The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1808-05-21 00:00:00

PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
THOSE Gentlemen who have borrowed FILES of the ENQUIRER, BOOKS, or FAN-PLEASERS at this Office, will please return them as soon as possible.
SALES AT AUCTION.
ON Wednesday the first day of June next, at the late dwelling house of Marcus Elcan, dec'd. will be sold, positively without reserve, his Stock of LEATHER, &c. Consisting of— 30,000lb. Sole Leather, different qualities, A quantity of bridle and harness Leathers, A quantity of horse, hog, & lambskins, dressed, 75 sacks Salt, Coffee and Sugar, An excellent saddle Horse, Saddle & Bridle, One negro Man and two Women, A large parcel of Ropes, Rigging, &c. And two years lease (commencing the 1st inst.) of that valuable TAN-YARD belonging to the estate of Mr. Bockius, lately in the occupancy of Mr. Elcan. Also—All his HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, &c. in excellent preservation, consisting of— Mahogany Tables, Wardrobe & Bedsteads, Chairs, Beds, Mattresses, An elegant set of Cut-Glass Ware, A handsome new Brussels Carpet, Patent Glass Lamps, And a number of useful & ornamental Articles. At the same time will be hired out Christmas next two valuable NEGRO men, one of whom can be particularly recommended for his attention and activity. Terms, (except for sales of furniture, &c.)—Cash for all purchases under 50 $—above 50 $ and under 100 $ 90 days credit—above 100 $ and under 300 $, six months credit, and above 300 $, twelve months credit—Approved endorsed notes negotiable and payable at the Bank of Virginia will be indiscriminately required of the purchasers. For sales of furniture 6 months credit will be given on all sums above 50 $, for approved notes as above mentioned—under 50 $ cash. By order of the Executors JAMES BROWN, Jr. Adm'r. May 19. [1aw6w]
VIRGINIA, TO WIT:—At a Chancery District Court held in the City of Williamsburg, on the 10th day of April, 1808. Josiah Ryland and Catherine his wife, Thomas Acquiescent and Jane his wife, and William T. Colston and Elizabeth his wife, Plaintiffs—Against John Nicholson and Bartholemew McCarty, Defendants. The defendant John Nicholson, 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 the motion of the plaintiffs by their 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 one of the Richmond newspapers for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the former Capitol in this City. A Copy. ANTY. ROBINSON, c. e. May 17. [1aw6w]
NICHOLAS LONG, TAYLOR, now occupies the old stand of James P. Hopkins, where he carries on the above business, and solicits a share of public patronage. He will apply himself strictly to his profession, and execute all orders in the best manner and on the most reasonable terms. May 17. [1aw4w]
THE Subscriber has opened tavern in Manchester in the House lately occupied by Peter Leath, dec'd. now known by the sign of the Bell, and called the Bell-Tavern. He pledges himself to his friends and the public at large, that no attention shall be wanting to give general satisfaction—He is constantly supplied with the best liquors, and his stable well stored with provender, good beds and handy waiters to attend those who may please to call—and in order to give complete satisfaction to his country customers, keeps a constant supply of the best fodder for stable use. His prices are (in the present difficult times) as follows, viz. Cents. For Dinner with plenty of good Toddy 50 For Lodging per night 17 For Breakfast or Supper 37 For keeping Horse 24 hours 67 His spirits are sold but little higher than in stores. Great allowance will be made to those who may put up with him for a week or longer at a time both for man and horse. He would be glad to take 12 or 15 Boarders to Breakfast and Dine, at $1.25 per annum, and pledges himself they shall have no cause of complaint. NATH'L. CHILDERS. (6c)
RICHMOND TURNPIKE COMPANY. At a meeting of the directors of the Richmond Turnpike Company, on Saturday evening the 7th of May, 1808. Resolved, That the shares of all delinquent stock-holders in the company be sold on Saturday the eleventh of next month, at the Bell Tavern, in the city of Richmond. A Copy. N. SHEPPARD, Clerk. The stock-holders in the above Company are hereby notified that their annual meeting will be held at the Bell Tavern, in Richmond, on the first Monday in next month, which is the day fixed by the charter for their meeting. N. SHEPPARD. [11th June.] May 19
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 Colts and Fillies, two mile heats, fifty 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. 90lbs. under three years, a feather. Mares and Geldings allowed 3lbs. In consequence of the following resolution of the Club, there is no doubt the members will be present 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. N. B. The entrance money in the Sweepstake is reduced in consequence of sundry applications to the Secretary. March 22. [cp25th M]
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 [14]
March 18.
MR. LE TELLIER, DENTIST—In the house adjoining Mr. Edmund Randolph's near the Capitol, is now practising in the various branches of his profession, i. e. cleansing and restoring the teeth to their natural elegance, by removing that corrosive substance called tartar, which adheres to them in the form of a black or yellow crust, which is the cause of many teeth decaying, an offensive breath, and the corroder of the gums and sockets. He sets artificial ones so as to stand firm, being useful as well as ornamental, plugs the decayed cavities of such as can be preserved, and extracts such as are too far gone to be saved, in which operation he makes use of BRUFF'S PATENT EXTRACTING INSTRUMENTS, which takes the teeth out without any possibility of fracturing the jaw or bruising the gums, and with much less pain than the instruments that are in general use; for which operation his price is one dollar, when done at his own house. He deems it unnecessary to say any thing concerning the advantage derived from the manner of his performance or his abilities, leaving it for his former operations to speak. He has DENTIFRICE prepared by himself of a superior quality for the preservation of the gums and teeth, void of corrosive substance. Mr. LE TELLIER wishes the public to have notice that as he has now made Richmond his permanent residence, all his prices are considerably lower than when he was only a visitor of the place. A line or servant directed to the aforesaid place will be attended to. May 6. [1aw5m]
JOSEPH MARX & Co. have on hand an assortment of German Oznaburgs, Ticklenburgs, Dowlas and Towelling, by the bale, box, or piece. Cognac Brandy, Molasses, Sack Salt, coarse and fine, which they will sell for cash, tobacco or approved paper. May 17. (14)
NOTICE—The Co-partnership of Thomas Rutherford and Co. will be dissolved on the 30th June next: All those therefore, who may have claims against the said firm, or either of the partners, are invited in the mean time to apply for payment, and they earnestly request those indebted to them to settle their respective accounts as speedily as possible. THOMAS RUTHERFORD, FREDERICK ARGYLE. Richmond, May 6. [Frid July]
THE CREDITORS of Humphrey Dalbey are hereby notified, that a second dividend will be made at the house of Ralston & Pleasants, on Monday the 6th of June next. GABE. RALSTON, } Trustees. HENRY HOVEY, Richmond, May 12. [cp10th June]
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 Reading, 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]
RICHMOND TILE MANUFACTORY—The subscriber having procured the exclusive right to manufacture in this and several other states H. Wood'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 tiles 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 tiles 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. [cp2w&1aw6w]
N. B. I wish to sell Patent Rights in several other States. B. D.
NOTICE—persons All having claims against the estate of Cunningham Burton, dec'd. are requested to produce them at the next June Husting Court for the City of Richmond, properly authenticated, as the court will then proceed to make distributions amongst the creditors. JOHN F. PRICE, Curator. Richmond, April 22. [1aw72M, in J]
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. G. GREENHOW. Dec. 15. [10aw11]
DOMESTIC.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
PART IV.
LETTER
From Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison. RICHMOND, February 28, 1808.
(CONCLUDED.)
