The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1808-04-26 00:00:00

PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST OFFICE, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
SPRING & SUMMER GOODS.—RICHARD BROOKE has just received a full assortment of GOODS, suitable for the present and ensuing season, all of which he will sell low for cash—Among which are—
 Superfine and second Cloth,  Superfine and second Cassimeres,  Tweeled and Tabbey Velvets,  Hunter's constitution and silver Cords,  Cotton Cassimeres and English Nankeens,  India Nankeens,  Bandanna, Rohmall and Madrass Hkfs.  White and coloured Janes,  Do. do. Marselles,  Calicoes and Chintz,  Pink, blue and purple Ginghams and Muslins,  Dimity and Cambric Dimity,  Furniture do.  Linen and Cotton Checks,  4-4 and 7-8 Irish Linen and shirting Cotton,  9-8 and 6-4 Cambricks,  Plain and Figured Lenoes,  Elegant mull Mull Robes and short Dresses,  Worked and Figured Sanets and Crapes,  Real Lace Veil, black and white,  Narrow and broad black Laces,  Fashionable Scarfs and Shawls,  Gentlemen and Ladies' silk and cotton Hose,  7-4, 10-4 Damask Silk Shawls, and  1 case fashionable Bonnets and Head Dresses, just from Paris.  April 22. [tf]
FOR SALE.—30 ton country and Swedes Iron assorted, 2 ton Nail Rods, a few Hlds. Northern Whiskey, and a few Bales prime Cotton.
Likewise, just receiving 27,000 weight of choice Bacon, among which are 750 hams—All of which we will dispose of on reasonable terms, for cash or a short credit.
RUSSELL & WALLACE, Left corner of street leading to Byrd's Warehouse.
April 22. [ep1m4]
PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.—This day (16th inst.) is dissolved, by mutual consent, the partnership of R. and G. Turner.
ROBERT TURNER, GEORGE TURNER. [2m4] THE business will in future be carried on by ROBERT TURNER.
M AHOGANY.—The subscriber has nine logs MAHOGANY for sale on low terms for cash or good paper. EDWARD JOHNSTON. Rocketts, April 22. [4t]
ENGLISH GOODS.—ATLETON & Co. By the John Adams, St. Johns, from Liverpool, 16, Calvert-Street, have received their regular supply of GOODS calculated for the present and approaching season.
 Cambric and Common Calicoes,  Plain and striped Dimities,  Printed Marselles Vesting,  White Janes,  Furniture Chintz,  Do. Dimities,  London Superfine Broad Cloths,  Do. do. Cassimeres,  Yorkshire fine Cloths and Cassimeres,  Patent Nankeens,  Cords, Grandrills, Cotton Cassimeres,  6-4 and 4-4 Cambric Muslins,  Japan, Haricord and Check do.  Plain and Figured Mull do.  Leno, Victory, Riddle, &c. do.  Colored do. do.  4-4 Plain Book do.  Ginghams, Silk do.  Sattins, Persians and Sarsnets,  Banner Silks, Silk Gloves,  Silk Handkerchiefs, Fancy Shawls,  Cotton Umbrellas,  Do. Braces,  Do. Laces and Footings,  Do. Quiltings,  English Kid Gloves,  Cotton Hosiery,  Handkerchiefs,  Fringe and Bed Lace,  Cotton and Linen Checks, Buttons,  Birmingham Ware, &c. &c.  In store, a few dozen gentlemen's best Beaver Hats, from Marselles. These Goods will be sold low for cash, or un-doubted paper at 60 days. Baltimore, April 19. (10t)
THE BROAD-ROCK SPRING RACES will commence the 11th day of May next. The 1st day, the Jockey Club Purse of $400, four mile heats.—The 2d day the Proprietor's Purse of $300 three mile heats.—The third day, a purse of $100 two mile heats.—Entrance $30. For this purse, any person may run a horse whether he be a member of the Jockey Club or not.—Agreeable to the Jockey Club weights, winning horses for the first and second days' races not allowed to start for the third day's purse. WM. BALL, Proprietor of the Field. April 19. [6t]
SIMPSON MANOR, opposite the Eagle Tavern, respectfully informs the public that he is relinquishing selling off under cost and charges till the whole of the stock is sold and wishes that the public net to lose this opportunity as goods are daily raising.—The stock consists of the following articles, viz:
 7-8 and 4-4 Irish Linen, Kenting, Linen and Cosen Cambrics, a large assortment of India & British Muslin, corded and cambric Dimity, a large assortment of silk & cotton Hose, ladies silk Gloves, Damask Silk, Shawls, Black twilled Sarcenets, Florentine silk, printed Calico, Linen & Cotton Checks, Linen & cotton Cambric hks. white & Black French Laces, white and colored Marselles and Janes, India Cotton and Wildboar, Bennet's patent Cord, Cassimere, Broad Cloth, Flannels, Dressing Boxes, and a number of other articles too tedious to enumerate. April 5. [ep2m] 
PURSUANT to a deed of trust, executed by George Loving to me, and recorded in the county court of Amherst, for securing a debt there expressed, I will sell to the highest bidder, for ready money, at the dwelling house of said Loving, on Thursday the 5th day of May next, two male Negroes, to wit: Harry and Guy, and one Negro Woman named Silvy, or so many of them, as may be sufficient to pay the aforesaid debt and interest, and the necessary expenses attending the execution of this trust. I only warrant title to those negroes against myself and those claiming under me. RICHARD POWELL. Winton, April 5. [cp4wp]
BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION BUSINESS.—The subscriber respectfully offers his services to his friends and the public in the above line of business and solicits their patronage. C. GREENHOW. [pawtj]
NEW ADVERTISEMENTS.
IMPRESSED SEAMEN.—It has been represented to the Secretary of State, that Nathan Thompson, Thomas Williams, Benjamin Baguel, Joseph Setts, Joseph Cox, Charles Redding, Samuel Henshaw, A. Girdon, Samuel Clapson, William Thompson, John Brant, Thomas Welben, Matthew Soderborn, F. Race, George Smith, William Brown, Minor Smith, William Bender, Robert McCord, William Price, Henry Muller, David Porter, Benjamin Young, Charles Anderson, Isaac Gaines, Thomas Cook, William Jones, John Gallaway, Peter Lewis, Thomas Marcum, John Malville, Daniel M. Hogan, James Boggs, William Tiel, John Jason, James Carney, John Lemont, William Lindsey, Nicholas Miller, John Porter, Peter Murphy, James Patterson, John Skinner, Thomas Allen, Christopher Syton, J. C. Brecket, Jno. Swaine, Jno. Jarvis, Wm. A. Jennings, Theodore Young, James Hoyt, Joseph Rosey, John Till, Joseph Haswell and John Williams, who call themselves American citizens, have been impressed and are now detained in the British service. The friends of these men are hereby notified, that upon their transmitting to this department, proof of the citizenship, together with a description of the persons of the above named seamen, measures will be taken to procure their discharge.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, April 13, 1808. The Editor of the National Intelligencer, and the Editors of such other papers as publish the laws of the Union, in the Atlantic States, are requested to insert the above notice three times, in their respective Gazettes. April 26. [3t]
IN CHANCERY.—Charlotte Court, 8th March, 1808. Claiborne Barksdale and son, assignees of Major Parsons, Plaintiffs.—Against James Green & Parish Green, Defendants.
The defendant James, not having entered his appearance according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this state, on the motion of the plaintiffs by their attorney, It is ordered, that he appear here on the first day of August court next and enter his appearance, and give security for performing the decree of the court, and that a copy of this order be inserted in one of the newspapers printed in Richmond for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the court-house of the said county. A Copy. Teste, THOMAS READ, Clk. April 26. [law8w]
IN CHANCERY.—Charlotte Court, 8th March, 1808. Grief and Claiborne Barksdale, jr. Plaintiffs.—Against Charles Harris, Henry A. Watkins, executor of William Pentecost and Richard Pentecost, Defendants.
The defendant Harris, not having entered his appearance according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this state, on the motion of the plaintiffs by their attorney, It is ordered, that he appear here on the first day of August court next, and enter his appearance and give security for performing the decree of the court, and that a copy of this order be inserted in one of the newspapers printed in Richmond for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the court-house of the said county. A Copy. Teste, THOMAS READ, Clk. April 26. [law8w]
SELECT SCHOOL.—This school is removed to the former Loan-Office, opposite to the Swan-Tavern.—The instructions given are in the Latin and Greek languages, Rhetoric and Mathematics, &c. The School hours are from 8 o'clock in the morning to 3 in the afternoon. The pupils are limited to twenty, and as that number is not filled up at present, a few will be received. The fees of tuition are fifteen dollars a quarter, payable in advance. There is no additional charge upon the Scholar's first entering, nor is there any for fuel. FRANCIS S. O'REILLY. Richmond, April 8. [ep1m.]
NOTICE.—The subscribers having formed a connection in Business, under the firm of HOVEY & SIZER, offer for sale (at the store lately occupied by Mr. C. J. Macmurd) the following articles, viz:
 50 bds. N. E. Rum,  25 bds. Loaf and Lump Sugar,  12 bags of Pepper,  2 ton of bar Lead,  10 boxes Cotton and Wool Cards,  25 boxes Candles,  15 boxes New-York Chocolate,  25 trunks of Shoes assorted,  50 tiers of Stonz Lime.  HENRY HOVEY, JAMES SIZER. [ep5w] All persons who are indebted to the subscriber are requested to make immediate payment—No further indulgence will be given to those whose bonds and accounts have been due 6 months. HENRY HOVEY.
THE TAPPANANNOCK RACES will commence on Wednesday the 25th of May, 1808.
1st DAY.—The Jockey Club Purse of four hundred dollars, four mile heats. 2d DAY.—The Jockey Club Purse of three hundred dollars, three mile heats. 3d DAY.—A Sweepstake for three years old Cols and Fillies, two mile heats, one hundred dollars entrance; the subscription will remain open until the 25th May.
Weights as follows—Aged horses 130lbs. 6 years old 120lbs. 5 do. 110lbs. 4 do. 100lbs. 3 do. 80lbs. under three years, a feather. Mares and Geldings allowed 5lbs.
In consequence of the following resolution of the Club, there is no doubt the members will be punctual in paying their subscription, as the money on each day will be placed in the hands of the Judges. Resolved, That the Secretary shall have the Rules of the Club printed and furnish each member with a copy, and that a list of the members shall be handed to the Club on the first day of each race, to be read in the dining room, stating who has and who has not paid their subscription. ARTHUR S. BROCKENBROUGH, Secretary and Treasurer. March 25. [ep25thM]
ADVERTISEMENT.—I forewarn all persons whatever from trading or taking an assignment for a bond now in the hands of Mr. George Williamson of Powhatan, Exor. of Jacob Williamson, dec'd. The bond was given by Mrs. Hannah Williamson to William T. Walker of Prince Edward, for the amount of 30 pounds, and the bond dated the third day of January, 1803. GEORGE EGGLESTON, Executor of Hannah Williamson, dec'd. April 26. [law8w]
DOMESTIC.
PART III.
LETTERS
FROM MR. MADISON,
TO MESSRS. MONROE AND PINKNEY.
With their Communications,
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
Relative to the Treaty concluded with the Commissioners of his Britannic majesty, on the 31st December, 1806; together with the TREATY, and a subsequent letter from Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State:—
Accompanying the message of the President of the U. States, to Congress, on the 22d March, 1808.
Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, ministers extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the U. States, in London.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, May 17, 1805.
GENTLEMEN, I herewith enclose a commission and letters of credence, authorising you to treat with the British government concerning the maritime wrongs which have been committed, and the regulation of commerce and navigation between the parties. Your authority is made several as well as joint, as a provision for any contingency depriving either of the co-operation of the other.
The importance of the trust is evinced by its being made the occasion of an extraordinary mission, as well as the subjects which it embraces.—And I have great pleasure in expressing the confidence which the President feels, in the prudence and talents to which the business is committed.
It is his particular wish, that the British government should be made fully to understand, that the United States are sincerely and anxiously disposed to cherish good will and liberal intercourse between the two nations; that an unwillingness alone to take measures not congenial with that disposition, has made them so long patient under violations of their rights and of the rules of a friendly reciprocity; and when forced at length, by accumulating wrongs to depart from an absolute forbearance, they have not only selected a mode strictly pacific, but in demonstration of their friendly policy, have connected with the measure an extraordinary mission, with powers to remove every source of difference, and even to enlarge the foundations of future harmony and mutual interest.
There can be the less ground of umbrage to the British government, in the act prohibiting the importation of certain articles of British manufacture—1st. Because there is nothing on the face of the act beyond a mere commercial regulation, tending to foster manufactures in the United States, to lessen our dependence on a single nation by the distribution of our trade, and to substitute for woollens & linens, manufactures made from one of our principal agricultural staples.—2d. Because it is far short of a reciprocity with British exclusions of American articles of export.—3d. Because as a commercial measure, discriminating in time of war, between British and other nations, it has examples in British practice. It deserves attention also, that a discrimination was made and under another name still exists, in the amount of convoy duty imposed on the trade between Great-Britain with Europe, & with America.—4th. Because the measure cannot be ascribed to a partiality towards the enemies of Great-Britain, or to a view of favoring them in the war, having for its sole object the interest of the United States, which it pursues in a mode strictly conformable to the rights and practice of all nations.
