The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1809-02-28 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
VOL. 5.]
RICHMOND, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1809.
[No. 94.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RICHMOND, OPPOSITE THE GLOBE TAVERN, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
WANTED to hire, for the present year, a woman that can do plain COOKING, & a Girl that has been accustomed to wait in the House. Apply at this office.
RICHMOND TURNPIKE COMPANY.—At a meeting of the Directors of the said Company, on Saturday evening, the 18th February, 1809:
Resolved, That the Shares of all delinquent Subscribers, to the said company, be sold, at the Bell-Tavern, in the city of Richmond, on the 25th of next month.
N. SHEPPARD, Secretary.
THE Subscriber will practice the LAW, in the Superior and Inferior Courts of Henrico and Goochland, in the Hustings Court for the city of Richmond, and in the Superior Court of the county of Chesterfield.
Wm. HAY, Jr.
TO be rented, a large and commodious TENEMENT, adjoining the house in which Mr. Thomas Wilson resides, on Shockoe-Hill.—For terms enquire of
Wm. MUNFORD.
FOR SALE, six NEGROES. Enquire at this Office.
ON Thursday, the 16th day of March next, will be sold, to the highest bidder, in the town of Manchester, at the tavern of Zachariah Brooks, upon a credit of twelve months, the following PROPERTY, belonging to the estate of Wm. Friend, dec'd. viz. twelve or fifteen likely SLAVES, consisting of men, women, boys and girls, a WAGGON and harness, a GIG and harness, sundry articles of Husbandry, a few valuable Books, & a handsome Foyling Piece. Bond and approved security will be required of the purchasers.
THOMAS BRANCH, Executor.
At the same time and place, will be sold, on a credit of twelve months, sundry articles of valuable household FURNITURE and PLATE, the property of Mrs. Ann Friend.
All persons having claims against the estate of Mr. Friend, dec'd, are again invited to bring them forward properly authenticated, and those indebted thereto, will please make payment without delay.
THOMAS BRANCH, Executor.
FOR SALE, a likely Mulatto BOY, about 15 years of age, has been accustomed to house service. For terms apply at this office.
A YOUNG MAN, who can come well recommended, for industry, honesty and sobriety, that understands the management of Negroes, may hear of employment, on application at this office.
EUROPE.
BOSTON, Feb. 15.
Yesterday arrived here, the schooner Bream, Lt. Muhl, of ten guns, from Halifax, with dispatches for the British consul. By this vessel we have Halifax papers to the 31st ult. They merely give the following article from the Newfoundland paper, without comment. The officers of the Bream say, the account was credited at Halifax.—The expedition under Gen. Prevost, had arrived at Barbadoes, in thirteen days from Halifax.
We have seen a file of the official Madrid Gazettes to the 29th November.
The following article was received on Monday, in a letter from Halifax, by the Triton, copied from a Newfoundland paper:
ST. JOHNS, NEWFOUNDLAND, Dec. 29.
“On Saturday the brig Elizabeth, Way, arrived here in 28 days from Lisbon. He reports, that on the evening before he sailed, news reached Lisbon of a general battle between the united British and Spanish army and the French; that the latter was defeated, with the loss of 5,000 killed; the loss of the former being 2,000 killed, of whom we are sorry to learn was Sir David Baird — Our troops distinguished themselves; and much praise was bestowed on the 29th Light Dragoons for their gallantry in the action.”
FROM SPAIN DIRECT.
Captain Percival, who arrived here on Monday, from Cadiz, in Spain, via the Vineyard, informs, that he left Cadiz the 6th December; when they had not heard of a junction between the British and Spanish forces: [Cadiz is one of the most remote places in Spain for the receipt of information from the north]—that it was generally believed the French were advancing into Spain; and that General Blake had been compelled to retreat;—that it was not known that any decisive battle had taken place, though there had been much hard fighting—that the Spaniards still continued favorable to the system of warfare recommended by their Junta; that of harassing the enemy and retreating, rather than risking great battles; that the spirits of the nation continued good; that it was apparent to any one resident in Cadiz, that the Spaniards were well united, and that a determination pervaded all ranks, to emancipate their country, or perish in the struggle; that there was not the least appearance of the existence of a Godoy (Prince of Peace) party; on the contrary, that a man's life would be in danger who should utter a word in favor of that traitor; that though there were rumors of divisions in Spain, it was impossible, from appearances in Cadiz, to credit them; and that Barcelona still held out against the patriots. A letter from Valencia (which is in the vicinity of Barcelona) of the 2nd November, says, “The French are about evacuating Barcelona.” If this be true, they must have been starved out.
Extract of a letter, dated Cadiz, December 5, 1808.
“Private letters received this morning, mention the discovery of a conspiracy. In consequence of which, twenty one persons have been hanged at Madrid. Count de Tilly is one of those engaged in it.”
Eight thousand French, who had approached within twenty leagues of the capital, relying on the success of the negotiation, have been cut off. Their intention was to have seized on the Junta, and to have put the President, Florida Blanca, to death.—Every exertion is making to fortify Madrid—all classes—ladies of the highest rank—work on the fortifications.
LONDON, Dec. 6.
The king of Prussia has been obliged to deliver to the French his famous service of gold; it was conveyed to Berlin under an escort of General Blicher's hussars, called the “Death's Heads.” A serious affair took place between these hussars & some French troops who had insulted them, and several lives were lost before order was restored.
The king of Prussia, by an ordinance, dated the 20th Oct. has prohibited all intercourse with Spain and Portugal, and ordered all ships arriving from those countries, to be seized and confiscated.
Marshal Brune, it is said, died in prison at Paris, on the 5th day of his confinement.
It was supposed he was poisoned. Bonaparte, the same account adds, was much dissatisfied with him for having allowed the Swedes to escape from Stralsund, and said he would have been shot, if he had not been a Marshal of France.
DECEMBER 13.
An idle report prevailed last night, that Bonaparte was assassinated shortly after his arrival at Madrid, which he is said to have reached the 28th ult. The Supreme Junta left Aranjuez for Toledo, on the 23d.
AMSTERDAM, Nov. 22.
The session of the legislative body was opened on Friday last, with the usual solemnities; and his majesty being seated on his throne, Mr. Rengels, president ad interim, addressed his majesty as follows:
“SIRE—Admitted by your majesty on this solemn occasion, we, your faithful subjects, constituting the legislative body, come to perform one of the most pleasing of our duties, in renewing to your majesty, the homage of our profound respect, attachment and inviolable devotion.”
“We were in expectation that the calamitous war, which has lasted so long, would have been brought to a conclusion, by the return of our annual session; but our wishes are not yet accomplished, and the numberless sacrifices which the welfare of the state demands, augmented by the total stagnation of commerce, still continue to press with all their weight, upon every class of society. Your majesty's heart, we are aware, suffers more from this consideration than our own. We receive incessant proofs of the affection which your majesty bears towards your people, and the unwearied efforts which you make, to allay, at least, the wounds of the state, if you cannot completely heal them.”
“We accordingly again approach your throne, full of confidence in your majesty's paternal solicitude, in order that in concert with our king, animated with the same spirit, and actuated by the same sentiments, we may lighten the burdens of the state, and co-operate for its happiness and prosperity, which are the constant objects of all your majesty's thoughts and measures, as they are of the ardent and perpetual gratitude of your majesty's people.”
The King replied to the above address in a very long speech, in which he expatiated on the progress made in carrying into effect the various measures in train for promoting the internal prosperity of the kingdom. He regrets that the events of the last year, and the necessity of performing his engagements to France, had rendered a military establishment requisite to the number of 50,000 men, which of course occasioned a considerable addition to the public expenditure, beyond the estimate of July, 1805.—This proceeding, however, he vindicates, stating, that it was indispensable to the restoration of the peace of the continent, and that under the existing circumstances, the choice was not difficult, or rather, that there was no choice. He descants on the advantages, which, in the event of a maritime peace, Holland must derive from the new department which she has acquired. He adds, that there is a deficiency of seventy millions in the produce of the taxes of the last two years, compared with the expenditure. To reduce this deficit, he looks to the operation of a sinking fund; the adoption of a definitive budget on the first of January, 1810, on an economical system, whether peace be then concluded or not; and a small loan, to be the last, until the sinking funds begin to operate. We rely on the friendship of France, and our brother, the Emperor, to enable us to persist in our plan of order and economy. Our political system, can be no other than that of France. It is her true interests to favor and protect, in every possible manner, even by some sacrifices, the independence, the prosperity and commerce of a continental state, which its situation and government is forever united with that empire, and which can be more useful to her, in proportion as it becomes more happy and prosperous.” He then enters into a minute statement of the proposed financial arrangements. He assures them, that while he lives, their national laws, customs and manners, shall be carefully respected and maintained; and that, whatever difficulties, he will never consent to national bankruptcy nor a conscription.
In the same sitting, the minister of the interior presented a detailed report on the state of the country, coinciding, in various passages, with the substance of the king's speech.
SPAIN.
PRIVATE LETTERS.
CORUNNA, Dec. 1.
“Advices are this instant received of the defeat of Castanos by the French and of the total dispersion of his army. He was completely surprised, for he was induced to advance across the Ebro, from false information of the weakness of the corps under Marshal Macey, and was drawn into a trap, for Ney fell upon his rear, as soon as the army of Blake was disposed of, and the result was fatally dreadful. No account has arrived of the day or place, when and where the battle was fought, but the fact is too true. And the consequence is, that Sir John Moore, was instructed to begin his retreat on the 20th ult. from Salamanca back on Portugal. And Sir David Baird, on Galicia. Here, we are in the utmost consternation. The stores are now embarking here, and we are told that they are to be sent round to Vigo, as it is not thought advisable to trust the embarkation at this port. There is the utmost reason to apprehend, that Gen. Hope, who is arrived at Madrid, with the cavalry and artillery belonging to General Moore's army, will be cut off. He must be so, if it be true, as we hear, that both Moore and Baird are retreating.”
Another letter says—“The effects of that wonderful machine which Bonaparte wields with such dexterity, are now beginning to display themselves. He did not begin to act till he had brought 70,000 men, under his most accomplished Generals, to the reinforcement of his army, but had before been able to keep the patriots at bay. In a fortnight he has done his work. He began by the dispersion of Blake, and we this day learn, that he has, with equal facility, destroyed Castanos. We have now nothing left for it. Sir John Moore is at Salamanca, without horse or artillery. Gen. Hope is at Madrid with his horse, but without foot; and Gen. Baird is at Astorga with his horse, in a condition totally unfit for service. They are dying daily in numbers, and the highways are strewn with their carcasses. Nothing can equal the dismay which prevails here. God knows how our armies will get off! Certainly our artillery must be left behind, for the poor beasts of horses, that remain alive, are unable to drag the guns thro' the execrable mud.”
CORUNNA, Nov. 27.
“We are still in a state of suspense respecting the situation of Gen. Blake and his army. It is, however, ascertained, that he has suffered severely, in consequence of the badness and cowardice of many of his officers. Gen. I—! in particular, is accused of having betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him. He was unfortunately entrusted with the command in the centre of the army, and shortly after the battle commenced, he treacherously made an opening for the French troops to march through, which they did, to the astonishment of Gen. Blake, and the confusion of his men. The discomfiture of the whole army, is attributed to this infamous act of treachery. To guard against such conduct, General Blake has superadded several general officers, and others of inferior rank, who have been succeeded by sergeants and corporals of military capacity, tried merit & experience. The appointment of these men to rank in the army, appears to meet with general approbation.”
“This is a very fine populous country, the men are active, robust and strong; notwithstanding which, the recruiting goes on very slowly. There is no stimulus; the men want encouragement to join the armies of their country. The recent accounts are sufficient to dishearten them, for however deplorable their present condition may be, they are unwilling to exchange it for danger, nakedness and starvation.”
DECEMBER 1.
“An order appeared this day for raising 400,000 men, in the different provinces of Spain; but I am sorry to say, the government does not appear to possess sufficient means and means to provide for a third of the number. Our army has already suffered much for want of provisions for the country.”
LONDON, Dec. 10.—Two o'Clock.
Intelligence has been received from Spain of events of a more disastrous nature than our gloomy forebodings led us with pain to apprehend. The defeat of Gen. Blake, which turns out, according to the information we had received, to have been complete, appears, according to the intelligence now arrived, to have laid open the central body of the Spaniards, under Castanos and Palafox, to the skillful operations of the enemy; and his army too, if the evil tidings are not unfounded, has been completely defeated, if not destroyed. We stated in a late Paper, that the retreat of Blake by leaving unoccupied the left of the Spanish line, would render necessary the retreat of the whole army. We fear that this obvious policy has not been pursued, and that Bonaparte has thus been enabled to destroy the whole central division of the Spaniards.
