The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-01-30 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER
VOL. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1258
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE
The National Intelligencer will henceforth be conducted by SAMUEL H. SMITH, and JOSEPH GALE, Jun. and printed at the Office of the former , to whom subscribers and correspondents are requested still to address themselves.
The annual price, payable in advance, is five dollars. The punctilious compliance with this term is at this time the only circumstance, and is earnestly requested.
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 part is made. Other advertisements charged in the same ratio.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DEBATE ON EXTRA SESSION
THURSDAY, JAN. 19.
[CONTINUED]
Mr. J. G. JACKSON after a few words in explanation to Mr. D. R. Williams on the subject of an extraordinary mission, said the gentleman had urged that such a measure (an extraordinary mission) would give a refutation to the calumny now circulating that the administration was not ardently desirous of peace. Has it not been denied (said Mr. J.) notwithstanding the official documents to the contrary, that no proposition to suspend the embargo has been officially made to G. Britain? When men have the hardihood to say these things, is it not in vain to attempt to induce them to believe any thing? If one arose from the dead, they would not believe. A stronger illustration of this appears in the conduct of the member from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy); and in passing from the gentleman from South Carolina, to whose patriotism and honorable sense of what is due to his country I cannot but testify my respect, it is with extreme regret that I turn to another quarter, which, in every point of view, presents the direct reverse of his character. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy) sat out by declaring that the object of Congress was to continue the embargo, & to induce the people to bear with it under a belief that measures would be adopted which the House had not in contemplation. Are we to infer from the gentleman's speech, sir, that he feels great hostility to the adoption of any measure which shall diminish the public sensibility? If any inference can be drawn from his language, it is irresistible that he would be mortified if any measure should be adopted which would allay the fermentation which such speeches and such men have produced. The gentleman says a great crisis is about to take place, and by deceiving the people, by passing this bill, it is intended to prevent it. What does this crisis mean, sir? Hostility to the laws. Have we not heard from gentlemen (Mr. Lloyd it is supposed) living in the quarter from which the member comes, that the fermentations will be manifested there first by public meetings, next by resolutions of the state Legislature, and lastly by taking some undefined course to resist the laws? And is averting such a crisis as this the effect which the gentleman so much deprecates? Is it because it has a tendency to avert such calamities that he is against it? Would he be delighted with all the horrors which disunion & civil war can produce? If we are to infer any thing from the observations of the gentleman, it is that such a state of things would be most pleasing to him. He says this House has acted under a deception as to the motives with which the embargo was laid. This is, to say the least of it, not very courtly language; and if I animadvert on it in a stile which may not be pleasing to the gentleman, he must charge it on himself. Does he mean to convey an idea that the members of this House are the dapes of Executive or any other influence? That they are to be gulled by misinterpretations of the Executive views? The imputation is unworthy of the gentleman. He may be the victim of the prejudices and views of his own party, though I should least suspect him of being duped by them who appears to be one of their leaders. I trust that this House will always act according to its own sense of propriety; and I know it is without reason that the insinuation is made that we wish to deceive the people. It is the gentleman & his friends that deceive them. Has any thing been concealed from the people? Have we not always explicitly declared what our views and intentions were? The whole tenor of the conduct of this administration pronounces emphatically the character of falsehood on the assertion. This political deception
which the gentleman imagines we have acted under, only exists in the heated imagination of an infuriated partisan, disposed to sacrifice every thing to attain his object. The ostensible motives for laying the embargo were the real ones; there was never any inconsistency between the real and alleged motives. And I will here observe, that I take a wide distinction between the motives which lead to the adoption of a measure, and those which require its continuance. They were purely precautionary in the first instance. The reasons avowed by its friends for the passage of the embargo originally its avowed purpose were to preserve our seamen and vessels; to frighten Mr. Rose; to compel G. Britain to yield to the coalesced powers; to do something against England; to do something not knowing what; whilst it seems that others, though but few, might have calculated upon its effect on France. And upon this ground the gentleman charges the administration with duplicity. Look at the facts assumed by him and see whether they exist in reality, or, if they do, whether they warrant the inferences drawn from them.
One ground, he says, was to preserve our seamen and vessels. This is undoubtedly correct.
Another ground, he asserts, was to frighten Mr. Rose. Was that a moving consideration? Certainly not, sir. I will not credit it, unless I hear it from a source more entitled to credit. Every man must know that ever heard any thing of British diplomacy that their ministers, when they leave home, come hand-cuffed, manacled, and tongue-tied with instructions which they cannot shape conformably to posterior circumstances. In illustration of this, I recollect an anecdote of a British minister at Paris, who, being asked to go to the theatre, declined the invitation, alleging the necessity of waiting until he could dispatch a courier to London to obtain leave from his government. No one entertained so futile an idea as that Mr. Rose would be frightened with it. That ground therefore is incorrect.
Another motive assigned the gentleman says was, that it would compel G. Britain to yield. Some gentlemen have taken the ground, sir, and I believe it to be correct, that G. Britain will be materially operated on by withdrawing from her the supplies necessary for her subsistence and the raw materials indispensable to her manufactures. But because this calculation has entered into the arguments for the continuance of the embargo, is it to be asserted that it was a principal motive for the original imposition of that measure? The members who voted for the embargo, saw that our property and resources were involved in irretrievable ruin unless they were snatched from the danger. It is the course of wisdom to observe precaution; and in doing so, it is not necessary to enquire into the latent consequences but merely into the immediate effects of the measure. And they were not to be deterred from it by an idea that it might affect the nations which had compelled us to adopt it.
Another object of this measure he alleges was to coalesce with France in resisting the British orders in council. How does this comport with the assertion that we did not know of the orders when the embargo was laid? The two assertions are at variance; they will not hold together. They are not consistent with each other, and neither of them is consistent with truth; because the existence of the orders was so well known that the substance of them was given in a paper in this city (the Nat. Intel.) on the 18th of December, expounding the intention of them more effectually than any man could do from their context; for, as Mr. Barling said, on the floor of the House of Commons, for a guinea any English lawyer would give opposite opinions on its clauses, so capable were they of misconstruction. The imputation as a motive for the embargo, of an intention to join the coalition against France, is a most dastardly attack on the majority, and on the administration. They do not hold a language official and a language confidential. This nation would not have so long been blind to it, had such a time-serving policy guided its actions. We have too much reliance on the good sense of the people to support ourselves on imposture, on a flagitious dereliction of principle. If we were to unite with France or any other nation, it would I hope be done in the face of the world. Were it to be attempted clandestinely, I should be the last to follow in the wake.
How have subsequent events justified this charge? Why, sir, a proposition was made to England to take sides with her against France, to repeal the embargo in relation to her, if she would repeal her orders in council, so far as they affected us; and what would be the direct result of such a measure if France persisted in her decrees? Hostilities against France and alliance with G. Britain—allowing the latter all the benefit of our trade, and cutting off all communication with her enemy. The idea does not comport with the fact; and no man who will give his judgment time to operate on his passions will dare to hazard such an assertion.
But there were others, the gentleman says, who wished to do something and did not know what, and therefore voted for the embargo. Is this amongst the charges brought forward to prove that a language official and a language confidential has been held by the administration? This class of men cannot be aiding in the deception the gentleman speaks of; for men, too ignorant to understand, must be too weak to be trusted with the designs of those who wish to use them. Is the Executive responsible for the motives of every man on this floor, who chanced to vote in conformity with his recommendation? The supposition is derogatory to the character of the people, and the expression of it is an intolerable insult. We act from our own impulse alone, sir; and there cannot be a stronger illustration of this fact than the vote the other day on the subject of the navy, when the House was so equally divided; and the gentleman's political friends divided too on the question in the first instance; however after they had permitted their passions to cool, in a day or two, they wheedled about and advocated the bill. I voted throughout on the same side, although I almost distrusted my judgment from finding myself in such bad company. The votes on this bill, I say, prove the futility of the idea, that the Executive is responsible for the acts of the majority or their arguments.
I have now very cursorily noticed the gentleman's proofs in support of his charges. If fully examined, they would prove to be vox et preterea nihil .
He also says that it was determined by the administration to keep on the embargo, and to do nothing else effectual. Sir, the acts of the government prove that it was resolved to take grounds which would enable it to resist the attacks which might be made on us. A million of dollars was appropriated for fortifications at the last session, a much larger sum than was ever appropriated at any one time before, in addition to this, appropriations for gun-boats, men, &c. were made. How is the assertion that the embargo was intended to be permanent, justified. If that had been the design of the administration, would not the instructions given to our ministers immediately after the adjournment of Congress have been of a very different nature? Four days only had elapsed after the adjournment, before the President manifested a prompt attention to the subject, and a determination to avail himself of the authority vested in him by law. Are we to be told after this, sir, that the embargo was intended to be a permanent measure? That it was to be continued as a means of coercion, and of exertion only? No, sir; for this proposition, the rejection of which stamps on the British government the crime of insincerity, was made immediately after Congress rose. Need I read the instructions and the formal offer made in consequence of them? Every one has seen both. And I will again tell the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. D. R. Williams) that he cannot expect to convince the misguided people of this country, who are worked upon by partisans, after an attempt has been made in the face of the documents to prove that it was an inoffical proposition made by our minister in London, and which the British government did not accept of, because it might implicate the minister with his government, for doing an act which he was not authorised to do.
