. August 4—12

FOR SALE. By virtue of a decree of the High Court of Chancery of the state of Maryland, will be exposed to public sale, in the town of Port Tobacco, Charles county, at the court house at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the second day of the next August term of Charles county court (which commences on the third Monday of August next) a parcel of LAND late the property of John D. Scott, deceased, being part of a tract of land called Poynton Manor, lying upon a branch of Nanjemoy creek, on the post road leading to Nanjemoy from Port Tobacco near the "Hill Top" and about seven miles from Port Tobacco.
This Land consists of about 300 acres, of which between 50 and 100 acres are well timbered, about 20 acres are in marsh, and the remainder arable and very productive. The terms of sale are that the purchaser shall give bond with sufficient security to pay the purchase money in 12 months from the sale. It will be sold entire or in parcels as may best suit the persons inclined to purchase.
F. S. KEY, Trustee. July 5—tdos W. & C. SMITH, HAVE for Sale at their Warehouse near the Ferry— Loaf and Lump Sugar in Hds and barrels, Prime Muscovado do. do. do. 2d and 3d quality do. do. do. TEAS Hyson, Young Hy-son, Imperial, in Chests, Boxes and Cannisters, Coffee, Chocolate, Pepper and Allspice, Nutmegs and Cloves, Sweet Oil in Baskets and Boxes, Indigo and Copperas, Best 4th proof Cognac Brandy, Bourdeaux and Marseilles Brandy, Holland and Anchor Gin, Jamaica and Antigua Spirits, old and fit for immediate use, Old and New Whiskey, Madeira, Port, Sherry, Teneriffe, Corsica, Sicily, and Catalonia Wines, Claret in boxes 1 doz. each, Best chewing Tobacco, Demijohns, Casks, &c. &c. George Town, July 5—ep
TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION, At Northumberland court house, in the county of Northumberland, and state of Virginia, on Tuesday the 5th of September next, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, five contiguous plantations, amounting together to about 2,700 acres, situate on the river Potomac, and within about three miles of the court house. These estates formerly belonged to Presley Thornton, Esq., and are the same on which he lived. They have never been seen by either of the subscribers, but it is understood, that about 1700 acres of them are as valuable low grounds as any on the river, and a considerable part thereof heavily timbered. The uplands consist of about 1000 acres, and the whole is well calculated for the production of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy and small grain of all kinds, in great abundance. The waters are said to abound with excellent fish, oysters and wild fowl. The water carriage is easy and convenient to Norfolk, Baltimore, Alexandria and the city of Washington; and as these estates possess several good mill seats, with an abundance of water and a plentiful supply of timber, they must be very valuable.
The premises will be shown to persons inclining to purchase, by col. James Moore, who lives on them, or by Samuel Blackwell, Esq., who lives near to them; and the terms of payment may be known at sufficient time before the sale, by applying to either of them, or to THOMAS ROBINSON, Near Chester, Delaware, Or to W. LEWIS, at Phila.
CITY AUCTIONEERS. THE subscribers beg leave to inform their friends and the public, that having given the security required by law, they obtained a license to sell goods, wares and merchandise at vendue in this city. To accommodate those who may be pleased to employ them, they have built a commodious house adjoining the Store of the Purser of the Navy and opposite to Wm. Prout's, and from their close attention to business, they flatter themselves that they will give general satisfaction. NICHOLAS L. QUEEN, HENRY M. QUEEN. May 29—4f
FOR SALE, Or to be rented for a term of years, or on perpetual ground-rent, A NUMBER of well built brick houses, several of which are immediately tenable—situate on Greenleaf's point—Also, house lots in almost every part of the city. Apply to JAMES GREENLEAF, or in his absence to SAMUEL ELIOT, junr. July 6—8w
ROMULUS RIGGS, Has just received and opening at his New Cash Store, a complete and well selected assortment of SEASONABLE AND FANCY GOODS, Which being purchased for money, gives him the opportunity of offering the same at Baltimore and Philadelphia Prices. As he is determined to sell for very small profits, he intends keeping on hand a good assortment of Goods, to be sold by the piece; and those who purchase to sell again, will be furnished at as low rates as they can purchase in any market in the United States, being determined to sell. CASH GIVEN FOR TOBACCO Inspected at the Georgetown Warehouse.