I will now proceed to the other topics, which are adverted to in your letter of May 20, 1807, and on which I shall be as concise as possible. In your examination of the treaty you notice several of primary importance, which you conceive to have been improperly arranged in the articles which refer to them. I will pursue in my remarks the order which you have traced. You consider the 14th article as objectionable, in having shut to our commerce important channels which were left open to it by the decisions of the British courts, and the principles contained in the communication from Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King. In support of that opinion you observe, that as the article stipulates that the United States may carry the manufactures and productions of Europe from their own ports, to any colony of the enemies of Great-Britain, they are prohibited by it from carrying the manufactures or productions of the countries beyond the cape of Good-Hope, in like manner, to such colonies. You observe also, that as the United States are authorised to carry from their own ports the productions of enemy colonies to Europe, they are prohibited from carrying those productions to the southern coast of the Mediterranean, or beyond the cape of Good-Hope, or to any other enemy or neutral colonies in this quarter. I am persuaded that you will be satisfied, on further consideration, that this construction of that article is unfounded. It is not the object of the article to regulate the general commerce of the countries, or to compromise their claims in any case to which the regulation does not explicitly extend. The regulation prescribed by it applies to a case of controversy between the parties, in a point of immediate contact, and it was the object of the article to adjust the controversy in that point. If we advert to the issue which was made up between them, as clearly defined by the orders of the British government, the decisions of the courts of admiralty under them, and the discussions which took place between the governments on the subject, we shall find that in no view can the construction which you impune to the article, be supported. The issue lately made up between the parties, involved solely the question, what circumstances or acts, to be performed in the neutral country, were necessary to break the continuity of a voyage from the colony of an enemy to its parent country, or some enemy country in Europe? This point had been settled, as was presumed, by former decisions of the British courts of admiralty, and explanations of the British government, in a manner which was so far satisfactory to the United States, as to justify a belief, that if those decisions and explanations had been adhered to, the existing controversy on this subject would not have arisen. But in 1805 the British courts of admiralty insisted on the performance of new acts in the United States or, what amounted to the same thing, extended by construction, the doctrine of former decisions in such a manner as to make the performance of new acts, such too as were of a nature highly onerous and oppressive, indispensably necessary. On this special point the parties were at issue, and the sole object of the article was to adjust, by temporary arrangement, the controversy on that point. The rights of the parties, in every other instance, not within the scope of the adjustment, were to remain, of course, untouched, &c. in that particular one, to revive at the expiration of the term limited for the duration of the article. A concise analysis of the several orders of the British government relative to the trade of neutral powers with enemy colonies, will place, in a clear point of view, the ground of the controversy between the parties, and the precise object and effect of the regulation proposed by the article under consideration. The first order bears date on the 6th November, 1793. It directed the British cruisers to bring in for lawful adjudication all vessels loaded with goods, the produce of any colony of France, or carrying provisions or supplies for such colony. That order amounted, in express terms, to a declaration of war against the neutral powers, and it was issued in that spirit by the British government. The policy, however, which dictated the order, did not last long. Events soon produced a change of policy, and with it a revocation, or, to use the technical phraseology of the admiralty, a relaxation of the order. The 2d order was of the 8th of Jan. 1794. It directed the cruisers "to bring in all vessels loaded with goods, the produce of the French W. India Islands, & coming directly from any port of the said Islands, to any port in Europe." This order being directory, prescribed the case in which neutral vessels engaged in such a trade should be seized, and thereby confined the seizure to that case only. No vessel engaged in that trade which did not come within the scope of the order, could be touched—Thus the effect of the order was to inhibit the direct trade of the United States, between enemy colonies and Europe, in the productions of those colonies. It left the trade free between the United States and enemy colonies, and between the United States and Europe, and of course every other country. It left it free also in the direct line, between enemy colonies and Africa and Asia. By confining the restriction to Europe, those countries were necessarily exempted from its operation. The 3d order of the 25th January, 1798, directed the cruisers to "bring in all vessels laden with cargoes, the produce of any island of France, Spain or Holland, and coming directly from any port of the said islands or settlements to any port in Europe, not being a port of Great-Britain, nor of the country to which such ships being neutral belonged." The sole effect of this order
was to extend to the neutral powers of Europe, the accommodation which had been yielded to the United States by that of 8th January, 1794. The next order bears date on the 24th June, 1803. It directs the cruisers not to seize any vessel which shall be carrying on trade directly between the colonies of enemies and the neutral country to which the vessel belongs, and laden with the property of inhabitants of such neutral country; provided such vessel shall not be supplying nor have supplied the enemy on the outward voyage with any articles of contraband of war, &c. The sole object of this order appears to have been to introduce a new rule relative to contraband, by subjecting a vessel to seizure on that account, on her return voyage, after depositing her cargo at her place of destination. It prohibits the seizure of neutral vessels, European as well as American, engaged in a trade between enemy colonies and the neutral countries, by positive inhibition. That trade had been left free before, by the restriction of the seizure to vessels engaged in the direct trade between enemy colonies and the parent country. It was now secured by positive inhibition. The right to carry on the trade from the neutral country to other countries, was left on the ground on which it stood before. That this order was not intended to affect that trade, and did not affect it, is made sufficiently evident by many decisions of the courts of Admiralty, which have been given since the order was issued. In proof of this, I refer to all the cases that were decided by the British courts of admiralty, touching the trade of neutrals with enemy colonies in the years 1805 and 6, and more especially to that of the William Trefrey, it being the last one and containing a summary of the whole doctrine. If we recur to the decisions of the courts themselves, we shall find a full confirmation of what is here advanced. We shall find that in conforming their decisions to the spirit of the orders of the government, they inhibit the direct trade only between the colony & the parent country, or some other country of Europe; that they do not call in question the trade between neutral powers in the productions of enemy colonies, after those productions were allowed to have been incorporated into the stock of the country; that they gave recent and high offence only by the new doctrines advanced, on this latter point, which, by assuming to investigate the motives of the parties engaged in the trade, and to reject acts which were before deemed satisfactory by decisions the most solemn, and to impose new conditions the most onerous and oppressive, laid that commerce completely at the mercy of British tribunals. The most material cases are those of the Immanuel, which involved the question of a trade between Bourdeaux and St. Domingo, that is, the direct trade between the Parent country and its colony, in which the goods were condemned on that account. Room. Rep. 2d vol. page 186. And of Polly, Lasky, in which the vessel was taken on a voyage from Marblehead to Spain, charged with the productions of the Havana, brought to Marblehead by the same vessel. In this case the question of continuity of voyage was involved, and the court decided in favor of the American claim, on ground that gave no offence. It was admitted in explicit terms by the judge, that an American had a right to import the produce of the Spanish colonies into his own country, and to carry them on thence to the general commerce of Europe, and that the landing of the cargo and payment of the duties would be sufficient criteria of a bona fide importation. 2d Rob. Rep. page 361. The next cases were those of the Essex, Orne, of the Rowena, and some others of the same kind, in 1805, which turned on the point of continuity of voyage, in which the court, pursuing its doctrine to the unjust and pernicious extent complained of, produced the controversy which took place between the countries. The communication between Mr. King and Lord Hawkesbury is of the same character. The advocate-general admits in his report, which was adopted by Lord Hawkesbury, and communicated by him to Mr. King that by the relaxation of the general principle respecting the trade with enemy colonies, it was distinctly understood, and had been repeatedly so decided by the court of appeal that the produce of enemy colonies might be imported into the neutral country, and re-exported thence even to the mother country of such colony; and in like manner that the produce and manufactures of the mother country might be carried to its colonies. He states that the direct trade between the mother country and its colonies had not been recognized as legal; that what amounted to an intermediate importation into the neutral country, might sometimes be a question of difficulty; that the mere touching in the neutral country to take fresh clearances, might perhaps be deemed evasive, and in effect the direct trade; but that the high court of admiralty had expressly decided (and he saw no reason to expect that the court of appeal would vary the rules) that landing the goods & paying the duties in the neutral country would break the continuity of the voyage, & was such an importation as would legalize the trade, although the goods were re-shipped in the same vessel, on account of the same proprietors, and were forwarded for sale to the mother country of the colony. This communication corresponds in every the minutest circumstance with the spirit of the orders and decisions of the courts as above explained. It insists, and in terms that are far from being positive, that the direct trade only between the mother country and the colony, was inhibited. It admits that the trade through the neutral country to the mother country of the colony was lawful, and fixes, with great precision, the acts to be performed in the neutral country which would be sufficient to incorporate the goods into the stock of the country, and break the continuity of the voyage. In the latter part of the report alluded to, the advocate-general seems to make a kind of reservation of the right of the court of appeal, to revise the decisions of the high court of admiralty, which he represents to have settled the doctrine. But he makes that reservation, if indeed it was intended as one, in such terms as to preclude the i-
dea, that it would ever be taken advantage of, especially when it is considered, that the report was adopted by the government, and communicated officially, by the secretary of state, to a foreign minister. It is certain, however, that through the court of appeal, the new encroachment on the rights of the United States was made, which produced the controversy which ensued immediately afterwards.
The discussion which took place between Lord Mulgrave and myself in 1805, on the subject of the seizures then made, treated the encroachment in that line as the special cause of complaint on the part of the United States. Although the British pretension to inhibit even the direct trade, had not been countenanced by the government, yet the commerce of the U. States had been made in a certain degree to accommodate with it by the merchants. They were content to decline the direct trade, and to prosecute their enterprises through the U. States, equally with the mother country and its colonies. It was natural, in the course of a controversy which involved such important interests, that the rights of the parties should be taken up on principle, and carried to the greatest extent. To the light thrown on the subject by a very able essay, which I received from you, I was much indebted, and I acknowledge in this communication, the aid which it afforded me, with peculiar satisfaction. A vindication, however, of the cause on principle, however extensive the range might be, could not affect the origin of the controversy, nor give to the article entered into for its adjustment a construction different from that which by well established rules is fairly applicable to it.
From this view of the several orders of the British government, and from the exposition given of them by the courts, and by the government itself, it appears that the sole object of those that were issued after that of the 6th November, 1793, was to inhibit the direct trade of the U. States between enemy colonies and Europe; that they did not touch, and were not intended to interfere with the trade between the U. States and Europe, even the parent country, and a fortiori between the United States and Asia and Africa. It was, indeed, the object of the order of November 6th, 1793, to suppress the commerce of neutral powers with enemy colonies altogether; but that being abandoned, the next idea which occurred was to embarrass that trade by forcing it through neutral countries. Here, then, arose a new question, which turned entirely on another principle. That a neutral power had a right to carry on trade from its own ports, in any articles, though of foreign produce, which had been incorporated into the stock of the country not contraband of war, and to all countries, was not controverted. That point, otherwise clear and indisputable in itself, had been long settled in the highest tribunals, and by the most eminent jurists in England. The circumstances which constituted such an incorporation of foreign articles into the stock of the country, had also been settled by the same authorities. Still the question which now arose, turned on this latter point. In forcing this commerce through neutral ports with a view to embarrass it, it became necessary (to give the greatest effect to that expedient) to increase the difficulties in those ports, which was done in the manner already stated.
