The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1808-04-22 00:00:00

PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
ENGLISH GOODS—APPLETON & Co. By the John Adams, St Johns, from Liverpool, 16, Calvert-Street, have received their regular supply of GOODS calculated for the present and approaching season. Cambric and Common Calicoes, Plain and striped Dimities, Printed Marseilles Vesting, White Jeans, Furniture Chintz, Do. Dimities, London Superfine Broad Cloths, Do. do. Cassimeres, Yorkshire fine Cloths and Cassimeres, Patent Nankeen, Cords, Grandurells, Cotton Cassimeres, 6-4 and 4-4 Cambric Muslins, Japan, Haricord and Check do. Plain and Figured Mull do. Leno, Victory, Riddle, &c. do. Colored do. do. 4-4 Plain Book do. Ginghams, Silk do. Satins, Persians and Sarsnets, Bonnet Silks, Silk Gloves, Silk Handkerchiefs, Fancy Shawls, Cotton Umbrellas, Do. Brace, Do. Laces and Footings, Do. Quiltings, English Kid Gloves, Cotton Hosiery, Handkerchiefs, Fringe and Bed Lace, Cotton and Linen Checks, Buttons, Birmingham Ware, &c. &c. In store, a few dozen gentlemen's best Beaver Hats, from Marseilles. These Goods will be sold low for cash, or undoubted paper at 60 days. Baltimore, April 19. (10t)
THE BROAD-ROCK SPRING RACES will commence the 11th day of May next. The 1st day, the Jockey Club Purse of $400, four mile heats.—The 2d day the Proprietor's Purse of $200 three mile heats.—The third day, a purse of $100 two mile heats.—Entrance $20. For this purse, any person may run a horse whether he be a member of the Jockey Club or not.—Agreeable to the Jockey Club weights, winning horses for the first and second days' races not allowed to start for the third day's purse. WM. BALL, Proprietor of the Field. April 19. [4t]
SIMPSON MORRIS, opposite the Eagle-Tavern, respectfully informs the public that he still continues selling off under cost and charges till the whole of the stock is sold and wishes the public not to lose this opportunity as goods are daily raising.—The stock consists of the following articles, viz: 7-8 and 4-4 Irish Linen, Kenting, Linen and Cotton Cambrics, a large assortment of India & British Muslin, corded and cambric Dimity, a large assortment of silk & cotton Hose, Ladies silk Gloves, Damask Silk, Shawls, Black twilled Sarcenets, Florentine silk, printed Calico, Linen & Cotton Chequies, Linen & cotton Cambric hdkfs. white & Black French laces, white and colored Marseilles and James, India Cotton and Wildboar, Bennett's patent Cord, Cassimere, Broad Cloth, Flannels, Dressing Boxes, and a number of other articles too tedious to enumerate. April 5. [2p4w]
PURSUANT to a deed of trust, executed by George Loving to me, and recorded in the county court of Amherst, for securing a debt therein expressed, I will sell to the highest bidder, for ready money, at the dwelling house of said Loving, on Thursday the 5th day of May next, two male Negroes, to wit: Henry and Guy, and one Negro Woman named Silvy, or so many of them, as may be sufficient to pay the aforesaid debt and interest, and the necessary expenses attending the execution of this trust. I only warrant the title to those negroes against myself and those claiming under me. RICHARD POWELL. Warminster, April 5. (cp4w)
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. C. J. Macmurdo) the following articles, viz: 50 bbls. N. E. Rum, 25 bbls. Lard and Lump Sugar, 12 bags of Pepper, 2 ton of Iron Lead, 10 boxes Cotton and Wool Cards, 25 boxes Candles, 15 boxes New-York Chocolate, 25 trunks of Shoes assorted, 50 tierces Stone Lime. HENRY HOVEY, JAMES SIZER. [cp5w]
April 5. All persons who are indebted to the subscriber are requested to make immediate payment.—No further indulgence will be given to those whose bonds and accounts have been due 6 months. HENRY HOVEY.
SELECT SCHOOL.—This school is removed to the former Loan-Office, opposite to the Swan-Tavern.—The instructions given are in the Latin and Greek languages, Rhetoric and Mathematics, &c. The School hours are from 8 o'clock in the morning to 3 in the afternoon. The pupils are limited to twenty, and as that number is not filled up at present, a few will be received. The fees of tuition are fifteen dollars a quarter, payable in advance. There is no additional charge upon the Scholar's first entering, nor is there any for fuel. FRANCIS S. O'REILLY. Richmond, April 8. [2m.]
THE TAPPAHANNOCK RACES will commence on Wednesday the 25th of May, 1808. 1st DAY.—The Jockey Club Purse of four hundred dollars, four mile heats. 2d DAY.—The Jockey Club Purse of three hundred dollars, three mile heats. 3d DAY.—A Sweepstakes for three years old Colts and Fillies, two mile heats, one hundred dollars entrance; the subscription will remain open until the 25th May. Weights as follows.—Aged horses 130lbs. 6 years old 120lbs. 5 do. 110lbs. 4 do. 100lbs. 3 do. 80lbs. under three years, a feather. Mares and Geldings allowed 3lbs. In consequence of the following resolution of the Club, there is no doubt, the members will be punctual in paying their subscription, as the money on each day will be placed in the hands of the Judges. Resolved, That the Secretary shall have the Rules of the Club printed and furnish each member with a copy, and that a list of the members shall be handed to the Club on the first day of each race, to be read in the dining room, stating who has and who has not paid their subscription. ARTHUR S. BROCKENBROUGH, Secretary and Treasurer. March 25. [cp425a.M.]
DOMESTIC.
LETTERS
From Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State on the subject of impressments, &c.—Also, extracts from, and enclosures in the letters of Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State, prior to the joint mission of him and Mr. Pinkney; Part 2, accompanying the message of the President of the U. S. received on the 22d of March, 1808.
LETTERS
FROM MR. MONROE TO MR. MADISON. (CONTINUED.)
Remonstrance by the minister plenipotentiary of the United States, to the British government. GREAT CUMBERLAND PLACE, NO. 12, September 23, 1805.
MY LORD, I flattered myself, from what past in our last interview, that I should have been honored, before this, with an answer from your lordship, to my letters, respecting the late seizure of American vessels. I understood it to be agreed, that the discussion which then took place should be considered as unofficial, as explanatory only of the ideas which we might respectively entertain on the subject, and that your lordship would afterwards give me such a reply to my letters, respecting that measure, as his majesty's government might desire to have communicated to the government of the United States. In consequence, I have since waited with anxiety such a communication, in the daily expectation of receiving it. It is far from being my desire to give your lordship any trouble in this business which I can avoid, as the time which has since elapsed sufficiently shows. But the great importance of the subject, which has indeed become more so, by the continuance of the same policy, and the frequency of seizures which are still made of American vessels, place me in a situation of peculiar responsibility. My government will expect of me correct information on this point, in all its views, and I am very desirous of complying with its just expectations. I must, therefore, again request that your lordship will be so good as to enable me to make such a representation to my government, of that measure, as his majesty's government may think proper to give. I am sorry to add, that the longer I have reflected on the subject, the more confirmed I have been in the objections to the measure. If we examine it in reference to the law of nations, it appears to me to be repugnant to every principle of that law; if, by the understanding, or as it may be more properly called, the agreement of our governments, respecting the commerce in question, I consider it equally repugnant to the principles of that agreement. In both these views your lordship will permit me to make some additional remarks on the subject. By the law of nations, as settled by the most approved writers, no other restraint is acknowledged on the trade of neutral nations, with those at war, than that it be impartial between the latter; that it shall not extend to articles which are deemed contraband of war; nor to the transportation of persons in military service; nor to places actually blockaded or besieged. Every other commerce of a neutral with a belligerent, is considered a lawful commerce; and every other restraint on it to either of the belligerents by the other, an unlawful restraint. The list of contraband is well defined, as are also the circumstances which constitute a blockade. The best authorities have united in confining the first to such articles as are used in war, and are applicable to military purposes; and requiring, to constitute the latter, the disposition of such a force, consisting of stationary ships, so near the port, by the power which attacks it, as to make it dangerous for the vessels of a neutral power to enter it. The late treaty between Great-Britain and Russia designates these circumstances as necessary to constitute a blockade, and it is believed that it was never viewed before in a light more favorable to the invading power. The vessels condemned, were engaged in a commerce between the United States and some port in Europe, or between those states and the West-India islands, belonging to an enemy of Great-Britain. In the European voyage the cargo consisted of the productions of the colonies; in the voyage to the West-Indies, it consisted of the goods of the power to which the colony belonged, and to which the ship was destined. The ship and cargo in every case were the property of American citizens, and the cargo had been landed, and the duty on it paid, in the United States. It was decided that these voyages were continuous, and the vessels and cargoes were condemned on the principle that the commerce was illegal. I beg to refer more especially in this statement, to the case of the Essex, an appeal from the judgement of the vice admiralty court at New-Providance, in which the lords commissioners of appeals, in confirming that judgement, established this doctrine. It requires but a slight view of the subject to be satisfied that these condemnations are incompatible with the law of nations as above stated. None of the cases have involved a question of contraband, of blockade, or of any other kind that was ever contested till of late, in favor of a belligerent against a neutral power. It is not on any principle that it is applicable to any such case, that the measure can be defended. On what principle then is it supported by Great Britain? What is the nature and extent of her doctrine? What are the circumstances which recommend, the arguments which support it? The information on these points we cannot refer to the well known writers on the law of nations; no illustration can be obtained from them of a doctrine which they never heard of. We must look for it to an authority more modern; to one which, however respectable for the learning and professional abilities of the judge who presides, is, nevertheless, one which, from many considerations is not obligatory on other powers. In a report of
the decisions of the court of admiralty of this kingdom, we find a notice of a series of orders issued by the government, of different dates and imports, which have regulated this business. The first of these bears date on the 6th of November, 1793; the second on the 6th of January, 1794; the third on the 25th January, 1798. Other orders have been issued since the commencement of the present war. It is these orders which have authorized the seizures that were made, at different times, in the course of the last war, and were lately made by British cruisers of the vessels of the U. S. States. They too form the law which has governed the courts in the decisions on the several cases which have arisen under those seizures. The first of these orders prohibits altogether every species of commerce between neutral countries and enemies colonies, and between neutral & other countries, in the productions of those colonies; the second and subsequent orders modify it in various forms. The doctrine, however, in every decision, is the same; it is contended in each, that the character and just extent of the principle is to be found in the first order, and that every departure from it since, has been a relaxation of the principle, not claimed of right by neutral powers, but conceded in their favor gratuitously by G. Britain. In support of these orders it is urged, that as the colonial trade is a system of monopoly to the parent country in time of peace, neutral powers have no right to participate in it in time of war, although they be permitted so to do by the parent country: that a belligerent has a right to interdict them from such a commerce. It is on this system of internal restraint, this regulation of colonial trade, by the powers having colonies, that a new principle of the law of nations is attempted to be founded: one which seeks to discriminate in respect to the commerce of neutral powers, with a belligerent, between different parts of the territory of the same power, and likewise subverts many other principles of great importance, which have heretofore been held sacred among nations. It is believed, that so important a superstructure was never raised on so slight a foundation. Permit me to ask, does it follow, because the parent country monopolizes in peace the whole commerce of its colonies, that in war it should have no right to regulate it at all? That, on the contrary, it should be construed to transfer, in equal extent, a right to its enemy, to the prejudice of the parent country, of the colonies, and of neutral powers? If this doctrine was sound, it would certainly institute a new and singular mode of acquiring and losing rights; one which would be highly advantageous to one party, while it was equally injurious to the other. To the colonies, more especially, it would prove peculiarly onerous and oppressive. It is known that they are essentially dependent for their existence, on supplies from other countries, especially the United States of America, who being in their neighborhood, have the means of furnishing them with greatest certainty, & on the best terms. Is it not sufficient that they be subjected to that restraint in peace, when the evils attending it, by the occasional interference of the parent country, may be, and are frequently repaired? Is it consistent with justice or humanity, that it should be converted into a principle, in favor of an enemy, inexorable of course, but otherwise without the means of listening to their complaints, not for their distress or oppression only, but for their extermination? But there are other insuperable objections to this doctrine. Are not the colonies of every country a part of its domain, and do they not continue to be so until they are severed from it by conquest? Is not the power to regulate commerce incident to the sovereignty, and is it not co-extensive over the whole territory which any government possesses? Can one belligerent acquire any right to the territory of another, but by conquest? And can any rights which appertain thereto, be otherwise defeated or curtailed in war? In whatever light, therefore, the subject is viewed, it appears to me evident, that this doctrine cannot be supported. No distinction, founded in reason, can be taken between the different parts of the territory of the same power to justify it. The separation of one portion from another by the sea, gives lawfully to the belligerent which is superior on that element, a vast ascendancy in all the concerns on which the success of the war, or the relative prosperity of their respective dominions, may in any degree depend. It opens to such power, ample means for its own aggrandizement, and for the harrassment and distress of its adversary. With these it should be satisfied. But neither can that circumstance, nor any any of internal arrangement, which any power may adopt for the government of its dominions, be construed to give to its enemy any other advantage over it. They certainly do not justify the doctrine in question, which asserts, that the law of nations varies in its application to different portions of the territory of the same power: that it operates in one mode, in respect to one, and in another, or even not at all, in respect to another; that the rights of humanity, of neutral powers, and all other rights, are to sink before it. It is further urged, that neutral powers, ought not to complain of this restraint, because they stand under it, on the same ground with respect to that commerce, which they held in time of peace. But this fact, if true, gives no support to the pretension. The claim involves a question of right, not of interest. If the neutral powers have a right in war, to such commerce, with the colonies of the enemies of Great-Britain, as the parent states respectively allowed, they ought not to be deprived of it by her, nor can its just claims be satisfied by any compromise of the kind alluded to. For this argument to have the weight which it is intended to give, to the commerce of the neutral powers with those colonies, should be placed and preserved through the war, in the same state, as if it had not occurred. Great-Britain should in respect to them, take the place of the parent country, and do every thing which the latter would have done, had there been no war. To discharge that duty, it would be necessary for her to establish such a police over the colony, as to be able to examine the circumstances attending it annually, to ascertain whether the crops were abundant, supplies from other quarters had failed, and eventually to decide, whether, under such circumstances the parent country would have opened the ports to neutral powers. But these offices cannot be performed by any power which is not in possession of the colony; that can only be obtained by conquest, in which case, the victor would, of course, have a right to regulate its trade as it thought fit. It is also said, that neutral powers have no right to profit of the advantages which are gained in war, by the arms of Great-Britain. This argument has even less weight than the others. It does not, in truth, apply at all to the question. Neutral powers do not claim a right, as already observed, to any commerce with the colonies which G. Britain may have conquered of her enemies, otherwise than on the conditions which she imposes. The point in question turns on the commerce which they are entitled to, with the colonies which she has not conquered, but still remain subject to the dominion of the parent country. With such it is contended, for reasons that have been already given, that neutral powers have a right to enjoy all the advantages in trade which the parent country allows them: a right of which the mere circumstance of war cannot deprive them. If Great-Britain had a right to prohibit that commerce, it existed before the war began, and of course before she had gained any advantage over her enemies. If it did not then exist, it certainly does not at the present time. Rights of the kind in question, cannot depend on the fortune of war, or other contingencies. The law which regulates them is invariable, until it be changed by the competent authority. It forms a rule equally between belligerent powers, and between neutral and belligerent, which is dictated by reason and sanctioned by the usage and consent of nations.