Mr. J. G. JACKSON here giving way for the purpose, a motion was made to adjourn, and carried.
FRIDAY, JAN. 20.
Mr. J. G. JACKSON resumed his observations. After discussing the circumstances urged by the gentleman as tending to prove that the administration has been guilty of inconsistency, which I noticed yesterday, and which I trust it was unnecessary for me to have noticed, because the
acts of the Executive stamp on the assertion its proper character—the gentleman from Massachusetts says, that he collected his idea that the ostensible were not the real causes of the embargo, from the difference between the language held here and in Great Britain, where it was required that it should not be considered as a measure of hostility; that such a threat as we now utter would be laying a naked sword upon the table when making our proposition, and would have been rejected with disdain, had not duplicity characterised the conduct of the government towards that nation. It never has been supported on this floor as a hostile measure, but as a precautionary and coercive one; and cannot the gentleman distinguish between hostility and coercion? Was the non-importation law considered as a hostile act? No, sir; yet it was enacted as a coercive or restrictive measure. But no man, except one whose imagination has misled his judgment, can conceive that the embargo was a hostile act. It was never supported as one; and on that ground, if on no other, the gentleman's premises are uprooted and his whole superstructure overturned. Now the gentleman says, the language is different. I have shown that the language is not different. But if it were, it would prove that there was no preconcert in the thing, and would falsify one of the gentleman's charges, viz. that there was a design to foist this measure upon the public, under auspices different from those avowed. The embargo may be continued for one cause, though it was not laid for that cause; and because some gentlemen say that it will have a coercive effect, does it follow that it was laid for that purpose alone? Certainly not, its adoption may be for one motive, and continuance for another, and yet gentlemen advocating both be perfectly consistent. I think it would be monstrous to make the gentleman's party responsible for every thing he says, and not more so to make him responsible for all that is said on his side of the question. It cannot be that the Executive is responsible for what I say to day, or what I said yesterday, or for what any gentleman on the same side with myself may have said at any time whatever. Why then urge the language used on this floor as certain proofs. All the positive good which the embargo had in contemplation, it is said has been attained, viz. the preserving our seamen and ships from capture. If removed without substituting any other measure, what would be the necessary consequence? All would be let loose to destruction? And is this the policy which ought to characterise the measures of this nation? If this act against which all the arguments and artillery of gentlemen are pointed, was to be removed without a substitute, the inevitable effect would be, that we must either submit to trade as the edicts of the belligerents direct, or have our property captured.
But the gentleman says, that a "language official and a language confidential," have been held. This is not a new charge, sir. The gentleman has not even the credit of inventing it. It has been often made without a shadow of truth. The gentleman has not attempted to substantiate it. Let him shew wherein it is true; he is defied to do so.
But it seems that it is intended to keep on this embargo system, till it is effectual at all hazards. How does he support his assertion, sir? Not by the language of any gentleman here; for no gentleman, however enthusiastic in its favor, has ventured so to support it. If the language used on this floor be good for one purpose, it is good for another. If it be good to prove that the secret motives of the Executive in recommending the embargo were different from the avowed one, it must be good to prove the contrary of the gentleman's assertions. Does he mean to charge the members of this House with duplicity? I presume not. Well, sir—I have not gentlemen of the majority on this floor admitted that the embargo cannot, and ought not to be persisted in, for any great length of time? It would heretofore have had its effect, but for the villainy of the dishonest part of the community, as was properly observed by the gentleman from N. Carolina, (Mr. Macon) who is one of its most strenuous advocates, and he limits its duration to September as the longest practicable time. The majority, however, generally say, that the embargo will have had its effect by May or June next. The gentleman says, if it were intended as a precautionary measure only, if it was not to be perpetual, it ought to have been limited
in its operation to a given day; and that the House by negating a proposition to that effect, had declared that they would keep it on. If it were limited, it would afford a premium to our enemies, to persevere until that time, and an opportunity to men like the gentleman from Massachusetts to defeat all our measures. The gentleman from Massachusetts has made half a dozen speeches, at this session, of the same tenor with that of yesterday; and the omission to notice them has been more from a desire to get on with the public business, than a wish to avoid the weight of his arguments, which he says we vouch from. Yes, sir, its limitation would have been a premium to our enemy to hold on, and men like him to prevent a substitute; and our commerce, when let loose, would have been swept from the ocean by the great "bark," which protects us from the gigantic power of France. But, says the gentleman, "By their deeds shall ye know them;" and in the same breath tells us, that the majority of the House could not be kicked into a war. Apply this maxim to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I feel reluctant to express my sentiments on this subject. If I did, I would say that the conduct of the gentleman induces a belief that he would be delighted to see the constitution burned at the point of the bayonet, and the union torn asunder by civil dissention. By their deeds shall ye know them; is it fair then to judge of gentlemen by their defamatory speeches and disparaging sentiments. The House cannot be kicked into a war! Is this language fit for the Representative chamber of this nation? He demands what was the motive for raising the army of last session. If the gentleman will recur to the speeches on this subject, he will find an able elucidation of the causes for it, made by a gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Howard) who is not often in the habit of delivering his sentiments on this floor. The causes for it were found in the situation of the western country; in the great extent of our frontier, covered with savages, amongst whom British agents had been stirring up dissatisfaction, with the hope of inducing them to take up the tomahawk and sacrifice our brethren; they were found in the necessity of garrisoning our posts on the frontier, and a thousand other considerations. The motive then was good, and ample cause existed for raising this force. But we are told that if war abroad had been contemplated, the army would not have been officered as it has been. Does the gentleman mean to reflect on the bravery of the men appointed to command, or to presume that they will not maintain the rights of this country as bravely as his political friends? I cannot conceive for what other purpose the insinuation was made. I can answer the gentleman why I conceive that it ought to have been officered as it was. If in this time of great peril, gentlemen will maintain an hostility against the administration and laws of their country in the manner in which the gentleman from Massachusetts does, they deserve not the confidence of the government. I would as soon desire his Britannic majesty to send over some of his liege subjects to command our army.
But the gentleman says that this House has not even spirit enough to fit out our little navy. The answer to this I leave to some one in the majority; for I was unfortunate enough to be in the minority. As to spirit , sir, there are many individuals in that majority who would make him shrink from the contest till pale fear divested him of the lion's skin with which he adorns himself. He says we have sacrificed our revenue. Let loose our ships to morrow, and our vessels and seamen sail to certain ruin, to conflagration on the one hand and confiscation on the other. It will be impossible then to avoid capture. And will this state of things fill the coffers of the country? We are told, however, that Great Britain holds a pledge in the defenceless state of our seaport towns, for any damage we can do to her, if we go to war. Is it not a fair inference from the arguments of the gentleman, that he would therefore recommend a base and dishonorable submission? Certainly it does, because it tends to this: that we cannot raise a force competent to cope with the gigantic power of Great Britain.