FOR RENT, THE upper part of the House I now occupy, which has Six well finished Rooms, and every necessary back building, all newly furnished and in complete order—The rent will be low to a genteel family, if application is immediately made. June 9—4f
THIS is to give notice, that the subscriber of Prince George's county hath obtained from the Orphans court of Prince George's county in Maryland, Letters Testamentary on the personal estate of Samuel Dickey late of Prince George's county, 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 tenth day of February next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all the benefit of the said estate. Given under my hand this fourth day of August 1809. JOHN LUSBY Ex'r. August 4—w6f
VALUABLE FARM FOR SALE. Will be sold in pursuance of the last Will and Testament of Samuel Turner, Esq., deceased, at Public Sale on the premises on the 15th day of November next (if not previously disposed of, and in case of sale notice will be given) that very valuable Farm in Montgomery county late the residence of the said deceased; containing about Seven Hundred Acres of Land, Three Hundred Acres at least in wood and fine timber; the residue under good enclosures and every acre arable; lays level and remarkably well for cultivation and may be made very rich in a few years by the use of plaster and clover; in fact, it is as desirable a farm as any in the county of its size and may be very conveniently divided to accommodate purchasers; it lies about 18 miles from Georgetown and the city of Washington, five from Montgomery court house and within three miles of the Potomac River.
A further description is deemed unnecessary, as it is presumed that those inclined to purchase will view the property. The terms of sale, which will be accommodating, may be known by applying to the subscribers living in Georgetown, district of Columbia, or will be made known on the day of sale.
THO. TURNER, SAM. TURNER, Executors. July 2—tdos
LANDS IN THE STATES OF OHIO AND KENTUCKY FOR SALE. BY VIRTUE of the Last Will and Testament of Robert Means, deceased, the subscriber offers for sale, all the Lands of the testator in the states of Ohio & Kentucky. As there is a large quantity of these Lands, and the quality in general good, they are well worth the attention of all persons desirous of purchasing Lands in those parts of the country. The tracts are of various sizes, and consequently calculated to suit purchasers of all descriptions. Further information respecting the said Lands may be obtained from Mr. Walter Dun, residing in, or near the town of Chillicothe in the State of Ohio.
DANIEL CALL, Executor of the last will & testament of Robert Means, dec'd. Richmond, July 19—4f
PATENT KNAPSACKS. THE Subscriber having obtained from the United States, a patent for an improved KNAPSACK, which in point of durability and convenience, has been pronounced by the best judges, infinitely superior to any hitherto in use. The officers of the different volunteer companies in the United States, are respectfully solicited to adopt them. They may be had in any quantity, and will be sold on the most reasonable terms by JOHN P. LHERBETTE, 81, Maiden Lane, New-York. To whom applications addressed by post may be made, or to B. H. Latrobe, at the city of Washington. May 19—ep4m
NOTICE. WHEREAS Horatio Moore of Charles county, has by his deed of trust, assigned to the subscriber all his property, Real & Personal, in trust to pay all such his creditors as shall sign the said deed on or before the 15th day of August next—This is therefore to notify all such persons as are interested, that they are requested to sign the said deed, or authorize their attorney so to do, otherwise they will be deprived of all advantage therefrom. And whereas the said Horatio Moore has by his power of attorney, authorised the subscriber to collect all monies due to him the said Horatio Moore; all such persons as are indebted to him are requested to make payment to the subscriber. PETER HOFFMAN, JR. Baltimore, Baltimore street, No. 103. N. B. Attention to the above notice is respectfully requested, as it is highly probable in case the debts due to him the said Horatio Moore can be collected the assigned property will be more than sufficient to cover all his debts. P. H. July 26—tawtA15
CHARLES J. NOURSE Offers for sale—Chateau Margaux Claret in boxes of 1 dozen. Genuine Old London Particular wine in half pipes and quarter casks. Best Sallad Oil in baskets of 6 bottles each, &c. &c. &c. George Town, May 24—4f
BY HIS EXCELLENCY, EDWARD LLOYD, ESQ. GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND, A PROCLAMATION. WHEREAS it has been officially represented to me that a certain Thomas Burke, who has lately been sentenced by the judges of Washington county court, to suffer death, for a Rape committed on the body of Catharine Maria Branner, an infant under the age of 12 years, made his escape from Washington county jail, on the evening of the 4th July last. And whereas it is obvious to the duty of the Executive, in the execution of justice, to bring all malefactors to justice, I have therefore thought proper to issue this my proclamation, and do by and with the advice and consent of the Council, offer Three hundred Dollars Reward to any person or persons who shall apprehend and bring to justice the said Thomas Burke. Given under my hand and the seal of the state of Maryland, this 15th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1809, and the independence of the United States of America, the thirty fourth.
