Virginia Argus (Richmond, Va.), 1808-04-22 00:00:00

VIRGINIA ARGUS.
[XVIIth YEAR.]
A FREE PRESS MAINTAINS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.
[No. 1452.]
RICHMOND:—PRINTED (ON TUESDAYS AND FRIDAYS) BY SAMUEL PLEASANTS, JUNIOR, PRINTER TO THE COMMONWEALTH.
[Four Dollars Per Annum—Paid in Advance.]
FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1808.
[12 1/2 Cents Single.]
DELINQUENT SUBSCRIBERS to the Argus, and others, indebted to the printer hereof, either for advertising, hand-bills, or books furnished from his store, are earnestly solicited to make payment. Those who reside in the city and neighborhood, will be waited on shortly with their accounts; and as the printer has some heavy engagements of a pecuniary nature to meet, he hopes that they will be prompt in making payment. Those who live at a distance, and to whom personal applications cannot be made, it is expected will transmit the amount due thro' the post-office, or send it by some neighbor coming to this place. The delinquent subscribers to this paper, will doubtless do the printer the justice to a knowledge, that he has been indulgent, very indulgent indeed; for many of them (good men) are from six to eight and ten years in arrears. This in many instances, has been the fault of the printer; for he candidly confesses that a great number have not been applied to for years past—and, the inability of agents having been experienced, (except in a few instances,) but few accounts have lately been sent to them. About twenty-six hundred papers are weekly emitted from this press, for which article (paper) alone, an advance in cash, of from twenty-five to thirty dollars per week is made, exclusive of journeyman's wages, the wear of types and presses (heavy items indeed in the account,) and which are obliged to be renewed every fourth or fifth year, at the expense of some hundreds of dollars—all these considerations ought to have their due weight with our delinquent subscribers. From these causes it results, that an establishment, which ought to be very productive, has been quite the reverse; and the proprietor, after years of hard labor, subjected to many privations, and a sacrifice of health from his close application to business, finds himself in no better situation, except as to an increased number of open accounts on his books, than he was ten years ago—it being (to him) a melancholy fact, that, instead of an annual profit of from twelve to fifteen hundred dollars, there has not been actually received from this source sufficient to meet the current expenses of the year. Fifteen years will have elapsed on the 15th of this month (April) since the printer of this paper commenced the publication of a republican newspaper in Richmond, during which time, he has labored faithfully and conscientiously, to the best of his abilities, in the arduous undertaking, and he hopes and trusts not altogether in vain. He will take this opportunity to express his gratitude to a numerous list of punctilious subscribers, who have enabled him to pursue his labors thus far—and his thanks to a number of literary and patriotic gentlemen, who, from time to time, have enriched his columns with their valuable productions.
N. B. The great scarcity of money, and the low price of produce at present, may render it inconvenient to some of our customers to pay cash. From such, the printer will receive (during the continuance of the embargo) corn, flour, corn-meal, or fine wood at the market prices.
Argus Office, April 5th, 1808.
For Sale or Rent, THE HOUSE, OFFICE & STABLE, with an excellent garden, all in good order, and a pears orchard occupied by Mr. Samuel P. Parsons, joining major Prior, on the Hay-Market square. For particulars apply to JASPER ROBBINS, at Mr. JOHN MCENERY'S.
Feb. 24, 1808
TO RENT The House and Lot, At present occupied by Mr. Ezekiah Mosby pleasantly situated on Shockoe Hill and very convenient for the accommodation of a family—Possession may be had on the 3d March next, when Mr. Mosby's time will expire Thomas Elliott. Richmond, 29th Jan. 1808
REMOVAL. WE have removed our Countinghouse to the house immediately below, and contiguous to the one we have hitherto occupied, where we have for sale, Mucovado Sugar by the hogshead or barrel, Sherry Wine, in quarter casks, and a few cases Old Claret of superior quality. ROBERT & ALLAN POLLOCK, & Co. March 5, 1808. (11)
I AM desirous to exchange the following property, or any part thereof, as may be agreed on, for a small tract of good land, in a healthy situation, with a dwelling house and other improvements, a good spring of water, and a agreeable neighborhood. At a distance of 30 to 100 miles from the city.—To say for Houses in this city—Lands in Henrico county, joining the academy lands, and near this city—2,000 acres on Richland creek, in Louisa county, Kentucky—1,000 acres on the waters of the Ohio, in Mason county—and two tracts of Military Lands on the river Tennessee, each 800 & 230 acres. Robert Mitchel. Richmond, Feb. 6, 1808.
NOTICE. THE Subscribers having formed a connection in business, under the firm of HOVEY & SIZER, offer for sale, at the Store lately occupied by Mr. Charles J. Blackburn, the following articles: 50 bds. N.E. Rum. 15 bds. loaf and lump sugar, 12 bags of pepper 9 ton of bar lead 10 boxes cotton and wool cards, 25 boxes candles 15 boxes N. York chocolate 25 trunks of shoes assorted 50 terces Stone Lime. HENRY HOVEY, JAMES SIZER.
ALL PERSONS who are indebted to the Subscribers are requested to make immediate payment. No other indulgence will be given to those whose bonds and accounts have been due six months. HENRY HOVEY. April 5th, 1808 ep5w
Map of Virginia For Sale at this Office.
LETTER
From Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State, dated Richmond, February 28th, 1808.
PART IV. Accompanying the message of the President of the United States, received the 22d March, 1808.
SIR,
It appears by your letter of May 20th, 1807, which was forwarded by Mr. Purdie to Mr. Pinkney and myself, at London, and received on the 16th July, that you had construed several articles of the treaty, which we had signed with the British commissioners, on the 31st of December, 1806, in a different sense from that in which they were conceived by us. As the course we were instructed to pursue, by your letter of February 3d, with regard to that treaty, which was confirmed in that of May 20th, was in no degree dependent on our construction of any of its articles, or on the political considerations which induced us to sign it, we deemed it unnecessary to enter into any explanation in reply, either of our construction of its articles, or of the political considerations alluded to. We thought it more consistent with our duty, to look solely to the object of our instructions, and to exert our utmost efforts to accomplish it; and we acted in conformity to that sentiment. The result of those efforts was made known, by the documents which I had the honor to present to you, when I was lately at Washington, being copies of a joint dispatch, which Mr. Pinkney and I had forwarded by Mr. Rose. We had flattered ourselves, that it might have been practicable to obtain the amendments of the treaty which the president desired, as the state of affairs in Europe had become more favorable to such a result; but in that we were disappointed. We found no difficulty in accomplishing the other object, of setting it aside, as we were instructed to do, in case the proposed amendments were not acceded to.
At this time there is no objection to such an explanation, that I am aware of, and there are many reasons why it should be given. You will be sensible that, so far as an unfavorable estimate is entertained of that transaction, it must, in the degree, tend to injure those who gave it the sanction of their names; and you will be equally sensible that, if the U. S. are in any degree interested in it, at this time, it must consist in its being viewed in a just, rather than an unfavorable light. In retiring from the station which I have lately held, this is the last act of public and private duty, which I have to perform, in relation to it. It is to me, in many views, a painful duty, but still it is one which it is highly incumbent on me to execute.
It is far from being my desire to compromise Mr. Pinkney, in this letter, in the slightest circumstance. In the management of the business which was entrusted to us jointly, we acted with the greatest harmony, and exerted our best efforts to accomplish the object of our instructions. I am not aware that, in speaking of any part of the treaty, I shall give it a construction in which he would not concur; but that presumption is founded altogether on what took place between us in the course of the negotiation. To this communication he is not a party, nor indeed does he know that such a one will be made. In every view, therefore, it is improper, and would be unjust, that he should be considered as having any concern in it.
The impressment of seamen from our merchant vessels is a topic which claims a primary attention, from the order which it holds in your letter, but more especially from some important considerations that are connected with it. The idea entertained by the public is, that the rights of the U. S. were abandoned by the American commissioners in the late negotiation, and that their seamen were left by their respective governments, if not by formal renunciation, to depend for their safety, on the mercy of the British cruisers. I have, on the contrary, always believed, and still do believe, that the ground on which that interest was placed by the paper of the British commissioners of Nov. 8, 1806, and the explanations which accompanied it, was both honorable and advantageous to the U. S. that it contained a concession in their favor, on the part of Great Britain, on the great principle in contestation, never before made by a formal and obligatory act of the government, which was highly favorable to their interest; and that it also imposed on her the obligation to conform her practice under it, till a more complete arrangement should be concluded, to the just claims of the U. S. To place this transaction in its true light, and to do justice to the conduct of the American commissioners, it will be necessary to enter at some length into the subject.
