The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1806-01-23 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST OFFICE...AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM... (PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)
NUMBER 80.]
RICHMOND, THURSDAY MORNING, JANUARY 23, 1806.
[VOLUME 2.
Sales at Auction.
On Saturday the 25th inst. at 12 o'Clock, on the premises, will be sold on a credit of 6, 12 and 18 months, for notes with approved security, negotiable in the Bank of Virginia.
THE TENEMENT lately occupied by Mr. Yearman Smith, at Hay-Market, together with another tenement attached thereto.
PROSSER & MONCURE, V. M's.
January 16. epifd.
MARSHAL'S SALES.
To be sold, for ready money, under a decree of the court of the U. States, for the fifth circuit in the Virginia district, between Phineas Bond, attorney for the creditors of Ezekiel Edwards, plff. and David Roff and others, defts. in order to raise the sum of 967 dols. 89 cts. due and payable on the first day of July, 1805, and the further sum of 1666 dols. 66 cts. due & payable the 1st day of January, 1806, that valuable and well known estate, in the county of Botetourt, called FORT LEWIS, stated by said Roff to contain 2008 acres.
The Sale will take place on the premises, on the 27th day of February next.
Also on the 4th day of March next, under the aforesaid decree, will be sold at the Oxford Iron Works, in the county of Campbell, a number of valuable SLAVES.
BENJ. MOSBY, D. M. for
JOS. SCOTT, M. V. D.
January 16. idf.
IN pursuance of a deed of trust made to the subscriber by John Kilby of the county of Hanover, to secure the sum of £115 due from the said Kilby to Thomas Cowles of the city of Richmond; will be exposed to sale to the highest bidder, for the best price that can be obtained in ready money, at the Auction Store of Taylor and Brown, in the city of Richmond, on Monday 27th of this present month: four negro slaves to wit: Aggy, Pury, Emanuel and Abraham or as many of them as will be sufficient to satisfy the sum aforesaid and all cost and charges attending the sale.
SAMUEL WHITE, Trustee.
The above sale to commence at 12 o'clock.
January 16. (H)
JOHN AMSDEN,
From New-York, a few doors below the Court-House
RESPECTFULLY informs the public, that he has taken the house lately occupied by S. Osgood, as a Locksmith Shop, where he is carrying on the above business in all its various branches. He makes Edge Tools, Axes, Hoes and Repairs Jackscrews, Bellows and Stop Rolling-mill to any pattern; House-Work in general executed with dispatch. He flatters himself that by the attention he will pay to his business, and from the experience he has had in the first class in the U. States, that he will give general satisfaction to those who are good enough to favor him with their custom.
January 16. T. G. B. Stp.
THE SUBSCRIBER,
INTENDS in addition to the courts of Richmond and King William, in which he now practices, to attend the county court of New-Kent.
WILLIAM FITZHUGH BRAXTON.
January 16. T. G. B.
ANDREW STEVENSON, in addition to the courts of King William and Hanover; practices law in the county court of New-Kent.
January 16. th & s. 4t.
SLAVES FOR SALE.
ON Monday the 10th day of February next, at Hanover Town, will be exposed for sale, five or six likely SLAVES, to the highest bidder, for ready money.
January 16. epifd.
THE subscriber offers his services as a BROKER in the city of Richmond, and will transact any business in that line for a moderate commission. He will not inform the public that it is a business with which he is familiar, but assures every one who may think him worthy of their confidence, that no one will be more attentive to their interest. He will also undertake to purchase tobacco on commission.
His office is kept on the cross street leading from the Capitol square towards Col. Carrington's.
CARLER B. PAGE.
December 31.
HAVE received direct from Bordeaux, 100 Boxes of PRUNES, which I shall sell very low; they are fine and very fresh. Those who feel an inclination to purchase a few boxes, will apply to the subscriber on Shockoe-Hill, in one of Judge Wythe's new brick houses.
LEWIS M. RIVALAIN.
December 27. t & f.
ENOCH SULLIVAN,
SILVER, GOLDSMITH AND JEWELLER,
RETURNS his grateful thanks to his friends and the public for the liberal encouragement afforded him in his line of business, and hopes by his punctilious attention to the business, to which he was bred, to insure a continuation of the favor of a liberal public. He offers now for sale at his shop adjoining the Eagle Tavern, a general assortment of silver ware and jewelry of the most fashionable kind, consisting of silver Tea Pots, cream Jugs, Tumblers, Spoons, and morning and fancy Earrings, Lockets, Finger Rings, and Breast Pins, jet, white and coral Necklaces and Earrings, a general supply of Combs, plain and ornamented Pocket Books, thread Cases, Miniature and Ring Cases, gold and gilded Seals, Keys and Chains. Highest price given for old gold or silver.
December 3. t.
A POINTER DOG,
Lost from this city, about the 20th of last month:
He is a small compact handsome Dog, thickly speckled with liver colour, particularly his legs, which are much darker than his body; the ends of both ears are shot and he answers to the name of NERO: he had on a brass collar with the owner's name, and probably bears marks on his throat occasioned by its friction.
'Tis conjectured the dog has been in possession of different people, and has at length fallen into the hands of a gentleman—if so, any person who may be deputed, or any other individual whatever, who will bring him to the editor of this or any other newspaper in Richmond, shall receive Five Dollars reward, together with reasonable expenses, even if a man and horse are employed in bringing him, and no question will be asked.
Should the dog have been stolen, any person who may be capable of giving such information and evidence, as will bring the thief to the penalitory or whipping post (be the dog dead or alive) shall receive
FIVE GUINEAS.
The Editor claims himself answerable for the above rewards.
'Tis hoped that every gentleman, particularly of those who are attached to sporting, will make this case his own, and use every means in his power, to detect and punish such thieves; and that they will be so obliging as to convey any information they may obtain to the editor of this paper by letter.
January 18. epifd.
MANCHESTER TURNPIKE COMPANY
9th REQUISITION.
THE shareholders of said company, are hereby required to pay into the hands of James Brander, Treasurer, the additional sum of ten Dollars, on each share, on or before the 8th day of February next.
Delinquent shares on former Requisitions.
NOTICE is hereby given, that all shares upon which there shall appear to be due delinquencies of former requisitions, will be offered for sale at Mr. Brooks's tavern, in Manchester, on the 11th day of February next, at 12 o'Clock in the forenoon.
By order of the Directors,
JAMES BRANDER, Clerk.
December 27. f & t 11th F.