If the instructions of the British government did not inhibit the trade in question, the adjustment contained in the article under consideration, could not affect it. That article supposes a difference between the parties relative to trade with enemy colonies, and the instructions which interfere with it. The article could not operate in any trade to which the instructions did not extend, and concerning which there was no controversy. In the present case the conclusion is the more irresistible, because there did not exist even a possibility of controversy in regard to that trade.
But it is inferred, that because it is stipulated, that the produce of enemy colonies may be carried to Europe from the U. States, that the ports of Asia and Africa are shut on them, and that because it is stipulated that the manufactures of Europe may be carried from the U. States to the West Indies, that those of Asia and Africa are prohibited from being carried there. This objection has been already obviated. Had the instructions of the British government inhibited that trade and a controversy between the governments arisen from the inhibition, as the article does not extend to the case, the most that could have been inferred would have been that it was unprovided for, and that the rights of the parties would remain in the same state respecting it, as if the article had not been entered into. It is easy to explain the cause why the term "Europe" was introduced into the article, in reference to the ports, to which colony produce might be carried, and "European" in reference to the manufactures which might be carried to enemy colonies, and to show that they were adopted with a view to open on the widest scale the ports which had been at any time shut on them by the British orders. Although the policy of these orders as well as of the principle on which they are founded, is more particularly applicable to the direct trade between enemy colonies, and their mother country, yet as the term "Europe" had been adopted in the modifications that were made in them, first at the instance of the U. States, and afterwards at that of the neutral European powers, as the widest scale within which the inhibition operated, it was thought best to use that term to prevent the possibility of mistake, as to the extent of the adjustment. Had terms of more extensive import been adopted, they could not have been more effectual to the object, while they might have tended to enlarge the sphere of British pretension, by extending it to cases to which it would be highly improper to give a sanction.
But it is supposed that although the orders of the British government may not have inhibited this trade, it is comprised in the general inhibition of the British principle. If the British principle inhibits such a trade, which I do not admit, it does not follow that a sanction to that inhibition is given by this article, for reasons already stated. If the provision of the article does not extend to

trade, the rights of the parties cannot be affected by it. They remain equally in force against the principle, as against the instructions, had they inhibited it. But the claim to an exemption from that trade from the operation of the British principle, rests on still stronger ground, admitting that it ever extended to it, which however I am far from admitting. It can be shown that the orders themselves, take it completely from within the scope of that principle. By instructing the cruisers to seize vessels engaged in a particular trade, every other trade is allowed. It is in that mode, that what is called a relaxation of the British principle, is effected. The order reduces the principle to its own standard, or in other words, becomes the principle itself. If this doctrine is not true, it is impossible to designate in what mode the relaxation, which is universally admitted, of the British principle, is wrought; or to prove that there has been any relaxation of it whatever. If the orders have not that effect, of what avail are they? That they have that effect is proved by the decisions of the courts, and the practice under them. I am aware of the broad doctrine held by the courts on this subject, but that doctrine, necessarily ambiguous from the dilemma in which the courts were placed by the inconsistent orders of the government, if not reconcilable to this construction (as I think it is, when the whole subject is taken into view) is contradicted by the decisions of the same courts and the explanations of the government itself.
I say that this trade is not inhibited by the British principle, because it supposes a trade between enemy colonies and the mother country. But a trade between the United States and Asia or Africa, let the subject of it be what it may, is not a trade of that kind. It is a trade with independent powers at peace with Great-Britain with whom, we have a right to trade, by all the rules which Great-Britain has at any time insisted on. It would be of dangerous tendency to admit that Great-Britain had a pretension to interfere with such a trade in any case. After the goods are received into the United States, no matter of what articles they consist, or from what quarter they came, they are the property of the country, and may of right be shipped to any other country. The British principle does not controvert this doctrine. It asserts in its widest range the right only to seize them on their route to the neutral country, and from it to the mother country of the colony, or some other enemy country of Europe, provided they be not incorporated into the stock of the neutral country. If they are, they may go under the arrangement made to the countries to which the British principle applies. But they require no sanction from the British government, to go to those to which it does not apply. The destination of the vessel alone would, as I presume, dispel every doubt of the legality of the trade, and preclude all farther inquiry concerning it. The question of continuity of voyage could never arise in such a case. It is certain that the arrangement alluded to gives no sanction to it, and for the best of all reasons, that the trade was not admitted, or even conceded to be comprised within the range of British principle.
I shall close my remarks on this point by observing, that as the arrangement of the acts to break the continuity of the voyage from the United States to the parent country, and other enemy countries of Europe, in the produce of their colonies, and from the United States to those colonies, in the manufactures of Europe, is confined strictly to that object, the rights of the parties remain unimpaired in every other circumstance relative to that trade: that as the article contains no stipulation against the direct trade from the colony to the parent country, the right to carry on even that trade is not necessarily suspended by it: that if in any view it can be considered as suspended, it is by implication arising out of the whole transaction, rather than from the stipulation itself. How much stronger then is the conclusion already drawn from other premises, that nothing is to be deducted from that article to justify the construction which has been imputed to it!
The remarks above made, refer more particularly to a trade between the United States and Europe in the produce of enemy colonies. They are however equally applicable to the other objection stated in your letter, of a trade between the United States and enemy colonies, in the produce or manufactures of Africa or Asia. None of the orders alluded to, inhibit that commerce, and it is most certain that the article alluded to, gives no sanction to such a pretension.
As to the conditions by which it is agreed to break the continuity of the voyage, I have to observe, that they are as favorable as you had expected. We were authorized to stipulate, if better conditions could not be obtained, that the goods should be landed, the duties paid and the ship changed. We stipulated, only that the goods should be landed and the duty paid, making the duty on European goods 1 per cent and on colony productions two. By exempting the party from the necessity of changing the ship, an important advantage was certainly secured. By fixing the duty at 1 per cent, in the one instance, and at 2 in the other, it was not possible that the slightest embarrassment should be thrown in the way of the trade. The duty payable on manufactures consumed in the country is about 15 per cent, and on West-India productions 25. The trifling amount made payable to the country on the re-exportation of the articles, could not be felt by the merchant. It would fall on the European consumer. It could not be felt as a heavy imposition on the trade itself. Our only competitor in it, would be Great-Britain, whose merchants would labor under the disadvantages incident to war, in a thousand shapes, more especially as the ports of the whole continent would be shut on them, in not being able to get their goods into those ports, otherwise than by smuggling them: a mode which could not fail to be onerous, if it succeeded, but which was likely to fail in most cases. It should be remembered also, that the increased duties which would accrue to the country, would tend, in the degree, to interest the whole community in support of a commerce, in which the commercial part was most materially interested. It is the policy of the European powers having colonies in the West-Indies, to make the parent country the entrepot of the productions of its colonies. Is not that policy worthy the attention and imitation of the United States, in respect to the trade of the colonies in question? The duty received, would make some recompense to the nation for the expenses incurred and sums expended, in supporting our right to that trade. Besides, by making the ports of the United States the "entrepots" for such productions, the coun-
try in general would derive some advantage from the measure. Every ship engaged in the commerce which entered an American port, would bring something to, and take something from it. The vast amount of Asiatic, European and West-India articles brought to our markets, would cheapen the price of those articles at home, & each ship, while in port, and in the prosecution of her voyage, would require supplies in provision and other articles, which would raise the price of those articles, to the great advantage of the general interests of the country. The limitation of the article to the term specified, was a condition which we presumed might prove advantageous to the United States, while it could not possibly injure them. It is expressly stipulated that the right of both parties shall revive at the expiration of the term. Those of the United States, therefore, would then be in force, and to the full extent of their pretensions, in the same manner as if the stipulation had not been entered into. In another war they might insist on conditions which this stipulation did not secure, and, if Great-Britain did not yield to their demand, they might resort to any expedient, to compel her, which the wisdom of their councils might dictate. Any encroachment on the part of Great-Britain on their rights, as heretofore contended for, might be considered by their government an act of hostility, and treated accordingly. The least favorable conditions that she could offer, would be those already settled, which the United States might accept or reject, as they thought best. As a youthful, prosperous, and rising nation, it could not be doubted that in the next war their situation would be more imposing than in the present one. The presumption is, that they would be able then to obtain better conditions than at present.
On the third article I have to observe, in addition to what is stated in our joint letter of January 3, 1807, that nothing would have been more easy than to have omitted any provision on the subject of it, and to have placed that trade on the footing of the most favored nation. To obtain better terms by treaty was utterly impossible. We were much inclined to omit any provision on the subject, because we were aware that the arrangement made would fall short of the expectation of our government and country, & most probably subject us to censure. We acceded to that arrangement from a conviction that it secured us better terms than we should be likely to enjoy, if left to depend on the pleasure of the British government, stipulated as we knew that was to restrict us in it by the India Company, and other interests of the country. It is impossible to conceive too high an idea of the jealousy which is entertained of the United States, in a commercial view, by that government, and of the danger with which it thinks Great-Britain is menaced by their extraordinary prosperity and rapid growth. The boldness of the projects, and the activity and ability with which they are prosecuted by our merchants and mariners, excite the admiration of Europe. Great-Britain has seen, that wherever our citizens gained a foothold, they never lost it. Without distrusting her own means, or the hardness and activity of her people, she finds that our position, remote from Europe, contiguous to the West Indies and the southern continent, and as near to India as herself, gives us advantages, against which she cannot cope. The effort which we made and persevered in for several months to gain admission into British India, on more favorable terms and the disposition which was shown by the British commissioners to yield, excited a sensation, or more properly speaking, an alarm in the board of India directors, and of the commercial people in general, even among those who had no particular interest in the question, which was extremely obvious. Had we made no provision in the treaty to secure our admittance into India, on certain conditions, we had much reason to believe that that commerce would have been fettered to an extreme degree, and in every form.