The foregoing considerations have, it is presumed, proved, that the claim of Great-Britain to prohibit the commerce of neutral powers in the manner proposed, is repugnant to the law of nations. If, however, any doubt remained on that point, other considerations which may be urged, cannot fail to remove it. The number of orders of different imports which have been issued by government, to regulate the seizure of neutral vessels, is a proof that there is no established law for the purpose. And the strictness with which the courts have followed those orders through their various modifications, is equally a proof that there is no other authority for the government or their decisions. If the order of the 6th of November 1793, contained the true doctrine of the law of nations, there would have been no occasion for those which followed, nor is it probable that they would have been issued; indeed if that order had been in conformity with that law, there would have been no occasion for it. As in the cases of blockade & contraband, the law would have been well known without an order, especially one so very descriptive; the interest of the cruisers, which is always sufficiently active would have prompted them to make the seizures, and the opinions of eminent writers, which in that case would not have been wanting, would have furnished the courts the best authority for their decisions. I shall now proceed to show that the decisions complained of are contrary to the understanding, or what, perhaps, may more properly be called an agreement of the two governments, on the subject. By the order of the sixth November, 1793, some hundreds of American vessels were seized, carried into port and condemned. Those seizures and condemnations became the subject of an immediate negotiation between the two nations, which terminated in a treaty, by which it was agreed to submit the whole subject to commissioners, who should be invested with full power to settle the controversy which had thus arisen. That stipulation was carried into complete effect; commissioners were appointed, who examined laboriously and fully, all the cases of seizure and condemnation which had taken place, and finally decided on the same, in which decisions they condemned the principle of the order, and awarded compensation to those who had suffered under it. Those awards have been since fairly and honorably discharged by Great-Britain. It merits particular attention that a part of the twelfth article of that treaty, referred expressly to the point in question, and that it was on the solemn deliberation of each government, by their mutual consent, expunged from it. It seems therefore to be impossible to consider that transaction, under all the circumstances attending it, in any other light than as a fair and amicable adjustment of the question between the parties; one which authorized the just expectation, that it would never have become again a cause of complaint between them. The sense of both was expressed on it in a manner too marked and explicit, to admit of a different conclusion. The subject too was of a nature that, when once settled ought to be considered as settled forever. It is not like questions of commerce between two powers which affect their internal concerns, and depend, of course, on the internal regulations of each. When these latter are arranged by treaty, the rights which accrue to each party under it, in the interior of the other, cease when the treaty expires. Each has a right afterwards to decide for itself in what manner that concern shall be regulated in future, and in that decision to consult solely its interest. But the present topic is of a very different character. It involves no question of commerce or other internal concern between the two nations. It respects the commerce only, which either may have with the enemies of the other, in time of war. It involves, therefore, only a question of right under the law of nations, which in its nature cannot fluctuate. It is proper to add, that the conclusion above mentioned, was further supported, by the important fact, that until the late decree, in the case of the Essex, not one American vessel, engaged in this commerce, had been condemned on this doctrine; that several which were met in the channel, by the British cruisers, were permitted, after an examination of their papers to pursue their voyage. This circumstance justified the opinion, that that commerce was deemed a lawful one by Great-Britain.
There is another ground, on which the late seizures and condemnations are considered as highly objectionable, and to furnish just cause of complaint to the United States. Until the final report of the commissioners under the 7th article of the treaty of 1794, which was not made until last year, it is admitted that their arbitration was not obligatory on the parties, in the sense in which it is now contended to be. Every intermediate declaration, however, by Great-Britain, of her sense on the subject, must be considered as binding on her, as it laid the foundation of commercial enterprises, which were thought to be secure while within that limit. Your lordship will permit me to refer you to several examples of this kind, which were equally formal and official, in which the sense of his majesty's government was declared very differently from what it has been in the late condemnations. In Robinson's reports, vol. 2, page 368, (case the Polly, Lasky, master) it seems to have been clearly established by the learned judge of the court of admiralty, that an American has a right to import the produce of an enemy's colony into the United States, and to send it on afterwards to the general commerce of Europe; and that the landing the goods, and paying the duties in the United States, should preclude all further question relative to the voyage. The terms "for his own use," which are to be found in the report, are obviously intended to assert the claim only that the property shall be American, and not that of an enemy; but admitting the right to send on the produce afterwards to the general commerce of Europe, it is not possible that those terms should convey any other idea. A bona fide importation is also held by the judge to be satisfied by the landing the goods and paying the duties. This therefore is, I think, the true import of that decision. The doctrine is again laid down in still more explicit terms by the government itself, in a correspondence between lord Hawkesbury and my predecessor, Mr. King. The case was precisely similar to those which have been lately before the court. Mr. King complained in a letter of March 18, 1801, that the cargo of an American vessel going from the United States to a Spanish colony, had been condemned by the vice-admiralty court of Nassau, on the ground that it was of the growth of Spain, which decision he contended was contrary to the law of nations, and requested that suitable instructions might be dispatched to the proper officers in the West-Indies to prevent like abuses in future. Lord Hawkesbury in reply of April 11th, communicated the report of the king's advocate-general, in which it is expressly stated that the produce of an enemy may be imported by a neutral into his own country, and re-exported thence to the mother country; and in like manner in that circuitous mode, that the produce and manufactures of the mother country might find their way to its colonies; that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country, broke the continuity of the voyage & legalized the trade, and the goods were re-shipped in the same vessel, on account of the same neutral proprietors, and forwarded for sale to the mother country of the colony. It merits attention in this report (so clearly and positively is the doctrine laid down, that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country broke the continuity of the voyage) that it is stated as a doubtful point whether the mere touching in the neutral country to obtain fresh clearances will be considered in the light of the direct trade; that no positive inhibition is insisted on any but the direct trade between the mother country and the colonies. This doctrine in the light herein stated, is also to be found in the treaty between Great-Britain and Russia, June 17, 1801. By the 2d section of the 24 article, the commerce of neutrals in the productions or manufactures of the enemies of Great-Britain, which have become the property of the neutral, is declared to be free; that section was afterwards explained by a declaratory article of October 20, of the same year, by which it is agreed that it shall not be understood to authorise neutrals to carry the produce or merchandise of an enemy either directly from the colonies to the parent country, or from the parent country to the colonies. In other respects the commerce was left on the footing on which it was placed by that section, perfectly free, except in the direct trade between the colony and the parent country. It is worthy of remark that, as by the reference made in the explanatory article of the treaty with Russia, to the United States of America, it was supposed that those states and Russia, Denmark and Sweden, had a common interest in neutral questions, so it was obviously intended, from the similarity of sentiment which is observable between that treaty as amended, and the report of the advocate-general above-mentioned, to place all the parties on the same footing. After these acts of the British government, which being official were made public, it was not to be expected that any greater restraint would have been contemplated by it, on that commerce, than they impose, that an enquiry would ever have been made, not whether the property with which an American vessel was charged belonged to a citizen of the United States or an enemy, but whether it belonged to this or that American; an enquiry which imposes a condition which it is believed that no independent nation, having a just sense of what it owes to its rights or its honor, can ever comply with. Much less was it to be expected that such a restraint would have been thought of, after the report of the commissioners above adverted to, which seemed to have placed the rights of the United States incontrovertibly on a much more liberal, and, as is contended, just footing. It is proper to add that the decree of the lords commissioners of appeals in the case of the Essex produced the same effect as an order from the government would have done. Prior to that decree, from the commencement of the war, the commerce in question was pursued by the citizens of the United States, as has been already observed, without molestation. It is presumable that till then his majesty's cruisers were induced to forbear a seizure, by the same considerations which induced the American citizens to
the decisions of the court of admiralty of this kingdom, we find a notice of a series of orders issued by the government, of different dates and imports, which have regulated this business. The first of these bears date on the 6th of November, 1793; the second on the 6th of January, 1794; the third on the 25th January, 1798. Other orders have been issued since the commencement of the present war. It is these orders which have authorized the seizures that were made, at different times, in the course of the last war, and were lately made by British cruisers of the vessels of the U. S. States. They too form the law which has governed the courts in the decisions on the several cases which have arisen under those seizures. The first of these orders prohibits altogether every species of commerce between neutral countries and enemies colonies, and between neutral & other countries, in the productions of those colonies; the second and subsequent orders modify it in various forms. The doctrine, however, in every decision, is the same; it is contended in each, that the character and just extent of the principle is to be found in the first order, and that every departure from it since, has been a relaxation of the principle, not claimed of right by neutral powers, but conceded in their favor gratuitously by G. Britain. In support of these orders it is urged, that as the colonial trade is a system of monopoly to the parent country in time of peace, neutral powers have no right to participate in it in time of war, although they be permitted so to do by the parent country: that a belligerent has a right to interdict them from such a commerce. It is on this system of internal restraint, this regulation of colonial trade, by the powers having colonies, that a new principle of the law of nations is attempted to be founded: one which seeks to discriminate in respect to the commerce of neutral powers, with a belligerent, between different parts of the territory of the same power, and likewise subverts many other principles of great importance, which have heretofore been held sacred among nations. It is believed, that so important a superstructure was never raised on so slight a foundation. Permit me to ask, does it follow, because the parent country monopolizes in peace the whole commerce of its colonies, that in war it should have no right to regulate it at all? That, on the contrary, it should be construed to transfer, in equal extent, a right to its enemy, to the prejudice of the parent country, of the colonies, and of neutral powers? If this doctrine was sound, it would certainly institute a new and singular mode of acquiring and losing rights; one which would be highly advantageous to one party, while it was equally injurious to the other. To the colonies, more especially, it would prove peculiarly onerous and oppressive. It is known that they are essentially dependent for their existence, on supplies from other countries, especially the United States of America, who being in their neighborhood, have the means of furnishing them with greatest certainty, & on the best terms. Is it not sufficient that they be subjected to that restraint in peace, when the evils attending it, by the occasional interference of the parent country, may be, and are frequently repaired? Is it consistent with justice or humanity, that it should be converted into a principle, in favor of an enemy, inexorable of course, but otherwise without the means of listening to their complaints, not for their distress or oppression only, but for their extermination? But there are other insuperable objections to this doctrine. Are not the colonies of every country a part of its domain, and do they not continue to be so until they are severed from it by conquest? Is not the power to regulate commerce incident to the sovereignty, and is it not co-extensive over the whole territory which any government possesses? Can one belligerent acquire any right to the territory of another, but by conquest? And can any rights which appertain thereto, be otherwise defeated or curtailed in war? In whatever light, therefore, the subject is viewed, it appears to me evident, that this doctrine cannot be supported. No distinction, founded in reason, can be taken between the different parts of the territory of the same power to justify it. The separation of one portion from another by the sea, gives lawfully to the belligerent which is superior on that element, a vast ascendancy in all the concerns on which the success of the war, or the relative prosperity of their respective dominions, may in any degree depend. It opens to such power, ample means for its own aggrandizement, and for the harrassment and distress of its adversary. With these it should be satisfied. But neither can that circumstance, nor any any of internal arrangement, which any power may adopt for the government of its dominions, be construed to give to its enemy any other advantage over it. They certainly do not justify the doctrine in question, which asserts, that the law of nations varies in its application to different portions of the territory of the same power: that it operates in one mode, in respect to one, and in another, or even not at all, in respect to another; that the rights of humanity, of neutral powers, and all other rights, are to sink before it. It is further urged, that neutral powers, ought not to complain of this restraint, because they stand under it, on the same ground with respect to that commerce, which they held in time of peace. But this fact, if true, gives no support to the pretension. The claim involves a question of right, not of interest. If the neutral powers have a right in war, to such commerce, with the colonies of the enemies of Great-Britain, as the parent states respectively allowed, they ought not to be deprived of it by her, nor can its just claims be satisfied by any compromise of the kind alluded to. For this argument to have the weight which it is intended to give, to the commerce of the neutral powers with those colonies, should be placed and preserved through the war, in the same state, as if it had not occurred. Great-Britain should in respect to them, take the place of the parent country, and do every thing which the latter would have done, had there been no war. To discharge that duty, it would be necessary for her to establish such a police over the colony, as to be able to examine the circumstances attending it annually, to ascertain whether the crops were abundant, supplies from other quarters had failed, and eventually to decide, whether, under such circumstances the parent country would have opened the ports to neutral powers. But these offices cannot be performed by any power which is not in possession of the colony; that can only be obtained by conquest, in which case, the victor would, of course, have a right to regulate its trade as it thought fit. It is also said, that neutral powers have no right to profit of the advantages which are gained in war, by the arms of Great-Britain. This argument has even less weight than the others. It does not, in truth, apply at all to the question. Neutral powers do not claim a right, as already observed, to any commerce with the colonies which G. Britain may have conquered of her enemies, otherwise than on the conditions which she imposes. The point in question turns on the commerce which they are entitled to, with the colonies which she has not conquered, but still remain subject to the dominion of the parent country. With such it is contended, for reasons that have been already given, that neutral powers have a right to enjoy all the advantages in trade which the parent country allows them: a right of which the mere circumstance of war cannot deprive them. If Great-Britain had a right to prohibit that commerce, it existed before the war began, and of course before she had gained any advantage over her enemies. If it did not then exist, it certainly does not at the present time. Rights of the kind in question, cannot depend on the fortune of war, or other contingencies. The law which regulates them is invariable, until it be changed by the competent authority. It forms a rule equally between belligerent powers, and between neutral and belligerent, which is dictated by reason and sanctioned by the usage and consent of nations.
