The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1805-07-26 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
PUBLISHED BY RITCHIE & WORSELY, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE.....AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.....(PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)
NUMBER 23.]
RICHMOND, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 26, 1805.
[VOLUME 2.
GEORGE WILY, BROKER & COMMISSION MERCHANT, Near the Basin, BUYs and sells all kinds of Produce—Also, Lands, Lots, and houses, Bank Stock, &c.
TO RENT, A BRICK LUMBER HOUSE on the Basin. FOR SALE, Gen. Melodek Claret, of vintage of '01. In boxes of Seven Wines of the vintage of '01. 30 b. each.
TO BE SOLD, At Public Vendue, at Grafton's Hotel, in Alexandria, on Monday the 16th day of September, at 12 o'clock, at noon: ALL that TRACT OF LAND, late Presby Thornton, Esquire's, situated in Northumberland county, Virginia, lying immediately on the Potomac River.
THE SUBSCRIBER Has lately received from Philadelphia: A HANDSOME assortment of TEACHING, in full and broken series: Cut and Plain Glass Ware, printed and China glazed Ware, which may be purchased by the crate, or in small assortments made up to suit retailers.
HOUSE AND LOT—FOR SALE. THE subscribers offer for sale, the House and Lot, in the neighbourhood of Mr. St. Marks, and Linton Underwood, on the Hill, which they lately purchased of Mr. John S. Moore, in which a bargain may be had.
NOTICE. ON the 23d day of May last the co-partnership of WM. M. ALLEN & JAMES CODY, under the firm of ALLEN & CODY, of Ca Ira, was dissolved by mutual consent.
IN pursuance of an act of the General Assembly of this commonwealth, entitled, an act authorizing the appointment of a mathematical surveyor of the city of Richmond, and for other purposes, passed the eighth day of January, 1805.
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that in virtue of a writ of ad quod damnum issued from the court of the county of Henrico, and to me directed, I shall on the 15th day of August next, with a jury, meet on the lands through which the common canal of the city of Richmond, to extend from the creek of the city to James River, to ascertain that part of the town lying on the east side of Shockoe creek, with that on the west side thereof, by a continuation of the several streets already laid out across the said creek till their junction with each other.
TO RENT, THE HOUSE lately occupied by Thomas Gill, in and immediate possession given apply to GILLIAT & KIRBY.
VALUABLE COAL LANDS, To be let upon a lease for years. THE Coal Lands at Dover in the county of Goochland, joining Doctor John Adams's coal pits and Mr. Graham's, belonging to the subscribers.
DAVID ROSS, JAMES CURRIE. (4w.) A VALUABLE FARM FOR SALE. THE Subscriber wishes to sell his FARM adjacent to the town of New-Castle, in the county of Hanover, containing three hundred acres: situated within one quarter of a mile of Pamunkey river, where there is good navigation for vessels of fifty tons burthen.
NOTICE. THE Partnership now carrying on under the firm of PUMFREY & FITZWHYLSONN, will be dissolved by mutual consent, on the 31st day of this present month.
TO BE SOLD, On the 3d day of August next, at James Lewis's Tavern, in the town of Charlottesville: JOHN HENDERSON's interest in the following Negroes, to wit: Ned, Tirus, Harry, Cloy, and her five children, Cate, Amsey, Silvia, Jenny, (or Jennetta), and Rachell, with their increase: or in money thereof as will be sufficient to satisfy a debt due Thomas Garth, Jr. of £155 18f. 10d. with interest thereon from the 17th March, 1802, together with the legal costs attending the sale.
JUST RECEIVED, AND FOR SALE BY THE SUBSCRIBER, FOUR hundred pieces House Paper, Philadelphia Beer by the barrel, a small quantity of first quality New-England Cider; also 400 barrels Corn.
ALSO—5000 wt. Salt Petre & BACON—and a constant supply of FRESH CORN MEAL.
A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OF BLANKS, FOR SALE AT THIS OFFICE.
ELLIS & ALLAN Have received by the Rolls from London, part of their SPRING GOODS, amongst which are the following articles: LONDON Superfine Cloths and Cashmeres, Quiltings and Dimities, Handmade fashionable worked & laced Muffins, 3-4, 8-4 and 10-4 Diapers, 3-4, 8-4 and 10-16 Damask Table Cloths.
TO BE SOLD, To the highest bidder, on the premises, on the 1st Saturday in June next, SO much of the LAND, whereon John Kelso lives, in the county of Cumberland, late the property of Peter Francisco, as will pay the balance claimed of him, by Samuel G. Adams, of £140, with its interest, by virtue of a deed of trust executed to me by the said Peter Francisco, for that purpose.
MILITARY CERTIFICATES. FOR SALE, Certificates of this state, bearing interest of 6 per cent. and receivable at the Treasury, for all arrearages of taxes, prior to the year 1798.
WILL BE SOLD at public auction to the highest bidder for ready money, at Zachariah Brooks's Tavern, in the town of Manchester, on Saturday the 23d day of August next, by virtue of a deed of trust, executed to the subscriber by Richardson Harris, late of the county of Chesterfield, to secure the payment of a debt due to Lyle and McClellan, and the expense necessarily incurred; five negroes, viz: Sally, Killus, Charles, Phillis and Amsey, or to many thereof as will be sufficient to satisfy the debt, interest and costs.
NEAL NELSON, BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURER, MAIN-STREET, RICHMOND, MAKES Boots & Shoes to any pattern or fashion, equal in point of MATERIALS and WORKMANSHIP to any in general use.
THE Subscriber has opened a Broker's Office, opposite the Union Tavern, and over the Counting-house of Thomas and Amey Ladd. All business confided to him, will be transacted with strict fidelity.
HE HAS FOR SALE, VIRGINIA BANK STOCK, on a credit of 6 and 12 months.
FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD. RAN AWAY from the subscriber, living near the Bowling Green, on the 23d inst. a negro man named PETER, between thirty and forty years old, about five feet ten inches high, he is black and rather spare made; had on when he went off, a light coloured dable coat, a red striped waistcoat, corduroy or thickset breeches and dark mixed stockings—he lost the greater part of all his toes on the left foot, and when spoken to, is apt to appear surprised.
BENJAMIN STETSON, INFORMS his friends and the public in general he has for sale, 400 gallons Holland's Linseed Oil, White Lead and Spanish Brown ground in Oil, Patent Green ground in ditto, Verdigris and Spanish Brown, dry, 8 by 10 Window Glass, & Putty: 24, 3d, 4d, 6d, 8d, 10d, and 20d Nails, two Casks Spike Nails, Bar Iron, German and Blistered Steel; general assortment of Iron Hollow Ware; 10 Hhds. Molasses, French Brandy, West-India and New-England Rum, Tea, Coffee, Loaf and Brown Sugar, Chocolate, Mens, fine and coarse Shoes, Ladies Kid & Morocco and Leather Slippers; 8 Boxes Cotton and Wool Cards assorted; half pint and quart Tumblers, small invoice elegant cut glass, stone ware, German Ozenburgs, 30 Hhds. Salt, Novalecotia Grind Stones, and many other articles in store, which he will sell cheap for cash or country produce.
BY virtue of a deed of trust, executed to the subscriber by William Davis, to secure the payment of a debt due William W. Hasting, as expressed in the said deed, now of record in the county court of Albemarle, will be exposed to public sale on the premises, on the tenth day of August next, one LOT, with its appurtenances, in the town of Charlottesville, number twenty; or to such thereof as will be sufficient to satisfy the debt as is now due, as in the said deed is mentioned, together with the costs of advertising and attending the sale.
ADVERTISEMENT. BY virtue of a deed of trust to us given from Col. Vincent Readman, will be sold at public sale on Monday the 29th day of July next, on the premises—All that certain tract of land situated in that TRACT OF LAND whereon said Readman resides, in Richmond county; upon which there is a good water grist mill and a distillery, and upon which there are some prior incumbrances, with an hundred and fifty acres of land unincumbered: upon this part of said tract of land there are very fine improvements, with a good dwelling house, barn, stable, kitchen, dairy, smoke-house, a fine garden and a good orchard, together with an excellent flour-mill. The farm for trade is as good as any country place convenient to navigation, a large circle of wealthy neighbours, & without competition. The healthiness of this seat is exceeded by none in the Northern Neck. The best of water and the most salubrious air bath the Col. and his large family with such health as for them to be almost without the knowledge of sickness. There is in the whole tract six hundred and eighty-five acres, and an indefeasible right will be made a purchaser. The terms of payment will be made known on the day of sale.
IN CHANCERY. IN MONROE COUNTY COURT, July 18, 1805. Fortumatus Sydnor, Against Jeffe Smith, Robert Sydnor & William Garland Sydnor, } Defs. THIS day came the complainant by his counsel, and the defendants, Robert and William Garland Sydnor, not having entered their appearance, and given security according to the Act of Assembly, in such case made and provided and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that they are not inhabitants of this commonwealth. On the motion of the complainant by his counsel aforesaid: it is ordered that the said defendants do appear here on the first Monday in October next, and answer the bill of the said complainant, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in one of the newspapers published in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and posted at the Court-house door of this county. To be, ADAM CRAIG, c. c. (I. F. P.)
BENJAMIN DU VAL, AT THE SIGN OF THE GOLDEN MORTAR, RICHMOND, HAS just received a very large and extensive assortment of fresh MEDICINES, SURGEON'S INSTRUMENTS, DRUGS and DYE-STUFFS, PAINTS of all kinds, OIL, VARNISHES, PUTTY, &c. Also a complete assortment of HATTERS' MATERIALS, CONSISTING OF Hatters' Irons, Logwood, Coppeas, Virdegreafe, Puttick, Spanish Indigo, Oil of Vitriol, Ag. Fortis, Quickilver, Crude Tartar, Bafon Irons, Bow-Strings, Limings, Galoons, Taffet Bands, Rubbing Dishes, Stampers, Treachers, &c.
Which added to his former stock, completes an assortment that was never equalled in his line of business in this city. He thanks his customers for past favors, and hopes to merit a continuation of their custom. His former attention to the quality of his Medicines, importing them in their crude state, that he might be able to judge of their quality, and powdering and preparing them under his immediate inspection, have contributed to his present establishment; and opposition he presumes will not relax his exertions to give general satisfaction in future.
His experience for more than 12 years past, as Apothecary and Druggist in this city, added to a small book of Medical Information acquired before, enables him, he thinks, to form a tolerably correct judgment as to the quality of Drugs and Medicines, although he cannot boast of honors conferred on him, greater than the confidence of numerous and respectable customers.
In regard to his wholesale prices, he promises to furnish each of his whole sale customers with a printed price current, as soon as possible, and feels himself confident in their approbation, knowing that no one in this state can afford to under-sell him. This he intends to do, not to get others' customers from them, but to secure his own. Any articles that may be ordered, and not procured of as to quality, may be returned if in good order, and in a reasonable time. TO BE LET. GENTEL apartments, between the Basin and Main-street, suitable for a commission merchant or professional gentleman—respectable school or any other purpose, where a central situation and unobstructed light and air are requisite—Enquire of Hart and Southgate, grocers, opposite the scale house, July 23. 1aw4w.