EDWARD LLOYD. By his excellency's command, NINIAN PINKNEY, Clerk of the Council. Ordered that the foregoing proclamation be published twice in each week for the space of six weeks, in the American and Federal Gazette at Baltimore, the Maryland Gazette and Maryland Republican at Annapolis, the National Intelligencer, the Maryland Herald at Hagerstown, Bartgis's paper at Fredericktown, and in the Star at Easton. By order, NINIAN PINKNEY. July 31—taw6w
TO RENT, The Three Story BRICK HOUSE on Pennsylvania Avenue, (lately occupied by Dr. Willis) opposite Lindsay's hotel, with a large STORE ROOM adjoining. Apply to R. C. Weightman. August 7—3f
IN COUNCIL. Annapolis, June 26, 1809. ORDERED, that the act, entitled, An act to alter the thirty-second and thirty-seventh Articles of the constitution and Form of Government, be published twice in each week, for the space of three months, in the American and Federal Gazette, at Baltimore, the Maryland Gazette, and Maryland Republican, at Annapolis, the National Intelligencer, the Easton Star, Mr. Grievess's paper at Hagerstown, and Mr. Bartgis's paper at Fredericktown. By order, NINIAN PINKNEY, Clerk of the Council. AN ACT To alter the thirty-second and thirty-seventh Articles of the Constitution and Form of Government.
BE it enacted, That hereafter, upon the death, resignation or removal out of this state, of the governor, it shall not be necessary to call a meeting of the legislature to fill the vacancy occasioned thereby, but the first named of the Council for the time being shall qualify and act as governor until the next meeting of the general assembly, at which meeting a governor shall be chosen in the manner heretofore appointed and directed.
And be it enacted, That hereafter no governor shall be capable of holding any other office of profit during the time for which he shall be elected.
And be it enacted, That so much of the thirty-second and thirty-seventh articles of the constitution and form of government as is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this act, be and the same is hereby abrogated and abolished.
And be it enacted, That if this act shall be confirmed by the general assembly, after the next election of delegates, in the first session after such new election as the constitution and form of government directs, that in such case this act, and the alteration and amendment of the constitution and form of government therein contained, shall be taken and considered, and shall constitute and be valid, as a part of the said constitution and form of government anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. July 3—taw8m
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. ABSCONDED on the 21st of July last, from the subscriber, (manager) at the farm of Mr. Isaac Dicket, on South river, near Annapolis) Negro TOM, a small black fellow, lost the sight of one eye. Had on when he absconded, osnaburg shirt and trowsers. Any person taking up said Negro and bringing him to the subscriber, or securing him in jail, so that I get him again, shall receive the above reward. This Negro was purchased of Capt. J. S. Brooks about five years since; it is probable he may be in the neighborhood of Upper Marlborough. HENRY BASFORD. August 7—4f
C. & A. CONRAD & Co. (PHILADELPHIA) Have just Published, THE AMERICAN REGISTER, A GENERAL REPOSITORY OF HISTORY, POLITICS & SCIENCE, Part II. P. 1808—Vol. IV. Price Three Dollars, Twenty-five Cents. THIS volume contains a general History of the State of Europe, during the interval between the peace of Tilsit, and the attack of the French Emperor on Spain. Official papers relative to the evacuation of Portugal by the French army. Foreign and American State Papers. An account of the Red River and country adjacent. An account of Louisiana at the time of its transfer to the United States. Census of Louisiana. Census of West Florida. Census of Upper Louisiana. Census of New Orleans. Catalogue of Publications, for 1808. Account of the proceedings of the Society of Friends, for promoting the improvement and gradual civilization of the Indians. Letter concerning the fortifications, erecting at New-York, &c. &c.