The intelligence, as it has been given to the public is to the following purport.
“Intelligence has been received from Gen. Sir B. Baird, dated Astorga, the 29th ult. by which it appears, that the army under General Castanos had sustained a defeat, the particulars of which however, had not been received. General Sir J. Moore had directed Sir David Baird to re-embark at Vigo, and proceed immediately to the Tagus, for the purpose of assembling the British army in force, and enabling it to act in such a manner as circumstances might point out, for the support of the common cause.”
It is further stated on private authority that the transports at Corunna, had, on the 2d instant, begun to take on board the heavy baggage belonging to the British army under the orders of General Baird, & it is asserted that the most ample means had been provided for the secure retreat of the whole of our force. We trust, as the necessity for the re-embarkation is apparent, that the account of there being sufficient means is correct, for we are told, in two or three other letters, that large divisions of transports had sailed from Corunna.
Previous to this battle, the French had advanced in another direction from Burgos to Lerma, Aranda, and across the Douro, and it appears by the Proclamation of the Central Junta, that they had got to the neighbourhood of Zamora, a small town in the mountains, about forty miles north of Madrid. In this state of affairs, the Junta ordered a strong force to occupy that important post Gaudarrama, ab. 25 miles from Madrid, whither the English, who are said to have been at the Escorial on the 21st, (but there is probably some error in the statement) were about to proceed to co-operate with the Spaniards.
It should seem however that the enemy took a different route to the capital, by proceeding in a direction due south from the Douro, by Zamora, Benavente, and the roads that lead from thence to Madrid; and the unexpected defeat of General Castanos having frustrated all the plans that had been formed, a retreat on the part of our army, became necessary. It is conjectured that it will concentrate itself upon the frontiers of Portugal, to try the defence of that country against Bonaparte, or to advance against Spain upon a favorable opportunity. But the question whether, without Spain, we could defend Portugal against Bonaparte, appears to have been decided by our government, when it advised the Royal Family to emigrate to Brazil!
FALMOUTH, Dec. 6.
The Duke of Marlborough Packet, bound to the Brazils sailed from Madeira on the 13th of November and on the 30th was captured after an action of an hour, by the French privateer La Josephine of 14 guns, from Bordeaux; who after plundering the packet of various articles, throwing her guns overboard and taking out 8 men gave her to capt. Bull, who arrived this evening.
Arrived the Gleaner, from Lisbon in 12 days. The Eliza arrived late last night at St. Ives, with a mail from Corunna, in four days. Sir T. Dyer came passenger.
LONDON, Dec. 13.
The following is an extract of a letter from an officer in one of the divisions of the army of Gen. Baird:
“Villa Franca, Nov. 29.”
“I can only tell you that I am quite well, and fare as well as circumstances will permit. I got to Astorga from Oviedo on the Wednesday evening and on Thursday morning last 23d inst. the army retreated, but advanced again on the Friday. A courier is going off to Lugo, by which I send this—You must not be alarmed at not hearing from me often, as it is impossible. The French are in great force, near 100,000 men, it is said, at Burgos, Villabobad, Villuven, and their cavalry at Rio Seco, and advancing against. The two English armies have not joined, and it is uncertain when they will. On Thursday last 23d I concluded we should have retreated much further. As it was, I had to march on a continuance about 30 miles; casks of rum were stowed at Astorga, &c. and every one thought the French to be very near: next day we advanced to our old positions. Blake's army, i. e. Romana's has been completely defeated and scattered. There were only 3000 men at Leon a week ago, though the Spaniards would tell me every where that there were 30 or 40,000. If we cannot form a junction with Sir J. Moore or with us, which must be the case, as we cannot leave the road to Corunna open to the French, both armies must retreat on our pass. This is a wretched country. I am sure the French would do them good, but as an Englishman I cannot wish them to gain a footing here; though I am afraid they will eventually succeed. It is said the French have pushed on in a column to Oviedo to pass by Lugo, and intercept our retreat, but that is uncertain. The Spaniards do not act with the spirit they might.”
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, Feb. 16.
ADDITIONAL DUTIES.
The House resolved itself into committee of the whole—Mr. Masters in the chair—on the bill for imposing additional duties on all the goods, wares and merchandise imported into the U. S.
The bill was amended so as to take effect “from and after the passage thereof.”
The proposition offered by Mr. D. R. Williams when the bill was before under consideration was withdrawn.
Mr. Cook renewed the proposition, viz. to confine the duties to be increased, to goods imported from Great Britain & France and the colonies of either; and spoke an hour and a half in support of his motion and in opposition to the non-intercourse system. He was in favor of discriminating duties because he was opposed to the non-intercourse, which he considered the best means of depressing our navigating interest and advancing that of Britain; because the produce of the U. S. would be carried to some place of depot in the vicinity, and thence be carried to Europe in British bottoms, whilst a large proportion of American shipping would be inactive. He thought that under the arming system we could trade with at least as much honor and with much more profit, than under the non-intercourse system. He contended that the non-intercourse system was precisely calculated to destroy that moral principle which had heretofore so strictly enforced our revenue laws; that the system of restriction was partial, operating so equally on the people of the south, that no individuals particularly suffered from it, whilst in the north and east individuals were ruined by it, and thus a general distress produced; that it would be the most discouraging act to the mercantile interest ever passed by the government, for it would throw the trade in all the produce kept in the country by the embargo, into foreign hands at the expense of the American merchant; that the system could not be enforced with extensive a frontier & sea coast as we possess; that it was a measure calculated to produce irritation & foreign nations without having the least coercive effect; that it was political suicide, without the consolation of company in it.—Mr. Cook was, with his constituents, in favor of further negotiation and a firm assertion of our rights; which, if refused to be acknowledged he would maintain. It was high time to abandon visionary schemes & impracticable projects, and to pass good plain common sense laws. He believed that this discrimination of duties and arming our merchant vessels would be such a law.
Mr. Cook's motion was negatived by a very large majority.
The committee then rose and reported the bill.
The amendments made in committee of the whole were severally agreed to by the House; and on the question that the bill be engrossed for a third reading, Mr. Livermore called for the Yeas and Nays. There were for it 85, against it 27.
It was subsequently read a third time, and opposed by Messrs. Dana, Mason, Van Horn, Lyon, Cook, Milner and Sloan, and supported by Messrs. W. Alston and J. G. Jackson. It was passed by Yeas and Nays, 67 to 26.
NON-INTERCOURSE.
The House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse.
Mr. Milner's motion for striking out the first section being under consideration—
Mr. Nicholas spoke against the motion for about half an hour. He replied to many objections which had been made to the bill. He observed however that this state of things could not continue long; and that he had no hesitation to say that this nation must soon determine either to maintain and enforce its rights or to abandon commerce altogether. He could not consent to carry on commerce as it was now shackled by the belligerents, nor abandon it altogether. He hoped that there yet was a manly and honorable spirit in the nation which would resist the invasions of our rights; and this bill would prevent our citizens from staining the character of the nation by carrying on a commerce which could only be carried on with disgrace, until another effort should have been made for peace.
The question was taken on striking out the first section of the bill and NEGATIVED Ayes 24.
The House proceeded in the consideration of the bill.
The period after which the entrance of vessels should be prohibited into our waters being under consideration—
Mr. Nicholas named the 20th of May.—As the vessels coming in after the time fixed on were to be subject to condemnation, he thought it would be to the honor of the nation to give reasonable notice of the regulation.
Mr. Lyon named the first of June, as being after the next meeting of Congress.
Mr. Fisk hoped neither day would be agreed to. He was not for giving to England any longer notice of our regulations than she gave of the Orders in Council, viz. from the 11th of November to the 12th of January. He therefore named the 20th day of April.
The question on the 1st day of June was negatived 59 to 41.
The 20th of May was agreed to, 80 to 24.
The fourth section having been read (prohibiting the importation of French or British goods)—
Mr. D. R. Williams moved to strike it out and insert in lieu of it a provision for imposing a discriminating duty of 50 per cent. on all former duties, on goods, &c. imported from Great Britain or France or the colonies of either. Mr. W. made a number of remarks in support of his motion. His motion was predicated on a total repeal of the embargo. He said to his extreme mortification (for he had not expected it) he had just learnt that the governor of the state of Connecticut had refused to execute the injunctions of the President made in pursuance of the law of the United States. If the embargo could not be executed, he contended that certainly a non-intercourse could not.
Mr. Dana enquired of the gentleman from S. C. in what particular instance the governor of Connecticut had refused to execute the directions of the President.
Mr. D. R. Williams replied that he had heard that he had refused to comply with the letter from the Secretary of War, written in conformity with the order of the President of the U. S. requesting the governors of the states to appoint an officer to superintend the militia, who was to be called upon to assist in the execution of the Embargo laws. The governor he understood had refused to execute it.
Mr. Dana said he enquired because he wished to know whether the governor had refused to do any act which the laws or constitution of the U. S. gave the President power to require of him. If in a case where neither the law or constitution authorised it, the President of the U. S. had applied to the governor as a gentleman of rank or authority of the country, requesting him to do any act, it was certainly at his option to do it or not, as he chose.
The committee rose on motion of Mr. Taylor, and obtained leave to sit again. Adjourned after 5 o'clock.
FRIDAY, Feb. 17.
NON-INTERCOURSE.
The House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the bill interdicting commercial intercourse, &c.
Mr. D. R. Williams' motion of yesterday got under consideration, viz. to strike out the fourth section of the bill and insert in lieu of it a provision for laying a discriminating duty of 50 per cent. on all former duties, on goods imported from G. Britain and France.
Mr. Love called for a division of the question, so as to take it first on striking out the section.
The question was then taken on striking out the 4th section in order to insert Mr. D. R. Williams' amendment; which was NEGATIVED 53 to 47. Mr. W's motion of course was negatived.
Some farther progress was made in the bill; when the committee rose and obtained leave to sit again.
SATURDAY, Feb. 18.
The House was engaged the whole of the day in committee of the whole on the non-intercourse bill. A motion to amend the bill so as to keep on the embargo altogether was negatived Ayes 85. A motion to amend the bill so as wholly to repeal the embargo, was negatived 57 to 53. The committee went through the bill, which was reported to the House at near 5 o'clock—When the House adjourned without considering the report of the Committee.

The House met this day, according to order, at ten o'clock.
INVALID PENSIONERS.
On motion of Mr. Holmes, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Curtis in the chair, on the bill concerning Invalid Pensioners; which being gone through, was reported to the House, and ordered to a third reading to morrow.
NON-INTERCOURSE.
The House took up the report of the committee of the whole, on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse, &c.
Mr. Masters proposed a new section to the bill, declaring, that the bill shall be in force till the end of the next session of Congress and no longer; and that the embargo shall be repealed at that time. On the suggestion of Mr. Randolph, Mr. M. withdrew his motion for a time; and
Mr. Randolph moved to strike out so much of the 12th section of the bill as makes exceptions to the general removal of the embargo.
Mr. Bibb made a motion, which succeeded Mr. Randolph's, viz: to strike out the whole section, so as to keep on the embargo, in its present situation.
Mr. Randolph opposed this motion, and advocated the repeal of the embargo in a speech of about an hour and a half in length, embracing the subject of our foreign relations generally. He treated the idea of a partial repeal of an embargo as absurd; he might as well say, he would partially pull the House over his head, as that he would partially repeal an embargo. After vessels were permitted to go out, they would chase their course. He conceived, that the embargo must be wholly repealed, and indeed the proposition partially to repeal it, evinced the existence of a conviction in the House, that it must be gotten over in some way or other. Mr. R. spoke at large of the disastrous consequences which he conceived to have been produced by the embargo, and which should operate as reasons for its repeal. He considered the embargo system to be one which, like a barrel, derived all its value from its being water tight; if they began to drill holes in its bottom, no matter of what diameter, it would lose any value it might have had. He spoke of the operation of the measure on our revenue, and deprecated its effects, if continued on the treasury; which, when exhausted, must be replenished by excise or land taxes—neither of which would comport with the principles upon which the present administration had come into office. Mr. R. also examined, at some length, the policy of the additional duty bill, which passed the House a few days ago, and which he disapproved.
Mr. Mason replied to some of the arguments of Mr. Randolph and of other gentlemen on the subject of the embargo. He was decidedly of opinion, that it ought still further to be continued. Now was the time for its operation, and he was in favor of continuing it until September, unless it sooner produced an effect. If we went into a war we must in a short time be thrown on the side of one of the belligerents; and he wanted no entangling alliances with either. He said that this nation was now contending for its very existence. He had not, it was true, been in favor of the increasing duties on imports 50 per cent. but put that bill in competition with the tax which Britain had laid on our exports, (which we ourselves had not a right to tax) and all comparison ceased. The tax laid by Great Britain alone on our exports, amounted to more annually (supposing the usual exports) than all the taxes levied in the United States by corporations, parishes, counties, states and the general government all put together. And this he would resist to the utmost; and because he would resist it, he was opposed to the present bill, as it would at once destroy the effect of the embargo. Mr. Mason spoke about an hour.