The foregoing considerations have, it is presumed, proved, that the claim of Great-Britain to prohibit the commerce of neutral powers in the manner proposed, is repugnant to the law of nations. If, however, any doubt remained on that point, other considerations which may be urged, cannot fail to remove it. The number of orders of different imports which have been issued by government, to regulate the seizure of neutral vessels, is a proof that there is no established law for the purpose. And the strictness with which the courts have followed those orders through their various modifications, is equally a proof that there is no other authority for the government or their decisions. If the order of the 6th of November 1793, contained the true doctrine of the law of nations, there would have been no occasion for those which followed, nor is it probable that they would have been issued; indeed if that order had been in conformity with that law, there would have been no occasion for it. As in the cases of blockade & contraband, the law would have been well known without an order, especially one so very descriptive; the interest of the cruisers, which is always sufficiently active would have prompted them to make the seizures, and the opinions of eminent writers, which in that case would not have been wanting, would have furnished the courts the best authority for their decisions. I shall now proceed to show that the decisions complained of are contrary to the understanding, or what, perhaps, may more properly be called an agreement of the two governments, on the subject. By the order of the sixth November, 1793, some hundreds of American vessels were seized, carried into port and condemned. Those seizures and condemnations became the subject of an immediate negotiation between the two nations, which terminated in a treaty, by which it was agreed to submit the whole subject to commissioners, who should be invested with full power to settle the controversy which had thus arisen. That stipulation was carried into complete effect; commissioners were appointed, who examined laboriously and fully, all the cases of seizure and condemnation which had taken place, and finally decided on the same, in which decisions they condemned the principle of the order, and awarded compensation to those who had suffered under it. Those awards have been since fairly and honorably discharged by Great-Britain. It merits particular attention that a part of the twelfth article of that treaty, referred expressly to the point in question, and that it was on the solemn deliberation of each government, by their mutual consent, expunged from it. It seems therefore to be impossible to consider that transaction, under all the circumstances attending it, in any other light than as a fair and amicable adjustment of the question between the parties; one which authorized the just expectation, that it would never have become again a cause of complaint between them. The sense of both was expressed on it in a manner too marked and explicit, to admit of a different conclusion. The subject too was of a nature that, when once settled ought to be considered as settled forever. It is not like questions of commerce between two powers which affect their internal concerns, and depend, of course, on the internal regulations of each. When these latter are arranged by treaty, the rights which accrue to each party under it, in the interior of the other, cease when the treaty expires. Each has a right afterwards to decide for itself in what manner that concern shall be regulated in future, and in that decision to consult solely its interest. But the present topic is of a very different character. It involves no question of commerce or other internal concern between the two nations. It respects the commerce only, which either may have with the enemies of the other, in time of war. It involves, therefore, only a question of right under the law of nations, which in its nature cannot fluctuate. It is proper to add, that the conclusion above mentioned, was further supported, by the important fact, that until the late decree, in the case of the Essex, not one American vessel, engaged in this commerce, had been condemned on this doctrine; that several which were met in the channel, by the British cruisers, were permitted, after an examination of their papers to pursue their voyage. This circumstance justified the opinion, that that commerce was deemed a lawful one by Great-Britain. There is another ground, on which the late seizures and condemnations are considered as highly objectionable, and to furnish just cause of complaint to the United States. Until the final report of the commissioners under the 7th article of the treaty of 1794, which was not made until last year, it is admitted that their arbitration was not obligatory on the parties, in the sense in which it is now contended to be. Every intermediate declaration, however, by Great-Britain, of her sense on the subject, must be considered as binding on her, as it laid the foundation of commercial enterprises, which were thought to be secure while within that limit. Your lordship will permit me to refer you to several examples of this kind, which were equally formal and official, in which the sense of his majesty's government was declared very differently from what it has been in the late condemnations. In Robinson's reports, vol. 2, page 368, (case the Polly, Lasky, master) it seems to have been clearly established by the learned judge of the court of admiralty, that an American has a right to import the produce of an enemy's colony into the United States, and to send it on afterwards to the general commerce of Europe; and that the landing the goods, and paying the duties in the United States, should preclude all further question relative to the voyage. The terms "for his own use," which are to be found in the report, are obviously intended to assert the claim only that the property shall be American, and not that of an enemy; but admitting the right to send on the produce afterwards to the general commerce of Europe, it is not possible that those terms should convey any other idea. A bona fide importation is also held by the judge to be satisfied by the landing the goods and paying the duties. This therefore is, I think, the true import of that decision. The doctrine is again laid down in still more explicit terms by the government itself, in a correspondence between lord Hawkesbury and my predecessor, Mr. King. The case was precisely similar to those which have been lately before the court. Mr. King complained in a letter of March 18, 1801, that the cargo of an American vessel going from the United States to a Spanish colony, had been condemned by the vice-admiralty court of Nassau, on the ground that it was of the growth of Spain, which decision he contended was contrary to the law of nations, and requested that suitable instructions might be dispatched to the proper officers in the West-Indies to prevent like abuses in future. Lord Hawkesbury in reply of April 11th, communicated the report of the king's advocate-general, in which it is expressly stated that the produce of an enemy may be imported by a neutral into his own country, and re-exported thence to the mother country; and in like manner in that circuitous mode, that the produce and manufactures of the mother country might find their way to its colonies; that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country, broke the continuity of the voyage & legalized the trade, and the goods were re-shipped in the same vessel, on account of the same neutral proprietors, and forwarded for sale to the mother country of the colony. It merits attention in this report (so clearly and positively is the doctrine laid down, that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country broke the continuity of the voyage) that it is stated as a doubtful point whether the mere touching in the neutral country to obtain fresh clearances will be considered in the light of the direct trade; that no positive inhibition is insisted on any but the direct trade between the mother country and the colonies. This doctrine in the light herein stated, is also to be found in the treaty between Great-Britain and Russia, June 17, 1801. By the 2d section of the 24 article, the commerce of neutrals in the productions or manufactures of the enemies of Great-Britain, which have become the property of the neutral, is declared to be free; that section was afterwards explained by a declaratory article of October 20, of the same year, by which it is agreed that it shall not be understood to authorise neutrals to carry the produce or merchandise of an enemy either directly from the colonies to the parent country, or from the parent country to the colonies. In other respects the commerce was left on the footing on which it was placed by that section, perfectly free, except in the direct trade between the colony and the parent country. It is worthy of remark that, as by the reference made in the explanatory article of the treaty with Russia, to the United States of America, it was supposed that those states and Russia, Denmark and Sweden, had a common interest in

(Continued from last page.)
It was evidently improper that an interest of a nature so delicate and important; one which was so intimately connected with the sovereignty and independence of the nation, should be left longer in such a state of oppression. My government felt that it would be wanting to what it owed to its character as in its duty, if it did not endeavor to put an end to a practice so injurious and at the same time so degrading. It was, therefore, one of the objects of the project referred to, to provide a remedy for that evil. But it was understood that Great-Britain complained likewise of an injury in respect to her seamen, though of a different kind: for that, also, it was proposed to provide an adequate remedy. In protecting American citizens from impressment, my government was far from desiring to extend its protection to any who had not a just claim to it. It was ready to meet the injury complained of by Great-Britain and to suppress it by the most effectual means in its power. These propositions were neither accepted nor rejected by Lord Hawkesbury, though I think myself perfectly correct in stating that nothing occurred in our conferences, to justify an inference that he thought them unreasonable. They were postponed from time to time at his instance, and finally transferred to Lord Harrowby, his successor. I revived the subject immediately with Lord Harrowby, to whom I also submitted, at the same time, a proposition relative to boundaries. It happened that Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. King had made a convention on this latter subject, within a few days of the time when one was also concluded between the United States and France, whereby the province of Louisiana was ceded to those states. As it was not known either to Lord Hawkesbury or Mr. King, when they formed their treaty, that one had been concluded with France, it was impossible that the conditions of the French treaty should be in any degree affected by that with Great-Britain. It was however apprehended, that if the British treaty should be ratified by the President and Senate, after the conditions of the other were known, without providing against it, that it might lay the foundation for such a pretension. It was therefore proposed to modify the convention in such a manner as to preclude a claim which would be equally unjust and unauthorized. As this subject is fully explained in my note to Lord Harrowby, of the 5th of September, 1804, it is unnecessary to enter further into it at present. The conduct of Lord Harrowby in this business was essentially the same with that of his predecessor. It was postponed from time to time for the consideration of the cabinet, whose decision I was taught to expect, but never received. I had been ordered by my government, before Lord Harrowby came into office, to repair to Spain on a special mission, as soon as the business with his lordship should be concluded. On that fact, after waiting some time, I gave his lordship information, in the hope of promoting dispatch. Still, however, the business was delayed; the cabinet, as I was informed, having come to no decision on any point, till finally I was agreed between us, to postpone the whole until my return from Spain, when it should be resumed and concluded. I left Great-Britain on that mission in October, 1804, and returned in July, 1805.
At the epoch referred to, the relations between the two countries were of a character the most friendly. Not an American vessel had been condemned on any principle which was relied on by my government, and only one that I knew of on any principle whatever. Their commerce with each other was as it always will be, when left to its natural course, most flourishing, and that which the United States claimed as a neutral power with other nations, on a footing which was perfectly satisfactory to their government. At my return, however, the scene was completely changed. A system of seizure and condemnation of American vessels had been commenced, on a principle, respecting which, it was presumed, that no new discussion could ever arise; one which was considered as having been so completely settled between the governments that in the project above referred to, it was not contemplated to make a provision for it: a principle which had been renounced by Great-Britain in her treaty with the United States in 1794; which had been condemned by the commissioners who sat under that treaty; which had been renounced by the court of admiralty in a subsequent decision; by Lord Hawkesbury in a formal communication with my predecessor in 1801; by the treaty with Russia in the same year; and which is perhaps still more conclusive, by the government, in the sanction which had been given to that commerce for the two preceding years of the war. I could not otherwise than be much surprised at a proceeding, which I considered objectionable in so many views, and hastened to remonstrate against it to Lord Mulgrave, in several notes, whose dates are annexed. To these his lordship never honored me with a conclusive answer, with one which acknowledged the measure as an act of the government, or disclaimed it on its part. The proceeding has been highly injurious to the United States. About 120 of their vessels have been seized, several of which were condemned, all taken from their course, detained and otherwise subjected to heavy losses and damages. To the immediate sufferers it has been very disastrous; but the ill effect has not been confined to them only. It has been severely felt in the general commerce of the country.
I have thought it my duty to give you above a sketch of the several topics depending between our governments, which are submitted to your consideration. They are all of a nature very interesting, as I am persuaded you will find by a perusal of the documents referred to. But the late seizure and condemnation of American vessels are acts which have proved so highly injurious to the United States, and have so essentially changed the relations between the countries, that they will, I flatter myself, obtain from you a more immediate and particular attention. I beg you to be assured that I shall be happy to have it in my power to transmit to my government, without delay, such communications on your part, which may serve not only to heal the wound which has been thus unexpectedly received, but to promote in other respects, by suitable arrangements, the reciprocal and permanent interests of both nations, and the best understanding between their governments.