THE American Artillerists Companion, OR ELEMENTS OF ARTILLERY, No. VI By Louis de Tott. Price Two Dollars. Third Supplement to the PHILADELPHIA MEDICAL AND PHYSICAL JOURNAL, By B. S. BARTON, M. D. Price 50 Cents. C. & A. C. & Co. have also just finished the publication of the PLAYS OF WM. SHAKESPEARE, With the corrections and illustrations of various Commentators; to which are added Notes by Saml. Johnson and George Stevens, revised and augmented by Isaac Reed, with a Glossarial Index—Seventeen Volumes crown octavo. Any of the above BOOKS may be had at the store of Daniel Rapine, Capitol Hill, Washington city. August 7—
REAL ESTATE AT AUCTION. WE will sell on the 1st Monday in August next, at the tavern of Mr. Ruth, in this town, the entire real estate (yet unsold) of col. Chas. Beatty, deceased, consisting of a number of valuable improved and unimproved lots in Georgetown and its additions, and in the city of Washington. Several tracts of land in the neighborhood of the two places, and others in Montgomery, Frederick, and Washington counties, Maryland, with one of 5132 acres, (an old grant) in Randolph County, Virginia. Plots and title papers will there be shown, and terms of sale then made known. Sale to commence at 10 o'clock A. M. and continue from day to day until the whole is sold. JOHN M. BEATTY, CHAS. A. BEATTY. Georgetown, D. C. June 7—wids.
NOTICE. The subscriber begs leave to inform the public, that he has opened a shop opposite the West Market House, near the Seven Buildings, where he means to carry on the White Smith, Lock and Gun Smith Business, also, the Cutlery and Bell-Hanging business. He also promises to give the greatest attention to all persons who may be good enough to favor him with their custom. GALE HESSEY. July 24—w8f
War Department, July 3, 1809. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: THAT Separate proposals will be received at the Office of the Secretary for the Department of War, until 12 o'clock, at noon of Wednesday the 25th of October next, for the supply of all rations that may be required for the use of the United States, from the 1st day of June 1810 inclusive, to the 1st day of June 1811, within the states, territories and districts following, viz. 1st, At Niagara, Detroit, Michilimackinac, Fort Wayne, Chicago and in their immediate vicinities, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the territory of Michigan. 2nd, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. 3rd, At Belle Fontaine, Fort Osage and Belle Vue and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Ohio, and the Illinois and Louisiana territories, except Fort Wayne and Chicago and their immediate vicinities. 4th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the Mississippi and Orleans territories. 5th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the district of Maine, and state of New Hampshire. 6th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Vermont. 7th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Massachusetts, the town of Springfield excepted. 8th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island. 9th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of New York, Niagara & its dependencies excepted. 10th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of New Jersey. 11th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Pennsylvania. 12th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the states of Maryland & Delaware. 13th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Virginia. 14th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of North Carolina. 15th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of South Carolina. 16th, At Ocmulgee Old Fields, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the limits of the state of Georgia. 17th, Proposals will also be received as aforesaid, for the supply of all rations which may be required by the United States, for the troops which are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the town of Springfield in the state of Massachusetts; and for the armorers and other persons employed in the United States' Armory at that place, from the 1st day of June 1810 inclusive, to the 1st day of June 1811.