In fine, the act may truly be represented as so far from derogating from the amicable dispositions of the United States towards Great-Britain, that it has resulted solely from the inefficacy of their protracted and reiterated endeavors, otherwise to obtain a just redress, and from a hope that an appeal in this peaceable form to the reflections and interest of an enlightened nation, would be more successful in removing every obstacle to a perfect & permanent cordiality between the two nations.
The instructions given to Mr. Monroe, January 5, 1804, having taken into view, & being still applicable to a great proportion of the matter now committed to your joint negotiations, it will be most convenient to refer you to those instructions as your general guide, and to confine the present to the alterations & additions, which a change of circumstances, or a contemplation of new objects, may require.
The first article of the project comprised in the instructions of 1804, relates to the impressment of seamen. The importance of an effectual remedy for this practice, derives urgency from the licentiousness with which it is still pursued, and from the growing impatience of this country under it. So indispensable is some adequate provision for the case, that the President makes it a necessary preliminary to any stipulation, requiring a repeal of the act shutting the market of the United States against certain British manufactures. At the same time he authorizes you, in case the ultimatum as stated in the article above referred to, should not be acceptable to the British government, to substitute one in the terms following: "no seaman or seafaring person shall upon the high seas, and without the jurisdiction of either party, be demanded, or taken out of any ship or vessel, belonging to the citizens or subjects of one of the parties, by the public or private armed ships or men of war belonging to, or in the service of the other party, and strict orders shall be given for the due observance of this engagement."
An article in these terms was, with the acquiescence of Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. Addington, concerted between Mr. King & Lord St. Vincent, on the approaching renewal of the last war. It was frustrated by an exception of the "narrow seas," inserted by Lord St. Vincent, an exception so evidently inadmissible both in principle and in practice, that it must have been intended as a
pretext for evading the stipulation at that time.—Perhaps the present ministry may neither be disposed to resort to such a pretext; nor unwilling to avail themselves of the precise sanction as far as it was given, by their predecessors.
With respect to contraband, which is the subject of the 4th article, it may be observed, that as it excludes naval stores from the list, and is otherwise limited to articles strictly military, it must, if admissible to Great-Britain, leave but feeble objections to an abolition of contraband altogether. In the present state of the arts in Europe, with the intercourse by land, no nation at war with Great-Britain can be much embarrassed by leaving those particular articles subject to maritime captures.—Whilst the belligerent nations, therefore, have little interest in the limited right against contraband; it imposes on neutrals all the evils resulting from suspicious and vexatious searches, and from questions incident to the terms used in the actual enumeration. It is not an unreasonable hope, therefore, that in place of this article, an entire abolition of contraband may be substituted. Should this be found unattainable, it may be an improvement of the article, as it stands, to subjoin, for the sake of greater caution, to the positive enumeration, a negative specification of certain articles, such as provisions, money, naval stores, &c. as in no case to be deemed within the meaning of the article; with a proviso, that the specification shall not be construed to imply in the least, that any articles not specified in the exception, shall, on that account, be liable to be drawn in question.
A doctrine has been lately introduced by the British courts, and at length adopted by the instructions of June, 1803, to British cruisers, which regards contraband conveyed in one voyage as affecting a resumed or return voyage, although the contraband shall have been previously deposited at its port of destination. It will be a further improvement of the article to insert a declaratory clause against this innovation, and the abuses incident to it.
The 4th article, besides the stipulation on the subject of contraband, relates to two other subjects. 1st.—That of free ships, free goods.—2d.—That of a trade with enemy's colonies.
1st. With respect to the first, the principle that a neutral flag covers the property of an enemy, is relinquished in pursuance of the example of the Russian treaty on which the article is modelled; the relinquishment however being connected with, and conditioned on, the provision in favor of the neutral right to the colonial trade. The importance of that principle to the security of neutral commerce, and to the freedom of the seas, has at all times been felt by the United States—and although they have not asserted it as the established law of nations, they have been ever anxious to see it made a part of that law. It was with reluctance of course, that a contrary stipulation was authorised, & merely as a means of obtaining from Great-Britain, the recognition of a principle now become of more importance to neutral nations possessing mercantile capital, than the principle of "free ships, free goods." It is to be particularly kept in view, therefore, that such a contrary stipulation is to be avoided if possible, and if unavoidable, that the stipulation be so modified as to interfere as little as possible, with the spirit and policy of any provisions in favor of the principle, which may be likely to be introduced into a treaty of peace among the present belligerent powers of Europe. Should it be known that Russia as well as France mean to insist on such a provision; and that such a stipulation by the United States, however modified, will materially affect her confidence and good will towards them, the objection to the measure will acquire a force that can yield only to the consideration, that without such a sacrifice the provisions for the security of our seamen, and of our neutral commerce, cannot be obtained, and that the sacrifice will effectually answer these purposes.
2d. The vast importance of the colonial trade, with the circumstances and the excitement which have taken place since the date of the original instructions to Mr. Monroe, will require that the neutral right on this subject, be provided for in an appropriate article, and in terms more explicit than are used in the article under review. As the right in this case, turns on the general principle that neutrals may lawfully trade, with the exceptions of blockades and contraband, to and between all ports of an enemy, and in all articles, although the trade shall not have been open to them in time of peace; particular care is to be taken, that no part of the principle be expressly or virtually abandoned, as being no part of the law of nations. On the contrary, it is much to be desired, that the general principle in its full extent, be laid down in the stipulation. But as this may not be attainable, and as too much ought not to be risked as an inflexible pursuit of abstract right, especially against the example and the sentiments of great powers having concurrent interests with the United States, you are left at liberty, if found necessary, to abridge the right in practice, as is done in the supplement of Oct. 1801, to the treaty of June of that year, between Russia and Great-Britain; not omitting to provide, that in case Great-Britain should by her treaties or instructions leave to any other nation the right in a greater extent than is stipulated to the United States, they may claim the enjoyment of it in equal extent.
The abuses which have been committed by Great-Britain, under the pretext that a neutral trade, from enemy colonies, through neutral ports, was a direct trade, render it indispensable to guard against such a pretext, by some express declaration on that point.—The most that can be conceded, on the part of the United States is, that the landing of the goods, the securing the duties, and the change of the ship, or preferably the landing of the goods alone, or with the securing the duties, shall be requisite to destroy the identity of the voyage and the directness of the trade, and that the ordinary documents of the custom house officers, shall be sufficient evidence of the facts or fact.
A satisfactory provision on this subject of a trade with enemy colonies, is deemed of so much consequence to the rights and interests of the United States, and is so well understood to have been contemplated along with a like provision against the impressment of seamen, in the late act of congress prohibiting the importation of certain classes of British manufactures, that, as was enjoined, with respect to the provision against impressment, no stipulation is to be entered into, not consistent with a continuance of that act, unless the provision with respect to the colonial trade be also obtained.
In remodelling the provision with respect to the colonial trade, you may with great propriety urge a distinction between the West-India colonies, and the very distant ones in the East-Indies and elsewhere, and the reasonableness of limiting to the former the exception of the direct trade with their parent countries out of the general neutral right. The distinction is supported by several considerations, particularly by the greater difficulty, in the case of the more distant colonies, of previously knowing, and eventually proving the regulations as they may have actually stood in the time of peace; and by the ruinous delays and expenses attending the judicial investigations. The British courts have in fact admitted the distinction so far as to presume the lawfulness of the neutral trade with the East-India colonies, as being generally open in peace as well as war; whilst they reverse the presumption, with respect to the West-Indies.
In addition to what is proposed on the subject of blockades, in VI. and VII. articles the perseverance of Great-Britain in considering a notification of a blockade, and even of an intended blockade, to a foreign government, or its ministers at London, as a notice to its citizens, and as rendering a vessel wherever found in a destination to the notified port, as liable to capture, calls for a special remedy. The palpable injustice of the practice, is aggravated by the auxiliary rule prevailing in the British courts, that the blockade is to be held in legal force, until the governmental notification be expressly rescinded; however certain the fact may be that the blockade was never formed or had ceased. You will be at no loss for topics to enforce the inconsistency of these innovations with the law of nations, with the nature of blockades, with the safety of neutral commerce; and particularly with the communication made to this government by order of the British government, in the year 1804;—according to which, the British commander and vice-admiralty courts, were instructed "not to consider any blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe as existing, unless in respect of particular ports which may be actually invested, and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports, unless they shall previously have been warned not to enter them."
The absurdity of substituting such diplomatic notifications in place of a special warning from the blockading ships, cannot be better illustrated than by the fact, that before the notification of a proposed blockade of Cadiz, in the year 1805, was received here from our minister at London, official information was received from Cadiz, that the blockade had actually been raised by an enemy's fleet.
It may be worth your attention, that a distinction has been admitted by the British prize courts, in consideration of the distance of the United States from the European blockades, between their citizens and those of states less distant; the notice required for the former being more positive than is made necessary for the latter. You will be able to avail yourselves in the discussion, and perhaps in the modification of the article, of the reasons on which such a distinction rests. [Confidential—not printed.]
There remains as an object of great importance, some adequate provision against insults and injuries committed by British cruisers, in the vicinity of our shores and harbors. These have been heretofore a topic of remonstrance, and have in a late instance, been repeated with circumstances peculiarly provoking, as they include the murder of an American seaman within the jurisdictional limits of the United States.—Mr. Monroe is in full possession of the documents explaining a former instance. Hereafter will be received those relative to the late one. They not only support a just demand of an exemplary punishment of the offenders, and of indemnity for the spoliation, but call for some stipulations guarding against such outrages in future. With this view, it is proper that all armed belligerent ships should be expressly and effectually restrained from making seizures, or search, within a certain distance from our coasts, or taking stations near our harbors, commodious for those purposes.
In defining the distance protected against belligerent proceedings, it would not, perhaps, be unreasonable, considering the extent of the United States, the shoalness of their coast, and the natural indication furnished by the well defined path of the Gulf Stream, to expect an immunity for the space between that limit, and the American shore. But at least it may be insisted that the extent of the neutral immunity should correspond with the claims maintained by Great-Britain, around her own territory. Without any particular enquiry into the extent of these it may be observed—1st. That the British act of parliament, in the year 1736, 9 G. 2. c. 35, supposed to be that called the hovering act, assumes, for certain purposes of trade, the distance of four leagues from the shores. 2d. That it appears that both in the reign of James I. and of Charles II. the security of the commerce with the British ports was provided for, by express prohibitions against the roving or hovering of belligerent ships so near the neutral harbors and coasts of Great-Britain as to disturb or threaten vessels homeward or outward bound; as well as against belligerent proceedings generally, within an inconvenient approach towards British territory. With this example, and with a view to what is suggested by our own experience, it may be expected that the British government will not refuse to concur in an article to the following effect: "It is agreed that all armed vessels belonging to either of the parties engaged in war, shall be effectually restrained by post-
seal. Jenkins, vol. 1 and vol. 2.

To the Metaphorical Barrister, who signs himself
"ONE OF THE PEOPLE."
"On us, when such men are satiric, We take it for a panegyric."
In return for the very polite and copious attention which you have lately thought proper to bestow on the Protesters against the Washington caucus, I, as one of the number, will now take the liberty of thanking you for the whole of us. The obligations which you have conferred on us, by the very candid and liberal view taken both of our conduct and character, would sooner have been repaid, if leisure had permitted.