HOUSTON'S newly invented PATENT METALIC HONE,
may be had at Mr. Geo. Greenough's Store, opposite the Eagle Tavern. The utility of this machine for setting Razors and other instruments which require a fine edge, renders it an object worthy the attention of every individual who may have occasion for its use.
December 12. tf.
BURR MILL STONES, OF ALL SIZES; and
PLAISTER OF PARIS, of an excellent quality
FOR SALE, AS USUAL, BY
WILLIAM DAVIDSON,
near the Market.
[epifd.]
Dec. 4.
TO SPORTSMEN.
THE executors of John Hoomes, deceased, late of the Bowling Green, are authorized to dispose of a part or the whole of his flock of horses, consisting of imported and Country Bred Stallions, Brood Mares, Colts, and Fillies, of the most approved Blood. Gentlemen, willing to purchase may know the terms either by letter or personal application to the executors.
Should the Stallions not be disposed of by the middle of February, they will then be farmed out, until the 1st of August.
Bowling Green, January 11. Tf.
ADVERTISEMENT.
AS I intend next fall to remove to the western country, I will sell a bargain in the tract of LAND, whereon I now reside, in Amherst county, containing 476 acres, with good improvements for the reception of a genteel family; the plantation in good repair for cropping, and lies well for land in the upper country, and conveniently situated, being within one half mile of a manufacturing mill on Buffalo river, three miles from the town of New-Glasgow, and the neighbourhood in every respect desirable; this land also lies within 16 miles of an inspection of tobacco on James river, and 20 miles from the town of Lynchburg. Any farther description is now deemed unnecessary, as it is presumed that any person disposed to purchase, would with first to view the premises. This payment will be made easy to suit the purchaser.
JOSEPH BURRUS.
January 11. S 6 t p.
MILL IRONS.
MILL IRons of all kinds, as well as iron work for vessels and buildings, Horse-shoeing, Edge-Tools, Scythe Blades, and plantation work, of all kinds.
THE subscriber lately from New-England having fitted up a shop on the Main-street of the city of Richmond, near the Virginia bank, intends to carry on the above business in all its variety; and flatters himself with the hope that by executing such work in the neatest and most faithful manner, to merit the public patronage, and that in future he will be able to furnish those materials upon moderate terms which were usually sent for to distant places. Having wrought a considerable time at the Virginia manufactory of arms, I beg leave to refer all who may think proper to apply to the Superintendent of the said manufactory for any character and qualifications.
SEWALL OSGOOD.
N. B. A good workman at the above business, will meet with encouragement. Also a young lad 14 or 15 years old, as an apprentice, who can read and write.
Jan. 7. 2tp.
A NEW TAVERN.
RUBEN BURNLEY respectfully informs the public, that he has opened a House of Entertainment in that commodious new building well of the Court-house. Attached to the premises is a new stone stable inferior to none in the state; and that he is in every respect, well provided for the accommodation of genteel company.
N. B. Very liberal wages will be given for a good Cook—a male would be preferred.
Charlotteville, Nov. 22. ep2m
VALUABLE PROPERTY.
WILL be sold, to the highest bidder for ready money on the premises on Saturday the 15th day of February next, by virtue of a deed of trust executed by Richard Bate, to secure the payment of 833 dols. 93 cts. with interest thereon from the date, due to Rambaut & Gernon and George Pegram junr. and the executors of the same.
Two acres of land lying upon Appomattox river within one mile of the town of Petersburg with the water grit and manufacturing mills, Bake house, Distillery house and other houses of improvements erected thereon.
PLEASANT AKIN.
for Henry Coghorn and Pleasant Akim. Peterburg, January 7. idf.
NOTICE.
THE Surveyors of the Stage Roads from Richmond to Charlottesville, are required to take notice, that repeated complaints have been made to me, of the danger to which the passengers in the Stage have been, and still are subjected to, from the badness of the roads, resulting mostly from the inattention or negligence of those, who ought to see them regularly repaired—therefore if on any further complaint of the difficult passage of the Stage, or obstruction as above, I shall proceed as the law directs to enforce the most exemplary punishment on those who are in default. The general good of Society, the dispatch necessary for the conveyance of the public Mail, and my own interest, own interest, are motives alone, sufficient for such a determination.
RICHARD TERRELL.
December 17. (wwwv)
OYSTER HOUSE.
GEORGE WATSON,
HAS commenced his former and well known occupation of selling OYSTERS, BEEF STEAKS, COLD SNACKS, and RELISHES, at the white House near the Union Tavern, wherein the Post-Office was lately kept. He begs leave to assure those who may favor him with their company or commands, that nothing shall be neglected on his part which promises to give satisfaction.
October 12.
FASHIONABLE GOODS.
READY made white Satin Petticoats; various dark colored Silk ditto; Florence Silk and Satin Spencers; elegant Souie Dresses; Rich Brocades and figured Satins; Plain and figured Lanas and Pique Muffins; A handsome variety of plain, checked and striped Sarisets; Ladies' Tamboured Neck Handkerchiefs; Shoulder Ornaments; Lace Sleeves and Gloves; which with a general assortment of fashionable goods, are offered for sale, at moderate prices, by M. & B. MYERS.
December 28. f & t tf.
NEAL NELSON,
BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURER,
MAIN-STREET, RICHMOND,
MAKES Boots & Shoes to any pattern or fashion, equal in point of MATERIALS and WORKMANSHIP to any in general use. Imported Boots and Shoes, of the first quality and newest fashion, for sale. Gentlemen at a distance, who are disposed to forward me their measure, by paying attention to the annexed cut, can be fitted with Boots or Shoes as well as if they were on the spot.
A—the length of the Boot—C—round the Calf—B—the pitch of ditto—D—round the heel and instep—E—round the instep—G—across the ball of the foot. Fix the heel against a perpendicular, and tick a knife at the end of the great toe—let down in figures the number of inches and quarters, in the different measures.
January 1. epifd.
THOSE Gentlemen who have been good enough to receive the subscribers proposition relative to the Snake Stone,
will be pleased to transmit the subscription papers to Lawrence Mufy, Esq. of Tappahannock, so that they may arrive at that place previous to the 20th of next month, in order that it may be then administered, whether or not, the whole number of shares have been subscribed for.
JAMES R. MITCHELL.
January 2. T. G. B. Stp.
PETER LAPORTE,
BEGS leave to inform the inhabitants of Richmond and its vicinity, that he has opened in this place, a Fencing School for the Smallsword, and he intends also to open a dancing school, where the newest and most elegant steps shall be taught. Terms of tuition may be known by applying to him at Mr. Rivalain's on Shockoe Hill, in one of Judge Wythe's new brick houses.