VALUABLE PROPERTY. The subscriber desires to dispose of his business in this place as soon as possible, is induced to offer for sale, the following valuable property, viz: A CONVENIENT two story dwelling house, 24 feet square, having one room and a passage on the lower floor, two rooms on the second floor, and two good rooms in the garret, a cellar with plank floor, and divided into three apartments, one used for cooking; the yard inclosed with a brick wall seven feet high, the whole in good repair. This tenement is situated near the Bell-Tavern, on the cross street leading to the Rock landing, and is injured in the Mutual Insurance company, against fire in the state of Virginia, and the premiums paid. Eleven unimproved half acres, on Shockoe-Hill, 600 acres Military land in Kanawha county, on the waters of Oldtown creek, a branch of Ohio river, being a grant made to George Muff, Adam Stevens, Andrew Lewis and others, in the year 1772. 25 tracts of Land in Montgomery county, containing 32,172 acres, the whole patented in my name, viz: 4000 acres surveyed 3d April, 1786 in Montgomery county, on Cole river. 3680 acres surveyed 24th July, 1786 in same county, on 16 mile creek, adjoining the late General Washington's survey on Kanawha river. 3062 1/2 acres surveyed 23d July, 1786, in same county, on Loop waters, waters of New-river. 1000 acres surveyed 13th May, 1786 in same county, on the Ohio river. 3210 acres surveyed 5th April, 1786 in same county, south of a creek running into Cole river. 2133 acres surveyed 21st February, 1787 in same county, on Cole river. 320 acres surveyed 3d February, 1787 in same county, on the waters of Cooper's creek and Little Blue stone. 1300 acres surveyed 15th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the head waters of the South fork of Cole river, that heads against Guyandott. 95 acres surveyed 10th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the head waters of Glade creek. 78 acres surveyed 8th Feb. 1787 in same county, on a branch emptying into Glade creek on the fourth side of the farm, and about one mile above the ford of said creek. 500 acres surveyed 10th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the north fork of Mud river, that heads against Guyandott. 1500 acres surveyed 12th May, 1786 in same county, on Ohio river. 2000 acres surveyed 8th May, 1786 in same county, on the great Kanawha. 1000 acres surveyed 16th May, 1786 in same county and on ditto. 203 acres surveyed 8th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the head of Glade creek. 214 acres surveyed 7th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the waters of Glade creek, on the fourth side thereof. 1355 acres surveyed 6th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the west end of Joe's Ridge, and on the waters of Glade creek. 154 acres surveyed 6th Feb. 1787 in same county on Joe's ridge. 228 acres surveyed 6th Feb. 1787 in same county, on creek. 414 acres surveyed 23d Feb. 1787 in same county, on the second fork of Cole River, on the road crossing from Piney river to Guyandott. 2000 acres surveyed 26th Feb. 1787 in same county, under the big pipe stem knob, and running down both sides of the creek. 416 acres surveyed 4th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the waters of Coopers creek, and Joe's ridge. 380 acres surveyed 3d Feb. 1787 in same county, on the head waters of Cooper's creek. 3388 acres surveyed 20th Feb. 1787 in same county, on the fourth fork of Cole river. 1943 acres surveyed 2d Feb. 1787 in same county, on the head waters of little blue stone, about half a mile north from the White Oak creek. Three tracts of land in Monongalia county, patented in my name, viz: 350 acres by survey 1st June, 1796 in Monongalia county, adjoining Matthew Richey's land, and the Randolph county line, on waters of Cheat river. 400 acres surveyed 20th October, 1797 in same county, adjoining lands of Abner Harper, above the mouth of White Day creek. 400 Acres surveyed 15th Nov. 1797 in same county, adjoining Peter Drago, on Finche's run, to include an improvement made in the year 1773. 1000 acres in same county, on the west of Cheat river, above the lands of Thos. Butler. 800 acres in same county, on Buffalo creek, on a pre-emption right of David Gray. 250 acres in Greenbrier county, on Little Deer creek, adjoining lands of Joseph McClung. 891 acres in Montgomery county, surveyed 1st August, 1787, on the waters of Piney river & Paint creek, waters of Kanawha river. 435 acres in Montgomery county, surveyed 30th June 1786, joining the lands of Joseph Eaton, Richard Male, and James McClellan. 230 acres in Wythe county, surveyed 4th Nov. 1795, on the Led Mine Mill creek. 180 acres in Albemarle county, patent dated 5th July, 1787, on William Hill creek, waters of Buck Island creek. One undivided moiety of five lots, in the town of Winchester, No's. 89, 90, 100, 101, and 109. The above will be sold very low, and the terms made known on application to Wm. AUSTIN. Richmond, April 9. (tf)
BY virtue of a deed of Trust, executed by Mr. Rufus Soule, to the subscribers for the benefit of Alexander McRae, Esq. they will, on Saturday the third day of next month (August) at one o'clock P. M. on the premises, proceed to sell for ready money to the highest bidder, (for the purposes in the deed expressed) the LOT and improvements thereon, at present occupied by the said Soule, near Mr. Crouche's old Tavern, on the street leading by the governor's up Shockoe Hill—Immediate possession will be given, and an indisputable title will be made by Alexander McRae who sold the lot to Soule, and the Trustees will join in the conveyance. WILLIAM DU VAL, MAURICE L. MILLER. } Trustees. July 5. (1aw5w.)
JUST RECEIVED, and for sale at RITCHIE and WORSELY'S BOOKSTORE, Price one dollar and fifty cents. A NEW SYSTEM OF MODERN GEOGRAPHY: OR a general Description of the most remarkable countries throughout the known world; their respective situations, extents, divisions, cities, rivers, mountains, soils and productions; their commerce, manufactures, customs and religious opinions; together with their principal historical events and political importance in the great commonwealth of nations; compiled from the most modern writers of Geography, and the latest accounts and travels, and containing many important additions to the Geography of the United States that have never appeared in any other work of the kind illustrated with eight maps, comprising the whole discovered, and engraved by the first American artists, defined particularly to the use of schools. BY BENJAMIN DAVIES.

Pleadings of Counsel,
ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22.
[Mr. Lee's speech concluded.]
I will now proceed to make some observations upon the 6th article of impeachment; and whereas it is provided by the 24th section of the aforesaid act, intitled "An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States," that the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as the rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply; and whereas by the laws of Virginia it is provided, that in cases not capital, the offender shall not be held to answer any presentment of a grand jury until the court next succeeding that during which such presentment shall be made; yet the said Samuel Chase, with intent to oppress and procure the conviction of the said James T. Callender, did at the court aforesaid, rule and adjudge the said Callender to trial, during the term at which he the said Callender, was presented and indicted, contrary to law in that case made and provided.
The charge in this article against the respondent, is in substance that he, with intent to oppress and procure the conviction of Callender, ruled him to trial during the term at which he was presented and indicted, contrary to the laws of Virginia, when it is alleged there provided that in cases not capital, the offender shall not be held to answer any presentment of a grand jury until the next succeeding court.
This article it is admitted does contain an accusation of crime; but I hope I shall be able to satisfy this honorable court, that in this instance no crime or offence was committed. I shall undertake to show that no error in law was committed, and that if the judge had done otherwise, he would have been more liable to censure than he now is. If this be made to appear, as a supposed illegality of his conduct is the foundation of the charge, there will remain nothing to support the charge.
The accused judge had sworn to support the constitution of the United States, and to administer justice without respect to persons, and to perform all the duties of his office according to the laws of the United States. If in ruling Callender to trial at the same term at which he was indicted, he acted according to law, the judge performed his duty and ought not to be charged with oppression.
The article may be understood as affirming, that there exists some law of Virginia which positively prohibits the trial of a misdemeanor at the same term at which the indictment is found. No such law has been produced, and I must be allowed to deny that any such law of Virginia exists. The act of assembly of 1788, which provides that "upon presentment by any grand jury of an offence not capital, the court shall order the clerk to issue a summons or other proper process against the person or persons offending, to appear and answer such presentment at the next court," appears to have given birth to the idea that an offender may not be tried for a misdemeanor at the same term he is indicted. It however does not warrant the position.
When the party appears and answers the presentment, the trial may immediately take place. When the party appears and answers an indictment, the trial may immediately take place, if so ruled, unless by any positive statute. The defence of this article may therefore be placed on two grounds, either of which will be sufficient. First, there is no law of Virginia which prohibits the trial of a misdemeanor at the same term the indictment is found; and secondly, if there be such a law, the same is not binding on the courts of the United States, in respect to offences against the United States.
With respect to the first ground, in addition to what has been said it may be observed, that some instances have been proved before this honorable court, of trials in the state courts of indictments for misdemeanors, at the same term they were found. Mr. Robertson stated two specific cases where the punishment might be imprisonment.
These instances show there can have been no such positive prohibition by the laws of Virginia, as the article of impeachment has alleged; however that may be, such a law, and that is the general practice of that state there are some exceptions, or such a general practice would not be obligatory on the courts of the U. States, which is the second ground of defence against this charge.
A great deal which has been said in relation to the 5th article, applies with equal force to the article now under discussion.
When the supreme court by their rule of court deliberately formed, declared that the practice of the king's bench should form outlines for the practice in their court subject to the alterations they might make, it was reasonable and natural for the circuit court, composed of justices of the supreme court, to conduct its business upon the like principle. In the king's bench, proceedings may be returnable immediately. Gilbert's origin of king's bench, p. 213, 2 Hawk. ch. 3, sec. 14, 4 Black. 219, and such is the practice if the offence is committed in the county where the court sits; but if the offence is committed in another county, the proceedings may be returned to any day the court will appoint.
The object of the court in using its discretion will be to insure the service of the process, and its due return by allowing sufficient time according to circumstances for that purpose. It is not denied that venire facias is a proper process in cases not capital, but it is not the only process that may be issued. Judge Blackstone, who wrote since Hawkins in the passage cited, declares that a capias is a usual process from the king's bench, and may be returnable at the pleasure of the court, but that in brevity there ought to be a venire facias where it is intended to proceed to outlawry. In the United States under the statutes of Congress, there can be no proceeding to outlawry, and therefore the reason for awarding a venire in England, does not hold in the United States in regard to prosecutions in their courts. But let the practice of the king's bench be as it may, it is merely to be used as an outline by our judges who will guide and direct themselves by the statutes of the U. States, and will act in conformity to them. When process has been served and the offender brought into court to answer an indictment already found, it is the duty of the court to proceed to the trial. Such will be shown to be the manifest direction of the laws of the U. States. As to the laws of Virginia, it is reported, there is no legislative act of that state which fixes positively the time of trying an indictment for a misdemeanor, and if there were, it would not bind the federal court. The time of a trial is not the trial, but a circumstance, which as well as the place of trial, is subject to the laws of the United States.
But it has been said in support of this article, that in England it is not usual or according to the general course of proceedings, to try petty
misdemeanors at the same court that the traverser pleads. For this is cited 4 Black. 231, and it is also said that the practice of Virginia conforms to the practice in England in this instance. Let this be admitted, and what does it avail? The practice that has been mentioned applies only to petty misdemeanors, and the law has always distinguished between petty misdemeanors and those of a greater malignity. The practice does not apply to what are termed crimina maiora . Can it be said that such a rule of practice applies to the case of Callender. Was he indicted for a petty misdemeanor? No, sir, he was not. I have long learned to abhor the detestable crime of calumny. A calumniator is the greatest of criminals, and Callender has been the greatest of calumniators. All have agreed in reprobating the wickedness of his calumnies, and ought the hon. judge who is now answering before you to have applied the rule of English and Virginia practice concerning petty misdemeanors to such a case as that of Callender. Certainly not.
To place this matter still more clear of doubt, I will with the hon. court to turn their attention to the constitution, and to a few clauses of the laws of the U. States. The sixth amendment to the constitution provides, "that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." In the same spirit of speedy justice, a clause in the 3d section of the statute directs, that "copies of the process shall be returned as speedily as may be into the clerk's office of such court, together with the recognizance of the witnesses, for their appearance to testify in the case, which recognizances the magistrate before whom the examination shall be, may require on pain of imprisonment; and if such commitment of the offender or the witnesses shall be in a district other than that in which the offence is to be tried, it shall be the duty of the judge of that district where the defendant is imprisoned seasonably to issue, and of the marshal of the same district to execute a warrant for the removal of the offender and the witnesses, or either of them, as the case may be, to the district in which the trial is to be had. And upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death," &c.
With the same view to a speedy trial, the 7th section of the statute of 2d March, 1789, enacts, "that it shall be lawful for the several courts of the U. States, from time to time, as occasion may require, to make rules and orders for their respective courts, directing the returning of writs and processes, &c. and otherwise in a manner not repugnant to the laws of the United States to regulate the practice of the said courts respectively, as shall be fit and necessary for the advancement of justice, and especially to that end to prevent delays in proceedings." Hence it is evident, that in bringing Callender to trial at the same term at which he was indicted and at which he pleaded, the court obeyed the injunction of the constitution, and it obeyed the injunction of the laws of the United States.
In cases where bail is required to delay, the trial may be used to the oppression of the accused. It is therefore enjoined by the constitution and by the laws, that there shall be no delay. If the honorable judge who stands accused of trying Callender too soon, had deferred the trial to another term, that is to say, six months, and the traverser could not have given bail, he would have been imprisoned six months without a trial. After he was convicted, the sentence of imprisonment pronounced by the same judge was only an imprisonment of about nine months. He acted therefore not only according to law, but with humanity in bringing the traverser to trial. If the trial had been postponed to another term, and Callender in the mean time had been imprisoned, such a conduct in the court would have given cause of complaint against the judge, who would then have been accused of postponing the trial of an innocent man, for the purpose of oppression. What in such a case ought the judge to have done? Exactly what he did. Obeying the constitution and the laws of the United States, he brought the traverser to a speedy and public trial.
If it is, may it please the honorable court, upon these grounds that the respondent stands justified in his conduct in relation to the charge contained in the 6th article of impeachment.
In the distribution of the articles of impeachment among the counsel of the respondent he assigned to me the 5th and 6th, and I humbly include the hope that the defence which has been made, will be deemed satisfactory. But before I conclude, I hope I may be allowed shortly to advert to some of the remarks which have fallen from the hon. managers in respect to this part of the accusation.