Mr. Holland followed on the same side of the question. He had originally voted against the embargo, because he believed it premature; but he was decidedly of opinion, that when it was imposed, some time would be necessary to try its effects as a coercive measure. He believed that the United States generally sacrificed at least enough of their happiness to the commercial interest; but having taken this ground, he wished to maintain it. And although he was not inclined to favor, exclusively, external commerce, yet in favor of our indispensable rights on the ocean, he would go to war when efforts for peace failed. He was in favor, therefore, of a further continuance of the embargo, and replied to many arguments against it. He lamented the propensity that existed amongst gentlemen, because they could not obtain a favorite object in life, to set their faces against every thing else. Thus one gentleman in the other branch of the legislature, because he had been removed from office some years ago, thought every thing had since gone wrong. One in this House might think the same, because he had not been able to obtain an office; another, because he could not move the seat of government, &c. &c. &c. Mr. H. said, he firmly believed, nevertheless, that it was happy for the United States, that the one was removed, another disappointed in an office, and that the seat of government was in its old place. The reasons operating with those gentlemen had no effect on him. He was for pursuing a direct course, and adhering to the embargo, till its effect was fully tested. Mr. Holland spoke about an hour.
Mr. Winn moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject—Negatived.
On motion of Mr. Taylor, the House adjourned about 4 o'clock, without taking a question.
The House was the whole of this day engaged on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse, &c.
The question on Mr. Bibb's motion for striking out the 12th section of the bill, the effect of which motion would have been to continue the embargo wholly, was (after debate) taken by Yeas and Nays as follows:—
YEAS—Messrs. Bard, Basset, Bibb, Blackledge, Blount, Boyle, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, G. W. Campbell, Clay, Clifton, Deane, Desha, Franklin, Holland, Holmes, Howard, J. G. Jackson, Johnson, Kenan, Kirkpatrick, Macon, Marion, J. Montgomery, Jer. Morrow, John Morrow, Newbold, Porter, Rea, (Pen.) Say, Smilie, Stanford, Taylor, Troup, Verplank, Wharton, Whitehill, D. R. Williams—39. NAYS—Messrs. Alexander, L. J. Alston, W. Alston, Barker, Blake, Boyd, Brown, Champion, Chittenden, Cook, Culpepper, Cutts, Dand, Davenport, Durell, Elliot, Ely, Eppes, Findley, Fisk, Gardener, Garnet, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Harris, Heister, Hens, Hoge, Humphreys, Isley, Jenkins, Jones, Kelly, Key, Lambeth, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Love, Lyon, Masters, McCreery, Milnor, D. Montgomery, N. R. Moore, T. Moore, Moseley, Mumford, Nicholas, Pugh, Quincy, Randolph, Rea, (Tenn.) M. Richards, Riker, Rowan, Russell, Sawyer, Seaver, Shaw, Sloan, J. K. Smith, J. Smith, S. Smith, Southard, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Swart, Taggart, Tallmadge Thompson, Trigg, Upham, Van Allen, Van Cortlandt, Van Dyke, Van Horne, Van Rensselaer, Wilbour, M. Williams, A. Wilson, N. Wilson—24.
A motion to strike out of the same section the words "so much of the"—the effect of which would be wholly to repeal the existing embargo, was (after debate) negatived as follows:—
YEAS—Messrs. Alexander, Bacon, Barker, Bibb, Blackledge, Champion, Chittenden, Cook, C. Pepper, Dana, Davenport, Elliot, Ely, Gardener, Gardner, Garnet, Harris, Hoge, Isley, R. S. Jackson, Jenkins, Kelly, Key, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Lyon, Masters, Milnor, Moseley, Quincy, Randolph, Rowan, Russell, Sloan, S. Smith, Stedman, Sturges, Tallmadge, Taylor, Trigg, Upham, Van Cortlandt, Van Dyke, Van Horn, Van Rensselaer, and D. R. Williams—47. NAYS—Messrs. L. J. Alston, W. Alston, Bard, Basset, Blake, Blount, Boyd, Boyle, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Clay, Cutts, Dawson, Deane, Desha, Durell, Eppes, Findley, Franklin, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Heister, Holmes, Holland, Howard, Humphreys, John G. Jackson, Johnson, Jones, Kenan, Lambeth, Love, Macon, Marion, McCreery, Daniel Montgomery, J. Montgomery, N. R. Moore, T. Moore, Jer. Morrow, John Morrow, Moseley, Mumford, Newbold, Newton, Nicholas, Porter, Pugh, Rea, Rhea, J. Richards, M. Richards, Riker, Sav. Seaver, Shaw, Smilie, J. K. Smith, J. Smith, Southard, Stanford, Storer, Swart, Troup, Van Allen, Verplank, Wharton, Whitehill, Wilbour, M. Williams, A. Wilson, and N. Wilson—75. A motion was made by Mr. Gholson, to strike out of the same section the words "the 4th day of March" and insert "the 1st day of June" as the day on which the embargo should be partially repealed. It being past 5 o'clock, and the House having been in session near 8 hours, adjourned without taking the question on Mr. Gholson's motion.
The bill to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, was read the second time.
Mr. Reed moved to strike out of the 11th section the following words:—
"And to cause to be issued, under suitable pledges & precautions, letters of marque and reprisal against the nation thereafter continuing in force its unlawful edicts against the commerce of the U. S."
Decided in the negative, Yeas 11, Nays fourteen.
YEAS—Messrs. Condit, Franklin, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, Mathewson, Parker, Pickering, Reed and Sander. NAYS—Messrs. Anderson, Crawford, Gail-lard, Giles, Gregg, Howard, Milledge, Moore, Robinson, Smith, (Md.) Smith, (N. Y.) Smith, (Tenn.) Tiffin and Turner. The bill, after undergoing some amendment, was ordered to a third reading.
The bill making provisions for the further accommodation of the household of the President of the U. S. was read a third time and passed.
This bill appropriates 14,000 dollars, in addition to the proceeds of such furniture as may be sold.
The bill to interdict the commercial intercourse between the U. S. and G. Britain and France, & their dependencies, and for other purposes, was read a third time.
General Smith of Md. and Mr. Giles supported, and Messrs. Lloyd and Hillhouse opposed it.
At about 5 o'clock the final question was taken on the passage of the bill, and carried—Yeas 21—Nays 12.
This bill differs in some important respects from that pending before the House of Representatives, and contains the following important provision:—
Sec 11. And be it further enacted, That the President be, and he hereby is authorised, in case either France or G. Britain shall revoke or modify her edicts, is that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the U. States, to declare the same by proclamation; after which the trade of the U. States, suspended by this act, and by the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the U. States, and the several acts supplemental thereto, may be renewed with the nation so doing; and to cause to be issued under suitable pledges and precautions, letters of marque & reprisal against the nation thereafter continuing in force its unlawful edicts against the commerce of the U. S.
February 22.
YEAS & NAYS on the passage of the bill to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, & for other purposes.
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Franklin, Gilliland, Giles, Gregg, Howard, Kitchin, Leib, Mathewson, Miligs, Milledge, Mitchell, Moore, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Md. Smith of N. Y. Smith & Pen. Thurston and Tiffin—21. NAYS—Messrs. Bacon, Crawford, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, Parker, Pickering, Reed, Sander, Turner & White—12.
Resolved, That the Surveyor of the public buildings be cause to be prepared for the accommodation of the Senate, at the next session of Congress, the room stated in the said Surveyor's report, with as little expense as may consist with the reasonable comfort of the members and the convenience of the spectators.
The bill freeing from postage all letters & packets to & from THOMAS JEFFERSON was read a third time and passed. [This bill has passed the House.]
February 23.
The act, from the House of Representatives, for imposing additional duties upon all goods, wares, and merchandise, imported from any foreign port or place, passed with amendments, to a third reading—Yeas 20; Nays 9.
The vessels are carrying away lumber, tar and wheat. Cotton they are able to procure. They give a high price for those articles—62 1/2 cents per lb. for the cotton is common, and 75 cents were offered for a good and large lot.
"In one of the vessels which arrived last from Liverpool, the Jane of 22 guns and 60 men, Mr. Swartwout, the friend of Colonel Burr, was a passenger. I am told, he says, Colonel Burr will return to the United States in May next."
Extract of a letter from Newry, in Ireland, dated Nov. 20, 1808.
"If the embargo be continued much longer this country will be ruined, the people here are at present driven to desperation. Tobacco is now sold here at 4s. 4d. per lb. and flax that formerly sold at 7s. per stone, is now at 3s.; and no flaxseed for the coming spring, so that if none arrives from America, the consequence that will ensue must prove fatal, as the people of the north of Ireland depend altogether upon the linen business."
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 20.
The heavy rain of Saturday last broke up the ice in Brandywine, and occasioned so tremendous a fresh in that river, as to carry away the wooden superstructure of the bridge, demo-lishing also part of the stone abutments and the piers. No material injury, we understand, was done to the valuable mills erected on that stream. The progress of the Southern Mail has been greatly impeded by this accident; and will, no doubt, experience similar delay until the bridge is repaired.
About two thousand five hundred dollars of Counterfeit Bank Notes, principally of the New York and other eastern banks were found this morning in a lumber yard in the upper part of the city. A man had been observed going into the yard, who it is supposed had concealed them there, but on missing them, made his escape before the public could interfere. They are very badly executed. Among them are several Vermont Notes of 50 cents each—One of 5 dollars of the Farmers' and Merchants' Bank, is executed with much ability, excepting the signatures, which are easily detected.
The Governor of Connecticut has called an Extra Session of the Legislature of that State; to meet at Hartford, on the 22d instant.
WINDSOR, (Vt.) February 13.
The Militia Company, commanded by Capt. H. HERRICK, consisting of nearly one hundred effective men, met in the West Parish of this town, and all volunteered; as also did a number of aged patriots, who have already grown grey in the service of their country. Party animosity seemed to subside, and men of different politics enrolled their names, and pledged their services to government. We feel happy in observing a prevailing union of sentiment among our citizens at this eventful period.
No dispatches have been received by government, as has been suggested in some of the gazettes; nor has any information been received at the department of state relative to the arrival of the Union—Monitor.
The proceeds of a late Concert given at Baltimore for the relief of distressed seamen in that city, amounted to 1194 dollars and the expenses attending the same 120 dollars 87 1/2 cents, leaving 1073 dollars 12 1/2 cents, the everlasting monument of honorable munificence.
Commodore Decatur is to take the command of the frigate United States, and Capt. Tull, to take that of the Chesapeake.
On the 1st instant, a detachment of about 150 United States troops commanded by Capt. Peters sailed from Pittsburgh for N. Orleans.
DOMESTIC.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22.
The following are the extracts of letters read by Mr. Troup in the House of Representatives, received from gentlemen of the first respectability in Georgia:—
"For six or eight months, last past, there has been an extensive scene of smuggling carrying on between the United States and Florida. Upwards of twenty large cargoes of provisions, cotton and timber, have sailed from Amelia Island for Britain and her possessions. There is, at this moment, near 20 sail of British vessels in the waters falling into St. Mary's river; all of them loading with timber, naval stores, cotton and provisions. Most of these vessels are strongly armed—several of them mount twenty guns. In addition to this, I frequently receive correct information of armed vessels being at anchor on our coast, receiving cargoes from our base, unprincipled inhabitants and foreign speculators. If some method cannot be fallen on to put a stop to this smuggling trade, there is no use in keeping the embargo on. For through the channel of the Floridas, the English will receive important supplies. East Florida in itself, is equal to furnishing Britain with a very considerable quantity of naval stores, such as tar, turpentine and rosin; and many people in that province are now engaged in that business. G. Britain will not feel the loss of her trade to the Baltic in its full extent; if she can keep an open trade (as at present) with Florida. From thence she can have the best of pine timber, oak and red cedar for her navy—boards, staves and shingles for her Islands. These things, in my humble opinion, call for the attention of our government."
"In case of a war with either, or both of the belligerent powers, I am of opinion that it would be a wise measure in the United States to take immediate possession of the Floridas, to prevent the English having a footing there; or drawing of the supplies they so much want for their navy, &c."
"You can readily form a judgment of the wants of the British, from the encouragement they give in Florida, and the enormous prices to obtain these supplies. The following are the ready money prices at Amelia—Sea Island cotton 70 to 75 cents per pound—Up country cotton (short staple) 40 cents, Bolls 15 dollars, rice 7 dollars per cwt. tar and turpentine 12 to 15 dollars per barrel, pine timber, squared 12 dollars per thousand feet superficial measure—the price heretofore 6 dollars."
