The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1808-11-29 00:00:00

G. Minor
The Enquirer.
VOL. 5.]
RICHMOND, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1808.
[No. 61.]
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE GLOBE TAVERN, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
PROPOSALS for carrying MAILS of the United States on the following Post Roads, will be received at the General Post-Office in Washington, until the sixteenth day of January next, inclusive.
 27. From Martinsburg, by Williamsport to Hagerstown once a week. Leave Martinsburg every Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Hagerstown by 10 a.m. Leave Hagerstown at 2 p.m. and arrive at Martinsburg by 7 p.m.  28. From Winchester by Stevensburg or New-Town, Strasburg, Woodstock, Newmarket, and Harrisonburg to Staunton once a week. Leave Winchester every Tuesday at 10 a.m. and arrive at Staunton on Thursday by 11 a.m. Leave Staunton every Thursday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Winchester on Saturday by 3 p.m.  29. From Washington City, by Prospect Hill, Laneyville, Leesburg, Waterford, Hillsboro', Charleston, Shepherdstown, Martinsburg, and Middleway, to Winchester once a week. Leave Washington City every Tuesday at 7 a.m. and arrive at Martinsburg on Wednesday by 5 p.m. Leave Martinsburg at 6 p.m. and arrive at Winchester on Thursday by 4 p.m. Return. Leave Winchester every Friday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Washington City on Sunday by 2 p.m.  30. From Washington City, by Fairfax c.h. Centreville, Middlebury, Goshen, Millwood, Paris, Winchester, Romney, Westoverport, Green Glades, and Gandy's, to Clarkburg twice a week. Leave Washington every Monday and Friday at 3 p.m. and arrive at Fairfax c.h. by 6 p.m. Leave Fairfax c.h. at 6 1-2 p.m. and arrive at Clarkburg on Thursday and Monday by 8 p.m. Return. Leave Clarkburg every Tuesday and Friday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Fairfax c.h. on Friday and Monday by 5 1-2 a.m. and at Washington by 9 a.m.  31. From Clarkburg by Marsh's, Marietta, Athens, Chillicothe, Willis's Cross Roads, Newmarket, Williamsburg, and Columbia, to Cincinnati twice a week. Leave Clarkburg every Tuesday and Friday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Cincinnati on Friday and Monday by 10 a.m. Return. Leave Cincinnati every Monday and Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Clarkburg the next Thursday and Monday by 7 p.m.  32. From Romney, by Moorfields, to Pendleton once a week. Leave Romney every Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Pendleton c.h. on Tuesday by 4 p.m. Return. Leave Pendleton c.h. on Wednesday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Romney on Thursday by 6 p.m.  33. From Marietta, by Bel Pre to Wood c.h. once a week. Leave Marietta every Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Wood c.h. by 10 a.m. Leave Wood c.h. at 2 p.m. and arrive at Marietta by 6 p.m.  34. From Clarkburg, by Buchanan and Randolph c.h. to Pendleton c.h. once in two weeks. Leave Clarkburg every other Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Pendleton c.h. the next Friday by 10 a.m. Leave Pendleton c.h. every other Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Clarkburg the next Monday by 6 p.m.  35. From Fredericksburg, by Falmouth, Elkrun church, Fauquier c.h. Oakhill, and Salem, or Ash's store to Paris once a week. Leave Paris, every Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Fredericksburg on Monday by 3 p.m. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Paris, on Friday by 6 p.m.  36. From Alexandria, by Fairfax c.h. Centreville, Haymarket, Buckland, Warrenton, Jefferson, Culpeper c.h. Bristow, and Madison c.h. to Staunton once a week. Leave Alexandria every Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Fairfax c.h. by 6 p.m. and arrive at Staunton on Monday by 5 p.m. Leave Staunton every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Alexandria, on Friday by 10 a.m.  37. From Fredericksburg, by Germania, Stevensburg, Culpeper c.h. Gann's Cross Road, and Front Royal to Winchester once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Winchester on Monday by 6 a.m. Return. Leave Winchester every Monday at noon, and arrive at Fredericksburg on Wednesday by 6 p.m.  38. From Culpeper c.h. by Woodville, F. T. Village, Washington, Pass Mills, Thornton's Gap, Mundell's Store, and Hawke's Mill, to Newmarket once a week. Leave Culpeper c.h. every Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Newmarket on Tuesday by 10 a.m. Leave Newmarket at 2 p.m. and arrive at Culpeper on Wednesday by 6 p.m.  39. From Fredericksburg, by Thornsburg, Roger's Mill, Chuburg, Chesterfield c.h. Newfound mill, Oxford, Crew's store, Goochland c.h. Mitchell's Vaneyville, Price's mill, Cuckoo's, Louisa c.h. Portersville, Bibb's store and Spottsylvania c.h. to Fredericksburg, once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Tuesday at noon, and arrive at Goochland c.h. on Thursday by 11 a.m. and at Fredericksburg the next Tuesday by 9 a.m.  40. From Fredericksburg, by Port Royal, Pittsville, Linton's, Lloyd's, Tappahannock, Urbanna, Glendon, and Gloucester c.h. to Yorktown once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Yorktown, on Saturday by 6 p.m. Leave Yorktown every Sunday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Fredericksburg on Wednesday by 10 a.m.  41. From Fredericksburg, by King George c.h. Broadfield, Mattox Bridge, Ledestown, Templeman's Cross Roads, Richmond c.h. Mount Airy, Farnham, Kinsale, Northumberland c.h. and Louisa c.h. to Kilmarnock once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Kilmarnock, the next Saturday by 5 p.m. Return. Leave Kilmarnock every Sunday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Fredericksburg the next Wednesday by 10 a.m.  42. From Tappahannock, to Richmond c.h. once a week. Leave Richmond c.h. every Thursday at noon and arrive at Tappahannock by 6 p.m. Return. Leave Tappahannock on Thursday at 6 1-2 p.m. and arrive at Richmond c.h. on Friday by 9 a.m.  43. From Bowling Green, by Ballysville, Broadus's mill, Harrisonville, Newtown, Dunkirk, Walkerton, King William c.h. Lilly Point, and Cumberland, to New Kent c.h. once a week. Leave Bowling Green every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at New Kent c.h. on Wednesday by 10 a.m. Return. Leave New Kent c.h. every Wednesday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Bowling Green on Thursday by 4 p.m. 
 44. From Richmond, by Hanover town, Aylet's and Lankirk, to Tappahannock once a week. Leave Richmond every Wednesday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Dunkirk on Thursday by 8 a.m. Leave Dunkirk at 9 a.m. and arrive at Tappahannock by 1 p.m. Return. Leave Tappahannock every Sunday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Richmond on Monday by noon.  45. From Dunkirk, by King and Queen c.h. Skurlock's, Gloucester c.h. and North End, to Matthews c.h. once a week. Leave Dunkirk every Thursday at 8 a.m. and arrive at Matthews c.h. on Friday by 7 p.m. Return. Leave Matthews c.h. on Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Dunkirk on Monday by 6 p.m.  46. From Richmond, by Granville to Charles City c.h. once a week. Leave Charles City c.h. every Tuesday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Richmond by 4 p.m. Leave Richmond every Wednesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Charles City c.h. by 6 p.m.  47. From Fredericksburg by Orange c.h. Linton's store, Charlottesville, New-York, and Waynesborough to Staunton twice a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Tuesday and Saturday at noon, and arrive at Charlottesville on Wednesday and Sunday by 3 p.m. Leave Charlottesville at 5 1-2 p.m. and arrive at Staunton on Thursday and Monday by 11 a.m. Return. Leave Staunton every Thursday and Monday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Charlottesville on Friday and Tuesday by 7 a.m. Leave Charlottesville at 7 1/2 a.m. and arrive at Fredericksburg on Saturday and Wednesday by 11 a.m.  48. From Staunton, by Middlebrook, Brownsville, Lexington, Natural Bridge, Pattonsburg, Fincastle, Amsterdam, Salem, Airmount, and Montgomery c.h. to Wythe c.h. twice a week. Leave Staunton every Monday and Thursday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Fincastle on Tuesday and Friday by 7 p.m. and at Montgomery c.h. on Wednesday and Saturday by 8 p.m. and at Wythe c.h. on Thursday and Sunday by 8 p.m. Return. Leave Wythe c.h. every Monday and Friday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Montgomery c.h. by 8 p.m. and at Fincastle on Tuesday and Saturday by 8 p.m. and at Staunton the next Thursday and Monday by 11 a.m.  49. From Wythe c.h. by Crab Orchard, Abingdon, Blountsville, Rossville, Rogersville, Whitesville, Beene's Station, and Rutledge, to Knoxville twice a week. Leave Wythe c.h. every Monday and Friday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Sullivan c.h. on Tuesday and Saturday by noon, at Beene's Station on Wednesday and Sunday by 2 p.m. and at Knoxville on Thursday and Monday by 11 a.m. Return. Leave Knoxville every Monday and Thursday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Beene's Station on Tuesday and Friday by 10 a.m. at Sullivan c.h. on Wednesday and Saturday by noon, and at Wythe c.h. on Thursday and Sunday by 8 p.m.  50. From Richmond by Goochland c.h. George's, Timberlake's, & Milton, to Charlottesville twice a week. Leave Richmond every Tuesday and Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Charlottesville on Wednesday and Sunday by 4 p.m. Return. Leave Charlottesville every Tuesday and Friday at 8 a.m. and arrive at Richmond on Wednesday and Sunday by 7 p.m.  51. From Richmond, by Hopkins', Powhatan c.h. Cartersville, New Canton, Buckingham c.h. and Bent Creek, to Lynchburg once a week. Leave Richmond every Friday at 3 p.m. and arrive at Powhatan c.h. on Saturday by 9 a.m. and at Lynchburg on Monday by 10 a.m. Leave Lynchburg every Monday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Powhatan c.h. on Wednesday by 3 p.m. Leave Powhatan c.h. at 4 p.m. and arrive at Richmond on Thursday by 10 a.m.  52. From Lynchburg by New London and Liberty to Fincastle once a week. Leave Fincastle every Sunday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Lynchburg on Monday by 10 a.m. Leave Lynchburg every Monday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Fincastle on Tuesday by 7 p.m.  53. From Richmond by Manchester, Chesterfield c.h. Springfield, Colesville, Genito Bridge, Providence, Perkinsonville, Painsville, Ligonstown and Jamestown, to Farmville once a week. Leave Farmville every Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Richmond on Tuesday by 4 p.m. Leave Richmond every Wednesday at 8 a.m. and arrive at Jamestown on Thursday by 3 p.m.  54. From Powhatan c.h. by Cumberland c.h. Ca-Ira, Farmville, Prince Edward c.h. and Charlotte c.h. to Halifax c.h. once a week. Leave Powhatan c.h. every Saturday at 10 a.m. and arrive at Prince Edward c.h. on Sunday by 4 p.m. and arrive at Halifax c.h. on Monday by 4 p.m. Leave Halifax c.h. on Tuesday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Prince Edward c.h. on Wednesday by 9 a.m. and at Powhatan c.h. on Wednesday by 3 p.m.  55. From Prince Edward c.h. by Leicester, Wheeler's Springs, Reeds and Campbell c.h. to New London once a week. Leave Prince Edward c.h. every Sunday at 4 1/2 p.m. and arrive at New London on Monday by 8 p.m. Return. Leave New London on Tuesday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Prince Edward c.h. on Wednesday by 6 a.m.  56. From Halifax c.h. by Danville, and Dixonville, to Lenox Castle, N.C. once a week. Leave Lenox Castle every Sunday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Halifax c.h. on Monday by 6 p.m. Leave Halifax c.h. every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Lenox Castle on Wednesday by 6 p.m.  57. From Halifax c.h. by Oldtown, Pittsylvania c.h. Pittsylvania old c.h. Peytonsbury, Henry c.h. Hughestown, and Patrick c.h. to Germantown once a week. Leave Halifax c.h. every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Henry c.h. on Wednesday by 3 p.m. and at Germantown on Friday by 10 a.m. Return. Leave Germantown every Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Henry c.h. on Sunday by 3 p.m. Leave Henry c.h. at 4 p.m. and arrive at Halifax c.h. on Monday by 6 p.m.  58. From Henry c.h. by Rocky Mount, to Liberty once a week. Leave Henry c.h. every Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Liberty on Friday by 11 a.m. Leave Liberty every Friday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Henry c.h. on Saturday by 6 p.m.  59. From Petersburg, by Brookington, Namazee Bridge, Henderdon, Nottoway c.h. Hungarystown, Double Bridge, Halesburg, Williamsburg, Bibb's Ferry, and Scottsburg, to Halifax c.h. once a week. Leave Petersburg every Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Williamsburg on Monday by 9 a.m. Leave Williamsburg at 10 a.m. and arrive at Halifax c.h. by 4 p.m. Return. Leave Halifax c.h. on Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Williamsburg by 2 p.m. Leave Williamsburg at 3 p.m. and arrive at Petersburg on Friday by 10 a.m.  60. From Harrisville, by Fielder's mill, Quarlesville, McFarland's, Lunenburg c.h. Christville, Marshallville, Leekenburg c.h. St. Tamany's, Gee's Bridge, Edmundson, and Fielder's mill, to Harrisville once a week. 