The British paper states that the king was not prepared to disclaim or derogate from a right on which the security of the British navy might essentially depend, especially in a conjuncture when he was engaged in wars which enforced the necessity of the most vigilant attention to the preservation and supply of his naval force; that he had directed his commissioners to give to the commissioners of the U. S. the most positive assurances that instructions had been given, and should be repeated and enforced, to observe the greatest caution in the impressing of British seamen, to preserve the citizens of the U. S. from molestation or injury, and that immediate and prompt redress should be afforded on any representation of injury sustained by
them. It then proposes to postpone the article relative to impressment on account of the difficulties which were experienced in arranging any article on that subject, and to proceed to conclude a treaty on the other points that were embraced by the negotiation. As a motive to such postponement, and the condition of it, it assures us that the British commissioners were instructed still to entertain the discussion of any plan which could be devised to secure the interests of both states without injury to the rights of either.
By this paper it is evident that the rights of the U. S. were expressly to be reserved, and not abandoned, as has been most erroneously supposed; that the negotiation on the subject of impressment was to be postponed for a limited time, and for a special object only, and to be revived as soon as that object was accomplished; and, in the interim, that the practice of impressment was to correspond essentially with the views and interests of the U. S. It is, indeed, evident, from a correct view of the contents of that paper, that G. Britain refused to disclaim or derogate only from what she called her right, as it also is, that as her refusal was made applicable to a crisis of extraordinary peril, it authorised the reasonable expectation, if not the just claim, that even in that the accommodation desired would be hereafter yielded.
In our letter to you of Nov. 11, which accompanied the paper under consideration, and in that of January 3, which was forwarded with the treaty, these sentiments were fully confirmed. In that of Nov. 11, we communicated one important fact, which left no doubt of the sense in which it was intended by the British commissioners, that that paper should be construed by us. In calling your attention to the passage which treats of impressment, in reference to the practice which should be observed in future, we remarked that the terms "high seas" were not mentioned in it, & added that we knew that the omission had been intentional. It was impossible that those terms could have been omitted intentionally with our knowledge, for any purpose other than to admit a construction that it was intended that impressments should be confined to the land. I do not mean to imply that it was understood between the British commissioners and us, that G. Britain should abandon the practice of impressment on the high seas altogether. I mean, however, distinctly to state that it was understood that the practice heretofore pursued by her should be abandoned, and that no impressment should be made of the seamen under the obligation of that paper, except in cases of an extraordinary nature, to which no general prohibition against it could be construed fairly to extend. The cases to which I allude were described in our letter of Nov. 11. They suppose, a British ship of war and a merchant vessel of the U. S. lying in the Tagus or some other port, the desertion of some of the sailors from the ship of war to the merchant vessel, and the sailing of the latter with such deserters on board, they being British subjects. It was admitted that no general prohibition against impressment could be construed to sanction such cases of injustice and fraud; and to such cases it was understood that the practice should in future be confined.
It is a just claim on our part, that the explanations which were given of that paper by the British commissioners when they presented it to us, and afterwards while the negotiation was depending, which we communicated to you in due order of time, should be taken into view, in a fair estimate of our conduct in that transaction. As the arrangement which they proposed, was of an informal nature resting on an understanding between the parties in a certain degree confidentially, it could not otherwise than happen that such explanations would be given in the course of the business, of the views of their government in regard to it. And if an arrangement by informal understanding is admissible in any case between nations, it was our duty to receive those explanations, to give them the weight to which they were justly entitled, and to communicate them to you, with our impression of the extent of the obligation, which they imposed. It is in that mode only that what is called an informal understanding between nations can be entered into. It presumes a want of precision in the written documents connected with it, which is supplied by mutual explanations and confidence. Reduce the transaction to form and it becomes a treaty. That an informal understanding was an admissible mode of arranging this interest with Great Britain is made sufficiently evident by your letter of February 2d, 1807, in reply to ours of Nov. 11, of the preceding year.
Without relying, however, on the explanations that were given by the British commissioners of the import of that paper, or to the course which their government intended to pursue under it, it is fair to remark on the paper itself, that as by it the rights of the parties were reserved, and the negotiation might be continued on this particular topic, after a treaty should be formed on the others, Great Britain was bound not to trespass on those rights while that negotiation was pending; and in case she did trespass on them, in any the slightest degree, the U. S. would be justified in breaking off the negotiation, and appealing to force in vindication of their rights. The mere circumstance of entertaining an amicable negotiation by one party for the adjustment of a controversy, where no right had been acknowledged in it by the other, gives to the latter a just claim to such forbearance on the part of the former. But the entertainment of a negotiation for the
express purpose of securing interests sanctioned by acknowledged rights, makes such claim irresistible. We were, therefore, decidedly of opinion, that the paper of the British commissioners placed the interest of impressment on ground which it was both safe and honorable for the U. S. to admit: that in short it gave their government the command of the subject for every necessary and useful purpose.
Attached to the treaty it was the basis or condition, on which the treaty rested. Strong in its character in their favor on the great question of right, and admitting a favorable construction on others, it placed them on more elevated ground in those respects than they had held before; and by keeping the negotiation open to obtain a more complete adjustment, the administration was armed with the most effectual means of securing it. By this arrangement the government possessed a power to coerce without being compelled to assume the character belonging to coercion, and it was able to give effect to that power without violating the relations of amity between the countries. The right to break off the negotiation and appeal to force, could never be lost sight of in any discussion on the subject; while there was no obligation to make that appeal till necessity compelled it. If G. Britain conformed her practice to the rule prescribed by the paper of November 8, and the explanations which accompanied it, our government might rest on that ground with advantage; but if she departed from that rule and a favorable opportunity offered for the accomplishment of a more complete and satisfactory arrangement, by a decisive effort, it would be at liberty to seize such opportunity for the advantage of the country.
These considerations, founded on a view of the proposed arrangement itself, furnished strong inducement to us to proceed to the other objects of the negotiation. There were other considerations of a different character, which recommended it with still greater force. Had we refused to proceed in the negotiation, what was the alternative which such a refusal presented to our view? The negotiation would have been at an end, after having failed in all its objects; or if this interest was not arranged, none others could be. The attitude which the governments held towards each other, was in a certain degree hostile. Injuries had been inflicted by one party, and resentment shown by the other, the latter having taken a step in the case of the non-importation act, which was intended to vindicate the public rights and honor by being made the means of obtaining a redress of those injuries. The measure was intended for the ministry of Mr. Pitt, from which the injuries were received, but by the removal of that ministry, and the delay which took place in the passage of the law, it came into operation against the ministry of Mr. Fox and lord Grenville, who would not have rendered those injuries, and against whom of course such a weapon would not have been raised. Notwithstanding the existence of that law, and the attitude which still remained between the governments, it was impossible to appeal to it as a strong motive of action with the new ministry. Such an appeal was sure to produce more harm than good. It would have lost us all claim on the generous feelings and liberal policy, which the new ministry was believed to indulge and disposed to adopt towards the United States. The negotiation, therefore, with the new ministry, was conducted by policy, as well as by inclination, on friendly & conciliatory principles. Should it fail, however, in its object, and be broken off, the relation between the parties would change in an instant. From that moment the new ministry would stand on the ground of the old one, and the nation be united in all its political parties against us. The attitude would become in fact, what the exterior announced it to be, hostile, and it was difficult to perceive how it could be changed, and peace be preserved, with honor to the United States. They could not recede from the ground which they had taken, or accept, by compulsion, terms which they had rejected in an amicable negotiation. War, therefore, seemed to be the inevitable consequence of such a state of things, and I was far from considering it an alternative, which ought to be preferred to the arrangement which was offered to us. When I took into view the prosperous and happy condition of the United States, compared with that of other nations; that, as a neutral power, they were almost the exclusive carriers of the productions of the whole world; and that in commerce they flourished beyond example, notwithstanding the losses which they occasionally suffered, I was strong in the opinion that those blessings ought not to be hazarded in such a question. Many other considerations tended to confirm me in that sentiment. I knew that the United States were not prepared for war; that their coast was unfortified, and their cities in a great measure defenceless; that their militia, in many of the states, was neither armed nor trained; and that their whole revenue was derived from commerce. I could not presume that there was just cause to doubt which of the alternatives ought to be preferred. Had it, however, been practicable to terminate the negotiation, without such an adjustment as that proposed, and without taking any decisive measure in consequence of its failure, what was to become of the non-importation law? If suffered to remain in force, it was sure to produce war. Great Britain, it was known, would enter into no arrangement, by treaty, which did not provide for its repeal; and there was little reason to presume, after the rupture of the negotiation, by which the relation be-
between the parties would be less friendly, that she would become more accommodating. It was, on the contrary, fairly to be concluded, that if any arrangement whatever should be practicable, it would be a less advantageous one than that which we had sanctioned. Some disposition of it was therefore indispensably necessary in any course which might be taken. These considerations had much weight in deciding that which was pursued, and I frankly own, that a sincere desire to afford to the administration an honorable opportunity for its repeal, since, under existing circumstances, it did not seem probable that it could be longer useful, and might be injurious, was a strong motive with me to incur the responsibility which I took on myself in that transaction. To the arrangement proposed we gave our sanction. We undertook to submit it to the consideration of our government, taking care to inform the British commissioners, that we had no power to conclude a treaty that would be obligatory on the U. S. States, which did not arrange in a satisfactory manner the interest of impressment. We agreed also to proceed in a discussion of the other objects of the negotiation, and eventually concluded a treaty; it being understood, from what we had frequently stated, that if our government should disapprove the arrangement relative to impressment, the whole would fall with it. Thus the U. S. States enjoyed the advantage of being at liberty to accept or reject the arrangement, while on the British government it was binding. With one party it was a project, with the other a treaty. There was in truth nothing unreasonable in this circumstance, as the British commissioners acted in presence of the cabinet, consulted and pre-
distance from our government rendered such a recurrence to it impossible. This advantage however proceeded from the nature of the transaction; it was not the effect of finesse on our part. We advanced in the negotiation, and concluded a treaty in a firm belief, that altho' it fell short of what we had expected to obtain, it was, nevertheless, in the then state of affairs, such a one as the U. S. States might adopt with credit & advantage. I have no doubt that the British commissioners entertained still greater confidence in such a result. The circumstance of our finally agreeing to sanction the arrangement rather than break off the negotiation, at which issue we had frequently stood, in the progress of it, was calculated to make that impression. But it was much strengthened by a knowledge, that the whole arrangement would expose them to very severe and probably successful attacks from the opposition, while they had no expectation that it would be popular in the country.