Disreliamp.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
Lister written in October, 1805, on the prospect of the invasion of England by the French.
Why in the silent peaceful vale With the news of every mail? Is it to hear wars horrors cede, That nations join in leagues of peace; That soldiers from their camps retire To till the banks of Thames and Loire; That thundering fleets return to shore; And hostile banners no more? Alas! no hope have I of peace, Or that wars dismal horrors cease, Till Gallia's hosts reach Albion's shore, As all her tyrants are no more. Ye furies come! my pen inspire Against oppressors route my ire, Ye widows Britain's troops have made, Give to my maledictions aid! Matrons who from her soldiers bore, The worst of wrongs upon our shore! My voice all friends of Freedom join, Ye noble sons of Scotia's line; Whole fires for fame & freedom sought, And under Bruce and Wallace fought. Ye gallant sons of Erin green, Who yet unsacrificed remain, Expell'd thro' distant climes to roam, Far from your lov'd your native home. Ye countless tribes of India's plains, To whom is nothing left but chains; Your sad complaints on high are gone, They've reach'd in heaven the highest throne; Heard they have been & weigh'd on high; The moment of revenge draws nigh.
O George! had justice sway'd thy reign, How glorious would thy name have been! Chief of a wise and polish'd race, Presiding o'er the fairest space; In Europe's or in India's domains, And honor'd on Columbia's plains; Thou might'st tirs' life have peace enjoy'd, And by a world lamented died. But cruel, base, perfidious, worse, Thy life has prov'd to man a curse: And if within St. James's halls, Thy heart were warm blood flush'd stain the walls; No tender eye shall shed a tear, 'Till all thy doom at all appear. O Bonaparte! arm of Heaven! To thee a mighty sword is given, For this, to greatness rais'd thou art, For this, the Almighty feels thy heart. For this, his power directs thy hand, And nations move at thy command. He'll smooth the way for thee to pass, And break for thee the gates of brass. The treasures of the earth, and sea, And darkness deep, are all for thee. He call'd and plac'd thee on a throne, Thy heart obey'd the voice unknown. But, O ye glorious bands of France, Who bravely to success advance; When victory shall crown your war, Be ye humane, the vanquish'd spare. Wield vengeance 'gainst the tyrants' throne, Be fierce to them, and them alone. To all the weak, compassion show; Even those who would have none for you. And let that race your mercy hail, Who flaughter'd babes in Glencoe's vale. O when shall fierce injustice cease, And leave the earth to white-robed peace? When shall the fiend oppression fly, And injur'd man, his rights enjoy? Blood will drench in streams be pour'd; Tyrant 'gainst tyrant draw the sword. May Gallia's heroes lately land; May victory their arms command; On Albion's sea-girt shore, Till all her tyrants are no more!
SOPHRON.
Such are the effusions, which we have received; and which we now present to the readers of the Enquirer. But surely, surely! their author has never yet perfused the inimical address of the ill-fated and expiring Robert Emmet. Surely if he had, he might have learned to detect more the impending dangers of a French invasion than all the despotism of the English monarchy.
E. B.
COMMUNICATION.
In the night of the 2d inst. I was called to a child, not quite nine months old, which, although in good health had cried for two days more than usual. On examination the mother discovered a hard inflamed tumour, about half an inch from the umbilicus on the left side, over which a poultice was applied. On removing the poultice just before I visited the child, a small aperture had taken place in the middle of the tumour and the point of a hard substance was visible. I could only at first feel, from the size and roughness, that it was not a needle as had been supposed, but on the child's going to sleep it projected sufficiently to show a part of a nail, which I held, and by enlarging the opening, and digging down and around the head, extracted. It is a cut nail of a large size, almost one and a half inch long, a little bent. The child is large for its age and has enjoyed good health, nor has it suffered any other injury from the course of this nail since a small hole for which is now nearly healed. The nail must have been taken by the mouth, and swallowed head-foremost, probably at the time of cutting its teeth, of which it has four; at which period children are known to be fond of carrying hard substances to their mouth; and its discharge seems fortunately to have been directed to a part of the body least liable to be injured by it. I have been informed by a physician, whose veracity cannot be doubted, that he extracted a needle from a lady's arm, which she recollected to have swallowed many months before; but I have never heard of anything so large as this nail travelling a similar course in the human body.
Richmond, January 16, 1806.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS.
An Election for Officers of the American Academy of Arts, held at New York, on Monday, 6th January, the following gentlemen were duly elected for the ensuing year:
R. R. LIVINGSTON, President, RUFUS KING, Vice-President, MORGAN LEWIS, W. S. SMITH, JOHN TRUMBULL, W. CUTTING, JOHN M. MURRAY, CHARLES WILKES, Treasurer, SAMUEL M. HOPKINS, Secretary.
FROM A FRENCH PAPER.
Vaccination a Preservative from the Rot.
The benefits of vaccination to the human species are no longer doubtful; they are generally acknowledged; instances of vaccination to sheep, to preserve them from the rot, are as evident although less frequent.
It is not then unimportant to rouse the attention of the public to this object. The experiments on the national flock of the veterinary school of Alfort, although decisive, had found some unbelievers; new facts, tending to establish and strengthen this evidence multiply daily.
A second decisive experiment has lately been made near Lyons, at the farm of Mr. D'Espnay; it has been communicated to me by one of its authors, Mr. Chagot, a pupil of the veterinary school of Lyons.
Mr. D'Espnay, proprietor of two flocks, fed separately, the one of the Merino, the other of the common French breed, did not believe it possible to find a more effectual preservative than the vaccine, to secure his sheep against the ravages of the rot; this dreadful disease, which prevailed in his neighbourhood, had already its malign influence through his flock of the common breed; in this pressing danger he applied to the veterinary school of Lyons, to obtain the aid of some of the most skillful pupils, for the purpose of vaccinating such of his sheep as were still free from the disease; his whole flock of Merino sheep was vaccinated; the vaccine passing through its customary stages in these animals; it protected, although in the centre of the contagion, without the aid of any other preservative.
Mr. D'Espnay, not content with this result, tried a decisive counter proof, and placed among the flock that had the rot, forty of the vaccinated sheep: they were put into the same fold with the sheep that had the rot, were exposed to the influence of this disease, but constantly resisted its attack, whilst it respected none of the common sheep which had not been vaccinated.
This counter proof removed all doubt, with regard to the advantages resulting from the vaccination of sheep as a preservative from the rot; it is the completion of the experiment, made to derive advantage from this new benefit of the vaccine.
Seat of Government.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
Wednesday, January 15.