 Leave Harrisville every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Marshallville by 5 p.m. Leave there on Wednesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Harrisville by 6 p.m.  61. From Harrisville, by Bellfield, Hick's Ford and Alexandria, to Halifax twice a week. Leave Harrisville every Tuesday and Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Halifax by 8 p.m. Leave Halifax every Wednesday and Sunday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Harrisville by 8 p.m. The mail is to pass by Putney's store and Dacey's on Tuesday and Sunday.  62. From Petersburg, by Sussex c.h. Jerusalem and South Quay, to Murfreesboro' N.C. once a week. Leave Petersburg every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Murfreesboro' on Wednesday by 4 p.m. Return. Leave Murfreesboro' every Sunday at 8 a.m. and arrive at Petersburg on Monday by 6 p.m.  63. From Smithfield, by Urquhart's store, Jerusalem, Bethlehem Cross Roads and the Cross Keys, to Hick's Ford once a week. Leave Hick's Ford every Thursday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Smithfield on Friday by 7 p.m. Return. Leave Smithfield every Saturday at 7 a.m. and arrive at Hick's Ford on Sunday by 7 p.m.  64. From Suffolk, by Everitt's Bridge & Gates c.h. to Edenton North-Carolina twice a week. Leave Suffolk every Wednesday and Sunday at 10 a.m. and arrive at Edenton on Thursday and Monday by 3 p.m. Leave Edenton every Tuesday and Saturday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Suffolk on Wednesday and Sunday by 8 a.m.  65. From Norfolk by Kempville, N.W. R.R. Bridge, Tull's creek N.C. Indian town, Currituck c.h. Jonesboro', Elizabeth City, Nixonton & Hertford, to Edenton once a week. Leave Norfolk every Tuesday noon, and arrive at Edenton the next Friday by 10 a.m. Return. Leave Edenton every Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Norfolk the next Tuesday by 6 a.m.  66. From Charlottesville, by Warren, Warminster, New-Market, New Glasgow, Amherst c.h. and Madison, to Lynchburg once a week. Leave Charlottesville every Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Lynchburg on Friday by 6 p.m. Leave Lynchburg every Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Charlottesville on Monday by 10 a.m.  67. From Lynchburg, by Bethell, Peckler's Mill, and Winton to Lexington once a week. Leave Lynchburg every Monday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Lexington on Tuesday by 5 p.m. Leave Lexington at 5 p.m. and arrive at Lynchburg on Wednesday by 8 p.m.  68. From Lynchburg, by Hermantown and Hunter's tavern, to Prince Edward c.h. once a week. Leave Lynchburg every Monday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Prince Edward c.h. on Tuesday by noon. Leave Prince Edward c.h. every Tuesday by 2 p.m. and arrive at Lynchburg on Wednesday by 6 p.m.  69. From Lynchburg, by Campbell c.h. Hanson's store, Marysville, Grasty's store, Stone's store, Pittsylvania c.h. and Beaver's, to Danville, once in two weeks. Leave Lynchburg, every other Monday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Danville on Thursday by 4 p.m. Leave Danville every other Friday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Lynchburg on Monday by 8 a.m.  70. From Staunton, by Kinkaid's, the Warm Springs, or Bath c.h. Morris's, Callaghan's, and the Sulphur Springs, to Lewisburg, and from thence by Uniontown, the Sweet Springs, Gallaghans, &c. to Staunton once a week. Leave Staunton every Thursday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Lewisburg on Sunday by 10 a.m. Leave Lewisburg by noon, and arrive at Staunton the next Thursday by 10 a.m.  71. From Lewisburg, by Boyer's, Huff's, Morris's, Kenhaway c.h. Point Pleasant, Gallipolis, and Scioto salt works, to Chillicothe once in two weeks. Leave Lewisburg every other Sunday at noon, and arrive at Chillicothe on Friday by 4 p.m. Leave Chillicothe every other Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Lewisburg the next Saturday by 10 a.m.  72. From Wythe c.h. by Austinville, Grayson c.h. Scull Camp, Mount Airy, & Bethania to Salem N.C. once a week. Leave Wythe c.h. every Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Salem the next Friday by 10 a.m. Return. Leave Salem every Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Wythe c.h. on Sunday by 6 p.m.  73. From Wythe c.h. by Tazewell c.h. Russell c.h. and Lee c.h. to Robinson's mills once in two weeks. Leave Wythe c.h. every other Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Robinson's mills on Thursday by 6 p.m. Leave Robinson's mills every other Friday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Wythe c.h. on Monday by 6 p.m.  74. From Waterford, by Braden's store, Janney's store, and Snicker's Gap to Upperville once a week. Leave Waterford every Wednesday at 10 a.m. and arrive at Upperville on the next Thursday by 2 p.m. Leave Upperville every Thursday at 4 p.m. and arrive at Waterford on Friday by 6 p.m.  75. From Leesburg to Centreville once a week. Leave Leesburg every Saturday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Centreville the same day by 11 a.m. Leave Centreville every Saturday at noon, and arrive at Leesburg on the same day by 7 p.m.  76. From Petersburg to City Point. Leave City Point every Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Petersburg the same day by 9 a.m. Leave Petersburg in two hours and return to City Point by 3 p.m. 
NOTES.
 1. The Post-Master General may expedite the mails and alter the times of arrival and departure at any time during the continuance of the contracts, he stipulating what he conceives to be an adequate compensation for any extra expense that may be occasioned thereby.  2. Fifteen minutes shall be allowed for opening and closing the mails at all offices where no particular time is specified.  3. For every thirty minutes delay, (unavoidable accidents excepted) in arriving after the time prescribed in any contract, the contractor shall forfeit one dollar: and if the delay continues until the departure of any depending mail, where the mails destined for such depending mail shall be incurred. And whenever a lost trip ensues, from whatever circumstance, the amount to be paid to the contractor for a regular trip is to be deducted from his pay.  4. News-papers, as well as letters are to be sent in the mail; and if any person making proposals, desires to carry newspapers, other than those conveyed in the mail, for his own emolument, he must state in his proposals for what sum he will carry with the emolument, and for what sum without that emolument.  5. Should any person making proposals, desire an alteration of the times of arrival and departure above specified, he must state in his proposals the alteration desired, and the difference they will make in the terms of the contract.  6. Persons making proposals are desired to 
state their prices by the year. Those who contract will receive their pay quarterly, in the months of August, November, February and May, in one month after the expiration of each quarter.  7. No other than a free white person shall be employed to convey the mail.  8. Where the proposer intends to convey the mail in the body of a stage carriage, he is desired to state it in his proposals.  9. The Post-Master general reserves to himself the right of declaring any contract at an end whenever one failure happens which amounts to the loss of a trip.  10. The contracts for the above routes are to be in operation on the first day of April next, and are to continue in force for two years.  GIDEON GRANGER, Post-Master General.  GENERAL POST-OFFICE, Washington City, October 31, 1808. Nov. 29. (oawfw)
REPORT, IN PART.
Of the COMMITTEE appointed on so much of the President's Message as respects our Foreign Relations.
NOVEMBER 22, 1808.
Read and ordered to be committed to a committee of the whole H. of R. on Thursday next.
REPORT.
The committee to whom was referred so much of the Message of the President of the United States, of the 8th inst. as respects our relations with foreign powers.
REPORT, IN PART.
After a period of twenty-five years of peace, hardly interrupted by transient hostilities, and of prosperity unparalleled in the history of nations; the United States are, for the first time since the treaty which terminated the revolutionary war, placed in a situation equally difficult, critical and dangerous.
Those principles recognized by the civilized world under the name of law of nations, which heretofore controlled belligerent powers, regulated the duties of the neutrals and protected their rights, are now avowedly disregarded or forgotten by Great-Britain and France. Each of those two nations captures and condemns all American vessels trading with her enemies or her enemies' allies; and every European power having become a party in the contest, the whole of our commerce with Europe and European colonies, becomes liable to capture by either one or the other.
The only plea urged in justification of those hostilities, is that of retaliation, grounded on a presumed acquiescence of the United States in previous aggressions by the other party. Waving a discussion of the correctness of the principle of retaliation, a principle doubtful in itself, and altogether inadmissible to the extent to which it has been carried, and when operating on the neutral rather than on the enemy; it is altogether untrue that the United States have ever voluntarily acquiesced in the unlawful aggressions of either nation; omitted or delayed any measure calculated to obtain redress, or in any respect deviated from that impartiality to which they were bound by their neutrality.
France has alluded to the violations of the neutral flag, and of the sovereignty of the United States, in the instances of Pierce's murder, of the outrage on the Chesapeake, and of the destruction of the Impetus. The measures taken to obtain redress in those cases are of public notoriety, and it may be added, that with the exception of the last, those aggressions on the sovereignty of the United States did not affect their neutrality, and gave no right to France either of complaint or interference.
Setting aside irregularities of less importance and equally chargeable to both nations, such as the British order of June, 1803, and the decree of the French general, Ferrand; the principal violations by England of the neutral rights of America, prior to the Berlin decree of November, 1806, and which, if acquiesced in, might have given grounds of complaint to France, are the capture of American vessels laden with colonial produce, founded on a renewal of that pretended principle generally called "The rule of 1756," the impressment of American seamen, compelled thereby to become the auxiliaries of England against France, and proclamation or nominal blockades, particularly that of the coast from the river Elbe to Brest, notified in May, 1806.
It will not be asserted, that the United States ever tamely acquiesced in either of those pretensions. It will not be denied, that with respect to the two first, the most strenuous efforts were incessantly made to procure an alteration of the British system.
It is true, that to the nominal proclamation blockades of England, the United States had opposed only spirited and repeated remonstrances, and that these had not always been successful. But the measures which a neutral nation may be supposed bound to take, against the infractions of its neutrality, must always bear a certain proportion to the extent and nature of the injury received, and to the means of opposition.
It cannot certainly be pretended that a hasty resort to war should in every such instance have become the duty of America. Nor can the irregularities of England, in declaring a state of blockade, a certain extent of coast, part of which was not, and the whole of which could not, even by her powerful navy, be actually invested and blockaded, be plead in justification of that decree, by which France, without an efficient fleet, pretends to announce the blockade of the dominions of a power which has the incontestible command of the sea, and before no part of which, she can station a single vessel.
The Milan decree of 1807 can still less rest for its defence on the supposed acquiescence of the United States in the British orders of the preceding month, since those orders, which have not certainly been acquiesced in, were not even known in America at the date of the decree. And it is proper here to add, that the French have, particularly in the requisitions of certain vessels in their
ports, and by burning our ships on the high seas, gone even beyond the tenor of their own extraordinary edicts.
The allegation of an acquiescence in the Berlin decree of November 1806, by which alone the British government pretends to justify the orders of council, is equally unfounded. In the note on that subject, addressed on the 31st December 1806, by the British government to the American ministers, after having stated that "they could not believe that the enemy would never seriously attempt to enforce such a system," the following declaration is expressly made, "If, however, the enemy should carry these threats into execution, and if neutral nations, contrary to all expectation, should acquiesce in such usurpations, his majesty might probably be compelled, however reluctantly, to retaliate in his just defence, &c." The two requisites necessary in the opinion of Great Britain to justify retaliation, are stated to be, the execution of the decree, and the acquiescence of neutral nations. Yet, within eight days after, and in the face of that declaration, without waiting for ascertaining either of those facts, the retaliating British order of January 7th, 1807, was issued, which, contrary to the acknowledged law of nations, subjected to capture, vessels of the United States sailing from the ports of one belligerent to a port of another belligerent.
The United States in the mean while, &c without delay, had taken the necessary steps to ascertain the manner in which the French government intended to execute their decree.
That decree might be construed merely as a municipal law forbidding the introduction of British merchandise, and the admission of vessels coming from England. Under that aspect, and if confined to that object, the neutral rights of America were not affected by its operation.