I beg you to accept the assurance of the high consideration with which I have the honor to be, sir, Your most obedient, And most humble servant, JAMES MONROE. The right hon. Charles Fox, Esq. &c. &c. &c.
No. 43. LONDON, MARCH 31, 1806. SIR, Your letter of the 13th January, is the last that I have received. The pamphlet included with it has been republished here, and I have this day transmitted a copy of it to Mr. Fox, with whom I had an interview on the 28th. I had expected from what passed between us on the 11th, that before this, much progress would have been made in the adjustment of our affairs: I am, however, sorry to add that this has not been the case. In the late interview, I complained of the delay which had taken place, more especially as the court continued to condemn our vessels on the principle it had heretofore done. Mr. Fox said that till the business was arranged, he presumed the court would be consistent; but gave reason to expect that the condemnations would be suspended. He assured me explicitly, that the late decision was not to be considered as an evidence of the disposition of the present ministry. I endeavored to fix with him the conditions of our settlement of that question, but found that he was not prepared to conclude any thing.
The tenor of his conversation, however, was perfectly consistent with what he had said before, as heretofore communicated to you. The interview terminated in his assuring me that he should devote the Easter holidays to a full examination of the whole subject, after which he would be prepared to meet me on it, and that he was persuaded we might conclude it in a month or six weeks from that time: that he would certainly give it all the dispatch in his power. He intimated that if indeed a peace should take place, of which there was at present but little prospect, he was nevertheless desirous of settling this business amicably with the United States, with a view to preserve future harmony. I told him that we expected payment for the spoliations. He said that was a very serious and difficult point; but gave no opinion on it. Finding that nothing could be done conclusively, I had only to assure him that I should be ready to meet him whenever he might be prepared, which I hoped would be immediately after the holidays. From what I can discern, I think that there is much cause to believe that Mr. Fox has the best disposition to settle our differences on just principles, but it must be recollected that some other of the members of the cabinet, have not always thought with him on such topics. On the most deliberate reflection, I am convinced that too much reliance ought not to be placed on these favorable appearances, and that there is cause to fear that if the congress should separate without adopting a system of coercive policy calculated to meet the most unfavorable result, their forbearance may contribute to the disappointment of our reasonable expectations. By this, however, I do not wish to imply that measures of the kind alluded to, should be carried into prompt execution. I mean only that the attitude should be taken, and its operation be suspended by suitable powers to the President, till he shall be duly notified that the negotiation has failed. Such a suspension will be deemed a sufficient mark of respect to those in the ministry who are disposed to a fair accommodation, and the attitude will, in my opinion, tend to aid their councils, in producing that effect.
I am, sir, With great respect and esteem, Your very obedient servant, JAMES MONROE
Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison. LONDON, April 3, 1806. "As it appeared by what occurred in my interview with Mr. Fox, on the 28th ultimo, that some weeks at least would elapse before I could hope to bring our business to a final conclusion, I thought it proper to make a formal application to him a formal application to him on the 31st, for an order to suspend the seizure and condemnation of our vessels on the principle of the late decrees. I had not requested this in explicit terms before, because I hoped from what passed in our first interview that the whole affair would have been concluded much sooner. I was fearful too, that if the demand should be granted, it would become a reason why nothing more should be done. This latter reason it is true, still remains in some degree in force, if indeed it had any weight at first. It was, however, outweighed by the consideration that the seizures were continued, and that I ought not on a mere speculative point of experience, as to the effect which such an application might have on the general question, to delay any longer my utmost exertion to put an end to the practice."
There were also some other considerations which prevented my making the application sooner, which had ceased, if they did not furnish motives for making it in the present stage. The new ministry had a just claim to sufficient time to become acquainted with the merits of the question, and even to sound the parliament on it, before it could be expected to take any step in the business. Had I made the demand at an earlier period, I thought I should incur the imputation of a want of candor, without a reasonable prospect of hastening a decision, unless indeed by urging it unseasonably, I might promote an improper one. To Mr. Fox especially, much attention was due in the mode of proceeding, on account of his character and principles in reference to our country, which are known to be just and liberal. It seemed probable that by respecting that sentiment towards him in the measures taken, his feelings would be gratified and his mind conciliated, which could not otherwise than produce a good effect. His exertions on topics in which the United States were interested, form an important trait in his political life; and it was evident in our first and subsequent interviews, that he looked back on them with interest and satisfaction. This, therefore, formed a special motive for giving time, and acting with delicacy in the business. At this period, however, the application seemed to be free from all these objections, while it had become obviously my duty to make it by the considerations stated in my note.
How the cabinet is disposed in this question it is not in my power to state. Some of its members are known to have differed with Mr. Fox in respect to the policy of Great-Britain towards the United States, on former occasions, and in similar cases. It is possible that the spirit of conciliation on which the ministry is formed, may be felt in the present one. Every view, however, which I have been able to take of the subject, confirms me in the justice of the remarks which were communicated to you in my last of the 31st ultimo."
I am, Sir, With great respect, &c. (Signed) JAMES MONROE.
MARCH 31, 1806. Mr. Monroe presents his compliments to Mr. Fox, and has the honor to send him a copy of an American essay, containing an examination of the principle on which the admiralty has lately condemned the vessels of the United States. As this work is written with great ability and candor, Mr. Monroe flatters himself that Mr. Fox will take the trouble to give it an attentive perusal. Mr. Monroe has been much gratified by the assurances which Mr. Fox has given him in their several interviews, of his disposition to adjust the differences between their governments, on the most just and liberal principles. He has high confidence in those assurances and in the prospect they afford of an early accomplishment of their object. In consideration, however, of the great length of time which has elapsed since the commencement of the seizures, and that which will be required to conclude the business, he deems it his duty to submit to Mr. Fox, whether it will not be proper that his majesty's government should suspend the seizure and condemnation of American vessels on the principle in question. Mr. Monroe presumes, that such a suspension in any case where one of the parties to an amicable negotiation was suffering very extensive injuries under the operation of a principle which they were desirous to adjust, would be proper. In the present one, however, it seems to him to be made peculiarly so, by a late decision of the lords commissioners of appeal, in the case of
the William, Treffrey, which confirms the principles of the former decisions, which have been, as Mr. Monroe presumes, so justly complained of by his government. He apprehends that this decision, unless followed by the suspension proposed, will be considered by the United States and his majesty's cruisers, as a sanction by the present government to the policy which has been heretofore pursued. In case his majesty's government thinks proper to adopt the measure which is requested, Mr. Monroe hopes that Mr. Fox will be so good as to give him early notice of it, that he may transmit it to his government without delay.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison. LONDON, April 18, 1806.
"I received yesterday a note from Mr. Fox, appointing to-morrow (Saturday 19) for an interview, with which I shall of course comply. I met him afterwards and had a conversation with him in the queen's drawing room, which being of an interesting nature, I hasten to communicate to you. He took me aside, and observed, that we must now soon settle our business. I replied, that I hoped he was ready to do it. He intimated that he was essentially; that we would begin on Saturday and pursue it without delay till it was concluded. Some remarks of his having led the conversation to the merits of the principal topic, I told him, that he must save us in the enjoyment of the trade in question, and pay us or the property taken. To the first proposition he immediately assented. To the second, he said there would be objections. He added, that he had taken steps to prohibit the further condemnation of our ships and cargoes, as I had desired, of which he intended to have informed me by note, but had been prevented by other business; he had no objection, however, still to do it. I cannot be positive whether he said that the prohibition extended also to the seizure of our vessels, though I rather think it did. When I saw him to-morrow, I shall easily ascertain this. He observed, that we must make some arrangements to accommodate them in return; that the practice of buying or pretending to buy enemies vessels as was done in the north, ought to be suppressed, and he hoped that I would join him in it. I said, that we would do all we could to prevent fraudulent practices; that such purchases were rarely made by our citizens, as we were rather sellers than purchasers of ships. He considered it in that light, and I found, wished some precedent from us, which might avail him in the north, and make more acceptable at home, the accommodation given us in other respects. I left this topic however, open; having said nothing to compromise myself on it. As the whole of this conversation though apart, was nevertheless in a public room full of company, it was impossible to make it more precise. I could not, therefore, attempt to ascertain to what extent he was willing to leave the commerce with enemies colonies free. I shall doubtless collect his idea on that point to-morrow, since it seems best to hear his proposition before I say any thing on it, and I shall not fail in any case to attend to your instruction of Jan. 13."
I am, Sir, With great respect, &c. (Signed) JAMES MONROE.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison. LONDON, April 20, 1806.
"I have the pleasure to inform you that I had an interview with Mr. Fox yesterday, in which we conferred on all the interesting topics depending between our governments. The result was as satisfactory, in respect to his own views, as his more early communications had promised, and gave a prospect more favorable of the disposition of the cabinet generally than I had anticipated. The substance of what passed in our conference of the 17th, was fully confirmed in this, and his sentiments on some points, on which I had not then clearly understood them, were made more explicit. The prohibition mentioned in my letter of the 18th, is to be extended to the seizure as well as the condemnation of our vessels, of which he is to give me official notice in a day or two. On the principle there seems to be no question between us, but in respect to the direct trade between the colony & the parent country. To the justice of our claim of indemnity, he said little, but I see that it is a point which the ministry will find it difficult to concede from a variety of considerations. I am, however, not without the hope that it may be placed on a satisfactory footing. He expressed a desire to take up the subject of commerce generally, more especially in respect to the West-Indies, the intercourse between which and the United States he thought it important to both countries to arrange at this time. I showed a willingness to meet him on the general subject, or any part of it on which we could agree. The sentiments which he expressed on this, and every other subject, to which our conversation extended, were of a very liberal kind, and communicated with frankness and candor. He admitted that it ought not to be expected that the United States would allow their productions and resources which were necessary to the existence of the West-India colonies, to be drawn from them otherwise than on fair principles of reciprocity. It was finally agreed that he should write me a second letter which would be in reply to those I had written to Lord Mulgrave, in which he would explain the views of his government on the subject of them. He promised to write this letter in a week or ten days, if not prevented by unexpected events. This letter will of course lay the foundation on the part of his government of the negotiation."
I am, Sir, With great respect, &c. (Signed) JAMES MONROE.
No. 47. LONDON, April 28, 1806. SIR,
Having waited a week after my interview with Mr. Fox on the 19th without receiving either of the communications which he then promised me, I called on him on the 25th to know the cause, and to confer freely again on our affairs, if he should be so disposed. As he anticipated the object of the visit, we soon entered on it. After some introductory remarks on other topics, he began by asking what was the minimum of our demands respecting the seizures? Could we not agree in some modification of our respective pretensions, some compromise? For example, to adopt some plan which might answer our object without compromising his government. As I perceived that he alluded principally to our claim to an indemnity; I observed, that if the principle was admitted to be with us, the indemnity followed of course. But, says he, cannot we agree to suspend our rights, and leave you, in a satisfactory mode,
the enjoyment of the trade? In that case nothing would be said about the principle, and there would be no claim to an indemnity. I told him that I could not agree to such an adjustment; that the right was unquestionably with us; that the injury had been severe and unprovoked, and that we could not abandon our claim in either case. He entered into such a view of the subject as showed a disposition to yield what accommodation he could, in a manner the least objectionable on his part. He did not seem desirous of discussing the question of right, nor did he deny that an indemnity was fairly incident to it. He then asked, how the fact stood relative to the continuity of the voyage? On what ground did the charges rest of the congress having made regulations to evade the principle insisted on by the court of Admiralty? I replied, on none whatever; that the question of continuity had never occurred between our governments; that it was a creature of the court of admiralty, who had set it up as a doctrine, and supported it by such charges to justify the condemnation; that my government had never admitted the right in his to impose any restraint on the trade of neutrals, with enemies colonies, other than with the parent country; that his government had repeatedly admitted and established that claim by the most solemn acts, as had been proved by the documents in his possession; that he must be sensible if my government was capable in any case of passing acts to evade a principle, it would not do it in the present one, where it could only serve to create doubts to the prejudice of the United States, and by giving a new sanction to the former pretensions of his government, revive a controversy which had been already amicably settled in their favor. I added that I possessed an official document, which fully proved what I had advanced respecting our regulations which, with his permission, I would send him. He expressed a desire to receive it. Well, says he, I perceive that your minimum and maximum are the same. I replied that I did not see how it could be otherwise; that we only sought what was strictly just and ought not to be desired to relinquish any portion of that. He then proceeded to insist that our vessels which should be engaged in that commerce, must enter our ports, their cargoes be landed and the duties be paid on them. I said that such restraints were incompatible with our just rights. He urged also that we must unite in a plan to prevent the fraudulent sale and use of enemies vessels. I was apprehensive that any stipulation on that head, might lay the foundation of new disputes. He thought that we were interested as ship-builders, in suppressing all such frauds: besides, says he, you must yield something to justify the concessions that are expected from us. I told him that I should be glad to see his project, or that he would answer my letters in such a manner as to lay the foundation of the treaty. He assured me that he would do so as soon as he could — but as he had failed to comply with his former promise, he was afraid to make another so at time; but he gave me reason to expect one in a week or ten days. As I had cause to suspect from his remarks on the whole subject, that an order to prohibit the seizure and condemnation of our vessels had not been issued, I asked him explicitly the question. He said that none had been issued — that in truth such a step would be to give up the point in negotiation. I inferred, however, that the measures which he informed me on the 17th and 19th he had taken for that purpose, were of a nature to produce the desired effect. These are, I suppose, confidential in the cabinet with the court of admiralty, &c. The order itself has most probably been withheld for the present, that it might be connected with the general subject, on the principle above adverted to by Mr. Fox. I could not, however, push the enquiry on that point further at the time, from motives of delicacy to him nor did here appear to be any strong reason for it. I cannot suppose that nothing is done in that respect, and am persuaded that the business is so far advanced, that it intended, as I presume, the order must soon be issued.