You are certainly welcome to any argument, which can be drawn against us, from the cause and manner of the "Parliamentary Protest in England, resisting in behalf of the People, the corrupt policy and bold encroachments of the minister." For what other purpose than to show your reading, this comparison could have been introduced, I am entirely at a loss to perceive. If our Protest had been directed against similar objects, then such an analysis of it as you have attempted to make, might have furnished you the opportunity of displaying your talents for criticism, and a proof of its intention to the Parliamentary Protest might have been the result. But how would this shew that the object of our Protest was not a laudable one? Has your profession (for we know what it is) made you so much the slave of precedent, that unless, like the Parliamentary Protesters, we had a corrupt minister to oppose, you believe no other topic can legitimately form a proper subject for a Protest? Yet this is the amount of your argument. Stripped of all its flourishes, it would stand thus—"our Protest not being like those of the members of the British parliament, directed against a corrupt minister—being much inferior too, to theirs, in the unity and simplicity of truth—the 'energy of argument'—and not being crowned (with a triumphe) of 'light-order' and 'dignity of eloquence,' why, therefore, it must be unworthy of public attention. This, for aught I know, may be a very unbecoming a gentleman, who aspires, to the high character of one of the American classes. The sole object of our Protest, was, the proceedings of the Washington caucus—although for purposes best known to yourself , you have with too little disguise to admit of concealment, labored to persuade the public, that our only design was to vilify the measures of the government, in an electioneering squib. If this was not your intention, to what possible end could you give us such a laboured eulogium on "the general course of the present administration," the correctness of which we have no where attempted to question? There is not a line or sentence in our protest, that by any construction, however tortured, would bear such an explanation. The assertion on your part, that we are opposed to the administration, can never justify the conclusion, that our Protest was designed to injure them, and unless something of this sort can be pointed out in the instrument itself, your insinuation, sir, cannot be sustained. I would even agree that you should apply to it the doctrine of constructive treason, and with all your disposition to believe us capable of the worst motives, I defy you to shew any thing to substantiate a charge of any such design. Your criticisms on the comparative style & composition of the English Protest and ours, is truly worthy of one, who seems from the whole tenor of his publications, to attach much more importance to sounding epithets, than to facts. Although truth may often be adorned by eloquence, we humbly apprehend there is no more necessary connexion between the two, than there appears to be between them and "One of the People." Truth will never, we believe, be the less acceptable to the citizens of the United States, because sometimes presented to them in a plain and homely dress. It is for those who wish to administer political or moral poison, to seek disguises for their nefarious purposes, in a studied and harmonious jingle of words, and if this be eloquence, your production, we are ready to confess, has an ample share of it. You have certainly mistaken the character of the American People, if you imagine that like Bees, they are to be led about by the musical ringing of—Brass. Before I notice that part of your performance, which I presume you design should pass upon the public for argument—suffer me to put you right in one point, which I am persuaded you have intentionally mistated . You call our protest, a Congressional protest . But there is nothing in or about it, which would authorize this caption, (a word, which perceiving your fondness for law terms, I adopt for your sake). It was our intention to exercise the right of addressing the public as individuals , a right, which I trust, even you with all your legal and political lore, are not prepared to deny us, either collectively, or each for himself. We carefully avoided therefore, any reference to, or mention of the relation in which we at present stand towards the people as a part of their representatives. What is your publication, but a Protest against a Protest? We have done nothing more therefore, collectively—than you—Atticus—Franklin and a swarm of other such stinging drones have done individually. We have all addressed the public, but there is this all-important difference between the Protesters and their assailants. We have offered our opinions upon an occurrence of great national importance, and have given our names, having no desire to evade by fictitious signatures, the responsibility due to the People for sentiments such as we have expressed. Whilst you have been all laboring in the very honorable vocation of propagating anonymous slander both against public and private character. Suppose you—Atticus and Franklin had thought proper to club your wits, and form a triumvirate, for the circulation of your calumnies, instead of attempting one at a time to annoy us, by way of making your stock go the farther—can you imagine, that any one would deny your right to do so? Certainly not, sir—and as long as the public have a corresponding right of discrediting, and despising every thing which comes before them in such a questionable shape, you shall have our entire approbation to give free scope to every passion of your hearts, whether ambitious—malignant—or avaricious. Far be it from us to wish to deprive the labourer of his hire, or to impose any sort of restraint upon the right of man to choose, as best suits his taste—character and talents, either an honorable or ignoble occupation ."
claimed a province of France.—Three ex-presses arrived yesterday at Cadiz.—Three large divisions of the French army are at Barcelona and within twelve leagues of Madrid.—This portends something more."
DELEGATES ELECTED TO THE NEXT LEGISLATURE.
Coachland—Dr. James Carter, John Underwood. Fairfax—Gen. Thompson Mason, George Graham, Esq. Richard Brent, Esq. is elected a Senator for the district of Fairfax, &c. Culpepper—John Roberts, Geo. F. Strother. Northumberland—Jas. Harvey, Hiram Blackwell. Richmond County—Vincent Redman, Fauntleroy Brockenbrough. Ohio—William Irwin, George Miller.
West-Indies.
From Antigua, March 30. The trial of the brig Mary of New-York, Crofts, master, sent in here on her passage from Marseilles to N. Orleans, came on a few days since, when sentence of condemnation was pronounced against vessel & cargo. The reasons assigned by the court were, first, that her cargo was taken on board after the date of the orders of council, of the 11th Nov. and secondly, with a knowledge of these orders. A motion was made by the counsel for the claimant, to be allowed to bring in the supplementary evidence of the master and mate, to prove that the orders were not known at Marseilles when the cargo was laden; but the court rejected the motion, and pronounced vessel and cargo to be a lawful prize. Admiral Cochrane arrived here a few days since, with six sail of the line, from Marseilles, which surrendered to the British on the 3d inst. The squadron sailed again from this, on Sunday to resume the blockade of Guadalupe and Martinique. A Dominique paper of the 16th inst. mentions that three French brigs with troops on board, had got into Martinique. The admiral, since leaving this, has received advice of the Rochefort squadron, having got into the Chesapeake. Three of the crew of the schr. Mary Ann, capt. Barney, of and for New-York, from Point Petre, arrived here to day from on board the brig Express, which had captured the schr. and ordered her for this port some days since.—She has not arrived. It is probable she has been retaken. Ship Cotton Planter, Chase, from St. Mary's was brought in here a few days since by the Melville. Waiting trial, ship Washington, Christie, of and for New-York; from Point Petre—brig Delight, Pierce, from Cayenne to New-York; schr. Sally, of Newburyport, for N. Orleans.
CONGRESS.
Monday, April 18. Messrs. Helms, Gray, Franklin, and J. Richards obtained leave of absence. Mr. Dana reported a bill concerning associations for the security of navigation; and a bill for the encouragement and security of seamen of the United States which were twice read and referred to a committee of the whole. On motion of Mr. Bacon, the House adopted a resolution requesting the Speaker to transmit a letter to the executive of the state of Massachussetts, informing him of the death of Mr. Crowninshield, a member from that state. Mr. Ely presented petitions from some towns in the neighborhood of Northampton, Mass. stating the inconveniences under which they labor in consequence of the embargo, which were referred to the same committee of the whole to whom similar petitions have been referred. The engrossed bill for continuing in force an act for extending jurisdiction to certain state judges and state courts, and the bill for the relief of Matthias Smith and Darius Gates, were read the third time and passed. A bill from the Senate for the establishment of a TURNPIKE COMPANY in the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia, was read three times and passed. The House then took up the unfinished business of Saturday, on the bill for arming the whole body of the militia, and the committee obtained leave to sit again—49 to 34. The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Ayes 49—Mr. Dana in the chair, on the bill. Several questions on the different sums having been taken, the sum of 200,000 dollars was agreed to, 46 to 36. On motion of Mr. Rhea, a new section was added to the bill directing these arms to be distributed to the governments of the different states and territories, according to the number of their militia respectively. The committee then rose and reported the bill as amended, Ayes 64. The House concurred in the sum reported by the committee, 51 to 27. The question was then taken on the passage of the bill to a third reading, Yeas 54, Nays 33. A bill from the senate authorizing the President of the U. S. under certain contingencies to suspend the operation of the act laying an embargo, with the several acts supplementary thereto, was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole. On motion of Mr. Poindexter, the House took up for consideration the resolution for enquiring into the conduct of Judge Brim. After a slight modification, it was adopted, and Messrs. Poindexter, Dana, Wharton, Holland, Jer. Morrow, Calhoun & J. Campbell were appointed a committee. Mr. G. W. Campbell from the committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill for the support of an additional Military force for the year 1808. Twice read and committed. Mr. D. R. Williams moved to postpone the bill indefinitely; but a motion to refer it to a committee of the whole taking preference it was agreed to, and it was made the order of the day for Monday next. Tuesday, April 19. A report of the committee appointed to enquire into the conduct of HARRY INNES, declaring it inexpedient for the house to act on the subject, was ordered to lie on the table. The bill for arming the whole body of the Militia of the U. S. was read the third time, passed—Yeas 53, Nays 22. A short time after eleven the House went into committee of the whole on the bill, from the Senate, authorizing the President of the U. S. under certain contingencies to suspend the act laying an embargo. After a wide discussion and the proposition of various amendments, all of which were negatived, the committee rose and reported the bill without amendment; when after further discussion, and the rejection of numerous amendments offered, the final question was taken at half past ten o'clock on the passage of the bill—Yeas 60 Nays 38. The substance of the bill is stated in our last, and only requires the signature of the President to be a law.
intercourse with them made as free as that with Europe. The relative situation of the United States and those colonies, and particularly those wants which we can alone supply, must necessarily produce that effect at some no very distant period. And it should not be voluntarily retarded, either by abandoning by treaty, the strong hold which our right of stopping the intercourse gives us or by accepting any temporary or trifling privilege, the exercise of which would diminish the probability of soon obtaining a perfectly free trade.
[Confidential—not printed.]
The minimum which should be accepted in relation to the intercourse with the West-Indies, will be the admission of our vessels laden solely with articles of our growth, produce or manufacture, the importation of which, in British vessels is not prohibited, on the same terms as British vessels, solely laden with the colonial articles, shall be admitted in our ports; that is to say, either without alien duties, or with a fixed maximum of such alien duties, with the two following restrictions:—1st. That Great-Britain may prohibit our vessels from exporting from the British West-India islands in sugar and coffee, more than one half of the proceeds of their inward cargoes: 2d. That such sugar and coffee shall be exported only to the United States, or that the vessels thus admitted in the West-Indies shall be obliged to return and land their cargoes in the United States, provided they may, however, on their return, touch at any other West-India island or the Bahamas, to complete their cargo. For it is usual to carry the specie which proceeds from the sale of a cargo in the West-Indies to Turkey's island or the Bahamas, and there load with salt for the U. States. Although those restrictions, and particularly the first, be inconvenient, yet they may be acquiesced in. As respects the first restriction, the value of our average exportations to the British West-India islands, being six millions of dollars, and on exportations from thence in every article (sugar and coffee excepted) being three millions dollars, the privilege of bringing, in return, in sugar and coffee, one half of the value of our exportations, will just compensate the return cargoes. But it would be desirable that the restriction should be altogether dispensed with, or that Great-Britain should allow the exportation in these two articles to the amount of two-thirds or three-fourths of the value of our cargoes. As relates to Great-Britain, if she one yields the point of admission, the restrictions which are proposed, seem to be amply sufficient to remove her minor objections. We now import, notwithstanding the nominal prohibitions to some amount, in American vessels, about one million and half dollars, being the whole amount imported from the British islands, in both American and British vessels. The value of our average importations from all the world, is, In Sugar, 7,800,000 } Or more than sixteen In Coffee, 8,400,000 } millions of dollars. The value of our annual consumption, exclusively of the New-Orleans Sugar, is, In Sugar, 4,000,000 } Or five and a half In Coffee, 1,500,000 } millions of dols. To permit us therefore to import for three millions, cannot enable us to re-export. And three millions of dollars compared with the value of the sugar and coffee exported annually from the British West-Indies, which amount to not less than 10 millions, cannot in any degree affect their own commerce or navigation. The second restriction is intended still more effectually to remove any apprehension, that our vessels might become carriers of British West-India produce to any other country than the United States. And it may even, if insisted on, be further agreed, that no drawback shall be allowable on the re-exportation of those articles imported from the British West-Indies in American vessels: provided, however, that on that condition the first mentioned restriction, limiting the quantity which may be thus imported from the British West-Indies in American vessels, shall be dispensed with. The utmost care is to be taken in framing the restriction on re-exporting from the United States, the produce of the British West-Indies, imported in American vessels, so to express it as to leave no possible pretext for applying the restriction to any similar articles, whether produced within the U. S. or imported from any other than British possessions. It will be a reasonable stipulation on the part of Great-Britain, that at all times and places at which the trade of the United States is admitted generally or partially, the residence of consuls and factors shall also be admitted. The duration of the commercial part of the treaty and of any other parts which do not establish in their full extent, the rights of neutral nations, ought not to exceed the term of eight years, and an abridgement even of that term may perhaps be rendered expedient by the tenor of articles not inconsistent with those instructions. I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, &c. (Signed) JAMES MADISON. (To be Continued.)
NEW-YORK, April 15.
The British packet Lord Hobart, sailed from this port yesterday morning for Falmouth. One of the gentlemen, we are informed, has given sixty guineas for his passage, to be allowed the privilege of sleeping in the long boat. A gentleman from Havana informs, that the British had licensed Spanish vessels to carry flour from La Vera Cruz to Havana & the English islands; in consequence of this the price of flour at Havana was on the decline.....N. Y. Gazette.
NEW-YORK. ALBANY, April 15.
The Legislature of this state adjourned on Monday last, to meet again for the purpose of choosing Presidential Electors, on the first Tuesday of November next. The votes for Governor of the state of Massachusetts had been received at Boston on Thursday from 385 towns. These gave For Mr. Sullivan 39,885 For Mr. Gore 37,980 Present majority for Mr. Sullivan 1,905
From South-America.