By your letter of Feb 3d, 1807, in reply to ours of Nov 11th, 1806, the course which the government resolved to pursue was announced. By it we were informed, that the president disapproved the informal arrangement proposed by the British commissioners relative to impressment, and was resolved to enter into no treaty with the British government, which when limited to, or short of strict right on every other point, should include in it no article on that particular one; that in case such an article could not be obtained, we should terminate the negotiation without any formal compact whatever, but with a mutual understanding, founded on friendly and liberal discussions and explanations, that in practice each party would entirely conform to what should be thus informally settled between them. And we were authorised to give assurances, in case such an arrangement should be satisfactory in substance, that as long as it should be respected in practice, particularly on the subjects of neutral trade and impressment, the president would earnestly, and probably successfully, recommend it to congress not to permit the non-importation law to go into operation; and in the mean time, that he would exercise the power vested in him by an act of congress, if no intervening intelligence forbade it, of suspending its operation till the meeting of congress, who, being in session, would have an opportunity to make due provision for the case; and finally, that if a treaty, which did not provide for the interest of impressment, should have been concluded before the receipt of that letter, we should candidly apprise the British commissioners of the reasons why it would not be ratified, and invite them to enter again on the business with a view to such a result as was desired.
By this letter the arrangement which we had sanctioned, comprising the informal one relative to impressment, and that by treaty on the other topics, was rejected, and in lieu of it we were instructed to enter into an informal understanding or arrangement of the whole subject, and as was to be inferred from the fair import of the letter, on the same conditions. It was the more to be presumed that the government was willing to accept, in the mode which it proposed, the conditions which we might be able to obtain in the other, from the consideration, that the latter were under its view at the time the instructions were given, by the paper of the British commissioners of November 8th, and our letter of the 11th, and the certainty with which it, as well as we, must have been impressed, that more favorable could not be expected.
In defending myself against the imputation of having sacrificed the rights of our seamen, I shall be permitted to derive support from the conduct of the government itself in the same interest. Under that impression, I have to remark, that I consider the conduct of the government as formidable

g the most ample vindication of that of the American commissioners. The government was equally willing to enter into some arrangement, which should preserve the peace of the country, although it should not accomplish the object which had been so ardently desired. The only difference between the plan which we sanctioned and that which it proposed, was that the whole arrangement should be informal. Had the administration resorted to war as a probable alternative, or been willing to leave the business unsettled, its policy and example might have been plain against us; but in offering to accept the same conditions in an informal mode, and to withdraw, in some form, the non-intercourse law as a motive to it, it showed that the considerations which had been respected by us had as much weight with it. But the conduct of the administration furnishes other strong arguments in favor of the arrangement proposed by the American commissioners. By engaging to observe the informal arrangement which we were instructed to enter into, as long as G. Britain should observe it, it seemed as if the U. S. would be deprived of the right of insisting on other terms, however favorable the opportunity for it might be, while G. Britain would be at liberty to depart from such arrangement whenever the events of war furnished her an adequate motive for it. This was the opposite of our arrangement as I have stated above, by which, as we presumed, she would be bound, and we free. Certainly to our merchants was all important. Any fair well defined rule, within which they might prosecute in safety their enterprises, although it might fall short in some respects of our just claims, might perhaps be preferable to frequent collisions which put every thing at hazard. In any event it was an object of great importance to keep the peace of the country in our own hands, by retaining the right to resort to war when it suited us, and then only. I will now proceed to the other topics, which are adverted to in your letter of May 20, 1807, and on which I shall be as concise as possible. In your examination of the treaty you notice several of primary importance, which you conceive to have been improperly arranged in the articles which refer to them. I will pursue in my remarks the order which you have traced. You consider the 11th article as objectionable in having shut to our commerce important channels which were left open to it, by the decisions of the British courts, and the principles contained in the communication from lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King. In support of that opinion you observe that as the article stipulates, that the U. S. may carry the manufactures and productions of Europe, from their own ports, to any colony of the enemies of G. Britain, they are prohibited by it from carrying the manufactures or productions of the countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, in like manner, to such colonies. You observe also that as the U. S. are authorized to carry from their own ports the productions of enemy colonies to Europe, they are prohibited from carrying those productions to the southern coast of the Mediterranean, or beyond the Cape of Good Hope, to any other enemy or neutral colonies in this quarter. I am persuaded that you will be satisfied, on further consideration, that this construction of that article is unfounded. It is not the object of the article to regulate the general commerce of the countries, or to compromise their claims in any case to which the regulation does not explicitly extend. The regulation prescribed by it applies to a case of controversy between the parties, in a point of immediate contact, and it was the object of the article to adjust the controversy in that point. If we advert to the issue which was made up between them, as clearly defined by the orders of the British government, the decisions of the courts of admiralty under them, and the discussion which took place between the governments on the subject, we shall find that in no view can the construction which you impute to the article, be supported. The issue lately made up between the parties involved solely the question, what circumstances, or acts, to be performed in the neutral country, were necessary to break the continuity of a voyage from the colony of an enemy to its parent country or some enemy country in Europe? This point had been settled, as was presumed, by former decisions of the British courts of admiralty, and explanations of the British government, in a manner which was so far satisfactory to the U. S. as to justify a belief, that if those decisions and explanations had been adhered to, the existing controversy on this subject would not have arisen. But in 1805 the British courts of admiralty insisted on the performance of new acts in the U. S. or, what amounted to the same thing, extended by construction the doctrine of former decisions in such a manner as to make the performance of new acts, such too as were of a nature highly onerous and oppressive, indispensably necessary. On this special point the parties were at issue, and the sole object of the article was to adjust, by temporary arrangement, the controversy on that point. The rights of the parties, in every other instance, not within the scope of the adjustment, were to remain, of course, untouched, and, in that particular one, to revive at the expiration of the term limited for the duration of the article. A concise analysis of the several orders of the British government relative to the trade of neutral powers with enemy colonies, will place, in a clear point of view, the ground of the controversy between the parties, and the precise object and effect of the regulation proposed by the article under consideration. The first order bears date on the 6th November, 1793. It directed the British cruisers to bring in for lawful adjudication all vessels laden with goods, the produce of any colony of France, or carrying provisions or supplies for such colony. That order amounted, in express terms, to a declaration of war against the neutral powers, and it was issued in that spirit by the British government. The policy, however, which dictated the order, did not last long. Events soon produced a change of policy, and with a revocation, or to use the technical phraseology of the admiralty, a relaxation of the order. The 2d order was of the 8th January 1794. It directed the cruisers "to bring in all vessels laden with goods, the produce of the French West India Islands, and coming directly from any port of the said Islands to any port in Europe." This order being directory, prescribed the case in which neutral vessels engaged in such a trade should be seized, and thereby confined the seizure to that case only. No vessel engaged in that trade which did not come within the scope of the order, could be touched. Thus the effect of the order was to inhibit the direct trade of the United States, between enemy colonies and Europe, in the productions of those colonies. It left the trade free between the United States and Europe, and of course every other country. It left it free also in the direct line, between enemy colonies and Africa and Asia. By confining the restriction to Europe, those
countries were necessarily exempted from its operation. The 3d order of the 25th Jan. 1798, directed the cruisers to "bring in all vessels laden with cargoes, the produce of any island of France, Spain or Holland, and coming directly from any port of the said islands or settlements to any port in Europe, not being a port of Great Britain, nor of the country to which such ships being neutral belonged." The sole effect of this order was to extend to the neutral powers of Europe, the accommodation which had been yielded to the United States by that of 8th January, 1794. The next order bears date on the 24th June, 1803. It directs the cruisers not to seize any vessel which shall be carrying on trade directly between the colonies of enemies and the neutral country to which the vessel belongs, and laden with the property of inhabitants of such neutral country; provided such vessel shall not be supplying nor have supplied the enemy on the outward voyage with any articles of contraband of war, &c. The sole object of this order appears to have been to introduce a new rule relative to contraband, by subjecting a vessel to seizure on that account, on her return voyage, after depositing her cargo at her place of destination. It prohibits the seizure of neutral vessels, European as well as American, engaged in a trade between enemy colonies and the neutral countries, by positive inhibition. That trade had been left free before, by the restriction of the seizure to vessels engaged in the direct trade between enemy colonies and the parent country. It was now secured by positive inhibition. The right to carry on the trade from the neutral country to other countries, was left on the ground on which it stood before. That this order was not intended to affect that trade, and did not affect