On the question, shall it be
Resolved, That that part of the President's message which relates to the spoliation of our commerce on the high seas, and informs us of the new principles assumed by the British courts of Admiralty, as a pretext for the condemnation of our vessels in their prize courts be referred to a special committee?
Determined in the affirmative—Yeas 25—Nays 8—as follows.
YEAS—Messrs. Adair, Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Condit, Fenner, Gilman, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchell, Logan, Maclay, Mitchell, Moore, Smith of Md. Smith of New-York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of Ten. Smith of Vt. Sumner, Tracy, Turner, White, Worthington, and Wright.
NAYS—Messrs. Adams, Pickering, & Plumer.
COMMITTEE—Messrs. Smith of Md. Mitchell, Anderson, Logan, Tracy, Adams, and Baldwin.
A memorial was presented from the merchants of Philadelphia, commenting in strong terms on the injustice of the late British orders, and representing the various outrages committed on the American trade.
Referred to Messrs. Anderson, S. Smith, Baldwin, Mitchell, Logan, Tracy, & Adams.
On motion of Dr. Logan, the Senate resumed the consideration of his motion for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit the commercial intercourse between the U. States and the French Island of St. Domingo.
The question was taken by Yeas and Nays, without debate—Yeas 21—Nays 7—as follows.
YEAS—Messrs. Adair, Anderson, Baldwin,
Bradley, Condit, Fenner, Gilman, Howland, Kitchell, Logan, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Md. Smith of N. York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of T. Smith of Vt. Sumner, Turner, Worthington, and Wright.
NAYS—Messrs. Adams, Hillhouse, Mitchell, Pickering, Plumer, Tracy, and White. When Dr. Logan offered the bill which was read twice.
It prohibits the allowance of clearances from the time when due information shall be received at the several custom houses of the passage of the act until the end of the next session of Congress.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Wednesday, January 15.
A petition was presented from sundry merchants of Powhatan, Rhode Island, praying for the erection of a new collection district, and referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
A petition from Joseph Winner, collector of Great Egg Harbor was presented, praying an increase of salary. Referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
Resolved, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be directed to enquire, whether any, and if any, what alteration is necessary to be made in the law of the U. States, that requires the collector of Great Egg Harbor to hold his office at Som

House to-morrow. The petitions of Moses White and Charlotte Hazen, of George Jacob Deagen and of William Rickard, were referred to the Committee on Claims. About 12 o'clock the galleries were again cleared. They remained closed for about two hours, when the doors were opened. The bill to repeal the act to authorise the receipt of evidences of the public debt in payment for the lands of the United States and for other purposes relative to the public debt was passed through a committee of the whole and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. When at the instance of Mr. T. Randolph, the galleries were again cleared, about half after 3 o'clock. They continued closed until four o'clock.
[A friend at Washington has transmitted to the Editor of the Enquirer, a Pamphlet of 52 pages, containing several documents relative to the affairs of Tripoli, but more particularly to the relations entered into with the Ex-Bashaw. The documents are peculiarly interesting, but we have not at present room for any more than the accompanying letter from the President. The remainder shall shortly and regularly appear.]
MESSAGE
From the President of the United States, respecting the APPLICATION OF HAMET CARAMALLI, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli. Referred to Mr. Joseph Clay, Mr. John C. Smith, Mr. Roger Nelson, Mr. Crowninshield, Mr. Garnett, Mr. Fisk, and Mr. Dixon.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.
I lay before Congress the application of Hamet Caramalli, elder brother of the reigning bashaw of Tripoli, soliciting from the United States, attention to his services and sufferings in the late war against that state: and in order to possess them of the ground on which that application rests, the facts shall be stated according to the views and information of the executive.
During the war with Tripoli, it was suggested that Hamet Caramalli, elder brother of the reigning bashaw, and driven by him from his throne, mediated the recovery of his inheritance, and that a concert in action with us was desirable to him. We considered that concerted operations by those who have a common enemy were entirely justifiable, and might produce effects favourable to both, without binding either to guarantee the objects of the other. But the distance of the scene, the difficulties of communication, and the uncertainty of our information, inducing the less confidence in the measure, it was committed to our agents as one which might be referred to if it promised to promote our success.
Mr. Eaton, however, our late consul, on his return from the Mediterranean, possessing personal knowledge of the scene, and having confidence in the effect of a joint operation, we authorised commodore Barron, then proceeding with his squadron, to enter into an understanding with Hamet, if he should deem it useful: and as it was represented that he would need some aid of arms and ammunition, and even of money, he was authorised to furnish them to a moderate extent, according to the prospect of utility to be expected from it. In order to avail him of the advantages of Mr. Eaton's knowledge of circumstances, an occasional employment was provided for the latter as an agent for the navy in that sea. Our expectation was, that an intercourse should be kept up between the ex-bashaw and the commodore; that while a former moved on by land, our squadron should proceed with equal pace, so as to arrive at their destination together, and to attack the common enemy by land and sea at the same time. The instructions of June 6th, to commodore Barron, flew that a co-operation only was intended, and by no means an union of our object with the fortune of the ex-bashaw; and the commodore's letters of March 22, and May 19, prove that he had the most correct idea of our intentions. His verbal instructions, indeed, to Mr. Eaton and captain Hull, if the expressions are accurately committed to writing by those gentlemen, do not limit the extent of his co-operation as rigorously as he probably intended; but it is certain from the ex-bashaw's letter of January 3, written when he was proceeding to join Mr. Eaton, and in which he says, "your operations should be carried on by sea, mine by land," that he left the position in which he was, with a proper idea of the nature of the co-operation. If Mr. Eaton's subsequent convention should appear to bring forward other objects, his letter of April 29, and May 1, views this convention but as provisional, the 2d article, as he expressly states, guarding it against any ill effect, and his letter of June 30 confirms this construction. In the event it was found, that, after placing the ex-bashaw in possession of Derne, one of the most important cities and provinces of the country, where he had resided himself as governor, he was totally unable to command any resources, or to bear any part in co-operation with us. This hope was then at an end; and we certainly had never contemplated, nor were we prepared to land an army of our own, or to raise, pay or subsist an army of Arabs, to march from Derne to Tripoli, and to carry on a land war, at such a distance from our resources. Our means and our authority were merely naval; and that such were the expectations of Hamet, his letter of June 23 is an unequivocal acknowledgment. While, therefore, an impression from the capture of Derne might still operate at Tripoli, and an attack on that place from our squadron was daily expected, colonel Lear thought it the best moment to listen to overtures of peace then made by the bashaw. He did so, and while urging provisions for the United States, he paid attention also to the interests of Hamet; but was able to effect nothing more than to engage the restitution of his family, and even the persevering in this demand suspended for some time the conclusion of this treaty.