"You would be astonished could you take a peep at Amelia river. No less than seven ships, two brigs, &c. at anchor in it; all English. The fish, who never saw any thing larger than an eight oared canoe, are in vast consternation."
THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, FEBRUARY 28, 1809.
STRICTURES ON MR. GORE'S REPORT.
In the Legislature of Massachusetts. No. II.
Those points, which have been hitherto noticed, are confined to the late Decrees and Orders of 1806 and 1807.—But the Committee of Massachusetts have gone much deeper into this subject. Not content with proving that the late decrees of France were prior to the orders of G. Britain, they have pushed their researches much further. They have attempted to prove, that under all circumstances and at every Epoch, France has set the example of injustice and aggression. They have plunged into the depths of antiquity. They have carried us back to the misty Ordinances of France in the year 1704, and have brought down the chain of historic proofs to the date of the Berlin Decree. From all these circumstances, what have they attempted to prove? Why—that "France, from the earliest time, and certainly prior to the year 1756, has adopted in principle and in practice, broader rules for limiting the commerce of neutrals," than her enemy—and of course that there is no ground for the pretension that the modern decrees of France are "a retaliation for similar violations of public law by her foe." The real gist of this argument, however, is not to be mistaken. It is to impress the mind with a persuasion, that France has been the uniform disturber of the rights of neutrals—and that whatever validity there may be in the principle of retaliation, it is completely on the side of G. Britain.
Most of these points are more curious than useful. They seem rather adopted to the genius of the antiquarian, than to the occasions of the intelligent politician.—Does it not appear ridiculous to be shooting into the depths of antiquity, in search of arguments to justify modern injustice? Is it not too much like the maxim of visiting the sins of antiquity upon its remote and innocent posterity? To what period shall we carry back the chain of investigation? Shall we suddenly stop at the year 1704; or shall we travel back to the barbarous ages of Cæsar and Charlemagne? At what period shall we consider the regulations of France and G. Britain as being worthy to serve as precedents for practice, or pleas for retaliation? From what era shall these U. States, a nation of but 32 years standing, presume to take an interest in the infractions of neutral rights by the powers of Europe?—These are questions which it would not be very easy to answer.
As, however, the Committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, have thought it proper to plunge us into these dark abysses of antiquity, it may be as well to pursue them in their frolicsome career. It requires but very little labour to expose their want of information. There is not one position which they have taken, from which they may not be easily dislodged—there is not one aggression, which they have assigned to the government of France, beyond which if they had only pressed their researches but a single step, they would not have discovered some prior wrong and injustice in the conduct of England.
To prove these assertions more distinctly, it is proper to divide the period which these gentlemen have considered, into two epochs. The first embraces the French Ordinances of 1704 and '44—and the "Rule of war of '56." The last embraces all those Acts, Decrees, Orders and Proclamations, affecting the commercial rights of the United States which have been issued since 1791—or during the wars of the French Revolution.
As to the first Epoch—these gentlemen assert, that the first wrong was committed by France, not by G. Britain—that the British rule of the war of '56, (a) which "has been pressed into the service of those who are desirous to find an apology, if not a justification of every outrage, committed by France," will not bear them out in the attempt—that it is not true, "that G. B. is the only nation that has acted upon otherwise given a sanction to it"—that there is an ordinance of France as early as 1704, which takes the lead in these aggressions—that this ordinance adopted in 1704, and repeated in 1744, declares all goods of the growth or fabric of an enemy's country liable to confiscation, unless bound from an enemy's port directly to the port of the neutral owner.
It seems useless to examine the question whether the French edict of 1704 was the same with the rule of war of '56. This is one of those great di-coverties, which was reserved for the wondrous genius of Timothy Pickering. This great statesman, envious as it would seem, of the unrivalled superiority of the present Secretary of State over his quondam self, has tasking all the malignity of his mind to detect Mr. Madison in some mistake. But in vain—it is true, that in some cases, the British rule of war of '56 may cover the same ground with the French ordinances of 1704 and 1744; but in other cases, the rules are essentially different in their application.—The French edict prohibits any trade in the productions of the enemy, except to the mother country. The rule of '56 is thus stated by an intelligent merchant of G. Britain. (b) "The leading points of discussion were, whether the property of an enemy on board of a neutral vessel should be condemned; under what circumstances and regulations a port might be blockaded; and what articles were contraband of war. But G. Britain had once maintained a doctrine of an importance to neutrals far exceeding any other, and by which she could at once extinguish at her pleasure, all the increased trade which a state of war gave them, without making any compensation for the inconveniences of such a state; this was what is called the rule of the war of 1756—which provided, that a neutral had no right to carry on in time of war a trade prohibited to him in time of peace."—From this description of the rule of '56, it evidently results, that there are some branches of commerce, permitted by the edict of 1704, but prohibited by the rule of '56. If during a period of war, France should open to us the ports of her colonies which are shut against us in a time of peace, the French edict permits this commerce, even in French productions, to the ports of our own country. The rule of '56 forbids it.—If in a war, the mother country permits the introduction of certain articles, which were excluded in a time of peace—it is a lawful trade, under the rule of 1704—but contraband under the rule of '56.—The first admits a direct trade between the colonies of the mother country, except in the productions of each other—the last may completely forbid it.—These cases are essentially different.—Indeed these two rules, considered as rules, are framed of different elements and spring from different incidents. In some—perhaps in a majority of great questions, they may be productive of similar results.
Admitting, however, their identity to be complete—the assertions of this Report are by no means supported. Though the ordinances of 1704 and 1744 were certainly of a prior date to the rule of '56, it will not necessarily follow, that France has been the first in her invasions of neutral rights. For what will these gentlemen say, when we shall be able to produce a prior and more outrageous aggression on the part of England, and which there is the strongest reason to believe, was the very first precedent for the French ordinance itself? The researches of the historic Muse will, however, place this fact beyond a doubt—as evidently appears by the following quotation from Vattel's Law of Nations:
"But that limits may be set to these inconveniences, that the commerce of neutral nations may subsist in all the freedom which the laws of war will admit, there are rules to be observed, and on which Europe seems to be generally agreed."
"The first is carefully to distinguish common goods, which have no relation to war, from those peculiarly subservient to it. In the trade of the former, neutral nations are to enjoy an entire liberty; the parties at war cannot with any reason deny it, or hinder the importation of such goods into the enemy's country. In this the case of their safety, the necessity of defence, does not authorize them, as by these the enemy does not become more formidable. An attempt to molest or destroy this trade would be a breach of the rights of neutral nations, a flagrant injury to them; necessity, as we have just observed, being the only reason which can authorize a restriction of their trade and navigation to the ports of the enemy."
England and the United Provinces having agreed in the treaty of Whitehall, signed on the 22d August, 1689, to notify to all states not at war with France, that they would attack, and previously declared every ship
(a) What is more characteristic of the views of these Reporters, than the manner in which they speak of this Rule of '56? They say, that although "adopted in the early part of the last war, it was so modified as to afford no cause of complaint in the U. S. during the latter years of that contest." And "it is believed, say they, that a similar temper of accommodation has been manifested by the same power towards the U. S. in the present war." Where are those infractions on our colonial trade during the present war, which have sprung out of this rule? These have produced losses of millions of our property, and the most bitter complaints against British injustice—the most animated instructions to our ministers in London, the most civil remonstrances to the English court, the most indignant memorials from all our great cities—Yet all these things are forgotten. "The love of England" has swallowed up every thing.— (b) Alex. Baring's Pamphlet, p. 21.

land to, or coming out of the harbors of this kingdom, to be a lawful prize; Sweden and Denmark, to whom some ships had been taken, entered into a counter-treaty on the 17th March 1693, for maintenance of their rights and procuring just satisfaction. And the maritime powers perceiving that the complaints of the two crowns were well-grounded, did them justice. (c)
Vattel, however, is not the only writer who has noticed this curious decree. Mr. Charles Jenkinson, now the Earl of Liverpool, one of the most unblushing advocates of British corruption, has animadverted on this very fact. The following are extracts from his celebrated pamphlet, entitled, "A discourse on the conduct of G. Britain in respect to neutral nations," written originally in 1758: "At the commencement of that war, which broke out immediately after the Revolution, when the first grand alliance was formed against France, Holland entered into a convention (concluded at London, August 22d, 1689,) with England, TO PROHIBIT TOTALLY THE COMMERCE OF NEUTRAL POWERS WITH THE ENEMY. In the preamble of this they assign publicly their reasons for it: they say, "that having declared war against the most Christian King, it behoves them to do as much damage as possible to the common enemy in order to bring him to agree to such conditions, as may restore the repose of Christendom; and that for this end it was necessary to interrupt all trade and commerce with the subjects of the said King; and that to effect this they have ordered their fleets to block up all the ports and havens of France." And afterward, in the 2d & 3d articles of this convention, it is agreed, "that they would take any vessel, whatever King or State it may belong to, that shall be found sailing into or out of the ports of France, and condemn both vessel and merchandise as legal prize; and that this resolution should be notified to all neutral States." "Such therefore was at this time the avowed opinion of Holland; and England was induced to join with her in this convention, exceeding thereby those bounds of equity and moderation which she had almost always practised in this point before, and which she will, I hope, most faithfully observe for the future." Pages 24 and 25.
And farther in page, 34 and 35, he says—"It cannot, I think, be doubted, that, according to those principles of natural equity, which constitute the law of nations, the people of every country must always have a right to trade in general to the ports of any State, though it may happen to be engaged in war with another, provided it be with their own merchandise, or on their own account; and that under this pretence they do not attempt to screen from one party the effects of the other; and on condition also that they carry not to either of them any implements of war, or whatever else, according to the nature of their respective situations, or the circumstances of the case, may be necessary to them for their defence. As clear as this point may be, it has sufficiently appeared by the facts deduced above, that amid the irregularities of war, the rules of equity, in this respect, were not always enough regarded; and that many governments, in time of war, have often most licitiously disturbed, and sometimes prohibited TOTALLY, the commerce of neutral nations with their enemies."
The ordinance of France of 1704, was in retaliation for these illegal determinations of England and Holland; and the ordinance of 1744 renewed them—Yet a British writer of great eminence deems them "as exceeding the bounds of equity and moderation." (d)
Thus we see, that the French edict of 1704 is preceded by a much more outrageous aggression on the part of England. We behold, too, another curious fact—that the practice of blocking whole countries at once by a dash of the pen, is not peculiar to the modern edicts of France and Great Britain. The same trait appears in this antique convention of 1689—and to the honor of Old England, be it spoken, she has still the merit of the invention.—So much for the first epoch.
The second Epoch is more important in itself, and much more so to the U. States. It is during those wars, that the U. States themselves first rose to the rank of an independent, neutral nation—that the encroachments of England and France upon the neutral rights of others were so many invasions of our own—that we were much the greatest neutral on the face of the globe—that we were not only the victims of the general injustice of the belligerents, but of some particular edicts, which were expressly and directly aimed at our commercial prosperity. The question therefore, now takes a higher hue. There is scarce a wrong inflicted on the seas, to which we are not a party—scarce one, which does not give us the right of remonstrance, resistance and retaliation.—This part of the discussion is scarce of less importance than that which touches the existing edicts of 1806 and 1807.
It is asserted in the Report, that during these disastrous times also, France has been the first and the most bitter violator of neutral rights.—On May 9th, 1793, it is said, that France authorised the capture of neutral vessels laden with provisions, belonging to neutrals, but bound to enemies' ports, and that this decree was prior, by one month, to the order of G. Britain of similar import. The Report then proceeds to enumerate the dates & imports of the subsequent decrees of France affecting neutral commerce. It is difficult to keep down our indignation, when we behold this list so formally paraded and that of British injustice so carefully suppressed. There is no enumeration—no expansion—not a single item of the whole list noted, except the provision order of June 1793, above alluded to. What becomes of the Convention between his Britannic Majesty and the Empress of Russia, signed at London on the 25th of March, 1793, more than one month before the French Arrete of '93—by which convention their Majesties reciprocally engage to take all the means "in their power for injuring the commerce of France," and preventing "other powers, not implicated in this war, from giving any protection whatever, directly or indirectly, in consequence of their neutrality, to the commerce or property of the French, on the sea or in the ports of France?" This prior convention, and the spirit in which it was understood by the contracting parties and acted upon by G. Britain, are most shrewdly forgotten.—All the other instructions to pirate neutral nations which were issued to British cruisers, are buried in the same grave. Even the sweeping instructions of May 16, 1806—blocking the whole coast from the Elbe to Brest, a distance of not less than 1200 miles—and supposed to have been
the precursor to the Berlin Decree of November—is not once deemed of sufficient importance to be noticed.—These omissions most distinctly display the feelings and propensities of the Essex Junto, and the Federalists who march with them. Hated to France and an overweening attachment to England are the great traits of their political character. To gratify the former, they would even "unfurl the republican banner against the imperial standard." To soothe their favorite Britain, they are ready to take her part against the interests of their own country, to denounce an administration which has supported our rights, and cling to a nation that has trampled them under foot.