A ration to consist of one pound and one quarter of beef, or three quarters of a pound of pork, eighteen ounces of bread or flour, one gill of rum, whiskey or brandy, and at the rate of two quarts of salt, four quarts of vinegar, four pounds of soap, and one pound and a half of candles, to every hundred rations. The prices of the several component parts of the ration shall be specified; but the United States reserve the right of making such alterations in the price of the component parts of the ration aforesaid, as shall make the price of each part thereof bear a just proportion to the proposed price of the whole ration. The rations are to be furnished in such quantities, that there shall at all times, during the term of the proposed contract, be sufficient for the consumption of the troops at Michilimackinac, Detroit and Chicago, for six months in advance; and at each of the other posts on the western waters, for at least three months in advance, of good and wholesome provisions, if the same shall be required. It is also to be permitted to all and every of the commanders of fortified places or posts, to call for, at seasons when the same can be transported, or at any time in case of urgency, such supplies of like provisions in advance, as in the discretion of the commandant shall be deemed proper. It is understood that the contractor is to be at the expense and risk of issuing the supplies to the troops, and that all losses sustained by the depredations of an enemy, or by means of the troops of the United States shall be paid by the United States at the price of the articles captured or destroyed as aforesaid, on the deposition of two or more persons of creditable characters, and the certificate of a commissioned officer, stating the circumstances of the loss, and the amount of the articles for which compensation shall be claimed. The privilege is understood to be reserved to the United States, of requiring that none of the supplies, which may be furnished under any of the proposed contracts, shall be issued, until the supplies which have been or may be furnished under contracts now in force, have been consumed; and that a supply in advance may be always required at any of the fixed posts on the sea-board, or Indian frontier, not exceeding three months. W. EUSTIS, Secretary for the Department of War. July 10—taw4w
100 DOLLARS REWARD. RANAWAY on the 6th inst. from the subscriber, living near Clarkshurg, (in which there is a post office) Montgomery county, Maryland, a negro man named SAM, About 30 years of age, about 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, has lost the sight of his left eye, which is very perceptible, is bow-legged and has some impediment in his speech; had on when he went away an iron collar, His dress, country tow linen shirt and trowsers, round about full'd cloth jacket, and some other clothing. It is likely he will get his collar off, change his name and endeavor to pass for a free man. Whoever secures the said negro, so that I get him again, shall have, if taken 10 miles from home, 10 dollars, if 20 miles, 20 dollars, if 30 miles, 30 dollars, and so in proportion to the above reward, including what the law allows, paid by WALTER WATERS. July 12—St&w3f
CITY LOTS FOR SALE. THE undermentioned lots of ground are offered for sale, either separately or by squares, on liberal terms either for cash or on credit; they are all free from mortgage or encumbrance, and are subject to no litigation or contest as the titles are derived by immediate conveyance from the Chancellor of Maryland and the commissioners of Washington, to Messrs. Henry Pratt, Thomas Willing, Francis, John Miller, junr. John Ashley, and Jacob Baker of the Aggregate Fund. Square No. 54 Lot no 9 sq 72. Lots no 2 4 8 10 12 13 14 15 18 sq 84 Lot no 1 sq 85 Lots no 20 21 22—sq 103 Lots no 7 8—sq 145 Lots no 1 2 7 8—sq 126 Lots no 1 2 3 sq 147 Lot no 4 sq 163 Lots no 5 6 7 12 13 14 sq 138 Lot no 6 7 10 11 12 15 16 sq 293 Lots no 1 2 3 7 8 11 12 13 18 sq 249 Lots no 1 2 3 sq 376 Lots no 1 6 7 18 sq 409 Lots no 3 4 7 8 9 17 18 sq 437 Lots no 5 6 7 10 sq 488 Lot 8 7 12 sq 489 Lots 5 6 9 sq 491 Lots 10 11 12 16 19 20 24 sq 493 Lots no 7 8 sq 494 Lots no 8 9 10 sq 531 Lots 3 4 8 11 12 13 14 sq 534 Lots no 13 15 16 17 sq 584 Lots no 1 2 3 4 21 22 23 24 sq 588 whole square. East of 590 whole square. Sq 635 Lots no 1 2 3 5 6 9 10 sq 638 Lots no 1 2 3 sq 639 Lot no 1 sq 640 Lots no 1 2 3 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 sq 641 whole square. Sq 642 Lots no 1 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 19 East of 643 Lot no 2 South of 643 Lot no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 sq 644 Lots no 1 5 7 West of 645 whole square Sq 878 Lots no 16 17 18 19 20 sq 973 Lots no 4 5 6 7 8 20 21 sq 995 Lots no 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 South of 1019 Lots no 1 2 4 sq 1020 Lots no 1 2 3 4 5 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 sq 1021 Lot no 1 sq 1022 Lot no 2 sq 1023 Lots no 4 5 7 8 9 10 sq 1024 Lots no 1 2 3 sq 1045 Lots no 9 10 12 sq 1046 Lots no 2 14 15 sq 1047 Lots no 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 20 sq 1048 Lot no 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23.