The honorable managers have attempted to show a difference between a presentment and an indictment, and that until the indictment was found, a capias ought not to have been issued, even if it were lawful to issue it upon an indictment. That there is no such distinction, I appeal to those passages of the acts of Congress to which reference has been already made. I appeal to the reason of the thing and to the nature of a presentment. It is a species of indictment, an informal indictment, it is an accusation of a grand jury. There are cases where it would be improper in a court to wait until a presentment shall be put in the form of an indictment. Circumstances may be such, that the offender would escape if process was not issued upon the presentment.
One of the honorable managers charged the respondent with precipitancy in awarding the capias . If this gentleman had recollected the testimony, he would not have made that remark. It was undeniably proved that the respondent enquired of the clerk of the court and of the district attorney, what was the proper process. These officers answered, that a capias was the proper process. Upon such subjects it is usual to enquire of such officers, and their answer is generally deemed sufficient by the courts.
It was in proof, that judge Chase informed the counsel of Callender they might except to any opinion given by the court, he would sign their bill of exceptions and be the first man to grant a writ of error; this was intended to show, that the respondent had no disposition to injure or oppress the traverser. To obviate any influence of the circumstance favourable to the respondent, it was intimated, perhaps asserted by some of the managers, that no writ of error could be maintained in such a case of criminal prosecution, and that judge Chase well knew it, and that the offer was made merely for a cloak to his inactivity and oppression. This idea seemed to be derived from certain opinions of Virginia jurisprudence, and it was attempted to be proved that in Virginia, a writ of error did not lie in a criminal case and had never been granted and sustained in that state in its courts. This however can be and will be readily disproved. Although one of the witnesses, Mr. Hay, did not recollect with precision whether there was any bill of exceptions in the cases concerning the Berkeley estate, which were carried from the district court into the court of appeals; yet another of the witnesses, Mr. Nicholas, the attorney general of Virginia, well remembers there
was. Until these cases were decided, which happened several years after the trial of Callender, it was the received law of that state for the court of appeals to hold jurisdiction as a court of error over criminal prosecutions. In support of this doctrine I refer to the case of Newall against the commonwealth, adjudged in the year 1795. 2 Washington's reports, 88. It was against a magistrate for bribery in his office, and the judgement was reversed with costs. Also I refer to the case of Jones against the commonwealth, adjudged in the year 1799. 1 Call's reports, 555. This was an indictment for an assault, and the judgement was reversed. It is true since the trial of Callender these cases have been over-ruled, yet as the established law was different at the time of his trial, the offer of the judge to grant a writ of error in the manner which has been proved, ought not to be attributed to any unjust or improper motives.
The learned counsel who spoke last stated the practice in Maryland to be, to award a capias and to try the traverser at the first term at which he pleads. This has been fully proved. As the respondent long presided in the criminal court of Maryland, with honor to himself, and great usefulness to his country, it was quite natural for him to follow the like practice in Virginia.
It has been objected that the judge misconceived himself towards the counsel during the trial of Callender in various instances, which it has been argued proceeded from a desire to convict and punish the traverser, however innocent. I will observe with great deference, that it is in the opinion of some gentlemen, the judge did not act with becoming politeness to the counsel, it is not a high crime or misdemeanor, that may be examined or tried in this hon. court. But I trust upon a review of the circumstances as they have been given in evidence, that this court will be of opinion that the respondent behaved to the counsel, with sufficient propriety. One of the counsel, Mr. Wirt, offered to the court a syllabus, to which the hon. judge promptly replied in a technical phrase of logic, and this excited in the audience some diversion. When another of the counsel, Mr. Nicholas, was speaking on the favorite topic of the right of the jury to consider the constitutionality of the sedition law, he was not interrupted by the judge. But Mr. Nicholas has been proved to have been always civil always respectful to a court of justice; consequently the court would be civil to him. A third counsel Mr. Hay, who was extremely desirous as he his himself testified, to make an oration, not only for the purpose of satisfying the jury but the audience, that a jury had a right to judge of the constitutionality of the sedition law, was interrupted by the judge, who denied his position. Mr. Hay had stated other matters during the trial which appeared to the judge to be erroneous. He had stated that a jury in this case of Callender , was the proper tribunal to affect the fine, in which he had been corrected by the court; that one of the jurors, Mr. Basset, was not qualified to serve, &c. His zeal in the cause of liberty and the constitution, made him pertinacious in some things which the judge pronounced to be errors. It was no wonder then that such an advocate was stopped and often interrupted by the court. If any thing was done amiss by the judge during the trial, it was his desiring Mr. Hay to proceed in his own way, and promising to interrupt him no more let him say what he would; but this circumstance plainly evinces that the interruptions did not arise from corrupt motives. It may truly be said that judge Chase, in his behaviour to counsel, was "all things to all men." To the logical Mr. Wirt, he was logical: to the polite Mr. Nicholas, he was polite: to the zealous and pertinacious Mr. Hay, he was courteous and determined. Yet when they conducted themselves with propriety towards the court, there would have been no interruptions; but when the judge found that the opinions of the bench were slighted, and that the conduct of the bar had a tendency to mislead and influence the public mind against a statute of Congress, he endeavoured to turn their sentiments and reasoning into ridicule, and he produced by his wit a considerable degree of merit at their expense, of which no doubt Col. John Taylor, who has proved it for the prosecutors, was, from his natural temper, a full partaker.
Mr. President, it is now a very late hour, & I will bring my observations to a close. The articles relative to Fries and Callender have been fully investigated: there is neither uncertainty or doubt as to the facts. I flatter myself that it has been shown that those charges have not been supported by the evidence, and that the impeachment has proceeded from misinformation. If the hon. House of Representatives had known as much as has been disclosed to this hon. court, they would not have deemed it necessary to have brought forward an impeachment. All must now be satisfied that the information on which the articles are grounded has been derived from mistaken sources both in regard to fact and law. An aggregate body cannot be better guarded against misinformation than an individual; and I am induced to believe from the known integrity and virtue of the house of representatives, they will hear with satisfaction, that the evidence which they received was not the same which has been delivered before this hon. court, and that they will take pleasure in the acquittal of the respondent.
You are now about to set an example in a case of impeachment which will have a most important influence in our country. It will be an example to the tribunals in the several states who like you possess the power of trying impeachments, and who may learn from you by what rules the doctrine of impeachment is to be regulated: it will be a polar star to guide in prosecutions of this kind. You are about to set an example to the ordinary tribunals of justice in every corner of the United States. They will know how this high court has done justice between the House of Representatives of the American nation and a single individual, and hence they may learn how to do justice to the most weak and friendless individuals, when accused in their courts by the most powerful. An upright and independent judiciary is all important in society. Let your example be as bright in its justice as it will be extensive in its influence. If the people shall find that their confidential servants, the House of Representatives, have brought forward an accusation against another of their servants for high crimes and misdemeanors in his exalted office, which after a fair and patient hearing has not been supported by evidence, it will afford them pleasure to hear of his honorable acquittal, and such may it please this hon. court will be, I trust, the result of your deliberations.
(To be continued.)
THE subscriber wishes to purchase a negro woman about thirty years of age, who is cleanly and understands something of cooking. For a woman of this description cash will be paid.
GEORGE HAY. July 25. 34.
FOR SALE. A Very valuable Schooner. For terms apply to the Editor of the Enquirer. July 2. (Nov. 25.)
European Intelligence.
NEW-YORK, July 18.
Captain Ogilvie, from Mabel, informs us that the Carthagena fleet, consisting of eleven sail of the line, had got out of the Mediterranean. An idle rumour prevailed at Malaga, that the British government had offered terms of peace to Spain, and had proposed as a preliminary to restore the frigates and treasure detained before the commencement of the war, and to make restitution for the frigates which had been sunk; but that the Spanish government, irritated at the wanton sacrifice of its subjects in the action wherein the above vessels were taken, had rejected all overtures for participation.
Merc. Adv.
From Cadiz—Capt. Seward, arrived at Boston on Friday, informs that there were five sail of the Spanish line lying in the bay ready for sea; one of 140 guns, 2 of 74, 2 of 64, and 4 others were to drop down in a few days, and wait the arrival of 11 more from Carthagena, which were hourly expected. There was no account from the combined fleet since they left Cadiz; their destination was still a secret. Capt. S. also informs, that General Moreau had a friendly interview with him, and was to take passage either in the ship Sachem , of Wiscasset , for Boston, or in the Washington , for New-Bedford.
It appears certain that the Spanish Government has combined, in concert with that of France, a vast plan of military operations, the execution of which will give a deadly blow to the power of England. The secret is hitherto perfectly preserved, and the extent of these plans will only be known at the moment when it will be out of the power of the enemy to oppose them. The armament of the Spanish fleet at Ferrol was entirely completed on the 25th of March. This fleet consists of twelve sail of the line, without including frigates and corvettes, and French vessels. [Late Paris Paper.]
West Indies.
FROM DEMERARA.
A letter from a respectable gentleman at Demerara, (received via Barbados,) dated June 4, mentions that the shipping there were embargoed, including about 70 sail homeward bound English merchantmen from Surinam, Berbice, &c. The Americans were only allowed to land fish and timber, but in consequence of the embargo the governor had permitted the landing of provisions in small quantities on petitions. The embargo extending to colony boats the sale of fish was totally prevented for the time; almost every article except fish was selling well—Sugar, were at 4 3/4 stivers.—Dozon pop.
Communicated for the Mercantile Advertiser.
PARAMARIBO.
NOTIFICATION. By Brigadier General Wm. Carleton Hughes, commanding his Majesty's land forces in the colony of Surinam, and Lieut. Governor of the same, &c. &c.
It having been found necessary from representations made to the Lieutenant Governor, to order, that neutral vessels trading to this port shall moor in a given spot, and not be allowed, as heretofore, promiscuously to anchor amongst the other vessels; the harbour master is hereby authorised and directed to point out, below Fort Zeelandia, the precise anchorage for neutrals. Further that no boat or punt shall be permitted to pass to or from such vessels before the hour of six in the morning or six in the evening for the purpose of loading or unloading, and that after eight at night no communication whatever by boats of any description shall be allowed with said neutrals, unless in cases when urgent necessity shall be made to appear, under a penalty of 50 guilders for each offence.
Given under my hand at Paramaribo in the Colony of Surinam, this 8th day of May 1805. WM. CARLYON HUGHES.
Domestic Intelligence.
Among the new arrangements of the General Post-Office lately adopted, it is with great pleasure we state that a contract has been entered into for a line of stages, to convey the mail weekly, to Frankfort, in Kentucky, to commence on the 1st day of October next. When this arrangement shall have been carried into effect, the whole seventeen states will be united by a connected line of stages. It is unnecessary to say a word of the vast advantages that will be derived from this measure. It is, however, a merited tribute to the services of the Post-Master general, to remark that his spirited and successful arrangements to extend and accelerate the progress of the mail, are the best and most conclusive replies which can be made to the calumnies with which party animosity assails his conduct. Nat. Int.
Wm. Brent, esq. is appointed clerk of the circuit court of the United States, in the room of Gen. Uriah Forrest, deceased.
FARMER'S BANK.
On Tuesday last the subscription book for 2000 shares in the Farmer's Bank of Maryland, allotted for Anne Arundel county and the City of Annapolis, was opened in this city—On closing the subscription yesterday afternoon, 1690 shares were subscribed.—[Maryland Gaz.]
The schooner Molly , capt. Chadwick, with provisions for the American squadron at Malta, failed from New-London on the 11th inst. In her went passenger Mr. Leonard belonging to the Navy.
We have great pleasure in stating the arrival in this city, of Dr. MAC NEVIN, late an eminent physician of the city of Dublin. This gentleman distinguished himself in the Irish cause in 1798. He was a member of the executive committee of that ill-fated country, and consequently a sufferer in its unsuccessful attempt to shake off English domination. (Amer. Cit.)
FROM MEXICO.—We have reports, that a serious and alarming difference exists between the Spanish rulers, and persons engaged in commerce; that the latter have sent an agent to Spain to make representations on the subject—and that a large body of troops were collected, and the treasures removed to a place of particular safety, in consequence of a rumour that the Americans were collecting an army on their south-western frontier, to be headed by the President in person, in case of urgent need. This rumour some persons conjectured was spread by the viceroy to effect some purpose of his own. (Beflon Palladium.)
CHARLESTON, July 18.
A letter received by a gentleman in this city from a respectable character in Santo Domingo, dated the 25th of June, states, that it was reported there, that the French and Spanish fleets
had taken the Cape and Port-au-Prince; and that the Brigands had retreated to the mountains with great loss, without burning the cities. Times.
Extra of a letter from a gentleman at Darien to his friend in this city, dated 9th June, 1805.