On the day after the interview above mentioned, I sent Mr. Fox a copy of Mr. Gallatin's letter to you explaining the mode of entering goods, and paying the duties on them in the U. States, as I had promised. I had not done this to Lord Mulgrave, because the state of the business with him would have given it the air of a concession on my part. I availed myself of the opportunity to state explicitly that I could not enter into any adjustment which did not provide a reasonable indemnity for injuries. It seemed to me obvious that that claim formed a principal difficulty in the cabinet, and I was persuaded that it might have a good effect to give him what would be considered the ultimatum on it. I have not heard from Mr. Fox since, though it is presumable that I soon shall, for I do not suspect him of the want of good faith in his communications with me. It is proper, however, to add that in dependent of the real importance of the subject, and the responsibility incident to any concessions which may be made in our favor by the present ministry, of the pretensions of the former, circumstances which are likely to inspire caution and create delay in the cabinet, the additional one of his being a member of the house of commons, for the management of the prosecution of Lord Melville, cannot fail to increase it. I shall nevertheless do everything in my power, consistent with propriety, to bring the business to as early a conclusion as possible, and to comprise in the adjustment, in the manner enjoined by my instructions, the important question respecting our seamen and boundaries.
You will observe that Mr. Fox insisted in the late interview on restricting the trade with enemies colonies in a greater degree than he had done in the preceding one. I am convinced that this was produced by the cabinet deliberations on the subject, for I am strong in the opinion, that if left to himself, he would meet in arrangements which would place the whole business, and indeed all our relations, on the most broad & liberal basis, in a firm belief that by so doing, he would advance the best interests of his country. But he has to consult and accommodate with others, some of whom may perhaps not entertain in all respects the same sentiments or be equally prepared to encounter, in a new scheme of policy, ancient and deep rooted prejudices. When I get his answer I may remind him of his former concessions in this respect, if it should appear that any advantage was likely to result from it. I shall not fail, however, to pay great attention to this particular object, and will certainly not agree to any restraint on the trade which can be avoided, or is likely to be disapproved by the president.
I am, Sir, with great respect, Your very obedient servant, JAMES MONROE.
PRINCE'S STREET, April 20, 1806. Mr. Monroe presents his compliments to Mr. Fox, and has the honor to enclose him a copy of the official document mentioned in their interview of yesterday, being a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of State, explaining the manner in which duties are paid on goods imported into, and exported from the United States. Mr. Fox will find by this document, that the regulations respecting that subject are uniform and applicable to all articles exported, and that they were not adopted to favor any particular commerce as has been erroneously supposed. Mr. Fox will be the more sensible of this fact, when he recollects that the government of the United States never admitted the right in Great-Britain, to inhibit the commerce in question; that on the contrary, it had concluded on the highest possible evidence, as is proved by the papers in Mr. Fox's possession, that Great-Britain had relinquished the pretension.
Mr. Monroe considers it his duty to observe to Mr. Fox, that as his government thinks itself entitled to the commerce referred to, and that the citizens of the United States have been injured by the attack which has been made on it, by his majesty's cruisers and privateers, under circumstances too, that were peculiarly calculated to inspire a confidence in their security, his instructions for his entering into any adjustment which does not look to the object of a reasonable compensation. He makes this communication with candor, in the hope, that Mr. Fox will take it into consideration, in the answer which he has been so good as to promise him, at an early day.
No. 48.—(COPY) LONDON, May 17, 1805.
SIR, After my interview with Mr. Fox, on the 25th ult. I waited a fortnight without hearing from him. This new instance of delay surprised me, because he had shown a sensibility to the former one, & did not seem aware of the necessity of adding to it. Independent of the general object, the war with Prussia and the blockades incident to it, the doctrine and practice respecting which, it was necessary to arrange, furnished a new motive for a communication with him. On mature reflection, I thought it best to call informally, which I did on the 11th, with a view to enter on these topics in the familiar manner I had heretofore done. Mr. Fox was at the office, but did not receive me. He sent the expression of his regret at not being able to do it, being as he said, just going to attend the cabinet, who were waiting for him. I called again on the 13th, and experienced the same result, though I had left word that I should be there. I was informed by his desire, that a summons from the king, to attend on him at the palace, prevented his receiving me on that day. I met him on the 15th, at the Drawing Room, but had no opportunity speaking to him. Sir Francis Vincent, the under Secretary of state, being acquainted with my desire, promised to arrange with him an interview, and to inform me of it. These are the only circumstances worthy notice that have occurred here since my last, till to day. I mention them that you may be better enabled to judge correctly, in all respects, of the light in which the incident of this day ought to be viewed. Early this morning I received from Mr. Fox a note, a copy of which is enclosed, in which you will perceive embraces explicitly a principal subject depending between our governments, though in rather a singular mode. A similar communication is, I presume, made to the other ministers, though of that I have no information. The note is couched in terms of restraint, and professes to extend the blockade further than was heretofore done; nevertheless, it takes it from many ports already blockaded. Indeed from all east of Ostend and west of the Seine, except in articles contraband of war and enemies property, which are seizable without a blockade. And in like form of exception, considering every enemy as one power, it admits the trade of neutrals, within the same limit, to be free, in the productions of enemies colonies, in every but the direct route between the colony and the parent country. I have however been too short a time in the possession of this paper to trace it in all its consequences in regard to this question. It cannot be doubted, that the note was drawn by the government in reference to the question, and if intended by the cabinet as a foundation on which Mr. Fox is authorized to form a treaty, & obtained by him for the purpose, it must be viewed in a very favorable light. It seems clearly to put an end to further seizures, on the principle which has been heretofore in contestation. I am engaged, by invitation, with Mr. Fox, on the 19th, when it is probable I may have an opportunity of conversing with him, and thereby enabled to form a satisfactory opinion on the subject. I hasten however to forward you the enclosed, with the above details, as it is important for you to have them. It is worthy of attention, that at the Drawing Room, on the 15th, it was whispered about, that the bill for prohibiting the importation of British goods, &c. had passed the senate, of which it was said, that intelligence had that morning been received. It evidently produced some sensation, which was doubtless the stronger, from the idea then entertained, that the bill was to commence its operation at an early day. I observe, however, with pleasure, that on the whole, the measure is considered by the government papers, on account of the distant period at which it does commence, rather as a pacific than as a hostile one. I persuade myself that the present ministry will see in the circumstance of delay, a strong proof of the disposition of the United States, not only to preserve the relations of peace with Great-Britain, but of their countenance, that the ministry is animated with the same desire. I cannot help remarking likewise the fact, that this paper was sent me immediately after the passage of the bill was known. It furnishes

a strong presumption, that the government papers judge correctly of the sentiments of the government on that point. It may be inferred, that a knowledge of the passage of the bill hastened the communication to me. But my own opinion is that the business having had its regular course, was advanced to such a stage that it would have been made, had the intelligence not been received. This opinion, however, is formed on circumstances only, and may be erroneous. I hope soon to be able to give you more certain and satisfactory information respecting it.
I am, Sir, With great respect and esteem, Your very obedient servant, JAMES MONROE. (Signed) P. S. I enclose to you a note from M. Lorentz, the minister resident of Hesse-Cassel, requesting certain information, which if in your power to obtain, I beg you will be so good as to transmit to me.
DOWNING STREET, May 16, 1806. The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has received his majesty's commands to acquaint Mr. Monroe, that the King taking into consideration the new and extraordinary means resorted to by the enemy for the purpose of distressing the commerce of his subjects, has thought it to direct that the necessary measures should be taken for the blockade of the coast, rivers and ports, from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both inclusive; and the said coast, rivers and ports are and must be considered as blocked; but that his majesty is pleased to declare, that such blockade shall not extend to prevent neutral ships and vessels, laden with goods not being the property of his majesty's enemies, and not being contraband of war, from approaching the said coast, and entering into and sailing from the said rivers and ports, (save and except the coast, rivers and ports from Ostend to the river Seine, already in a state of strict and rigorous blockade, and which are to be considered as so continued) provided the said ships and vessels so approaching and entering (except as aforesaid) shall not have been laden at any port belonging to or in the possession of any of his majesty's enemies, and that the said ships and vessels so sailing from the said rivers and ports (except as aforesaid) shall not be destined to any port belonging to or in the possession of any of his majesty's enemies, nor have previously broken the blockade.
Mr. Monroe is therefore requested to apprise the American consuls and merchants residing in England, that the coast, rivers and ports above-mentioned, must be considered as being in a state of blockade, and that from this time all the measures authorised by the law of nations, and the respective treaties between his majesty and the different neutral powers, will be adopted and executed with respect to vessels attempting to violate the said blockade after this notice.
The undersigned requests Mr. Monroe to accept the assurances of his high consideration.
(Signed) C. J. FOX. Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison.
LONDON, May 20, 1806. "From what I could recollect, I have been strengthened in the opinion which I communicated to you in my last, that Mr. Fox's note of the 16th, was drawn with a view to a principal question with the United States, I mean that of the trade with enemies colonies. It embraces, it is true, other objects, particularly the commerce with Prussia, and the north generally, whose ports it opens to neutral powers, under whose flag, British manufactures will find a market there. In this particular especially, the measure promises to be highly satisfactory to the commercial interest, & it may have been the primary object of the government. You will observe that I have not considered the note as a reply to mine, or as being any way connected with them. It was not communicated to me as such, and it was evidently improper for me to consider it in that light. In directing the publication of it, I have expressed no sentiment on the contents, but left them to the criticism of the public."
With respect to the delay to which I am exposed, it is utterly out of my power to explain to you the cause. I have no reason to change the opinion, which I have heretofore expressed of Mr. Fox's disposition on the subject, though I have had no late communication with him. His present reserve is unfavorable, but it may be otherwise accounted for, and on principles which are quite natural and therefore presumable. He may have experienced more difficulties in the cabinet than he had expected. Many of the members may be indisposed to an arrangement on such terms as can be accepted, and most of them willing to postpone any decision, until the result of the proceedings in congress is known. Under these circumstances he may find it most eligible to avoid any further communication with me for the present.
It becomes therefore very difficult, if not altogether improper, for me to press the business at this time. It seems to be my duty to postpone such pressure to the same epoch, that is, till the final proceedings of congress are known. I shall doubtless receive with them the instructions of the President on the whole subject, which I beg to assure you, I shall use my utmost exertions to carry into effect."
I am, Sir, With great respect, &c. (Signed) JAMES MONROE.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison.
LONDON, June 9, 1806. On the 31st ultimo accounts were received here from the United States that the President and Senate had adopted the measure of a special mission to this country, in which Mr. Pinkney and myself were associated. These accounts, which appeared to be well founded at first, have been confirmed since by letters to individuals, so that the fact seems to be unquestionable. I have not received official information of it but expect it from you daily.
A suspension of further proceeding in the business in which I have been engaged, seemed to be the natural consequence of this measure as soon as it was known. It has, accordingly, already produced that effect, and will probably preserve it in the same state till Mr. Pinkney arrives. I hope, therefore, that I shall soon have the pleasure of seeing him.
My former letters, the last of which was of May 20, showed how this business stood at that time. I have since seen Mr. Fox twice, on the 4th and again on the 7th inst. The first interview was at his own house, on the anniversary of the King's birth, in a general rendezvous of the diplomatic corps. In that I touched on some interesting subjects, particularly the outrages lately committed at New-York by the British cruisers, our non-importation act, and the affair of general Miranda. But as we could not treat those subjects with advantage in a crowd, it was agreed to postpone the consideration of them to the 6th, when I promised to attend him at his office for the purpose of entering more fully into it. The interview was afterwards deferred by him to the 7th, when it took place.
Although the object of this latter meeting was special, yet it naturally brought into view the other topics in which we had been engaged, and with them that of the appointment above mentioned. Mr. Fox asked me, soon after we met whether such an appointment was made? I told him that I had no official information of it, but I believed that it was. He said that Mr. Merry had informed him in his last letter that the measure was decided on, but had not been communicated to the senate. What effect, added he, will it produce on our business? It was evident that he thought it ought to suspend it. It was of course useless for me to even be proper, and I of a different opinion, to express it. My answer, therefore, corresponded with his expectation. I availed myself of the opportunity to assure Mr. Fox, that Mr. Pinkney was every way well qualified for the trust and that I was persuaded that he would be well satisfied with the appointment.