We were extremely anxious to provide that our citizens might make their shipments from Europe, to take specie from Spain and Portugal, goods from England, &c. and that they might touch at the Cape of Good Hope, at the isle of Bourbon, at the Mauritius, &c. that they might carry on the coasting trade in India, and be permitted to pass from Calcutta to China. These advantages were insisted on, but the pressure which we made produced reports from the board of directors, at the instance of the government, and from political men conversant in these topics, which fixed the government in its decision not to grant them. I repeat, however, that it would have been easy to have omitted the regulation from the treaty, and placed the trade on the footing of the most favored nation, as it would have been at any time afterwards, had the state of affairs in other respects permitted it.
By your instructions, a provision in favor of indemnity was not made an indispensable condition of a treaty. We were authorized to conclude one without it. We were, therefore persuaded that the ground on which that interest was placed, could not fail to be approved. The arrangement which we made authorized a just claim to expect a dismission of all the causes that were depending in the courts of admiralty, and even to indemnity in the cases of condemnation. The documents which we forwarded to you in our joint letter of [blank] give a full view of this subject, and to them I beg to refer.
Your fifth objection applies to the 13th and 19th articles of the treaty, and in the first instance to the prohibition it contains, of extending the privileges which are made reciprocal between the parties, to other nations, which is supposed to be a breach of neutrality. Had I conceived that those articles were justly exposed to that imputation, I should certainly not have assented to them. But I saw no foundation for the imputation. With Spain and Holland we have treaties which secure them all the rights to which they are entitled. It is usual, and certainly proper, for a nation in estimating its claims on other powers, to examine its treaties with them, and not to think of setting up a pretension beyond the limit of such treaties. By treaty, neither of these powers have any right in the case in question, nor have we in the ports of either. By treaty, Great-Britain had enjoyed those rights in the ports of the United States, as we had in her ports from the year 1794. Spain and Holland knew the conditions of that treaty, which was in force at the commencement of the present war, and sometime afterwards, and would have been in force till late in the last year, had a special condition of the 12th article been carried into effect. To renew the treaty in the express terms of the former one, a treaty which deprived no one power of any existing conventional right; which subjected none to conditions to which they had not been always subjected; which allowed to Great-Britain, on principles of reciprocity, a privilege which there was no reason to presume that any o-
ther power, especially Spain, would consent to reciprocate with the United States, did not seem to be liable to the objection stated to it. The general principle which you advance, of extending those privileges to as small a number of powers as possible, had also some weight in inducing us to accede to the arrangement. France is admitted to an enjoyment of them, in the same extent with Great-Britain. She, therefore, has no cause of complaint. I do not think that the stipulation forbids any arrangement of the government, relative to the number of ships of war, that shall be admitted into the ports of the United States at one time, or any regulation relative to their conduct while within the ports of the United States, provided it be general and equally applicable to both powers. A stipulation that the ships of war of each nation shall be hospitably received into the ports of the other, does not necessarily imply that there is to be no rule as to the numbers to be admitted into the ports to which they shall be confined, or the order they shall observe while in port. All these topics have been at all times, as I have reason to believe, the object of regulation by Great-Britain, & I have equal reason to believe that her government did not consider itself as having abandoned its right to regulate them by this article.
Your next objection applies to the last paragraph of the 19th, taken in connection with the 12th article. By your construction of those parts of the treaty, the United States would be bound to claim redress in favor of Great-Britain of her enemies, for any acts of hostility which they might commit on her ships of war or merchant vessels, within the additional limit, while she might commit, with impunity, like acts of hostility on the ships of war and merchant vessels of her enemies, in case they did not acknowledge it, and against their ships of war in case they did, although her own ships of war in both cases would be protected within it. I was decidedly of opinion, and still am, that while those articles secure to the United States an unconditional advantage, none whatever is stipulated by them in favor of Great-Britain, which must not of necessity be common to her enemies; that her privilege, on the contrary, whatever it may be, must be founded on their consent, follow, and terminate with it.
The 12th article stipulates that Great-Britain shall not stop the vessels of the United States within five marine miles of their coast, except for the purpose of examining whether they be American, or those of another power; and that she shall not stop the unarmed vessel of other powers within the same limit, provided they acknowledge it, except to ascertain whether they belong to those who have acknowledged it. The vessels of the powers who do not adopt the regulation are not affected by it. They remain under the ordinary protection of the law of nations, which extends to the distance of cannon shot or three miles from the coast. Beyond that limit the enemies of Great-Britain have a right to search and seize her vessels, without being amenable to the United States, and the same right is reserved to her by this article, as if it had not been entered into. Vessels of war are expressly excluded from the advantage of the regulation.
It is the sole object of the 12th article to secure to the United States an accommodation, by extending their jurisdiction on their coast, in what concerns themselves, from three to five miles. The stipulation is unconditional as to them, but conditional as to other powers, dependent on their acknowledgment of the same right. It is made reciprocal by being extended to the British dominions, northward of the United States, a circumstance which merits attention, as it precludes the idea that any other equivalent was expected or intended to be given for it. It would have been extended to the dominions of Great-Britain, in Europe and elsewhere, had the British commissioners desired it. They declined it, from a fear that it might produce some innovation in the general doctrine of the law of nations on the subject. This is, I think, fairly to be inferred from the instrument itself.
The last paragraph of the 19th article, stipulates that neither of the parties shall permit the ships or goods belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other, to be taken within cannon shot of the coast, nor within the jurisdiction described in article 12th, so long as the provisions of the said article shall be in force, by the ships of war or other powers—but in case it should so happen, the party, whose territorial rights shall thus have been violated, shall endeavor to obtain from the offending party, full and ample satisfaction for the vessels so taken—whether the same be vessels of war or merchant vessels.
If any advantage is given to Great-Britain by the arrangement proposed by the 12th article, and this clause of the 19th, to the prejudice of her enemies, or of the United States, it must be by this clause. She can certainly claim none under the 12th article. This clause consists of two distinct members, of very different import. The first contains a general stipulation, conformable to the law of nations, applicable to all the dominions of both parties, and equally so to their ships of war and merchant vessels. With respect to the latter, however, it is conditional. The second member applies to the arrangement made in the 12th article, & in the sense and spirit of that article. If the 12th article is carried into effect in favor of other powers, which can only be done by their consent, then the advantage which is secured to them by it, will accrue likewise to Great-Britain. What is that advantage? Protection to their merchant vessels within the additional two miles, and nothing else. It is obvious, that the protection which is stipulated in favor of ships of war is provided for, by the first member of the clause, and not by the second. It cannot be by both, for the distance defined by them is different, it being three miles in one, and five in the other. It is equally obvious, that the stipulation contained in the second member of the clause, relative to the 12th article, is intended to operate in the spirit of that article, and to be made dependent on it. By the terms "nor within the jurisdiction described in article 12th, so long as the provisions of the said article shall be in force," the stipulation contemplated is made conditional. In force, in respect to whom? Not to the United States, because it was unconditional as to them. It was conditional only with respect to other powers. Other reasons might be given to show that the arrangement under consideration is not liable to the objection made to it, but I presume that those stated will be satisfactory.
The difficulty to obtain the accommodation which was yielded to the 12th article was extreme. We labored most earnestly to extend it to other powers, without their consenting to reciprocate it in favor of Great-Britain; but that could not be accomplished.
The British commissioners urged that as Great-Britain predominated at sea, and must lose by the concession in any form, it would be unjust for her to make the concession in their favor, unless they would allow her the advantage of it. Finding that it was impossible to extend the additional limit to other powers, on other terms, we thought it advisable to adopt the arrangement in respect to them conditionally, putting it in their power to accept or reject it, as they thought fit. We flattered ourselves that as they could not lose by it, they would not refuse their assent to an arrangement by which they might gain, especially as it would prove advantageous to a friendly power. We deemed it highly important to establish the additional limit in favor of the United States, from the advantage it might afford to their commerce within it, and from the effect which the measure seemed likely to produce on the future conduct of the British squadrons on our coast, by whom it could not fail to be considered as a severe censure on the past.
It is readily admitted that more suitable terms might have been adopted to accomplish the object in view. But it ought to be recollected, that as the right of jurisdiction imposes of necessity, the obligation of protection, without a special exception to it, there was some difficulty in making an arrangement which should secure to the United States the advantage which they desired, & at the same time exempt them from the duty incident to it.