A belligerent may without any infraction of neutral rights forbid the admission into his ports of any vessel coming from the ports of his enemy. And France had undoubtedly the same right to exclude from her dominions every species of British merchandise, which the United States have exercised in forbidding the importation of certain species. Great Britain might be injured by such regulations; but America had no more right to complain of that part of the decree, than France had to object to the American non-importation act. So far as it respects the United States, they were placed by the municipal part of the decree in the same situation, in relation to France, in which they are placed in their intercourse with Great Britain by the permanent laws of that country. The French decree forbids American vessels to import British merchandise into France. The British navigation act forbids American vessels to import French merchandise into England. But that broad clause of the Berlin decree which declared the British islands in a state of blockade, though not followed by regulations on that effect, still threatened an intended operation on the high seas. This, if carried into effect, would be a flagrant violation of the neutral rights of the United States, and as such they would be bound to oppose it. The minister of the United States at Paris immediately applied for explanation on that subject; and the French minister of marine, on the 24th December, 1806, seven days before the date of the above mentioned note of the British government, stated in answer, that the decree made no alteration in the regulations then observed in France with regard to neutral navigation, or to the commercial convention of the United States with France; That the declaration of the British islands being in a state of blockade did not change the existing French laws concerning maritime captures, and that American vessels could not be taken at sea for the mere reason of their being going to, or returning from an English port.
The execution of the decree comported for several months with those explanations; several vessels were arrested for having introduced articles of English growth or manufacture, and among them some which being actually from England, and laden with English colonial produce, had entered with forged papers, as if coming from the United States. But no alteration of the first construction given by the French government took place until the month of September, 1807. The first condemnation on the principle that the decree subjected neutral vessels to capture on the high seas, was that of the Horizon on the 10th of October following. Prior to that time there could have been no acquiescence in a decree infringing the neutral rights of the United States; because till that time it was explained, and was more important, executed in such a manner as not to infringe those rights; because until then no such infraction had taken place. The ministers of the United States at London, at the request of the British minister, communicated to him on the 18th October, 1807, the substance of the explanations received, and of the manner in which the decree was executed. For they were at that time ignorant of the change which had taken place.
It was on the 18th of September, 1807, that a new construction of the decree took place; an instruction having on that day been transmitted to the council of prizes by the minister of justice, by which that court was informed, that French armed vessels were authorized, under that decree, to seize without exception, in neutral vessels, either English property, or merchandise of English growth or manufacture. An immediate explanation having been asked from the French minister of foreign relations, he confirmed, in his answer of the 7th of October, 1807, the determination of his government to adopt that construction. Its first application took place on the 10th of the same month, in the case of the Horizon, of which the minister of the United States was not informed until the month of November; and on the twelfth of that month, he presented a spirited remonstrance against that infraction of the neutral rights of the United States. He had, in the mean while, submitted to America the instruction, transmitted to the council of prizes of the 18th of September. This was received on the 10th of December; and a copy of the decision in the case

of the Horizon, having at the same time renewed government, the president, aware of the consequences which would follow that new state of things, communicated immediately to congress the alteration of the French decree, and recommended the embargo, which was accordingly laid on the 22d of December, 1807; at which time it was well understood, in this country, that the British orders of council, of November preceding, had issued, although they were not officially communicated to our government.
On the 11th of that month those orders did actually issue, declaring that all the ports of France, of her allies, and of any other country at war with England, and all other ports of Europe, from which, although not at war with England, the British flag was excluded, should thenceforth be considered as if the same were actually blockaded; that all trade in articles of the produce or manufactures of the said countries should be deemed unlawful; and that every vessel trading from or to the said countries, together with all goods and merchandise on board, and also all articles of the produce or manufacture of the said countries, should be liable to capture and condemnation.
These orders cannot be defended on the ground of their being intended as retaliating on account of the Berlin decree, as construed, and uniformly executed from its date to the 18th September, 1807, its construction and execution having till then infringed no neutral rights. For certainly the monstrous doctrine will not be asserted even by the British government, that neutral nations are bound to resist, not only the acts of belligerent powers which violate their rights, but also those municipal regulations, which, however, they may injure the enemy, are lawful and do not affect the legitimate rights of the neutral. The only retaliation to be used in such case, must be such as will operate on the enemy without infringing the rights of the neutral. If solely intended as a retaliation on the Berlin decree, as executed prior to the month of September, the British orders of council should have been confined to forbidding the introduction into Great-Britain of French or enemy's merchandise, and the admission into British ports of neutral vessels coming from a French or other enemy's port. Indeed the ground of retaliation on account of any culpable acquiescence of neutrals in decrees violating their rights, is abandoned by the very tenor of the orders; their operation being extended to those countries from which the British flag was excluded, such as Austria, although such countries were neither at war with Great-Britain, nor had passed any decree in any way affecting or connected with neutral rights.
Nor are the orders justifiable on the presence of an acquiescence on the part of the U. States, in the French decree as construed and executed subsequent to the 18th Sept. 1807, when it became an evident infraction of their rights, and such as they were bound to oppose. For their minister at Paris immediately made the necessary remonstrances; and the orders were issued not only without having ascertained whether the U. States would acquiesce in the injurious alteration of the French decree, but more than one month before that alteration was known in America. It may even be asserted that the alteration was not known in England when the orders of council were issued; the instruction of the 18th September, 1807, which gave the new and injurious construction, not having been promulgated in France, and its first publication having been made in December, 1807, and by the American government itself.
The British orders of council are, therefore, unjustifiable on the principle of retaliation, even giving to that principle all the latitude which has ever been avowedly contended for. They are in open violation of the solemn declaration made by the British ministers in December, 1806; that retaliation on the part of Great-Britain would depend on the execution of an unlawful decree, and on the acquiescence of the neutral nations in such infraction of their rights. And they were also issued, notwithstanding the official communication made by the ministers of the United States, that the French decree was construed and executed so as not to infringe their neutral rights, and with out any previous notice or intimation denying the correctness of that statement.
The Berlin decree as expounded and executed subsequent to the 18th September, 1807, and the British orders of council of the 11th November ensuing, are, therefore, as they affect the U. States, co-temporaneous aggressions of the belligerent powers, equally unprovoked and equally indefensible on the presumed ground of acquiescence. These, together with the Milan decree of December, 1807, which filled the measure, would on the principle of self defence have justified immediate hostilities against both nations on the part of the United States. They thought it more eligible in the first instance by withdrawing their vessels from the ocean, to avoid war, at least, for a season, and at the same time, to snatch their immense and defenceless commerce from impending destruction.
Another appeal has in the mean time been made, under the authority vested in the president for that purpose, to the justice and true interest of France and England. The propositions made by the United States, and the arguments urged by their minister, are before congress. By these, the very pretext of the illegal edicts was removed; and it is evident that a revocation by either nation on the ground on which it was asked, either must have produced, what both pretended to have in view, a restoration of the freedom of commerce and of the acknowledged principles of the law of nations; or in case of refusal by the other belligerent, would have carried into effect, in the most efficient manner, the ostensible object of the edicts, and made the United States a party in the war against him. The effort has been ineffectual. The propositions have been actually rejected by one of the belligerent powers, and remain unanswered by the other. In that state of things, what course ought the United States to pursue? Your committee can conceive no other alternative, but subject and degrading submission; war with both nations; or a continuance and enforcement of the present suspension of commerce.
The first cannot require any discussion. But the pressure of the embargo, so sensibly felt, and the calamities inseparable from a state of war, naturally create a wish that some middle course might be discovered, which should avoid the evils of both, and not be inconsistent with national honor and independence. That illusion must be dissipated; and it is necessary that the people of the United States should fully understand the situation in which they are placed.
There is no other alternative, but war with both nations, or a continuance of the
present system. For war with one of the belligerents only would be submission to the edicts and will of the other; and a repeal in whole or in part of the embargo must be war or submission.
A general repeal without arming, would be submission to both nations.
A general repeal and arming of our merchant vessels, would be war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the enemies to plunder us without retaliation upon them.
A partial repeal must, from the situation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one of the aggressors and war with the other.
The last position, is the only one on which there can be any doubt; and it will be most satisfactorily demonstrated by selecting amongst the several modifications, which might be suggested, that which may on first view appear the least exceptionable; a proposition to repeal the embargo, so far only as relates to those powers, which have not passed or do not execute any decrees injurious to the neutral rights of the United States.
It is said that the adoption of that proposition would restore our commerce with the native powers of Asia and Africa, and with Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Russia. Let this be taken for granted, although the precise line of conduct now pursued by most of those nations, in relation to the U. States, is not correctly ascertained. So far as relates to any advantages which would result from that measure, if confined to its ostensible object, it will be sufficient to observe that the export of articles of the domestic produce of the United States, during the year, ending the 30th September, 1807, amounted to 48,700,000 dollars, and the portion exported to the countries above enumerated falls short of seven millions; an amount too inconsiderable, when compared with the bulk of our exports, to deserve attention, even if a question affecting the independence of the nation was to be decided by considerations of immediate profit.
But the true effect of the proposition would be to open an indirect trade with Great-Britain, which, through St. Bartholomew and Havana, Lisbon, Cadiz or Gottemburg, would receive, at prices reduced by glutted markets and for want of competition, all the provisions, naval stores, raw materials for her manufactures, and other articles which she may want. Whether she would be satisfied with that favorable state of things, or whether, considering that boon as a pledge of unqualified submission, she would, according to the tenor of her orders, interrupt our scanty commerce with Russia, and occasionally, under some new pretext, capture rather than purchase the cargoes intended for her own use, is equally uncertain and unimportant. Nor can it be doubted that a measure which would supply exclusively one of the belligerents, would be war with the other. Considered merely as a question of profit, it would be much more eligible at once to raise the embargo in relation to Great-Britain, as we would then, at least, have the advantages of a direct market with the consumer. But the proposition can only be defended on the ground that France is the only aggressor, and, that having no just reason to complain of England, it is our duty to submit to her orders. On that inadmissible supposition, it would not only be more candid, but also a more dignified, as well as more advantageous course, openly to join England, and to make war against France. The object would be clearly understood, an ally would be obtained, and the meanness of submission might be better palliated.
It appears unnecessary to pursue any further the examination of propositions, which the difficult situation of the United States could alone have suggested, and which will prove more inadmissible, or impracticable, as the subject is more thoroughly investigated. The alternative is painful; it is between a continued suspension of commerce and war with both England & France. But the choice must ultimately be made between the two; and it is important that we should be prepared for either the one or the other.
The aggressions of England and France collectively affecting almost the whole of our commerce, and persisted in, notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, explanations and propositions the most candid and unexceptionable, are, to all intents and purposes, a maritime war waged by both nations against the United States. It cannot be denied that the ultimate and only effectual mode of resisting that warfare, if persisted in, is war. A permanent suspension of commerce, after repeated and unavailing efforts to obtain peace, would not properly be resistance; it would be withdrawing from the contest, and abandoning our indisputable right freely to navigate the ocean. The present unsettled state of the world, the extraordinary situation in which the U. States are placed, and the necessity, if war be resorted to, of making it at the same time against both nations, and these the two most powerful of the world, are the principal causes of hesitation. There would be none in resorting to that remedy, however calamitous, if a selection could be made on any principle of justice, or without a sacrifice of national independence.
On a question of such difficulty, involving the most important interests of the union, and which has not, perhaps, until lately, been sufficiently considered, your committee think the House alone competent to pronounce a decisive opinion; and they have in this report confined themselves to an exposition of the subject, and to such introductory resolutions, as will be equally applicable to either alternative. The first of these, being merely declaratory of a determination not to submit to foreign aggressions, may, perhaps, at a first view, appear superfluous. It is, however, believed by the committee, that a pledge by the representatives of the nation, that they will not abandon its essential rights, will not at this critical moment be unacceptable. The misapprehensions which seem to have existed, and the misrepresentations which have been circulated, respecting the state of our foreign relations, render also such declaration expedient. And it may not be useless that every foreign nation should understand, that its aggressions never will be justified or encouraged by any description of American citizens. For the question for every citizen now is, whether he will rally round the government of his choice, or enlist under foreign banners? Whether he will be for his country, or against his country?
The committee respectfully submit the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice of their rights, honor and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and France.
2. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit, by law, the admission into the ports of
the United States of all public or private, armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great Britain or France, or to any other of the belligerent powers, having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce and neutral rights of the U. States; and also the importation of any goods, wares or merchandise, the growth, produce or manufacture of the dominions of any of the said powers, or imported from any place in the possession of either.
3. Resolved, That measures ought to be immediately taken for placing the country in a more complete state of defence.
CONGRESS.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
MONDAY, November 21. EMBARGO.
This being the day fixed for the discussion of the following resolution offered by Mr. Hillhouse.
Resolved, That it is expedient that the act, entitled, "An act laying an embargo on all the ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," and the several acts supplementary thereto, be repealed, and that a committee be appointed to prepare and report a bill for that purpose.
The Senate took up the subject.
Mr. Hillhouse opened the debate. When the reporter entered the Senate chamber, Mr. Hillhouse had been speaking for a few minutes, and was then discussing the effect which the embargo had had upon France, and the light in which it was viewed by her rulers. He alluded to the declaration of satisfaction at this measure, contained in a late French expose, and made many observations tending to show that it was not a measure of hostility or coercion, as applied to France.