The general subject being thus disposed, we proceeded to those which had been touched in our communication of the 4th. I told Mr. Fox that the outrage in the case of the unfortunate victim, John Pierce, had been committed, as appeared by the affidavits published, within the jurisdiction of the United States. I stated that the harbour of New-York had been blocked up by those frigates, as if it were an enemy's port; that they did not appear to have taken their station there for hospitality or shelter, but for invasion. I told him of the outrages which had been committed at the same port in the autumn of 1804 by the same frigates, as of the conduct of his government in that respect, recalling in the first instance the officer who had given most offence, but finally promoting him to the command of a ship of the line. Mr. Fox said that he wanted information respecting the late unfortunate event; should it appear that the officers had acted improperly, due attention should be paid to the subject. He added, that he had already written to Mr. Merry in that sentiment, and would also express it in a letter to me. In speaking of the non-importation act, he expressed his regret that it had passed. He said that it had the air of a menace, and that it was not agreeable to do things by compulsion. I reminded him how long we had complained of injuries which his government had not attempted to justify; injuries which were not imaginary or perspective, but real and severe, which affected equally the honor and interest of the United States. I added, that under such circumstances his government had no right to complain of the act referred to. I assured him, however, that I was of opinion, if the ministry had not changed, that a bill of a very different import would have been adopted; that I had reason to believe that the tone of our government, and of the congress, had been essentially moderated by the information which I had given of his assurances that our differences should be settled amicably, and on just principles; that the act which had passed in consequence of that information was little more than a declaration to the citizens of the United States that the object would be duly attended to. I observed that he must be sensible, after the subject had been taken up by congress, as it was before the change of the ministry was known, that it was impossible for that body to dismiss it without some expression of the rights of the United States in the question in dispute, without exposing itself to the charge of having abandoned them. He seemed finally to admit that the congress could not well have avoided doing something in the business, and that the measure which had been adopted ought to be considered as a moderate one. I was glad to hear this sentiment from Mr. Fox, because I had feared that he would urge the passage of the act, as a discharge from the obligation, which his communications with me had in a certain degree imposed on him in respect to the conditions on which he was disposed to make the settlement, and in which, in some particular and interesting points, he was precise and explicit.
I then observed to Mr. Fox, that I should be glad he would state in the letter which he had promised, his willingness to resume the business when Mr. Pinkney should arrive, and with a view to conciliation and dispatch, objects which merited attention at the present time, that he would also advert in it, to the several subjects which we had had under consideration, in the sentiments which he had expressed in our conferences. He seemed to be aware that the proposition was a reasonable one, and promised, without hesitation, to comply with it; but says he, I am afraid that I cannot be very distinct in it. I replied, that I should leave that to himself, but that I presumed he could easily recollect what had passed between us on each point: that in respect to the trade with enemies colonies especially, I did suppose that it had been intended by the late order to place it on the ground of the Russian treaty, and that he might go with safety in his letter, as far as the order went. He neither admitted or denied the fact explicitly, though he did not seem willing to give his sanction to the inference I had drawn. I criticised the order as well as I could from memory, to show why I had made the inference, without, however, expressing any approbation of the order. He said it was true that the produce of enemies colonies might, under the exceptions stated in the order, and admission in neutral vessels into the enemies ports, yet he did not seem willing to admit that that was the particular object of the order. I did not press this point further, because I saw no motive for it. I concluded, however, from this conversation, as I had done from what had occurred before, that this measure had been taken to prevent the further seizure and condemnation of our vessels on the principle in discussion between our governments, and that the acknowledgment of it had been withheld from a consideration mentioned by Mr. Fox in one of our conferences, that such acknowledgment would be to give up the point in negotiation. Several circumstances, independent of those alluded to, support this idea. It is not necessary to state them, because I trust that the business will ere long be placed on a much more solid footing.
I am, with great respect, &c. (Signed) JAMES MONROE. (PART II. Concluded.)
Latest from Massachusetts.—Gore 36792—Sullivan 33085.—Democratic majority 1239.
NEW-YORK, April 16.
Prior to the adjournment of the legislature of this state, it appears they have authorised a loan to be made to the amount of 450,000 dollars, in sums to individuals, not exceeding 500 dollars each. The loans are to be general, and to extend to every county—to be secured by mortgage on real estate.
Extract of a letter from the American Consul at St. Lucar, received via Boston, dated the 22d February.
"The George Augustus, and the Swift, (American vessels) have been detained under the late Decree of the Emperor Napoleon, for 13 days, and an order for their liberation has just arrived—the former vessel has since arrived at Boston."
WASHINGTON, April 18.
On Saturday the remains of Mr. Crowninshield were attended, from the house of Mr. Machin, by the members of the two Houses and other citizens, who proceeded a
short distance on the Baltimore road. The body was thence moved on, it being the intention of the friends of the deceased to carry it to Salem.
On Saturday the Senate ordered to a third reading a bill authorizing the President to suspend in whole or in part the operation of the embargo, in the event of such peace or suspension of hostilities between the belligerent powers of Europe, or of such changes in their measures affecting neutral commerce, as may render that of the U. S. sufficiently safe in his judgement.
The Vice-President of the U. S. having on Friday retired from the chair of the Senate, Gen. Smith of Maryland was elected President pro tempore. Nat. Int.
CHARLESTON, April 12. The schooner Citizen, capt. Sturges, arrived yesterday from the City of Washington, has on board fifty-two Marines, under the command of Lieutenants Masters and Pinkney, sixteen pieces of heavy ordnance and provisions for the United States brig Hornet, Capt. Dent.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, April 12.
Mr. Randolph rose to give notice that he meant to bring forward a motion on a subject of considerable public interest, and in which in his opinion the honor of the government of the United States was materially implicated. He held in his hand an application from a veteran soldier on the subject of his bounty land, and who had sent him a power of attorney to act for him—a man of unimpeachable character, and who had not been at the seat of government since it was established. His name Wm. Bryan, has been drawn and fraudulently located; I say fraudulently, because I am well assured that the party has not received any advantage from the warrant, and there is the strongest evidence of fraud. His warrant has been drawn and located, by whom I cannot discover; my researches were completely baffled by the memorable fire, which it is presumable owed its origin to a desire to cover frauds of this nature. I was referred from the war office to the Treasury office; for the only chance of finding out who had acted as attorney in fact for this old man, was, that the warrant ought to have been returned and on file there. On going to the war office I found that the space on the record which the warrant ought to have occupied, was blank; and that no such warrant exists on the Treasury files. I believe this case far from being a solitary one, but that the case was numerous, and many of those who have honestly earned a title to public land, have been in this way defrauded, and the land sold to speculators who have reaped the benefit of it. I therefore give notice that I shall at a future day move for an enquiry into this subject.
Mr. Poindexter presented a memorial from the Legislature of the Mississippi territory, praying a modification of the ordinance for the government of the territories. Referred to a committee of the whole to whom a bill on the same subject, was referred.
The bill for altering and establishing certain post roads having been read, and the question put "Shall this bill pass?"
Messrs. Taylor, Smilie, Alston, D. R. Williams, Bacon and Talmadge opposed the bill; and Messrs. Randolph, Bibb, Blackledge, Stanford, Troup and Lloyd supported it.
The opponents of the bill objected to it because the number of new roads created being so much greater than of old ones put down, would create an expense to the United States over and above the net revenue of the Post-Office establishment, of from 30 to 50,000 dollars; because that so great a ramifications as this bill proposed might render the institution too cumbrousome; that the nation did not expect nor was it originally contemplated that the Post-Office establishment should be supported by any other revenue than that which it properly fostered, would be of so great utility to the people; that gentlemen, by drawing the rich blood from other institutions, and giving a passage into this institution, would destroy the very object which they only aimed to nourish; in any event that more harm would result from extending it to so great a latitude than from fostering it with economy. In addition to this it was said that if this bill passed, an additional appropriation must be made, or the Post-Master-General must be prevented from carrying the law into effect, or he must anticipate appropriations, pursuing a practice which had of late been so much objected to; that the establishment of 44 new roads a year or two ago had diminished the next proceeds of the Post-Office establishment from 50,000 to 2,300 dollars, while the present bill proposing 90 new roads, would in the same proportion cause a deficit of perhaps 40,000 or 50,000 dollars beyond the net revenue of the establishment; that there was already taking into view the salaries of the officers of the General Post-Office, an annual expenditure over and above the annual receipts, of 14,000 dollars; which when increased by the additional expense caused by the erection of the new roads proposed, would be a serious expense to the United States from that establishment which ought properly to yield a profit.
The advocates of the bill replied that the only objection which could be fairly made to the bill was on account of the old roads supposed to be unproductive which it put down, and not on account of the new ones which it erected; that supposing the conjectural estimate of a surplus expense over and above the revenue arising from the establishment, of 30 or even 50,000 dollars, was correct, which was by no means admitted, it would be at least problematical whether the benefit to be received from a diffusion of information would not far exceed the additional expense; that the benefit to be derived from the 2,000,000 voted for the new roads, would shrink from the comparison with the benefits to be derived from the expenditure of 50,000 dollars for this purpose; that the bill provided roads for a vast tract of newly settled country in the state of Georgia to which the Indian title had been extinguished, which would be left totally destitute of information except the bill passed; and in a government like ours, the conduct of which was founded upon the will of the people, it was of absolute importance that the people should be informed; that if the principle admitted by the opponents of the bill was correct, that the establishment should consume its own revenue, even in case of the expense not exceeding the revenue, the establishment might justly claim credit from the general government for the many thousand dollars which it had annually netted to the Treasury; and that it was extremely doubtful whether the cost of these roads would exceed the proceeds to be derived from them. It was also said, that if the expense to N. Orleans were put down, it would cause a great diminution of expense, perhaps equal to the whole expense caused by the new roads established by this bill; and this mail being kept up for the service of government altogether, the Post-Office department ought correctly to have creditors its whole expense.
The bill was passed by Yeas and Nays, 71 to 31.
WEDNESDAY April 13.
Mr. Randolph called for the order of the day on the bill for arming the whole body of the militia of the United States.
The Speaker declared that the unfinished business (resolution respecting the embargo) had preference in the order of the day.
Mr. Randolph moved to postpone that subject, although he had no wish to delay it, till the bill for arming the militia should be taken up.
On the suggestion of Mr. Rhea (T.) Mr. Randolph modified his motion so that the resolution relative to the embargo should be referred to a committee of the whole on the state of the union—Negatived, 49 to 29.
The bill concerning public contracts was received from the Senate with considerable amendments.
A motion was made to refer it to a committee of the whole—Negatived, Ayes 26.
A motion to refer it to a select committee was negatived—Ayes 32.
It was then ordered to lie on the table till printed, 44 to 33.
The House then went in a committee of the whole, Mr. Desha in the chair, on the resolution declaring that the President ought, under certain contingencies, to be authorised to suspend the embargo.
Messrs. Love, Fisk, Masters and Sloan supported the resolution, and Messrs. Key and Randolph opposed it.
About 5 o'clock a motion was made that the committee rise, Mr. Randolph having ceased speaking for that purpose, and carried.
The House then went into a committee of the whole on the bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Thomas Barclay, dec'd. which being gone through, was immediately ordered to a third reading to-morrow.
THURSDAY, April 14.
On motion of Mr. Dana, the committee of the whole to whom were referred two resolutions for enabling merchant vessels mutually to arm and assist each other, and for the security of American seamen, was discharged from the further consideration of them, and they were referred to a select committee, with leave to report by bill.
A bill from the Senate for continuing in force an act declaring the assent of Congress to certain acts of the states of Maryland and Georgia, was read three times and passed.
Mr. Clarke presented a memorial of the legislature of Orleans territory, praying an alteration in the ordinance for the government of the territory. Referred to a select committee with leave to report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. Van Cortlandt, presented a resolution of the legislature of the state of New-York on the subject of the exposed order of the port of New-York. Referred to a committee of the whole House on the state of the union.
Mr. Clarke presented a memorial of the legislature of the territory of Orleans, praying for the erection of a port of entry on Bayou Teche. Referred to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
The court martial bill was received from the Senate with amendments.
The House then went into a committee of the whole, on the resolution relative to the embargo, Messrs. Randolph and D. R. Williams opposed the resolution, and Mr. G. W. Campbell supported it at great length.
When at 5 o'clock the committee rose, 49 to 49, the Chairman deciding in the affirmative and obtained leave to sit again.
FRIDAY, April 15.
As soon as the Journal was read, Mr. Bacon said, I rise with feelings of the deepest sensibility, to perform a solemn and painful duty. It is to announce to the House the death of my friend and colleague, Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, who expired this morning at 6 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Fisk, Resolved, unanimously, That a committee be appointed to take order to superintend the funeral of JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, esq. late a representative from the state of Massachusetts.
On motion of Mr. D. R. Williams, Resolved, unanimously, That the members of this House will testify their respect for the memory of JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, Esq. late a member of this body, by wearing crape on the left arm for one month.
On motion of Mr. Newton, Resolved, unanimously, That the members of this House will attend the funeral of the late JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, Esq. to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Smilie, Resolved, unanimously, That a message be sent to the Senate to notify them of the death of JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, late a member of this House; and that his funeral will take place to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Findley, the house agreed nem. con. to meet at 9 o'clock to-morrow morning.
On motion of Mr. Newton, that the House now adjourn—Agreed nem. con.
SATURDAY, April 16.
The House met at 9 o'clock, and after reading the journal, adjourned till 12 o'clock, in order to attend the funeral of Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.
The House met according at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Quincy presented petitions respecting the operation of the embargo, in relation to fish—Referred to the committee of the whole, to whom the subject had been referred.