To your sixth objection, little need be added to what is stated on the subject of it, in our letter of January 3d, 1807. As the paper of the British commissioners to which it relates, had no sanction whatever from us, as was fully shown by that letter, the objection cannot be said to apply to any part of our conduct. The paper was produced by the decree of the emperor of France, of the 21st November, 1806, and was intended by the British commissioners, to operate as a reservation of right, in their government, not to ratify the treaty, or not to be precluded, under certain circumstances, in case it did ratify it, from adopting such measures, as it might find necessary, to counteract the restrictions imposed by that decree. The exception of the right reserved was made dependent on the abandonment of the principle of that decree by the French government, or an assurance from the government of the United States, or such conduct as would be equivalent, that the pretension would not be submitted to by it. We apprised the British commissioners that our government would enter into no engagement whatever, of what it could do, in any case with another power. Had the treaty been ratified, even without any notice being taken of that paper, it could not have imposed the slightest obligation on the United States, either to perform any act on their part, or to submit to any, on the part of Great-Britain. I had supposed, however, in the case of ratification, that we should have been instructed to present to the British government, with the instrument of ratification, a counter-declaration to that effect. The whole subject was before our government, with our strong and decided objection to the paper. All that we could do was to transmit it to you, with a correct statement of what had occurred in the negotiation respecting it, which we did. To the government it belonged to take the step which the occasion required, not to us.
Having noticed the objection which are especially stated in your letter of May 20, 1807, and given our view of the several parts of the treaty to which they relate, I shall proceed to make explanatory remarks on the other articles, in order to do justice to the conduct of the American commissioners in regard to them.
Article 5. You admit that this article is an essential improvement of that on the same subject in the treaty of 1794. It certainly improves it in two important interests; 1st, in that of the navigation of the U. States, and 2d, in that of the duties on American productions carried to the British market. The tonnage on American ships in British ports had been raised to sterling per ton, while that on British ships in the ports of the United States was only 50 cents, or 2s. 6d. per ton; and the duty on the bulky productions of the United States, in American bottoms, had been raised to such a height, under the countervailing regulations which the treaty allowed, as to secure, in time of peace, the entire carriage of those productions to British vessels, if indeed, it did not materially affect the price of the articles themselves. What made it more unfortunate was, that the United States could not adopt any measure to remedy those evils without committing a direct and palpable violation of the treaty, as they were bound by it not to raise the existing duties higher than they were at the time the treaty was concluded. Those evils would, however, have been completely done away by this article. By it the United States would have had a right to raise the duty on British vessels to any height to which the British government might raise it on theirs, a check which could not fail to prove adequate to the object, while they had also a right to give what preference they thought fit to their own vessels, which might be done by reducing the duty on them below the tonnage which was imposed on those of Great-Britain. This arrangement secured to the U. States an advantage which Great-Britain could not countervail, as the necessity she is under to avail herself of every resource which she can command to raise revenue for indispensable purposes, renders it impossible for her to make a like discrimination in favor of her own vessels. The inhibition of all discriminating duties, on the productions of one, and manufactures of the other party, whether they be carried in American or British bottoms, was a stipulation which it was presumed would also prove highly advantageous to the U. States. The pernicious tendency of that principle was well known to you, and we were happy to be able to suppress it.
The objections which you urge to other parts of the article, apply to clauses in the treaty of 1794, which it was impossible for us to change. I have, however, to observe that there is nothing in it to prevent the passage of a navigation act, provided it be adopted as a measure of general policy. Most of the nations of Europe, especially France, would be happy in a general view, to see the U. States resort to that expedient to counteract the restrictive system of England; and as it is one which could not essentially affect them, they could find no motive of that kind, to inspire a wish to oppose it, nor could the United States, as I supposed, find one to exempt them from it.
We regretted that we could not obtain a stipulation which should compel Great-Britain to repeal the laws which impose so high a duty on her manufactures, when exported to the United States. Our letter showed that we did every thing in our power to ob-
tain such a stipulation. I was, however, persuaded, that the want of it would not expose us to all the evils which you seem to apprehend from it, admitting that the British construction of that clause in the former treaty was a sound one, and that nothing is contained in the 23d article of the present one to discountenance it. It is certain that no government will ever tax exports higher than indispensable necessity compels it, because such a tax tends in all cases essentially to check industry, and to destroy the most productive source of national prosperity. The inhibition imposed by the constitution of the United States on the congress, to tax, in the slightest degree, their exports, affords a strong argument, drawn from the acknowledged wisdom of its framers, against the policy of such a tax, in the abstract; and I am as strong with Great-Britain, if not stronger, than with any other nation. Without taking a more comprehensive view of the subject, it is sufficient to observe, that a tax on British exports must operate as a bounty in favor of American manufactures which are already in an advanced state, in certain parts of the union. G. Britain must be sensible of this fact, and aware of the encouragement which the present export duty gives them, and of the consequences attending it. I should presume that there was not much cause to apprehend, that there was not tax the export of her manufactures to the United States, to prevent their being sent thence to other countries. The sole effect of such a tax would be to secure to her own vessels the carriage of the articles, if indeed, that were attainable. In both cases the manufactures of Great-Britain would be the subject of the commerce. The supply of the great, the productive and increasing markets of the United States, must be a primary object of British policy, and Great-Britain would doubtless be cautious not to hazard it for one comparatively of much less importance.
Article 6. As this article was approved, I shall only observe, that I considered the reservation contained in it important, as it enabled the United States to counteract the British policy, in respect to the trade with the West Indies, which is the object of it, by means the most efficacious, whenever they should be resorted to. The trade of Great-Britain with the United States is carried on principally by circuitous voyages, in which her vessels pass from the ports of the United States to the West Indies. By suspending the intercourse between the United States and her West Indies, in British vessels, the chain would be broken, and the whole commerce in such vessels be, in a great measure, suspended. The provision in the article obviously looks to such an object, and the time of carrying it into effect unless the trade should be placed on satisfactory ground, would have depended altogether on the United States.
Having already noticed the subjects which are embraced by the following articles, I shall add but little more, on any of them, to what is said in our joint letter of January 3d, 1807. The 7th was taken literally from the treaty of 1794. The 8th and 9th amended, as you allow, the articles in that treaty on the same subject. The 10th, relative to blockade, taken in connection with the British paper of December 31, 1806, placed, as I presumed that interest on ground which would be satisfactory. The preamble cannot affect it unfavorably, as it does not alter the acknowledged law. The only effect which it could have, would be to admonish the courts to be cautious in admitting evidence of notice, on account of the distance of the United States from the blockaded ports. It was supposed to give the United States a claim to a more favorable rule in respect to evidence, than was allowed to powers more contiguous to the theatre of action. The doctrine contained in Mr. Merry's note to you was not contested by the British commissioners. It is, on the contrary, maintained in their note to us of December 31st, 1806, in which it is asserted to be notorious "that the king did not declare any ports to be in a state of blockade without allotting to that object a force sufficient to make the entrance into them manifestly dangerous." I quote the passage in their note to observe that the doctrine is not made conditional on any other part of it, but is laid down as the established law. It justifies the additional remark that the preamble was not intended and cannot be construed to alter the law. It follows that it cannot produce any other effect than that which is above imputed to it.
The 13th article relates to the search of merchant vessels, and differs from the 19th of the treaty of 1794, in the introductory sentence, which enjoins it on the commanders of ships of war & privateers, to observe in the course of the war, which may then exist, as much as possible the acknowledged rules and principles of the law of nations; and also in the penal sum [which it increases] to be given by the commanders of privateers before they receive their commissions, as a security for their good conduct under them. It was supposed that in this as in the preceding case, the law remained untouched, and that the stipulation produced no other effect, than to enjoin it on the governments respectively, to be particularly attentive to the conduct of its officers in the respect alluded to.
The 13th article and the paper of the British commissioners of the 31st of December, 1806, obviously looked to the Russian convention as the standard of the acknowledged law respecting the search of merchant vessels and blockade. That instrument was held constantly in view on both sides, in every discussion on those subjects, and indeed on every other to which it extends, & its doctrine admitted, especially in those, to be the established law. We were extremely desirous, and used our best exertions, to introduce articles to the same effect, into our treaty, but it was utterly impossible to accomplish it. It must however be allowed that if engagements of the kind alluded to, especially in regard to blockade, for which there was a special document, would not be observed, that it would be useless to stipulate them by treaty.
On the subject of the 17th article, I have already made some remarks under another head. I cannot think that a stipulation to receive the ships of war of each party hospitably into the ports of the other, restrains them from limiting the number of ships to be admitted at one time, or from designating the ports to which they shall be admitted. A stipulation to admit them settles only, as I presume, the principle that they shall be admitted, and leaves open to arrangement the other points connected with it. This opinion is supported by a passage in the article itself, as to the ports which secure to vessels which might be driven by stress of weather, &c. into ports not open to them in ordinary cases, an hospitable reception in such ports.

Had the right to designate the ports been given up by the stipulation, there would have been no necessity for that contained in this passage. The remark is equally applicable to the other case, that of the number to be admitted at one time. As that must be an affair of special and strict regulation, an exception which admitted more, by securing rights to them in case they entered, would necessarily defeat the limitation in itself.
The stipulation which relates to the good treatment of the officers of each party in the ports of the other, being reciprocal, contains no reflection on one which is not applicable to the other; and I will venture to affirm that it is equally necessary in regard to Great Britain as to the United States. It is well known in respect to the latter, that the passions, which were excited by the revolution, did not long survive the struggle; that the sword was no sooner sheathed, than the calamities of the war were forgotten. The injured are always the first to forgive. It is, however, just to remark that time has essentially effaced, from the people of both nations, the hostile impression which that arduous conflict produced.