On England it had little or no effect. Her resources were immense. If deprived of a supply of grain here, she could obtain it elsewhere. The Barbary powers were at war with France, and at peace with England, who might thence obtain wheat in any quantity she pleased. Great Britain he said was a nation with the whole world before her; her commerce spread over every sea, and she had access to every port and climate. Could America expect to starve this nation? It was a farce, an idle farce. As to her West India islands they raised Indian corn; all their sugar plantations could be converted into corn fields, and would any man say that they could not get sufficient flour? Was this a necessary or of life without which they could not subsist? On the contrary a great proportion of the American people subsisted on it, and enjoyed as good health as if they eat nothing but the finest of wheat flour. The moment the people understood that they could not get their necessary supplies from a customary source, they would not look for it in another quarter, and ample time had been given to them to make arrangement for this purpose.
A man of first respectability in the town in which Mr. Hillhouse lived had been there during this embargo, under the President's permission. What accounts did he bring? Why, that the trade in corn meal and live cattle, articles of great export from Connecticut, and comprising not only the product of that state, but of parts of the neighboring states would be entirely defeated; that where they had formerly sent an hundred head of cattle for meat they would now find vent but for ten; and that in South America, where cattle had in times past been killed merely for their hides and tallow, cattle in abundance could be procured. Were these people to be starved out, when they could actually purchase cheaper now from other places than they had formerly done from us? No. The only consequences would be, and that too severely, felt, that we should lose our markets; the embargo thus producing not only present privation and injury, but permanent mischief.
The U. States would have lost the chance of obtaining future supplies, they would have lost their market, and ten nor twenty years would place them on the same footing as before. Mr. H. said the West Indians would have learnt that they can do without us; that they can raise provisions cheaper on their plantations than we can sell them; and knowing this they would never resort to us. Tho' we might retain a part of this commerce, the best part would be lost forever. The trade would not be worth pursuing; though this might answer one purpose intended by the embargo, and which was not expressed.
Having considered the article of provisions as important to various parts of the union, Mr. H. said he would now turn to another article, cotton. It had been very triumphantly said that the want of this article would distress the manufacturers of Great Britain, produce a clamor amongst them, and consequently accelerate the repeal of the orders in council. Mr. H. said he would examine this a little, and see if all the evil consequences which opened on him at the time of the passage of the embargo law were not likely to be realised. He had hinted at some of them at that time, but the Bill had gone thro' the senate like a flash of lightning, giving no time for examination; once, twice, and a third time in one day, affording no time for the development of all its consequences. This article of cotton was used not only by Britain but by France and other nations on the continent. Cotton, not being grown in Europe, must be transported by water carriage. This being the case who would be likely to be supplied with it? Not the continental powers who have so little commerce afloat nor any neutrals to convey it to them; for the United States were the only neutral which traded with France, and now the embargo was laid she had no chance of getting it, except by the precarious captures made by her privateers. To Great Britain then was left the whole commerce of the world, and her merchants were the only carriers.
Would not these carriers supply their own manufacturers? Would they suffer cotton to go elsewhere till they themselves were supplied? America was not the only country where cotton was raised; for he had seen an account of a whole cargo brought into Salem from the East-Indies and thence exported to Holland, with a good profit. Cotton was also raised in Africa, as well as elsewhere; and this wary nation, Great Britain, conceiving that the United States might be so impolitic as to keep on the embargo, had carried whole cargoes of the best cotton seed there for the purpose of raising cotton in every climate on the globe, and cotton did not, like the sturdy oak, require forty or fifty years to arrive at maturity; but if planted would produce a plentiful supply in a year. Thus, then, when this powerful nation found America resorting to such means to coerce her, she had taken care to look out for supplies in other quarters, and with the command of all the cotton on the globe which went to market, could we expect to coerce her by withholding ours? Mr. H. said no;
all the inconvenience which she could feel from our measure had already been borne; and Great Britain was turning her attention to every part of the globe to obtain those supplies which she was wont to get from us, that she might not be reduced to the humiliating condition of making concession to induce us to repeal our own law, and purchase an accommodation by telling us that we had a weapon which we could wield to her annoyance. Mr. H. wished to know of gentlemen if we had not experienced enough to know that Great Britain was not to be threatened into compliance by a rod of coercion? Let us examine ourselves, (said he) for if we trace our genealogy we shall find that we descend from them, were they to use us in this manner, is there an American that would stoop to them? I hope not; and neither will that nation from which we are descended be driven from their position, however erroneous, by threats.
This embargo, therefore, instead of operating on those nations which had been violating our rights, was fraught with evils and privations to the people of the United States. They were the sufferers. And have we (said he) adopted the monkish plan of scourging ourselves for the sins of others? He hoped not; and that, having made the experiment and found that it had not produced its expected effect, they would abandon it as a measure wholly inefficient as to the object intended by it and as having weakened the great hold which we had on G. Britain, from her supposed dependence on us for raw materials.
Some gentlemen appeared to build up expectations of the efficacy of this system by an addition to it of a non-intercourse law. Mr. H. treated this as a futile idea. They should, however, examine it seriously and not like children shut their eyes to danger. Great Britain was not the only manufacturing nation in Europe. Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy manufactured more or less, and most of them had colonies, the exclusive supply of whose manufactures they had heretofore reserved to themselves. Whilst we had enjoyed the carrying trade, we had supplied the deficiency in navigation of those nations; and all the inconvenience felt for the want of it ceased because we stepped in and aided them. This trade had been cut up, and perhaps it was not a trade which the energies of the nation should be embarked in defending. Who was there now to supply all these various colonies that used to be supplied by us? None but England, the sole mistress of the ocean. Whose products then would Great Britain carry? Would she carry products of other nations & let her own manufacturers starve? No; and this exclusion from the colonies of other manufactures and leaving her merchants the sole carriers of the world, produced a greater vent for her manufactures than the whole quantity consumed in the U. States.
This, however, was arguing upon the ground that the United States would consume none of her manufactures, in case of non-intercourse. Mr. H. said he was young when the old non-intercourse took place, but he remembered it well, and had then his ideas on the subject. The British army was then at their door, burning their towns and ravaging the country, and at least as much patriotism existed then as now; but British fabrics were received and consumed to almost as great an extent as before the prohibition. The armies could not get fresh provision from Europe, but they got them here by paying higher prices in guineas for them than was paid by our government in ragged continental paper money. When the country was in want of clothing and could get it for one-fourth price from the British, what was the consequence? Why all the zealous patriots—for this work of tarring and feathering, and meeting in mobs to destroy their neighbor's property because he could not think quite as fast as they did, which seemed to be coming in fashion now, had been carried on then with great zeal—these patriots although all intercourse was penal, carried on commerce notwithstanding. Supplies went hence, and manufactures were received from Europe. Now what reliance could be placed on this patriotism? A gentleman from Vermont had told the Senate at the last session that the patriotism of Vermont would stop all exportation by land, without the assistance of the law. How had it turned out? Why patriotism, cannons, militia and all had not stopped it; and although the field pieces might have stopped it on the lakes, they were absolutely cutting new roads to carry it on by land. And yet the gentleman had supposed that patriotism would effectually stop it! Now Mr. H. wanted to know how a non-intercourse law was to be executed by us with a coast of 1500 miles open to G. Britain by sea, and joining her by land? Her goods would come through our courts of admiralty by the means of friendly captors; they would be brought in, condemned, and then naturalized, as Irishmen are now naturalized, before they have been a month in the country.
Mr. H. went on at some length to show the impracticability of enforcing a non-intercourse law, and its demoralizing consequences on our citizens.
It had been said that the embargo should not be raised, because there was no commerce that now could be safely pursued. He was astonished that gentlemen should introduce this argument; as it went upon the ground that France and England could mutually arrest our commerce with each other. If this were really the fact, merchants, who were so nice in their calculations, would not risk their property. The insurance offices were perfect thermometers by which to calculate the degree of risk in any commerce. They always made their calculations on the safe side; and it would be found that no property was more sought after than insurance stock, and this was because the institutions were generally conducted by cautious merchants. A few haram-searam individual merchants might engage in hazardous enterprises, and lose all. Such men would never be controlled by law or prudent considerations. But the great body of merchants would always regulate the course of trade, and there was no need of an embargo to save them from running too great a risk.
How had they done in times past? Laws had been in force making it unlawful to trade with the Spanish possessions in S. America; but we had nevertheless carried on a profitable trade there, and not all the vigilance of Spain could prevent it. Now and then a few of our citizens had been caught and imprisoned, but that had not stopped our trade; nor was it in the power of France and England combined to do it. On this subject Mr. H. said gentlemen took for granted what was not true. France had issued her decree, saying that no vessel should navigate to England or her dependencies. What had been the consequence of this decree? It had not raised insurance five per centum. Had there been no good reason for this? Yes; it was
well known that the whole combined navy of France was not able to meet a British fleet, on the ocean. The French ships of war therefore could never go out but by stealth, and could not spread over the ocean, so as to endanger our commerce. Insurance had therefore been very little affected; and was it worth while to abandon trade with England altogether because France said we must not carry it on? This was revenging ourselves upon them with a witness. After the embargo had been laid—for at that time it afforded they had no knowledge of the British orders; some newspaper speculations on the subject had appeared, but the orders were not officially communicated by the President till the 4th of Feb. ensuing—what said England? You shall not trade to France, said she. England had it in her power to enforce her decree, and the insurance rising proportionally, the merchant had it in his power to say whether his probable profits under so great an insurance. But he asked a question now as to our interest simply, excluding other forcible considerations—when it was not in the power of France to enforce her decrees, and it was in the power of England to enforce her orders in a very great extent, would it have been good policy to involve ourselves in a maritime war with England, who had overcome all the combined fleets of Europe, for the sake of defending our trade with France? If any trade cost more than it is worth, Mr. H. said it was our interest to abandon it. But there was another danger attendant on our trade to France, and which had ever attended it—sequestration. American property was very apt to be sequestered; and in enforcing their Berlin decree, the French had thought proper to burn our vessels; and though it had been said that the Berlin decree had never been applied to us before the case of the Horizon, yet vessels had been sequestered in Feb. 1807, sold, and the money retained and would probably never be restored. This sequestration had been practised in the French ports more or less since the commencement of the revolution, and we had never got one dollar as compensation. To be sure, in the treaty of Louisiana, we had been allowed to pay money to our own citizens, but it had never come out of French coffers. Was it worth our while to engage in a maritime war with England to support a trade with France? Mr. H. said no; our interest would not have warranted it. For, notwithstanding all France could do, at a risk of five per cent. we might have had a trade with the British islands, Sweden, Portugal, the E. Indies, the British W. India Islands and other countries—a profitable trade too. But gentlemen said would they submit to pay tribute to Great Britain? No. This tribute was but a mere name. They must pay tribute for going from England to France, where they would be captured as a matter of course because they had touched English ground. It was a tribute to be paid in a case which would never happen—a mere nullity. But said gentlemen, they are American vessels which have gone to England, the embargo notwithstanding and thence to various ports of the continent, by the aid of false papers. Were they to embark in a conflict to prevent their citizens from doing this? All this smuggling work, where it was not under the sanction of laws of the United States reflected no disgrace on the honor of the nation, which was not responsible for it.
If there were nothing that would commit the honor of the nation in the way of it, Mr. H. said it would be the interest of this nation to abandon its commerce with France, not only on account of the risk in carrying it on, but on account of the risk after it gets into port. Mr. Armstrong said—but he would not allude to him for fear he might tread on confidential ground; however, accounts had been received from our consuls and merchants, that whenever it suited the convenience of the French nation to lay their hands on American property, they had done it. And therefore he said our trade to that country was on a very insecure footing indeed.
But, said gentlemen, if they allowed our vessels to trade to England and not to France, it was a submission to her orders and a resignation of our independence; therefore the embargo must be maintained to keep on equal ground. I could never see, observed Mr. H. how the embargo was the means of preserving the honor of the nation. These nations say we shall not trade; and therefore, by an embargo, we destroy our commerce. This is magnanimous indeed. It is a new way of preserving commerce, because foreign nations say we shall not follow it, we say we will abandon it. Do we not comply with the requisition of these nations completely—more than comply, for we surrender all commerce. It is the most tame surrender of our rights.
But, said gentlemen, we must have embargo or war. This, Mr. H. said, had been urged in public debate, in the news papers, and almost all communications they had received. In his part he could see no repeal of the embargo was to involve us in war, except it were, as said last winter, that Bonaparte would have no neutrals; and therefore, if we did not continue the embargo he would declare war against us. Was this a ground on which to surrender commerce and subject all our citizens to inconvenience because he would otherwise declare war? What more could he do than he had done? What more could he do than burn our ships and sequester our property? He could do no more. Why then should they be terrified thus? If war came thus, let it come. Mr. H. said he was not for declaring war against any nation, but he was for authorizing the arming our commerce, for authorizing our merchants to defend those maritime rights which were clear and indisputable; and this would not be war, for no nation, not predetermined to make war, would make war upon us for defending our maritime rights. I should not (said he) be willing to go to war for doubtful rights, as that of the carrying trade between the mother country and her colonies; but our indisputable neutral rights I am for defending, not abandoning.