A bill from the Senate to continue in force for a further time an act for the more effectual preservation of peace in the ports and harbors of the U. States, and the waters under their jurisdiction, was read three times and passed without a division.
A bill for the relief of Darius Gates and Matthew Smith, went through a committee of the whole, and was ordered to a third reading.
The bill to continue in force an act to extend jurisdiction in certain cases to state judges, and to state courts, went through a committee of the whole, and was ordered to a third reading.
The House took up the amendments of the Senate, to the bill concerning public contracts—41 to 37.
Mr. Basset congratulated the friends of the bill that another sanction had been given to the principle established by the bill—The Executive department had long since sanctioned it; the House of Representatives had given it their sanction by a large majority, and the consent of the Senate was manifested. The only material amendment made to the bill by the Senate was, that offenders were to be punished by fine instead of impeachment. All the branches of government having declared that the connection in contracts or members of Congress was a political immorality; and being so, no one could object to punishing it. He therefore hoped the amendments, though material, would be agreed to, as it was infinitely more important to establish the principle than to fix the mode of punishment.
After considerable discussion on various amendments, some of which were withdrawn, and others less important agreed to, the House concurred in the amendments proposed by the Senate—Yeas 59.
The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, 44 to 38, on the bill for
arming the whole body of the militia of the U. States.
Mr. Randolph moved to fill the blank in the bill (the sum to be annually appropriated for this purpose,) with one million of dollars.
After some debate the committee rose without taking a question, and debate arising on the question whether the committee have leave to sit again, and a quorum not appearing within the bar, a motion was made that the House adjourn. The question on adjournment was taken (at half past five) by the Yeas and Nays called by Mr. Randolph, and negatived 39 to 30.
The motion for adjournment was then renewed, and Mr. Taylor calling for the Yeas and Nays, on the motion (6 o'clock) it was negatived 32 to 26.
The House then adjourned, on motion of Mr. Burwell 34 to 22.
ENQUIRER OFFICE.
17. We have made every effort to lay the remainder of Part 2d of the Documents before our readers.—We shall proceed in our next with the 3d Part.
From the documents presented to our readers, we can see no satisfactory reason to support the assertion, so repeatedly made by the friends of Mr. Monroe, that but for the appointment of Mr. Pinkney, he could have made an honorable and satisfactory Treaty with Mr. Fox.
"ONE OF THE PROTESTORS" in our next.
DELEGATES ELECTED TO THE NEXT LEGISLATURE.
Charlotte—Joseph Wyatt, Williamson Price. Campbell—Edward Watts, Achilles Moorman. Pownall—Wm. Pope, Dr. Edward Johnson.
New Members.
MARRIED, on Thursday the 14th inst. by the Rev. Mr. Buchanan, Mr. WILLIAM LOWNES, to the amiable Miss ARRIANA WOOLMEY GLYNN, both of this City.
A handsome pair—Bride & Groom & Bride; "And who can say, or who can wish, but that it should be so?"
JNO. COURTNEY, jr. requests those indebted to him for printing, &c. to make immediate payment to Mr. Thomas Buring, at the Office of the Enquirer, who is authorised in his absence to grant receipts. Richmond, April 22.
SPRING & SUMMER GOODS.—RICHARD BROOKE has just received a full assortment of GOODS, suitable for the present and ensuing season, all of which he will sell low for cash—Among which are—
Superfine and second Cloth, Superfine and second Cassimeres, Twilled and Tabby Velvet, Hunter's constitution and silver Cords, Cotton Cassimeres and English Nankeens, India Nankeen, Bandana, Rohilla and Madrass Hdkf. White and coloured Janes, Do. Marselles, Gillies and Clantz, Pink, blue and purple Ginghams and Muslins, Dimity and Cambric Dimity, Furniture do. Linen and Cotton Checks, 4-4 and 7-8 Irish Linen and shirting Cotton, 9-8 and 6-4 Cambricks, Plain and Figured Lenoes, Elegant mill mill Robes and short Dresses, Worked and Figured Sarsnets and Crapes, Real Lace Veil, black and white, Narrow and broad black Laces, Fashionable Scarfs and Shawls, Gentlemen and Ladies' silk and cotton Hose, 7-4, 10-4 Damask Silk Shawls, and 1 case fashionable Bonnets and Head Dresses, just from Paris.
April 22. [18]
FOR SALE.—30 ton country and Sweden Iron assorted, 2 ton Nail Rods, a few bds. Northern Whiskey, and a few Bales foreign Cotton. Likewise, just receiving 27,000 weight of choice Bacon, among which are 750 hams—All of which we will dispose of on reasonable terms, for cash or a short credit.
RUSSELL & WALLACE, Left corner of street leading to B.F.P's Warehouse. April 22. [eplm18]
PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.—This day is dissolved, by mutual consent, the partnership of R. and G. Turner.
ROBERT TURNER. GEORGE TURNER. (21)
THE business will in future be carried on by ROBERT TURNER.
TO RENT.—an Imm. late possession given, the HOUSE lately occupied by Messrs. Pabst and Alan Pollok & Co.—Also, two other commodious TENEMENTS, near to the Bank of Virginia—and one small Do. pleasant situated on the hill in the neighborhood of James Brown, esq. Enquire of ROBERT M. KIM, or ALEX. R. M. KIM. April 22. [oaw3m]
ALL persons are forewarned from taking an assignment of a bond for £500, given by John Heath to Peter P. Blagrove, late of Northumberland County. The above paper it seems fell into the hands of certain Richard Walker, & has since been passed off by him without his ever having received a regular assignment thereof. The said Walker has a small claim against the estate; and it appears from information since obtained, that this bond was put into his hands, either to collect, or deposited with him by the deceased, in his lifetime, for some other purpose. Steps have been taken to prevent the payment thereof to any other person than the ADMINISTRATOR. April 22. [oaw3m]
MAHOGANY.—The subscriber has nine logs MAHOGANY for sale on low terms for cash or good paper. EDWARD JOHNSTON. Rockets, April 22. [4]
NOTICE.—All persons having claims against the estate of Cunningham Barton, dec'd. are requested to produce them at the next June Husting Court for the City of Richmond, properly authenticated, as the court will then proceed to make distributions amongst the creditors. JOHN F. PRICE, Curator. Richmond, April 22. [law2m n1]
THE subscriber having closed his business at the Tan-Yard, has remaining on hand a large parcel of well finished Slaughter and Spanish SOLE LEATHER—Among which a considerable part will answer for boot-sole leather, being light, which he offers for sale at reasonable prices on liberal credits for approved endorsed notes. MARCUS ELCAN. April 22. [law1]
ADVERTISEMENT.—I forewarn all persons whatever from trading or taking an assignment for a bond now in the hands of Mr. George Williamson of Pownall, Exor. of Jacob Williamson, dec'd. The bond was given by Mrs. Hannah Williamson to William T. Walker of Prince Edward, for the amount of 30 pounds, and the bond dated the third day of January, 1803. GEORGE EGGLESTON, Executor of Hannah Williamson, dec'd. April 22. [law3w]

(Continued from first page.) d from first page.) engage in the commerce, a belief that it was a lawful one. The facts above-mentioned were equally before the parties, and it is not surprising that they should have drawn the same conclusion from them. That decree, however, opened a new scene. It certainly gave a signal to the cruisers to commence the seizures, which they have not failed to do, as has been sufficiently felt by the citizens of the United States, who have suffered under it. According to the information which has been given me, about fifty vessels have been brought into the ports of Great Britain, in consequence of it, and there is reason to believe that the same system is pursued in the West-Indies, and elsewhere. The measure is the more to be complained of, because Great Britain had, in permitting the commerce for two years, given a sanction to it by her conduct, and nothing had occurred to create a suspicion that her sentiments varied from her conduct. Had that been the case, or had she been disposed to change her conduct in that respect towards the United States, it might reasonably have been expected that some intimation would have been given of it, before the measure was carried into effect. Between powers who are equally desirous of preserving the relations of friendship with each other, notice might in all such cases be expected. But in the present case the obligation to give it seemed to be peculiarly strong. The existence of a negotiation which had been sought on the part of the United States, some considerable time before my departure for Spain, for the express purpose of adjusting amicably and fairly, all such questions between the two nations, and postponed on that occasion to accommodate the views of his majesty's government, furnished a suitable opportunity for such an intimation, while it could not otherwise than increase the claim to it.
In this communication I have made no comment on the difference which is observable in the import of the several orders which have regulated, at different times, the seizure of neutral vessels, some of which were more moderate than others. It is proper, however, to remark here, that those which were issued, or even that any had been issued since the commencement of the present war, were circumstances not known till very lately: on principle, it is acknowledged that they are to be viewed in the same light and it has been my object to examine them by that standard, without going into detail or marking the shades of difference between them. I have made the examination with that freedom and candor which belong to a subject of very high importance to the United States; the result of which has been as I presume, to prove that all the orders are repugnant to the law of nations, and that the late condemnations which have revived the pretension on the part of Great Britain, are not only repugnant to that law, but to the understanding which it was supposed had taken place between the two powers respecting the commerce in question.
I cannot conclude this note without advertting to the other topics depending between our governments which it is also much wished to adjust at this time. These are well known to your lordship, and it is therefore unnecessary to add any thing on them at present. With a view to perpetuate the friendship of the two nations, no unnecessary cause of collision should be left open. Those adverted to, are believed to be of this kind, such is the case of boundary, the impressment of seamen, &c. since it is presumed there can be no real conflicting interest between them, on those points. The general commercial relation may then be adjusted or postponed as may be most consistent with the view of his majesty's government. On that point also it is believed that it will not be difficult to make such an arrangement as by giving sufficient scope to the resources, to the industry & the enterprise of the people of both countries, may prove highly and reciprocally advantageous to them. In the topic of impressment, however, the motive is more urgent. In that line the rights of the United States have been so long trampled under foot, and the feelings of humanity, in respect to the sufferers, and the honor of their government, even in their own ports, so often outraged, that the astonished world may begin to doubt whether the patience with which these injuries have been borne, ought to be attributed to generous or unworthy motives: whether the United States merit the rank to which in other respects they are justly entitled among independent powers, or have already, in the very morn of their political career, lost their energy and become degenerate. The United States are not insensible that their conduct has exposed them to such suspicions, though they well know that they have not merited them. They are aware, from the similarity in the person, the manners and above all, the identity of the language, which is common to the people of both nations, that the subject is a difficult one; they are equally aware, that to Great Britain also, it is a delicate one; and they have been willing in seeking an arrangement of this important interest, to give a proof by the mode, of their very sincere desire to cherish the relations of friendship with her. I have only to add, that I shall be happy to meet your lordship on these points, as soon as you can make it convenient to you.
I have the honor to be, With high consideration, Your lordship's most obedient servant, (Signed) JAMES MONROE.
indispensably necessary to a due discussion of the subject, that a reference should be made by me to those who are best acquainted with all the circumstances respecting the decisions which have taken place, and the rules which have been established in our courts of admiralty and appeal, as well as with the principles and practice, according to which the law is therein administered. I have not yet received any report, in consequence of the reference which I have made, but I hope at no distant period to be enabled to give a full, and I trust, conclusive answer, upon this most important point. I trust that you will not consider the interval of time which is necessary for a due investigation of so considerable a question, as a delay either inexpedient or misplaced.
I have the honor to be, With great consideration, Sir, Your most obedient humble servant. (Signed) MULGRAVE. JAMES MONROE, Esq. &c. &c.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison. LONDON, Feb. 12. 1806.
"As soon as Mr. Fox took possession of his office, he requested an interview with the foreign ministers, which took place yesterday. We were introduced separately. Mine lasted about half an hour. As soon as the ceremony of the interview had passed, I observed that I presumed he had been too short a term in office to have made himself acquainted with what occurred between his predecessors and myself, more especially the last one. He said he had not had time to read the papers, though he presumed he had a general idea on some of the topics. In respect to the immediate question of seizure, he asked me whether I had made to them, or they to me, any proposition? I gave a short sketch of the part which our respective governments had acted, since the commencement of the present war, towards each other. I told him my government had been ready to form a commercial treaty with him, on the expiration of the late one; that it had agreed to postpone it to accommodate him, and with a desire that the arrangements which might be formed, being entered into at a time when each had sufficient leisure to attend to the object, and founded on a liberal view of their respective interests, might place their relations on such a footing as to secure their friendship from interruption, at least at an early day; that in the same spirit it had sought to put out of the way certain causes of a transient nature which might possibly create misunderstanding in the course of the war, such as the impressment of our seamen, blockades by proclamation, &c. according to a project which had been presented to lord Hawkesbury, and to both his successors: that those gentlemen never gave any definitive answer to that project, and urged as a cause of their delay, the other and pressing engagements of their government with which I was well acquainted; as also, that its conduct towards the United States in the course of the present war, was as consonant to their principles and wishes in the most important points as they could desire it to be: that I left the business on that ground when I went to Spain, in the expectation that no change in the existing relations between the two countries would be made in my absence.