Boston, April 14.—Capt. Lee arrived here yesterday from the coast of Patagonia, touched at Pernambuco, where he learnt, that the Portuguese fleet from Lisbon, with the royal family of the house of Braganza on board, had arrived at Rio Janeiro, about the middle of January, and were cordially received. A letter dated St. Lucar, (Spain) Feb. 22, 1808, states, that "Portugal is regularly pro-
ditions of a joint board. First. Because it will admit of a liberal sum, if the British government should be liberally disposed, on presumptions not affecting her maritime principles. Secondly. Because it will leave the United States free to apply the gross sum, in redressing claims according to our maritime principles. A precedent for such an expedient may be found in the convention of January, 1756 between Great-Britain and Prussia; whereby a gross sum of 20,000 pounds, sterling, was paid to the latter as an extinguishment of claims on account of illegal captures, without reference to the precise rules by which it was to be applied.—The treaty of Pardo, in January, 1739, between Great-Britain and Spain, is another precedent. In that treaty the sum of 95,000 pounds, sterling, was stipulated in the like general manner, to be paid to Great-Britain by Spain, as a compromise for all reparations of maritime injuries.
If the United States succeed in making satisfactory arrangements on the principal points of impressment of seamen, colonial trade, and still more if provision be also made for indemnity for spoliations, it may be naturally expected that Great-Britain will require, not only the repeal of the prohibitory act of last session, but also some security that the United States will not by subsequent acts of the same nature, place her on a worse footing than other nations. She may reasonably urge that demand on the double plea, of having yielded on those points which were the subjects of complaint on the part of the United States, and of her being now for want of a commercial treaty, placed in that respect at the discretion of the United States: whilst they are precluded by their treaties with the enemies of Great-Britain (Holland, France and Spain,) from the power of laying prohibitions or restrictions particularly affecting those nations. The most natural arrangement in that respect will, simply to agree that the two parties shall enjoy in the ports of each other in regard to commerce and navigation, the privileges of the most favored nation. But the article should be framed so as to embrace 1st, every privilege, and particularly the exemption from higher duties of every description either on imports or exports, and including convoy duties; that are paid by the most favored nation; 2d, all the possessions of Great-Britain in every part of the world, which will secure admission at all times in both the East and West-Indies, on the same terms as are now or may in future be enjoyed by the most favored nation, whether it be a friend or an enemy.
The same clause of the footing of the most favored nation, may be extended not only to navigation and commercial intercourse between the two nations, but to points which relate to the rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals; an arrangement which would secure to Great-Britain the same rights in relation to the admission of her armed vessels in our ports, and to the exclusion of her enemies, privateers and of their prizes, which are now enjoyed by Holland, Spain, and other most favored nations, whilst it would place the rights of the United States, as neutrals, on the same footing with Russia, or the most favored nation, in respect to search, convoys, blockades and contraband. If it shall be thought eligible to place the reciprocal commercial privileges of the two nations on a more definite basis than they would be placed by the general expression of the most favored nation, (a stipulation which is liable to the difficulty of ascertaining the equivalent to be given in cases where a privilege is granted by one of the contracting parties to another nation, in exchange for some favor which the other contracting party cannot specifically give,) it may be done either by abolishing all alien duties, either on vessels or cargo, or on both, and reciprocally placing the vessels of the other nation, on the same footing with national vessels; or by a provision in which Great-Britain concurred, by an act of parliament, in the year 1802; or by fixing the maximum of alien duty, which each nation shall have the right to impose on the vessels or cargoes of the other nation. But should the last plan be adopted, care must be taken, 1st. That in fixing the maximum of the alien duty to be levied on vessels, all charges whatever, and under whatever name known whether tonnage, light-house money, port charges, &c. shall be included. 2dly. That the maximum of the alien duty to be levied on merchandise imported in the vessels of the other nation, (beyond the duties levied on similar articles imported in the national vessels) shall be a per centage on the value of the merchandise itself, and not on the original duty. 3dly. That the right of imposing such maximum duties, either on the vessels or merchandise, shall never be exercised so as to contravene the other stipulation of enjoying the privileges of the most favored nation. 4thly. That the stipulation shall not embrace vessels and cargoes coming from, or going to ports, from which the vessels or cargoes of the United States are excluded. Should the expedient of a maximum be adopted, it must not be overlooked that the productions of the United States exported to Great-Britain, employed a far greater tonnage than the exports from Great-Britain to the United States—that the higher the maximum, therefore, the more favorable to Great-Britain, who may avail herself according to the degree of it, to secure to her vessels the carriage of our bulky productions, of which her duty on tobacco imported in American vessels is an example, leaving to the United States the opportunity only of securing to their vessels the carriage of her bulky exports; and that consequently no maximum ought to be admitted more unfavorable to the United States, than the regulations likely to prevail, if uncontrolled by treaty. A mutual abolition of alien duties would probably be favorable to the navigation of the United States, which would then have to contend on equal terms with British navigation, for which it may be expected to be at least a match at all times, and more than a match when Great-Britain is at war, which is not less than half the time. The only great branch of commercial intercourse which would remain unprovided for, is that of intercourse with the British colonies and dependencies—and if nothing can be obtained on that ground, care must also be taken in framing the article for reciprocally enjoying the privileges of the most favoured nation, not to deprive the U. States of the right of making such regulations as they may think proper in relation to vessels coming from ports from which their own vessels are excluded, or in relation generally to the intercourse with such ports. [Confidential—not printed.] As relates to the West-Indies and North American colonies, it must be a permanent object of the United States to have the in-
tive orders and penal provisions, from seizing, searching, or otherwise interrupting or disturbing vessels to whomsoever belonging, and whether outward or inward bound, within the harbors, or the chambers formed by headlands, or any where at sea within the distance of four leagues from the shore, or from a right line from one headland to another: It is further agreed, That, by like orders and provisions, all armed vessels shall be effectually restrained by the party to which they respectively belong, from stationing themselves, or from roving or hovering near the entry of any of the harbors or coasts of the other, as that merchantmen shall apprehend their passage to be unsafe, or a danger of being set upon and surprised; and that in all cases where death shall be occasioned by any proceeding contrary to these stipulations, and the offender cannot conveniently be brought to trial and punishment under the laws of the party offended, he shall, on demand made within
months, be delivered up for that purpose." If the distance of four leagues cannot be obtained, any distance not less than one sea league may be substituted in the article. It will occur to you that the stipulation against the roving and hovering of armed ships on our coasts, so as to endanger or alarm trading vessels, will acquire importance, as the space entitled to immunity shall be narrowed.
Another object, not comprehended in the instructions of 1804, to Mr. Monroe, is rendered important, by the number of illegal captures and injuries, which have been committed by British cruisers since that date. An indemnity for them is due on every consideration of justice and friendship, and is enforced by the example heretofore given by Great-Britain herself, as well as by other nations which have provided by treaty, for repairing the spoliations practised under colour of their authority. You will press this as an object too reasonable not to be confidently expected by the United States. Many of the claims, indeed, for indemnification are so obviously just, that a refusal to satisfy them, cannot be decently made, and ought not therefore to be presumed. The two modes most readily presenting themselves for a comprehensive provision for the claims, are, first, the establishment of a board analogous to that provided for in the 7th article of the treaty of 1794; secondly, the substitution of a gross sum to be distributed among the claimants, according to a liquidation to be made under the authority of the United States.
The second is the mode most eligible, if the gross sum to be allowed, be thought to approach the amount of losses to be indemnified. To assist you in estimating these, the statements addressed to this department by the underwriters, and others are herewith transmitted. These statements, with those furnished by Mr. Lyman, to November 1st, will be to be reduced, according to the redress which shall have been judicially afforded, and on the other hand to be augmented by the addition of cases not reported here, and to be collected from the sources of information within your own reach. If the first mode should be adopted, great care will be requisite, in describing the cases, to employ such general terms as will comprehend all that are fairly entitled to redress: It will be well at the same time to secure, by specifying such of the cases as can be specified, and as are least susceptible of objection. Under this head may be classed, 1st, cases in which the official communication made by Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King, of the 11th day of April, 1801, has been violated; 2d, cases in which the rules of blockade, stated in Mr. Merry's communication to the department of state on the 12th day of April, 1804, have been violated—3d, cases where the territorial jurisdiction of the United States has been violated.
The list of neutral rights, asserted in the report of the secretary of state to the President, on the 25th day of January, 1806, will suggest other specifications which may be attempted. It may be worth recollecting, that the British order of council, bearing date 24th June, 1803, and subjecting to capture vessels on a return voyage, which had carried contraband in the outward voyage, was never promulgated, nor was it known that such a rule was to be enforced, until the summer of 1805. Could the rule be regarded otherwise than as it certainly is, an innovation on the law of nations, all captures before it was made known, and contrary to antecedent practice, would be marked by an unjust surprise, fairly entitling them to redress. The business to come before such a board may be much diminished by the reference of cases, particularly of cost and damages, and such others whose description by common consent entitles them to redress, to the king's advocate, and an advocate to be named on your part, who may be authorised to report the sums due, subject to the approbation in each case, of Mr. Lyman, our agent. As far as the cases fall within the observation here made, a liquidation of them may be carried on during the period of negotiation. Although the subject of indemnification for past wrongs is to be pressed as of great magnitude, in a satisfactory adjustment of our differences with Great-Britain; yet as the British Government may be inflexible in refusing an arrangement implying that her maritime principles of capture were contrary to the law of nations, whilst she would not be inflexible in stipulating a future practice conformable to our wishes, it is not thought proper that a provision for indemnities should be an absolute condition of the repeal of the act of congress concerning British manufactures, provided satisfactory arrangements shall be made relative to impressments, and the trade with enemy's colonies. Still however, it is to be kept in view, that there are claims founded on acts of British cruisers, violating the law of nations, as recognized by Great-Britain herself, and others founded on unexpected departures, without notice, from rules of practice deliberately settled and formally announced. Of these, examples have been referred to in the communication of Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King, and of Mr. Merry, to the department of state. With respect to claims of these several kinds, it is evident that provision is clearly due for them, and that it may be made without any application which can alarm the pride or the caution which may be professed. You will not fail therefore, to bring if necessary, these claims into view, as distinguished from others founded on controverted principles; and to let it be understood, that a refusal of them will be a painful incident in the negotiations for extinguishing, and perpetuating the friendship between the two nations. In case this distinction should operate in the adjustment, it will furnish an additional reason for preferring a gross sum, to the liquidation of individual cases.

To your insinuations against our motives, I shall say little, except to give a summary of them in your own words, & then request those who know us, or not knowing, may choose to trace us, as far as the obscurity which you have (very justly) acknowledge, with respect to my own, ascribed to a majority of us, will enable them—Let them follow us through public and private life, for you have attacked both, and if they can see a shadow of cause to justify such insinuations, we shall acquiesce. But we shall still take the liberty of asserting—the logic and eloquence of “One of the People,” to the contrary notwithstanding, that the merit of our Protest, as it regards the public , cannot possibly be affected by our motives, let them be what they may. We ask no thanks, neither do we claim any merit for endeavoring to expose the impropriety of the late Washington caucus. The tendency of that, be it remembered, can neither be diminished nor augmented by the secret intentions of those who attempt to represent it to the people in the way which it deserves. But let me give the promised specimen of your ingenuity and talents, at discovering and inventing motives for others. Your own stock of these articles cannot be very scanty, if we are at liberty to form any conjectures about it, from your present profession. Your insinuations against us are—“weakness or wickedness.” (1) A situation which anarchy cannot make worse—envy against some man of prominent merit; who stands in the way of our designs, and who is too firmly fixed to be removed by any other means than a (2) popular storm—being so perfectly collapsed in the plain road of virtuous and honest policy, that we find it necessary to fly off into an eccentric tract (3) to catch the public eye—a preference to be regarded as baneful (4) meteors, rather than salutary planets of inferior magnitude & splendor—men baulked in the (5) obtention of some favorite appointment—(6) writhing under the pangs of disappointed ambition and rancorous revenge—panting for the guilty glory of heading a bold and turbulent (7) faction—personal contumely, (8) envy—resentment—a clan of subaltern characters to whose private and personal attachment to a (9) restless and ambitious chieftain, it would administer delight.”
I apprehend, if the arguments against the Washington caucus and the charges against Mr. Madison are well founded, it will be of very little importance to the public, nor will it be matter of inquiry, whether they are exhibited by obscure or illustrious men, or whether those men are actuated by good or bad motives. These arguments and these charges I propose soon to examine. On the score of our own intentions, if “One of the People” will allow us to know any thing about them—let it suffice to say, that we thought we had good cause to address the public. If after fair examination the people shall think as we do, we shall have rendered them an acceptable service—If, on the contrary, they differ from us, we shall have discharged what we believed to be a duty; and we can see no possible injury that can follow to any one. Your policy in pursuing the course you have done, cannot be mistaken; and if you have succeeded in turning the public attention from the important facts which we have endeavored to present to their view, by arraigning our motives, you will certainly deserve well of those whose cause you have so warmly espoused. Should you be disappointed of the reward due to such extraordinary and meritorious services, your fate will be peculiarly hard. But you should have recollected that your old trade of trying to discredit witnesses was rather out of place, when attempted to be exercised in an affair of this sort. Our Protest is founded upon facts and records, the truth of which cannot possibly be affected by any stigma which either your malice or ingenuity can devise against us. It would have been worthy of your attention too, whilst you were so busy in inventing designs for others, to have been more careful, if not in the examination of your own, at least in their concealment. It would have been well to ask yourself if the caucus in which you were engaged for a seat in the Legislature of Virginia had no share in stimulating your exertions on this occasion. And above all, the Vicar of Bray policy, to which you seem to have devoted yourself, should have taught you to beware, lest in the eagerness of your zeal to be amongst the first worshippers of the rising sun , you should mistake who is to be personated that sun.