Mr. H. said he thought that the embargo was laid, though perhaps he had been singular in the opinion, that it was intended as a permanent measure; that the real object was not what had been expressed in the message, but to put down commerce and set up manufactures; to convert all our commercial capital into manufactures, and all our commercial men into manufacturers; and many honest politicians had thought it would be a practicable and useful and beneficial plan, though the contrary had ever been his opinion. In confirmation of his opinion, Mr. H. said, when they looked over official and other publications which bore the stamp of authority, or were considered as being approved by the constituted author-

rities of the country, they were told that the agricultural and manufacturing should be planted side by side, and that they should sit at their own doors clothed in their own manufactures of those articles which they had before received from others. These ideas could never be realized but by abandoning commerce.
Mr. H. here went at some length into a discussion on the subject of manufactures, using arguments tending to demonstrate that large manufactures are as unsuitable to the genius of a free people as to the peculiar habits of the people of the United States.
Mr. H. said no man was more desirous to obey the laws of his country than he was; but in a free country laws could not be forced down. Either by force or in some other way the people would get rid of the disagreeable law. They always had and always would do it. Therefore attempting this system was prostrating the dignity of the government and teaching the people to trample on the constituted authorities. He wished to see the magistracy of a free country omnipotent in its laws; but if by projects of this kind the people were driven to opposition, they would not confine themselves to the constitutional remedy, but feeling their power, would exercise it with violence. Therefore, when a measure was found not to operate right, they should retreat, and they might do it with a good grace, for it would be for the honor of the nation that they should retrace their steps.
Mr. H. said he imagined some ulterior steps might be proper if the embargo were raised; but on conversing with members, he had found so many different opinions to prevail, that he had not coupled any thing with this. When the embargo should have been done away, no doubt the councils of the nation would come to some result & adopt some measure that would take its place. For all these reasons, Mr. H. concluded by saying that he was clearly of opinion, that his resolution should be adopted, and the embargo repealed.
(Debate to be continued.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, November 22, 1808.
A petition was presented by Mr. Lewis, respecting the tolls of the bridge and road from Washington to Alexandria, which was referred to the committee of the district of Columbia.
Several private petitions were presented and some respecting post offices and post roads, which were referred.
The order of the day was then called for on the bill brought in yesterday, for the employment of twelve revenue cutters in addition to those already in service.
Mr. Quincy moved, as there was in view of the House, a great question nearly related, (the repeal of the embargo laws) that it should be postponed.
It was determined to resolve the house into a committee on this bill, 56 in the affirmative & 29 in the negative.
Mr. Kelso was called to the chair.
Mr. Newton, the chairman of the committee of commerce and manufactures, who reported the bill, observed, that the committee had thought it proper to place these vessels, intended to prevent the infraction of the revenue laws, at the disposal of the president of the United States. The subject he observed, was taken up in consequence of a resolution proposed by a gentleman from North-Carolina, (Mr. Blackledge) who as it appeared from his representation of the public documents, found it to be a suitable subject of Legislative discussion, and particularly so whilst it remained controlled by the Executive.
Mr. Blackledge said that his inducement to offer the resolution, was principally to prevent the violations, so frequently used on the revenue laws. He had understood that infractions of these laws extended themselves very widely, and he wished the subject to undergo a discussion, and that suitable provision might be made for its remedy.
Mr. Dana requested that the gentleman last up, from North-Carolina, or the chairman of the committee would state the expense attending the procurement and support of the vessels contemplated.
Mr. Newton answered that he had received no precise data on the subject, but from what had appeared by his intercourse with the secretary of the treasury, they would amount to about 10,000 dollars each.
Mr. Quincy observed, that with the ten revenue cutters now employed, he believed the revenue laws were well supported—he knew of no material infractions that were made on our commercial pursuits.
Mr. Newton then contended for the propriety of such a law on the existence of the embargo laws, and on the possibility (from our present relations) of a non-intercourse system; he thought it proper to prepare and defend—if the embargo was continued, surely it was necessary to protect the rules of commerce enacted by those laws, and if there should eventually be a non-intercourse system adopted, it would be necessary to prepare for that event—we should be armed at all points and in all events to protect our revenue system.
Mr. Blackledge stated his reasons for proposing the resolution to be, to enforce the laws of the U. States on our waters, in support of the treasury, which laws were perpetually infringed for the want of a sufficient preventive. Whether therefore it might refer to the embargo, or whether to our regulations it mattered not; his wish was generally to prevent a violation of the revenue laws and to enforce their provisions.
Mr. Deba thought the question to be of a general import; and therefore wished it to be postponed until the greater question of the EMBARGO was decided. It might be necessary for what he at present knew, but it might be unnecessary. He hoped the committee would rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Upham also supported this course of proceeding; he wished for information on the measure before he could vote for its enactment.
Mr. Moseley said that from the use which it would appear was to be made of these cutters, they might rather be denominated the EMBARGO CUTTERS than revenue cutters, and therefore, until it was ascertained that the embargo should be continued, it must be unnecessary to provide for its protection.
Mr. Blackledge believed that the expense and maintenance of these vessels would be saved in their service to prevent a violation of the revenue laws. He did not consider their use to be confined to the embargo system, but if it was, whilst that existed it would repay the cost to protect the revenue. There are many vessels now detected in illicit trade, and brought in, and many have been condemned, but if there were efficient means of detection, he believed there would be ten where one is now taken in those practices.
The question was taken on the committee to rise and report the bill, and carried, 47 to 46.
The bill was then taken up for consideration.
Mr. Patten moved that its further consideration be postponed until Monday. The only reasons given for its necessity appeared to be to enforce the embargo laws, or any non-intercourse bill that might pass; but certainly it would be time enough when the determination of the house was expressed on those measures. He thought as had been observed on a recent motion to arm merchant vessels, that it was beginning at the wrong end, to spend 100,000 dollars for what might not be wanted.
Mr. Jackson observed, that although the em-
bargo law existed, yet they were most almost daily violated, so as scarcely to secure the name of 'Embargo.' Every law of the land ought to be enforced, but this could not be for want of means to enforce it; these means are now proposed and resolved. Government may take of precipitancy, but it surely requires prompt and speedy measures to prevent such violations of law as are continually made. Information of the expenses is asked. Is there not a sufficient fund of information on that subject within the reach of every gentleman? But the necessity was asked; this necessity it was stated had not been officially given. Sir, said Mr. J. we get our information of the necessity from the West-Indies, to which our flour and other articles are continually sent contrary to law, and by men who can never enter into competition for character or principle, with the fair trader. And yet many of these illicit adventurers have made fortunes by violating our laws. Herein is the necessity proved. Whilst we have laws to restrain these practices, there ought to be efficient means to execute them. I trust that a majority of this house will not be led astray by the idea that these vessels are unnecessary, because of any probability of a repeal of the embargo laws; however plausible such argument may appear, I am convinced, from the interviews which I have had with a large number of the members of this house, that a decided majority are determined not to repeal those measures under existing circumstances.
Mr. Dana said that the question appeared to centre in this—whether the house would depart from its usual custom of receiving official information before a large expenditure of money, or whether it would pass this law without this information? He conceived this to be a question of great moment, and entitled to serious reflection. If he understood the duty of the officers of government, it consisted in part in giving official information on subjects touching their departments, and surely it was peculiarly necessary on such a question as was now before the house. He meant not to insinuate any disrespect to the worthy and correct chairman of the committee who reported the bill, but on a business which fell fairly and immediately under the treasury department, he could not silently admit of a deviation from the usual course of looking there for information previous to the passing of a bill for the expenditure of money. The chairman might be presumed to have received a partial information from that department, but surely this house have a claim also to receive it.
The expense he did not consider as a trifling object. To be sure they were called Revenue Cutters, but what was the meaning of "Cutter" remained undefined, and consequently the vessel so denominated might cost a smaller or a larger sum. But another question of magnitude was, what number would it take to man them? Were they to remain permanently, or only for one year? Gentlemen may be in too much of a hurry on this subject as they were last year when it was supposed proper to vote for 1200 seamen, but at last, although they would scarcely give time for the printing of the bill, it was found it necessary to have them at all! Unless, therefore, it be a very urgent case indeed, he should always, upon general principles, wish for every information previous to giving a vote.
Mr. Newton entertained no idea that even if official information was obtained (for which gentlemen so loudly called) the opposition to this bill would cease. Numbers of petitions had been presented to the house, and arguments used about the number of sailors out of employ. If these cutters were ordered, would there not be employment for some of them? Then why should this opposition be held up? He congratulated gentlemen on their consistency.
Mr. D. R. Williams made an objection on account of the bill not providing an appropriation, and on the want of information from the treasury department. He wished these objections to be obtained previous to his voting on the bill.
Mr. Newton answered, that as to appropriation there was no necessity, since the revenue law provided for the payment of such an expense out of the revenue income. So soon as the bill should pass, he took it for granted, by the law, that the secretary of the treasury would conceive himself authorised to pay the necessary sum of money to carry it into effect. He opposed the re-commitment of the bill.
On the question to re-commit to the committee of commerce and manufactures, it was carried to re-commit it. Ayes 61—Noes 46.
Mr. G. W. Campbell made a report in part from the committee appointed on so much of the president's message as respects our foreign relations. Which was referred to a committee of the whole house on Thursday next. See it in the preceding columns.
Mr. Van Allen proposed a resolution that the committee of commerce and manufactures be instructed to enquire whether any amendment ought to be made in the laws relative to the compensation of the officers of the customs. Referred to the committee of commerce, &c.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 23, 1808.
Mr. Morrow presented several petitions, praying that time might be allowed for the payment of instalments on the purchase of public lands beyond what was now allowed by law. Referred to the hand committee.
Mr. Sloan presented the petition of a manufacturer of Vermicelli, Macaroni, &c. in New-Jersey, praying on account of the spoliation of the stock he had on hand, to be permitted to remove with it out of the boundaries of the United States. Referred to the committee of commerce and manufactures.
Mr. Dana presented the petition of a young man who was confined in prison for an infraction of the revenue laws. Which was referred to a select committee.
Some post road petitions were presented, after which Mr. Randolph moved that the gallery should be cleared, as he had a resolution of a private nature to offer.
The galleries were cleared, and the house continued in private debate until 5 o'clock, when the house adjourned with closed doors.
THURSDAY, Nov. 24.
A little after one o'clock, the galleries were opened, the house having finished their discussion on Mr. Randolph's resolutions.
Mr. Clopton from the committee of revision and unfinished business made a report, which, without reading, was ordered to be printed.
A bill heretofore presented was called up by Mr. Lewis, to authorize the proprietors of public lots in the City of Washington to subdivide the same; and that such subdivision should be admitted on record.
Mr. Nelson presented a memorial from the proprietors of some goods on which duty had been paid, but which, previous to their sale were destroyed, the petitioners prayed the remission of the duties paid.
After some debate upon the subject of reference, a motion prevailed to refer it to the committee of claims, 43 to 42.
About 2 o'clock, the house adjourned.
FRIDAY, Nov. 25.
Some private petitions were presented and referred.
Mr. Elliott moved that a committee be appointed to wait on the president to request an official copy of his proclamation issued in April last respecting the evasions of the embargo laws in the neighborhood of Lake Champlain.
Mr. Morrow presented some other petitions from purchasers of public lands, praying the extension of the time for paying of instalments.
Mr. Moxon called up and referred a resolution respecting the expediency of amending the embargo laws.
Mr. Gardner presented several memorials from the neighborhood of Lake Ontario, state of New-York, praying the repeal of the embargo laws, and the act supplementary thereto.
These subjects were referred to the committee of the whole house, to whom was referred the subject of the embargo.
Mr. Randolph at 12 o'clock called for the galleries to be cleared. He suggested it to be his intention to propose some resolutions which would require private deliberation.
The doors of the house of representatives were opened about half past two o'clock, the house took an order for lighting fire in the furnaces below the hall. The resolution in favor of sundry inhabitants of Knox county, Kentucky, was agreed to, and a bill ordered to be brought in accordingly. Some other business of a local nature was done, when the house adjourned till Monday.
SECRET JOURNAL.
A supplemental journal of such proceedings as, during the time they were depending, were ordered to be kept secret, and respecting which the injunction of secrecy was afterwards removed by order of the house.
TUESDAY, Nov. 8, 1808.
The house being cleared of all persons except the members and the clerk.
A confidential message in writing was received from the president of the U. States by Mr. Coles, his secretary, who delivered it in the same and withdrew.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 9.
The house being cleared of all persons except the members & clerk, proceeded in the reading of the confidential message of the president of the U. States, & the accompanying documents received on the 8th inst. and went through the same. The said message is in the words following, to wit:
To the senate and house of representatives of the United States.