Let these omissions be supplied.—Let a variety of material facts which are not noticed in this Report, be taken into consideration. The fallacy of this part of the Report will be apparent. It is true that the provision Arrete of France was one month prior to the public Order of England—but it is not true, that France has taken the lead in such aggressions. It is in vain to expect to shed any new light upon questions, which were so eagerly canvassed in the U. States during the years '95, '96, '97, '98, '99—and therefore we shall borrow from the ablest "Examination" that we have yet seen "into the origin of Neutral Spoliations." These numbers are preserved at full length in Carey's American Museum for 1798:
"There is among the records of the Department of State, clear and positive evidence, that England had deliberately matured and consummated the system of violating the neutral commerce above a month before the French decree of the 9th of May 1793. Our minister in London, Mr. Pinckney, communicated to our Secretary of State, in his letter of the 5th July, 1793, that Lord Grenville had explicitly and unreservedly avowed, that the captures of neutral vessels, as directed by the British order of the 8th June, 1793, to that end, were fully understood by both Russia and Great Britain, to be within the intention of the convention between them, which was signed by those two governments at London, on the 25th day of March 1793." (The words of the dispatch are; "Lord Grenville, on being asked, said Spain would pursue the same line of conduct, and upon its being objected that even their late convention with Russia did not extend to this object; he answered that though it was not expressly mentioned, it was fully understood by both parties, to be within the intention of it.")—From the extraordinary nature of that convention between Russia and G. Britain, from the distance between Petersburg and London, and from the season of the year, it cannot be doubted, that this important contract, which was mutually signed on the 25th of March, 1793, (and announced openly in the London newspapers of that day) must have been originated in the summer of 1792, by the Empress & the British king. In all the correspondence between our Secretary of State and Mr. Pinckney, and in the conferences and notes between the British Secretary of State and our Minister in London, we do not perceive the least suggestion of the influence of the example of the French Decree of the 9th of May, 1793. Such a plea could not possibly be made by Lord Grenville, who knew and avowed, that G. Britain had bound herself by a solemn compact with Russia, to observe the very conduct of which the neutral powers complained. Lord Grenville and the British minister here (Mr. Hammond) have, in their written communications, uniformly maintained, that it was regular and right, under the law of nations. The British government, no doubt, gave their first Orders to the commanders of their ships, as soon as the Convention with Russia was signed, that is, in March, 1793; and it is to be presumed, that the known detentions of neutral vessels in the British ports, so early as the autumn of 1792, and the captures of neutral vessels, which the French government assign as the justifying reasons of their act of May 1793, were made in consequence of the negotiation and completion of that convention and of those first orders. The English Secretary of State insisted on their right to adopt such measures, in his negotiation with our envoy (Mr. Jay) and in the formation of the existing treaty with the United States. It is not perceived, therefore, in what manner the French decree of May, 1793, can have produced this conduct of G. Britain.—Certainly France acted a very unwarrantable and imprudent part towards us and the other neutrals, in her decree of May, 1793. But having an immense population to support, and a prodigious band of sailors and soldiers to feed, almost completely shut in on the land side by the hostile Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain, expecting no grain from the swarming hive of Switzerland, and closely watched by the inimical fleets of Russia, Sweden, Holland, England, Spain, Portugal, and the Italian States, her just and founded apprehensions of a ruinous and distracting famine, appear to have been quickened by the instances of capture, some of which are particularly noticed, and others of which are expressly though generally noticed, in the decree of the convention."
These observations are conclusive.—They show, that during the last war France was not, as is pretended, the first violator of neutral rights.—Since this conclusion has been established, the Report of the Legislature of Massachusetts must fall to the ground. There is no room for that particular resentment and resistance, which they inculcate against the French government. Their favourite court of St. James's has done greater injuries, and deserves more of our resentment. It is useless to push these strictures any further.—The extracts which we have stated and the comments which we have made, will be a sufficient sample of the liberality and information of the patriotic Committee of Massachusetts. The rest is but of a piece with the part which we have noticed. Bonaparte Heretica.
Their observations upon the second resolution of Mr. Crowninshield are in the same fine vein of candour and generosity. Their delineation of the present state of our country, is grotesque and distorted: their course of policy, infuriated, wild and fraught with tyranny.
If our agriculture be destroyed & our commerce abroad cut off—what is the occasion of these calamities? Ask these gentlemen, and they will tell you, that it is not owing to French or British edicts, but to the withering touch of our own administration; that it is not the sword of Bonaparte, and that it is not the sword of G. Britain, but the thunder of G. Britain, but the weakness of Mr. Jefferson.
And what very brilliant proofs do they furnish of their own wisdom? They would have renewed Mr. Jay's commercial and maritime treaty with G. Britain—certainly this is one proof of their wisdom.
Upon the promulgation of the Berlin Decree, they would have annulled the French Convention, and dared a contest with that
power—although they should have demanded and received assurances of the non-execution of that Decree with respect to the U. States.—This is another proof of their wisdom.
And now they would pursue the same course of measures—they would "annul the Convention with France, forbid all commercial intercourse with the French dominions, arm our public and private ships, and unfurl the republican banner against the imperial standard." "Are you then old true-penny?" Surely this is the very pinnacle of wisdom, energy and patriotism. These gentlemen would select that nation as our adversary, who has been proved to be less forward and outrageous in her attacks upon us. They would sit down under the insults of a nation, whose attacks upon the neutral rights of the United States are more active and persevering—and who in addition to these, has violated our jurisdiction, impressed 2000 of our seamen, murdered our countrymen, insulted our sovereignty, and seeks to reduce us to the humble rank of tributaries. This is really the very consummation of political virtue and independence. These are the men who presume to censure the administration and to prescribe a course of measures for the interests and honor of their country.
These are the men who declaim about foreign influence in our national councils—who pretend to discern the finger of Bonaparte in all the measures of the republican party. Surely these men will hereafter have motives enough to cease to rail about the existence of French influence among us. For if such charges can be made, with how much greater plausibility and force might not the extent of British influence and the magic of British gold be now suspected!!
TO THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA. FELLOW-CITIZENS,
I am aware of the inequality of the contest in which I am forced to embark: I am supported in it only, by the firm reliance which I have on your candor and justice, and by the consciousness of my own purity, which I appeal to Heaven, in the most solemn manner to attest. I call upon you to do unto me as you would that others should do unto you: read my defence; and if I do not convince you of my innocence, and of the barbarous and dynamical injustice with which I have been treated, then, abandon me forever. I do not mean to impute to the House of Delegates, generally, any deliberate intention of humanity and tyranny: many of them knew not what they were doing. I have been informed of conversations held by several of the Delegates since their return to their respective counties, which afford the most conclusive proof that they did not even understand the report of their own committee. These misapprehensions will be noticed and exposed as I proceed with the examination of the report. They will not fail to have a proper effect upon your minds, because they will convince you that an act which ought to have been done on full knowledge and calm deliberation only, has been done, by many, in total darkness and ignorance of the facts and even of the statements for which they were voting. There were in the House of Delegates some gentlemen of very honorable principles and minds generally correct, who voted for the adoption of this report; but they took the facts on the statement of their committee; they felt indignant at the supposition of guilt, which it was their duty to have seen prove before they condemned; they took that upon credit, which they ought to have taken only upon evidence; and so highly were they excited by the idea that the state had been swindled and defrauded by my agency, that some of them were even unwilling to have a memorial read in the House, in which I prayed to be heard before I was condemned; although that memorial was couched in terms the most respectful and unexceptionable, and although those, who were thus stopping their ears against it, had not seen one atom of the proof on which their prejudices were founded. There were others in the House, who voted for the report under an impression, incredible as it may appear, that the report imputed nothing dishonorable to me; that it arraigned, merely, my supposed inattention in the purchase of iron and brass and inaccuracy in the mode of keeping the accounts: men who were, therefore, willing to have appointed me, again, as the superintendent, under the checks and restrictions of their new law. To these three classes of men the deliberate intention of injustice, cruelty and despotism cannot be fairly imputed; yet the effect upon my character and interests is the same, as if they had been impelled by the worst of motives. There was in the House, a small corps, not so innocent as those of whom I have been speaking; men who have been hostile to the manufacture of arms from its first foundation, and who have sought every opportunity of reviling and seeking to destroy it. The hostility of these men began before the armory commenced its operations; and therefore, cannot be reasonably ascribed to anything amiss in the operations themselves; unless the effect be supposed to exist before its cause.
If I am asked to what the hostility of these men is to be ascribed? I answer, that it might have proceeded from an honest conviction that the building of the armory was an impolitic measure; or it might have proceeded from that temper for mischief which is sometimes found to inhabit the breasts of men who feel that nature has denied them the talents to do good: that species of spiteful and envious depravity, which sickens at the sight of a work of lustre, rising by other hands; which sometimes supplies the place of intellect and enables even dullness and stupidity themselves, to do mischief with success. There was, I believe, another principle of action employed in this case; and one, the more dangerous and alarming, because more darkly and profoundly concealed, and, because it aimed at objects no less than the overthrow of the present form of our state government, and the separation of the state itself. This demands a development somewhat more full. A fact of public notoriety, here, may be unknown to many of you; to wit: that during the session of Assembly, in the winter of 1801-2, a caucus was, one night, publicly held in the capitol, in this city, on the suggestion of some one or more, of the back members, the object of which was, to deliberate on the division of the state of Virginia, and the erection of a separate government beyond the Ridge. Of this caucus, Daniel Sheffey, the self-created chairman of this committee, and author of the report against me, was a conspicuous member, and advocated the division of the state. At that time, there was, as I am advised, and still is, an act of Assembly in force, which declared every person guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, who shall attempt to establish any government within the commonwealth, separate from, or independent of the gov't of Virginia, unless by act of the legislature, & subjects the person convicted of such offence, to any pains & penalties, not extending to life or member, at the discretion of the court. This nocturnal caucus, however, was, nevertheless, held; but the project of disunion was defeated by the virtue and firmness of some of the back-country members themselves, who contended zealously and successfully for the unity and integrity of the commonwealth. But although defeated at that time, it has never been abandoned. On the contrary, it has shown itself repeatedly in various shapes; in loud and incessant complaints, that the back country is unequally represented, that the local interests of the western part of the state are crushed and over-rwhelmed by the great, preponderance of the eastern delegation, in important demands that a convention should be called to re-
form the Constitution, and when all these stratagems have failed, in perpetual and artful attempts to render the present form of government disgusting to the people, by heavy complaints, and strong charges against the various branches of the government, but chiefly against the Executive. These attacks upon the Executive, and attempts to render them odious to the people, are nearly as old as Mr. Sheffey's representative character. One of the most distinguished political articles by which that gentleman first brought himself into notice, was an assault upon the Executive, at the close of Gov. Monroe's administration. The history of that memorable attack is too voluminous to be here inserted, and having so recently occurred, the insertion of it, even if it might be confined within a narrow compass, is perhaps unnecessary: But those who are unacquainted with the particulars of that effort, fortunately, are unwilling, as it is odious, may obtain full information upon the subject, by referring to the Journal of the House of Delegates, Session 1802-3.
I refer to this circumstance, to show that the attack which has been recently made upon the Executive, through my sides, is a part only of a settled system of policy to undermine the constitution of the state. My ruin was merely incidental and subordinate to this grand scheme. It was known to the prime movers of this persecution, that I had never drawn, and had no power to draw one cent of the public money, but under the sanction of the Executive, and on the warrant of the Auditor: hence to convict me of drawing more money than I was entitled to, was to throw odium upon the Executive, and promote the great object of disgusting you with your government and disposing you to consent to a new convention. In that call of a convention, a few individuals, in the House, (for I impune this design, only to a few,) saw the consummation of all their hopes and wishes: the foundations of the present government loosened and torn up; the balance of legislative power preponderating to the west; or, in the etching and calvulisation of local interests, the state ript asunder, and a separate government formed beyond the Ridge.