it, is made sufficiently evident by many decisions of the courts of admiralty, which have been given since the order was issued. In proof of this I refer to all the cases that were decided by the British courts of admiralty, touching the trade of neutrals with enemy colonies in the years 1805 and 6, and more especially to that of the William Tresrey, it being the last one and containing a summary of the whole doctrine. If we recur to the decisions of the courts themselves we shall find a full confirmation of what is here advanced. We shall find that in conforming their decisions to the spirit of the orders of the government, they inhibit the direct trade only between the colony and the parent country, or some other country of Europe; that they do not call in question the trade between neutral powers in the productions of enemy colonies, after those productions were allowed to have been incorporated into the stock of the country; that they gave recent and high offence only by the new doctrines advanced, on this latter point, which, by assuming to investigate the motives of the parties engaged in the trade, and to reject acts which were before deemed satisfactory by decisions the most solemn, and to impose new conditions the most onerous and oppressive, laid that commerce completely at the mercy of British tribunals. The most material cases are those of the Immanuel, which involved the question of a trade between Bourdeaux and St. Domingo, that is, the direct trade between the parent country and its colony, in which the goods were condemned on that account. Robin Rep. 2d vol. page 186. And of the Polly, Lasky, in which the vessel was taken on a voyage from Marblehead to Spain, charged with the productions of the Havanna, brought to Marblehead by the same vessel. In this case the question of continuity of voyage was involved, & the court decided in favor of the American claim, on ground that no offence. It was admitted in explicit terms by the judge, that an American had a right to import the produce of the Spanish colonies into his own country, and to carry them on thence to the general commerce of Europe, and that the landing of the cargo and payment of the duties would be sufficient criteria of a bona fide importation. 2d Rob Rep. page 361. The next cases were those of the Essex, Orne, of the Rowena, and some others of the same kind, in 1805, which turned on the point of continuity of voyage, in which the court, pushing its doctrine to the unjust & pernicious extent complained of, produced the controversy which took place between the countries. The communication between Mr. King and lord Hawkesbury is of the same character. The advocate-general admits in his report, which was adopted by lord Hawkesbury, and communicated by him to Mr. King, that by the relaxation of the general principle respecting the trade with enemy colonies, it was distinctly understood, and had been repeatedly so decided by the court of appeal, that the produce of enemy colonies might be imported into the neutral country, and re-exported thence even to the mother country of such colony; and in like manner that the produce and manufactures of the mother country might be carried to its colonies. He states that the direct trade between the mother country and its colonies had not been recognized as legal: that what amounted to an immediate importation into the neutral country, might sometimes be a question of difficulty; that the mere touching in the neutral country to take fresh clearances, might perhaps be deemed evasive, and in effect the direct trade; but that the high court of admiralty had expressly decided (and he saw no reason to expect that the court of appeal would vary the rules) that landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country would break the continuity of the voyage, and was such an importation as would legalize the trade, although the goods were re-shipped in the same vessel, on account of the same proprietors, and were forwarded for sale to the mother country of the colony. This communication corresponds in every the minutest circumstance with the spirit of the orders and decisions of the courts as above explained. It insists, and in terms that are far from being positive, that the direct trade, only between the mother country and the colony, was inhibited. It admits that the trade through the neutral country to the mother country of the colony was lawful, and fixes, with great precision, the acts to be performed in the neutral country, which would be sufficient to incorporate the goods into the stock of the country, and break the continuity of the voyage. In the latter part of the report alluded to, the advocate general seems to make a kind
of reservation of the right of the court of appeal, to revise the decisions of the high court of admiralty, which he represents to have settled the doctrine. But he makes that reservation, if indeed it was intended as one, in such terms as to preclude the idea, that it would ever be taken advantage of, especially when it is considered, that the report was adopted by the government, and communicated officially, by the secretary of state, to a foreign minister. It is certain, however, that through the court of appeal, the new encroachment on the rights of the United States was made, which produced the controversy which ensued immediately afterwards. The discussion which took place between lord Mulgrave and myself in 1805, on the subject of the seizure then made, treated the encroachment in that line as the special cause of complaint on the part of the United States. Although the British pretension to inhibit even the direct trade, had not been countenanced by the government, yet the commerce of the U. S. had been made in a certain degree to accommodate with it by the merchants. They were content to decline the direct trade, and to prosecute their enterprises through the U. S. equally with the mother country and its colonies. It was natural, in the course of a controversy which involved such important interests, that the rights of the parties should be taken up on principle, and carried to the greatest extent. To the light thrown on the subject by a very able essay, which I received from you, I was much indebted, and I acknowledge in this communication, the aid which it afforded me, with peculiar satisfaction. A vindication, however, of the cause on principle, however extensive the range might be, could not affect the origin of the controversy, nor give to the article entered into for its adjustment a construction different from that which, by well established rules, is fairly applicable to it. From this view of the several orders of the British government, and from the exposition given of them by the courts, and by the government itself, it appears that the sole object of those that were issued after that of the 6th Nov. 1793, was to inhibit the direct trade of the U. S. between enemy colonies and Europe; that they did not touch, and were not intended to interfere with the trade between the United States and Europe, even the parent country, and a fortiori between the U. S. and Asia and Africa. It was, indeed, the object of the order of Nov. 6th, 1793, to suppress the commerce of neutral powers with enemy colonies altogether; but that being abandoned, the next idea which occurred was to embarrass that trade by forcing it through neutral countries. Here, then, arose a new question, which turned entirely on another principle. That a neutral power had a right to carry on trade from its own ports, in any articles, though of foreign produce, which had been incorporated into the stock of the country not contraband of war, and to all countries, was not controverted. That point, otherwise clear and indisputable in itself, had been long settled in the highest tribunals, and by the most eminent jurists in England. The circumstances which constituted such an incorporation of foreign articles into the stock of the country, had also been settled by the same authorities. Still the question which now arose, turned on this latter point. In forcing this commerce through neutral ports with a view to embarrass it, it became necessary to give the greatest effect to that expedient to increase the difficulties in those ports, which was done in the manner already stated. If the instructions of the British government did not inhibit the trade in question, the adjustment contained in the article under consideration, could not affect it. That article supposes a difference between the parties relative to a trade with enemy colonies, and the instructions which interfere with it. The article could not operate in any trade to which the instructions did not extend, and concerning which there was no controversy. In the present case the conclusion is the more irresistible, because there did not exist even a possibility of controversy in regard to that trade. But it is inferred, that because it is stipulated, that the produce of enemy colonies may be carried to Europe from the U. S. that the ports of Asia and Africa are shut on them, and that because it is stipulated that the manufactures of Europe may be carried from the U. S. to the West Indies, that those of Asia and Africa are prohibited from being carried there. This objection has been already obviated. Had the instructions of the British government inhibited that trade, and a controversy between the governments arisen from the inhibition, as the article does not extend to the case, the most that could have been inferred would have been that it was unprovided for, and that the rights of the parties would remain in the same state respecting it, as if the article had not
been entered into. It is easy to explain the cause why the term "Europe" was introduced into the article, in reference to the ports, to which colony produce might be carried, and "European" in reference to the manufactures which might be carried to enemy colonies, and to show that they were adopted with a view to open on the widest scale the ports which had been at any time shut on them by the British orders. Although the policy of these orders, as well as of the principle on which they are founded, is more particularly applicable to the direct trade between the enemy colonies and their mother country, yet as the term "Europe" had been adopted in the modifications that were made in them, first at the instance of the U. S. and afterwards at that of the neutral European powers, as the widest scale within which the inhibition operated, it was thought best to use that term to prevent the possibility of mistake, as to the extent of the adjustment. Had terms of more extensive import been adopted, they could not have been more effectual to the object, while they might have tended to enlarge the sphere of British pretension, by extending it to cases to which it would be highly improper to give a sanction. But it is supposed that although the orders of the British government may not have inhibited this trade it is comprised in the general inhibition of the British principle. If the British principle inhibits such a trade, which I do not admit, it does not follow that a sanction to that inhibition is given by this article. For reasons already stated. If the provision of the article does not extend to that trade, the rights of the parties cannot be affected by it. They remain equally in force against the principle. As against the instructions, had they inhibited it. But the claim to an exemption from that trade from the operation of the British principle, rests on still stronger ground admitting that it ever extended to it, which however I am far from admitting. It can be shown that the orders themselves, take it completely from within the scope of that principle. By instructing the cruisers to seize vessels engaged in a particular trade, every other trade is allowed. It is in that mode, that what is called a relaxation of the British principle, is