"A British frigate, supposed to be the Cambrian, after a chase of 36 hours, captured off St. Simon's, the French schooner privateer that has been so troublesome off your bar, the mounts 18 guns, and was, the day after, manned with sixty men from the frigate and sent up to St. Mary's, where she had a sharp contest with the Spanish privateer and her prizes, which laid on the Spanish side of the river. The firing ceased at twilight, when the schooner was seen laying with her bows under the ship's stern, which argues, that the ship which the privateermen had armed with the guns from the privateer, had surrendered. No further particulars have as yet reached this."
Extra of a letter from a gentleman in Savannah to his friend in this city, dated the 11th inst.
"The Cambrian British frigate, chased into the river St. Mary's, the privateer that took the Two Friends, captain M'Neil; and afterwards sent in her boats and captured her, and after the privateer took possession of the two English prizes lying in the river, and carried them all off together."
NORFOLK, July 22.
Extra of a letter from a gentleman dated St. John's River, (Province of East Florida,) July 9th, 1805, to his friend in this Borough.
"You no doubt have heard of the capture of a ship, brig, and a sloop, that failed out of Norfolk under British colours, by a privateer schooner from St. Augustine, commanded by captain Hooper. Those vessels arrived safe off St. Augustine bar, and there delivered greater part of their cargo; the ship and brig drawing too much water to come over the bar, proceeded up St. Mary's River, together with the privateer, and were there moored under the Florida shore, at a place called Rufe's Bluff, about one and a half miles from St. Mary's. On my arrival at St. Mary's, I there found an English schooner, tender to the British frigate Cambrian, mounting 18 guns and 70 men, taken a few days previous by the Cambrian, and sent to St. Mary's, for the express purpose of re-taking those prizes. (The schooner was previously a French privateer, when taken.)—She lay about one hour at anchor off St. Mary's, and then proceeded immediately up to the ship, which was prepared for action, and which had collected the whole force of the privateer, together with her own crew & the brig, to make the best defence she could. She then, it was said, mounted 8 or 10 guns and 40 men, exclusive of some militia that had collected on the Bluff, within fifty yards of which the ship was moored. The tender brought up on a sand bank, within 120 or 130 yards of the ship, in a situation to expose her to a complete rake from every gun of the ship, when she could only bring her two bow guns to bear for a length of time; a severe fire from both parties commenced, and lasted for one hour, at the expiration of which time, the tender manned three of her boats, and proceeded immediately to board, notwithstanding they were under a heavy fire of grape shot from the ship, and the militia from the Bluff. The boats on meeting fo warm a reception from that quarter, proceeded on the other quarter between the ship and the Bluff, where they were exposed between two fires, and notwithstanding all those difficulties, boarded the ship, and at the firing of the colours, there was not one Frenchman on board the ship alive, whether any escaped to the shore or not, is as yet, not ascertained, nor was it known when I left St. Mary's, how many were killed on board the tender; yet from the intrepidity of both parties, and the spirited attempt of the English to board in so desperate a situation, many must have been killed, and no doubt but the tender received considerable damage, as she was aground the whole of the action. The Cambrian lies off St. Mary's bar. I was within half a mile of the scene of action, from the commencement, and can assure you it was a fight as grand as solemn. Excuse the unconnected account, and impute incorrectness to great haste. "The action commenced about 5 o'clock on Saturday the 6th July, and I left St. Mary's about 12 o'clock that night." Ledger.
IMPORTANT !!!
We have it from undoubted authority, that accounts are received in this place by the ship Minerva , from Cadiz, as late as the 2nd of June, stating, "that the mission of Col. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney to the court of Madrid had ended, and that not being able to bring the Spanish Government to accede on one point, either in relation to claims of Territory, Spoliations or the Convention of August, 1802. Mr. Monroe had demanded his passport, and was about to leave Madrid immediately for London. The dispatch on this business have gone forward to the President, via Lisbon, and by the Cotton Planter to New York." (Herald.)
WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE LOTTERY.
Yesterday the drawing of this Lottery terminated in a manner equally unexpected and unpleasant.—As few tickets remained, it was certain that the drawing would finish in the early part of the day; the ten thousand dollar prize had not been drawn, and the fifth drawn ticket being a prize of ten thousand dollars, made this day's drawing extremely interesting—accordingly a large concourse of persons were assembled, expectation was on tiptoe, and speculation great, tickets sold towards the latter part of the drawing at three hundred dollars each. About 12 o'clock the drawing finished, but behold there was no ten thousand dollar prize in the wheel—This circumstance occasioned no small degree of astonishment to all present, and to none more than the Managers, who knew that it was put into the wheel.—An examination immediately took place, when the mystery was cleared up; it appeared clearly, that there had been a mistake in calling the ten thousand dollar prize, a five hundred dollar prize, as there is one more five hundred dollar prize recorded than was put in the wheel.—This mistake for a mistake it can only be supposed, is attended with some means; in addition to which, it appears, there is one number short, not having been put into the wheel.—From what we can understand, the Lottery will be re-drawn.
NASHVILLE, (TEN.) June 5.
A letter from gen. James Robertson one of the commissioners appointed to treat with the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek nations of Indians to a gentleman near this place dated, "Chickasaw nation, May 28, 1802," mentions that there is the most flattering prospect of concluding the treaty; that Gen. Colbert, had stepped forward and aided all his exertions, in favor of it, and that the commissioners would set out the next day for the Choctaw nation accompanied by the Chickasaw chiefs.
Boalesleton.—A letter from Benjamin Hawkins, dated at Oche apofan, or Coosau river, the 30th of May, says, "The chiefs of the Creek

nation convened on the 20th at this place, and were joined by a deputation from the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws;—on the 24th the Seminoles and other chiefs in opposition, with their leader, W. B. Bowles at their head, arrived, and on the 28th he was apprehended, confined in irons, and sent under a strong guard of Indians, by order of the chiefs, to governor Tolch of Pensylvania, to answer for his crimes against the subjects of his Catholic majesty in East and West Florida."
N. Y. Gaz.
Piccadilly.
WASHINGTON.
IT gives us satisfaction, that we are at length enabled to state, that arrangements have been made with the Virginia Company, for opening the THEATRE in this City about the 10th of August. As this Company will be joined by Mr. Hodgkinson, Mr. Harwood, and Mrs. Wilmot (late Mrs. Marshall) all of whom are first-rate performers, we can have little doubt that the lovers of the Drama will receive the highest gratification from their performances. Mr. Hodgkinson is an actor who unites powers that are rare in the lot of one man, and acquires himself with almost equal credit in Tragedy, Comedy, and Farce. In all these departments of the drama his versatile and comprehensive talents have long ranged. Added to this his performances are the most animated. Mr. Harwood, as a comic performer, is considered in many characters as unrivalled in America, and Mrs. Wilmot has enchanted by her exquisite powers every audience before whom she has ever appeared. She too performs nearly equally well in the higher as in the more humble walks of the drama. It may with truth be added, that these performers were among the brightest ornaments of the Philadelphia Theatre in its best days.
(National Intelligencer.)
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
MAYOR'S COURT, of the City of Philadelphia. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Joseph Caberra .
On Friday, July 6th, this distinguished prisoner being placed at the bar, before a respectable Jury, the charges of forging and uttering three checks drawn and presented in the name of the Spanish Ambassador, the Marquis de Casa Yrujo, upon the Bank of Pennsylvania, for the sums of 600, 1000, and 300 dollars, were opened against him by Mr. Charles L. Ingersoll. The trial was unavoidably protracted by two long adjournments, and lasted twenty-two hours in session. The testimony was voluminous and detailed, and occupied about twelve hours.
On the part of the Commonwealth it went to show the prisoner's expensive and extravagant mode of living and the narrowness of his means, from whence it was to be inferred that he must have resorted to artifices and forgery in order to sustain his great expenses—the presentation at the bank of the third check confessedly by Caberra's direction, and the similarity of the writing in this to the two preceding checks. For the prisoner it was shown by several witnesses that he was a man of illustrious family and connections—and it was attempted to be proved that he had received the last check from a Frenchman, who however swore in absolute denial of this charge, and was confirmed by strong evidence of witnesses as well as corroborating circumstances. When the testimony was closed, the case was spoken to by Messrs. Heatty and Lewis for the prisoner, and Mr. Charles Ingersoll and the Attorney General for the prosecution: These discussions were circumstantial and animated.
At ten o'clock Wednesday night the Recorder delivered a full and accurate charge, and at eleven on Thursday morning, the Jury returned with a verdict of Guilty. Tuesday morning the 16th instant, after an impressive address, the Recorder pronounced the prisoner's sentence to two years imprisonment at hard labour and a fine of 2000 dollars. During the whole of the trial the prisoner's conduct was composed, gentleman-like and becoming. The weather was exceedingly hot, and the hall very much crowded. The justice done this man on this occasion, in the circumstances, manner and event of his trial, is honorable to the Court and Jury, and cannot fail to impress his country with highly favorable sentiments of the impartial integrity of American Tribunals.
COMMUNICATION.
On the 1st instant, Sally Johnson, of this district, was delivered of a very extraordinary child. It resembled two female children, joined together side by side, and had only one body. It had two heads, mouths and noses; four eyes, ears, thighs, legs and feet, with toes in proportion. The two inner arms were something smaller than the outer ones; the breast had only two nipples, one at each side, and the body but one navel. There appeared to be regular passages from each mouth down through the body. It measured, from where the head and neck joins the shoulders, to the top of the head, nine inches; round each head eleven inches and three quarters; round the breast, twenty-two inches; and the length, from head to foot, west twenty-one and a quarter inches. It was alive a little before it was brought forth.
Newberry District, June 22, 1805.
Curious as this Lusus Naturae is, it is still much less than the one which Buffon has described in his Natural History. In the latter monster the individuality of the two faces was much more perfect and perceptible. Helen and Judith, as they were called, had not only a separate set of extremities, but distinct necks and bodies. They were in fact twins, whose nature seemed, in one of her merry moods, to have joined together at the hips. In one other respect too they differed from the monster of Newberry district: they were not only brought into the world alive, but they lived to an age of perfect maturity. [L. E.]
Curious disease.—In one street on Bolton-le-Moor, there have lately been no fewer than 25 women in that advanced state of pregnancy which required the lonely assistance of the obstetrician. About a week ago, two of these females were delivered of twins, in the same hour, and in short a period, that the man mid-wife had scarcely time to perform his duty with one, until he was called on to assist the other. The two children were, during the confusion, inadvertently put into one bed: the consequence was that nobody could afterwards ascertain to which mother either belonged. Neither of the mothers could identify her own child, and both claimed the handomest.
London pap.
When, for the life in this case, was that celebrated infra  ay which four moralists pretend every parent is promised not only to love but even to know as a dispensing!
Newspapers.—On an average, not less than 20,000 newspapers are printed, or 43,000 weekly, are printed and published in London:—For what the public pay about 150,000 per day.
and for advertisements, about 2000l. sterling. This Newspaper intelligence alone costs the people of the United Kingdom about 400,000l. sterling annually.—The tax levied upon this favorite article of luxury, swallows up one half of the net amount here stated; and the remaining 200,000l. is paid for the literature and information of the newspapers.
The Spanish Inquisition.—have, it appears, been proceeding of late, very zealously in their care of public order, by prohibiting various books. It so happens in all the continental governments where literature is compelled to wear the shackles of a licence, that among the forbidden writers, our English authors make a pretty conspicuous figure. Who should imagine, however, that at this time of day, Locke on the human understanding, would be condemned as a work destructive of moral ideas? Or that Pope should be prohibited, because his writings are unfavorable to the Pope? Is this one of the modes by which Spain means to carry on offensive war against us? Are poetry and reasoning to be set down in the same prohibited list with the manufacturers of Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester?
The Oechestrino.—A new musical instrument to which this name is given, has lately been discovered at Paris. Eight members of the conservatory have examined and reported upon it. They say, among other things, "The Oechestrino, having the art of sustaining and lengthening the sound, as is done by the voice, or instruments with the bow, will ere long be preferred to the piano, the clavicin, etc. being brilliant, expressive, and vocal chantant ." They describe its construction as follows: "Its shape is that of a small piano; the strings are of threaded catgut; and the secret of its operation is, that a bow is made to play upon its strings by the movement of a wheel, which the foot of the performer turns."
LITERARY INTELLIGENCE.
A poem in six cantos has just made its appearance in London called THE LAY OF THE LAST MINSTREL. It is from the pen of WALTER SCOTT, well known as the author of many fugitive pieces possessing much merit, and as having favoured the public with The minstrelsy of the Scottish Border . The intention of the present work is thus stated in the words of the author. "The poem now offered to the public is intended to illustrate the customs and manners which anciently prevailed on the borders of England and Scotland. The inhabitants, living in a state partly pastoral and partly warlike, and combining habits of constant depredation with the influence of a rude spirit of chivalry, were often engaged in scenes highly susceptible of poetical ornament. As the description of scenery and manners was more the object of the author, than a combined and regular narrative, the plan of the ancient metrical romance was adopted, which allows greater latitude in this respect than would be consistent with the dignity of a regular poem. The machinery also, adopted from popular belief, would have seemed puerile in a poem which did not partake of the rudeness of the old ballad, or metrical romance."