The 23d article was thought to contain an useful stipulation by securing to the United States the advantages in navigation and commerce, which Great Britain might afterwards grant to any nation. That stipulation, was obviously founded on the right of the most favored nation, and subject of course to the conditions incident to it. It amounts to this, that if Great Britain should concede any accommodation to another power in commerce with her East or West India colonies, or any other part of her dominions, gratuitously, the United States would be entitled to it on the same terms; but if she made such accommodation in consideration of certain equivalents to be given her in return, that the United States would not be entitled to those advantages without paying the equivalents. The doctrine is the same in its application to the United States. If they could grant any privileges in trade to France or Spain for admission into their West India colonies, Great Britain would be entitled to the same, provided she admitted the United States into her islands also, and not otherwise. I could not perceive therefore how it was possible that the United States should be injured by the stipulation contained in this article; while it was probable that they might derive some advantage from it. It could not restrain them from passing a navigation act to place them on an equal footing with Great Britain, if it was made general or applied only to her and the other nations having such acts. The right to pass such an act was not taken away by any other stipulation in the treaty, and there was nothing in this article that had such a tendency. The terms "shall continue to be on the footing of the most favored nation, &c." refer to the principles established by the preceding articles and not to the existing laws or regulations of either party. If the latter was the case, it would follow, that the tonnage duties, the discriminating duties, &c. would remain as they were. The preceding articles were intended, in the points to which they extended, to establish a standard of equality between the parties, to which the regulations of each, whether they exceeded or fell short of it, should be brought. It could not be doubted that the B export duty was of the first description that it violated the principle of the most favored nation. The British commissioners admitted the fact, and did not pretend to justify it on that ground. They urged in its favor only, that the same duty was imposed on exports to their own colonies in America, and that if any change was made in it to satisfy the claim of the United States on the principle of the right of the most favored nation, it would be to raise it on the goods exported to other countries, not to reduce it on those sent to the United States. The principle, however established by this article, being applicable to that duty, it was to be presumed that it might fairly be relied on to obtain a modification of it, either by reducing the duty on exports to the United States, or raising it on those to other nations. There is nothing in this article to restrain the U. States from adopting measures to counteract the British policy with respect to the West Indies. If that object had not been secured by a special article, from the possibility of being affected by the others, the principle, established by the present one, could not have affected it, otherwise than beneficially.
Having replied to your objections to the several articles of the treaty, and the papers connected with it, and given our view of them, I shall proceed to make some remarks on the whole subject to do justice to the conduct of the American commissioners in that transaction.
In every case which involved a question of neutral right, or even of commercial accommodation, Great Britain was resolved to yield no ground which she could avoid, and was evidently prepared to hazard war, rather than yield much. There seemed to be no mode of compelling her to yield, that that of embarking in the war with the opposite belligerent, on which great question it belonged to the national councils to decide. We had pressed the claims of the United States in the negotiation, to the utmost limit that we could go, without provoking that issue. It is most certain that better terms could not have been obtained at the time we signed the treaty, than it contains.
The state of the war in Europe suggested likewise the propriety of caution on our part. Russia was then on the side of England, and likely to continue so; and Austria, known to be in the same interest, was holding an equivocal attitude, and ready to take advantage of any favorable event that might occur. Prussia, lately powerful, had been defeated, but was not absolutely subdued; her king, the ally and friend of Alexander, kept the field with him, and made head against France. The emperor of France, far removed from his dominions, was making the bold and dangerous experiment, of the effect which his absence might produce in the interior, and in a situation to be compelled to risk every thing, if pressed by his adversary, on the precarious issue of a single battle. These were strong reasons why we should not throw ourselves too decisively into that scale.
The situation of the United States, always a respectable one, was then less imposing than it usually was. It was known that they were not on good terms with Spain, and that France was the ally of Spain. Their interior too, was disturbed by a conspiracy of doubtful extent and dangerous tendency, the consequences of which were sure to be greatly magnified by all who were unfriendly to our happy system of government. Those circumstances could not fail to be taken into view, by any the most friendly administration in England, when pressed so to make concessions which it was unwilling to make. Add to these considerations,
the important one, that the British ministry had become much impaired, in its strength especially in what concerned the U. S. by the death of a very eminent and distinguished statesman, and had not the power, or thought that it had not, to pursue a liberal policy towards the United States, and that its power was evidently daily diminishing.
These considerations induced us to sign the treaty and submit it to the wisdom of our government, after obtaining the best conditions that it was possible to obtain. We were aware that, in several points, it fell short of the just claims of our country. But we were persuaded that such an arrangement was made of the whole subject as justified us in the part which we took. In the rejection or adoption of the treaty, I felt no personal interest. Having discharged my duty with integrity and zeal, I neither wished applause nor dreaded censure. Having the highest confidence in the wisdom, the rectitude and patriotism of the administration, I was satisfied that it would pursue the course, which an enlightened view of the public interest, and a just sensibility to the national honor, might dictate.
Our letter of January 3d, was written in haste, and was deficient in many of the explanations which would otherwise have been given of the treaty. I was happy when at Washington to find that you were perfectly willing to receive any explanations which I might be disposed to give of that transaction; and to allow them the weight which they might deserve. In making this communication I have indulged the freedom which belonged to it, in full confidence that it will be approved.
I cannot conclude this letter without adding my most ardent wish, that the administration may succeed in conducting our affairs with every power, to the happiest result. My retirement, which had been long desired, and delayed only by the arduous & very important duties in which I was engaged, had become necessary as a relief to my mind, after much fatigue, and to the interest of my family, which had been neglected and greatly injured by my absence in the public service. It is still my desire to cherish retirement. Should it, however, be our unfortunate destiny, which I most earnestly hope will not be the case, to be involved in foreign war or domestic trouble, and should my services be deemed useful, I will not hesitate, at the desire of the administration, to repair again to the standard of my country. I have the honor to be,
With great consideration and esteem, Your very obedient servant, JAMES MONROE. (Public Documents concluded.)
BALTIMORE, May 17. The brig St. Michael's, Henry Kenyon commander, parted with her pilot at one o'clock, 7th May off Cape Henry, with strong from N. W. She takes out two messengers, one for France, the other for England; the latter, Mr. Purvis, takes his family. There are several passengers on board; among the number are Mr. Rembrandt Peale, of Philadelphia, and Mr. William Saltonstall, of N. York.
General Moreau left this city on Sunday for Philadelphia.
The Hudson Bec gives the returns of 27 counties for members of the N. York Assembly, viz: 35 republicans and 41 feds and quids, and observes that from the best accounts, there will be a majority next winter in that house from 12 to 20.
May 17. Extract of a letter from Cadiz to a gentleman in this city, dated March 28.
The Prince of Peace has been arrested and imprisoned; the King has abdicated his throne and the Prince of Asturias has been proclaimed King, and under the title of Ferdinand the 7th. Bonaparte is in Madrid, and has officially announced his determination to take possession of this country, under the title of defending it from the English. I enclose the proclamation respecting the Prince of Peace.
PROCLAMATION. By royal order, communicated this evening, by his excellency the Governor of the Council pro tempore it has been informed, that the King has been pleased to authorise the Prince of Asturias, that he proceed against Don Manuel Godoy immediately, according to law. And the Council having been made acquainted with it in the Hotel of the governor, has ordered it to be published, as well as another order, whereby the goods and effects remaining in the apartments which Don Manuel Godoy occupied in this court are declared to belong to the King. To the end that confiding in his justice, and that of the council, the city may be tranquillized, as is expected from its loyalty; and that all may immediately retire to their houses, so that under no motive or pretext the noted fidelity and submission of this vicinity may be doubted, nor require this supreme tribunal to take other steps. Madrid, 19th March, 1808.
THE COUNCIL TO THE PEOPLE OF MADRID. Nothing ought to take place to change the public tranquillity in the happy moments of the exaltation of King Ferdinand the 7th to the throne of Spain. His loyal subjects have given to his majesty very decided proofs of their attachment and affection; and they ought not to doubt that the love his majesty professes will be engaged entirely to promote the public happiness, and satisfy the wishes of the people of Madrid.
What is most important towards these great objects, is public order; and that this may be assured, the council flatters itself that all the subjects and inhabitants of this faithful city, will retire to their houses and preserve the most perfect quiet; persuaded that they will thus give to his majesty, in the first moments of his happy reign, the most certain proof of the sincerity of their sentiments and of the vows of fidelity which are now heard.
Madrid, 20th March, 1808.
Don Bartholomew Munoz de Torres, of the Council of H. M. his secretary, clerk of the most ancient chamber and governor of the council.
I certify that the following royal order has been communicated to the governor pro tempore of the council by H. E. Don Pedro Cevallos, first secretary of state and of dispatch.
One of the first cares of the King, our lord, after coming to the throne, was to inform the emperor of the French and king of Italy, of this happy event; assuring at the same time his imperial and royal majesty, that animated by the same sentiments as his august father, far from varying in the smallest particular the political system with respect to France, he will endeavor by all possible means, to draw closer the ties of amity and strict alliance, which happily subsists between Spain and the French Empire. His majesty orders me to communicate it to you, in order that by publishing it in the council, at a tribu al may, in consequence, take all the measures for restoring the public tranquillity in Madrid; and to receive and afford the French troops who are prepared to enter that city, all the assistance they may need, endeavoring to persuade the people that they come as friends, and with views useful to the king and the nation.
His majesty promises himself from the wisdom of the council, that feeling all the lively desires which animate him to confirm daily, still more, the strict ties which bind his majesty to the Emperor of the French and King of Italy, the council will endeavor by all the means within their power, to inspire with the same sentiments all the inhabitants of Madrid. God preserve you, &c. PEDRO CEVALLOS. Aranjuez, 20th March, 1808.