The documents communicated with my public message of this day, contain such portions of the correspondences therein referred to of the respective ministers of the U. States at Paris and London, as relate to the present state of affairs between those governments and the U. States, and as may be made public: I now communicate confidentially such supplementary portions of the same correspondences as I deem improper for publication, yet necessary to convey to congress full information on a subject of their deliberations so interesting to our country.
T. JEFFERSON.
Nov. 8, 1808.
Ordered, That the said message and documents do lie on the table.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 23.
The house being cleared of all persons except the members and clerk.
A motion was made by Mr. Randolph and seconded, that the house do come to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy so far as it relates to the substance of the communications from our respective ministers at Paris and London, which accompanied the president's message of the 8th inst. be taken off.
And on the question that the house do now proceed to take the said proposed resolution into consideration, it was resolved in the affirmative. Yeas, one hundred and thirteen—Nay, one.
YEAS—L. J. Alston, W. Alston, jr. Bacon, Bard, Barker, Bibb, Blackledge, Blake, Blount, Boyle, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, G. W. Campbell, J. Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Clay, Clopton, Cook, Culpepper, Cuts, Dana, Davenport, Dawson, Deane, Desha, Durell, Elliot, Ely, Eppes, Findley, Fisk, Franklin, Gardner, Garnett, Gholson, Goodwyn, Gray, Green, Harris, Heister, Helms, Hoge, Holland, Holmes, Humphreys, Isley, J. C. Jackson, Jenkins, R. M. Johnson, Jones, Kirkpatrick, Lambert, Livermore, Lloyd, Love, Macon, Marion, Masters, McCreery, Milner, O. Montgomery, J. Montgomery, Jer. Morrow, John Morrow, Moseley, Mumford, Nelson, Newbold, Newton, Nicholas, Pitkin, Porter, Quincy, Randolph, Rea, Rhea, J. Richards, M. Richards, Riker, Russell, Say, Seaver, Shaw, Sloan, Smelt, Smilie, J. K. Smith, John Smith, Southard, Stanford, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Taggart, Talmadge, Taylor, Thompson, Trigg, Troup, Upham, Van Allen, Van Horne, Van Rensselaer, Verplanck, Whitehill, Wilbour, D. R. Williams, A. Wilson, N. Wilson, Winn—113.
NAY—Adam Boyd.
The motion was then modified by Mr. Randolph, and seconded, to read as follows:
Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy imposed on the communications from our respective ministers at Paris and London, which accompanied the President's message of the 8th inst. be taken off, with the exception, of the extract of a letter from General Armstrong to the Secretary of State, dated Paris, 27th Dec. 1807.
And on the question that the house do agree to the same, it passed in the negative. Yeas 31—Nays 82.
YEAS—John Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Davenport, Durell, Ely, Garnett, Gray, Harris, Hoge, R. Jackson, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Macon, Masters, Milner, J. Morrow, Moseley, Nelson, Quincy, Randolph, Russell, Shaw, Stedman, Sturges, Swart, Talmadge, Trigg, Upham, Van Cortlandt, Van Horne, Van Rensselaer, D. R. Williams—31.
NAYS—L. J. Alston, W. Alston, jr. Bacon, Bard, Barker, Bibb, Blackledge, Blake, Blount, Boyd, Boyle, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Clopton, Cook, Culpepper, Cuts, Dana, Dawson, Deane, Desha, Elliot, Eppes, Findley, Fisk, Franklin, Gardner, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Heister, Helms, Holland, Holmes, Howard, Humphreys, Isley, J. C. Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Kirkpatrick, Lambert, Marion, McCreery, D. Montgomery, J. Montgomery, Jer. Morrow, Mumford, Newbold, Newton, Nicholas, Pitkin, Porter, Rea, Rhea, J. Richards, M. Richards, Sawyer, Say, Seaver, Sloan, Smelt, Smilie, J. K. Smith, John Smith, Southard, Stanford, Storer, Taggart, Talmadge, Taylor, Thompson, Troup, Van Allen, Van Horne, Verplanck, Wharton, Whitehill, Wilbour, A. Wilson, Winn—82.
Another motion was then made by Mr. Randolph, and seconded, that the house do come to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy, so far as it relates to the substance of the communications from our respective ministers at Paris and London, which accompanied the President's message of the 8th inst. be taken off.
And on the question, that the house do now proceed to take the same into consideration,
an adjournment was called for and carried.
THURSDAY, Nov. 24.
The house being cleared of all persons except the members and the clerk, the house proceeded to take into further consideration, the resolution which Mr. Randolph submitted yesterday, in the following words, to wit:
Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy, so far as it relates to the substance of the communications from our respective ministers at Paris & London, which accompanied the President's message of the 8th inst. be taken off, with the exception of the extract of a letter from General Armstrong to the Secretary of State, dated Paris, 27th December, 1807.
And on the question for consideration, it was resolved in the affirmative. The same being withdrawn, a motion was then made by Mr. Macon and seconded, that the house do come to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy imposed on the communications from the president, from our respective ministers at Paris and London, be taken off, and that the same be published with the exception of the extract of a letter from Gen. Armstrong to the Secretary of State, dated Paris, 27th December, 1807.
And on the question that the house do agree to the same, it passed in the negative, Yeas 29—Nays 82.
YEAS—John Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Davenport, Durell, Ely, Garnett, Gray, Harris, Hoge, R. Jackson, Lambert, Lewis, Livermore, Macon, Masters, Morrow, Moseley, Nelson, Quincy, Randolph, Russell, Shaw, Stedman, Sturges, Trigg, Upham, Van Rensselaer, D. R. Williams—29.
[And all the others present in the negative.]
A motion was then made by Mr. Randolph and seconded, that the house do come to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy, so far as it relates to the substance of the communications from our respective ministers at Paris and London, which accompanied the President's message of the 8th inst. be taken off, with the exception of the extract of a letter from General Armstrong to the Secretary of State, dated Paris, 27th Dec. 1807.
And on the question that the house do agree to the same, it passed in the negative. Yeas 39—Nays 67.
YEAS—John Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Culpepper, Dana, Davenport, Durell, Elliot, Ely, Gardenier, Garnett, Gray, Harris, Hoge, R. Jackson, Jenkins, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Marion, Masters, Milner, Moseley, Mumford, Pitkin, Quincy, Randolph, Stanford, Stedman, Sturges, Swart, Taggart, Talmadge, Trigg, Upham, Van Horne, Van Rensselaer, D. R. Williams, N. Wilson—39.
[And all the others present in the negative.]
FRIDAY, November 25.
The house being cleared of all persons except the members and the clerk.
A motion was made by Mr. Randolph, and seconded, that the house do come to the following resolution:
"That the secret journal be published."
The question was taken that the house do now proceed to consider the said proposed resolution, and resolved in the affirmative. Yeas 101—Nays 16.
NAYS—L. J. Alston, Bard, Blount, Boyd, Cook, Cuts, Deane, Findley, Green, Heister, Helms, Holland, Nicholas, Seaver, Smith, Smilie, Taylor, Whitehill, Winn—16.
[And all the others present in the affirmative.]
The question was then taken, that the house do agree to the said resolution, and resolved in the affirmative. Yeas 95—Nays 23.
NAYS—L. J. Alston, Bard, Blount, Boyd, Boyle, Brown, Butler, Calhoun, Cook, Deane, Durell, Findley, Green, Heister, Helms, Holland, Nicholas, Seaver, Smith, Smilie, Taylor, Whitehill, Winn—23.
[And all the others present in the affirmative.]
A motion was made by Mr. David R. Williams, and seconded, that the House do come to the following resolution:
Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy imposed on the letters and extracts of our ministers at Paris and London, accompanying the message of the President of the United States, of the 8th inst. except the letter of Mr. Armstrong of the 27th of December, 1807, and the words contained in the parenthesis of Mr. Pinkney's letter of the 26th January, 1808, be removed.
It passed in the negative—Yeas 43—Nays 72.
YEAS—Bassett, Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Culpepper, Dana, Davenport, Durell, Elliot, Ely, Fisk, Gardenier, Garnett, Gray, Harris, Hoge, R. Jackson, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Macon, Masters, John Morrow, Moseley, Mumford, Nelson, Pitkin, Quincy, Randolph, Riker, Russell, Shaw, Smith, Stedman, Sturges, Swart, Talmadge, Trigg, Upham, Van Cortlandt, Van Horne, Van Rensselaer, D. R. Williams—43.
[And all the others present in the negative.]
On motion of Mr. Macon, and seconded,
Ordered, That the secret journal of this day be published.
On motion, Ordered that the doors be now opened.
It will appear from the secret journal which is published, that the house have been engaged in conclave not on any great national question of defence, but on a question whether at this moment, the injunction of secrecy imposed by the president on communications which he has stated he deems IMPROPER TO BE PUBLISHED, should be violated—thus instead of acting, Mr. Randolph is occupying the time of the House, in efforts to embarrass and create between congress and the executive, a barrier against free communication. The public will properly appreciate this fruitless attempt to tramnel the public proceedings, and sport with the feelings of the nation. Three days have been idly spent on this business, and all important proceedings at an entire stand.
Monitor.
VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR SALE.
Will be sold, to the highest bidder, on Wednesday, the fourth day of January next, on the premises, a BRICK HOUSE, and half of the LOTT, No. 31, in the city of Richmond, which formerly belonged to the estate of John Pendleton, Esq. dec'd. and is situated between the tenement now occupied by Mr. Benjamin Turner, and the house of Mr. Orms Paine's, in which Mr. Emmonard resides. At the same time and place, will be sold, 39 acres LAND, lying on the three notch road, being the upper part of the tract formerly belonging to said Pendleton's estate, & distinguished in the survey made by Richard Young, by number 5. A credit of 6 and twelve months will be allowed the purchasers, on giving bond with approved security, to bear interest from the date, and a deed of trust on the property.
Nov. 29. P. F. & JOHNSTON.
ENQUIRER OFFICE, NOVEMBER 29.
It is believed that the good sense of the people of the East, the attachment of the majority to the Union, if not to the administration, and the strong minority which exists in favor of the administration and the embargo, will ensure the Eastern states against any open opposition to the laws of the government. But should such be the result, let the leading federalists of the East be held responsible for it. These men, under the color of expressing their belief, are giving utterance to their wishes. It is natural for men to believe what they wish. Whist depicting the resistance & insurrection which they have foretold, they are virtually inviting the people to fly to these expedients. The resolutions of the leg. of Massachusetts, and the speeches of Messrs. Lloyd & Warren in the Senate of the U. States all concur in this point. "You will perceive disaffection in memorials first, said Mr. L. in public meetings next, in legislative resolutions next, until the spark of disaffection is fanned into a flame which may spread wide devastation around, and overturn the liberties of the country." This result therefore is not far distant; for the legislature of Massachusetts have already vented their disaffection in a set of the most disgraceful resolutions which could at this time disgrace the name of an American. The step in the progressive series of events.
The federal prints of Boston, under the pretence of compassionating the sufferings of the people, are in full chorus with these ideas. They are in fact teeming with the disguised sentiments of treason. They have but one step more to take. Let them come boldly out, and strike at once the Tocsin of Disunion.
The REPORT presented to the H. of R. contains the clearest and most comprehensive view of its subject, that has yet been given to the world. Let it be studied by every man who desires to understand the history of the past, or the project of future measures. We understand from undoubted authority, that this Report of the Committee of Foreign Relations may be considered as containing the sentiments of the great body of the Republicans at Washington.
For "Proposals for carrying the mails from the General Post Office"—see the first page. Siricures on the remarks of the last "Spirit of '76" respecting a letter of Mr. Coles—in our next. The winter's publication of this paper, three times during the week, will be commenced next week.
IN COUNCIL, November 28, 1808.—The Governor and Council, pursuant to the first section of the act of assembly, "to amend an act intituled an act to amend an act intituled an act for appointing Electors to choose a President & Vice-President of the United States," having examined the returns from the Commissioners of the several counties, appointed and commissioned in conformity with the directions of the aforesaid act of Assembly, do hereby advertise and make known, that the names and places of abode of the twenty-four persons having the greatest number of votes throughout the state as Electors of President and Vice-President of the United States for the state of Virginia, are as follows, viz:
Joseph Godwin, Senr. Nancemond, Benjamin Harrison, Prince George, Edward Pagran, Senr. Dinwiddie, Richard Field, Brunswick, Col. Thomas Read, Charlotte, Joseph Eggleston, Amelia, Hugh Nelson, Albemarle, Col. George Penn, Patrick, Philip N. Nicholas, Richmond City, Spencer Roane, Hanover, John Roane, King William, Robert Taylor, Orange, Gustavus B. Horner, Fauquier, Robert Nelson, York, Mann Page, Gloucester, Richard Barnes, Richmond County, John T. Brooke, Stafford, Hugh Holmes, Frederick, Osborne Spriggs, Hampshire, James Allen, Shenandoah, Archibald Stuart, Augusta, Andrew Russell, Washington, Gen. John Preston, Montgomery,

DOCUMENTS.