How far the charges of “indiscretion—folly—petulance and inconsistency” in addition to those already enumerated, apply to us, the public will hereafter determine. The “cock of alarm” which you accuse us of having sounded, (your own flourishes about “flagitious crimes” excepted) is, that the Washington caucus acted in direct hostility to the principles of the constitution, and usurped power not delegated by the people. If we fail to prove these accusations, then brand us, sweet sir, as best suits your most prolific fancy—and ring the charges thro’ all the institutions of the decalogue against us. You ask, how can we expect to be believed, when we have done, and are now doing the very things which we denounce. You will find it, I believe, no very easy mat-
ter, to persuade the public how you came at a knowledge of the past conduct of seventeen persons living in various and distant parts of our very extensive continent, entirely obscure to you, as you say we are, and still harder will you find it to show how you were enabled to divine our present occupations . Yet you roundly assert, that we “have done and are doing the very things which we denounce.” How this declaration of your would square with the definition of a falsehood, I must leave to others to decide. Suffice it to tell you once more, sir, that the greater part of us were never at a caucus but assuming the fact—is it possible that you, who have been almost your whole life working at the trade of wire-drawing distinctions can fail to perceive the very obvious difference between the proceedings of a meeting professed to consist of members of congress, convened by solemn summons, undertaking to tell the people of the United States who shall be President and Vice-President and a paper signed by as many persons as chose to sign it, protesting against such proceedings ? Did we have any meeting in the night or day either, convened by summons? Have we any where attempted to first offices in the government? Have we in which every newspaper in the country right to elect a President and Vice-President? You dare us to deny that we have been members of former caucuses—I do deny it—and I assert that a very small portion of our number ever attended any such meeting. Those who have attended former caucuses, say nothing more than that the necessity of the case, which necessity cannot possibly be shown now to exist, might perhaps have palliated those acts—they do not attempt their justification. I confess I do not well comprehend what you can mean by the following sentence: “When it was found that there was an equal division in the electoral votes between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr, were you not frequently, nay, almost perpetually in caucus, for the purpose of devising means to ensure the ultimate election” (what was the penultimate) “of him whom you believed the choice of the people.” Can you offer such an insult to the public understanding, as to suppose they will view such meetings, admitting that they happened, as at all similar to one for recommending a President and Vice-President ? Or do you mean they should infer that congress had no right at that time to deliberate upon the best means of carrying into effect their constitutional privilege to elect, after the mode first pointed out by the constitution had failed? And yet this is your statement of the case. In reply to your request of “no shuffling in the ranks, gentlemen,” (which, whether you borrowed from the Virginia legion camp, the gambling table, or the dancing school, I shall not stop to enquire) I must again remind you, that the accusation of doing what we condemn, cannot possibly apply to the greater part of us. And with respect to those who have been members of former caucuses—before you can show their inconsistency—it is incumbent on you to prove not only that the same necessity for a caucus existed at the present session, as on every former occasion of the kind—but that those members were themselves sensible of such necessity. Let the worst that you can say, be admitted, your whole argument against these gentlemen amounts to nothing more than this—if a man once does wrong, he must never after retract, nor even venture to blame others for doing what he once did, lest they might say, you have done the same . This may be a very good reort among the parties, who are the agents, but ‘tis no justification of the act, as it regards the Nation .
In your next paragraph, you give us so much both of law and scripture, that being neither a divine nor a lawyer, I find it somewhat difficult to understand you. The whole however seems to be predicated upon the a sumed fact , that we have all been members of former caucuses. This you have so often asserted already, that ‘tis time to abandon a repli periphrasis, and to tell you in plain English—‘tis false. Your assertion, that our protest is made in “our official and sworn characters as members of congress,” is equally untrue. As illy as you compel me to think of your principles, I have a better opinion of your understanding, than to believe it possible, you could assert this, without a deliberate, and clear conviction, of its being utterly unfounded. It would be as rational to contend that every letter we write to our friends or relatives was written in our “official and sworn character, as members of congress.” But you were aware, sir, that without some such assumed premises, all your very fine logical induction about “the violation of official oaths, and turning states’ evidence” would at once be pronounced absurd and ridiculous. But before you committed this argument to the public, prudence should have taught you to examine how it would apply to those whose conduct you undertake to defend. For it is to little purpose that you say “it does not appear that they deem a caucus, a breach of the constitution.” As long as Mr. Giles’s exculpatory resolution , showing those persons to be members of congress, (lest I presume the public should be ignorant of that fact) forms a part of the proceedings of the Washington caucus, all the sophistry that you are master of, and I am willing to acknowledge your stock is by no means small, can never persuade any man in his senses to believe, that the members of that caucus were not conscious of doing wrong. If you demonstrate that some of us have acted improperly on former occasions, the objection applies equally to them, with this embarrassing addition to their culpability, that they still continue, knowingly to err, as they have heretofore done. Consistency, ‘tis true, is no small praise in these times—but the consistency of always doing wrong, is a merit of which none of us are at all ambitious.
Before you undertake, most accurate sir, to contradict others, as to a matter of fact, you should take care to be somewhat better provided with facts yourself, unless, indeed you have been so long in the habit of mistaking them, as to think it of little consequence whether a pleader enlists himself on the side of truth or falsehood. Let the public listen to some of your facts, and then take the facts from the records of congress, and see how they correspond. You say, “in the election of 1805, it was not necessary to hold a caucus, to prevent the federalists placing, by intrigue, a federal Vice-President in the Presidential chair, because the amendment to the constitution which guards against that danger, had then taken place.” There was no caucus in 1805. The Records say, it was on the 25th of February 1804, one month before the passage of a law which came from the Senate on the 16th of March, the object of which law was to provide in
what way the electors in the several states might vote, in the event of its not being known at the time of voting; that the amendment to the constitution had been adopted by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution. It was not until some time after the adjournment of congress, that the sanction of the necessary number of states was obtained to this amendment, and without it, I suppose you need not be told, that it formed no part of the constitution. At the time, therefore, of the above caucus, it could not possibly be predicted, without more intuition than even you possess, whether the states would accept the amendment or not. The difference then, (and it would in the opinion of most people, be thought by no means a small one,) between your statement and the fact, is, that the amendment was subsequent instead of previ-
ous to the caucus. Whether like the Senator, who has usurped a power never vested in you, I shall not undertake to say, but I confess, I should like to know the authority by which you undertake to address us in the plural number, and sometimes as if you were the mouth-piece of the nation, threaten us with their resentment . From the applause of “One of the People,” we have aotting to desire; and be assured, sir, still less to dread from his menaced indignation. Falstaff turned bully, is a new character, and one which you are very illly qualified to sustain. Our accusations against the members of the caucus for attempting to produce “an undue bias on the presidential election, by the sanction of congressional names,” I am prepared to support. Their meeting was professedly one consisting of members of congress , and the publication of the meeting as well as Mr. Bradley’s summons will prove it. We had no meeting, but such republicans as chose to sign the Protest after reading it, did so. Nor is there any part of it, from which any one will be authorised to assert, that we designed, or wished to be understood, that we were acting in our official characters. If any Editor who published that Protest, has described it as the act of members of Congress, using their names as such, with a view to give it any additional influence, he had no authority from us for so doing. The National Intelligencer, in which it first appeared, has certainly not mentioned it as a Congressional Protest . The members of the Washington caucus, undertook to recommend a President and Vice-President of the United States , at the same time taking care to make it known that the recommendation came from members of Congress ; and if this circumstance was not intended and expected to produce some bias, it would be difficult to shew any possible purpose for which the caucus could be held. The Protesters had no caucus, neither did they undertake to recommend any persons whatever.
The public are certainly very much indebted to you for your minute detail of all the preliminary occurrences to a presidential election. It is as novel as ‘tis interesting, for without you I presume no man in the nation would have had sagacity enough to discover that “a presidential election is a pre-vailing topic of conversation in every quarter of the Union, for a considerable time before it takes place—the pretensions of the candidates are everywhere publicly and freely discussed.” This is news indeed, Mr. Attorney! As to the object of a caucus, according to your description, it may indeed be of no little importance. To ascertain who has the best chance of being made president—which chance by the way, may be made good or bad, as best suits the views of this caucus, may be very convenient to the individuals composing such a meeting; but how the nation is to be benefited by calculations over which they have no controul, and into the fairness of which, they can never examine, I am yet to learn. In reply to somebody’s note (whether yours or the Editor’s, I do not know) relative to the contest for the Vice-Presidency, at the caucus before the last, I must inform you, that Mr. Breckenridge disclaimed all pretensions to it, by a publication in the news-papers, and that the particular danger against which it was attempted to guard, was the re-election of Aaron Burr to the Vice-Presidency. This fact is notorious. In answer to the other note on Mr. Bradley’s card, I can only say, that not having the same taste for what Mr. Bradley’s friend calls fun , nor a similar facility with his annotator of discerning it in others, I cannot for the life of me, see where the joke lies. But that this new species of wit may not be lost to the world, I must again beg leave to republish this Card. “In pursuance of the power vested in me as President of the late convention of the Republican members of both Houses of Congress, I deem it expedient, for the purpose of nominating suitable and proper characters, for President and Vice-President of the United States, for the next Presidential election, to call a convention of the said Republican members, to meet at the Senate Chamber, on Saturday the 23d inst. at 6 o’clock, P. M. at which time and place your personal attendance is requested, to aid the meeting with your influence, information and talents.” S. R. BRADLEY. Dated at Washington, 19th Jan. A. D. 1808.
Admitting the above text to warrant the comment in your note, I cannot easily perceive, how on so solemn an occasion, either Mr. Bradley could be justified in practising a stroke of buffoonery upon the members of the national legislature, or the members themselves in suffering it to be practised on them. Such an excuse is worse, if possible, than any accusation which has been, or can be made against the summons. For if the Electors of our Presidents and Vice-Presidents are to effect their objects by the same means, as the Clowns to Showmen attain theirs—the American nation has indeed come to a fine pass. I will now, sir, endeavour to explain to you, why this exquisite piece of fun was called a private notice. It was not published either by Mr. Bradley, or any of his friends, previous to the caucus, but was sent to several Printers by one who thought the public ought to see how some of their agents were going on here. With regard to your Subpoena ad testificandum , I must once more beg that you will give us a little less law, and more argument; but perhaps the circumstance of your head’s being so bothered lately (if you will pardon a very vulgar term) with this and other kinds of subpoenas, may be some excuse for your dealing so much in phrases peculiar to your profession. Our objection to one of the delegates from the territory attending that caucus, and having the same influence in balloting, as a member of Congress, is not removed, by your telling us that the “object of the caucus was neither to elect a president, nor to pass a law, but to collate, and compare the sentiments of the people in the different parts
of the union; and that the delegate was as capable of reporting the sentiments of his constituents, as if he had had a suffrage in elections, or a vote in legislation.” You really make so many notable discoveries, that I am quite at a loss for appropriate terms in which to express my admiration. I am very far from disputing, nor have any of us ever questioned the capacity of the delegate to make such a report, but I should be gratified to learn, for what possible purpose such a report could be essential, when neither he nor his constituents can have any share in the election of President until the Territory becomes a State? And although the caucus was not absolutely to elect a President, with what propriety could a man situated as the delegates are, contribute by his ballot to the quantum of influence intended to be produced on the election by this caucus?
Whether your idea of caucuses or ours, be most correct, must be left to future decision. In another number I propose to point out more fully their pernicious tendency, their unfounded pretensions, and the vast corruption which they may produce. You assert “that against the conclusions of a corrupt caucus, the people would not fail to vindicate their rights.” I have no doubt of the people, provided you will shew me how the people are to ascertain this corruption. You can scarcely suppose the men who would be guilty of it, would be fools enough to inform against themselves, and without such a ridiculous supposition, I think it will not be very easy to shew how the people can come at the fact. If it was consistent either with practice or possibility, for the millions who constitute the nation to assemble en masse , and compare notes, after one of these caucuses, they might discern, ‘tis true, whether they differed in opinion from the caucus or not; but certainly, although every man in the country should possess even your extraordinary sagacity, it could not possibly be known how far the nomination of the caucus was influenced either by good or bad motives. Darkness and secrecy are not very favorable under any circumstances, to the discovery of intrigue, & as the recommendations of these caucuses are acknowledged to be founded on nothing better than conjecture , how easy would it be for any or all its members to plead erroneous calculation , without the possibility of detection, when necessary embument and cupiditas of office might be the real and operative cause. Without the smallest disposition to impute corruptibility to the present congress, as you would seem to insinuate, it will be sufficient for my purpose to assert, what you cannot deny—and that is, if caucuses are permitted, the inducements to corruption are very great, and its existence in any congress very far from being improbable. If I can demonstrate, & I pledge myself to do it, that the evils likely to result from caucuses, are infinitely greater than any possible benefits which can flow from them, they must inevitably fall under the indignant censure of the people. “The independence of the American character,” which you accuse us either with misunderstanding or impugning—is the tribunal before which we are perfectly willing to be tried. Their sentence will show who has manifested towards it, most attachment—most confidence—most respect. In reply to your hypothetical question about “the most prominent character amongst us,” I shall only remark, that the permission which you solicit to ask, is granted, with as many more as you may choose to propound. It seems, however, that you have thought proper to dispense with an answer from us, as you have undertaken to answer it yourself. The question and reply being both of your own fabrication, and in your own hands, you must have been a miserable Dri-veller indeed, if you could not manufacture them, at least to please yourself. If they do not, we hope at least one act of justice from your beneficence and that is, to acquit us of any share of the blame. But between ourselves, Mr. Metaphor, I think I have the key to your enigmatical rancour against the gentleman to whom you allude, & the public, in due time, shall be put in possession of it.