"For these reasons the poem is put into the mouth of an ancient minstrel, the last of the race, who, as he is supposed to have survived the revolution, might have caught somewhat of the refinement of modern poetry, without losing the simplicity of his original model. The date of the tale is about the middle of the 16th century, when most of the personages actually flourished." The minstrel is described in the following lines from the introduction.
INTRODUCTION.
The way was long, the wind was cold, The Minstrel was inform and old; His swither hackb and tressel grey, Seemed to have known a better day; His harp, his sole remaining joy, Was carried by an orphan boy; The left of all the bands was he, Who sung of border chivalry; For well-nigh all their date was fled, His toilful brethren all were dead; And he, neglected and oppress'd, Wished to be with them and at rest. No more on prancing palfrey borne, He carrol'd, light as lark at morn; No longer coursed and carress'd, High placed in hall, a welcome guest, He scoured to lord and lady gay, To unpremeditated lay: Old times were changed, old manners gone, A stranger filled the Steward's throne; The liars of the iron line Had called his barmaids his barmkins art a crime. A wandering harper, scorn'd and poor, He begged his bread from door to door; And tuned to please a peasant's ear The harp a king had loved to hear.
Avoid the springs his fingers stray'd, And on an uncertain warbling made— And oft he shook his hoary head, But when he caught the measure wild, The old man raised his face and smil'd; And lighted up his faded eye, As if all a poet's ecstasy! In varying cadence soft or fierce, He swept the founding chords along; The present scene, the future loy, His rolls, his wants, were all forgot; Cold indifference and age's froth, In the full tide of song were lost; Each blank in faithful memory coil, The poet's glowing thought supplied; And, while his harp responsive rung, 'Twas the LAST MINSTREL song.
Experiments made by Dr. Miguel Cabanellas one of the Physicians employed by the Court of Spain during the dreadful Epidemic at Seville.
"Being desirous of proving, by some direct experiments, the property the mineral acids possess of destroying contagion, I placed some putrid meat in three different apartments, which were immediately filled with a most putrid fætid vapour. In the first I used the nitric acid, in the second the sulphuric, and in the third the muriatic acid gas. These fumigations were frequently repeated during 16 days, and the fætid was completely destroyed in all the three rooms; and during the continuance of this experiment, I inhabited the apartment where the nitric fumigation was employed without any inconvenience from the smell or suffering any bad consequence whatever."
"Dr. Sarras was seized with the fever the day of his arrival at Seville, and died the day following."
"Not, however, satisfied with this proof of the efficacy of the mineral acids in destroying contagion, I determined to make a further experiment on myself. With this intention I took the riding coat which Dr. Sarras wore during his dreadful illness, in which he was rapped up, in which he had sweated, vomited, and in which he had expired. Having placed this in a small room or closet, I burnt under it an ounce of sulphur, having first shut the door;
next morning I exposed the great coat to a second fumigation, made with the nitric acid. The riding coat, thus purified, was spread over my bed, and having lain under it, I slept from eleven at night until half an hour after six the next morning; I then got up, putting on no other clothes but the riding coat, which remained in constant contact with my body until eight o'clock that I dressed myself. I then went out with the riding coat above my other clothes; I walked through the city during the morning, and for sometime very quickly in the sun, until I was in a profuse sweat—I then sat down and remained quiet, wrapped up in my riding coat, until one o'clock when I returned home. Looking upon this experiment on myself as complete, I thought myself at liberty to make another, by giving this riding coat to a beggar who had not been infected with the contagion. The man took the coat without the smallest apprehension or hesitation, having seen me wear it, and knowing that I was an officer of health; from this moment he wore it constantly in the day, and made use of it as a covering for his bed at night; for twelve days following neither he nor I caught the contagion, nor suffered the slightest alteration in our health. (Signed)
MIGUEL CABANELLAS.
Parisian Fashions.—A short time since, it was not fashionable for a lady to wear a rose on her head; now it is quite the contrary; a rose must absolutely be worn; but what rose? at first a simple rose, presenting only a rose bud; shortly after the ball is commenced, the dancer, whilst in the height of a dance, touches a secret spring, and the simple rose-bud produces a full crown of flowers, which form themselves round the head; on the touching of another spring, the crown divides itself into three or four bunches of flowers, the disposal of which is extremely interesting; but when the lady's turn is to be alone in the dance, which is her most favorite part, the secret spring is again put into movement, the leaves of the rose fall off at the feet of the petite maîtresse , and the crown, bunches of flowers all disappear, except the simple rose-bud which was seen at the debut ; notwithstanding all which, the dancer's head-dress does not experience the least confusion. This is magic!
Ovid gives a very poetical description of Daphne's being changed into a laurel, whilst flying from Apollo; the God seizes her hands and catches hold of a leaf; he enfolds her in his arms, she embraces a leafless trunk. It is thus with a French élégante —whilst her lover gazes on her, head-dress changes from a bouquet of pinks and tulips to a wreath of roses, and, in turn, puts forth all the varieties and charms of the garden par terre .
The Enquirer.
RICHMOND, 26th JULY, 1805.
RELATIONS WITH SPAIN.
When the intendant of New Orleans refused to us the right of deposit, there was but one sentiment among us with respect to the violation of our privileges, though different expedients were proposed for redressing our wrongs. The friends of the administration preferred negotiation to war. Whilst they were willing to polish and prepare the sword of destruction, they thought it right to offer the olive branch of peace. Most of the enemies of the administration thought or affected to feel very differently on the occasion. They ridiculed every idea of an amicable arrangement; they expatiated upon the complicated difficulties attendant on negotiation: Even if France were "inclined to sell," they evasively demanded "what price had we to offer? What price was our revenue able to give, which shall come within a hundred degrees of its value to France?" But experience has decided on the character of these prophets and the propriety of the proposed expedients. For the sum of 15,000,000 dollars; more than which we should have expended on our military equipments, and more than which we shall derive in a few years from the duties at New Orleans, and the sale of public lands, we have preserved the friendship of two powerful nations, and we have acquired more than our most sanguine hopes had ever dared to aspire to. Instead of merely securing a place of deposit on the banks of the Mississippi, we have obtained the possession of this magnificent river and its numerous arms; we have removed from this important frontier an ambitious and enterprising neighbour: we have acquired a territory of inexhaustible fertility and indefinite extent. We have gained another advantage of scarcely inferior consideration. We have exalted the character of our nation in the eyes of the world: we shall transmit to our posterity an illustrious example of moderation. We have shown to the ambitious Kings of Europe, how much better it is to employ justice instead of force; to exhaust every expedient of amicable negotiation, before they "let slip the dogs of war"; to spare rather than expend the blood and treasure of their unfortunate subjects. We have contributed to demonstrate the superior advantages of a republican government, where great measures take their origin and their shape from the will of the people, over a monarchy, where war and peace are at any time dependent upon the nod of an ignorant, ambitious, or unfeeling individual.
As yet then, our conduct has been recommended and rewarded by justice. As yet, we have exhibited a character which has attracted the respect and the love of foreign nations. Success we could have commanded by the sword; but we chose to defer it by an amicable negotiation. We have placed our own rights upon an unshaken basis, without having rudely disturbed the rights of others. We showed ourselves ready and prepared to encounter the horrors of war, but still more anxious to preserve the enjoyments of peace. Prudent, yet energetic, resolute in the assertion of our rights but cool in the selection of our expedients, we have exhibited not that spirit which deals devastation in the field of battle, but one which confidently conscious of its own strength calmly waits for the moment when it shall be necessary to put itself forth. As yet then we have acquired more than we have demanded; and we have deferred all that we have acquired. But what if a case should unfortunately occur when the same system of policy should not avail our pretensions? What if after every pacific measure had been exhausted: if after having deputed the ablest ministers to vindicate our rights, if after having tried every proper expedient of negotiation to adjust them by an amicable arrangement; we should find the foreign nation perceived by a selfish policy, regardless of our claims, and unmoved by our efforts for the preservation of peace; what course then are we bound to pursue? Or is there any other expedient left to us, than the mournful office
*(Note) These are the very words of a pamphlet published at that time under the title of "Monroe's Embassy."
of breaking off the relations of peace, relying upon force where reason is of no avail, and appealing to the justice of Heaven for redress, when we are no longer able to find it upon earth?
In fact, should the latest reports from Spain be correct, are we not even now reduced to this melancholy dilemma? We demanded the extension of our boundaries to the banks of the Perdido river; Spain wishes to confine us to the Mississippi. We called upon Spain to satisfy the legitimate claims of our merchants for the violations made upon their trade during the last war: We appealed to her justice for the ratification of the convention of 1802. But Spain refuses to comply with all our requisitions. In this embarrassing state of affairs, therefore, what other dilemma seems to be offered to our election, than the surrender of our claims or the support of them by our arms? Should such be the question can there be a patriot in this country who can demand a single moment for deliberation?
Should we surrender our pretensions without a struggle, we voluntarily provoke the contemptuous criticisms of foreign nations. During the war of the revolution our heroic achievements entitled us to the character of an enterprising & unflinching energy; are we prepared to discard those pretensions by a disgraceful surrender of our claims? Our national strength now holds in proud defiance the ambition or the power of foreign nations; shall we descend from this elevated ground; shall we prove that though strong in numbers, we are deficient in spirit? Shall we expose ourselves to the contemptuous injuries and daring encroachments of foreign countries, by assuming the appearance of imbecility and cowardice? Even if these general advantages should not be sufficient to rouse us into exertion, shall we be insensible to the important objects, which we have brought into jeopardy? The claims of our merchants are entitled to urgent consideration: But what then shall we say as to the extension of our frontier during the session of 1802 on the policy of acquiring the Floridas, it would be superfluous to develop the advantages of such an acquisition; an acquisition, which would secure to the people of the west the exclusive navigation of the Mobile & to the inhabitants of the surrounding country the profits of that "considerable coasting trade," which according to the official documents is now carried on, "from Pensylvania, Mobile, and the creeks and rivers falling into, and in the neighbourhood of Lake Pontchartrain, from whence New Orleans is principally supplied with ship timber, charcoal, lime, pitch, and tar, and partly with cattle, and the places before named are supplied with articles of foreign growth, and produce in the same way from New Orleans." Shall we surrender all these advantages, by sacrificing our legitimate claims to the pleasure of the court of Madrid? But shall we, it may be replied, take an ungenerous advantage of the embarrassments of Spain, & at a moment when she is involved in a war with Great Britain, when her resources are employed in a different direction, shall we make an inconsiderate and a defenceless frontier? Would it then be better to postpone the acquisition of our rights, & in the spirit of a romantic chivalry to wait, until Spain shall have concluded a peace with England and recruited her strength? Should destiny have determined to deprive Spain of this little lip of territory, would it be found policy, would it even be genuine humanity, for the United States to multiply the devastation of war by allowing sufficient leisure to Spain to multiply her preparations?
But should it be found to be the interest of our country to resort to military movements for the assertion of our rights, let us confine our exertions within the circle of our demands. "War," (says Martens) is that state, in which men constantly exercise acts of determinate violence against each other." Let us not then enter into a war. Let us not issue letters of Marque or Reprisal, until the operations of Spain shall compel us to retaliate. We will not extend our ravages over the colonies of Spain; but we will collect such an army only as is sufficient to accomplish the object of our pursuit. We will take possession of the E. part of Louisiana, which we have already demanded in vain. Perhaps too a correct policy may impose upon us the additional necessity of crossing the Perdido, and seizing upon Pensylvania as a security for paying the expenses of our equipment and the demands of our merchants.
But we cannot yet relinquish our hopes, that these remarks are more agreeable than the occasion which called them forth. That our latest accounts may be authentic, we shall not pretend to deny; but that like many other reports of the day, they may have arisen from some fiction improperly created, or some fact easily misunderstood, we may still presume to hope. Should they however prove correct; should it appear at least that every expedient of diplomatic skill has in vain been exhausted by our ministers, and that Spain is determined never to comply with our requisitions or to compel us to seek them by force, then the preceding remarks will not be altogether useless in drawing the investigation of the people to this subject, or in exciting their national indignation and spirit. These questions will however previously occur. Has the president the power at this crisis of the transition to direct force to take possession of the Spanish ports to the W. of the Perdido? Would it be politic to summon Congress immediately to his aid? or to prolong the subject till the regular period of its session?
† Vide Norfolk Head.
WILLIAM & MARY LOTTERY.
"Man (said the sage Plato) is a featherless biped." Aristotle came nearer to the characteristic traits of his nature, when he called him the "laughing animal." Were I called upon for my definition, I should pronounce him to be the inquisitive and disputing animal; continually looking out for something that was new and extracting from it the materials of doubt & disputation.