In operations at such a distance it becomes necessary to leave much to the discretion of the agents employed: but events may fill turn up beyond the limits of that discretion. Unable in such a case to consult his government, a zealous citizen will act as he believes that would direct him were it apprised of the circumstances, and will take on himself the responsibility. In all these cases, the purity and patriotism of the motives should shield the agent from blame, and even protect a faction where the error is not too injurious. Should it be thought by any that the verbal instructions said to have been given by commodore Barron to Mr. Eaton, amount to a stipulation that the United States should place Hamet Caramalli on the throne of Tripoli; a stipulation so entirely unauthorised, so far beyond our views, and so onerous, could not be sanctioned by our government; or should Hamet Caramalli, contrary to the evidence of his letters of January 3 and June 29, be thought to have left the position which he now seems to regret, under a mistaken expectation that we were at all events to place him on his throne, on an appeal to the liberality of the nation,
something equivalent to the replacing him in his former situation, might be worthy its consideration. A nation by establishing a character of liberality and magnanimity, gains in the friendship and respect of others more than the worth of mere money. This appeal is now made by Hamet Caramalli to the United States. The ground he has taken being different, not only from our views but from those expressed by himself, on former occasions, Mr. Eaton was desired to state whether any verbal communications passed from him to Hamet which had varied what we saw in writing. His answer of December 5th, is herewith transmitted, and has rendered it still more necessary, that in presenting to the legislature the application of Hamet, I should present them at the same time an exact statement of the views and proceedings of the executive, through this whole business, that they may clearly understand the ground on which we are placed. It is accompanied by all the papers which bear any relation to the principles of the co-operation, and which can inform their judgment in deciding on the application of Hamet Caramalli.
TH: JEFFERSON. January 13, 1806. (To be continued.)
European Intelligence.
Continuation of News by the Cato from Liverpool, arrived at New-York.
LONDON, Nov. 21—23. The Orpheus frigate is about to sail from the Nore, with 800,000 dollars on board for the continent.
We are happy to assure our readers that some apprehensions entertained respecting the safety of the Victory man of war, which lately bore the flag of the immortal Nelson, are totally groundless, as that ship and another belonging to the fleet engaged in the battle of the 21st October, are safely arrived at Gibraltar.
The Lords of the Admiralty have determined to send immediately several small armed vessels, and some frigates, to intercept the prizes carried into Guadaloupe, and to scour those seas of the enemy's ships, which have so long and successfully preyed upon our trade.
Count Pakling, High Chamberlain to the Emperor of Russia, is arrived in town on a special. He came from Gotterburgh.
Letters from Officers in Germany mention, that Bonaparte was furious, after reading before Ulm a dispatch from Duroc, at Berlin, and said, in the presence of his staff officers, "I shall soon teach my Brother Frederic, in his own capital, to use other language." They do not doubt but that Bonaparte, if he can command a peace in the south of Germany, will march towards the north, already held out to the French soldiers as an European Peru, from treasures collected during a long neutrality.
During his stay at Berlin the Emperor of Russia exerted himself to restore the good understanding between the kings of Prussia and Sweden. At this moment arrived count Lowenheim, aid-de-camp of the king of Sweden, with a letter from Gustavus Adolphus, in which the latter stated, that as a co-estate of the Empire, he could not consent to the entrance of the Prussian troops into Hanover, and that he was convinced the Emperor of Russia was of his opinion. This letter unfortunately impeded the good intentions of the Emperor.
The stay of the Emperor at Berlin is said to have given rise to the most perfect friendship between his Imperial Majesty and the Prussian monarch—a friendship founded upon similarity of disposition, and enlivened and sealed in a moment of enthusiasm at the monument of Frederic the Great. On the evening of Alexander's departure, and after supper, the young Emperor proposed to visit the tomb of that Extraordinary personage. The royal party repaired to the church where Frederic's remains are deposited. The church was solemnly lighted up for this singular and romantic spectacle. The attendants were moved at the sight. Alexander was overpowered by his feelings, and in a transport of enthusiasm kissed the coffin which contained the body of Frederic. The two sovereigns embraced, and swore eternal friendship and fidelity. In this temper they took leave of each other. This is a plain statement of facts as recorded with the simplicity of truth in the Berlin Court Gazette.
We trust no selfish calculations of interest will extinguish those delicate sentiments of honest enthusiasm, and no large maxims of grey-bearded politicians freeze the generous ardour of these young Monarchs, or even interrupt the current of their mutual friendship.
If left to follow the impulse of their own generous feelings, the result of the new attempt at negotiation will lead to an unity of views and action which will be highly beneficial to Europe.
NOVEMBER 25.
Government has determined to send to the Continent the greatest British force that has ever been employed in Germany. The expedition will be followed by at least 50,000 troops, of which one-fifth will be cavalry. The country will of course be stripped, during the actual crisis of affairs, of nearly all the regulars; and of the military establishment in Ireland, a third will be employed on this service. Orders have been issued from the War Office to prepare camp-equipage for the number and description of troops we have mentioned, and a complete return of the quantity wanted is expected to be made in the course of a few days—such has been the activity displayed in that department of the military establishment. Ministers have, no doubt, been induced to adopt these extraordinary measures of vigour, in consequence of the last dispatches brought from the Emperor Alexander, by Count Parling, his Imperial Majesty's High Chamberlain. In order to supply the deficiencies which must be occasioned by sending to the Continent so great a portion of the regular force, it is certainly the intention of Government, should the measure become necessary, to call for the services of such members of the Volunteer corps as are capable of doing duty with the troops of the line and of the militia. His Royal Highness the Duke of York has directed the following General Order to be issued:
His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief has signed his command, that the inspection of the Volunteer corps should be made with the most minute attention, and proper returns by the general officers commanding brigades in the following three classes, viz. 1st. As being fit to act with the troops of the line. 2d. As advancing in discipline. 3d. As being deficient in discipline. With a statement of the deficiencies, and whether the absent are with leave, from sickness, without leave, or are wanting to complete. A muster of the different regiments, for the purpose of ascertaining the objects required by this general order will take place with the utmost dispatch, and the returns for the London district will be made in the course of the next fortnight.