The picture which you have drawn of the men, who ought to be our next President and Vice-President, I admire very much, and entirely approve. As a proof of my sincerity I will exhibit it again in your own words. Here they are! “Men whom we have tried for upwards of thirty years—men who sat at the helm through the storms of our revolutionary war —men whom we have ever found faithful and vigilant—men who profound in policy, as they are upright in their views; men who have never had an object, but their country’s good; men compared to whom we are but boys of yesterday! ” Produce these men, most eloquent gentleman; point out the resemblance of the picture in all its parts , and we pledge ourselves to support them, heart and soul. You shall hear from me again in due time. ONE OF THE PROTESTERS.
We should have suffered “One of the Protesters” to pass on in the harmless tenor of his way, if he had not gone out of his path to cast his dirt upon ourselves. Our love of justice would have been completely satisfied with handing him over to the silent contempt, or the scorpion lashes of “One of the People.” His antagonist is at least equal to him. A wiser man than himself would, perhaps, have more deliberately weighed the hazards of a combat, in which he would have had to encounter such “fearful odds.” A bullrush against the ocean—These protesting gentlemen are certainly misled by a strange infatuation. They collectively commence by crowning a man with the applauses of their country, whom they had assailed by the bitterest abuses; and now, as if unimproved by experience, or hurried on by despair, they are terminating their short career, by casting themselves separately into the devouring flames.
After the terrible confusion which the numbers of “One of the People” had scattered among their ranks at Washington; after all their vain denunciations against their powerful antagonist; after their unavailing threats to blast him by the collective light of their genius, in the name of the whole; we had really expected a more formidable attack than the one which is now submitted to the public. It is abuse without point. It is the humming of a drone without the venom of a sting. It surely could not have required the combination of a caucus to have given birth to such a production.
On the 19th inst. the Senate of the United States passed a bill authorizing the President to suspend the operation of the non-importation act—On the 20th, a committee was appointed to bring in a bill, authorizing him to equip for service, the frigates and o-
ther vessels of war, to be used, as in his opinion, the circumstances of the country and the conduct of foreign countries towards the United States, may require—A bill sophisticated to the embargo laws, intended to create new barriers against the smuggling trade, was read the third time and passed, Ayes 31 Nays 8.—It provides that “no vessel of any description whatever, and wherever bound, whose employment is confined to the navigation of bays, sounds, rivers, and lake’s (pockets, ferry boats, and vessels exempted from the obligation of giving any bond whatever excepted) shall be allowed to depart from any port of the United States without having previously obtained a clearance until the master shall have given the collector &c. a manifest of the whole cargo on board, including articles of domestic growth or manufacture, as well as foreign merchandise; and that it shall be the duty of the owners, &c. to produce a clearance to the collector of the district of departure, certificate of the landing of the whole of such cargo in a port of the U.S. within the bay, sounds, rivers &c. to which navigation of such vessel is confined, signed by the collector or surveyor of the port, where the cargo is landed. The penalty of a breach of this provision to be, the forfeiture of the vessel and cargo, besides a fine on the owner, factors, skippers, &c. It also provides, that no vessel hitherto allowed to depart from any port of the United States, for any other port, &c. of the United States adjacent to the territories, colonies, or provinces, be furnished to any vessel, bound as aforesaid, without special permission of the President of the United States.” The penalties to be similar to those above.
Ship Protection has arrived in N. York in 26 days from Belfast—with Belfast papers to 19th March, containing London dates to the 13th, 19 days later than our last advices. The captain reports it to be the general opinion that Rose’s mission would be successful, in which case it was expected the embargo would be lifted as early as the 22d March. Petitions for peace with the U.S. were crowding in of all kinds from all parts of the Kingdom. The merchants of Liverpool, and others, interested in the American trade, had numerously assembled, and agreed to send to Parliament against the late Orders of Council.
A requisition had been sent to the committee presiding over the American trade, requesting a meeting of all persons interested in that trade, to take the present state of that branch of commerce into consideration. Talleyrand has undertaken a journey into Germany.—Bonaparte is said to have resigned a decree on the 25th Dec. declaring the throne of Portugal to be abdicated by the family of Braganza, and to be henceforth considered as part of the dominions of France.—An English army is going to the aid of Sweden. It will comprise 20,000 men, and is to be followed by a considerable force. According to another account, it will exceed the force that was sent to Copenhagen.—The appraised value of the ships and stores seized from Copenhagen is 4,800,000. Of this, the captors are to have 1,200,000. Lord Castlereagh and Gambier will share about 40,000 a-piece. So much for British hypocrisy, that pretended to hold them in pawn till the close of the war.—The B. govt. is said to be possessed of undoubted information, that Bonaparte had projected an invasion of India by land. More than 200 French officers had passed through Busserah, in November, on their route to the Persian court.
On the 9th Feb. 34,000 French troops were at Lisbon; the French are occupying the strong garrisons and places in Spain.—An attack on Gibraltar is still mentioned; as also the expected arrival of Bonaparte at Madrid to make arrangements.—The Pope has protested against any occupation whatever of his dominions by France.
MARRIED—On last Saturday Evening, Mr. JOHN HANCOCK to the lovely and interesting Miss SOPHIA SCOTT, both of this City.
DIED—On Friday morning last, after a long and tedious illness, throughout which she evinced a degree of fortitude and resignation truly exemplary, Mrs. SARAH WARDLAW, consort of Doct. Wm. Wardlaw of this City, in the 30th year of her age, leaving a bereaved family, to deplore the loss of a kind and endearing wife, an affectionate mother; and society, that of a friendly and benevolent member. She expired in the full possession of her intellectual faculties, and in the very act of recommending her soul to God, in fervent prayer.
Death is the crown of life; Were death less gory, poor man would live in vain, Were death less dread, no fool would wish to die.
NOTICE—By virtue of a deed of trust from Wm. Rawleigh, dated the 25th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seven, and recorded in the district court of Richmond; made to secure the payment of a debt due from the said Rawleigh to Samuel Myers—Will be exposed to sale, at Auction, on the premises, on Saturday the 7th of next month, at 11 o’clock in the forenoon, all that lot of ground or resettlement on Shockoe Hill, in the city of Richmond, which the said Rawleigh bought of Stephen Bryan. This piece of ground is twenty feet and a half in front, on the street, and runs back 110 feet. There is on it a new three story Brick House, lately built by said Rawleigh—Sixty days credit will be allowed for twelve hundred dollars of the purchase money, and twelve months credit for the residue; the purchasers giving negotiable notes, with approved endorsers. But the title to the property, as well as the possession, will be retained until the note for 1200 dollars is paid; and if not paid at the Bank of Virginia at the time it falls due, the said lot or resettlement will at any time thereafter, when the subscriber shall think proper, be sold by him at auction, under the deed of trust aforesaid, for ready money. And if on such second sale, it shall produce less than it sold for at the first sale, then the first purchaser, together with the endorser or endorsers to his note, will be liable for the deficiency; but if it shall sell for more, the surplus will be paid to the first purchaser. In case of a second sale, ten days notice thereof shall be published in one of the Richmond newspapers in the city of Richmond. CHARLES COPLAND, Trustee. Richmond, April 23. [25]
NOTICE—By virtue of a deed of trust from Wm. Rawleigh, dated the day of this month, made for the benefit of his creditors, whose names are annexed to the said deed—Will be exposed to sale, at Auction, at 12 o’clock of the day mentioned in the above advertisement, four slaves,—A Man, two Women, and a Girl—A Wagon and four horses—Six Mules and three Carts—Two Cows, and all the household and kitchen furniture of the said Rawleigh. Six months credit will be allowed for all sums above fifty dollars. The purchasers giving negotiable notes, with approved endorsers, payable at the Bank of Virginia. And each must be paid for all purchases under fifty dollars; no article will be delivered till the money is paid, or a note given as above. ROBERT HYDE, CHAS. COPLAND, Trustees.
Annotations (initial—metaphysical—and philological after the manner of a certain celebrated news paper Editor. (1) What kind of situation can that be? It must be a very disagreeable one. (2) Queer, is this a sort of storm which would please the people and therefore called popular ; or is it one where men, women and children are to come from the heavens instead of wind, rain and thunder, and if the latter, did one of the People ever witness such a one? (3) This is a public insult, to imagine the public are to be caught by excentricities , exhibited too, during a perfect eclipse, when a reasonable man would suppose it would be no very easy matter to see them. (4) Meteors and planets turned Legislators, is certainly a new idea! (5) Under-dear-sir! (6) One would imagine from the minuteness and accuracy with which this very figment gentleman describes disappointed ambition and rancorous revenge, that he speaks experimentally—What a deal of learning—retorted—physiognomical—and obstinately in one short sentence; we have here not only that revenge may be rancorous, but that with the aid of disappointed ambition, it can eat pangs, which pangs (moral diet) have the singular power of making men writhe ! (7) Worth while writing, like poor old Croker in the play, seems to have his head so filled with piety and contemplation, that he smells one in every breeze. (8) He charged us with this once before. No quasi monis, delusimus rerum. (9) Here again the Ghosts of a conspirator and his abettors (Aaron Burr and his Partizans & c.) disturbing the poor gentleman’s imagina ...

READ!!
The following is the clearest and most condensed EXPOSE of the Foreign Relations of the U. S. the injuries sustained during the existing war, their rights, and their duties, which has been recently published. —At this particular moment, it is a document peculiarly appropriate and interesting. It is calculated to expose the absurdities and electioneering tricks of Messrs. Pickering, Ely and Hillhouse, with all their idle clamours about the evils of the Embargo, and to reconcile the patriotic people of this country, to the inevitable pressure of a measure, which their pecuniary interests and national honor so imperiously demand. —Of the five remedial expedients suggested by the committee, no enlightened republican can scarcely for a moment hesitate about the preference due to the Embargo. The prospective measures recommended by the committee, are eminently entitled to our attention & discussion. Whether there will be any real occasion for resorting to them, will certainly depend upon the justice and forbearance of the belligerents. But on one point there can be little doubt: that real Americans will ever cheerfully submit to any sacrifices, which the honor and interest of their country shall impose.
REPORT
Of the Committee to whom was referred the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Canning, and between Mr. Madison and Mr. Rose, relative to the attack on the Chesapeake, and also a communication from the President of the United States of the 30th March last, with a letter from Mr. Erskine to the Secretary of State, and a letter from Mr. Champagny to Gen. Armstrong.
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
April 16th, 1808. Mr. ANDERSON, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 4th instant, the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Canning, and between Mr. Madison and Mr. Rose, relative to the attack made upon the frigate Chesapeake, by the British ship of war Leopard —and also the communications made to the Senate, by the President of the United States, on the 30th day of March last, containing a letter from Mr. Erskine to the Secretary of State, and a letter from Mr. Champagny to General Armstrong.
REPORTED. That on a review of the several orders, decrees and decisions of Great Britain and France, within the period of the existing war, it appears, that previous to the measures referred to in the letters from Mr. Erskine to the Secretary of State, and from Mr. Champagny to General Armstrong, various and heavy injuries, have been committed against the neutral commerce and navigation of the United States, under the following heads:
1st. The British order of June 1806, unlawfully restricting the trade of the United States, with a certain portion of the unblockaded ports of her enemies, and condemning vessels with innocent cargoes, on a return from ports where they had deposited contraband articles. 2d. The capture and condemnation, in the British courts of admiralty, of American property, on a pretended principle, debarring neutral nations from a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, interdicted in time of peace. The injuries suffered by the citizens of the United States, on this head, arose, not from any public order of the British council, but from a variation in the principle, upon which the courts of admiralty pronounced their decisions. These decisions have indeed again varied, without any new, orders of council being issued; and in the higher courts of admiralty, some of the decisions which had formed the greatest cause for complaint, have been reversed and the property restored. There still remains, however, a heavy claim of indemnity for confiscations, which were made during the period of these unwarantable decisions, and for which all negotiation has hitherto proved unavailing.