effected. The order reduces the principle to its own standard, or, in other words, becomes the principle itself. If this doctrine is not true it is impossible to designate in what mode the relaxation, which is universally admitted, of the British principle, is wrought; or to prove that there has been any relaxation of it whatever. If the orders have not that effect, of what avail are they? That they have that effect is proved by the decisions of the courts, and the practice under them. I am aware of the broad doctrine held by the courts on this subject, but that doctrine, necessarily ambiguous from the dilemma in which the courts were placed by the inconsistent orders of the government, if not reconcilable to this construction (as I think it is when the whole subject is taken into view) is contradicted by the decisions of the same courts and the explanations of the government itself. I say that this trade is not inhibited by the British principle, because it supposes a trade between enemy colonies and the mother country. But a trade between the United States and Asia or Africa, let the subject of it be what it may, is not a trade of that kind. It is a trade with independent powers at peace with Great Britain, with whom we have a right to trade, by all the rules which Great Britain has at any time insisted on. It would be of dangerous tendency to admit that Great Britain had a pretension to interfere with such a trade in any case. After the goods are received into the U. S. no matter of what articles they consist, or from what quarter they came they are the property of the country, and may of right be shipped to any other country. The British principle does not controvert this doctrine. It asserts in its widest range the right only to seize them on their route to the neutral country, and from it to the mother country of the colony, or some other enemy country of Europe. provided they be not incorporated into the stock of the neutral country. If they are they may go under the arrangement made to the countries to which the British principle applies. But they require no sanction from the British government, to go to those to which it does not apply. The destination of the vessel alone would, as I presume, dispel every doubt of the legality of the trade, and preclude all further inquiry concerning it. The question of continuity of voyage could never arise in such a case. It is certain that the arrangement alluded to gives no sanction to it, and for the best of all reasons, that the trade was not admitted, or even conceded to be comprised within the range of British principle. I shall close my remarks on this point by observing that as the arrangement of the acts to break the continuity of the voyage from the United States to the parent country, and other enemy countries of Europe, in the produce of their colonies, and from the United States to those colonies, in the manufactures of Europe, is confined strictly to that object, the rights of the parties remain unimpaired in every other circumstance relative to that trade; that as the article contains no stipulation against the direct trade from the colony to the parent country, the right to carry on even that trade is not necessarily suspended by it; that in any view it can be considered as suspended it is by implication raising out of the whole transaction, rather than from the stipulation itself. How much stronger then is the conclusion already drawn from other premises, that nothing is to be deduced from that article to justify the construction
which has been imputed to it. The remarks above made, refer more particularly to a trade between the United States and Europe in the produce of enemy colonies. They are however equally applicable to the other objection stated in your letter, of a trade between the United States and enemy colonies, in the produce or manufactures of Africa or Asia. None of the orders alluded to, inhibit that commerce, and it is most certain that the article alluded to, gives sanction to such a pretension. As to the conditions by which it is agreed to break the continuity of the voyage, I have to observe that they are as favorable as you had expected. We were authorized to stipulate, if better conditions could not be obtained, that the goods should be landed, the duties paid and the ship changed. We stipulated, only that the goods should be landed, and the duty paid, making the duty on European goods 1 per cent, and on colony productions two. By exempting the party from the necessity of changing the ship, an important advantage was certainly secured. By fixing the duty at 1 per cent, in the one instance, and at 3 in the other, it was not possible that the slightest embarrassment should be thrown in the way of the trade. The duty payable on manufactures consumed in the country is about 15 per cent, and on West India productions 25. The trifling amount made payable to the country on the re-exportation of the articles, could not be felt by the merchant. It would fall on the European consumer. It could not be felt as a heavy imposition on the trade itself. Our only competitor in it, would be Great Britain, whose merchants would labour under the disadvantages incident to war, in a thousand shapes, more especially as the ports of the whole continent would be shut on them, in not being able to get their goods into those ports, otherwise than by smuggling them: a mode which could not fail to be onerous, if it succeeded, but which was likely to fail in most cases. It should be remembered also, that the increased duties which would accrue to the country would tend, in the degree, to interest the whole community in support of a commerce, in which the commercial part was most materially interested. It is the policy of the European powers having colonies in the West Indies, to make the parent country the entrepot of the productions of its colonies. Is not that policy worthy the attention and imitation of the United States, in respect to the trade of the colonies in question? The duty received would make some recompense to the nation for the expenses incurred and sums expended, in supporting our right to that trade. Besides, by making the ports of the United States the "entreports" for such productions, the country in general would derive some advantage from the measure. Every ship engaged in the commerce which entered an American port, would bring something to, and take something from it. The vast amount of Asiatic, European and West India articles brought to our markets, would cheapen the price of those articles at home, and each ship, while in port, and in the prosecution of her voyage, would require supplies in provision and other articles, which would raise the price of those articles, to the great advantage of the general interest of the country. The limitation of the article to the term specified, was a condition which we presumed might prove advantageous to the United States, while it could not possibly injure them. It is expressly stipulated that the right of both parties shall revive at the expiration of the term. Those of the United States, therefore, would then be in force, and to the full extent of their pretensions, in the same manner as if the stipulation had not been entered into. In another war they might insist on conditions which this stipulation did not secure, and, if Great Britain did not yield to their demand, they might resort to any expedient, to compel her, which the wisdom of their councils might dictate. Any encroachment on the part of Great Britain on their rights, as heretofore contended for, might be considered by their government an act of hostility, and treated accordingly. The least favorable conditions that she could offer would be those already settled, which the United States might accept or reject, as they thought best. As a youthful, prosperous, and rising nation, it could not be doubted that in the next war their situation would be more imposing than in the present one. The presumption is, that they would be able then to obtain better conditions than at present. On the third article I have to observe, in addition to what is stated in our joint letter of January 3, 1807, that nothing would have been more easy than to have omitted any provision on the subject of it, and to have favored that trade on the foot of the most favored nation. To obtain better terms by treaty was utterly impossible. We were much inclined to omit a provision on the subject, because we were aware that the arrangement made would fall short of the expectation of our government and country, and most probably subject us to censure. We acceded to that arrangement from a conviction that it secured us better terms than we should be likely to enjoy, if left to depend on the pleasure of the British government, stipulated as we knew that was to restrict us in it by the India Company, and other interests of the country. It is impossible to conceive too high an idea of the jealousy which is entertained of the United States, in a commercial view, by that government, and of the danger with which it thinks Great Britain is menaced by their extraordinary prosperity & rapid growth.

LAND FOR SALE - Purchase 14 acres of... for the purpose of... for sale by... JAMES MADISON, President.
The boldness of the projects, and the activity and ability with which they are prosecuted by our merchants and mariners, excite the admiration of Europe. Great Britain has seen, that wherever our citizens gained a foot hold, they never lost it. Without distorting her own means, or the hardness and activity of her people, she finds that our position, remote from Europe, contiguous to the West Indies and the southern continent, and as near to India as herself, give us advantages, against which she cannot cope. This effort which we made and persevered in for several months to gain admission, into British India, on more favorable terms and the disposition which was shewn by the British commissioners to yield, excited a sensation, or more properly speaking, an alarm in the board of India directors and of the commercial people in general, even among those who had no particular interest in the question, which was extremely obvious. Had we made no provision in the treaty to secure our admittance into India, on certain conditions, we had much reason to believe that that commerce would have been fettered to an extreme degree, and in every form.
ing whether they be American, or those of another power; and that she shall not stop the unarmed vessels of other powers within the same limit, provided they acknowledge to these who have acknowledged it. The vessels of the powers who do not adopt the regulation are not affected by it. They remain under the ordinary protection of the law of nations, which extends to the distance of cannon shot or three miles from the coast. Beyond that limit the enemies of Great Britain have a right to search and seize her vessels without being amenable to the United States, and the same right is reserved to her by this article, as if it had not been entered into. Vessels of war are expressly excluded from the advantage of the regulation.
that we should have been instructed to present to the British government, with the instrument of ratification, a counter declaration to that effect. The whole subject was before our government, with our error and decided objection to the paper. All that we could do was to transmit to you, with a correct statement of what had occurred in the negotiation respecting it, which we did. To the government it belonged to take the step which the occasion required, not to us. Having noticed the objections which are especially stated in your letter of May 20, 1807, I have given our view of the several parts of the treaty to which they relate, I shall proceed to make explanatory remarks on the other articles, in order to do justice to the conduct of the American commissioners in regard to them.