For three days and three nights; at board or in bed, over the full dish or over the flowing bowl, riding, walking or sitting, in all the camelion shades of the mind "from grave to gay, from sober to severe," have the industrious inhabitants of this city devoted themselves to earnest and profound discussion. "William & Mary," "Communions," "Banks, & Prizes," "Lotteries," "Tenthousand Dollars," have formed the chorus of the argument, at which each man has exhausted his sonorous and vocal powers. Terms have been defined: propositions propounded: Syllogisms have been constructed with all the pomp of scholastic learning, of all sorts and sizes from the bob-tailed Enthymeme to the link-like Sorites; Le Clerc on Lotteries, Price on Annuities, D. Moivre on Chances have been separately consulted for what ought to be, and for what would have been; and the whole burthen of the dirty at last, what is to become of the last prize of the lottery. Sterne's man with a long nose is nothing at all to it. Cupidity conspires with interest, curiosity with vanity to extend the
number of disputants, & profites. Those who have drawn prizes are anxious to hold what they have got: those to whom blind fortune has not been so bountiful, are anxious once more to collect her meretricious smiles. In fact, it may be declared without any exaggeration, or without any intentional satire, that the fate of the William & Mary Lottery has produced as much conversation, wrangling and learned argument as the destruction of Troy or the earthquake, or the engagement of the War-field.
These two important points have been in issue: A prize of 10,000 Dollars, was for one of 500; and the "ticket left taken out of the Lottery was considered as the left drawn ticket though another number was never drawn and no account could be given of it."
The origin of this first mistake seems now to have received a satisfactory explanation. There being one more than the necessary number of 500 dol. prizes, & the 10,000 dol. prize never having been called at all, what other conclusion was there than that it had been mistaken for one of the 500 dol. prizes? Should this have been the origin of the first mistake it is certainly susceptible of a very easy correction. Whoever has been fortunate enough to make one of these gaping Hogarth-like croufs, that wait upon the wheels of a lottery and watch the rules and progress of the game, must have seen that the little Sybiline bits of paper on which are marked the decrees of fate, are fiercely preserved and strung; the numbers of the tickets on one string, and the corresponding marks and prizes on another. Now what can seem easier, than to go backwards in this operation; and by taking these papers successively from their strings, find at last the 10,000 dollar prize which had been so strangely degraded into a 500 dollar one, with the corresponding ticket on the other string?—In one point of view, indeed "the origin of this mistake is certainly a most satisfactory explanation." On the supposition that one prize had been mistaken, and overlooked for another, the reason is immediately made out, why the 10,000 dollar prize should have so strangely disappeared. But the mysterious difficulty still remains, how it was possible to mistake one prize for the other. This is certainly among the most singular illusions that ever was produced. When a ticket is drawn out of the wheel it is inspected and called by one man: By him it is handed to a second, who checks the observations of the first; and it is left of all consigned to the hands of the agent, who registers it on his string. What then can be more singular than that a bit of paper with the inscription of 20000 on it should be of 500? Surely such a curious inscription is worthy of being preserved among the hieroglyphics of Egyptian antiquity. Or if the paper itself be innocent of the fault, such a curious deception of the eye ought certainly to be recorded in the next edition of the Zoonomia , & put into the same chapter with Darwin's Ocular Spectra .
The second mistake which I have mentioned is easier of explanation, equally important in its result, but still more difficult to be conceived. The fortunate holder of the last drawn ticket is entitled by the scheme to a prize of 10,000 dollars. The point at issue then is whether the Lottery has been vitiated by the falling short of one ticket, or whether the holder of the 799th ticket is properly entitled to the prize of 10,000 dollars.
If we abide by the prevailing custom in Virginia, the determination of this question is easily made. When the first lottery was drawn in Richmond, the same mistake occurred and the Lottery was redrawn. The same case, and the same result took place at Hampden and Kyne's College about 15 years ago. Not finished with the capitans of our fate, however, the Commissioners of William and Mary Lottery have in a case, where their private property might be to greatly exposed, prudently determined to take the advice of the law. They have in consequence consulted some of the lawyers in Richmond, who have consulted in their turns the Volumes of the English decisions. One case only was found, precisely similar in its circumstances. This was the case of Schmidt against Bumsted and Others , decided before the Court of King's Bench in 1796. The curious reader will find this history and ineffable treachery in the 6th Vol. of Dunford and East's reports , Vol. 6. fol. 646.
Reasoning from this case, it seems that Mr. Call has given it as his opinion that the last drawing is valid and that "an action may be maintained against the commissioners of the Lottery for not adjudging a prize to the holder of a ticket entitled to receive it." Mr. Randolph has pronounced a different opinion. He thinks that the decision of the English bench is not obligatory, in consideration of the period at which it was made and that the reasoning of the judges, which is the only part of the report entitled to respect, is susceptible of a refutation. As the Virginia Court might however give the same decision as the English bench has done, he has advised the commissioners not to expose their private fortunes to any loss by withdrawing the Lottery, but to postpone it until a decision has been had upon the validity of the last ticket. Should the commissioners think proper to persist in this suggestion, the path of practice is obvious before them. They have only to persuade some holder of a fortunate number to institute a suit against them for the value of the prize and a decree may be had from the court of appeals at its next October term.
† No. 1. On "THE TOUR TO THE WEST" is unavoidably postponed.
BANK OF VIRGINIA.
DISCOUNTS will be made on the Friday only in each week, from the first of August till the first of October. July 26. It.
FAMILY FLOUR.
A CONSTANT supply of NEW FLOUR in half barrels, for sale by SAMUEL MYERS, on the street leading to Mason's Bridge . ALSO, MUSCOVADO SUGAR, GERMAN STEEL and WHITE GINGER. July 26. It.
NOTICE.
THE partnership of Judson and Burr being dissolved by the death of P. Judson, the business will be carried on by the subscriber to whom the creditors and debtors of the late concern are requested to apply for settlement of their accounts. July 26. D. J. BURR.
WILLIAMSBURG HUSTINGS COURT.
May 27th, 1805.
ORDERED that notice be given for four weeks in the Enquirer, printed in Richmond; That this court will on the fourth Monday in July next, proceed to the settlement and distribution of the estate of John Ferguson, deceased, committed to the hands of Philip Moody late Sergeant of this City for administration.
A Copy Test, WILLIAM RUSSELL, c. c. Williamsburg, June 26. (c74w)

CATHOLIC PETITION.
Mr. Fox's speech continued.
Do you think the Catholics not worthy to be trusted at all? If so, any office filled by them would, of course, be ill executed. But what would be the consequence of this principle in every profession and trade? I may tell a man going to the bar, you are a poor fellow, you may make money, but do you expect to be a chancellor? It might be absurd for every individual to expect to be a chancellor, but would it be nothing to tell a man that he never could be a chancellor? Apply it to trade. A man commencing business may be very well pleased to make a living, with something over—but what would be the consequence of laying it down that no man's fortune should ever exceed a million? All such restrictions damp ardor, discourage enterprise, and unnerve industry. Place the limit where you please, still that limit has a most unfavorable influence on the spring and activity of the human mind. Few men may ever make a million, but still to draw any line by which the gains of trade should be confined, would be to destroy the spirit and energy of a commercial country. Do we not hear it said, and are we not proud to hear it said, by many persons in this country, who have risen from small beginnings, "thank God I am a member of a community, where by industry, perseverance, and good conduct, I am permitted, if I can, to acquire and to enjoy a fortune, equal to that of the first duke in the land?" Are these not cheering and encouraging considerations; are they not calculated to stimulate industry and to call forth the powers of the mind? But what would be the consequence, if not only a limit was assigned, but if a particular class of men in the state were marked out, and restrained from advantages which their neighbors were permitted freely to enjoy? The case may be put still more strong, when applied to professions. Let me ask any gentleman, if it would not damp the ardor of hope, and the energy of exertion, to tell a man going to the bar, that he might indeed make a little money by practice, but that the honors of the profession were shut against him? Nay would it not operate fatally, not only on the zeal of competition, and the vigor of industry, but might it not operate too on parents, to deter them from encouraging and cultivating the talents of their children? It may be very true indeed, that some parents are ridiculous in their hopes of the future eminence of their children; but the hope that future eminence may distinguish themselves often too affords them the means and opportunity to do so. And besides, when parents to industry, these inducements are their encouragement, not diminished by the consideration that, even at the bar, a Catholic can but run a certain way in a very deferre, he cannot gain and that, however he may deferre, the military career, & the prize? Apply it now to the army. Does any man the case appears the strongest? Of a subsistence? enter into that profession for the emoluments? Yet are not glory and fame the grand objects of the military? what must be the feelings of the lieutenant, of the captain, animated with all the ardor of those feelings which render arms the noblest profession, when he reflects on all he has seen, all he has done, all he has seen others do, when he combines and compares the measures of the commander, and thinks how he in similar circumstances, would have acted, what must be his feelings when he remembers with a sigh—"But I never can command an army. 'Tis true I may be a colonel, but I never can have a superior command." Must not these disheartening reflections in a professional, the foul of which is glory, chill every generous ardor, and deaden every spring of enterprise? A man of honor may still expose or sacrifice his life; but how cruel the distinction, how painful the recollection, that while others aspire to the highest rank and fame, he is forever precluded from the proud eminence of chief command? How can the military spirit and enthusiasm support a man under discouragements like these? And is it nothing to the state that talents that must prove its glory and defense?
As to the restriction of other offices, the limit beyond which there is no ascent is of the world influence upon the character. The human mind requires all the helps and props which circumstances can give to induce to virtue, and to deter from vice. I do not mean to say, that because a man has reached something beyond which he cannot go, that then he is to become indifferent to reputation. Few might say, that then quousque modo vivam was to be the sole object, but surely it will not be denied, that an indifference, an indifference might spring up when the stimulus to exertion was withdrawn. A man might do his bare duty per muneris officium , but it would be absurd to expect zeal from the man, particularly if the limit of advancement was fixed to operate as a sort of brand and degradation. And if there are hardships, is not the bitterness of them aggravated when it is felt by so many—when this degraded condition is the lot of three fourths of the whole people of Ireland—one fifth of all his majesty's European subjects?
So far then as to the operation of the restrictions as they apply to the limitation of the king's prerogative. On this head, however, I may take notice of the office of sheriffs, from which Catholics are at present excluded. But surely if there be any danger to be apprehended from entrusting the office of sheriffs to Catholics, good care would be taken that no such persons should be nominated.
The next point is the effect of the restrictions, so far as they affect the right of sitting in parliament. It is well known that during the reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King James I, Charles I, and down to about 1678, Catholics sat and voted in parliament; and I defy the most zealous historians to shew that any mischief arose from their doing so. Even Mr. Locke, who approves the Test Act, says of Catholics being in parliament, that it was "very safe and beneficial to the country." It ceased about the time of the popish plot, about which, I believe, all who have let themselves impartially consider the transaction, must have a very decided opinion. Nevertheless, during that period, when the nation was roused to the utmost pitch of alarm, when nothing was heard of but conspiracies of the papist minority to murder the king and protestant majority, when the king's life was to be saved, the silver bell to be prepared, and the king of Spain ready to land in England to support the Catholic party—under the fever which all those monstrous horrors inspired, Catholic peers were deprived of the right to sit in parliament. In fact this attack on them was the only thing which the zeal and fury of the times had left to be done against them.
As to the restriction of the right of Catholics to sit in the House of Commons it is, so far as it goes, a limitation of the elective franchise. The right of electing has been already granted to Catholics, but they must now elect a Catholic. Can there be danger in allowing Catholics to sit among us? The test act appears to observers in regard to offices, but not to their sitting in this house, or which many of them have been, and are the ornaments. Why then should there be more danger to the Church from the Catholic than from the dissenters, who are supposed to be at least equally averse to the ecclesiastical establishment? But should the right of sitting in this house be granted to the Catholics, does any man believe that there could ever be so many as 80 Catholic members? I believe it to be next to impossible that any thing like half that number should ever have seats in this house. How then could they be dangerous? On the other hand, if the doctrine of virtual representation, so often maintained, and I admit justly maintained, in opposition to schemes of parliamentary reform, be well founded, would it not perfect the principle of virtual representation that to the representation of land-holders, merchants, clergymen, lawyers, &c. &c. there should be the representative of the Catholics, who as a body, have not even a virtual representation in this house? In order, therefore, to attain what is wanting to the public the Catholic body should have their virtual representation in this assembly. When it has been argued that Manchester, Sheffield, &c. &c. were not represented, it has been said, and truly to a certain extent, that they were re-
presented by the various interests in this town connected with them and their prosperity. The very idea of representation, even virtual representation, is, that there exists such a sympathy between the representative and the bodies or persons represented, that he must pursue their interests. But if the Catholic has not an opportunity to send to parliament those who are likely to sympathize with him, it cannot with any truth or fairness be said that he is even virtually represented in the house of commons. With respect to the Catholics being inadmissible to corporations, perhaps the injury arises chiefly from the stamp of degradation it carries with it, because these corporations being composed entirely of protestants, there could be little chance of a Catholic ever gaining admittance. The stigma only is retained, and only in such a way as to be injurious to the feelings of the Catholic body.