But, sir, we are told that we have a partisan army. And what kind of an army should we have? Would you have our lukewarm, indifferent, or deadly foes hoisted into office, looking for the downfall of those who ap-

point them? Are these the men to be employed? Surely not, sir. What kind of an army had we in the revolution? Was not that a party army, a band of patriots? When we have war, sir, it ought to be carried on by such partisan soldiers. I have no idea of confiding the defence of this nation to men who merely hire themselves to be shot at. With such men I would not risk the destinies of the nation. But we are told by the gentleman that we have no effective militia. Is this true or is it a libel? My life on it, if the times demand it, the gentleman will find the militia strong enough to put down that gentleman and his Essex Junto faction. If they dare to rebel, as they have worse than insinuated, the militia of his own state would be more than adequate to all the purposes of putting down so puny a faction. But, says the gentleman, the only object of this bill is to quiet the legislatures of the several states, and to influence the spring elections to prevent resistance. This is not the first time that I have heard language on this floor, which in former times would have been deemed treasonable. It is treason, sir. There is no such motive. If this people think proper to pursue any course, they will do so, and will not be turned aside from it, because factious demagogues cannot be quieted with offices; and I have shown the impropriety of giving it to them. I should have no kind of objection, if things were driven to that excess, to let them excite rebellion, and have them punished as traitors. If there were no deception in this thing, the gentleman says that the embargo would have been limited. If a limitation were now to be affixed to the duration of the embargo, and the member from Massachusetts alone, was not deprived of the gift of speech, no measure would be substituted for the maintenance of our rights. He would day and night eke out the time till it was too late to substitute any measure. The gentleman wants a pledge from this corrupted House and Executive, who avow one thing and mean another, who sell their country to the usurper of Europe! What pledges can be valuable from such a source? Sir, the pledges of the sincerity and pacific disposition of the administration may be found in the public documents. If they are not sufficient to satisfy the gentleman, the voice of an angel from Heaven would be of no avail. The amount of the gentleman's whole attempt was to prove that we were so base and corrupted as to be unworthy of credit. And if the embargo were limited now, he would tell the people that we are still false to them; that we are affrighted by "the light rising in the east" which is so soon "to break forth into the most perfect day." The gentleman would ride down that hobby horse as he has rode down the other. A day or two ago the gentleman remarked that we were reduced to a situation similar to that of the turbaned Turk or cross-kneed Frenchman; that we have confided the power of regulating commerce to the Executive and ten or twelve Senators. Why did not the gentleman urge this wonderful argument against the resolution that we could not submit to the orders and decrees? For if we had no power to resist, it would have been a good argument against declaring that we would not submit. But I feel convinced that when the great interests of the country require it, whilst we have such men in our councils they will act in concert whether to resist foreign aggressors or domestic insurgents. What would a stranger say at hearing the debate which has taken place on this question, if he had not previously been apprised of the subject before you? He could not have supposed that the House were discussing a proposition to meet at an earlier day than that fixed by the constitution, but a resolution to impeach the Executive or a majority of the House. He could not have supposed otherwise from the gentleman's speech or from my answer to it, for I have followed him step to step. He rises, he tells you in behalf of this people. If he is the champion of the people, if he is to be the centinel to sound the tocsin of alarm from the constitutional watch-tower, God help his people. He was silent as to the letter published the other day by the British government; this he might have said, in the spirit of his proposition, is evidence of the propriety of changing our measures. An appeal has been made by the British government to the people of this country. Need I say, sir, that no persons had copies of this paper but our government, the British government, our minister there, and their minister here? Our government has not caused the publication; theirs must have done it. And the gentleman might have said, inasmuch as it was an attempt to react the scenes of Genet, it was necessary that the Legislature should be in session to counteract it. Sir, what would have been his language if M. Champagny had published such a letter in such a way? Would he have been
silent in that case? No, sir; nay life on it, he would be among the first to maintain the rights and honor of the nation, which are thus insidiously assailed by the British government. We ought to know how this letter became public: And if some gentleman whose age and experience would justify a proposition of that kind were to rise in his place & ask that the Executive should be requested to ascertain in what manner it came into the public prints; and, if through the British ministry, request that their minister should be sent off, I should vote for it. The gentleman finds nothing to blame in the conduct of foreign nations, but like a viper, turns and wounds the vitals of his own country, satisfied if he can only let loose the torrent of defamation, daily uttered in this House contrary to every parliamentary rule against an Executive, whose acts ought to have induced all his former enemies to say "he has disappointed our expectations, proved himself the supporter of that declaration of independence which was given to the world from his pen." Instead of this, the gentleman hides every thing relating to foreign governments and takes pleasure in attacking his own. I pronounce it a cowardly abuse of the privileges of this House, of which I should never avail myself under any circumstances whatever—to cover with its shield attacks on the honor of the President in every way unjustifiable. If he President has been guilty of crimes let him be impeached, not accused, tried and condemned by the same individual in the same breath. What would be said, and I beg the attention of the House to the similarity of the cases, if the Senate should be charged with such baseness by any member of the House. The Speaker would put him down. And what would be said if the President were to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the press or his official messages to promulgate an attack on this House, accusing it of duplicity and subservency to the views of a foreign government? One universal display of indignation would manifest the feelings of the House; every member of it would rise at once to address you on the subject. And is the Executive on all occasions to be accused of the crime—a crime which would eternally disgrace any man—of being false to the people who have confided in him? This course is not less disgraceful or unparliamentary than if we were to accuse the other House of similar conduct; and it is high time that a stop should be put to it. But the gentleman said, sir, that he did not mean to charge the Executive with moral turpitude but with political imposture. Is this the morality of the gentleman? Treason against the people is no crime! Such a doctrine, sir, is base and detestable. Does the gentleman act on this logic? Has he made it the basis on which the superstructure of his arguments is erected? Pardon me, sir, when I say that I fear he has. The highest crime in this nation is treason. The constitution says it shall consist only in levying war and adhering to our enemies. And even this is but a political crime. What was the crime of Aaron Burr? He did not put any one to death; he only attempted to turn the arms of his deluded followers against the government of his country, his objects were political merely. And this we are told is not an immoral act. Are these the steady habits of New-England? I hope not. But the gentleman says he should be false to the people if he did not hold up his voice. In what does falsehood to the people consist? Is it not in uttering false accusations and false charges? In the days of Rome, Catiline stood forth avowedly the champion of the people. He sometimes aped the virtues and morality of Cato; and then played Catiline , for in all ages an affected passion for the rights of the people has been the pretext for committing the most abominable crimes. The President has been accused on this floor of falsehood also. I do not recollect whether it was in the gentleman's catalogue of "political deception" of yesterday. In the message at the close of the late session the President says, "The papers which I lay before you embrace all the communications written and verbal from the French government, respecting the general relations between the two countries, which have been transmitted through our minister there, or through any other accredited channel since the last session of Congress." Notwithstanding this solemn asseveration that the papers then communicated contained all the information he had received, gentlemen say that the President has asserted a falsehood; that a letter of December the first had been received, and justify the charge on a supposition arising from dates merely. Why, sir, it is no secret that this letter was delivered by the minister to Mr. Patterson, and by him to Mr. Rittenhouse, at Amsterdam, and that gentleman did not reach this country till May, so that its receipt was subsequent to the adjournment of Con-
gress. But if Armstrong were to swear to this, and Mr. Rittenhouse, the Secretary of State, and his chief clerk to affirm it, gentlemen would say it was all falsehood still; after daring to dispute the solemn assertion of the President, they would say it was merely a tale conjured up to meet circumstances. This letter notwithstanding all the noise gives no new light, adds no new information. But, sir, we have been told that the President and government have acted with duplicity; that they have connived at the idea of joining France in opposition to England; and a paragraph in the letter of Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Champagny, urging the rescinding of her edicts, is seized as proof, strong as holy writ, that the President has arranged a plan for uniting us with France. If the optics of the gentleman who made this assertion were as keen on one side as the other, if he were not as blind as the kittens alluded to by his friend from Massachusetts, he would find precisely the same language used in the communications to England. The same arguments were addressed to the understandings or interests of both. Upon the whole, sir, I must conclude that the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy) were made for the purpose of alarming, distracting and dividing this nation, of uprooting every thing like social happiness. I will not suffer the mantle of charity longer to cover such men, the veil of deception should be pierced and torn off, that they may stand naked before this people covered only with disgrace—not shame. No, sir, I have no such hope—The African visage was never suffused with a blush. There can be no blushes on the cheeks of those who commit the unworthy act of uttering dishonorable, false charges, and protecting themselves under the privileges of this House. Neither is there hope of reformation. Nero never repented. The melody of music produced by the bow which he drew across the strings of his fine toned instrument was not half so harmonious to his ears as the crackling fires of Rome, the crash of its falling towers, the cries of its women and children, and the universal ruin of his country. There have been more Neroes than one. The example of Rome is not single. And while all good men are striving to heal the wounds of party, and unite this country at a time when the whole world is in hostility against it, in comparison with whom our population and resources are nothing, except as they depend on the virtue and spirit of the men yet surviving and the sons of those who have departed, who aided in the achievement of the independence of this nation, while all their efforts are directed day and night to relieve their suffering country, the midnight lamp sheds its pale light on the black compositions of a few restless spirits, who strive to distract the Eastern people. Is this the patriotism which the gentleman professes? I presume, that, after the rage of party has subsided, the people will discover the imposture and chastise the impostors. This is a time to forget party feelings; and yet gentlemen resort to every petty circumstance, and because it authorises an inference in opposition to direct facts, endeavor to excite them—they would tumble the Executive from the height which he properly occupies into the dust, down to a level with themselves. It is time not only to forget party feelings, but to cease treasonable opposition. And as to those who pursue the course which I have described, whether out of this House or in it, I would say to the American people, in a voice which could be heard in every corner of the congregated assembly—risque not your peace or safety for them—they are enemies of your peace—they have conspired against your safety—cast them from you— Hostes humani generis —let the mark of infamy be stamped upon their foreheads, so that all who see them may execrate them.