It appears from the letters that arrived, that Sir Sidney Smith has very prudently not made that attack, in which his great prototype, Lord Nelson failed. We are sincerely happy that the skill, the valour, the pride of this gallant officer, have not been exposed to the mortification of a defeat, and that the lives of many brave men have been spared. From all the enquiry we have been enabled to make, we could derive no hope of the success of this expedition. The experience of its preparation has been, if we are rightly informed, very considerable, and what is the return to the country? The whole scheme of this projected attack upon Boulogne was, from the beginning, we understand, pronounced impracticable by some officers of the highest character; but still it was persisted in by the same spirit of obstinacy and folly which devised and sent forth the renewed Caramarillas.
Some people rejoice that General Mack is to be brought to trial; but the truth is, that, like some Generals of our own, he has been tried too often already.
General Mack did carry into effect his noble resolution to eat horfes; but if the speeches ascribed to them be genuine, he will soon be compelled to eat his own words. The second expedition destined for the continent is expected to sail in the course of a fortnight. The 9th, 28th, 36th, and 89th regiments, which are to form a part of it, are now on their way from Cork. The transports with those corps on board, accompany the homeward bound West-India fleet under convoy of his majesty's ships Africaine, Druid, and Helena, the whole of which arrived in the Channel on Monday, and are hourly expected in the Downs.
The Hecia has towed into the Downs the Sagittarius, which she picked up on the night of the 21st inst. off Boulogne, full of water. She was prevented from sinking, and the crew saved, by Sir Sidney Smith's plan of lining with cork, in imitation of the life boats; whether much damage has been sustained by the ships, is not yet known. Three, some accounts say six, of the launches went down, but their crews were saved; the Biter, as we stated on Saturday, is supposed to have blown up.
The Gemini, one of Sir Sidney Smith's double boats, getting too near the French coast on Wednesday, was fired into by a French gun-boat, and, we are sorry to say, two men were killed and three wounded.
On Tuesday night a ten-oared galley of ours, in reconnoitring the French row-boats, fell in by chance with one of their outermost. An action immediately commenced between them, which lasted for some time. One of our galley tars was split through the head by a French lance; another was so much wounded in the thigh that it is feared amputation will be necessary; two others are also slightly wounded. The French boat made her escape, but is supposed not without considerable loss, as she was very full of men. Our boat returned to the Antelope, to which she was belonging.
The French appear to be very much disappointed by the constant retreat of the Austrians and Russians, who had they remained in the Inn, would have been surrounded. It is not expected now that they will stop till they come to Klosterneuburg, on the Danube, where it is thought they will take a strong position to cover Vienna. The French, according to letters from Munich of the 31, have advanced to Wels.
  Corn Exchange, Nov. 25.—We had a good supply of fresh English wheat at market this morning, and the trade heavy. Also, a good supply of oats; and some fresh barley of our own growth, the former 6d. and the latter 1s. per quarter.   Fine Wheat 64s a 69s Barley 51s a 56s Fine Flour 69s a 65s Seconds 55s a 60s   HANOVER, Nov. 11. Information being received that the Hanoverian Legion and the English were armed on the coast of the North Sea, making together 15,000 men, the superior Lieutenant Hedman, set out to meet them. These troops are to land at Bremerlehe, Stade, &c. 
A considerable diminution of the Prussian troops, in this country, it is generally asserted, is to take place in a few days.
MAGDEBURGH, Oct. 31.
On the 28th instant, arrived in this place, the army chief of the Duke of Brunswick, the third column of the field baking establishment, and the army post-office. The following day these different establishments proceeded on their march.
List of the three Prussian armies that have received orders to march:—
 1. Army in Lower Saxony, under the command of the reigning Duke of Brunswick—34 battalions of infantry of the line, 3 ditto of sappers, 6 companies of Jagers, and 70 squadrons of cavalry—making about 50,000 men.  2. Army in Aufpach, under the command of Prince Hohenlohe—28 battalions of infantry, 6 of sappers, 4 companies of Jagers, and 55 squadrons of cavalry, amounting to about 60,000 men.  3. Army in Westphalia, under the command of Field Marshal, the elector of Hesse;—12 battalions of infantry of the line, 9 light battalions, and 30 squadrons of cavalry, amounting to about 20,000 men. 
VIENNA, Nov. 2.
The Court Chancellor, Count Von Ugarte, is gone to Prague, to take the necessary measures for calling out the militia, and to complete all other arrangements for the defence of the kingdom of Bohemia. The calling out the militia at the present moment affords this advantage, that while they do the service of the town and fortresses, all the troops in garrison can be sent to reinforce the army. The Court Courant contains the following paragraph, "Though at this period the loyalty of all the inhabitants of the Austrian monarchy is so eminently displayed, the conduct of a patriot of high rank deserves to be particularly noticed. He has declared his intention of giving up his accustomed mode of living, and of allotting his servants to the defence of the country. He also gives up his carriage until the restoration of peace, and is to pay into the public treasury, the amount of the maintenance of his coach and servants."
BANKS OF THE MAINE, Nov. 4.
The French army in Germany has a military printing-office, conducted in the same manner as that which Bonaparte established in Egypt. It accompanies the head-quarters, and the director of the press is M. Levrault, of Strasbourg, who served as captain of dragoons in the campaigns of Italy, and was wounded at the battle of Marengo. It is said, that Prince Murat is to proceed on an important mission to an eminent German Court. Since the arrival of Talleyrand and the Secretary Maret at the French Emperor's head-quarters, it is said that very important diplomatic concerns are under consideration. Some expect that the negotiations will lead to an armistice.
NEIL M'COULL.
As received, by the late arrivals from London and Liverpool, his usual supply of FALL & WINTER GOODS. October 22.
The Enquirer.
RICHMOND, 23d JANUARY.
JUDICIARY SYSTEM.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
Saturday, January 18.
Mr. Smyth (of Wythe) in conclusion.
The constitutional objections to the bill which I have urged, are of such weight in my mind, that it seems to me scarce necessary to make objections founded on its inconvenience: But as the gentleman from Spottsylvania [Mr. Minor] has said it will be more convenient than the present arrangement, I will briefly support the contrary opinion.
The 3 chancellors who are now in office are to have no longer powers as such, except so far as is necessary to finish the business depending in their courts. To do this will require 10, or 15, or perhaps 30 years. I understand some cases in the Richmond court have been 30 years depending. I have understood that 30 lawyers have attended the Staunton chancery court. According to this arrangement they must attend that court, to finish their business, thrice a year for many years to come, without receiving one other fee! The docket will presently have on it 10, afterwards 5, and finally 1 cause; but still the court is to remain; the judge to have his salary; and counsel to attend! Certainly this will be most inconvenient.