I shall now briefly take notice of a few objections to the measure. Jacobinism is given up—take that for granted. But it is said that there must be an incongruity and incompatibility of two persons of such opposite religious opinions acting together in public affairs for the public good. I should like to hear this theory explained, for theory it appears solely to be. What necessity would there be for a Protestant and Catholic clergymen, quarrelling about doctrines of religion when it was to be considered whether a fleet should be sent to the West-Indies or Mediterranean? Must it infallibly happen that one will attack the other at the council board, saying, "Oh! but you worship the Virgin Mary, and believe in transubstantiation—but I don't?" Are such puerilities to be expected in the present day? Nay, such a thing to be expected on a bench of judges, to which the Catholics have admission? Such a thing might happen in Turkey where the religion and law of Mahomet are so interwoven; but such incompatibilities are quite foreign from the nature of our laws and administration. But while some are so fearful that men of different religions could never serve together cordially, we find these maxims are contrary to the practice of all Europe. Nay, at a time when religious bigotry compelled Henry IV. to change his religion, was Sully, a protestant, considered a bad minister of a Catholic king? Was Necker, whatever faults might be imputed to him, a worse minister of finance, because a protestant? Nay, does the emperor of Germany, whose house has never been remarkable for religious toleration, scruple to entrust a protestant prince, Ferdinand of Wirtemberg, with the guard of his person? Does the king of Prussia refuse to employ a Catholic? would Frederick the Great have rejected an able man on that account? In Russia, where the Greek church is established, prince Czartoriski, a Catholic, is secretary of state. In Venice, formerly, a Greek patriarch, and a Catholic apostolic vicar would have been found acting in perfect harmony. Was there ever any incompatibility between the protestant and Catholic cantons of Switzerland, when the most democratical of the cantons, and the most bigotted Catholics, because probably the most ignorant in Europe, are to be found in the smaller cantons of the Helvetic union? Now indeed though the pretender be gone, the pope remains and from him danger is apprehended, because forsooth he has been to Paris to crown the new emperor of France. But for what reason could the pope even have been an object of alarm to England? Surely, for no other reason than that the influence he might be supposed to have over the Catholics, in stirring them up to rebellion. But did the pope ever do so when he might have served both the French king and the house of Stuart? But in 1715 and 1745, the pope could not stir the Catholics. In the late rebellion it is very curious to remark, that the Catholics, who at least were only in proportion to the protestants engaged in that affair, were not in the least agitated by the pope. Where they indeed by the pope to "show Mr. O'Connor, Dr. MacNevin, &c." By no means. It is worthy of remark, that at the very time the pope was in holli- with France; that he was on good terms with this country, and looked to it for protection; he neither had the power to influence the Catholics of Ireland, and, if he had possessed the power, would have used it to dissuade the Catholics from such proceedings. Surely after this, it is ridiculous to represent the pope as a formidable instrument in the hand of Bonaparte. Besides if Bonaparte wished to employ the pope's influence to stir up the Irish, would it not rather be to send emissaries among them secretly, to represent to them their degraded state, to tell them how vain it was to look to England for redress? Would not this be an influence far more dangerous than any which the pope could obtain over Catholic gentlemen or noblemen in parliament? For could it be credited, that of all the Catholic representatives so many as three could ever be found weak and wicked enough to lend their efforts to a foreign country, to betray the government that protects them? I need not stir, take up any time in reminding the house, that though the form of religion in Scotland differs essentially from what is established in this country, no inconveniences have arisen, no danger has been experienced to our national establishment. The presbyterians of Scotland swear that they confine their differences solely to matters of doctrine and discipline, and with that aversion we are completely satisfied.
In the case of the Roman Catholics, you call on them to swear to particular points, and when they have taken the oath you will not believe their testimony. To call on men for a declaration on oath, and after the declaration is given, to affect to disbelieve it is, if at all times a proof of the greatest malignity of disposition and the most contemptible weakness of understanding. In the government of the present day, however, it would appear in colors still more odious, and still more unjustifiable. It is nothing short of calling on men to conform to the particular forms of an act, and this solely with the view of making those who accede to its conditions forswear themselves. You first hold out inducements to them to swear to the renunciation of certain opinions, and when that is done your former bad opinion remains unchanged; if they have the slightest connection with the Roman Catholic religion; if ever they venture to attend mass, it is no longer in their power to preface any sort of regard for the facility of an oath, and therefore you may safely consider all they have solemnly declared as absolutely amounting to nothing. No trust can be placed in their testimony, because such is the nature of their religion that they cannot be trusted. Having then made this sort of general distinction against the Roman Catholics, what is it that, that is done to remedy this evil? What is resorted to to make the oath of men of such a character at all responsible to any law of human testimony? You begin by saying that these persons are unworthy of being believed, and you get rid of the difficulty by imposing another oath. You think your establishment in danger, if the Catholics of Ireland are admitted to fair participation of the privileges of the constitution; and you remedy this evil by calling on them to take a particular oath, admitting that, in conformity to their own principles, they can take that oath without hesitation, because with them it has no force. I appeal then to the house whether there is not, in this sort of proceeding, something that has very much the appearance of folly? If it is not lauded in folly, it is most certainly highly insulting to every ingenious mind among the respectable Catholic body. It is pre-judging them as a set of men equally incapable of observing the most sacred ties among men, and the most respected rights in society. I have no wish, sir, to engage in controversial discussions, for they are contrary to all my feelings, inconsistent with all the habits of my life. They are seldom introduced into this house with much profit, and in many cases are productive of material inconvenience. Without, however, at all introducing such discussions, I must be permitted to say, that such a representation of the Catholics as that to which I have referred, is one of a very extraordinary nature. At this moment three fourths of Europe consist of Christians professing the Roman Catholic religion; are we then to be told that this large portion of civilized inhabitants of this part of the world, are men who are utterly undeserving of all belief, even when their testimony is certified by an oath; that they are incapable not merely of the relations of peace and amity, but that they are unfit for supporting any of the common relations of life? I am sure such a proposition as that will not be attempted to be introduced into this house. No man will dare to come forward to assert that, because three fourths of the Christians of Europe are Roman Catholics, we are to consider
them as incapable of the relations of peace and amity—incapable of the connections of commerce—incapable of any of those obligations by which the faith of one state is guaranteed to another. Such a doctrine as would, on account of difference of religious opinions, suppose nations incapable of all the relations of civilized life, would be a doctrine fit only to have been entertained in dark and superstitious ages. It is a doctrine which can only be traced to the wilful and most abominable bigotry. When the oaths in question were first proposed, at the time when a number of concessions were to be made to the Catholics, I among others, objected to them as altogether unnecessary. The house was then of a contrary opinion, and the oaths were made a condition of the concessions to be granted by the legislature. What then has been the consequence? Why, sir, the Catholics have taken the oaths, their archbishops, bishops and inferior clergy have taken them, and still it is contended that all this will not satisfy our anxiety for the ecclesiastical establishment. The Catholics cannot be believed, and therefore their testimony is quite nugatory. When the petition was first read at the table, I did flatter myself that the explicit declaration of the petitioners, that the oaths had been taken, would have made a strong impression on the house. Why then are we now to hear that this declaration is far from affording satisfaction? I recollect, sir, when talking on this subject with a much valued friend of mine, the late Lord Peter, whose presence would have done honor to any assembly, I gave my opinion fairly, that to me the oaths seemed altogether superfluous. He on the other hand, was anxious that the oaths should be taken, as the best means of doing away those calumnies which have been heaped on the Catholic body. My reply was simple, that it certainly might be very justifiable, nay, perhaps, very proper for the Catholic body to take this mode of placing their principles in a fair point of view, but that it was unworthy of the dignity of the legislature to demand such a declaration on so numerous and respectable a body. Being on this part of the subject, I think it proper to add that the oaths on which so much stress is laid, have been positively taken by four Catholic archbishops, by all the bishops, and by the greater part of the inferior clergy. Though my own opinion remains unaltered, that the oaths have been unnecessary, still the statement I now make must be considered as sufficient to refute the accusations of those who could with to describe the Catholics as men who have not in good earnest renounced their opinions, on which the resistance to their claims is principally founded.
We are told, however, that the Irish Catholics have already had so much conceded to them, that it is quite extraordinary to hear them calling for still greater indulgences. With this idea I cannot possibly concur, and on the contrary, think that their present demands are strictly consistent with every principle of reason, and every view of human nature. When you have conceded to men certain privileges, it is to be expected that their desires of a still more perfect state of political situation will be increased. When you have to a certain degree assimilated one body of the subjects of an empire to the other, there will necessarily be created an anxiety to enjoy a more perfect similarity with the rest of the community. If the Catholics of Ireland were raised from a state of debasing oppression, and restored to the character of men, it was not surely extraordinary that with this nobler character which they had obtained, they should feel an ardent wish that it should be accompanied by every corresponding privilege. Nothing short of this could possibly satisfy the expectation which had been excited, and that man must shut his eyes to the nature of man, and the genius of the human mind, who could not perceive that the people of Ireland, though in the first instance they might view the concessions afforded them with feelings of gratitude, still reflected that they were subjects of inimitable right, and that if what they now claimed was not granted them, a very important part of these rights was withheld. They could easily too distinguish betwixt a favor granted to an individual, or to a number of individuals, and a right unjustly denied, and at length conceded to the demands of four millions of the general population of the country. From the moment that the concessions were first granted to the Catholics, it was easy to see that much more was to be required. When the Catholics had gained much, they were sensible that they had yet a great deal to receive. Will it be argued, Sir, that after all you have conceded, what remains is not fairly to be given up to the Catholic body of Ireland? Shall we hear that the Catholics are dissatisfied, or in danger of dissatisfaction, and at the same time shall we shut our eyes against the fact, that in our army and in our navy, these very Catholics are employed, that vast bodies of the Catholic population are now employed in arms to defend Ireland against any attempt which the French may meditate against that part of the Empire? Will any gentleman be bold enough to say, that we are perfectly safe in trusting to the rude uncultivated tribes of Ireland, and that there is any danger in admitting to a seat in the legislature, the higher and more respectable gentlemen in the country? Do you consent to trust the lower ranks of the Irish people, and can you have any apprehensions of the designs of Lord Fingall and the other noblemen and gentlemen whose names are subscribed to the petition which forms the subject of the motion with which I shall have the honor to conclude? I ask, Sir, of those gentlemen, who oppose the claims of the petitioners, what description of the Irish people they think unworthy of being trusted? I have already said that you are in the constant habit of trusting the lower orders, whose manners and connections render them the most subject to suspicion, while to the higher orders, against whom none of these causes of suspicion apply, you appear to entertain the utmost degree of jealousy. You admit the lower orders into situations which are certainly not very well adapted to a suspicion of their loyalty; while the higher orders, whose loyalty was undoubted, were refused the enjoyment of the rights of the highest of the citizens, of a free country. To those from whom we have a very thing to fear we give nothing, while from those who have every thing to claim our confidence, we withhold what their approved attachment powerfully demands. Surely, Sir, this is a sort of proceeding equally contrary to the principles of common justice and common sense. It cannot for a moment be admitted that what we refuse is withheld from a sense of danger—for if danger really existed, what is already conceded will produce all the dangers which can be anticipated. They have had conceded to them this fundamental principle of our free constitution, that all orders in the state are to be equal; that they are to enjoy equal rights and equal accessibility to all political privileges. We have, therefore, Sir, really retained nothing which it is of the least importance for us to keep, but what is of immense consequence for them to receive. We have only retained that equality of rights which is a privilege the dearest to the human mind. It is this, Sir, that gives to our laws their grand distinction, and renders the constitution of this country superior to any other on the face of the globe. This is a privilege which atones for the inferiority of fortune, and makes even nations, comparatively poor, clothed with their political condition. One of our poets illustrates this idea in the most beautiful and interesting terms, when describing the manners of the peasantry of Switzerland—
The poor the peasant's hut, his cottage's low; He feels his little lot, his lot is low; Sae o' the cottages pale rears its head, To grace the meanness of his humble shed.