Mr. Bacon said, that on a former day he had felt himself called upon to make some remarks in reply to his colleague, who addressed the House yesterday. The task was not then a pleasant one. In his subsequent remarks a few days since, the gentleman took occasion to tell me very courteously, that I had been barking at his heels, and that he would not pursue my course. Though these sort of personal collisions are extremely disagreeable, yet his observations will not deter me from following that course, which my duty may dictate. As representatives from the same state, I have since endeavored to avoid all needless collisions, with a gentleman standing in such a relation with myself, and should not again have placed myself in opposition to him; but for the extraordinary remarks which fell from him yesterday, to which, sir, I consider it my indispensable duty, however painful, to address some observations to you in reply. It was the temper of his remarks, their tendency if not their design, the peculiar time, and the temper of the people in one section of the Union, that impressed my mind with peculiar regret at the ground which he thought proper to assume. As to the temper of his remarks, I need not exhibit it any further to the House, it has been sufficiently noticed; as to their tendency it cannot be mistaken; there is something, however, more particularly striking as to the time; what are the circumstances under which they were offered? what are the circumstances in
which this House has found itself for some time past? Sir, for some days we have had a general aspect of union in the House, a considerable harmony of parties, a number of questions have been taken that savored very little of party feelings, and the political atmosphere had subsided into a state of much apparent tranquility, until agitated by the thunder of the gentleman. Was not this a desirable prospect? I confess for one, sir, that I have seldom found an occasion on which I more congratulated myself, but it would seem as though my colleague feared that this state of things might conduct us and the nation to some happy result. Did he therefore think it necessary, that a fire brand should be thrown on this floor, to excite agitation in the House, and alarm, division, and discord among the people? I hope the gentleman had no such intention, but that such was the tendency of his remarks, no one can differ with me in believing. As to the time and occasion which he chose it is well known, as the gentleman observed, that the legislatures of many of the States are about to assemble. Yes, sir, they are, and amongst others that of the state which the gentleman and myself have the honor in part to represent, about the time that the speech of my honorable colleague will arrive there. The temper of that portion of the Union is already sufficiently excited. That they have already manifested strong symptoms of disaffection, that they have heretofore given intimations of violent measures cannot be concealed. Did the gentleman fear that they would not be sufficiently agitated, that they would not at once, be ripe for the most desperate measures? Did he fear that unless he added a little fuel to the flame, that it would not burst out with sufficient fury to produce his favorite crisis? Did he fear that this portentous crisis of which he spoke in an oracular tone, would not arrive with sufficient celerity. I call it his favorite crisis, because one of his arguments in opposition to the bill, was, that he feared it was calculated to allay the passions of the people and defer the arrival of this crisis. Am I therefore incorrect in supposing that he hails the prospect of it as a desirable event? Certainly I think that the conclusion cannot be mistaken. What was to be the precise nature of this crisis my colleague did not exactly explain to us. I know not distinctly by what means it is to be produced, or what are its ultimate objects. For one, sir, I deprecate it, it will probably be a crisis of disunion; I dread it, and will use all means in my power to prevent it, I will do every thing to satisfy those mistaken men who may be seduced to engage in it, that they are embarking in a cause of peril. Did I not do all in my power to avert it, I should not hold myself blameless; but after doing this I will do no more. Let it come when it will, or let the consequences be what they may, I will not betray the trust reposed in me, as the Representative of a brave and independent people, by sacrificing the rights and interests of a great nation to the clamors of faction, or the fury of a misguided few. The gentleman told us some days ago, that he was born a free man, and would die so, or perish in the attempt.—Sir, I was born as free though perhaps not so high as that gentleman. I represent a people as free as the constituents of that gentleman, and who, though not perhaps "fed as well," can endure not only "the winter's cold," but can meet tempests, storms and commotions as undauntedly as they; this is a state of things which they will be the last to provoke, but let it come when it may, they will not turn their backs to it. Let not the gentleman talk or think too lightly of it, whenever it comes it will be no common crisis. Who will first be buried in the ruins of such a day, no man can predict. I again warn the gentleman by the deep pledges which he holds in the integrity, and peace of this Union not wantonly to provoke its dissolution. He ought to consider that those who promote it, may in all probability be the first to suffer in the general wreck of the times. He spoke to you of the men who upon the ruins of a political convulsion, would not assume the reins of power, that it would not be the federalists of the present day, nor would it be the present political majority, the transition in such cases being always from bad to worse. That the Condorcet's and Brissot's were always followed by the Danton's and Robespierre's.—No, sir, I agree with my colleague, that upon the consummation of such a crisis, federalism cannot expect to guide the destinies of this country. There is another illustrious example in the bloody annals of that revolution to which he alluded, from which he would do well to derive a lesson of warning & instruction. The celebrated, the notorious Philip de Egalite ci-devant Duke of Orleans, had like the gentleman, a deep stake in the common interests of his country, and in its tranquility, he was a man of noble extraction and commanding rank, but envying the higher fortunes of the monarch, and wishing to be greater than the throne, he became an accomplice with those who overturned the throne itself, and was with his fortunes buried in its ruins. No, sir, upon the ruins of a disjointed confederacy, a far different set of men than the common federalists of this day, will preside over the destinies of this nation. Whatever share federalism may have had in producing this state of things, or, however she may have contributed her aid to it, she will be remembered by her masters only to be disgraced and despised. The most that she can aspire to, will be a hope that from her higher ranks may be selected the Viceroy to govern his country; in the name of a Viceroy over him on the other side of the Atlantic. She can at best aspire to nothing higher than becoming the tool and minion of a foreign despot. It is impossible it should be otherwise; it will be utterly out of the power of any domestic usurper, without foreign aid, to wield the sceptre which grows out of a state of civil discord and commotion, brought about through the agency of a foreign power; it would be struck from his hands by the indignant arm of an incensed people, faster than he could recover it. The gentleman's address had to me a meaning most solemn and portentous, taken in connexion with the times and circumstances under which it was delivered. But what are the mighty means by which this crisis is to be produced, & what is the powerful lever by which these commotions are to be raised—the old state topic of a perpetual embargo—like the gentleman from Virginia, I nauseate the subject. The idea of a permanent embargo is worn out, and I thought had by this time been discarded from the mind of every man both in this House and in the nation. I am not about to enter upon a wire drawn argument to show either from the particular terms of the law or the general construction of language whether it is so or not. These views have been long since exhausted. What then are the new arguments never before presented which are now offered by the

whom the gentleman is generally associated in his political conduct. If they are, they could indeed hardly be relied upon to lead our armies to the field of battle—and those would be but poor defenders of their country, who declared at the outset that it was utterly incapable of defence.
We are pressed by the gentleman to answer, why if we have any intention of defending our rights by any other means than the embargo, we do not now give a pledge to the nation of our intention to abandon it at some limited period, and resort to some other system if justice is not previously done us. This is perhaps a reasonable question, and I feel for my own part no hesitation in answering it. It is probably recollected that I had some time since declared to the House an opinion that in the present circumstances of the country it was the duty of the government to fix upon a definite period beyond which an adherence to our present position should not be maintained, and with that view I moved at that time that the resolution for repealing the embargo laws which had been moved in the early part of the session by a gentleman from Vermont should be referred to the committee of the whole who had under consideration the subject of a non-intercourse with G. Britain and France, with a view that it might be considered in connection with that or some other measure as a substitute upon its removal. In that motion however, I met with but little encouragement on any side of the House. It would perhaps be desirable that the proposition for limiting the continuance of our present system should come from some other quarter—but if it should not, I shall feel no hesitation in offering it at an early day, and placing the time of it at no very distant period. If there were no other considerations in favor of such a measure, it is perhaps due to the feelings of that portion of our citizens who by such addresses to their passions and their prejudices as we yesterday heard from my colleague have been induced to believe, that this was a system of perpetual exclusion from the ocean, and a permanent abandonment of commercial enterprise, and who acting under that palpable delusion may by the artifices of desperate partisans, and designing leaders, be led into acts of insubordination, and involved in crimes, which under the influence of correct information they would deprecate and shudder at. Tho' it is more especially the province of my colleague to consider seriously upon whose head the blood of such of our fellow citizens may in a good measure rest; yet I feel it a duty to do what lies in my power to undeceive them. In the furtherance of this desirable object, I have reason to believe that a large majority of the House will unite, and having done this I will consent to do no more. Let the Crisis talked of by the gentleman come when it will, it is our duty to meet it; let its consequences rest upon those by whose misrepresentations and instigations it has been promoted and encouraged.
(Debate to be Continued.)
FRIDAY, JAN. 27.
Mr. FINDLEY presented a petition from sundry inhabitants of the county of Westmoreland, Pennsylvania, praying for a repeal of the embargo, and war against France—Referred.
DEFENSIVE MARITIME WAR.
Mr. BACON said, that he was particularly induced by a consideration of the sentiments contained in the memorial which had just been read, to offer to the House a resolution touching the subject of our maritime rights, and the mode in which it behoved the nation to vindicate their exercise against belligerent aggressions. He had been much gratified that a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nicholas) had already laid upon the table a resolution pointing to a speedy limitation of the embargo laws, coupled with a general declaration of our determination to resume, maintain, and vindicate our rights to the free navigation of the ocean. That resolution was however altogether general and unspecific, as to the manner in which this right should be vindicated, or the means by which it should be maintained. It was probably, purposely, and undoubtedly very properly propounded in that general shape, with a view of inducing the offer of such specific propositions as might suggest themselves to gentlemen having in view the same general object. He apprehended, however, that when they came to go into committee on that resolution, it would be found difficult to make it the object of distinct and intelligible discussion, since it pointed to no definite means, by which our rights were to be maintained, or our navigation defended from violence. He had hoped that some other gentleman would, before this, have presented some distinct proposition of this sort to the House, and had waited some days with such an expectation. Having, however, been disappointed in this, he could no longer refrain from the exercise of a duty, which he rose with great diffidence to discharge. The resolution which he was about to submit, was by no means in discordance with that of the gentleman from Virginia. It was merely a specification of some at least of the means by which the general object of that gentleman might perhaps be attained. And in offering it, he wished not to be understood as definitively pledged to the particular course which the resolution points to. So far from being pertinaciously wedded to it, he was ready to give his unbiased attention to any other project which other gentlemen may see fit to propose. That there are great difficulties to be encountered in every view which can be taken of our present situation, is sufficiently obvious, and it is therefore with more than ordinary diffidence that I venture to lay before the House the following resolution:
Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law, from and after the day of next, for authorizing the commanders and
crews of merchant vessels of the United States, owned wholly by a citizen or citizens thereof, to oppose and defend against any search, restraint or seizure, which shall be attempted upon such vessel, or upon any other vessel owned as aforesaid, by the commander or crew of any armed vessel sailing under French or British colors, or acting, or pretending to act, by or under the authority of the French or British governments; and to repel by force any assault or hostility which shall be made or committed on the part of such French or British vessel, pursuing such attempt—and to subdue and capture the same, and to retake any vessel owned as aforesaid, which may have been captured by any vessel sailing under French or British colors, or acting, or pretending to act, by or under authority from the French or British governments.