3d. Blockades notified to the minister of the United States at London, and thence made a ground of capture, against the trade of the United States, in entire disregard of the law of nations, and even of the definition of legal blockades, laid down by the British government itself. Examples of these illegitimate blockades, will be found in the notifications of the blockade of May 18th, 1806, of the coast from the river Elbe to Brest inclusive—blockade of 11th May, 1807, extended 19th June, 1807, of the Elbe, Weser, and Ems, and the coast between the same—blockade 11th May, 1807, of the Dardanelles and Smyrna—blockade of 8th January, 1808, of Cartagena, Cadiz and St. Lucar, and of all the intermediate ports between Cartagena and St. Lucar, comprehending a much greater extent of coast, than the whole British navy could block, according to the established law of nations.
4th. To these injuries immediately authorised by the British government, might be added other spurious blockades by British naval commanders, particularly that of the island of Curacao, which for a very considerable period, was made a pretext for very extensive spoliations on the commerce of the United States.
5th. The British proclamation of October last, which makes it the duty of the British officers to impress from American merchant vessels, all such of their crews as might be taken or mistaken for British subjects—those officers being the sole and absolute judges in the case.
For the decrees and acts of the French government, violating the maritime law of nations, in respect to the United States, the committee refer to the instances contained in the report of the secretary of state, January 25th, 1806, to the Senate, in one of which, viz. a decree of the French Gen. Ferrand, at St. Domingo, are regulations sensibly affecting the neutral and commercial rights of the United States.
The French act next in order of time, is the decree of November 21, 1806—declaring the British isles in a state of blockade, and professing to be a retaliation, on antecedent proceedings of Great Britain, violating the law of nations.
This decree was followed, first by the British order of January, 1807, professing to be a retaliation on that decree, and subjecting to capture the trade of the United States, from the port of one belligerent, to a port of another; and secondly, by the orders of November last, professing to be a further retaliation on the same decree, and prohibiting the commerce of neutrals, with the enemies of Great Britain, as explained in the aforesaid letter of Mr. Erskine.
These last British orders again, have been followed by the French decree of December 17th, purporting to be a retaliation on the said orders, and to be put in force against the commerce of the United States, as stated in the aforesaid letter of Mr. Champagny.
The committee forbear to enter into a comparative view of those proceedings, of the different belligerent powers, deeming it sufficient to present the materials, from which it may be formed. They think it their duty, nevertheless, to offer the following remarks, suggested by a collective view of the whole.
The injury and dangers resulting to the commerce of the United States, from the cause and increase of these belligerent measures, and from similar ones adopted by other nations, were such as first to induce the more circumspect of our merchants and ship owners, no longer to commit their property to the high seas, and at length to impose on Congress the indispensable duty of imposing some legislative provision, for such an unexampled state of things.
Among other expedients out of which a choice was to be made, may be reckoned—
1st. A protection of commerce by ships of war. 2d. A protection of it by self-armed vessels. 3d. A war of offence as well as of defence. 4th. A general suspension of foreign commerce. 5th. An embargo on our vessels, mariners and merchandise.
This last was adopted, and the policy of it was enforced, at the particular moment, by accounts quickly after confirmed, of the British orders of November, and by the probability that these would be followed, as has also happened, by an emigrated spirit of retaliation, in other belligerent powers. The happy effect of the precaution is demonstrated by the well-known fact, that the ports of Europe are crowded with captured vessels of the United States, unfortunately not within the reach of the precaution.
With respect to a protection of our commerce by ships of war, it must be obviously impracticable, in any material degree, without a lapse of time, and an expense which amounts to a prohibition of that resort; besides that it would necessarily involve hostile collisions with one or more of the belligerent powers.
Self-armed merchantmen would have the same tendency, at the same time, that they would be utterly inadequate to a security against the multiplied fleets and cruisers to be encountered.
An entire suspension of foreign commerce, as the resort in the first instance, would evidently have produced some inconveniences, not incident to the embargo, as it was modified. But the committee do not suppress their opinion, that after a reasonable time, it may not improperly take the place of the embargo; in case of a protracted adherence of the belligerent powers, to their destructive proceedings against our neutral commerce.
With respect to a resort to war, as a remedy for the evils experienced, the committee will offer no other reflection, than that it is in itself so great an evil, that the United States have wisely considered peace and honest neutrality, as the best foundation of their general policy. It is not for the committee to say under what degree of aggravated injuries, and sufferings, a departure from this policy may become a duty; and the most pacific nation find itself compelled to exchange for the calamities of war, the greater distresses of longer forbearance.
In the present state of things, the committee cannot recommend any departure from that policy which withholds our commercial and agricultural property, from the licensed depredations of the great maritime belligerent powers. They hope that an adherence to this policy will eventually secure to us the blessings of peace, without any sacrifice of our national rights; and they have no doubt, that it will be supported by all the many virtues, which the good people of the United States have ever discovered, on great and patriotic occasions. But the committee would suggest, on this subject, that better councils in the belligerent governments, producing a juster conduct towards neutral nations, would render a continuance of the embargo unnecessary, and that it will be a provident measure to vest in the executive a power, in such an event, to suspend until the next session of Congress, wholly, or in part, the several acts prohibiting the departure of our vessels for foreign ports.
Although the committee have abstained from entering into any particular comparison, of the proceedings of the French and British governments, towards the United States; they cannot reconcile with their duty, or with the just sensibility of the nation, not to advert to the tenor and language of the late communications, made by the respective organs of those governments.
In the letter of Mr. Champagny, the United States are not only threatened with confiscation, as the final destiny of American property, seized under French decrees, unless disposition shall be manifested by them against Great Britain, satisfactory to France, but they are even declared, without reserve of any sort, to be actually in a state of war against Great Britain.
In the letter of Mr. Erskine to the secretary of state, the United States are explicitly charged with justly subjecting their commerce to confiscations under the British orders, by not opposing an effectual resistance against the decrees of France; in other words, by not making war against that nation, in case no other interposition should be effectual.
There are in this exposition of the British orders; certain features, which claim particular attention; among the regulations of which they consist, it is provided, that the commerce of the United States, bound from their own ports to its legal and ordinary markets, shall pass through British ports, shall there, in all cases, take their clearances from British officers, shall, in some cases, obtain special licenses, and in others, pay a direct and avowed tax: thus putting the United States on a commercial footing, even worse than was allowed to British colonies—which were left free to carry their exports directly to foreign markets, in cases where an intermediate voyage to the parent country would be too oppressive. In the present case, not a single article is permitted to be sent from the United States to the most southern parts of Europe, without a previous voyage to Great Britain, and in some instances, without purchasing even that privilege, without paying a tribute to the British treasury.
The committee have taken into consideration the documents relating to the attack on the frigate Chesapeake; but they have not deemed it their duty, in the actual posture of that subject, to make any other remark, than that it strengthens the motives for persevering in all the provisional and precautionary measures hitherto contemplated.
The committee finally beg leave to submit the following resolutions:
RESOLVED, That the committee do bring in a bill, authorising the President of the United States, in the event of such peace or suspension of hostilities between the belligerent powers of Europe, or of such changes in their measures affecting neutral commerce, as may render that of the United States sufficiently safe in his judgment, to suspend the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, under such exceptions and restrictions, as the public interest and circumstances of the case may appear to require: Provided, Such suspension shall not extend beyond _____ days after the commencement of the next session of Congress.
Resolved, That the committee do bring in a bill, authorising the President of the United States to suspend the operation of the several acts prohibiting the importation of certain goods, wares and merchandise, if in his judgment the public interest should require it: Provided, That such suspension shall not extend beyond _____ days after the commencement of the next session of Congress.
Resolved, That the committee be instructed to report a bill, prohibiting after the _____ day of _____ all commercial intercourse with such of the belligerent nations, whose edicts against the neutral commerce of the United States may render such prohibition expedient.
Resolved, That the committee be further instructed to report a bill, expatiating all citizens of the United States, commanding ships or vessels of the United States, who shall be convicted of voluntarily accepting any license, or paying any tax, in conformity to the British orders of council, of the 11th of November last.
Resolved, That the committee be further instructed to report a bill, imposing on the navigation and commerce of foreign nations, restrictions corresponding with the restrictions, imposed by them respectively, on the commerce and navigation of the United States.
Note. Those who are conversant with the history of British oppressions, will recollect, that a distinction was made in the colonial exports between enumerated and non-enumerated commodities.
ties. The first, which derived their name from having been enumerated in the navigation and some other subsequent acts, were confined to the market of the mother country alone. The last might be exported directly to other countries in British or Plantation ships. Among these last, were some of the most important productions of this country: as grain of all sorts, lumber, salt provisions, fish &c. No thanks to G. Britain for this privilege; because it was dictated by no regard to the interests of America, but by a mercantile jealousy lest most of these articles should interfere too much with the produce of the mother country. This jealousy was carried so far, that in the ordinary state of the law, the exportation to Great Britain of all grain, except rice, and of salt provisions, was actually prohibited.
At first, the non-enumerated commodities could be exported to all parts of the world. But by the 6th of George 3, c. 52, they were confined, as to the European market, to the countries that lie South of Cape Finisterre. "Those parts of Europe," says the shrewd A. Smith, "were not manufacturing countries, and we were less jealous of the colony ships carrying home from them any manufactures which could interfere with our own."
In respect to trade, therefore, the U. S. are attempted to be reduced to a more humiliating state of colonial servitude by the late British orders of council, than when they were the dependent provinces of G. B. We cannot export a single article to Europe without the almost certain risk of capture or confiscation. All our exports must previously pass through British custom-houses; and by this time it is probably enacted by Parliament, that our cotton must pay a duty of 9d per pound—amounting, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nearly to prohibition—before it can be shipped to the continent. How will the southern gentlemen like this imposition upon their great staple? —Thanks to the Embargo! it has hitherto preserved the nation from the degradation of submitting to this encroachment. It has saved our purse, and it has saved our national credit.
Every citizen of the U. S. who submits to this usurpation by "voluntarily accepting any license, or paying any tax, in conformity to these British orders," deserves to lose the name and privileges of an American Citizen.—ENQUIRER.
MR. ADAMS'S LETTER.
We have read with inexpressible pleasure the answer of Mr. Adams to Mr. Pickering's letter. We must excuse ourselves from an attempt to give an abstract of it. It will be read by every patriot that can obtain a copy, and with the deepest interest. As these Gentlemen are Senators of Massachusetts, an appeal of the one to his native state against the measures of the other, was a demand of such a vindication, as it was in the power of Mr. Adams to give. And while the vindication amply justifies Mr. Adams in the part he has taken, it fixes upon Mr. Pickering those charges which we thought ourselves bound to make, that his letter did no honor to his understanding, and that whatever efforts might be made to give circulation to his letter, he must be condemned and despised by all our patriotic citizens.
Mr. Adams has explained the true character of Mr. Pickering's appeal in all its tendency. He has followed him in all his statements with a power of refutation, that leaves no doubt behind. He carries us to the moment of the Embargo, and with one great truth, satisfies us. Mr. Rose's commission and the order of council of the 11th November "might have been signed," to use the appropriate language of Mr. Adams, "with the same penful of ink." The subject of impressment is treated in the best manner, by assembling all the circumstances, too well known to us, from the part we have been obliged to take, in order to recover some of the children of our best families. The negotiation appears to oblige the humiliation of our nation without one hope from any promise made from Britain for such a voluntary degradation. May the American public have eternal gratitude to Mr. Adams for this timely effort to save the nation. "If we must fall, let us fall freemen."
Essex Register. The title is, a letter from the Hon. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS to the Hon. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, on the present state of National Affairs, together with remarks on Mr. Pickering's Letter to Gov. Sullivan.
TUITION OF YOUNG LADIES.—Mrs. BARBOUR, who has lately become a resident of Richmond, proposes on the 1st of May to open a School for the tuition of Young Ladies, in the house lately occupied by Mr. Warden; in a very healthy and agreeable part of this City. She will teach Readings, Writing, Arithmetic & the English Grammar—Her price for these will be eight dollars per quarter, payable in advance. Likewise the Elements of Natural Philosophy, Natural History, History of Nations, Geography and Belles Lettres, at $12 and fifty cents per quarter, and in advance. Young Ladies will also be boarded—the price for tuition, boarding and washing will be one hundred and sixty dollars a year, payable quarterly and in advance. Mrs. Barbour will zealously and ardently devote her whole attention to her School, and if she meets with sufficient encouragement, her plan will be enlarged, and proper persons will be employed to teach music, drawing, the French language, and other branches of polite and useful education. Those who may be dissatisfied with the progress of their children, will be at liberty to withdraw them at any time. Richmond, April 19. (1aw6w.)