This equality of rights is what the Catholics require, and until it is granted they must continue in a state of the utmost degradation. But I am told, Sir, that the great majority of the bench of Bishops are hostile to the measure of emancipation. Nothing would be more remote from my wishes than to agitate a question in which the foundation of that respectable body could be at all infringed on; but I consider this a question in which their authority has not all that degree of weight which on other subjects I should be the first man in the world to allow it. Political and religious questions have been too often confounded when they ought to have been kept perfectly distinct; and it appears to me that the question before the house is just one of those to which this observation will particularly apply. The wisest philosophers have been desirous to have great political inquiries separated, and it is to be lamented that this desire has in so few instances been gratified. As to the authority of the venerable body to which I have alluded has been introduced, I am happy to have this opportunity of referring to the authority of a writer, who, not possessing a seat on the bench of bishops, is one whose opinion will have very great weight not only in this house, but with all thinking men in the country. The authority to which I allude, Sir, is that of Dr. Paley, in one of his works where he has occasion to discuss the subject of religious disabilities. With the permission of the house I shall take the liberty of reading a short passage to show in what light this intelligent and respectable writer views the subject of disabilities founded on religious considerations. (Here the honorable member read a passage from Dr. Paley, the object of which was to show that all disabilities of this description must be of a temporary nature, and as soon as the circumstances which had occasioned them ceased, they should without delay be abolished. Here then, said Mr. Fox, resuming, is the authority of one of the ablest writers in this country, and you find that he has no conception of perpetual disabilities, he has no idea that though restrictions might at one time be expedient, these restrictions were to continue for ever. I have thought it incumbent on me to quote so respected an authority, because, when I hear that the higher orders of the clergy affect to entertain alarm for the establishment, it is proper to have it undoubted that one who is so well known as a friend to that establishment, and who is distinguished by his knowledge on subjects of that description, did not anticipate any extraordinary danger from the measure, which it is my present object to recommend. Dismal then from the part of the subject, I go on to consider another drawn from the particular time at which the measure is to be brought forward. For my own part, viewing the subject as I do, I really cannot conceive that any time would be improper for introducing it to the consideration of this house. When, however, I take all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I cannot but think the question so far from having been prematurely discussed, it ought in propriety to have been agitated in Ireland after the great measure of the union was carried in this country and in Ireland. It is needless for me now, Sir, to enter into any discussion of the policy of that measure. I stated the grounds on which I was decidedly hostile to it, and I have hitherto seen no reason to change that opinion. Whether, however, the measure was right or wrong, I do say that if the expectations of the Roman Catholics of Ireland were raised by the view of the consequences which were to follow that event, these expectations ought not to have been disappointed. It was certainly held out to the Roman Catholics, that if the union were carried, a period would arrive when the restrictions under which they labored would be removed, and their rights as citizens and men would be restored. Here again I am called to take notice of an objection against the emancipation, by the application of practice against theory. I confess, Sir, I have always been, and never shall cease to be, an advocate for practice above theory, properly understood and wisely applied. Though I admit this, let me not be understood as at all admitting the principle, that severity is more expedient as applicable to the affairs of Ireland, than lenity. I know it may be said, that under the vigorous system adopted by government, prior to the accession of his present majesty, the tranquillity of Ireland was preserved; that in both the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, the Catholics of Ireland took no part in a struggle which had for its principal object to place a Catholic prince on the throne. I may be told also, that from 1793 to 1798, was in Ireland, a scene of constant insurrection, and that at the latter period a desperate effort was made to shake off all connection with the government or legislature of this country. Sorry indeed, should I be if such a representation could not be satisfactorily refuted; for otherwise we should be compelled to admit, that a system of coercion was the most expedient for keeping down the spirit of discontent among a people—that the grand principles of liberty were to be let alone, and that slavery was to bear away in a nation professing to be free. If persecution were to be the only medium through which we can retain Ireland, then, Sir, it would indeed become a lamentable alternative whether it ought to be totally abandoned or retained by such means as those I have now described—I see no necessity, however, for resorting to such a desperate construction of the circumstances of Ireland, when it is so easy to account for the state of Ireland from 1793 to 1798 on very satisfactory principles. Ireland during that period was certainly exposed to very peculiar difficulties, and it is surely needless for me to say that they were greatly augmented by the circumstances of the French revolution. I need not retain the house, that the inhabitants of the north of Ireland had long been distinguished above every other part of the population by their superior industry, intelligence, and wealth, though it is notorious they were not equally remarkable for their attachment to English connection. Previous to the French revolution the Catholics had no bonds of mutual union with this part of the Irish population. On the contrary, they were kept asunder by the striking contrariety of their religious creed. It was the French revolution that united these two heterogeneous bodies. It was a feeling of what they conceived common oppression that kept them together during the desperate struggle which the rebellion gave rise to. But, Sir, this is not the only view of the case to be taken into consideration. The house cannot have forgot the circumstances of Lord Fitzwilliam's administration. Did he not hold out to the Catholics of Ireland the prospect of complete and absolute emancipation? I know a doubt was started how far he was authorized by the ministers here to give such a pledge to the Catholics. Without now entering on the discussion of this point, it is sufficient to say, that the lord lieutenant of that day, after having made this pledge, was recalled, and that a motion for following up that pledge, was lost in this house. The Catholics, upon seeing all their hopes frustrated, all their best founded expectations disappointed, were doubtless exasperated in no ordinary degree. Was it nothing, Sir, that a pledge so solemnly given was neglected? Was it not natural that high expectations disappointed terminated in despondency, and that this feeling suggested the unfortunate idea of connexion with France, which at no former period of the last century had existed? We are told however, in all probability with the view of aggravating the guilt of the Catholics, and veiling the criminality of the ministers of that day, that the inquiries of the Irish parliament fully proved the Catholics to be bent on absolute separation, and that they regarded Catholic emancipation, and reform in parliament, as nothing better than a drop of junk composed with their more extended object. This is all true, but it is the whole of what these inquiries brought to light? Did it not at the same time appear that these same persons who made this declaration, at the same time confessed, that if Catholic emancipation and a reform in parliament had been granted, then all prospect of successful insurrection would have been destroyed? They knew the effect of conciliatory measures, and they dreaded their application. They were sensible that if these measures were well applied it would be quite ridiculous to think of detaching the feelings of the people of Ireland from their connection with this country. It is perfectly understood that the Catholics had the highest hopes from the assurances and pledge of earl Fitzwilliam, and if disastrous consequences followed the dereliction of that pledge, let those who occasioned it answer for the consequences. But how do the Catholics, after thus being duped and betrayed, stand, after the measure of union was carried in a great measure by their assistance? On every side they are injured and calumniated; on the one hand by the ministry, who held out hopes only to disappoint them, and on the other by those who oppose the union, as having betrayed the interests and surrendered the liberties of their country. It was not, Sir, on light grounds that the Catholics hoped, under the imperial parliament, for the concession of all the claims which a local legislature had refused to acknowledge. A learned gentleman on the other side of the house (Mr. Duigenan) had written a letter to an honorable friend of mine, whom I am happy to see near me, in which alluding to the measure of a legislative u-
nion, he argues that if such a measure were accomplished, all exclusive laws and restrictions would of necessity be abolished. I need not inform the house that the learned gentleman to whom I have alluded was, in the parliament of Ireland, particularly hostile to the claims of the Catholics, and conceived that the only way in which they could ever be admitted to, was through the medium of that legislative union which he was so desirous of seeing adopted. I put it then, in fairness to the house, whether, when this measure was carried, the Catholics had not every reason to believe that their claims would meet with immediate attention? These just expectations have, for several years, been disregarded, and it certainly had become the duty of some member to bring the matter fairly under discussion. Happily this disagreeable mode of proceeding has been rendered unnecessary by the course which the Catholic body themselves, after mature deliberation, have thought it expedient to adopt. They have come forward with a loyal, dutiful, and temperate address, representing the nature and extent of their claims, and fairly submitting them to the attention of the legislature. They have conducted themselves with a propriety which places their loyalty and love of good order above all sort of suspicion, avoiding all insurrection, and discouraging all tumult; they have left the whole of the affair to the sober decision of parliament. Coming then to the discussion of the claims of so great and respectable a body thus presented, I hope and trust these claims will be fully and attentively considered. In the course of the observations with which I have thought it necessary to introduce my motion, I have hitherto avoided taking any notice of certain mysterious intimations, that it was needful to agitate the question at the present moment, since it was impossible from an object in a very high quarter, that the object in view could be obtained. Before I sit down, I must say a few words on this topic, that to grant the claims of the Catholics, would oblige his majesty to violate his coronation oath. This is an idea utterly monstrous and absurd. I only desire, that any man will look at the coronation oath, and I am confident, he will see that no such conclusion can be drawn, as that some individuals with to consider as the necessary result of the measure of emancipation. If we were to suppose King William alive at this moment, and the very acts in question were to be repeated, would that be a violation of his coronation oath, to repeal acts which were not framed when his coronation oath took place? What then could King William have done by consenting to the repeal? Why, he would only have done what every sovereign in this country is bound to do—he would merely have bowed to the express wishes of parliament. The same principle applies to the present sovereign, who had always shown himself ready to accede to the wishes of his parliament. If the concession of the Catholic claims now be a violation of the coronation oath, then all the concessions in 1793, and at former periods, implied an equally clear violation. I cannot then allow this objection to have any force; nor can I at all go into the idea, that because there is no prospect of carrying a measure, it is not on that account to be proposed. If such a principle had been acted upon then, not one of those measures, the beneficial effects of which we see this day, nor one of those acts, which have illustrated and secured our liberties, would have been carried. For surely, Sir, it is needless to impress on your attention, and the attention of the house, that almost every great constitutional measure has been carried through parliament only after severe and successive exertions. I shall ever be the first man to support his majesty's lawful authority, but I will not suffer the name of that authority to be improperly or indecently introduced to prevent full and fair discussion on a subject the most interesting that could be submitted to the consideration of parliament. He who would advise the king to do an act contrary to his coronation oath, must be a traitor; but those who, on a subject of this sort, attempt to poison the royal ear, and by false representations create impressions unfavorable to the Catholic claims, flatter the sovereign only to betray him. No consideration of this mysterious nature ever shall deter me from the performance of what I conceive to be a great and important duty. The object of the motion with which I shall conclude is then, that the petition of the Catholics be referred to a committee of the whole house, and it will then become an object of consideration whether the whole or any part of the petition is to be conceded. There are two or three circumstances which to me appear peculiarly worthy of the consideration of the committee, if it should be granted to the house. The circumstances under which Roman Catholics in the army were placed, would call for peculiar investigation. As the law now stands, Roman Catholic officers could, up to a certain rank, exercise all their duties in Ireland without any penalty; but no sooner did they set their foot in this country and exercise the same duties, than the law of Provisos was in force against them. This then is surely an evil which loudly calls for redress. The case of the common soldiers too demands attention, for in many cases, Catholic soldiers were in this country compelled to attend Protestant places of worship, and though complaints were made no redress was obtained. I mention these circumstances as affording specific grounds for going into the committee, where they may be fully considered. I know there are gentlemen who are disposed to grant the right of the Catholics to offices, who think that the right of voting in either house of parliament would be attended with the utmost danger. Others, on the contrary, think that it would not be safe to admit them to the exercise of these high offices, but that their admission into parliament would not only be harmless, but highly beneficial. On both classes of gentlemen I call to support my proposition, for both have grounds sufficient for going to a full investigation of the subject. Independent of all principles of justice, there is a strong call of policy in agreeing to the claims of the petitioners. We have been employed a considerable time both in the last and present session in discussions on the best means of recruiting the army. Without at all disparaging the views of my right hon. friend on the same bench (Mr. Windham), I must be allowed to say, that neither parish bills enlisting men for time or procuring them for rank—neither volunteering from the militia, nor any other plan for increasing our disposable force hitherto recommended or resorted to, would be half so effectual as the simple measures of the emancipation of the Catholics of Ireland. We should then receive an immediate and immense augmentation of men in consequence of an act of benignity and justice. We know the character of the Irish nation, and we are not without the experience of what may be expected from the warmth of their feelings, and the liveliness of their gratitude. We are now contending against France, certainly a most formidable enemy. But what is it that we have chiefly to dread in this contest? Is it, Sir, French industry, wealth, commerce, or resources? No, but it is the immense population of France which renders her so dangerous a foe. How then are we to counteract this danger? We have a clear method laid before us. We have only to recall to our affection one fourth of our population, and to render that source of our strength which was now only an additional of our weakness. Let us then bathe all feeds of animosity. Let us shew the Catholic soldier & sailor, that the road to honour is alike laid open to all, and that he who fights our battles well, shall find no distinction of reward from a grateful country. Mr. Fox concluded by proposing to resolve into a committee on the Petition as soon as he sat down.
RAGS. THE HIGHEST PRICE (IN CASH) WILL BE GIVEN AT THIS OFFICE FOR CLEAN LINEN & COTTON RAGS. Printing, IN ALL ITS VARIETY, EXECUTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE ENQUIRER.