In addition to the general observations made before he offered the resolution, Mr. B. said that he would barely remark, that as to the general principle which it contained, he presumed that it would by no one be mistaken, for submission to the belligerent claims which had been levelled against our maritime rights; it authorised resistance against their aggressions in the most direct and unqualified terms. He might be asked if it was war. He felt no hesitation in saying that it was defensive war, and strictly and wholly defensive as it respected ourselves and our neutral rights. As to foreign nations they were at liberty to take it as they pleased, and might make their election in respect to the manner in which they might grow out of it. We claimed nothing of them but the fair exercise of our rights, and if they still chose to interrupt us in it, on them be the consequences; what those consequences should be, it might be for this nation hereafter to say.
To the general principle of the resolution, Mr. B. said that there could be, as he apprehended, but one objection, any way plausible. It was, that it authorised resistance to all search whatever, by the cruisers of the two great belligerents. It was, to be sure, an acknowledged principle of the general law of nations, that neutral vessels were bound to submit to search by the cruisers of belligerents for certain specified purposes, for instance, to examine whether the neutral had on board articles contraband of war, to prevent her entering a port actually invested, &c. And so long as belligerents acted upon this principle, and limited their principles and practices of visitation and search within these acknowledged rules, neutrals were unquestionably bound to submit to it. But when the former claimed to extend this right to an almost unlimited extent, and through it to enforce claims utterly unknown to the law of nations, and inconsistent with the sovereignty of neutral states, it might be very questionable whether the limited right itself was not forfeited; and whether it could be at all consistent with the safety of the neutral to suffer it. That such is the actual state of things in relation to American rights on the ocean, is obvious. Neither Great Britain or France even pretend that their extensive searches and seizures of our vessels are justified by the law of nations, it is avowed to be a mere system of vindictive retaliation upon each other through us. And shall they pretend to hold us to a punctilious observance of all the ceremonial rites of that law, which they both habitually disregard, and avowedly set at defiance as it respects us? From such a state of things we might say as France did to us some years since, and we may say it with much more justice, "that we can find only a real disadvantage." And we might almost be justified in assuming towards both those powers the ground which one of them professes to have assumed towards the other, and to tell them plainly, that against nations which thus set at defiance all principles of national rights and forget all the maxims of public law, "what can be done but to forget them for an instant one-self." Mr. B. said, that he did not feel himself exclusively pledged to this particular course; but as he thought that it was time for some system to be progressing, he wished his resolution to be considered by the House, and put in possession of the committee of the whole, who had under consideration the resolution for repealing the embargo, and resuming the navigation of the ocean.
Mr. DANA said he acknowledged that this resolution did not look like submission. He rejoiced that the gentleman from Massachusetts had brought forward a resolution which looked something like advancing, like men of business. He did not know that he should vote precisely for this proposition; but it was one which would not terminate in words, or in "retirement." When they came to examine this subject, it would be found perhaps that they approached a question of peculiar character; that it might be difficult to draw a line of distinction between a state of positive war, in which we encounter the enemy at all points, and a
war—a state in which we seek security for the future, without endeavoring to compel indemnity for the past. Perhaps (said he) when we approach the subject more closely, it may be proper to make a discrimination on this subject, which has very generally been kept out of sight in the course of our discussions, viz. between a war in which the employment of force is strictly defensive, and a war in which it is vindictive. I will not at this time express an opinion on the subject of the resolution; but I rose to express my satisfaction and make my acknowledgement to the gentleman for the proposition, which seems to contemplate beginning a course of doing something.
The resolution was referred to the same committee of the whole to whom was referred Mr. Nicholas's resolution.
An engrossed bill to revive and continue in force for a further time the authority of the commissioners of Kaskaskias, was read a third time and PASSED.
FORTIFICATION.
The engrossed bill for making appropriations to complete the fortifications of our sea port towns and harbors, was read a third time and PASSED, without a division.
NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT.
The engrossed bill requiring the President of the United States to officer, man, and equip a part of the naval force of the United States, was read a third time; and the question "shall the bill pass?" Was decided by Yeas & Nays—Yeas 102—Nays 23. [This bill was taken to the SENATE, where, in a few minutes, it received three several readings, and was PASSED without opposition.]
VOLUNTEER FORCE.
The engrossed bill authorizing the President of the United States to employ an additional military force, was read a third time; and on the question "shall the bill pass?"
Mr. TALMADGE opposed it in a speech of an hour and a half.
Mr. LYON followed on the same side in a speech of an hour. [Debate hereafter.]
When the House adjourned without taking the question.
Saturday, Jan. 28.
A bill from the Senate for the relief of certain Alabama Indians, was twice read and referred to the committee on Public Lands.
A bill to amend the act on the subject of the federal courts of Tennessee and Kentucky was twice read. After a few observations on the subject of the bill, Mr. Wharton moved that it now be read a third time. The bill was read a third time and PASSED without opposition.
VOLUNTEER FORCE.
The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.
Mr. Taylor spoke for an hour in favor of the bill; and Mr. Pkin for two hours and a half against it.
When the House adjourned without taking a question.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, JANUARY 30.
For Gen. Deshler's Speech on Foreign Relations, see the last page.
The following are the resolutions agreed upon at the Town-Meeting at PHILADELPHIA on the 24th inst. On the same occasion an Address to the President of the U. S. was adopted, which shall appear in our next.
WHEREAS, Great Britain and France in their fury to destroy each other, have mutually set at nought the obligations of justice and the law of nations, and by their decrees and orders have annihilated the commerce of neutral nations, and greatly injured the U. States.
And whereas, the government of the U. States has, on every occasion, manifested a sincere desire to preserve peace and honest friendship with all nations, by maintaining in all their intercourse the principles of justice and neutrality, and also by a wise and patriotic conduct, have sought to promote the happiness, and preserve the honor, liberty and independence of the people, by whom they were elected. And whereas, notwithstanding these known and established facts, there are some men so lost to virtue, truth and patriotism, as to advocate the cause of a foreign government, and endeavor to obliterate their own—men who, by their writings and speeches, and public meetings, are zealous to bring into hatred and contempt our free form of government, and to stir up strife and contention in our land.—Therefore it is the duty of all good citizens, to rally round their government, express their determination to support its laws, and to preserve holy and unbroken the band which unites these states. Therefore, be it resolved by the citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia, in general town meeting assembled, and it is hereby
Resolved, That these United States are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states—that we will pay millions for defence, rather than one cent for tribute—and that to preserve the freedom and independence so nobly achieved by our gallant forefathers, we will not only pour forth our treasures, but our hearts best blood.
Resolved, That the embargo is a measure of prudence, policy, and patriotism—has our entire approbation, and that, in our opinion, had it been rigidly observed, it would have produced all the good hoped for by its friends, and have prevented the necessity of a recurrence to any other means to ensure justice from the belligerent nations.
Resolved, That Congress in their late measures to enforce the embargo law, and to establish a system of non-intercourse between us and our enemies, as well as in making preparation for the defence of the country, and for giving energy to the nation by preparing for war, have done their duty to their constituents.
Resolved, That we will strictly, & faithfully and willingly obey the laws which the wisdom of Congress has devised, or may devise as means to restore to our country the free navigation of the ocean, and we will cheerfully aid in bringing to justice, any man or men who shall violate such laws; further, we pledge ourselves to be at all times ready to assist the lawful authority of the country, in carrying into effect the laws.
Resolved, That our government, being a government of the people, it is the duty of every citizen to see that the laws thereof be duly enforced, particularly those which are intended to operate against the enemies of our country; therefore we do declare that every citizen, having knowledge of a violation of our laws, particularly our embargo laws, and who shall give due information thereof, to the proper officer or officers, so that the offenders may be brought to punishment, merits the thanks of this meeting, and deserves well of his country.
Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting be given to those members of both Houses of Congress, who constitute the majority that have faithfully discharged their duty, by their unremitting endeavors to promote the best interests of the U. S.
On the 24th inst. arrived at New York the British Packet Princess Amelia Morson, from Falmouth, via Bermuda, having left England on the 8th of December; and the ship Philipsburgh, Leffingwell, from Liverpool and Cork. The latter left Liverpool on the 27th of November, and Cork on the 12th December.
By these vessels London papers to the 3rd and Cork papers to the 8th of December have been received. Mr. Purviance, passenger in the Philipsburgh, is the bearer of dispatches to our government.
Two British regiments of cavalry sailed from Falmouth for Spain on the 6th of December. On the 24th of Nov. the Lavinia sailed from England with the Spanish deputies, and 1,500,000 dollars on board.
The accounts of military operations in Spain are confused. Of those, however, received, the following is a comprehensive sketch.
On the 2nd of December the following bulletin was published at London:
"It appears by dispatches received from Corunna, dated the 22d, and from San Vicente de la Barquera, dated the 19th ult. that the account of General Blake being defeated is confirmed. He was engaged in continual actions from the 4th till the 13th. On the 11th the Austrians having been worsted in the left, the French got possession of a height which covered the road on which they retreated, and they were thrown into great confusion, and General Blake retired to Reynoso; but a French column appearing upon this road from Burgos, he retreated by Solo to San Vicente de la Barquera. There upon the 17th, he had collected near 20,000 of his troops, and the Marquis de la Romana had taken the command, and they would soon be in a state of advance again.