which it could have, would be to admonish the courts to be cautious in admitting evidence of notice, on account of the distance of the U. S. from the blockaded ports. It was supposed to give the U. S. a claim to a more favorable rule in respect to evidence, than was allowed to powers more contiguous to the theatre of action. The doctrine contained in Mr. Merry's note to you was not contested by the British commissioners. It is, on the contrary, maintained in their note to us of Dec. 31st, 1806, in which it is asserted to be notorious "that the king did not declare any ports to be in a state of blockade without allotting to that object a force sufficient to make the entrance into them manifestly dangerous."
duties, &c. would remain as they were. The preceding articles were intended, in the points to which they extended, to establish a standard of equality between the parties, to which the regulations of each, whether they exceeded or fell short of it, should be brought. It could not be doubted that the British export duty was of the first description, that it violated the principle of the most favored nation. The British commissioners admitted the fact, and did not pretend to justify it on that ground. They urged in its favor only, that the same duty was imposed on exports to their own colonies in America, and that if any change was made in it, to satisfy the claim of the U. S. on the principle of the right of the most favored nation, it would be to raise it on the goods exported to other countries, not to reduce it on those sent to the U. S. The principle, however, established by this article, being applicable to that duty, it was to be presumed that it might fairly be relied on to obtain a modification of it, either by reducing the duty on exports to the U. S., or raising it on those to other nations. There is nothing in this article to restrain the U. S. from adopting measures to counteract the British policy with respect to the West Indies. If that object had not been secured by a special article, from the possibility of being affected by the others, the principle established by the present one, could not have affected it, otherwise than beneficially.
135 We have been compelled to omit a number of new advertisements, and several interesting articles of intelligence, to make room for Col. Monroe's important communication, which is given entire in this day's Argus. We hope that this apology will be deemed sufficient by our friends, for the omission of their advertisements till Tuesday, when they shall be particularly attended to.

VIRGINIA: At a Superior Court of Chancery held at the Capitol in the city of Richmond, the 13th day of February, 1808. John S. Moore, Plff. John Magee and John Harris, Dfts. THE defendant John Magee not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of assembly, and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this country, on motion of the plaintiff by counsel it is ordered that the said defendant appear here on the first day of the next term, and answer the bill of the plaintiff, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper published in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the capitol in the said city. A copy—Teste, Peter Tinsley, C. C.
United States Court, Fifth Circuit & Virginia District, Nov. term, 1807. Charles and Jesse Ewell, Plffs. Against, Tristram Dalton & Tobias Lear, mer. Chants and traders under the firm of Lear and Company, Dfts. THE defendants Tristram Dalton and Tobias Lear, not having entered their appearance and given security according to a rule of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that they are not inhabitants of this district, on the motion of the plffs. by their counsel, it is ordered that the said defendants do appear here on the first day of the next term and answer the plffs. bill, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some one of the newspapers published in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the capitol in the said city. A copy—Teste, WILLIAM MARSHALL, Clk.
At a Court held for Buckingham County, the 11th day of January, 1808. James Murphy & Company, Plffs. AGAINST William Jones (son of John) and Thomas E. Jones, Dfts. ON the motion of the plaintiffs by their counsel, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that the defendant William Jones, is not an inhabitant of this state. It is ordered and decreed that unless the said William Jones shall appear here, on or before May court next, and answer the bill of the plaintiffs, the court will then proceed to take the same for confessed as to him, and decree the matter thereof accordingly, and that a copy of this order be forthwith published in some public newspaper of the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and another copy be posted up at the front door of the courthouse of this county. A copy—Teste, R. ELDRIDGE, jr. D. C.
At a Court held for Buckingham County, the 11th day of January, 1808. Sarah Holloway, widow of Robert Holloway, deceased; Geo: Seaton Holloway, and Elizabeth Holloway children and devisees of the said Robert Holloway, deceased, by the said Sarah their mother and next friend, Plaintiffs. AGAINST Smith Tandy and Nathan Ayres, Defendants. ON the motion of the plaintiffs by their counsel, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant Smyth Tandy is not an inhabitant of this state: It is ordered and decreed that unless the said Tandy shall appear here on or before the first day of May next and answer the bill of the plaintiffs; the court will then proceed to take the same for confessed as to him and decree the matter thereof accordingly, and that a copy of this order be forthwith published in some public newspaper of the city of Richmond for two months successively, and another copy be posted up at the front door of the courthouse of this county. A copy—Teste, R. Eldridge, jr. D. C.
At a Court held for Louisa county on Monday the 8th day of February, 1808. Robert Yancey, & co. Plffs. against William Meriwether and Robert Dickinson, Dfts. THE defendant Wm. Meriwether, not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of assembly and the rules of this court; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this state; therefore, on the motion of the plaintiffs by their counsel, it is ordered and decreed by the court, that the said defendant Meriwether do appear here on the second Monday in May next, and answer the plaintiffs bill; and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in one of the newspapers printed in the city of Richmond for eight weeks successively, and published at the front door of the court-house of this county, on some court day. A copy—Teste, John Poindexter, C. L. C.
At a Court held for Cumberland County, 25th January, 1808. JOHN ANDERSON, Plaintiff, AGAINST JOHN HOLLAND & JAMES HOLLAND, Defendants. THIS day came the plaintiff, by his attorney, and the defendant JOHN, not having entered his appearance and given security according to law and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this state; On the motion of the plaintiff by his attorney aforesaid, It is ordered, that the said defendant JOHN, do appear here on the fourth Monday in April next and answer the plaintiff's bill, and that a copy of this order be published in one of the public news papers printed in the city of Richmond for three months successively and posted at the front door of the courthouse of this county. A copy—Teste, (149) MILLER WOODSON, Clk.
At a Court held for Cumberland County, 25th January, 1808. JOHN ANDERSON, Plaintiff, AGAINST JOHN HOLLAND & JAMES HOLLAND, Defendants. THIS day came the plaintiff, by his attorney, and the defendant JOHN, not having entered his appearance and given security according to law and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this state; On the motion of the plaintiff by his attorney aforesaid, It is ordered, that the said defendant JOHN, do appear here on the fourth Monday in April next and answer the plaintiff's bill, and that a copy of this order be published in one of the public news papers printed in the city of Richmond for three months successively and posted at the front door of the courthouse of this county. A copy—Teste, (149) MILLER WOODSON, Clk.
Charlotte Court, 1st February, 1808. JOSEPH OLIVER, Plaintiff, AGAINST WILLIAM BAKER, Dft. THE defendant not having entered his appearance according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this state, on the motion of the plaintiff by his attorney, it is ordered that he appear here on the first day of May court next and enter his appearance and that a copy of this order be inserted in one of the newspapers printed in Richmond, for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the courthouse of the said county. A Copy—Teste, THOMAS READ, Clk.
By virtue of a deed of trust executed to us by Ambrose Dudley of King William county, to secure a debt due by the said Ambrose Dudley to Benjamin Mosby, assignee of William Dandridge—We shall proceed to sell, for ready cash, for the best price that can be obtained, on the premises, on the second day of June next, a certain Tract or Parcel of Land, lying and being in the county of King William, being the same on which the said Dudley now resides, and the same which the said Dudley purchased of William Dandridge, containing 603 acres, or so much thereof as will be sufficient to pay the sum of 400 pounds, current money, with legal interest thereon from the 1st day of April, 1807, till payment, together with all expenses attending the execution thereof. BERN'D LIPSCOMB. NATH'L FOX. 26th February, 1808. wids
By virtue of a deed of trust executed to Edward P. Chamberlayne, dec. and myself by James B. Littlepage, to secure the payment of sundry debts therein mentioned, due by the said Littlepage, to Benjamin Mosby, assignee of William Dandridge. I shall on Wednesday the first day of June next, proceed to sell to the highest bidder, for ready money, at King William courthouse, a certain tract or parcel of LAND, lying and being in the parish of St John's, and county of King William, and commonly known as and called by the name of Palmers, containing by estimation Four Hundred and Fifteen Acres of high Land, and One Hundred Acres of Marsh Land, be the same more or less, and bounded by the lands of Bernard Moore, William Gregory, George W. P. Costis and John Quarles, dec. and Mataponi River. BERN'D LIPSCOMB. February 24. wids
By virtue of a deed of trust executed to us by Drury Childers, in order to secure the payment of a certain sum of money due to William and Daniel Thompson, & all cost incurred by carrying the same to effect, we shall on Saturday, the thirtieth day of April next, at Mr. Peter Francis's Tavern, proceed to sell for cash, four negroes, viz: Isham, Phillis, Rachel, and Salley, or so much thereof as will be sufficient to answer the purposes of said deed. TARLTON WILLIAMS, STEPHEN HOOPER, Trustees. Bckingham. 19th March 1808. wids
Advertisement. THE sale not having taken place at the time appointed in a former advertisement; will be sold, on Friday the 6th day of May next, for ready money, on the premises, a  Valuable Tract of Land, lying in the county of Halifax on Staunton river, containing seven hundred and twenty five acres, more or less; it was once the property of Samuel Beall, was sold by him to Wm. Moseley, and mortgaged by Moseley to Robert Andrews and John Pierce, trustees of Beall, to secure the payment of the purchase money—The indenture of mortgage, which was recorded in the general court, bears date the 22d day of June 1795. At the same time and place, such of the SLAVES as are described in the said mortgage, and may be produced by the said Moseley, will also be sold for cash.—The sale is made by virtue of a decree of the superior court of chancery for the Richmond district, pronounced in a suit therein depending, in which the said Pierce, surviving trustee is plaintiff, and the said Moseley is defendant, and for the purpose of raising the following sums, with interest, viz: 1084. 15s. with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, from the 1st of January 1793—1054. 2s. 6d. with like interest from the 1st day of January 1794—1011. 10s. with like interest from the 1st day of January 1795—974. 17s. 6d. with like interest from the 1st day of January 1796—964. 5s. with like interest from the 1st day of January 1797—811. 14s. with like interest from the 14th day of July 1802—and 35 dollars 88 cents, the costs of the suit. The residue of the money decreed to be raised the plaintiff does not pretend to claim, as appears by an endorsement made by the clerk of the said court on the order dissolving an injunction obtained by John B. Scott, to stay the sale of the said land, which endorsement is copied from a writing filed in the suit first above mentioned by the plaintiff's agent and attorney. The COMMISSIONERS. Richmond March 11, 1808. wids  Wirt's Speeches. The Editor of the Argus has this day published the SPEECHES of WILLIAM WIRT, Esq. on the trial of AARON BURR, and others.