Persons disposed to purchase are desired to apply to JAMES GREENLEAF, or in his absence to SAM. ELIOT, JR. Greenleaf's Point, June 28—4w&8t NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,
TO BE LET And entered on the 27th of this month, The HOUSE in F street in the occupation of J. M. Baker. Likewise to be LET and entered on the 15th of September, the HOUSE on the Pennsylvania avenue, now occupied by Wm. Cooper. For particulars enquire of WM. COCKING, July 12—wtf 19th street west. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That the subscriber of Washington county district of Columbia, hath obtained from the Orphans Court of the county and district aforesaid, Letters of Administration on the Personal Estate of Edward L. Smith, late of said county deceased. All persons having claims against the estate of said deceased, are hereby desired to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof to the subscriber on or before the first day of February next, and all persons indebted to the said estate are requested to make immediate payment to the subscriber. Given under my hand this 28th day of July 1809. MARGARET SMITH, Adm'r. of E. L. Smith, deceased. August 2—w4f
10,000 DOLLARS, MAY BE GAINED FOR 12 DOLLARS!! In the Third Class of the Lottery authorised by law for removing obstructions in the RIVER LEHIGH, IN PENNSYLVANIA. SCHEME. 2 prizes of $10,000 each 20,000 2 5,000 10,000 2 2,500 5,000 3 1,000 3,000 6 500 3,000 15 200 3,000 30 100 3,000 60 50 3,000 150 20 3,000 300 10 3,000 13,800 5 69,000 35,630 not 2 1-2 blanks to a prize. 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 Althone, esq., the treasurer of that city, 30 days after the conclusion of the drawing, subject to a deduction of 15 percent. Prizes not demanded in twelve months after the close of the drawing, to be considered as relinquished to the Lottery. Part of the above prizes determinable as follows: The 1st drawn ticket on the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th, 45th, 50th, and 55th, days $200 each. do. on the 60th, 65th, 70th & 75th do. 500 do. do. on the 80th and 85th do. 1000 do. do. 90th do. 2500 do. do. 95th do. 5000 do. do. 100th do. 10000 do. The two $10,000 prizes to receive each in 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 much to their interest. Letters post paid, and enclosing the cash, will be duly attended to, and prizes of Lotteries in the cities of Philadelphia, and New York, will be received in payment, by GEORGE TAYLOR, Jun. No. 85, South Second Street, Philadelphia, and JOHN DAVIDSON, Washington city, December 12—wtf
TO BE SOLD AT PRIVATE SALE, several good Feather Beds, and sundry other Furniture. Enquire of the Printers. July 31—6f
BATH. THE Subscriber informs those Gentlemen and Ladies who formerly stopped at his house whilst at Bath, and the Public generally, that he has returned to that place, and resumed the business of keeping a House of Entertainment—he has been at considerable expense in providing every thing necessary for the genteel accommodation of all who may please to make his house their residence whilst at Bath. NICHOLAS ORRICK. Bath, Berkeley county, Virg. July 10—wtf