"The French had occupied St. Andero and St. Antonio—the former on the 16th, and the latter on the 20th. But by the exertions of Gen. Leith, all the provisions, ammunition and stores sent by this country had been removed.
"It appears that part of the army at Estremadura, had been defeated near Burgos by the French; but there are no accounts of their having advanced beyond it. General Moore arrived on the 10th at Salamanca—General Baird was at Astorga."
The following letter dated, Portsmouth, December 1, gives a statement of subsequent events:
"This afternoon, at 3 o'clock, the Bonne Citoyenne sloop of war, arrived from Corunna, from whence she sailed on Saturday last, bringing accounts from General Blake's army up to the 24th ultimo."
"The dispatches she has brought will be found to relate to several most dreadful battles between the armies of Marshal Ney and Gen. Blake. The marquis Romana's troops (from the Baltic) by advancing too far ahead of Gen. Blake's army, were severely defeated; one of the regiments of Catalans has been cut to pieces."
"The fighting on both sides was most obstinate and desperate. The marquis Romana's cavalry was preserved. In the last attack, Blake repulsed the French with considerable loss. He is now at Cima, about 40 miles north of St. Andero, with 25,000 men. The communication between him and the centre army, under Castanos, is cut off, the French army being between them, whose head-quarters are at Valladolid. There are many fears for the safety of the centre army. The Prince of Peace's party in Spain is very strong, and the patriotic cause looks desponding. Sir David Baird was at Astorga, with his army, and Sir John Moore at Salamanca. They have not been engaged."
In addition to the above, says a London paper, we have to state, that this day an officer from Oporto arrived in Downing-street, with dispatches. He came over in the Bonne Citoyenne. He touched at Corunna on his passage home, and sailed again from that place on the morning of the 25th ultimo. At that time no news of importance had been received there of a subsequent date, to that which we yesterday communicated. After quitting Corunna, the Bonne Citoyenne fell in with the Minerva frigate, which had been cruising to the eastward, the captain of which stated, that he had received intelligence that the French had attacked the marquis de la Romana, and general Blake in the strong positions which he had taken at St. Vicente de la Barquera, that the battle was most obstinately contested, but at length the French were defeated with very great loss, and the Spanish army were, in consequence of this success, about to advance.
There is no intelligence from the Spanish armies of the centre and the right, except that contained in the following article:
London, December 4. Our information as to Gen. Blake's force (now commanded by the marquis de la Romana) may be deemed official, as far as it goes, being derived from a statement which capt. Thomp-
son of the Bonne Citoyenne, received from capt. Hawkins, of the Minerva. That relative to the central army rests upon the authority of private communications from Madrid, which is furnished by a Spanish gentleman of great respectability, now resident in that capital. In this correspondence, which will be read with much interest, and will be found the first accounts of operations of the Spanish army of the centre. These, it appears, have been attended with complete success; the passage of the Ebro has been forced at three points, and the strong French position of Caparros, with the heights around it taken. The final result of this general action is not yet known. The postscript of the last letter from Madrid informs us that the fighting continued on the 13th, when a courier, who brought the intelligence, the substance of which we have stated, left the army.
Corunna, Nov. 23. The sad accounts we received some time ago from Biscay, have been since followed up with a succession of melancholy intelligence. There is not the least doubt, that the enemy have cut off the communication with Madrid, as the Mail from thence, due the 21st, has not come in.
The Supreme Junta of government has published an edict, by which it has been given to all Jesuits to return to Spain.
Madrid, Nov. 19.—The army of Estremadura was attacked near Burgos, on the 10th inst. On the 11th it was again attacked, and on both days they gave the enemy a warm reception.
On the 12th, they were engaged by a prodigious number of horse, by which the French infantry was supported, and the Spaniards not being provided with cavalry, thought it prudent under these circumstances to retire to Aranda.
The following Resolutions were adopted at Boston on the 24th inst.
WHEREAS it is provided in the Declaration of Rights of this Commonwealth, that the people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner to assemble, to consult upon their common good, give instructions to their Representatives, and to request of the Legislative body by the way of addresses, petitions or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer:
Therefore, Resolved, as the sense of this town, that we view with the deepest concern and astonishment, the determination of the general government to persevere in a system of commercial restriction, which is equally repugnant to the true intent and design of the constitution, and to the best interests of the Union; or to relax it, with a view only to a state of hostility, which must probably terminate in an unnecessary and ruinous war with G. Britain, and a fatal alliance with France. That having heretofore expressed our disapprobation of laws imposing an embargo on commerce, and signified to the constituted authorities of the Union our earnest wish for their repeal, we perceive, with indignation and regret, that unprecedented, arbitrary and unconstitutional means have been provided for enforcing them, and that no resource remains to us but in the protection of our state legislative.
Resolved, That a respectful petition be presented to the legislature of this commonwealth, expressive of these sentiments, praying for their interposition, to save the people of this commonwealth from the destructive consequences which they apprehend to their liberties and prosperity from the continuance of the present system, and pledging the inhabitants of this metropolis to support them with their lives and fortunes in such measures as they may adopt for that purpose.
The Vice-Presidents of the U. States left this City for New York on Friday.
New York, January 24.
Extract of a letter from Providence, (R. I.) January 20th
"This day col. Olney, the collector of this port and brother, have inclosed their commissions and resigned their offices."
TO GLASS MANUFACTURE. THE Subscriber begs leave to inform who have or may establish a Glass Manufactory, that he hath been regularly brought up to the business; that he hath lately superintended the Manufactory established in the city of Washington; in which capacity he offers his services to those who may require such person. For his capacity and integrity, he can give satisfactory testimonials. A lie is addressed to him at the city of Washington will be duly attended to.
SOLOMON STENGER.
January 30—3t
THREE PIPES OF MADERA WINE To be Exchanged for FLOUR
Delivered in Georgetown on Baltimore, by the 10th of May next. For further particulars, apply to TOPPAN WEBSTER, who has for sale a few barrels of very fine
PITPEN APPLES. Washington January 30—1m
VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR SALE.
WILL be offered for Sale at Public Auction at Rhodes's hotel, on the 11th day of February next, the HOUSE & LOT on P street, in square 253, at present occupied by Washington Boyd. From its contiguity to the Bank, the President's House, and the Public Offices, the situation is not exceeded by any in this city. The terms will be made known on the day of sale. A good title will be given to the purchaser—the sale will take place at 12 o'clock noon. SAML. SPEAKE, Auc. Washington, January 30—tdos
To be SOLD at PUBLIC AUCTION.
On Thursday the 2nd of March next, on a credit of 6 and 12 months, with interest from the 1st of April next, and the credit calculated from that time; the purchaser to give notes payable either at the City or Georgetown banks, with two approved endorsers, that well known HOUSE on Pennsylvania avenue, occupied by Mr. William Rhodes as a Hotel, together with all the buildings attached thereto, comprising every thing necessary for a Tavern, with a private Dwelling House. The situation of these premises give them some advantages over any other Tavern in the city, being near to the Public Offices and also to the street that will lead across the Tyber to Bridge erecting over the Potomac, and which is now progressing with a Turnpike road to Alexandria, which will add much to the value of this stand as a house of entertainment. Those inclined to purchase the above very extensive and valuable premises, are invited to call and view them. A few fixtures to be taken by the purchaser at a fair appraisement, consisting of the Bell in and about the House, the Grates, &c. in the fire places, and the Smoke Jack in the kitchen chimney. Further particulars at the day of sale, which will be on the 2nd of March, and commence at 1 o'clock P. M. SAMUEL SPEAKE, Auc. January 30—tdos

DEBATE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
[CONTINUED.]
December 8.