THE ENQUIRER. RICHMOND, MAY 21, 1808.
THE EMBARGO.
If there be any friend of his country, who is yet for one moment disposed to doubt the propriety or the policy of the embargo, let him refer to the speech of Lord HOLLAND in the House of Lords, published in this day's paper.
"Not less than seventy-five merchant vessels belonging to the subjects of the United States—seized and brought into the several ports of Great Britain, many of which were condemned, and all detained—in the course of one fortnight, even before the Orders in Council were issued!"
From this memorable fact let this calculation be made:—If so many were carried into British ports in one fortnight, how many American vessels would have been captured and confiscated, the last six months, by British, French and Spanish cruisers—and consequently how many vessels have been preserved from depredation by our Embargo? This one argument alone is sufficient to establish its advantages beyond the possibility of a doubt.
How many frivolous arguments have been employed on this occasion!
There are some, the old standard opponents of this administration, who have attempted to attribute to it all the blame and reproach of the Embargo. But on what ground? Did Mr. Jefferson confer on Bonaparte the sovereignty of Europe? Did he enable him to enact the decree of Berlin—the ostensible cause of the British Orders of Council? Did he enact those orders? Did he pass the Decree of Milan?
There are other men who express an attachment to the Embargo, that still affect to ascribe its existence to the rejection of the late Treaty. And how? If this treaty had been ratified with the Official Note attached to it by the British Commissioners—a Note, which should alone have withheld the signature of our own—the British government would have been authorised, on any pretence which they might have chosen to trump up, and their jealousy of our commercial prosperity would have readily supplied one—to resort to countervailing measures, in case they should pretend that the U. S. had submitted to the blocking decrees of France. What would have been our situation? We now know what those countervailing measures would have been. The late Orders of Council are those countervailing measures. If the treaty had been adopted, we should have been bound hand and foot at the altar of the British Admiralty, while our commerce would have been prostrated by these countervailing orders. Our only salvation would have been in this very Embargo.
And what expedient would the enemies of the Embargo recommend in its place? War? But is there a friend of his country, who compares together the evils of these two systems, can prefer the boundless expenditure of blood and treasure which war would produce, to the most extravagant computation of evils arising from a temporary suspension of our trade?
Or is there a prudent statesman, who will consent to expose our vessels and property on the high seas to British capture and confiscation?
Or is there a noble-minded patriot, who would rather drive a trade to Great Britain, and a trade to the continent covered by British licence and loaded with British taxation, with all the disgrace which such impositions would create, and all the risks of a war with France, than abandon the high seas and European commerce, until our dignified neutrality shall recall the people of Europe to a sense of justice?
This state of things has its limits.
Never has a nation been more completely deceived, about the tone or feelings of another, than the people of England have been, respecting the feelings and energy of the American nation.
The twelve London papers before us, do not contain a single extract from an American democratic print. They are clogged with all the most extravagant of the federal misrepresentations in the federal prints, and with the still more extravagant misrepresentations of letters addressed by British consuls or merchants to their deluded correspondents in England. There is not a single paragraph in these papers, which is written by a genuine American—There is not a single one, which breathes the predominant spirit of this country, & which displays to the deceived subjects of Britain, the patriotic cheerfulness with which the people of the United States will bear all the evils of the embargo, and the fortitude with which they are determined to resist the encroachments of the British government.
The British ministry too have joined in this holy plan of deceiving the people of Britain. They have made every exertion to persuade them, in opposition to every fact, that their Orders of Council had not produced our Embargo; and to misrepresent the astonishing sensation, which these Orders have diffused over this country. Hear Lord Hawkesbury himself in the House of Lords, on the 29th March:—"He could assure their Lordships, that no such disagreeable sensation was occasioned in America by the promulgation of these Orders in Council—there was good reason to believe, that America must shortly have a proper sense of its own interest"—And yet this noble lord hesitates not to avow, in the face of his nation, that he had obtained this information "by means of his official situation."
The ministry have attempted to soothe the public anxiety too, by the most extravagant promises of success from Rose's mission. That source of delusion is at an end. The U. S. were rather more determined and magnanimous than his masters had anticipated. And unless the people of England are still flattered and deceived into false opinions about the energy and resolution of our countrymen, the present ministry must find it difficult to stem the rising torrent of public indignation.
Mr. Rose indeed may for a short time perpetrate their delusion by fallacious representations of our public spirit. But that will be the most miserable of all deceptions. This man can scarcely be more conversant in our feelings than the boat-swain who never set his foot on shore.—A man, who never laid
ed his foot at Norfolk, who was tethered during his short stay to the precincts of Washington, whose constant associates were Timothy Pickering and other envomised enemies of their country—what can such a minister know of the spirit and resolution of the Yeomanry of America?
His tales may operate for a moment, and their force will be spent for ever.—The adjournment of Congress to next November, without any repeal of the Embargo Act—the new restrictions which they enacted—the specific purposes for which they transferred the power of suspending it to the President of the United States—the known opposition of that great man to British encroachments—and the necessary and effectual recommendations which have issued from the treasury department—are public acts which cannot be concealed—and they are acts, which display the spirit of this people and the spirit of their government, in characters too strong to be distorted by all the sophistries of the ministry or their minions.
The British nation will discover the impositions that have been played off upon them. If the people of this country are resolute and wise in their career, if the citizens of the north will as cheerfully bear the evils of the embargo as those of the south—the eyes of the British people must be completely opened.
Their manufacturers will want employment, because their work wants a market. The West-India colonists will want Bread and Lumber; because even if there be any country, except the U. S. which may be made capable of supplying them, that country had not yet been prepared for that purpose.—In the language of the West-India Evidence presented to the House of Commons, in 1773, on nearly a similar occasion to the present; "It is inconsistent with the nature of commerce, to furnish an adequate supply to a vast, an immediate, and an unexpected demand; the demand and the supply must grow up together, mutually supporting, and supported by each other."
More of these effects would perhaps have been felt at this moment, if the Embargo had been originally placed on the present footing. Had congress reversed their measures—had they originally laid a more rigid Embargo, and gradually relaxed according as the convenience of our country would have admitted it; instead of relaxing at first & successively tightening afterwards, its operation would have probably been more effectual. It would not perhaps have impressed the nations of Europe with such a strong conviction of our resolution, but it would certainly have more distinctly impressed them with a sense of their own injustice and the value of our trade.
No words of reproach can be too severe for those unprincipled adventurers, who have violated the Embargo law by a smuggling trade to the West-Indies. It is not enough to say of those men, that they have enriched themselves at the expence of the interests of their country. If commercial restriction be the native armour of the United States—if we can wage no war against the injustice of Europe, more congenial to our interests, than commercial hostility or commercial suspension—that man who deceits those exertions by violating or evading our laws, is to be considered in no more favorable a light, than he who in the midst of war, would maintain a traitorous correspondence with the enemy's camp.
Why then do some of our merchants murmur at the late recommendations from the Treasury Department? That it cuts off some mercantile speculation; that it increases the restrictions on their trade, cannot be disputed; but are not the British orders in Council productive of the same effect; & would not a war? Those who express such unbounded indignation at the language of the President, should observe a little more caution.
They should recollect the good old maxim, ille facit, qui capit ; those will wear the cap, whom it fits. They should recollect, if they are not those unprincipled adventurers whom the President specifies, that they are no more interested in the case than a merchant in Canton; and if they are innocent, if the flour, which they export, is not destined intentionally or directly to a prohibited market, that it may only be exported to some other port of the U. S. to multiply the means of smuggling in the hands of some unprincipled adventurers.
One word more. Should this humble paper accidentally stray into the hands of Lord Hawkesbury or Mr. Canning, they are solemnly assured that after all the anxious enquiries which we have made into the feelings of this populous state—this has been the uniform result: that the people of Virginia are not insensible of the pressure of the embargo, but that they will most cheerfully submit to any sacrifices, which may preserve the rights and honor of their country.
COMMUNICATION.
City of Richmond. The following lines were written on seeing Miss —— in the insertion of these initials should be the only objection to their publication, and an insuperable one, pray expunge them.—The author matters himself, they require no index to point out their object—He can give no other indication of himself, than that they are from the pen of
A STRANGER.
ADDRESSED TO MISS ——
When the Supreme creative power, Resolv'd upon thy natal hour; Essay'd to form thy magic Face, Thy limbs to mould and give them Grace; And to perfect his work, impart Within that breast a kindred heart; He, from the Angels round his throne, Chose those, whose Beauties brightest shone, And cull'd from each, with skill divine, Some perfect part and made it thine.—
But merciful to man, on thee Bestowed not Immortality.
* We have expunged them.—But should the Ladies of Richmond be disposed to contend for the honour of this elegant compliment, we are willing to play the part of Paris, and assign the Apple of Discord "TO THE FAIREST."
FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD.—Lost by the Subscriber yesterday, on his journey from Petersburg to this City, a small Red Morocco POCKET-BOOK, of an oblong form, about four inches long and three inches broad, fastened by a clasp, which contained a number of Bank Notes for various sums from fifty to ten Dollars. It contained also an order in my favor drawn by John Baird of Petersburg on James Shepherd of Richmond, for twenty-two dollars. Whoever will deliver the above Pocket-Book and its contents to me, shall receive the reward mentioned. G. K. TAYLOR. May 19.