Such is a general view of that House, to which at the eve of their adjournment, & after they had manifested the most marked impatience to rise, the long expected report of the armory committee, was at length brought down, and such was the state of mind in which that report was adopted—a great part of the members, either incapable of comprehending its calculations and statements, or unwilling to take the time and trouble to do it—another part, believing that the report contained nothing of criminal accusation, but merely charged me with neglect—another part, prepared by the intrigues and false statements of incendiaries, out of doors, to believe everything that was infamous of me—another, relying on the statements of the committee, and fired and blinded with honest indignation, at the imaginary wrongs done to their country—and the few, the more dangerous few, who contrived and worked the whole machinery, laughing in their sleeves at the storm which they had raised, felicitating themselves on the adroitness with which they had masked their favorite stratagem, behind a patriotic face, and enjoying, by anticipation, the downfall of the executive, & of the government. In this state of exasperation & feverish impatience to get to their families, I had but little hope of a calm and impartial hearing. I owed it, however, to myself and to my children, not to fall without a struggle. I prepared a memorial, in very great haste, but clothed in language of respect, which I addressed to the Speaker, and in which I endeavored to awaken the House to the recollection, that I was a Virginian, their fellow-citizen, and, according to the Bill of Rights and Constitution of my country, entitled to a hearing before I should be condemned. I complained that so far from being heard, I did not even know the charges which had been made against me, by the committee, having never so much as heard their report read. I stated, however, that I had collected from the information of those who had heard it, the principal charges which it contained, and I combated those charges in my memorial. I understood that they had charged me principally—1st. With neglect, in failing to procure the best iron: And 2ndly. With having drawn from the public treasury, under the sanction of the executive, more money than I was entitled to receive. I complained that I had, before the committee, offered evidence upon these points, which they had refused to hear. This evidence I again tendered to the House as conclusively repelling the charges against me—by showing—1. That I had made every effort, in the power of man, in Philadelphia, in Baltimore, and at various manufactories of iron, in this state, to procure the best that could be obtained; I offered to show that the number of gun-barrels, which had burst here, upon the proof, and which was supposed to demonstrate the bad quality of the iron, was not so great as the number which burst at the manufactory of Springfield, in Massachusetts, which is deemed the best institution on the continent, the Virginia manufactory excepted: On the 2nd point, I offered witnesses, (and among others, a magistrate of the county of Henrico, a man who has been since honored with a most decisive testimonial of the confidence of the legislature) to prove that every atom of the work, on which I had drawn a cent of money, had been really and truly done, and was richly worth the price which had been drawn for it. Had the evidence been heard, the whole fabric of the charges against me would have dissolved and vanished. Those, therefore, who were anxious to push the report through the House, opposed, most vehemently, the reading of the evidence, and in their vain, stood Daniel Sheffey, the chairman of the committee and father of the report.
A warm and animated debate ensued. The constitutional right, it was contended that to refuse to hear it, was to disfranchise a free man of his birth-right—to reduce him below the level of the vassal of a monarch—that it would be to practise against one of their own constituents, a degree of outrage, of tyranny and despotism, which ought not to be endured in a land of liberty, and which would be disgraceful to the legislature. But decided: the question on hearing the evidence was put and determined in the negative by a majority of three; seventy-three voting against the hearing and seventy for it. On the next day the proposition was renewed in a different form: it was proposed that the House should appoint a committee of three to take the depositions of my witnesses and examine the authenticity of the documents which I had tendered to the House. On this motion the debate beca still more ardent and anxious; and although in the course of it Mr. Sheffey who headed the opposition to me, admitted that my evidence, on the second point, was such as a court of justice could not refuse to hear, yet this motion was also lost by a majority of two, seventy-two voting in favor of the motion and seventy-four against it. For the accuracy of these statements as to the motions and the results, I appeal to the journals of the House, a copy of which every member carries home with him, and on the 121-22 and 23 pages of which, these proceedings will be found, together with the names of those who voted upon these questions. In consequence of this exclusion of my evidence, when the question came to be put on adopting the report of the committee, Mr. James Robertson, a member from Amelia, rose in his place and said "that the question which was about to be put, called upon him to pronounce upon the guilt or innocence of a fellow-citizen, of whose guilt or innocence he knew nothing: that on the one hand, the accusing evidence on which the committee had founded their report had never been seen by the House; and on the other, the defensive evidence had been unconstitutionally excluded not only from the view of the House but of the committee which had made the report. How he said was it possible for him to pronounce a man guilty upon evidence which he had never seen, & in the absence too, of other evidence, of an ex-
culpatory nature, which although entitled to see, he had not been permitted to see. Under these circumstances, he said, the course which alone appeared to him to be proper, was to leave the House and give no vote at all." He accordingly turned around immediately and left the House, & was followed by several other members. Another gentleman, Mr. Forbes, of Fluvanna, stated that he had voted for the introduction of the evidence; he thought it ought to have been heard; but since the House had determined to exclude it, he presumed that he was bound by the report of the committee." Twenty-one members voted against the report; on the ground that every man is to be presumed innocent until the contrary appears; and that guilt can never appear, legally and constitutionally, except on a full and fair examination of all the proof. Such are the circumstances under which the sanction of the House of Delegates has been gained to this report: the Senate never acted upon it.
I appeal to you now, fellow citizens, whether I ought to be considered as having the weight of the House of Delegates, against me. Seventy-two members of the House of Delegates think that I have not been fairly and justly treated; that I have been robbed of a constitutional right by the exclusion of that evidence which went to prove my innocence. Seventy-four, of whom none but a very few ever heard one title of the evidence on which the report is founded, thought it was right to vote me guilty without a hearing. Are you prepared to join this majority of two and cry down the character of a man whom you have not heard? Will you call these two the House of Delegates? You will find, if you will read my defence thoroughly, with patience and candor, how little reason and justice have had to do with my condemnation; how much precipitation, prejudice, ignorance and faction have had to do with it. These are strong terms: but if you had stood in the lobby of the House of Delegates during the discussions upon this subject, you would not have thought them too strong. You would have heard Mr. Sheffey, with the authority of a Danton or Robespierre, at the head of Jacobinical faction, and as if he were already in the very heat and frenzy of a revolution, denouncing members of the House under the name of "disorganizers," on no other provocation than their exercising their right of moving an adjournment, when the house had continued its session until candle-light. It is true that for so doing he had to submit to the humiliation of rehearsing a personal apology before the house, on the next day. But the incident serves to shew the high state of heat and irritation with which this fatal report was hurried through the house, and the encreased necessity which exists for a calm review of the case on the part of the people if it be their wish, as I hope it is, to do justice to an injured man.
JOHN CLARKE. WASHINGTON, Feb. 15.
SIR, I have duly received your favor of the 11th, covering resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia on our foreign relations, and an address to myself on my approaching retirement, and I ask leave, through the same channel, to return enclosed answer. Nothing can give me more sincere satisfaction than this kind and honorable testimony from the General Assembly of my native state, a state in which I have drawn my first, and shall draw my latest breath, and to which I retire with inexpressible pleasure. I am equally sensible of your goodness in the approving terms in which you have made this communication. The concurrence of a veteran patriot, who from the first dawn of the revolution to this day, has pursued unswervingly the same honest course, cannot but be flattering to his fellow laborers. I pray you to accept the assurances of my sincere esteem and respect.
TH: JEFFERSON. His Excellency, Governor TAYLOR. TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA.
I receive with peculiar sensibility the affectionate address of the General Assembly of my native state, on my approaching retirement from the office with which I have been honored by the nation at large. Having been one of those who entered into public life at the commencement of an era the most extraordinary which the history of man has ever yet presented to his contemplation, I claim nothing more, for the part I have acted in it, than a common merit of having, with others, faithfully endeavored to do my duty in the several stations allotted me. In the measures which you are pleased particularly to approve, I have been aided by the wisdom and patriotism of the national legislature, and the talents and virtues of the able coadjutors with whom it has been my happiness to be associated, and to witness valuable and faithful services I with pleasure and gratitude bear witness.
In the moment that, to preserve our rights, a change of government became necessary, no doubt could be entertained that a republican form was most consonant with reason, with right, with the freedom of man, and with the character and situation of our fellow-citizens. To the sincere spirit of republicanism are naturally associated the love of country, devotion to its liberty, its rights and its honor. Our preference of that form of government has been so far justified by its success, and the prosperity with which it has blessed us. In no portion of the earth where life, liberty and property ever so securely held: and it is with infinite satisfaction that, withdrawing from the active scenes of life, I see the sacred deposit of these blessings committed to those who are sensible of their value, and determined to defend them.
It would have been a great consolation to have left the nation under the assurance of a continued peace. Nothing has been spared to effect it: and at no other period of history would such efforts have failed to ensure it. For neither belligerent preceeds to have been injured by us, or can say that we have in any instance departed from the most faithful neutrality; and certainly none will charge us with a want of forbearance.
In the desire of peace, but in full confidence of safety from our unity, our position, and our resources, I shall retire into the bosom of my native state, endeared to me by every tie which can attach the human heart. The assurances of your approbation, and that my conduct has given satisfaction to my fellow-citizens generally, will be an important ingredient in my future happiness; and that the supreme ruler of the universe may have our country under his special care, will be among the latest of my prayers.
TH: JEFFERSON. Feb. 15, 1809.
The Governor pro tem. of Nova-Scotia, (Judge Croke) is called the president of the Province. Some small difference has arisen between him and the legislative body.
The Editor is absent for a few days.
A general meeting of the citizens of Richmond is requested at the Ball Tavern, this evening, at 6 o'clock, in order to express their sentiments on the present state of our public affairs, and make arrangements for celebrating the 4th of March.
Feb. 28.
ATTENTION!!!
MANCHESTER REPUBLICAN BLUES You are ordered to attend at your drill ground on Saturday the 4th of March next, prepare with one blank cartridges, to celebrate that day.
By order of the Captain, GEO: C. WILLIAMS, 1st Sergeant. February 26.
(c) See other instances in Grotius. Lib. 3, chap. 1. sec. 5, note 6. de jure belli & pacis. (d) The Boston Chronicle.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Debate on raising the Embargo, and authorizing Letters of Marque and Reprisal—Continued.
FEBRUARY 1.
Mr. Burwell said, as he intended to vote to fill the blank in the resolution with the first of June, he thought it proper to make some remarks on the policy which would govern his vote, and the effects which he conceived it would produce. With respect to the embargo laws (said Mr. B.) I always have understood that they were to cease in the spring or early in the summer. From that fact having been understood, the observation of my friend from Georgia, that we are compelled by the state of things in the Eastern country, to take off the embargo does not apply. The course now proposed, would be pursued, if those circumstances had not produced anxiety. I perfectly agree with the gentleman from Georgia, that it would be improper for this House to give up a wise and just measure, because an opposition to it exists in any particular portion of the country. But, sir, the embargo will certainly produce no effect as a coercive measure, as soon as it is understood that the opposition to it has become so serious as to endanger the public tranquility. Where we enter into a contest with the governments of Europe, which consists in patience and forbearance, it is not to be expected, when they find that a change of things is probable, that they will not persevere. They will hold out when they conceive that the measures of the government will be changed. Nothing is, to my mind, more clear than that this will be the effect produced on foreign governments, and that its coercive effect can only be calculated on whilst we have union in its support. It is a fact, owing to certain things which have taken place in a part of the United States, that its beneficial effects have, in a great measure, been destroyed by evasions which have heretofore taken place, and which will again take place where the people are disposed to connive at violations of the law. The effect of the measure must be destroyed, unless the government take measures to enforce it. If the House give a pledge that it shall expire at a certain time, I feel satisfied that every man will sit down quietly and encourage the execution of the law. As to violations of the law produced from actual suffering or pressure, I cannot bring my mind to a belief of it. I believe that the uneasiness in the Eastern country proceeded entirely from an idea that the embargo originated in an intention to destroy commerce, and to favor foreign nations in preference to another; and that if they had not their feelings excited by this perversion of fact, they would bear the measure as well as other citizens. This has produced this restlessness; and when a course is pursued which will do away the anxiety on this subject, I believe they will bear the measure with patience.
As I am decidedly of opinion that when the embargo ceases, if the causes which produced it do not cease, this nation must go to war, not in defense of petty commercial rights, but of rights which involve the sovereignty of the nation, I am disposed to put off the period at which it shall commence, that we may have another opportunity to appeal to the interests (not to the justice) of the belligerents; which, in my opinion, will produce a beneficial effect. What will be the effect of passing the latter part of the resolution offered by my colleague? Why, that if the orders and decrees be not withdrawn before a certain day, letters of marque and reprisal will be issued against both belligerents, or against the one which perseveres. Now will this affect our disputes abroad? If France receives from her decrees and Great Britain rescinds her orders, of course we shall then be at peace with both. Suppose France were to refuse, and Great Britain were to think proper to withdraw her orders in consequence, what would then be the state of things? You stand involved in a war with France, because you have pledged yourself, and you are the only branch of the government who can make such a pledge. Mr. Canning in his letter of the 23d of September, seems to have founded an objection to a proposition made by Mr. Pinkney, because he did not make it directly and officially from his government, but as an expression of his opinion, that it would be agreed to by his government. I repeat then, that if this House will take the ground proposed, the assurance is strong that they will withdraw their orders in council; they certainly will, if they choose to see the United States involved in the prosecution of the war against France. I submit it to gentlemen whether it be of sufficient importance that we should bear this embargo till the 1st of June, to leave to the government power to make that sort of offer, and present that result to the European belligerents. Our administration has heretofore had no power to make such a pledge; but if the measures of Congress would authorize the President to make such an offer of alternatives, I think it would produce an adjustment.