The chancery district courts organised by the new plan will be inconvenient. The judges will not reside at the place of holding courts. In order that relief should be obtained conveniently from a chancery court, the chancellor, his clerk, and counsel, should reside at the place of holding courts. The present chancellors are constrained to reside at the place of holding courts; and it has been judged essential they should do so. At the last session, leave was refused to Mr. Brown to reside one mile from the place of holding his court. It seemed to the house that he ought to be found at all times in his office; as the court of chancery is always open for the purpose of granting writs of n o exeat, certiorari, injunction &c. Should a citizen of Grayson now desire to obtain any such writ, he has, it is true, to go to Staunton; but there he finds the chancellor, his clerk, and eminent counsel. He obtains from each what is necessary, and returns. But if the proposed plan goes into operation, he will have to ride at least an equal distance to a judge; perhaps much farther. He finds one at length; perhaps in his tobacco field, where there is neither clerk nor counsel. For want of counsel he probably returns as he came; and if successful, on going home he must ride 75 miles to the clerk, and the same in returning. Thus he will have to ride at least 150 miles further than at present, perhaps a great deal more; and without the same certainty of success in the object of his journey. This also is inconvenient.
The bill is not economical. If we pass it, we shall have 13 chancellors instead of three. The expense will be very seriously increased in the first instance, thus:
  To the court of appeals, increase, 5,500   To 10 new chancellors, 8,000   Increased expense the first year, 13,500 
In three years the new plan will have added to the public expenditure no less a sum than 40,500 dollars. The bill is not economical in another respect. It provides, that if Mr. Wythe should depart this life, his salary shall not cease. One of the other judges is to come and hold his court, and to receive his salary until the business is finished. That, we may presume, will require the life-time of the judge that shall succeed to this office; during which time, he will receive a double salary, amounting to £ 950 0 0 per annum. But as 500 £. only has been given for the whole time of a judge; and as his whole time is all the succeeding judge can give, he ought not to have therefore a double salary. In this, therefore, the bill is not economical.
The bill is not perfectly impartial. If Mr. Tyler, the chancellor at Williamsburg, should succeed to the first vacancy in the general court, which is nearly certain, according to the provision of the bill, the chancery court at Williamsburg is to be broken up, and the causes to be transferred to the court at Richmond. But should Mr. Wythe's office prove vacant, the court at Richmond is not to be broken up, nor are the causes to be transferred to any other court. A judge is to come, & hold that court. Why should the causes depending at Williamsburg be taken from that place, any more than the causes depending at Richmond be taken from that place? These removals of causes from one court to another are highly injurious to the citizens engaged in litigation. Thus a citizen having a chancery cause depending here 5 years ago, may have feed counsel, and expended 40 dollars, on a removal of his cause to Williamsburg, he might probably expend 40 dollars more. On a second removal to Richmond he may have to expend 40 dollars more. The cause may be afterwards transferred to a district court, where he will have to pay 40 dollars, for the fourth time, owing to the versatility of the legislature; where paying it once ought to have been amply sufficient.
On consideration of the whole bill, as it seems to me, for the reasons I have assigned, to be unconstitutional, inconvenient, not economical, & not perfectly impartial; I hope the motion for striking out, will prevail.
Mr. Harvie followed Mr. Smyth, and spoke at considerable length; not speaking from notes, he was unable to assist us in the reporting of his observations.
Mr. Samples—I do not propose to notice the details of the bill now under consideration. I shall ask the attention of the committee whilst I attempt an examination of the question, can the judges of the general court be made chancellors without violating the constitution? In doing this, I shall present to the committee, the reasoning of two of the judges of the general court, who have examined the question at large, and have demonstrated to my entire satisfaction, that chancery jurisdiction cannot constitutionally be given to the judges of the General Court, by any means which the legislature could adopt. But before I do this, I beg leave to notice an observation made by the city member. He said that Congress have given common law and chancery jurisdiction to the circuit courts of the United States, and he thence infers that the state legislature might give chancery jurisdiction to the judges of the general court. I am persuaded that the observation would not have been made by that gentleman, if his attention had been lately drawn to the 1st sec. of the 3rd art. of the Constitution U. States. By that, Congress may establish such courts as the exigencies of the U. States might require, and divide or unite common law and chancery jurisdiction, as may be deemed expedient. It will be sufficient for my purpose to read that article of the constitution of the U. States, to show that no argument can thence be drawn
in opposition to the construction given by me to the constitution of this state.
Mr. Chairman, the 11th sec. of the district court law passed the 12th Dec. 1792, is in these words:
"Sec. 9. Each of the said District Courts in term time, or any Judge thereof in vacation, shall, and may have and exercise the same power of granting injunctions to stay proceedings on any judgment obtained in any of the said District Courts, as is now had and exercised by the Judge of the High Court of Chancery in similar cases, and the said District Courts may proceed to the dissolution or final hearing of all suits commenced by injunction, under the same rules and regulations as are now prescribed by law for conducting similar suits in the High Court of Chancery."