(CONTINUED.)
Copies, and Extracts of Letters from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Madison, with enclosures.
Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Madison. LONDON, February 23, 1808.
Mr. Canning has just sent me a note, of which a copy is enclosed, relative to an intended alteration, upon the subject of cotton, in their bill for carrying into execution the late orders in council. You will perceive that he lays some stress upon the accidental observations, which (as already explained to you in my letter of the 26th of last month) were drawn from me some time since upon the singularly offensive project of imposing a transit duty upon our cotton. I mentioned to you, in my letter of the 2d instant, that he appeared to have misapprehended the tendency of these observations, and that in a subsequent conversation he showed a disposition to remove the obnoxious feature from their plan, for the purpose of substituting an absolute interdiction of the export of that article, under an idea that we should then cease to object to it; but that I thought it my duty to decline to give him any encouragement to do so, although I agreed, as he seemed to wish it, to mention his disposition to you. A few days ago, he sent for me again, and renewed his proposal of an immediate change, with respect to cotton, from a prohibitory duty to a direct prohibition. My answer was the same in substance as it had been before. He then suggested the alternative arrangement, which you will see stated in his note; but, adhering to the determination I had formed upon the first appearance of the orders in council to make no compromise (without precise direction from my government) with the system they announced, by becoming a party to its details, I received the proposal as I had done the other.
The British government, however, had resolved to adopt the last mentioned plan, whether it received my concurrence or not, upon a presumption that it would be more acceptable to us; and, perhaps too, under the idea that it was more defensible than their original scheme; and the purpose of Mr. Canning's note is merely to signify to me, in a manner as friendly and respectful as possible to the United States, their intention to propose it to parliament. One object of all this is certainly, to conciliate us, although it may be another, to free their system, as far as they can, from the disadvantage of one of the formidable reproaches which their opponents cast upon it. But the wise and magnanimous course would be at once, to treat back their steps upon the whole of this ill-judged measure, instead of relying upon small and unsubstantial modifications, which neither produce an effect upon its character and principle, nor mitigate the severity of its practical consequences. I might, if I thought it advisable, take the occasion, which Mr. Canning's note undoubtedly furnishes, to press upon him once more the policy, as well as the justice of such a course; but I believe it, under all circumstances, to be more prudent to wait for your instruction, which must, I think, be very soon received.
I have already had the honor to send you two copies of the resolution, moved in the house of commons, by the chancellor of the exchequer, as tables of export duties, to which their bill should refer. I have enclosed in another letter, with which this will be accompanied, a copy of the bill itself, which will, however, undergo several alterations. Those will be found to be explained (as far as I am acquainted with them) in the letter above mentioned.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) WM. PINKNEY. Honorable James Madison, Secretary of State.
Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney. FOREIGN OFFICE, February 22, 1808. SIR,
I have already had the honor of assuring you, in conversation, of the disposition which is felt by the British government to give due weight to the observations which you have made to me respecting the unfavorable impression, likely, (in your opinion) to be excited in the United States, by the duty proposed to be levied upon cotton destined for the use of the enemy, but brought into the ports of this country conformably to the tenor of the orders of council of the 11th of November.
You are already apprised that the principle upon which the whole of this measure has been framed, is that of refusing to the enemy those advantages of commerce which he has forbidden to this country.
The simple method of enforcing this system of retaliation, would have been to follow the example of the enemy, by prohibiting altogether all commercial intercourse between him and other states.
It was from considerations of indulgence to neutral trade, that the more mitigated measure of permitting intercourse under the restraints and regulations of a duty in transitu was adopted; and being adopted with this view, it was not immediately felt by the British government, that there might be a distinction taken by neutral states, with respect to articles, the produce of their own soil; and that while the communication of prohibition into duty was acknowledged as an indulgence, when applied to articles of foreign commerce, of which they were only the carriers, it might be considered as an invidious imposition, when applied to their own productions.
The moment that this distinction has been explained to the British government, they have been desirous of manifesting every attention to it; and if you, sir, had been possessed of the necessary authority from your government, there would have been no difficulty in entering into a specific agreement with you upon the subject. In order, however, to obviate the objection in a great degree, I have the honor to inform you, that it is intended to be proposed to parliament, that all cotton, brought into this country, in conformity to the orders of council, should be absolutely prohibited from being exported to the territories of the enemy. But as you are not prepared to take upon yourself to say, that in no case the option would be acceptable, an option will still be left to the neutral owner either to acquiesce in the total prohibition, or to re-export the article on the payment of such duty as parliament may judge it expedient to impose.
I flatter myself, sir, that this alteration in the legislative regulations, by which the orders of council are intended to be carried into execution, will be considered by you as a satisfactory evidence of the disposition of his majesty's government to consult the feelings,
as well as the interests of the United States, in any manner which may not impair the effect of that measure of commercial restriction, to which the necessity of repelling the injustice of his enemies has obliged his majesty reluctantly to have recourse.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) GEORGE CANNING. William Pinkney Esq. &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Canning. GREAT CUMBERLAND PLACE, February 23, 1808.
Mr. Pinkney presents his compliments to his excellency, Mr. Canning, and has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of his note of yesterday, relative to an alteration on the subject of cotton, in the legislative regulations, by which the late orders in council are intended to be carried into execution, which Mr. Pinkney will hasten to transmit to his government.
Mr. Pinkney requests Mr. Canning to accept the assurances of his high consideration.
Extracts of a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Madison. LONDON, May 9, 1808.
"I had a conversation with Mr. Canning on Friday last, in consequence of the arrival of the Osage.
As it was obviously expected that I should seek an interview with him, I went to Downingstreet on the 5th with that object. He had been indisposed, and was not at the office; but in answer to a note which I sent him in the evening, he asked to see me next day at his house in Bruton Street.
The Osage had for some time been looked for with considerable anxiety, and the government had apparently anticipated a communication (and perhaps a proposal) of some importance from me, as soon as my dispatches should be received. As I had in fact no communication to make, it seemed to be proper that I should render the disappointment of as little moment as possible, by the manner of announcing it, without however putting any thing to hazard by an indiscreet manifestation of unnecessary solicitude.
The little which I supposed it requisite to say on this occasion, appeared to be very well received; and if any disagreeable impression was left on the mind of Mr. Canning, it certainly was not visible. A feeling of regret was perhaps perceptible, and a hope was intimated that the time was not far distant when I should be enabled to do what at present was out of my power; but nothing occurred which could be construed into a sympathy of impatience, jealousy, or dissatisfaction. There was undoubtedly no real ground for any thing of this sort; but it was, notwithstanding, quite possible that the importance which it had become a habit to attach to the arrival of the Osage, from circumstances principally accidental, might have produced a disposition to think otherwise.
I thought it advisable to make use of this opportunity (although the topic was in many views more delicate than it had been) to suggest the propriety of yielding, as the moment was sufficiently favorable to such a course, upon the subject of the late orders in council, of which I had seen nothing to change my original opinion. There was reason to apprehend however, that it might be worse than useless to press the suggestion, upon my own authority merely, while I could say nothing of the French decrees; and accordingly I forbore to do so.
An idea has evidently gone forth since the Osage arrived, founded upon rumours of a doubtful description, that our relations with France have grown to be extremely precarious, and that we are consequently about to come to an understanding of a very friendly kind with G. Britain. It is not improbable that the government has, in some degree at least, adopted this idea.
I have the honor to enclose a copy of a notification, recently received from Mr. Canning, of the blockade of Copenhagen, and of the other ports in the island of Zealand, which I have caused to be communicated in the usual manner to our consuls and citizens.
"There being no particular inducement for detaining the Osage, Lieut. Lewis, who will be charged with my letters, will leave town the day after to-morrow, and the ship will sail as soon after as she reaches Falmouth as possible."
Extract of a letter from Mr. Pinkney to the Secretary of State of the U. S. dated LONDON, June 5, 1808.
"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, of the 4th of April, by Mr. Bethune, together with the printed and other copies of papers mentioned in it.
I am to have an interview with Mr. Canning in a few days (which he will agree to consider extra-official) in the course of which I intend to press, by every argument in my power, the propriety of their abandoning immediately their orders in council, and of proposing in America (the only becoming course, as you very properly suggest,) reparation for the outrage on the Chesapeake. I shall, for obvious reasons, do this informally, as my own act.
Your unanswerable reply to Mr. Erskine's letter of the 23d February, has left nothing to be urged against the orders in council upon the score of right; and there may be room to hope that the effect, which that reply can hardly have failed to produce upon ministers, as well by its tone as by its reasoning, will, if followed up, become, under actual circumstances, decisive. The discussion, which Mr. Rose's preliminary in the affair of the Chesapeake has undergone, gives encouragement to an expectation, that this government will not now be backward to relinquish it, and to renew their overture of satisfaction in a way more consistent with reason and more likely to produce a just and honorable result.
You may be assured that I will not commit our government by any thing I shall do or say, and that, if I cannot make things better than they are, I will not make them worse.
My view of the course, which our honor and our interests have required, and still require is, as you know, in precise conformity with that of the President; but if it were otherwise, I should make his view, and not my own, the rule of my conduct."
Extracts of a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Madison. LONDON, August 4, 1808.
"The St. Michael arrived at Falmouth on Thursday the 14th of last month, after a passage of eight days from L'Orient. Captain Kenyon delivered to me, on Wednesday the 20th, (upon my arrival in town from Brighton, where I had been for a short time, on account of my health) your letters of the 30th of April, and your private letter of the 1st of May together with newspapers, printed copies of the embargo act and its supplements, and of papers laid before Congress at their last session. Mr. Hall brought me a letter from General Armstrong, of the 26th of June, (of which I send an extract) and Mr. Upson brought me a private letter from him, with the following postscript of the first of July— "An order has been received from Bayonne, to condemn eight other of our ships."
On Friday the 22d of July, I had an interview with Mr. Canning, and renewed my efforts to obtain a revocation of the British orders of January and November, 1807, and of the other orders dependent upon them. I have already informed you, in my private letter of the 29th of June, that on the morning of its date, I had a long conversation with Mr. Canning, which had rendered it somewhat probable that the object mentioned in your letter of the 30th of April (of which I had received a duplicate by the packet) would be accomplished, if I should authorise the expectation which that letter suggests; but that some days must elapse before I could speak with any thing like certainty on the subject; and I have mentioned in another private letter (of the 10th of July) that it was understood between Mr. Canning and myself that another interview should take place soon after the prorogation of parliament. In effect, however, Mr. Canning was not prepared to see me again until the 22d of July, after I had been recalled to London by the arrival of the St. Michael, and had in consequence, reminded him of our arrangement by a private note.
In the interview of the 22d of July, I soon found it necessary to throw out an intimation, that the power vested in the President, by Congress, to suspend the embargo act and its supplements, would be exercised, as regarded Great-Britain, if their orders were repealed, as regarded the United States. To have urged the revocation, upon the mere ground of strict right, or of general policy, and there to have left the subject, when I was authorized to place it upon grounds infinitely stronger, would have been, as it appeared to me, to stop short of my duty. Your letters to Mr. Erskine, (which Mr. Canning has read and considered,) had exhausted the first of these grounds, and endless discussions here, in every variety of form, in and out of Parliament, had exhausted the second. There was, besides, no objection, of any force, to my availing myself, without delay, of the powerful inducements, which the intimation in question was likely to furnish to Great-Britain, to abandon her late system; and it seemed to be certain that, by delaying to present these inducements to Mr. Canning's consideration, I should not only lose much time, but finally give to my conduct a disingenuous air, which, while it must be foreign to the views and sentiments of the President, could hardly fail to make a very unfavorable impression on the minds of Mr. Canning and his colleagues. I thought, moreover, that, if I should reserve the suggestion for a late stage of our discussions, it would be made to wear the appearance of a concession reluctantly extorted, rather than what it was, the spontaneous result of the characteristic frankness and honorable policy of our government.
The intimation once made, a complete development of its natural consequences, if properly acted upon, followed of course; and, taking advantage of the latitude afforded by the informal nature of a mere conversation, I endeavored to make that development as strong an appeal as, consistently with truth and honor, I could, (and there was no necessity to do more) to the justice and the prudence of this government. It was not possible, however, that Mr. Canning could require to be assisted by my explanations. It was plain, upon their own principles, that they could not equitably persevere in their orders in council, upon the foundation of an imputed acquiescence on our part in French invasions of our neutral rights, when it was become, (if it was not always,) apparent, that this imputation was completely, and in all respects, an error; when it was manifest that these orders, by letting loose upon our rights a more destructive and offensive persecution than it was in the power of France to maintain, interposed between us and France, furnished answers to our remonstrances against her decrees and pretences for those decrees, and stood in the way of that very resistance which Great-Britain affected to inculcate as a duty, at the moment when she was taking the most effectual measures to embarrass and confound it; and when it was also manifest that a revocation of those orders would, if not attended or followed by a revocation of the decrees of France, place us at issue with that power, and result in a precise opposition by the United States to such parts of her anti-commercial edicts as it became us to repeal.