Last Evening's Mail.
NEW-YORK, May 16.
LATEST FROM ENGLAND.
Since the forgoing articles were prepared for the press, a commercial friend has put the Editor of the Mercantile Advertiser in possession of a London paper (per the Allegany) of the evening of April 7th, two days later intelligence from England than had been heretofore received. It contains some interesting circumstances, of which the following is a brief but general outline.
In the House of Lords, on the 6th of April, Lord Grenville gave notice, that he should, upon an early day after the recess, perhaps between the 5th and 10th of May, move to address his majesty to revoke the orders in council.
The English have established themselves in the island of Lesina, on the coast of Dalmatia, which the Russians occupied several months during their last war with France; it is thought to have been taken possession of for some temporary purposes, and with an inconsiderable force.
Notwithstanding the pressure of war, and the daily increasing difficulties to which the commerce of England is exposed, the financial prosperity of the country is represented as keeping pace with the magnitude of the exertions which she is compelled to make, the surplus of the consolidated fund, for the year ending on the 5th April, amounted to four millions and a half sterling, exceeding by one million that of the year preceding.
It was reported in London on the 7th of April, with more confidence than the general fear would allow it to merit, that the American Government has offered its mediation between England and France; and that Mr. Nourse, who has arrived at L'Orient in the Osage, is the bearer of a proposal to that effect. It was added, that Mr. Nourse is charged with dispatches to Mr. Pinkney; but that he waits at L'Orient until he hears from our minister at Paris how this offer of mediation has been received.
Two-thirds of the mercantile houses in the city of Lisbon have stopped payment in consequence of the total want of trade and the accumulated oppressions of the French Government. Letters had been received in London to the 28th of March, some of which state that in the India House at Lisbon were found 36,000 bales of cotton, 16,000 bales of India goods, 13,000 bales Malabar coast goods, an abundance of cocoa, and other articles of value. The first instalment on the contribution of forty million of crusades had been paid. The amount of it was about 200,000 sterling. In the list of persons assessed, Mr. Quintella (at whose house general Junot has his head quarters) Mr. Tandeiza, and Mr. Caleas stand separately charged with the sum of 9000 sterling, and this only one-twentieth part of the whole sum to be contributed. The church plate was to be estimated in the next instalment.
The report of naval engagement in the Mediterranean appears to have been an idle rumour.
From Copenhagen we learn that the Sound was completely covered with ice at the beginning of March; and that at Elsinour, where the passage is narrow and the current more rapid, the masses of ice were seen collecting from day to day; so that if the frost continued a week longer, it would be possible for foot soldiers to march over it into Sweden, where the public mind was said to be in great fermentation. At Esinour active preparations were making to embark and transport the French army into Scania; and a flotilla was building to protect the movements of the navy and secure the transports from one Island to another. In the mean while the King of Sweden (who is concentrating his army) has prohibited all communication between his Kingdom and Denmark upon pain of death; and has ordered the flotilla of Abo to be burnt, to prevent its falling into the hands of the Russians, whose operations are effectually seconded by the rigor of the season.
The Porte is making the greatest efforts to re-establish the army of the Grand Vizier, which during the winter had been considerably weakened. One hundred and fifty thousand men from the Asiatic provinces are to repair to it. Very severe firmans have been addressed to the Governors and envoys sent to press the execution of the orders of the Grand Signior.
The English squadrons continue to have the exclusive dominion of the Archipelago, seizing not only all Turkish vessels, but such as may have entered a Turkish port. On the 8th of January, the Dardanelles and the ports of Egypt were officially proclaimed in a state of close blockade, in the name of Admiral Collingwood, with an offer to grant passports to all vessels sailing to and from Malta. This proceeding has reduced the commerce of the Levant to a state of absolute stagnation.
In the English Court of Admiralty at Doctors Commons, on the 6th of April, Sir William Scott proceeded to the adjudication of the American ship Union, capt. Baker, captured on her passage from Amsterdam to Madeira, and thence to Santa Cruz. The ship had been already restored; & the question now was, as to the national character of the person who claimed the cargo, and who it was contended by the captors was a Dutchman. The court, however, was clearly of opinion that he was to be considered an American, and directed the property to be restored to him.
We are sorry to announce the loss of the American ship Mercury, capt. Rogers, bound to London. She was driven on the Goodwin Sands, in the afternoon of the 5th of April. The crew were saved.
Consols in London, April 7th, 65 1 3.
Our Correspondent at Bordeaux, under date of March 28th, writes to us as follows: "We have no news in France. Commerce is so distressing a state that nearly all the counting-houses in this place have discharged their clerks. No decision has yet been given in the courts in the case of any American vessel. The news of captain Duplex's arrival at L'Orient in the Osage, reached us yesterday; and the dispatches he brings may probably have a favorable effect."
LOST—supposed between the Capitol and the Bank of Virginia, a one hundred dollar BANK BILL of the United States deposit in Savannah—A liberal reward will be given to any person who should find it. F. HOWARD. Richmond, May 21.
BLANKS, OF EVERY DESCRIPTION, FOR SALE AT THIS OFFICE.

EXTRACTS FROM LATE LONDON PAPERS. The following is the last Debate in the British Parliament on the Orders in Council...
HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 29. ORDERS IN COUNCIL. Lord HOLLAND rose, pursuant to his notice, and in an eloquent and argumentative speech...
Lord MELGRAVE opposed the motion in a speech of great length. His Lordship took a comprehensive review of the foreign policy of the late administration...
Lord GRENVILLE considered the course which the debate had taken, as a decisive proof of a conviction on the part of Ministers that their measures were not to be defended.
This remark proves, that the formidable Opposition of Parliament are already opposed to the limited instructions of this special mission...
Lord HAWKESBURY answered at considerable length. In the course of his remarks he observed, that their Lordships could not expect of him, pending a negotiation...
TRAITS OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. LONDON, April 1.
COMMON COUNCIL. Yesterday, a Court of Common Council was held at Guildhall, when, after some routine business, Mr. WATHMAN rose to move for petitions to both Houses of Parliament...
Mr. Deputy GOODBEARE seconded the motion in a few words of warm approbation. Mr. Sheriff SMITH could not give a silent vote on this occasion...
Mr. SAMUEL DIXON did not oppose the motion, but thought that as the House of Commons had twice voted the measure unanimously...
WHIG CLUB. A Meeting of the Whig Club was held yesterday at the Freemasons' Tavern, in Great Queenstreet.
The Duke of BEDFORD in the Chair. After dinner, the usual toasts were given in the customary manner. In the routine of toasts, when the Chairman came to that, which is complimentary to his own family...
The health of Lord Holland. His Lordship, in returning thanks, expressed his warm attachment to the principles of the Club, and assured its members, that at no time was the necessity greater than at the present...
The health of Lord William Russell being given, his Lordship returned thanks in an appropriate speech. After the health of Mr. Maule, Mr. Adam, Mr. Maddock, and the Whigs of Scotland were drunk.
Mr. Adam, in returning thanks, stated his attachment to the principles of Mr. Fox for upwards of 30 years; and after an encomium upon the virtues, patriotism, and wisdom of that great Statesman...
FOR SALE, 121,000 acres of LAND in Kennebec county, in the forks of Great Sandy River. 24,000 do. in Tazewell county, on the waters of Clinch river.
VALUABLE MANUFACTURING MILL & DISTILLERY. The subscriber will sell or lease for a term of years, with or without a distillery, containing five stills of near 1000 gallons...
GRANTLAND & HARWOOD. COACH-MAKERS. RESPECTFULLY inform their friends and the public in general, that they have commenced the above business on the back-street...
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.
IN CHANCERY. Charlotte Court, 8th March, 1808. Claiborne Barksdale and son, assignees of Major Parsons, Plaintiffs. Against James Green & Parish Green, Defendants.
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 Birchetts and Puryear, Plaintiffs.
VALUABLE LANDS. The subscriber will sell, on a credit, or exchange for property in Richmond, or its neighborhood, the following LANDS, to wit:
322 acres in the state of Kentucky by survey bearing date the 10th day of October 1797, lying and being in the district set apart for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia state line, on Little Barren river.
Also, 450 acres of Land in the county of Mason, state of Virginia on Old Town Creek, about 8 miles from Mason courthouse. Indispensible titles will be made to the above mentioned Lands...
IN CHANCERY. Louisa County October Court, 1806. Andrew Todd, Plaintiff. Against Christopher Stanley, William Hodges, William Hodges, jun. and Frederick Harris, Defendants.
BY virtue of a deed of trust executed to the subscribers by Robert and George Turner, and Ann the wife of the said George, duly recorded in the Hustings Court of Richmond...
WAR DEPARTMENT, APRIL 13, 1808. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That separate proposals will be received at the Office of the Secretary for the Department of War, until 12 o'clock, at noon of Monday the 20th of June next...
1st, At Niagara, Detroit, Michilimackinac, Fort Wayne, Chicago, and in their immediate vicinities, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the territory of Michigan.
2nd, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the states of Kentucky and Tennessee.
3d, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the state of Ohio and the Indiana and Louisiana territories, except Fort Wayne and Chicago and their immediate vicinities.
4th, At any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the Mississippi and Orleans territories.
Separate proposals will also be received as aforesaid for the supply of all rations which may be required for the United States, for the troops which are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the town of Springfield in the state of Massachusetts...