LAND FOR SALE—The subscriber offers for sale that valuable Tract of LAND in Amherst county, now in the occupancy of Thomas Coppedge. This Land lies on Buffalo River, two miles from New-Glasgow and one from the Oaks; and from its contiguity to those places, with the advantage of the Lynchburg road running through it, is equalled by few stands in the upper country for a tavern or private entertainment. There is on this land a very commodious one story dwelling house 32 by 18, two rooms below and two above stairs, a good kitchen, smoke house, barn, corn house and stable, and a number of never-failing springs of excellent water; also, a variety of excellent fruit trees. This tract contains two hundred and twenty-five acres, and is bounded on two sides by Buffalo river, and one by Tribulation creek, affording a good portion of low grounds and several mill seats and distilleries.—The payments must be one half when possession is given, which may be had in November next, the other half in two equal annual payments.—For price and other particulars, application must be made to the subscriber living in New-Haven, Rockingham county, Virginia, or Thomas Coppedge on the premises. MATTHEW WATSON. April 8. (1aw4w6w.)
NOTICE.—This subscriber being by a power of attorney authorised to settle the accounts and collect the balances due to the following different co-partnerships, formerly of this city, viz. Montgomery and Allan, Alexr. Montgomery & Co. Montgomery's, Henry & Co. and Montgomery's and Henry, requests all those who remain indebted to either of said firms to call and pay their respective balances to him. GEO: WATT. Richmond, March 20. (1aw6w.)
FITZWYLLSONN & POTTER have received a very extensive supply of Foolscap and Letter PAPER, which they offer for sale on terms advantageous to the purchaser. They have on hand a great variety of Day-Books, Journals, and Ledgers, Record and Sheriff's Books, Music, and Music Books, Musical Instruments and Strings, Paper Hangings for rooms, Pocket Books, Penknives, Trunking and other Trunks, Spectacles mounted in Silver, Tortoise-shell and Steel, Elegant Visiting Cards. With a general assortment of articles in the Blank Book and Stationary line. Richmond, April 19. (T3w)
REMOVAL.—GEORGE WATT has removed to the main-street, next door above the Bell-Tavern, where he offers for sale the following ARTICLES: 50 hds. Brown Sugar, 30 hds. Molasses, 9 tiers and 3 barrels best green Coffee, 20 hds. Antigua Rum, 5 pipes Holland Gin, 4 pipes Cognac Brandy, 2 hds. and 20 bhs. Northern Whiskey, 15 qrs casks old Sherry Wine, 3 chests Y. H. Tea, 6 chests Hyson Skin do. 5 chests Souchong do. and 70 casks Liverpool ground Salt. Richmond, March 18. (1aw6w.)
IN CHANCERY.—Louisa County October Court, 1806. Andrew Todd, Plaintiff—Against Christopher Stanley, William Hodges, William Hodges, jun. and Frederick Harris, Defendants. The defendants Christopher Stanley, William Hodges and William Hodges, jun. not having entered their appearance & given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that they are not inhabitants of this state, therefore, on the motion of the plaintiff by his attorney, It is ordered and decreed by the court, that the said defendants, Christopher Stanley, Wm. Hodges and William Hodges, jun. do appear here on the second Monday in January next and answer the plaintiff's bill; and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some one of the public newspapers printed in the city of Richmond, for eight weeks successively, and posted at the front door of the court-house of this county on some court day. A Copy. Teste, JOHN POINDEXTER, C. L. C. April 1. (1aw8w.)
VIRGINIA.—At a Superior Court of Chancery held at the Capitol, in the city of Richmond, the 13th day of February, 1808. Robert Birchett, Peter Puryear and Edmund Birchett, merchants and partners, under the firm of Birchett and Puryear, Plaintiffs—Against Thomas Stokes, administrator of Wm. Stokes, deceased, Defendant. The defendant not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this country, on motion of the plaintiffs by counsel, It is ordered, that the said defendant do appear here on the first day of the next term, and answer the bill of the plaintiffs, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper published in the city of Richmond for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the Capitol in the said city. A Copy. Teste, PETER TINSLEY, c. c. March 29. (1aw8w.)
IN Pursuance of a decree in Chancery, made by the Court of the U. S. for the 5th circuit, in the district of Virginia, at the November term, in the year 1803, we shall expose to Public Auction, at the time and place hereinafter mentioned: Two TRACTS in the county of Goochland, one on Beaver Dam Creek, containing nine hundred acres; and the other called Little-Island, containing 10 acres, at Goochland courthouse, on the court day thereof, on Monday the 16th day of May, 1808. The dower of the widow of Wm. Ronald, will be first deducted, and the conditions on which the said land are directed under the said decree, will appear therein and will be communicated on the day of sale. The terms of payment will be as follows: one fourth of the purchase money to be paid in cash, and the remaining three fourths in three equal instalments of six, twelve and eighteen months credit. In all other respects the aforesaid decree will be pursued. WM. BERKELEY, JOSIAH ELLIS, Wm. MANN, Commissioners. March 15. (1aw2m.)
BY virtue of eight deeds of trust executed to the subscribers by Thomas Cheatham, will be sold to the highest bidder, for ready money, before the door of the Eagle Tavern, in the City of Richmond, on Tuesday the tenth day of May next, or so much thereof as shall be sufficient to raise the sum of three hundred and ninety three pounds, ten shillings and four pence, due by the said Thomas Cheatham to James Gamall, John Lively, Peter Murdock and Waller Ewing McCray, together with interest thereon from the first day of March, 1804, including expenses of sale, &c. the following eight Tracts of LAND, to wit: One tract containing one hundred and ninety eight acres eighty-nine poles—part of the tract called King's land slashes formerly belonging to James Wardrop, dec'd. One do. containing 66 acres nineteen poles. One do. containing one hundred and twenty three acres twenty-nine poles. One do. containing one hundred and forty five acres, one hundred and forty two poles. One do. containing one hundred and forty two acres ninety one poles. One do. containing one hundred and forty-eight acres seven poles. One do. containing two hundred and fifty three acres, one hundred and nineteen poles. One do. containing five hundred and sixty one acres eleven poles. JAMES BROWN, WILLIAM TEMPLE. April 15.
BY virtue of a deed of trust, executed to me by Armistead Russell, for the purpose of securing to Bartholomew Dandridge, the payment of one thousand two hundred and nineteen pounds and eight pence—I shall, on the 2d day of May next, proceed to sell, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at New-Kent Court-House, A TRACT of LAND, lying in New-Kent county, called Poindexter's, containing six hundred and thirty-six acres; twelve likely NEGROES; or so much of the said PROPERTY as may be necessary to satisfy the balance of the debt due on said deed, together with the expenses attending the execution thereof. WM. ARMISTEAD, Trustee. April 8. (T3w.)
THE MILLING BUSINESS which has heretofore been carried on under the firm of LADD & WEBSTER, was dissolved on the first instant. THOMAS & AMOS LADD, ISAAC WEBSTER. March 18. (tf)
FOR SALE, 121,000 acres of LAND in Kentucky county, in the forks of Great Sandy river: 24,000 do. in Tazewell county, on the waters of Clinch river: 20,000 do. in the county of Wythe, on Reed and Peak creeks: 1,000 do. in Randolph county, on the waters of Cheat river: Also, 30,000 acres of Virginia Land Warrants. The above will be sold very low, and great accommodation given in the payments. To RENT, a Brick House, on Shockoe-Hill, in a good neighborhood, and possessing every accommodation for a family. THOS: NORVELL. Dec. 19.
MINELANDS FOR SALE.—The subscriber will sell a Tract of LAND containing 2791 acres, lying in Hampshire county, within 20 miles of Winchester, on Cacapon, a branch of Potomac. This Land contains a large body of iron ore of an excellent quality, which has been worked on a small scale, but discontinued for want of funds; and would be to any person able to carry it on, a very valuable acquisition. Mill Creek under the South Branch Mountain, containing 238 acres—197 acres on Mill Creek, within 12 miles of Romney—400 acres on the waters of Cacapon—1000 acres on the falls of Green River in the state of Kentucky, and 1000 acres on the waters of Ohio in Kentucky. Undisputed titles will be given; and terms made known by applying to Mr. Harry Heth at the Coal Pits, or the subscriber at Curles, on James River, 15 miles below Richmond. WILL. M. HETH. [ep124w.]
REMOVAL.—We have removed our Counting House to the House immediately below and contiguous to the one we have hitherto occupied, where we have for sale, Muscovado Sugar by the hhd. or bbl. Sherry Wine in quarter casks, and a few cases old Claret, of superior quality. ROBERT & ALLAN POLLOCK & Co. March 8. (epif.)
RICHMOND TILE MANUFACTORY.—The subscriber having procured the exclusive right to manufacture in this and several other states Harwood's much improved Patent Tile for covering houses, and at considerable expense erected the necessary buildings, &c. for carrying on that useful business extensively, now offers to supply, at a short notice, any quantity that may be required, at the moderate price of thirty-five dollars per thousand, delivered at his factory. He can with confidence, founded on actual experiment, in the covering of about 20 houses in this city, assert, that houses can be covered with this tile as cheap in the first instance, as with shingles of the first quality, and when the security against fire, the difference of insurance, the durability and particular construction of those tile to resist the most penetrating rains and snows are considered, he cannot doubt of meeting with considerable encouragement. It requires only the examination of a well covered roof to convince the most prejudiced mind of their superiority to any other tile heretofore made, or to the best of slate, and will cost less than the latter, after paying the expense of water carriage to almost any part of this continent. Particular attention will be paid to orders from other towns, and in all cases where they are shipped, he will deliver them whole and sound, along side the vessels, at the expense of cartage only to the purchasers. Any person skilled in the art of tiling, will put on those tile with great facility, but where they cannot be procured, he can engage a few here who have had some experience, and will go a moderate distance, if the job is of sufficient magnitude and their travelling expenses paid. BENJAMIN DUVAL. Richmond, March 22. [ep2w4w6w.]
N. B. wish to sell Patent Rights in several other States. B. D.
IRON WORKS.—The following LANDS will be sold together or in separate parcels to suit purchasers, at Public Auction, at Mr. Chase's Vendue Warehouse, in Baltimore, on Saturday the 34th day of May next, at 12 o'clock: 23,343 acres of LAND, more or less, consisting of different surveys adjoining each other, lying in Bath and Botetourt counties, in the state of Virginia, on the Cowpasture river, which empties into James River. There is on the above Lands, a great abundance of Iron Ore, of the best quality, to be obtained with very trifling expense, near navigable water, and situations suitable for erecting furnaces and forges. The annexed certificate of Adam Clackner, (an experienced man of good character) is referred to for further particulars. The first named subscriber has also been on the Lands and examined the situations on the river for furnaces and forges, and is of opinion that the annexed certificate is in every respect correct. The terms of sale will be 5000 dollars cash, and for the residue of the purchase money an extended credit will be given. The titles are believed to be unquestionable. The Patents may be seen by application to the subscribers. JOSIAS PENNINGTON, N. BRICE, Trustees of the Patentees. CERTIFICATE. I hereby certify, that in the year 1803, I examined the Ore banks on the above mentioned lands, and found the ore to be of a very superior quality, and in very great abundance. The ore banks consist of three mountains, and such is the facility of getting the ore, that in my opinion one man will be able to raise as much as will supply one furnace. The proper place for a furnace is not more than 3/4 of a mile from the banks, and for a forge that may be worked with four hammers; about 5 miles distant on a good road, there is also an abundance of wood to supply the furnace and forge, and a large quantity of White Limestone near the furnace seat. I am of opinion that there are two good seats for forges, (exclusive of the above mentioned) each to act with one hammer, within 3/4 of a mile of the furnace; upon the whole, I solemnly declare, that in my opinion (and I have been for many years acquainted with the qualities of ore, and the proper management of Iron Works) the above property has more advantages in every respect, for the establishment of Iron Works than any I have ever seen. ADAM CLACKNER. March 25. [ep4ds.]
NOTICE, to the creditors of James and Alexander Dunlop.—That on Saturday the 30th day of April next, at 9 o'clock A. M. the subscribers will proceed at the Compting Room of Henry Hovey, in this city, to make a dividend of the funds in their hands, arising from a deed of trust executed to them by Alexander Dunlop, the surviving partner, and duly recorded in the General Court. The several creditors will be particular in lodging their claims with H. Hovey, duly established, before the day limited for payment—and where, from the remote residence of any of the creditors, it shall be inconvenient to give personal attendance, they will use the precaution of appointing an attorney in fact, for the purpose of subscribing to the terms of the said deed of trust, and also of receiving the dividend. For the information of those concerned, the following clause is extracted from the said deed. "But it is hereby declared and fully to be understood, that if any creditor or creditors of the said James and Alexander Dunlop shall refuse to accept the provisions of this deed of trust, and shall institute any suit or suits against the said Alexander Dunlop as surviving partner, that then, and in every such case, the person or persons so refusing, shall be barred of, and excluded all benefit arising from the provisions of this trust, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for the said trustees to proceed to make a dividend of the money coming to their hands under this trust, between and amongst those only, who shall consent to rest their claims upon the provisions contained in this deed: the property and effects hereby conveyed, being all, to which the said Alexander Dunlop is entitled, either as surviving partner or as an individual." WM. LONG, HENRY HOVEY, SAML. MCRAW, Trustees. Richmond, March 8, 1808. [ep130A.]
A LIBERAL price will be given for an unexceptionable Male COOK.—One of a middle age would be preferred.—Enquire of Prosser and Mo name. April 5. (epif.)