But is objected to, as pledging the next Congress, as passing a law now, to govern them when they meet. If any thing should happen between now and the next meeting of Congress, would it not be perfectly competent to them to repeal the law in whole or in part? Nothing can be more clear or evident than that you will not embarrass the succeeding Congress or mark out for them a course which they will be compelled to pursue. I should be the last man, in this House, who would intimate any thing like a new proposition to either of the belligerents, were it not for the last letter of Mr. Canning, in which he expresses a hope to Mr. Pinkney that they shall still be able to settle the differences between the two nations on amicable terms. When they express a desire of that kind, I should always be ready to meet them. Whether the desire be sincere or not, it is not for me to say, but I am disposed to accommodate them with an opportunity of proving their sincerity. It would unite us—and this state of things, in my opinion, aided by the events taking place in Europe, will induce them to accommodate with us. Every body knows how the hopes of the British government and people were elated by the events taking place in Spain. In proportion as their hopes, from that quarter diminish, they will feel more disposed to enjoy that commerce which they have lost by their own imprudence and illiberality. It is objected that by this course, you will apprise the belligerents of the time when you will commence hostilities, and by that means will enable them to escape the effect of your intended measures of hostility. But, sir, it is well known that it was expressly understood that Congress is to meet here in May; and that whenever the measure of the embargo is removed, some stand will be taken to avenge the injuries of this country. I will ask, if the act for an extra session is not evidence sufficiently strong of this determination. But how could you surprise them, sir? They have no property in this country, for they have already withdrawn it. Their merchandise are generally armed, and commerce operations when you may, you will find no material change in the preparations of the belligerents.
The proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts for arming our merchant vessels, and permitting them to wage a defensive war, appears to me to be the most unfortunate of all courses, if you mean seriously to defend our maritime rights; if you permit your merchant vessels to arm, they will all go out incapable of resistance; and even if they are bound to some neutral port, if any occurrence shall take place which shall compel you to involve yourself in war, the whole of your property abroad is within the reach of the British navy, and she might
take a step to secure the whole floating property of the United States. That war will be the consequence, I cannot doubt, and you will commence it under every disadvantage. After your property is taken, you will fight in vain for its recovery. I think that we should either defend these rights or give them up. If we maintain them, let us rely upon our own resources and upon our own exertions. This will completely defeat one motive for laying the embargo, which has so far secured our property and rendered us invulnerable to the attacks of the enemy.
A gentleman from New-York (Mr. Gardenier) who spoke on the subject yesterday, observed that you were about to take a course to deceive the people; that you were about but to continue the embargo under a different name. Now I am much mistaken, sir, if that be a fair inference from the state of things which would exist even in case of a war with Great Britain. Is it not known by every gentleman that we had a commerce even during the revolutionary war? To be sure it was not as extensive or as lucrative as in a state of peace. But can any gentleman believe now, when our enterprise is at least as great and our opportunity greater, that our merchants could not carry on commerce better than they could then? Certainly. Notwithstanding all the exertions of Great Britain in guarding your coast, you may carry on commerce. But what does that argument amount to? Does the gentleman from New-York wish, because a particular portion of the country could now carry on a lucrative commerce notwithstanding the orders in council by selling their product in the British markets, that the whole interest of every other section of the union should be given up? Are the great interests of the country to be completely given up, because one class of people would receive relief from it? Of what consequence is it to us to cultivate the soil, if we are restricted to a particular market, which, it has been shown does not comprise one seventh of our product? Is this the policy which gentlemen think we ought to pursue? As for legislating for a particular section of the union, the doctrine is a novel, so inconsistent with the very object of government, that I am astonished that any gentleman on this floor should advance opinions of this sort. If we are to yield to these orders in council, to permit the external commerce of the United States to be taxed by Great Britain, let us go the whole length. It is not to be expected that those regulations which now exist to favor the carrying trade of a particular class of the people can be persevered in, if we are obliged by them to submit to taxation. If we are forced to submit, at least let us have our produce carried to market as cheap as we can, and not in addition to foreign taxes pay a tax at home, by way of bounty to the shipping of the eastern states.
It has been asked by some gentlemen, what are you going to war for? A gentleman from Connecticut asks if you are going to war for the principle that free ships make free goods? Is that a candid question, sir? The United States have given up that principle as far back as the treaty of 1794. It was abandoned in the correspondence of the Secretary of State with Genet in 1794. However, the gentleman justify it to himself in holding out to the nation that we are going to war for a principle formerly advocated? I put it to the gentleman whether the cause of quarrel between us should be made to rest on a principle not at all in contest? Another gentleman from Connecticut says he will go as far as any gentleman in defending the honor of his country. I have no doubt of it, sir; for the gentleman by an honorable service in the revolutionary war has already proved it. No doubt, if the gentleman from Connecticut could, like myself, believe that the independence of the nation is prostrated if we submit to these effects, he would be as little disposed to submit to them as I am. But sir, when he placed the question on commercial ground altogether, and left it to the calculation of the merchant whether he would pay taxes or not, I am not surprised that we differ. It is no new thing to differ about the seat of honor. But I cannot bring myself to believe that the affairs of this nation are totally absorbed in the interest of the merchant. It is immaterial to the merchant what is his situation. The risk is always added to the value of the merchandise in the sale, and subtracted in the purchase; it is always so managed as to give the merchant a profit in the end. If the whole commerce of the United States was restricted to a traffic between Philadelphia and New-Orleans or Mobile, the merchant would find his profit in carrying on that commerce. But that is not a reason why the agricultural part of the community should be rendered subservient to the commercial, or that we should be saddled with a system which will be ruinous to agriculture forever, because merchants cannot now make money. I conceive the interest of agriculture to be materially connected with that of commerce; I mean free unrestricted commerce; but I do not conceive that it will be promoted by permitting the merchant to trade, and submitting agriculture to ruinous taxation.
Another question has been asked by the other side of the House, which deserves some answer. It is asked what we should gain by a war with Great Britain? I do not expect, sir, that we should destroy the British navy or invade the island of Great Britain. But we shall be very fortunate if by war we save our honor, our standing as a free nation. Let us not submit and lose every thing in a pecuniary point of view, and our honor besides; for that must be the consequence of submission. We shall be in a worse situation than Francis, after the battle of Pavia, every thing will be lost. But gentlemen say, why go to war, when you have no way of operating on the belligerents? Because we will not submit to an abandonment of our rights. I do contend that we have the means. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Pitkin) used a strong argument the other day to prove it. He said that our embargo, so far as it operated on the British West Indies was a nullity. Because Canada and Nova Scotia furnish them with every thing that they want; that the British northern provinces were the means of feeding the West India islands, notwithstanding your regulations. Now, if by getting possession of Canada, you could in that way effect other possessions and interests of Britain, it is important to have possession of it. The gentleman from Connecticut gave strong reasons why we ought to dispossess Great Britain of Canada, proving how we could in that way operate on her interests. It is well known too that the possession of that government gives her an opportunity to operate against you, to excite not only the Indians out of our limits to direct warfare if necessary, but by merchandise and intrigue, to excite them within our own country. And though I would not risk the peace of the country to free us from evils of that kind, yet if we were forced into war, by more irresistible causes, I should certainly consider this collateral advantage gained by it important. Have we not already seen the peace and internal tranquility of the country disturbed by their influence amongst the Indians? Certainly we have; and I wish to see an end to it.
There is another reason, sir, why the United States should view with extreme uneasiness the proximity of that country in possession of a foreign power. It gives them means of interfering in our political concerns; and, as has been said in another part of this building, they have excited those means in our country. To them is owing the unfortunate belief in a part of the country, that the majority of this House is actuated by improper motives. The expulsion of the British from Canada, has always been deemed an object of first importance to the peace of the United States, and their security against the inroads of an enemy; however for party purposes its importance may be now depreciated. [See Journal of old Congress, June 1775, and Washington's instructions to Arnold—Marshall L. W. p. 315.] And, sir, whilst on this subject, I will observe, that when I hear gentlemen upon the o-
ther side of the House complain of their motives being assailed, I am tempted to ask them why they are not more tender of our motives? Can they point out any individuals in the majority who are not as firmly bound to their country's good by the ties of kindred, property and every thing dear to man, as they have? I presume not; and whilst they exclaim against irritation, why do they not observe the course which they recommend to us, towards their political opponents, men who have as strong claims to courage or to patriotism as themselves? What have we been told by gentlemen on the opposition side of the House, who have charged you so repeatedly with a desire to involve the nation in a war with Great Britain? Why, sir, that you could not be driven into a war. Was it to have been expected, that after all the irritation and all the sensibility produced in certain sections of the union by a charge that you were endeavoring to plunge the people into a war with Great Britain, that a declaration of this kind would be made? I confess I was not prepared for it. Is the house disposed to verify the prediction of the gentleman from Massachusetts, that we cannot be driven into a war with Great Britain, or with any other nation? This is assigning the nation a low station in the ranks of honor, they are put out of them altogether. For I do from my soul believe that the course proposed in the resolution, if adopted, will terminate in a settlement of our differences with Great Britain; and in the present course of the world, when we have received from France so little justice and liberality, we are only restained from renewing intercourse with Great Britain, because a renewal under present circumstances would not comport with our honor, certainly not with our interest. If we would enable us to renew our intercourse with her on terms which would not disgrace an independent nation, I would certainly renew intercourse with her; but I cannot do it with a nation which afflicts us as one of her acknowledged colonies. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Pitkin) who spoke on this subject a few days since, furnished, I think, one of the strongest reasons why we should not for a moment admit the idea of retaliation in justification of the British orders. He told you, supposing the Emperor of China were to issue a decree declaring the British island in a state of blockade, it would be a mere nullity. The argument is correct. And I ask in return, whether a menace so perfectly empty, so merely brutum fulmen (use an expression of a gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Key) would justify so ruinous a retaliation as that adopted by Great Britain. It has been said that the French decree, and Berlin was not of more effect than the similar decree of the Emperor of China would be. If this be the fact, and I do not contest it, how is it possible that the British government could justify the right for that reason to take a measure so ruinous to this country? The gentleman went on to quote the opinion of the Secretary of State and others, to prove that his position in relation to the helplessness of the French decree is correct. I admit, sir, and it furnishes the strongest possible reason why the claim of Great Britain should not be acknowledged; and proves to my mind that the practice of the necessity of obtaining was an immense and awful profession intended to gull us and disgrace her own injustice.
The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Pitkin) gave us a most glowing description of the power of France; told us that all the world was prostrate at her feet, and Spain was about to be overrun by her arms. Sir, if I am not much mistaken in the view which I have taken on the subject, France is weaker now than she was before the Spanish revolution; nor, if she succeeds in the conquest of Spain, do I believe that she will be more powerful, because she formerly not only actually commanded that government, but the Spanish colonies. The French have not received from the Spanish colonies in South America less than from twenty to thirty million of dollars annually. As for Portugal, her neutrality at the price of six millions of dollars annually, France has lost not only that, but the Portuguese colonies also; and I we judge of the importance of these colonies by the measures pursued in England to get their commerce, we should be induced to see their commerce, we should be induced to suppose that the resources of France are seriously impaired by losing them. But granting all the gentleman's premises, what does his argument amount to? Is there any man who doubts the disposition of France to use all the influence in her power over us? Is there any doubt that if we were weaker France we should be attempted to be reduced under her dominion? There can be no doubt of it. We have seen such a system pursued to her neighbors, that no man can doubt it. Is not the happiness of this people sufficient to tempt this conqueror in the fullness of his power to blot from the history of the world an example which must set in the most odious colors the present situation and past history of France? There can be no doubt that every European government must feel a hostility to this government. It is a standing reproach to their policy, and a dangerous example to their people; though I fear, sir, that scarcely one-tenth of the population of the extensive continent of Europe know that such a continent as this exists. Yet the existence of this government operates to produce jealousy and alarm in those governments. Admit, I repeat, that France is so powerful, are we in any danger from France? I believe not. How could she operate on you? What has become of her West India Islands? Has she been able to preserve even those from the hands of her enemy. She has not secured them—and can it be believed that she could transport a force here? I beg gentlemen to put this question to themselves: Is it possible to believe that if there was any effort made in France to attack us, we should not with one heart and hand unite against her? If there be a gentleman who feels a doubt, his reason must be under the dominion of a suspicion I do not envy, and which I should be sorry to feel for any portion of the people of my country: It is this country should be engaged in a contest with France at this time, what would be the consequence of our relative situation? Every one knows that our population is increasing so rapidly as will soon give us a force sufficient to resist any effort, even the combined efforts of all Europe.