In a prudent view, my explanations seemed still less to be required. Nothing could be more clear than that, if Great-Britain revoked her orders, and entitled herself to a suspension of the embargo, her object, (if it were any thing short of the establishment and practical support of an exclusive dominion over the seas) must, in some mode or other, be accomplished, whether France followed her example or not. In the first case, the avowed purpose of the British orders would be fulfilled, and commerce would resume its accustomed prosperity and expansion. In the last, the just resistance of the United States, (more efficacious than that of the British or,) to French irregularities and aggressions would be left to its fair operation, (and it was impossible to mistake the consequences,) while the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great-Britain being revived, would open the way for a return to good understanding, and, in the end, for an adjustment of all their differences."
"On the 29th of July, I met Mr. Canning again, and was soon apprized that our discussions, if continued at all, must take a new form."
"As there is now no reason for detaining the St. Michael, she will be dispatched immediately for L'Orient."
Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Madison. (Extract.) LONDON, Sept. 6th, 1808.
"I have an opportunity of writing by Mr. Bethune, who leaves town to-morrow for Falmouth, to embark for the United States in the British packet, and I cannot omit to take advantage of it, although I have still nothing conclusive to communicate."
"The Hope arrived off Falmouth, and landed Mr. Atwater, on the 16th of last month, and immediately proceeded on her voyage to Havre, with a fair wind. Mr. Atwater arrived in London on the 20th, in the evening, and delivered your letter of the 18th of July. My public letter of the 4th August, will have apprized you at the holding in which my different interviews with Mr. Canning left the subject of the British orders in council, and my private letter of the 2d of that month, will have made you acquainted with my intention to present, in an official note, what I had ineffectually suggested in conference. To such a course there could not, even in the first instance, have been any other objection, than that it was calculated to lead to discussion rather than to adjustment; but, whatever might be its tendency, it is certain, that I could have no inducement to resort to it, until it was indicated by Mr. Canning as indispensable, nor any motive to decline it afterwards. At our last interview, and not before, it was unexpectedly found that it was in that mode only that I could obtain a knowledge of the light in which this government thought it to view the overture I had been directed to make to it; and I determined in consequence to lay before it in writing the intentions of the President, with the same frankness which had characterized my verbal communications. I have now the honor to transmit a copy of the note, which in conformity with that determination, I delivered, in person to Mr. Canning, on the 26th of last month, a few days after its date. To this note, no answer has yet been returned; but it is to be presumed, that it will not be much longer withheld. You will perceive that some time had elapsed, after I had sent off my dispatches by the St. Michael, (the 8th August,) before my note was presented. The truth is, that I had employed a part of that time in framing a note of great length, which, when nearly completed, I thought it prudent to abandon, in favor of one that held out fewer invitations to unprofitable discussions, which, although, I would not shun them if pressed upon me, I did not suppose it proper that I should seek. I believe, too, that a little delay on my part, would be far from being disadvantageous. There would still be sufficient time for obtaining a final answer to my proposal, in season for the meeting of Congress; and as the temper of the government, so far as it had been tried, had not appeared to be favorable to my purpose, I believe that I should act in the spirit of my instructions, and consult the honor of my government, by avoiding, under such circumstances, the appearance of urgency and precipitation. Upon the terms, or general plan of my note, it is not, I hope, necessary to remark. You will discover that it was prepared under a persuasion, that whatever might be its effect, it was infinitely better to make it as conciliatory as, without a sacrifice of principle or national dignity, was possible. The topics, to be embraced by it, were such as did not demand, but rather forbade, minute exposition. While it was difficult to urge, in their full force, without seeming to aim at exciting a disposition unfriendly to the object of my instructions, all the considerations which justified the United States in remonstrating against the British orders; it was yet more difficult, without a degree of harshness, scarcely suited to the occasion, and without, also, the hazard of indiscrimination, to display, in detail, the signal injustice and impolicy of persevering in them, after what I had proposed. This could be done, and had been done in conversation; but it did not, upon trial, appear to be equally practicable in the more formal and measured proceeding, which I was now called upon to adopt. I considered, besides, that an overture, so highly advantageous to Great-Britain, which the United States were not bound to make by any obligations of equity, although it was wise to make it, did not require, with any view to the character of my country, or even to the success of the overture itself, to be again recommended by an anxious repetition of arguments already fully understood. As soon as my note was prepared, I called at the foreign office, to arrange an interview with Mr. Canning, for the purpose of enabling me to accompany the delivery of it, with a communication, which I deemed important, as well as of affording him an opportunity of asking and receiving such explanations as he might desire. The interview took place on the 26th of August. It had occurred to me, that it would be proper, (and could not be injurious) to read to Mr. Canning, from your letter to me, of the 18th July, a brief summary of the instructions under which I was acting. This had not been requested; but it could not be unacceptible; and it was, besides, well calculated to do justice to the liberal sentiments by which my instructions had been dictated, as well as to give weight to my efforts in the execution of them. I was led, by the reading of these passages, (without having originally intended it) into a more extensive explanation, than I had before attempted, of the influence which the proposal of my government would have, in truth, as well as in the judgment of the world, upon the supposed justice of their new system, as it affected the United States. To that explanation, with the particulars of which I will not, and, indeed, for want of time, cannot, at present, trouble you, I add a concise recapitulation of some of the prudent considerations, which had been so often pressed before, and there I left the subject."
The three following Documents—Mr. Pinkney's note to Mr. Canning, a short note from Mr. P. to Mr. Madison, and Mr. Canning's reply, rejecting the proposition of the American government, and showing the present state of the negotiation relative to the Orders in Council—were published in the Enquirer of the 15th instant.
Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney. The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has received his majesty's command to acquaint Mr. Pinkney that his majesty has judged it expedient to establish the most rigorous blockade of the port of Copenhagen, and of all the other ports on the island of Zealand. Mr. Pinkney is therefore requested to apprise the American consuls and merchants residing in England, that the entrances of all the ports abovenamed are, and must be considered as being in a state of blockade, and that from this time all the measures authorized by the law of nations, and the respective treaties between his majesty and the different neutral powers will be adopted and executed with respect to all vessels attempting to violate the said blockade after this notice. The undersigned requests Mr. Pinkney to accept the assurances of his high consideration. GEORGE CANNING. Foreign Office, May 4, 1808. (Documents to be continued.)
Federal Electors of President and Vice-President have been chosen in Rhode-Island, by a majority of about 400 votes.
EMBARGO.
The Circuit Court of the United States, commenced a special session in this town, on last Thursday, for the trial of Frederick, Job and John Hoxie, on Indictments for High Treason; Present, the hon. Brockholst Livingston, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the hon. Elijah Paine, Judge of the District Court of Vermont. The court were occupied in impaneling the Jury and other preparatory business, till Saturday evening. On Monday morning, Frederick Hoxie was called to the bar, and a number of witnesses were examined on the part of the government, when the council for the prisoner stated, that they had several witnesses, but should decline taking up the time of the court in their examination, as they conceived it wholly unnecessary. Col. Harrington opened the cause and recapitulated the evidence on the part of government. The hon. Samuel Hitchcock and Daniel Farrand, Esqrs. spoke in behalf of the prisoner, and the District Attorney made the closing plea. Judge Livingston then rose, and in a clear, concise, energetic and profoundly eloquent address to the Jury, expounded the law and defined the crime of treason; in the course of which, he cited many precedents; comprising the opinions of the most distinguished Judges in England and America, in which opinions the court perfectly coincided, to show, that no single act in opposition to, or in evasion of a law, however violent or flagrant, where the object is private gain, can be construed into LEVYING WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES—the offence set up in the indictment. The Jury retired about half past 11 o'clock at night, and in a few moments returned with their verdict—NOT GUILTY. On Tuesday morning, the District Attorney entered a Nolle Prosequi on the other indictments and the court adjourned without day. Vermont Paper.
The Boston Centinel advocates a separation of the Union in the following strain—
Our readers will pause and reflect on the atrocity of the proposition.
"NEW-ENGLAND is approaching an awful crisis. But her prosperity may yet be retrieved. Her destiny is still within her own control:—And her hardy sons must now decide whether she shall remain humble, prostrate, debased at the feet of the haughty mistress of the Union; or whether she shall at length assert her violated rights, and vindicate her insulted honor. This appeal is made to men of all parties. The time has arrived, when every man who values the Commercial prosperity of the Northern States, the source of our wealth & strength, of our domestic enjoyments, and our political importance, may and ought to join in protecting that Commerce from the unjust and tyrannical, & unconstitutional oppressions of Virginia. All minor political controversies, all inferior party distinction, are absorbed in this great national question between Virginia and the Northern States."
FROM HALIFAX, Nov. 11. "Arrived, the brig Superior, with dispatches from Admiral Cochrane, at Barbadoes, to Admiral Warren here. They are supposed to concern arrangements for the more close blockade of MARTINIQUE and Guadaloupe. "The signal is up for two ships. One may be our October Packet."
IN CHANCERY.—Louisa County Court, October 10th, 1808.
Charles Thomas, Plff.—Against John Tisdale, James Trevillian & Samuel Henson, Defs. THE defendant, John Tisdale, not having entered his appearance & given security, according to the act of Assembly & the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this state: On motion of the Plaintiff by his attorney; It is ordered, that the said defendant do appear here on the second Monday in January next, and answer the plaintiff's bill, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in one of the news papers printed in the city of Richmond, for eight weeks successively, & posted at the front door of the courthouse of this county, on some court day. A Copy. Teste, JNO. POINDEXTER, C. L. C. Nov. 1. (1aw8w.)
IN CHANCERY.—Louisa County Court, October 10th, 1808.
Robert Yancey & Co. Plffs.—Against William Meriwether and Robert Dickinson, Defendants. THE plaintiff, Robert Yancey is dead—and the defendant, Meriwether, 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 state: On motion of the plaintiffs by their attorney; It is ordered, That the said defendant do appear here on the second Monday in January next, and answer the plaintiff's bill, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in one of the news papers printed in the city of Richmond, for eight weeks successively, and posted at the front door of the courthouse of this county on some court day. A Copy. Teste, JNO. POINDEXTER, C. L. C. Nov. 1. (1aw8w.)
A notice is published, (and may be had at Jacob Johnson's Book-Store, adjoining the Market-bridge,) Part 3 of Vol. I of HENNING & MUNFORD'S REPORTS, containing the Decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, at the October Term, 1807, and completing the first Volume. At the same place may be had the said volume (of 656 pages) elegantly bound in calf. Price to subscribers $5 to non-subscribers $6. The size of the volume having far exceeded the limits at first contemplated, (which were 500 pages only,) the authors have been induced to furnish it to subscribers at the above price, which is considerably less, in proportion, than that mentioned in the Prospectus. Gentlemen who take these Reports in numbers, will be permitted to return them at any time within six months, & receive a volume, for which numbers they will be allowed the original cost in part payment for the volume. Nov. 1. (1aw8w.)
GORDON, TROOKES & Co. have put a stop to the sale of their GOODS, on the long credits heretofore given; and are desirous to close, as soon as possible, the debts due to them, and the former firm of R. Gordon & Co.—Those indebted to them, who are unable to make immediate payment, are requested to close their accounts by bond. They offer for sale, their assortment of DRY GOODS & GROCERIES, for cash, or on short credit to punctual people. Nov. 32. (1aw8w.)
A copy of a deed of trust, executed to the subscriber, by Brett Randolph and David Ruffey, which is recorded in the district court of Richmond, will be sold, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at Powhatan Court-House, on Monday the 19th day of December next, the following SLAVES, to wit: Solomon, Sukey and her child, Arthur and Scipio, or so many thereof, as will be sufficient to raise the sum of £308 with interest thereon, from the 21st day of April last, and the costs necessarily incurred, by carrying the said trust into execution, which sum is due to Messrs. Lyle, Scott and Saunders. RICHARD B. GOODE. Nov. 8. (1aw8w.)
Yours of a deed of trust, executed to the subscriber, by Brett Randolph and David Ruffey, which is recorded in the district court of Richmond, will be sold, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at Powhatan Court-House, on Monday the 19th day of December next, the following SLAVES, to wit: Solomon, Sukey and her child, Arthur and Scipio, or so many thereof, as will be sufficient to raise the sum of £308 with interest thereon, from the 21st day of April last, and the costs necessarily incurred, by carrying the said trust into execution, which sum is due to Messrs. Lyle, Scott and Saunders. RICHARD B. GOODE. Nov. 8. (1aw8w.)