The thorough bred imported horse, GOUTY, WILL stand the ensuing season at my plantation, on Rucker's Run, 5 miles from Amherst court-house and 12 from Warminster, and will cover mares at 25 dollars the season, 13 dollars the leap and 40 dollars insurance with one dollar to the groom in either case. The leap money to be paid at the time of service, the season on first day of August, and the insurance on first day of March, 1809. Crop tobacco inspected at any of the warehouses on James river from Lynchburg to Richmond will be received in payment at 5 dollars per 100 lb. if tendered on or before the day it becomes due. Pasturage gratis but no liability for accidents or escapes. GOUTY is a beautiful bay, 11 years old, 5 feet 3 inches high, elegantly formed and of great strength. He was got by Sir Peter Teazle, and came out of the celebrated Yellow-Mare, she was got by Tandem, her dam Peddita by Herod out of Palm Forrester by Sloe, and so through the best stock that England has produced as may be seen by reference to the general stud book—Sloe was the most distinguished racer of his day, & was never beat. GOUTY'S COLTS are running with great credit in England—In 1806 four only started, of which one was a winner and when losing they came in with great credit, beating the get of Buzzard, Precipitate, Oscar, Sir Peter Teazle and others of the first character in England—In 1807 Mr. Weatherby (author of the Racing Calendar) writes to me under date Sept 12th, at which time the racing for that year was not over, that several of Gouty's colts were winners, and one of them had the misfortune to break his shoulder, or it was supposed he would have been the best of his year in England. The season will commence on first March and terminate first August. R. RIVES February 10, 1808. row
SIR HARRY, THE handsomest and one of the best sons of Sir Peter Teazle, (unquestionably the best stallion now in England & inferior to none ever bred in that country) will stand the ensuing season at my stable, in King and Queen county, about 40 miles from Richmond, 7 from Dunkirk and 12 from Tappahannock, at 50 dollars the season, notes for which, and half a dollar for the groom, must be sent with the mares or before they are taken away. The 50 dollars may be discharged by the payment of 40 dollars cash, (and in the event of the embryo continuing, or a war, by 30 dollars) on or before the expiration of the season, which will commence on the 1st March and end 1st August. Extensive high and low land pasturage, as good as any in Virginia, gratis. Mares may be fed with corn at the market price, and every attention will be paid to them, but no liability for escapes or accidents of any kind. Mares and foals will be kept by themselves. Sir Harry was imported in the fall of 1804, from London, is now 12 years old, in high health and vigor, 15 hands 3 inches high, full of bone and muscle, fine points, elegant form and beautiful brown color. He has covered three seasons in this country, has proved himself a sure foal getter, and his stock are equal to any in the world. He was one of the best racers in England, both for speed and bottom, with very heavy weights, and probably cost more money than any horse ever imported into this country (and seeing the owner within a trifle of £1200 sterling when landed) and in the estimation of good judges, is equal, if not superior, to any that is now, or ever was in the state. As the universal practice here, is to run heats, it is needless to point out to those who have fine mares, the advantages that may result from sending them to this horse. His dam Matron, (foaled in 1785) was got by Alfred, grandam (dam of Pilot) by Marsk, great grandam by Regulus, great grandam (dam of Wildair and Vampyr) by Stand, great grandam by Palmer, Greyhound, Make-peace, Counsellor, Brimmer, Place's White Turk. Alfred was got by Matchem (foaled in 1770) out of a Snap mare (the dam of Conductor, Dictator, Georgian and others) bred by the duke of Kingston, foaled in 1762; her dam by the Cullen Arabian; Griewood's Lady Thigh, by Palmer; Greyhound; Sophonisba's dam, by the Curwan Bay Barb; Lord D'Arcy's chestnut Arabian; Whitsuntide, Old Montague mare. Matchem was got by Cade; Cade (own bro. to Lath) was got by the Gololphin Arabian; Marsk was got by Squirt; Squirt was got by Bartlett's Childe; Regulus was got by the Gololphin Arabian. Sir Peter Teazle was got by Highflyer, out of Papillon, by Snap, Snap was got by Snip; Snip was got by the Devonshire Childers, out of a Basto mare; Highflyer was got by Herod, out of Rachel by Blank; Herod was got by Tartar, out of Cypron, by Blaze; Tartar was got by Partner, out of Meliora, by Old Fox. John Hoskins. January 15, 1808. wim1
THE high bred imported HORSE ARCHDUKE, WILL stand at the Bowling Green, from the 10th March to the 1st day of August next, and will be let to mares at the reduced price of TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS, payable within the season. ARCHDUKE has so frequently been advertised, that it is deemed unnecessary to swell an advertisement to the usual length; suffice it to say, that he has size, strength and beauty, and that his blood is equal to any horse's on the continent. Arch Duke's colts are now three years old and some of them will appear on the turf this spring. Stamford and M. Teazle, own brothers of Arch Duke, stand in the first class of covering horses, on the British turf & Paris. Another brother won the Derby stakes 1805. Rosedon, gotten by Arch Duke, before he left England, won twice at 3 years old, running in one instance 3 heats. All possible care and attention will be paid to mares, but the subscriber will not be answerable for accidents of any kind. Gentlemen wishing their mares fed with corn, must send money for that purpose.—Groom's fee half a dollar. PEDIGREE Arch Duke was gotten by Sir Peter Teazle, his dam Horatia (sister to Achilles by Eclipse, grandam Countess by Blank) was the dam of Delpini. JOHN HOOMES. March 1, 1808. (v6r)  BLANK BONDS For Sale at this Office.
MILITARY LANDS IN THE STATES OF OHIO AND KENTUCKY. THE subscriber has for SALE, sundry valuable tracts of LAND, on the waters of the Miami and Scioto rivers, state of Ohio. Also, on the waters of Cumberland and Green rivers, state of Kentucky, which will be sold low for cash or good bonds—For further particulars enquire of William Price, register, who has the title papers, or to William Du-Val. Buckingham, January 20, 1808. wif
Richmond Tile Manufactory. THE subscriber having procured the exclusive right to manufacture in this and several other states Harrowood's much improved Patent Tile for covering houses, and at considerable expense erected the necessary buildings, &c. for carrying on that useful business extensively, now offers to supply, at a short notice, any quantity that may be required, at the moderate price of Thirty Five Dollars per thousand, delivered at his factory. He can with confidence, founded on actual experiment, in the covering of about 20 houses in this city, assert, that houses can be covered with this tile as cheap in the first instance, as with shingles of the first quality, and when the security against fire, the difference of insurance, the durability and particular construction on these tiles to resist the most penetrating rains and snows are considered, he cannot doubt of meeting with considerable encouragement. It requires only the examination of a well covered roof to convince the most prejudiced mind of their superiority to any other tile heretofore made, or to the best slate, and will cost less than the latter, after paying the expense of water carriage to almost any part of this continent. Particular attention will be paid to orders from other towns, and in all cases where they are shipped, he will deliver them whole and sound, along side of the vessels, at the expense of carriage only to the purchasers. Any person skilled in the art of tiling, will put on those tiles with great facility; but where they cannot be procured, he can engage a few here who have had some experience, and will go a moderate distance, if the job is of sufficient magnitude and their travelling expenses paid. BENJAMIN DU VAL. Richmond, March 12, 1808. N. B. I wish to sell Patent Rights in several other states. B. D.