Here the gentleman's argument comes properly into view. He considers the safety of the United States as depending on the British navy which presents a barrier to the transportation of French troops. Admit, for a moment, that our security against invasion does, in some degree, depend on the British navy. Does that operate as a reason why we should not resist that nation, when attacked in a vital manner? Certainly not. Have we any object in view in resisting British aggression which will weaken the naval force of Great Britain? I believe not. There is not a principle which we ask of her that can affect her prosperity or interests, unless it be to not her reorganize the revenue she has collected from our commerce. And are gentlemen willing to contribute to the support of the British navy by submitting to final regulations of that sort? Certainly not. Admitting then that the British navy is the barrier between us and France, one wishes to do not go to impair the strength of her navy. They will add an additional strength to it by giving her markets of infinite importance, and give her supplies, which will increase rather than depreciate her system of defence. But let us admit, for a moment, that the effect of our opposition to the extortion of Great Britain, would be to destroy or weaken her navy. Is it possible that gentlemen could, to avoid a contingent evil from a foreign nation, which injures us, consent to sacrifice the independence of our nation, and submit to present for fear of future domination? No, sir. You would have nothing worth keeping, if you lost your independence. Then let us maintain it as long as we have the means. But why should gentlemen urge that argument upon you
—an argument intended to prevent any thing like resistance to Great Britain, at the very moment when they tell you that a war with her would be ruinous to you? They laugh at the idea of affecting Great Britain, and say she will crush you in a moment; and yet you are called upon not to resist her, lest, by so doing, you overturn or jeopardize her at pleasure, and destroy the barrier between you and France. I ask gentlemen if these arguments do not destroy each other? I really have listened to arguments of this sort with astonishment: that gentlemen in one breath should say that you can do nothing to injure Great Britain, and in the next breath, caution us against proceeding in your operations against her, lest you should create a degree of pressure which shall destroy that invincible power whom you cannot touch. But it has appeared to me that this very argument which has had a great deal of weight in the nation, which has cooled many who would be disposed, under other views of the subject, to defend the rights of the nation, is utterly out of the question. The gentleman says that commercial restrictions are useless; that if you prevent foreign nations from coming to your custom house, they will smuggle. Sir, the only means by which Great Britain can be vitally attacked or destroyed, is, by this sort of regulation which the gentleman says is nothing. The mode in which the commerce of Great Britain is attacked on the continent of Europe, is by excluding her commerce from the ports of that country. If so, and the gentleman says it is harmless, how is the existence of Great Britain endangered by this formidable combination on the continent? And yet, sir, I understood that to be the drift of the gentleman's whole argument. As for the commercial resources, capital and money, which that nation has to sustain itself against any other nation, nothing is more clear to me than that she possesses them now as much as ever she did. I consider her more safe, infinitely more safe than she ever has been; that she is in no sort of danger. That argument may be retorted on me, and I may be asked why would I contend with a nation which I admit to be so strong. I shall certainly admit that we could not destroy the British navy, or coerce her to any terms which would be degrading to herself; nor would I ever wish it. Whilst I feel for the honor of my own government, I should never wish that any government should commit its rights to any demand of the United States.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) yesterday seemed to be much at a loss to conceive how the United States could enter into the triple war. The gentleman placed the subject in a laughable point of view, and I was certainly amused by his wit though not convinced by his arguments. But, sir, if we were to commence hostilities against both these nations, would any man believe that the war against both would continue for any length of time? Certainly not; there can be no doubt that one of them would meet you on such terms as to enable you to carry on the combat against the other, till your rights were acknowledged. The gentleman ought to have recollected, when he combated this idea of fighting centrally, that it originated on that side of the House. What has been the complaint on that side of the House. Why that we did not maintain our neutrality, by making our commercial measures operate with strict impartiality against both of the belligerents. If our measures operate equally on both, it will have proved that we were not more hostile to one than to the other, and thus one strong source of objection to our measures will be removed.
To call upon gentlemen on the other side of the House most seriously to consider this proposition, and to view it in the aspect in which I have presented it. If I know myself I am sincerely anxious to preserve peace with both these belligerents. I do believe that the result which I have mentioned would follow the course proposed to the House; that if France would recede from her decrees your peace would be settled with both; that England would then revoke her orders of course, as the only ground on which she has ever persisted, they would be removed. If France refuses, it will enable the British government to accommodate with you to make you her friend, and throw you in the scale against her enemy. If gentlemen view the subject as I do, they will concede that there is but one course proper to be pursued—to persevere in the embargo till this intelligence of our determination can have reached Europe and an answer be received. For if you take off the embargo to-morrow, whether the House determines to defend its rights by defensive war or endure them by offensive war, the effect which I propose will be destroyed because, if you take off the embargo, I shall be egregiously mistaken if we are not involved in war in six weeks or two months, and a war too in which you will lose all your property on the seas at one sweep. I think, therefore, that gentlemen seriously disposed to cultivate peace with those nations will enforce the embargo; for if it be not enforced, I too, shall be for taking it off. The state of things in Europe now, is particularly favorable to this appeal; and I am convinced that such is the respect which gentlemen owe to the people whom they represent, some course must be taken to support our rights, and not, by submission, endanger the peace & independence of this country for ever. I have expressed my views, sir, of the subject. The House will decide for themselves, and take the course which they think fit. If they determine to take off the embargo on the 15th February, or any other day before the first of June, however I may lament it, I will co-operate in taking other measures.
(Debate to be continued.)
(BY AUTHORITY.)
LAW OF THE UNITED STATES.
AN ACT
Supplemental to an act, entitled "An act for extending the terms of credit, on revenue bonds, in certain cases, and for other purposes."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the payment of all bonds given subsequent to the date of the act to which this act is a supplement, for duties on coffee, sugar, pepper, indigo, cocoa, and wine, paying a duty of twenty-three cents per gallon, and which remain unpaid, or for the same articles which may arrive hereafter, in any of the ports of the United States, and whilst the act, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports & harbors of the United States," shall continue in force, may be suspended, subject, however, in all respects, to the conditions and provisions made and provided in the act of the tenth of March, one thousand eight hundred and eight, to which this act is a supplement: Provided, That nothing herein contained, shall be construed to extend to importations made in vessels dispatched under permissions granted by the President of the United States in pursuance of powers in him vested by the second section of the act, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports & harbors of the United States."
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if the amount of any bond given for the payment of duties on the importation of coffee, sugar, pepper, indigo, cocoa or wine, paying a duty of twenty-three cents per gallon, made subsequent to the passage of the act to which this is a supplement, and which bond would, by virtue of this act, have been entitled to an extension of credit, shall have been previously paid, the money so paid, shall by the proper collector be refunded to the person or persons who shall have paid the same, or to his, her or their agent or agents, on his or their giving a bond with sureties, in the same manner and on the same terms, conditions and
restrictions, and on a compliance of the person or persons receiving the indulgence hereby granted, with all the provisions of the act to which this is a supplement.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. GEO: CLINTON, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. January 12, 1809. APPROVED, TH: JEFFERSON.
VALUABLE PROPERTY, FOR SALE—The owners have become desirous of selling that well known, and valuable Property, the WARM SPRINGS, lying in Bath county, with all the Land and Tenement, belonging thereto, or they will sell the Springs with 5 or 6 hundred acres of Land. It would be useless to say any thing about the situation of those Springs, and their great Medical qualities, with the superior advantages attached to them, over any of the other Mineral Waters in this country. As it is presumed that no one will attempt to purchase, who is not well acquainted with them, or who will view the property before they purchase. Any communication on this subject, addressed to the Subscriber, will be speedily attended to.
CHARLES A. LEWIS. Warm Springs, December 10. oawSmf
N. B. A considerable prompt payment will be expected, and a few likely young NEGROES taken.
MANCHESTER FEMALE ACADEMY. The public, and the friends to this institution, are respectfully informed, that the business of this Academy is carried on with zeal and assiduity. The various branches of elegant Needle-Work, Drawing, French, &c. taught by Miss Chandler, who was brought up and educated by Mrs. O'Reilly, and assisted as governess in the School for three years. The Musical department by Mr. Videmeyer, (an eminent Musician) The English by Mr. O'Reilly, viz. Reading in prose and verse, Writing and Arithmetic, History and Geography. The management of the domestic affairs, being under the direction of a lady of experience and tenderness in the care of children; boarders will be received, on moderate terms, who will have the benefit of additional tuition before and after school hours. February 7. oaw4w
CASH will be given for four or five Negro MEN, and as many good work HORSES Apply to the Editor of this paper. February 14. tf
LANDING from the Schooner RICHMOND, Isaac Seaman, Master:— 30 Boxes Raisins, 10 Boxes Soft Shelled Almonds, 5 Casks Green Coffee, 19 Barrels Prime Pork, and 1 Pipe London Particular Madeira Wine. IN STORE. 17 Hogsheads Brown Sugar, 25 do do Molasses, 5 Tierces Hay much Segars, 3 Boxes Welsh Hanes, Family Flour in barrels and half barrels, Young Hyson, Hyson Skin and Soucong Tea, 10 Boxes Mould Candles, FOR SALE BY, GEORGE WATT. January 17. tf
NOTICE.—Cash given for Northern & Southern Bank NOTES at a moderate discount by SIMPSON MORRIS. Richmond Dec. 14.
WILL be offered for sale, to the highest bidder, on the premises, on the 9th day of March, if fair, otherwise the next fair day, two tracts of LAND, containing ninety-two acres & a half each, in the upper end of Henrico county, is, deceased. Any person wishing to view it may apply to Mr. Midler Redford, who owns a part of said tract. There are about two TRACTS in the lower end of Goodland county, same number of acres as above. Any person wishing to purchase the same, it will be shown them by Jess Cured, which Land joins him. ALSO, fourteen or fifteen NEGROES, consisting of Men, Women and Children. Also, some household FURNITURE, &c. Twelve months credit on all sums above ten dollars, and bond with approved security to the commissioners will be required by them, approved of by TEE ATTORNEYS. February 17. tf
JOHN ALCOCK, informs his friends, and the public, that he is carrying on his CABINET MAKING BUSINESS, in all its branches where he makes all kind of Mahogany Furniture in the best manner, and on the newest fashions. Any gentlemen or ladies wanting any Furniture, will find good work executed, and on low terms, as can be brought in New-York, or any other place. Any orders left at my shop, in the Cross-Street, adjoining Professor and Moncure's Vendue Store, or at Mr. George Greenough's where I keep my Ware-Room, will be pointedly attended to, and great care taken to deliver it in good order. N. B. Two Apprentices wanted at the above business, who can come well Recommended. January 17. tf
TO THE PUBLIC.—Whereas, in consequence of various supposed provocations, I have been induced, at sundry times, to utter and publish severe and unmerited strictures on the conduct and character, of my late partner, Mr. John Lisle, of this city—Now feel myself called upon, in justice to that gentleman, and in conformity with the advice of my friends, thus to avow my regret at having been instrumental to the injury of his feelings or character. (Signed) MACALL MEDFORD. Witness, GEORGE RUNDLE. Philadelphia, Jan. 23, 1809.
In consequence of the above, and the solemn declaration of Mr. Macall Medford, that he is unable to discharge the monies I claim of him, I have agreed to discontinue my pursuit of said claim, and my intention of prosecuting him for a libel. JOHN LISLE, Late JOHN LISLE Jr. Philadelphia, Jan. 23, 1809. tf
FOURTEEN thousand eight hundred and seventy acres of LAND, for sale on Seneca creek, in the county of Pendleton—By virtue of a Deed in Trust, executed by Robert Barklay to Richard Gaines, to secure the payment of the sum therein mentioned, I shall, on the 17th day of March next, before the door of the Eagle-Tavern, in the city of Richmond, sell to the highest bidder, for cash, the aforesaid land being in one entire tract. An unquestionable title will be made to the purchaser. HARRY GAINES, Trustee. February 10. tf
JOHN KING, has just received an additional supply of Fancy and other GOODS, which he will sell at his usual cheap rates for cash. February 7. tf
Merchant's, Lawyer's, Sheriff's and Constable's BLANKS, For Sale at this Office.