Mr. DESHA said he had been particularly attentive to the whole of the debates during the very lengthy discussion of this important subject, and said he, I confess I am at a loss how to understand gentlemen or what to conclude from their observations—Am I to conclude that they are really Americans in principle? I wish to do so—and I hope they are; but it appears somewhat doubtful; or they would not tamely give up the honor of their country by submitting to French decrees and British orders in council—That is, by warmly advocating the repeal of the embargo, without proposing something as a substitute. Do gentlemen mean an abject acquiescence to those iniquitous decrees and orders in council? Do gentlemen mean that that liberty and independence that was obtained through the valorous exertions of our ancestors, should be wrested from our hands without a murmur—that independence, in the obtaining of which so much virtue was displayed, and so much blood was shed? Do they mean that it should be relinquished to our former masters without a struggle? Gentlemen assign as a reason why the embargo should be removed, its inefficacy—that it has not answered the contemplated purpose. I acknowledge that as a measure of coercion it has not come entirely up to my expectations. It has not been as efficient as I expected it would have been. But what are the reasons why it has not fully come up to the expectations of its supporters, as a measure of coercion? The reasons are obvious to every man who is not inimical to the principles of our government, and who is not prejudiced against the present administration. Was it not for want of unanimity in support of the measure? Was it not in consequence of its having been wantonly, shamefully and infamously violated? and perhaps winked at by some who are inimical to the principles of our government; but who have had address and ingenuity sufficient to procure themselves to be appointed to office, and in which situation they have obtained a certain influence, and by misrepresentations as well as clamorous exertions have, in many instances, led the unwary astray, and caused the measure to become unpopular in some parts of the country. By improper representations and fallacious statements of certain prints, apparently, and, I might add, undoubtedly, hostile to civil liberty and free government, and advocates of British policy; by the baneful opposition of British agents and partisans, together with refugees or old tories, who still recollect their former abject standing, and who have never forgiven the American independence, and who, in all probability, are doing all in their power at this time to assist their master George the third in bringing about colonization and vassalage in this happy land—By keeping up party spirit to such a height, that the tyrant of the ocean was led to believe that he had a most powerful British party in the bosom of our country—and that, by an extraordinary opposition made to the embargo, we would become restless, and could not adhere to a suspension of commerce—consequently would have to relax, and fall into paying tribute, under the orders of council, to that corrupt government, Britain. These are part of the reasons why the embargo, as a measure of coercion, has not proved completely efficacious; and had it not been for this kind of conduct, our enemies would have been brought to a sense of justice, an amicable adjustment of differences would have taken place. By this iniquitous conduct they have tried to wrest from the hands of government an engine, the best calculated of all others that could have been imagined, to coerce our enemies into a sense of justice, and bring about reciprocity of commerce—that most desirable object—a system of all others the best suited to the peaceful genius of our government. But if it has not been entirely efficacious as a measure of coercion, it has been particularly serviceable in many instances—by keeping us out of war, which is at all times to be deprecated by civilized men, by preserving our citizens from becoming victims of British tyranny on board their war ships, and securing an immense amount of American property, that was sailing on the ocean, supposed to amount in value to between sixty and a hundred millions of dollars, the principle part of which would inevitably have fallen into the voracious jaws of the monster of the deep, or into the iron grasp of the tyrant Napoleon—By which, if we are involved in war, we have preserved the leading sinews, wealth, and above all, for preventing us from becoming tributary to those piratical depredators, whose inevitable determination is to monopolize the whole trade of the world, by which they rob us of our inherent rights. If gentlemen had come forward with propositions to adopt any thing as a substitute for the
embargo, that would have prevented us from the degradation of submission, or from falling into the hands of those monsters of iniquity, they no doubt, would have met with support—the friends of this measure are not so particularly attached to it, but what they would willingly exchange it for one that was less sorely felt, less oppressive, and one that would preserve national honor, and bring about a redress of grievances, as it was with extreme regret, that they had to resort to the measure of the embargo, and which could only be warranted by the necessity of the case. I am as anxious for the repeal of the embargo, as any gentleman in this House, or perhaps any man on the Continent, whenever it can be done consistent with the honor and welfare of the nation. The citizens of Kentucky, whom I have the honor to represent, feel its effects in common with their fellow men throughout the continent; but their patriotism is such that they bear it with cheerfulness, and magnanimity, and very justly consider it as a preventative of greater evils. I think that a retrograde step at this time would have the appearance of acquiescence, and be calculated to mark the government with pusillanimity; therefore as I deprecate war, believing as I do, that in a government constructed like ours, war ought to be the last alternative, so as to preserve national honor. As such it would perhaps be advisable to adopt something like the second resolution that is under consideration, which, in addition to the embargo would amount to a complete non-intercourse—which if systematically adhered to must produce the desired effect. If it should not, it will at least give time to make preparations for a more energetic appeal, which may probably have to be the result. But let it not be understood, because I am for avoiding war, as long as it can be avoided upon honorable terms, that I am against going to war when it becomes actually necessary. No sir, my life and my property are at all times at my country's command, and I feel no hesitation in saying that the citizens of Kentucky whom I have the honor to represent, would step forward with alacrity, and defend with bravery that independence in which they glory, and in the obtaining of which some of the best blood of their ancestors was spilt; for the degradation of tribute they would spurn with manly indignation. I would even agree to go further. From my present impression, I would agree to a recall of our ministers from both England and France, and to a discharge of theirs; and have no intercourse with the principal belligerents until they learned to respect our rights as an independent nation, and laid aside that dictatorial conduct which has for years been characteristic of those European despots, for I am almost certain that under existing circumstances, that our ministers in neither England nor France can do us any possible service, and that their ministers here can, and in all probability do a great deal of harm, by fomenting division and keeping up party spirit, at a time too, when unanimity is of the utmost consequence. As to our commerce being driven from the ocean, I am not disposed to take a lengthy retrospect, or to examine minutely in order to discover which of our enemies, England or France was the first aggressors it is sufficient for me that both France and England have done nearly all in their power to harass and oppress us in every imaginable way. I am not the apologist of either France or England. I am an American in principle, and I trust whenever it is thought necessary to call my energies into action I shall prove myself to be such by defending and protecting the rights and independence of my own country, from any encroachments, let them come from quarter they may. By those iniquitous decrees of France, all vessels bound to or from England are deemed lawful prize, and if spoken by an English ship they were condemned in the prize courts of France. When a ship arrived in any of the French ports, bribery and corruption were practised, in order to succeed in her condemnation a separate examination of the crew would be resorted to, as to the events that happened on the voyage; offers made of one third of the ship and lading as their portion of the prize money, if they would give information of their vessel having touched at any of the ports of England, or that any English cruiser had visited her on the voyage. Consequently by the French decrees all property afloat belonging to the Americans was liable to seizure and condemnation. Are gentlemen, possessing the feelings of Americans, prepared to submit to such degradation? Are they prepared to say the embargo shall be raised, while our commerce is subjected to this kind of depredation? I trust not. As respects the British orders in council, all American vessels bound to French ports, or to any of the allies of the French, are considered good prize in the courts of Britain. England says you must not carry on any trade to any of the places that I have interdicted, without obtaining my leave—Pay me a duty, and then
you shall be permitted to go to any port—By paying me a tribute you may trade to any port you please. Degrading to freemen! Britain in her goodness says, you shall have the liberty to bring flour from the U.S. of America to England, land it, and re-export it, by paying two dollars on every barrel into my coffers—On cotton, which is certainly a very important article, a duty is charged on its exportation of about nine-pence per pound sterling; nearly equal to the full value of that article in the parts of America, where it is raised, exclusive of the import duty, which is two pence in the pound. Therefore, if our traders wish to go to the continent of Europe, the condition is, a tribute must be paid nearly equal to the value of the cargo exclusive of the insurance and risk. If I mistake not, about two thirds of the cotton exported from this country is made use of in England, on the balance a tribute must be paid of about nine-pence sterling per pound, which is about twenty millions of pounds—on a calculation the sums will be found to be enormous—purely for the liberty of selling cotton; as also high and oppressive duties on other articles. If these impositions are submitted to, I pronounce your liberties gone—irretrievably lost—a blot made in the American political character, never to be obliterated. No man possessing an American heart will submit to the degradation of paying tribute to any nation on earth, nor suffer the freemen of America to be taxed without their consent. Will gentlemen say the embargo law must be repealed, and suffer our commerce to flow in its usual channel while the decrees of France and the British orders in council are enforced, by which they would not only be liable to seizure and condemnation, but what is more degrading, pay a tribute of many millions of dollars annually, too degrading to be thought of with patience? We received liberty in its purity from our heroic ancestors—it is a duty incumbent on us to transmit it to posterity unsullied, or perish in the undertaking. But, sir, it has been said that the people of the east would not bear the continuance of the embargo any longer—that they would force their way in trade—hinting, I presume, that they would openly rebel against your laws if they were not allowed to pursue their usual course in commerce, by which they subscribe to those nefarious orders in council, which is tribute of the most degrading kind. Who are these people of the east that have the hardihood to insinuate anything like rebellion against the laws of the land, or that would wish to degrade themselves so far as to pay tribute? It cannot be the descendants of the heroes of seventy-six, that bravely stepped forth and fought against a tyrant for liberty? It cannot be the descendants of those brave fellows that struggled on the brow of Bunker's Hill for independence? No. It must be the descendants of refugees or old tories—or otherwise it must be British agents or partisans—for no man possessing the feeling that an American ought to feel, would throw out such threats, or degrade himself by coming under tribute. If patriotism has left the land of freedom—if it has taken its flight from the mild and peaceful shores of Columbia—if foreign influence and corruption has extended itself so far that the people are disposed to rebel against the government of their country—if the dissemination of foreign gold has had the baneful effect of suppressing all noble and patriotic sentiments, it is indeed time that foreign intercourse should cease. If the spirit of commercial speculation and cupidity had surmounted all patriotism, it is time that more energetic measures should be resorted to, in order that the chaff might be separated from the wheat—in a word that traitors might be known. (To be continued.)
RICHARD PARROTT, Has just arrived at Alexandria, on board the Sea-Flower, capt. Marshall from Savannah. 75 tierces Rice, 20 bales cotton, (best quality), Ind in Store, (at his Warehouse, George Town) at Wholesale or Retail, 5000 bushels, Isle May, Turk's Island, St. Ubes, ground Alum and Blown Salt. 3 pipes Cogniac Brandy, 2 pipes Gin, 3 hlds. Antigua Rum, 3 do. Jamaica do. 9 do. Molasses, 3 do. Loaf and Lump Sugars, 5 do. & 20 barrels Muscovado Sugar, 200 casks Boston Lime, 8 casks Goshen Cheese, 100 barrels Tar, Imperial, Hyson, Young Hyson & Bohea, Coffee, Alspice, Pepper, Mustard, Mould & Dipt Candles, Soap, Snuff.