American Literature. JUST PUBLISHED, By C. & A. CONRAD, & Co. Philadelphia; And for sale by Samuel Pleasants, Richmond:  The Columbiad, A POEM IN 10 BOOKS—By JOEL BARLOW.
THIS title announces a work of the highest interest that the RES GESTA of our country or of any other can furnish. With regard to the merits of the execution, it would ill become us, the publishers, to speak in that strain of commendation which alone would give utterance to our sentiments. Of this, the public, to whom it is now offered, will judge for themselves. We will only state one circumstance, which ought to be understood by the purchaser before we solicit his patronage. The ancient Juvenile Poem of Mr. Barlow, called the Vision of Columbus, is so far absorbed in this, as henceforward to disappear from the list of his works. All that he has thought worthy of the subject in that Poem has been incorporated in this—which may amount to one fourth or one third of the former work. He has now in his mature years and judgment, taken a much wider range over the immense regions of fact and fancy, than the fortunes of this hemisphere have opened to his view, and "the work is now probably destined to stand, the epic song of this country." No pains or expense have been spared to give it a dress and ornament suitable to its intrinsic merit. It is in one volume royal quarto illustrated by twelve engravings on the following subjects: I. Hesperus appearing to Columbus in prison. II. Capae and Ocella instructing the savages in agriculture and the domestic arts. III. Zamor killed by Capae—IV. Inquisition—V. Cesar passing the Rubicon—VI. Cruelty presiding over the Prison Ship—VII. Murder of Lucinda—VIII. Cornwallis resigning his sword to Washington—IX. Rape of the Golden Fleece—X. Initiation to the Mysteries of Iris—XI. Final resignation of prejudices. These eleven subjects were painted by the celebrated Smirke, expressly for this poem. The pictures are now exhibited in the Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts, where the public can examine their admirable execution, and form some idea of the expense and labor bestowed on the decorations of this work. They were engraved by the first artists in England; and the engravings were in such high estimation among the amateurs, that several proof copies were sold in London at six guineas a set. To these is added a portrait of the author, painted by Robert Fulton, and finely engraved by Arthur Smith. The paper, we believe, is better than any before made in this country; and the printing by Fry & Kammerer, may be regarded as a specimen of typography hitherto unsurpassed, and seldom equalled in the world.
Also just received, and for sale as above, THE 2d No. of Col. TOUSARD'S American ARTILLERIST'S COMPANION. The Discarded Son; or Haunt of the Banditti; a tale; by Regina Maria Roche, author of the Children of the Abbey, &c. &c. Modern Chivalry; containing the adventures of a captain, and Teague O'Reagan his servant; by H. H. Brackenridge. The Lay of the Last Minstrel; a Poem; by Walter Scott. The Horrors of St. Domingo; written by a lady at Cape Francois. The Lay of an Irish Harp; The Wild Irish Girl, and St. Clair. By Miss Owenson. The Pleasures of Hope and Pleasures and Pains of Memory. Jonathan Poffatree, or the Honest Yankee; a musical farce, in 3 acts. By L. Beauch. April 8, 1808. w6
MEMOIRS OF  WILLIAM SAMPSON, Including particulars of his adventures in various parts of Europe; his confinement in the dungeon of the Inquisition in Lisbon, &c. &c. SEVERAL ORIGINAL LETTERS, Being his correspondence with the ministers of state in Great Britain and Portugal. A short sketch of the HISTORY OF IRELAND, Particularly as it respects the spirit of British Domination in that country; and a few observations on the state of manners, &c in America
REMOVAL. GEORGE WATT, has removed to the main street, next door above the Bell Tavern, where he offers for sale the following articles: 20 hds Brown Sugar, 50 hds Molasses, 8 Pieces and 8 barrels best Green Coffee, 20 hds Antigua Rum, 5 pipes Holland Gin, 4 pipes Cognac Brandy, 2 hds, and 20 bhs Northern Whiskey, 15 gr casks old Sherry Wine, 3 chests Young Hyson Tea, 6 chests Hyson Skin, do. 5 chests Souchong, do. 70 sacks Liverpool ground Salt. Richmond, 16th March, 1808. 1w6w
Penitentiary Store. THE subscriber, Agent for the Penitentiary, offers for sale the following articles, the manufacture of that institution, at very low prices for cash only at retail, and at 90 credit at wholesale, for approved endorsed negotiable notes. CUT NAILS.     Wholesale prices Retail prices.     3dy 13 cents. 14 cents per lb.   4 12 1-2 13 1-2   6 11 1-2 12 1-2   8 10 1-2 11 1-2   10 10 11   12 10 11   20 10 11   Stating nails 11 1-2 12 1-2    CUT BRADS.     8dy 10 cents. 11 cents per lb.   10 9 1-2 10 1-2   12 Do. Do.   20 Do. Do.    SPIKES.     3dy 39 cts. per lb. 50 per m.   4 22 1-3 67   6 17 84    WROUGHT NAILS and BRADS.     6dy 13 14 per lb.   8 12 1-2 13 1-2   10 12 13   12 11 1-2 12 1-2   20 11 12   30 11 12    Spikes of all sizes same price as 30dy. nails. Broad and narrow Axes, Hatchets, Hoes, Plough Shares and Coulters, Hinges, Wedges, Hammers, Penders, Traces and Stretchers, Tin Ware, &c. &c.
Boots and Shoes. Fair tops, back straps, $ 9 Ditto 8 Suwarrows, 7 Half Boots, 5 Plantation and light fine shoes, 12s a 13s 6 Do. second & third qualities, 7s 6 a 10s 6 Negro shoes (strong) 7s 6 a 9s Giris do. 4s 6 a 6s Boys do. 3s 9 a 6s Childrens' s'octees, 3s a 4s 6 Fire Buckets $ 4 a $ 5 per pair Bridles, Sursingles, Whip thongs, Spur leathers, Hange strings, Back Bands, &c. &c. Any of the above articles made to order—left at the Penitentiary Store, second doors above the Eagle Tavern. D. J. BURR. March 11, 1808. (2aw1m 1awtf)
TO BE SOLD, By public auction, for cash, on Monday the 25th April next, at Cumberland court house, being court day.  Two tracts of Land, In the county of Buckingham, formerly belonging to Mr. Peyton Saunders, viz: one tract of 400 acres, adjoining the lands of Reiny Chastain and John Harris. The other tract lies on Buffalo creek, five miles from the town of Caxia, containing 238 acres, adjoining the lands of Eleanor Bowling, John Druin, John Lipscomb and James Hudgins. Mr. Edw. W. Trent will be invested with free power to act for me, he being at court on that day. CHAN. H. SAUNDERS. Richmond, March 26, 1808. wids
TO RENT, A GOOD TENEMENT on Market Alley, opposite the Market House; it is among the best stands in the neighborhood for a grocery. For terms apply to the subscriber or to Harry Tompkins ISAAC WEBSTER. February 15. if
For Rent, THE House on the Main Street, next to Messrs Ellis and Allan, and now occupied by Mrs. Pheope. Possession will be given on the first of January next—apply to JOSEPH GALLEGO. Richmond, Dec. 27, 1807. if
Valuable Lands. THE subscriber will sell, on a credit, or exchange for Property in Richmond or its neighborhood, the following LANDS, to wit: 823 acres in the state of Kentucky, by survey bearing date the 10th day of October 1797, lying and being in the district set apart for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia state line, on Little Barren river. Also, 1000 acres, in Kentucky, by survey bearing date the 10th October 1797, likewise lying in the district set apart for the officers and for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia state line, on the north side of Little river, a branch of Cumberland river, and about two and an half miles from the mouth of Little river. Also, 450 acres of Land in the county of Mason, state of Virginia, on Old Town creek, about 3 miles from Mason courthouse. Indisputable titles will be made to the above mentioned lands; and plots of each tract may be seen on application to the subscriber residing in Richmond. THOMAS BOHANNAN. January 23d, 1808. if
10 Dollars Reward. RUN AWAY from the subscriber in Albemarle county, near Charlottesville, on Sunday the 11th of April, A Negro Man, named George, Dark complexion, about thirty two years old, five feet eleven inches high, stout and well made, took with him a negro cotton coat and overalls, also, a long blue coat, a smooth fur'd hat, nearly new, with a large brim. One of his arms is crooked, but would not be discovered without close examination. I have reason to believe he is about Richmond. I will give the above reward to any person that will lodge the said negro in jail, so that I get him again, or fifteen dollars if delivered to me in Albemarle, besides what the law allows. Joel Terrell. Albemarle, April 13, 1808. 3w