I assured him that I was astonished to find on my return, that on the contrary those relations had experienced the most essential change; that an attack had been made on our commerce, on a principle which had heretofore been so completely settled between our governments, and abandoned by him, as to have been a case for which no provision was even proposed in the project referred to. I explained to him the ground of this remark, and informed him that I had written several notes to lord Mulgrave on the subject, to which I had not been able to obtain an answer on the main question, though he seemed desirous of keeping it open, in his short replies, that I should not consider it as decided against the United States. I could not avoid intimating to him that the friendly disposition which our government had shown, had been most ungenerously requited by him; that it seemed as if it had pursued a just and friendly conduct towards the United States, till the moment that the new coalition was formed, and gave the present blow, when the prospect was favorable to success, and kept the business in suspense to see the result of affairs in the continent and in the United States. He heard me with much attention and apparent interest, intimated that he had been accused of being too friendly to America, and when I spoke of the treaty with Russia, he observed that he had thought that the arrangement made by it was a good one, though I did not understand him as pledging himself by the remark, to its conditions. I requested that he would make no doubt that he would make himself master, as soon as in his power, of the correspondence between lord Mulgrave and myself, and give me an interview, which he promised. I am happy to add, on a view of all circumstances, that I think the prospect of arranging our affairs with this government, especially that one which respects the trade with the colonies of its enemies, on satisfactory terms, a very favorable one. It is certain that nothing more favorable to such a result was, or could reasonably have been expected from the first interview with the present minister."
As the subject is now fairly before the new ministry, who seem to be well disposed in the business, permit me to submit it to consideration whether it may not be better that no measure should be definitely adopted, or if already adopted, be executed, till a fair experiment is made of what may be expected of it. By suspending what might have been contemplated in another view, and even necessary, it may tend to conciliate those now in power, and be productive of good.
I have the honor to be, With great respect and consideration, Your obedient servant, JAMES MONROE. PRINCE'S STREET, FEB. 25, 1806.
SIR, I have the honor to transmit you a note of the papers which are material in my correspondence with your predecessors on certain interesting topics, which have been for some time depending between our governments, and are still unsettled. These are, 1st, the rights of neutral powers in certain specified cases; 2d, the impressment of American and desertion of British seamen; and 3d, the boundary between the United States and the British possessions in America. The papers referred to will, I presume, sufficiently illustrate these topics. I shall, however, be permitted to accompany them with some remarks, to explain the course which the business has taken, and the state in which you receive it.
Aware of the abuses which had been practiced in respect to neutral rights and seamen, in the last war, and of their injurious effect on the interest of both countries, my government was very desirous to prevent a repetition of them of them in the present one. With that view, and by its order, I had the honor to propose to lord Hawkesbury, soon after the commencement of the war, an arrangement by convention, of these interests, on such just and fair conditions, as it was presumed would have been readily acceded to. You will see by the project which I then presented to his lordship, at his request, that the object was strictly to prevent abuses, and the ill consequences incident to them, not to acquire any advantage to the United States, by the establishment of controverted principles in the one, or unreasonable pretensions in the other case. In respect to neutral rights, it was proposed to adopt between the governments, in such cases as were most liable to abuse, certain principles or rules of conduct which Great Britain had already assented to in her treaty with Russia, in 1801. As those powers had entered into that treaty for the express purpose of defining the law of nations in the cases to which it applied, and Great Britain had adopted its conditions afterwards in separate conventions with Denmark and Sweden; with the same view, it was concluded that her government would not hesitate to admit its doctrine, or to observe its injunctions with other powers. The same motive was felt and respected in the proposition which I had the honor to make in respect to seamen. The sensibility of the government, and indeed of the whole nation, had been subjected to great and almost continual excitement, by the abuses which had been committed in that line, on the high seas, in the islands, and sometimes in the ports of the United States. The sons of respectable citizens had been snatched from them, many of whom were doomed never to return, to be slain in wars to which their country was not a party, or otherwise perish in a foreign service. No rule had been established by the governments to discriminate between American and British seamen, a thing not easily done by the most impartial; and the commanders of many of his majesty's ships of war and privateers, especially the latter, acknowledge none but their own judgments in making the discrimination. The highest American documents were either often not looked at, or utterly disregarded.
(Continued in second page.) CANNON BALL & GRAPE SHOT.—Prosposals will be received at this office for a quantity of Cannon Ball and Grape Shot for 24 pounders, and Cannon Ball and grape or Canister Shot for 6 pounders, to be delivered on navigable water in the state of Massachusetts. Also, for a quantity of the same articles in the state of New-Jersey or New-York. Also, for a quantity of the same articles in Virginia or Maryland. The election to have the ball and shot cast in iron moulds or otherwise, is desired, as the articles must be perfectly globular & smooth, & for that purpose, will undergo a strict inspection before receipt or payment. Dimensions of the several kinds of ball and shot will be given. TENCH COXE, Purveyor Of Public Supplies. Philadelphia, March 22, 1808. [law4w]
BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION BUSINESS.—The subscriber respectfully offers his services to his friends and the public, in the above line of business and solicits their patronage. G. GREENHOW. Dec. 15. [oawtf]
THE subscriber having obtained a licence, will immediately commence the practice of LAW in the county courts of Hanover, King William and King and Queen, and in the district court of King & Queen. WILLIAM H. ROANE. Hanover, April 8. (4t)
FAIRFIELD RACES. THE FAIRFIELD RACES will commence on the 22d day of May, and continue four days. 1st DAY.—The Fairfield Jockey Club Cup, value thirty guineas, free for all ages, the horses being bona fide the property of a member of the Club—Distance two mile heats. 2d DAY.—The Jockey Club Purse of $ 500—four mile heats. 3d DAY.—The Proprietor's Purse of $ 250—three mile heats. 4th DAY.—The Annual Sweep Stake, five subscribers, $ 100, free for all ages—three mile heats. Weights as follows:—Aged horses 133 lbs. 6 years old 123, 5 do. 118, 4 do. 106, 3 do. 90; mares and geldings allowed 3 lbs. The Fairfield Course will be in elegant order. The subscriber has, at considerable expense, erected a handsome two story dining house and judges stand, communicating with each other, on a plan which cannot fail to give satisfaction. The dining house and booths in the field are to be rented. The Treasurer thinks it unnecessary to remind the members of paying up their back arrearages, as so little attention has been paid to former notices of this kind. E. SMOCK, Treasurer & Proprietor. April 1. [lawtr]
FOR SALE, 121,000 acres of LAND in Kenawha county, in the forks of Great Sandy river; 24,000 do. in Tazewell county, on the waters of Clinch river; 20,000 do. in the county of Wythe, on Reed and Peak creeks; 1,000 do. in Randolph county, on the waters of Cheat river. Also, 30,000 acres of Virginia Land Warrants. The above will be sold very low, and great accommodation given in the payments. To RENT, a Brick House, on Shockoe-Hill, in a good neighborhood, and possessing every accommodation for a family. THOS: NORVELL. Dec. 19. [tf]
MINE LANDS FOR SALE.—The subscriber will sell a Tract of LAND containing 2791 acres, lying in Hampshire county, within 20 miles of Winchester, on Cacapon, a branch of Potomac. This Land contains a large body of iron ore of an excellent quality, which has been worked on a small scale, but discontinued for want of funds; and would be to any person able to carry it on, a very valuable acquisition. Also—a tract in said county on the waters of Mill Creek under the South Branch Mountain, containing 253 acres—197 acres on Mill Creek, within 12 miles of Romney—400 acres on the waters of Cacapon—1000 acres on the falls of Green River in the state of Kentucky, and 2000 acres on the waters of Ohio in Kentucky. Undisputed titles will be given; and terms made known by applying to Mr. Harry Heth at the Coal Pitts or the subscriber at Curles, on James River, 15 miles below Richmond. WILL. M. HETH. March 18. [ep124]
REMOVAL.—We have removed our Counting House to the House immediately below and contiguous to the one we have hitherto occupied, where we have for sale, Mucavado Sugar by the hhd. or bbl. Sherry Wine in quarter casks, and a few cases old Claret, of superior quality. ROBERT ALLAN POLLOCK & Co. March 8. [cpts]
IRON WORKS.—The following LANDS will be sold together or in separate parcels to suit purchasers, at Public Auction, at Mr. Chace's Vendue Warehouse, in Baltimore, on Saturday the 14th day of May next, at 12 o'clock: 23,343 acres of LAND, more or less, consisting of different surveys adjoining each other, lying in Bath and Botetourt counties, in the state of Virginia, on the Cowpasture river, which empties into James River. There is on the above Lands, a great abundance of Iron Ore, of the best quality, to be obtained with very trifling expense, near navigable water, and situations suitable for erecting furnaces and forges. The annexed certificate of Adam Clackner, (an experienced man of good character) is referred to for further particulars. The first named subscriber has also been on the Lands and examined the situations on the river for furnaces and forges, and is of opinion that the annexed certificate is in every respect correct. The terms of sale will be 5000 dollars cash, and for the residue of the purchase money an extended credit will be given. The titles are believed to be unquestionable. The Patents may be seen by application to the subscribers. JOSIAS PENNINGTON, N. BRICE. Trustees of the Patents. CERTIFICATE. I hereby certify, that in the year 1803, I examined the Ore banks on the above mentioned lands, and found the ore to be of a very superior quality, and in very great abundance. The ore banks consist of three mountains, and such is the facility of getting the ore, that in my opinion one man will be able to raise as much as will supply one furnace. The proper place for a furnace is not more than 1/2 of a mile from the banks, and for a forge that may be worked with four hammers; about 5 miles distant on a good road, there is also an abundance of wood to supply the furnace, and Forge, and a large quantity of White LIME-STONE near the furnace seat. I am of opinion that there are two good seats for forges, (exclusive of the above mentioned) each to act with one hammer, within 1/2 of a mile of the furnace upon the whole, I solemnly declare, that in my opinion (and I have been for many years acquainted with the qualities of ore, and the proper management of Iron Works) the above property has more advantages in every respect, for the establishment of Iron Works than any I have ever seen. ADAM CLACKNER. March 25. [cpts]
PURSUANT to a deed of trust, executed to us by Elisha Estes of the county of Amherst, for the purpose of securing a debt therein particularly mentioned, we will sell to the highest bidder, for ready money, at the dwelling house of said Estes, on Thursday the twenty-eighth instant, a tract or parcel of LAND, lying or being in the aforesaid county of Amherst, on the head waters of Rucker's-run, red containing by survey 573 acres, and adjoining the lands of Abraham Warwick, Thomas Statham, William Brecklow and others, it being the same land whereon the said Elisha Estes now lives. Although we believe the title to this land indisputable, we will only convey the title vested in us as trustees, and against the claim of any claiming under us. RO. MOORE, JAMES VIGERS, Jr. } Trustees. Warminster, April 5. [ep3wp]
NOTICE, to the creditors of James and Alexander Dunlop.—That on Saturday the 30th day of April next, at 9 o'clock A.M. the subscribers will proceed at the Compting Room of Henry Hovey, in this city, to make a dividend of the funds in their hands, arising from a deed of trust executed to them by Alexander Dunlop, the surviving partner, and duly recorded in the General Court. The several creditors will be particular in lodging their claims with H. Hovey, duly established, before the day limited for payment; and where, from the remote residence of any of the creditors, it shall be inconvenient to give personal attendance, they will use the precaution to appoint an attorney in fact, for the purpose of subscribing to the terms of the said deed of trust, and also of receiving the dividend. For the information of those concerned, the following clause is extracted from the said deed. But it is hereby declared and fully to be understood, that if any creditor or creditors of the said James and Alexander Dunlop shall refuse to accept the provisions of this deed of trust, and shall institute any suit or suits against the said Alexander Dunlop as surviving partner, that then, and in every such case, the person or persons so refusing, shall be barred of, and excluded all benefit arising from the provisions of this trust, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for the said trustees to proceed to make a dividend of the money coming to their hands under this trust, between all the amongst those only, who shall consent to rest their claims upon the provisions contained in this deed: the property and effects hereby conveyed, being all to which the said Alexander Dunlop is entitled, either as surviving partner or as an individual. W. T. LONG, HENRY HOVEY, } Trustees. SAML. MCRAW, Richmond, March 8, 1808. [ep30A]
LIBERAL price will be given for an unexceptionable MALE COOK.—One of a middle age would be preferred—Enquire of Prosser and Mooure. April 5. [cpts]
VALUABLE MANUFACTURING MILL & DISTILLERY.—The subscriber will sell or lease for a term of years, with or without a distillery, containing five stills of near 1000 gallons, the valuable MILL on Appomattox river, in Cumberland, lately owned by William Skipwith. The house is 66 feet long, 26 wide, and three stories high, containing 2 pair best mill and 1 pair corn stones, with Evans's patent machinery and a Saw Mill in complete order. Boats pass under the Mill through one of the best locks on the river—the neighborhood affords an abundant supply of wheat, and on the spot are two commodious houses calculated for a store and residence. If sold, the purchaser may be accommodated with 4 or 500 acres of Land, one half in wood. Terms may be known on application to Mr. Jeffers at the Mill or to me near Genita Bridge. EDMUND HARRISON. Amelia, April 19. [cnotf]
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 a part for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia state line, on Little Barren river. Also, 1060 acres in Kentucky, by survey bearing date the 10th October 1797, likewise lying in the district set apart 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 a 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 6 miles from Mason courthouse. Indispensible 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. Jan. 28. [lawf]
BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION BUSINESS.—The subscriber begs leave to inform the citizens of Richmond, and the public in general, he has established himself in the above line. Any business entrusted to his care will be done on the most liberal terms. D. LORRINGTON. Richmond, Feb. 26. [lawf]