THE COMMERCIAL COMPA OF WASHINGTON, Have received by the Schooner Citizen, capt. Sturges, from New York, in addition to their supply of GOODS, and a woffer for Sale, 20 hlds. Muscovado Sugar, 6 Pipes Holland Gin, 9 hlds. Rum, 3 pipes Cogniac Brandy, 2 pipes L. P. Madeira, 2 pipes Marsalla, 5 qr. casks Lisbon, 5 qr. casks Sherry, 15 qr. casks Catalonia, 80 boxes Claret, 17 chests, Imperial, Hyson and Young Hyson, Tea, 25 barrels Loaf Sugar, 16 boxes Spermaceti, 25 do. Mould, 8 casks Ginger, 2 do. Salt Petre, 2 do. Pimento, 5 do. Pepper, 12 boxes Mustard, 3 bales Cassia, 6 do. soft shelled Almonds, 20 boxes Raisins, 8 do. Olives, 10 do. long and short Pipes, 10 barrels Mackerel, 3 do. Cranberries, 2 do. Fig Blue, 50 boxes Spanish Segars, 50 bags Corks, They have also for Sale, Mace, Cloves, Cinnamon, Sallad Oil, Spern. Oil, Butter, Whiskey, Soap, Sheet Iron, Powder, Shot, Stone Ware in crates, &c. &c. JOSEPH FORREST, Pres. December 5—
RICHARD RECK, HAS just received from Philadelphia a Large and Handsome Assortment of Seasonable and Fashionable GOODS, among which are— Superfine cloths and cassimeres, Second do. do. Moleskin and silk waistcoating Bennets cord and Spanish marcelis, do. Constitution cords and velverets Coating, frizes and kenseys Rose and striped blankets Worsted, cotton and silk hosiery Flannel and baizes Navy blue cloths Checks, calicoes and Clintzes White and colored cambrics Dimities, brown Holland and dowlasess Bandanno and Matrass handkerchiefs Durants and calimancoes Tapes and bobbins Silk and cotton chambray 4-4th and 7-8th Irish linens 4-4th and 7-8th cotton shirting London and other hats Plain India mul muslins Seeded do. do. Diagonal and Trafalgar do. Plain and figured lenoes Linen camaries Damask, silk and serge shawls Tabby velveres for pelices Italian Mantua Bombazets and bombazeens Elegant assortment thread and cotton laces Handsome assortment ribbons Kid and silk gloves Pickett silk mits and glove Diaper and diaper table cloths Kid and Morocco shoes A few bales India muslins assorted Ticklenburgs and osnaburgs, &c. &c. All of which being bought on the best terms will be sold by the piece or retail very low for cash or approved notes. Georgetown, Nov. 11—tf
THE SECRETARY of the Navy will receive PROPOSALS until the first day of February next, for furnishing all or any of the following articles of Domestic Materials and Domestic Manufacture. 3000 yards of 6-4 coarse Blue Cloth, or 6000 yards of 3-4. 240 yards of 6-4 scarlet do. or 480 3-4. 1500 yards of 6-4 Baize for lining, any color except red, or 3000 yards of 3-4 flannel, 7000 yards of Brown Linen 3-4 wide, 220 pieces of Sheeting, such as Russia, 240 lbs. of whitened brown Thread, 10 lb. of red Thread, 100 lbs. of blue Thread, 20 lbs. of yellow Thread, 3500 yards of 5-4 grey mixed coating, or 3100 yards of 6-4 wide, 100 gross of Button Moulds—small coat, 2000 3 point Blankets, 10000 yards of yellow binding, called quality, 2000 yards of stout Plains, for watch coats, any color excepting red, 20 gross of large Metal Buttons, plain. The articles to be delivered to the Navy Agent, residing nearest the place at which they may be manufactured. November 23— THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, THAT I intend to petition to the next County Court of Charles, for the benefit of an act of insolvency. GEORGE BOARMAN Charles County, Jan. 6—2awm3. FOR SALE, Available Family of NEGROES, consisting of a Man, who is a carpenter, his wife and seven children; all young and healthy and seven children; all young and healthy. BENJ. ODEN. Prince Georges county, Dec. 25—tf
JUST RECEIVED And for Sale by R. C. WEIGHTMAN Pennsylvania Avenue, Sketch of a Plan and Method of Education founded on an analysis of the human faculties, and natural reason, suitable for the offspring of a free people and for all rational beings. By JOSEPH NEED, formerly a coadjutor of Pestalozzi, at his school near Berne in Switzerland—Price 75 cents. This book may also be had of D. Rapine, Capitol Hill, and Jos. Milligan, Georgetown.
CRABB'S Poems, Elizabeth, or the Exiles of Siberia, Sword Exercise for Cavalry, Pocket Almanacs, 12 1-2 cents each, Enouy's Map of Europe, Portable Mahogany Desks, from 11 to 16 dollars, A variety of new Music, German Flutes, plain and tipt, Visiting Cards, plain, gilt, and embossed, &c. &c. January 20—6t
LUKE KENT, CLOCK & WATCH-MAKER. (FROM PHILADELPHIA) P. Street between the Bank & Treasury. Informs his friends and the public, that he continues to repair Clocks and Watches of every description in the best manner with his usual punctuality. Washington Jan. 20— Alexander Green & wife vs. Rebecca Bond, Caroline Cocceia Bond, Martha Vanwesen-ingen, Elizabeth Mary Vanweseningen, Peter Campbell, Richard Llewellyn, Nicholas Peerse, Eleanor his wife, Ann Jordan, Henry Jordan, Charles Jordan, David Easton & Sarah his wife, & others, heirs of John Jordan, deceased. THE object of the bill is to obtain a sale of certain tracts of land of which the said John Jordan, died, seized & possessed in fee simple, for the purpose of paying a debt due from the said John Jordan to the aforesaid Alexander Greer and Sally his wife, executrix, of the last will and testament of William Trueman Stoddert, deceased. The bill states that the above-named defendants reside out of the state. It is thereupon adjudged and ordered, that the complainants, by causing a copy of this order to be inserted three successive weeks in the National Intelligencer, before the 1st day of February next, give notice to the absent defendants of this application and of the substance and object of the bill, that they may be warned to appear here in person or by a solicitor or solicitors of this court, on or before the first Monday of June next, to show cause wherefore a decree should not pass as prayed. True Copy, Test, NICHOLAS BREWER, Reg. Cur. Cur. Jan. 4—10t.
NOTICE. THE Taxable Inhabitants of Washington city, and all others concerned, are hereby informed that the Tax for the year 1808, on Real and Personal Property, also the Tax on Slaves and Dogs, became due on the 1st inst. and must be paid immediately at the City Treasurer's Office. The Treasurer returns his thanks to those who have usually called at his Office and settled their accounts, and will still be thankful to those who may make it convenient to settle in that way. He also informs those who are in arrears that no further indulgence can be given, and that they must pay the amount due immediately, or their property must be seized and sold to satisfy the same. HENRY WHETCROFT, Treasurer of Washington City. January 20—2w
NOTICE. WHEREAS we the subscribers did some time in the spring of the year 1808, execute a power of attorney to Col. John Ballenger, of Knox county, Kentucky, authorising him to collect certain monies, which we were to receive for damages, which we sustained by the military under the command of Captain Ball, on Yellow Creek, Knox county, Kentucky. These are therefore to forewarn the Secretary at War, and all persons whatsoever, from paying said monies to said Ballenger, or any one authorised by him to receive it, as we have revoked the aforesaid power of Attorney. JOHN P. BROWN, mark. EDWARD P. GIDEONS, mark. JOHN GORDEN, SAMUEL MOSLY, ROBERT BALLON. January 25—3t
Prince George's county court, September Term, 1808. ON the application by petition in writing, of ROBERT M'Koy, of Prince Georges county, to this court, for the benefit of the act of Assembly passed at November session eighteen hundred and five, entitled "An act for the benefit of sundry insolvent debtors" and the several supplements thereto: a schedule of his property and a list of his creditors on oath as far as he can ascertain them being annexed to his said petition, and the court being satisfied by competent testimony that the said petitioner is a citizen of the state of Maryland, and that he hath resided therein the two last years preceding his application, and being also satisfied that the said Robert M'Koy is now in actual confinement for debt, and the said petitioner having entered into bond with security for his appearance in this court on the first Monday in April next to answer such interrogatories as his creditors may propose to him. It is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the said Robert M'Koy be discharged from his imprisonment, and the said first Monday in April next is appointed for the said petitioner to deliver up his property and to have a trustee appointed for the benefit of his creditors; and it is ordered that the said Robert M'Koy by causing a copy of the foregoing to be published once a week for three months successively in the National Intelligencer, before the said first Monday in April next, give notice to his creditors to be and appear before this court on the said day to recommend a trustee for their benefit. Test JOHN READ MAGRUDER, Jr. December 26—v3m Ck. P. G. C. C. THE STOCKHOLDERS of the Commercial Company of Washington are hereby notified that an instalment of Two Dollars & Fifty Cents on each share is required to be paid at the office of the Company, on Monday the 20th of March next, agreeably to the Articles of Association. Those who neglect to pay will not be entitled to Dividend. JOSEPH FORREST, Dr. January 18—