At a district court held at Dumfries, on the 23rd May 1793, Peter Kamper made a motion for an injunction under the sec. just read, to stay proceedings on a judgment obtained by Mary Hawkins against him, at the preceding session of that court. Judge Roane very wisely adjourned the case to the general court, for novelty and difficulty, as to the constitutionality of the said act giving chancery jurisdiction to the judges of the general court. On the 16th Nov. 1793, the general court decided unanimously that they would not execute the act on account of its unconstitutionality. Five judges, were present. Three were of opinion, that the constitution did not forbid the union of the office of general court judge, and chancellor in the same person, if elected by ballot and commissioned, according to the constitution. One of the three however admitted, that it would be unwise to unite them. Two of the judges held, "that a judge of the general court cannot constitutionally exercise the functions of a judge in chancery." Having thus introduced the subject of the judge's opinions, I beg leave to read them from the printed report made of the case of Kamper and Hawkins, by a gentleman of the bar. Judge Tucker thus expresses himself:
What those limits are, may be collected from the 14th article, (a) which provides for the appointment of "judges of the supreme court of appeals, and general court, judges in chancery, judges of admiralty," &c. This specification of judges of several tribunals, would lead us of itself to conclude, that the tribunals themselves were meant to be separate and distinct. This conclusion seems to be warranted by two circumstances, the one extrinsic, the other arising out of the constitution itself. Those who recollect the situation of our jurisdiction, at the time of the revolution, will remember that the union of civil and criminal, common law, and equity jurisdiction, all in the general court, was one of the most obvious defects of that system. In truth, nothing can be more dangerous to the citizen, than the union of criminal courts, and courts of equity. On the European continent, where the civil law has been adopted, criminal and civil proceedings have been conducted upon the like principles; the defendant in civil cases might be examined upon oath by interrogatories, to which if he gave not satisfactory answers, he might be committed until he did: this principle being extended to criminal cases was denominated by the moderate term of putting the person accused to the question; but inasmuch as the forcing a criminal to accuse himself on oath, might prove a snare to his conscience, the obligation to answer to the question, was inferred by torture. To separate forever, courts, whose principles and proceedings are so diametrically opposite, as those of the common and civil law, was, I should presume, one of the fundamental principles which the framers of our constitution had an eye to. They, therefore, distributed the powers of the then existing general court into three distinct branches, viz. the court of appeals, the court of chancery, and the court of general jurisdiction, at common law. The repetition of the term, judges, shows that it was in contemplation that both the tribunals, and the judges should be distinct and separate. This is farther confirmed by art. 16 and 17: (b) the former of which provides that impeachments in general shall be prosecuted in this court, the latter that impeachments against the judges of this court, shall be prosecuted in the court of appeals. Nothing, then, can be clearer than that the constitution intended they should be distinct judges of distinct courts. And hence I am satisfied, that the former court of appeals was unconstitutionally organized. This reasoning, I apprehend will apply no less forcibly to the separation of the general court from the court of chancery. A judge of the general court, if impeached, can be prosecuted in the court of appeals only; a judge in chancery only in the general court: if these offices be united in the same person, it must be by separate commissions; a judgment on impeachment in the general court, cannot vacate the commission of a judge of that court, because the constitution has assigned another tribunal, where a judge of that court shall be tried; a judgment in the court of appeals cannot vacate the commission of a judge in chancery, because he must be tried, as such, in the general court. Hence it seems to me we are driven to conclude that the constitution meant that the two offices shall be separate and distinct. This construction removes every difficulty, the contrary, I apprehend, creates a multitude, and those insurmountable. In pursuance of this direction, contained in the constitution, the legislature, when it set about organizing the courts, distributed them as above-mentioned. The criminal and common law court, was separated from the court of equity; and both from the court of appeals, in form, though not in reality, until the legislature, by the act of 1788, c. 68. corrected it's former error. A distinct court, which had not indeed united the constitutional courts, but had blended them in effect, by assigning the functions of a judge in chancery to the judges of this court; and if carried into effect, may lead to the total annihilation of all the courts which the constitution had in contemplation to establish.
I have said before (pa. 52.) that the district courts considered as independent of the general court, and not a modification of it, are mere legislative, and not constitutional courts. If they are a modification only of the general court, it flows from what I have already said, that the constitution prohibits the exercise of chancery jurisdiction therein. If they be mere legislative courts, it cannot be the duty of any judge of a constitutional court, merely as such, to exercise the functions of a judge of these courts; and it is, I conceive, expressly contrary to the duty of a constitutional judge of one court, to exercise the functions of a constitutional judge of another distinct constitutional court.
It appears then immaterial, whether, on the present question, the district courts are to be considered as branches of the general court, or not: yet it would be easy to show, that as they are at present modified and organized, they are nothing more than branches of that court; and not distinct, independent, legislative courts: unless the operation of the act in question should be construed to effect and change their whole system, and constitution.
But, if they are mere legislative courts, they may, at any time, be organized at the will of the legislature: legislative judges may be appointed, the tenor of whose commission may import that their office shall be during good behaviour, and yet that office be discontinued whenever the legislature may think fit. If the jurisdiction of the court of chancery can be constitutionally transferred to them, so may that of the general court, and of the court of appeals. In these legislative courts may absorb all the jurisdictions, powers and functions of the constitutional courts. These last then must either be suppressed, as useless, which the constitution forbids (c); or the judges of them will hold sinecure instead of office, which is expressly contrary to the bill of rights, art. 4. Add to this that such an arrangement must render the judiciary the mere creature of the legislative department, which both the constitution (d) and the bill of rights (e) most pointedly appear to have guarded against.
(a) Const. Virg. art. 14. (b) Const. Virg. art. 16, and 17. (c) Art. 14. (d) Const. V. art. 3. (e) Bill of Rights, art. 5.

Judge Nelson (at this time also a judge of the general court) reasons thus on the subject: 2. The second point—whether it be unconstitutional is next to be considered. By the fourteenth section of the Constitution, "the two houses of Assembly shall, by joint ballot, appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and general court, Judges in Chancery, Judges of Admiralty, &c." I was at first inclined to think that the insertion of the word Judges between the General Court and Chancery , evinced an intention that the judges of the general court and those in chancery should be distinct persons; but perhaps it would be unjustifiable to rest such an opinion on so critical a construction. However, this opinion is supported by the sixteenth and seventeenth sections. By the sixteenth the governor and others offending against the state, by mis-administration, corruption, &c. are impeachable before the general court. And by the seventeenth the judges of the general court are to be impeached before the court of appeals. This might prove that a judge of the general court could not according to the Constitution be a judge of the supreme court of appeals, because all officers (except the judges of the general court) are to be tried before the general court; but judges of the general court are to be tried before the court of appeals—and the Constitution intended to prevent a man being tried in that court of which he is a member; because in causes which might give rise to an impeachment, the judges of a court might act jointly, and the influence of partiality or an esprit du Corps was to be guarded against. However to decide whether a judge of the general court could be a judge of the court of appeals, would be extrajudicial as that question is not before the court, but this research enables me to decide the question that is before the court—that is, whether the same person can under the Constitution be a judge in chancery, and a judge of the general court?—I think that he cannot for these reasons. A judge in chancery is to be tried before the general court.—A judge of the general court cannot be a judge in chancery, because a judge in chancery must be tried before the general court; but if a judge of the general court be a judge in chancery, then he (a judge of the general court) will be tried in the general court which is against the seventeenth article, which declares that a judge of the general court shall be impeached before the court of appeals. My inference is that a judge in chancery & a judge of the general court were intended under the constitution to be distinct individuals. If the reasoning of those judges has not had the same effect on the minds of the members of this committee, that it has had on mine, I will proceed still farther on this point. It will I presume be readily admitted, that whenever the legislature undertake or are driven to the necessity of expounding either the supreme law, or an ordinary act of the legislature, that the same rules of construction should govern them, as govern the judges when they are engaged in expounding the law; and also, that whenever it can be shewn to the legislature, that the supreme court of appeals have formed and delivered an opinion as to the construction of the constitution on any particular point, or an act of the ordinary legislature, that very great deference and respect should be paid to that opinion, nor should the legislature give a different construction unless it could be clearly shown that the opinion was incorrect. For I never shall contend that the legislature are bound as inferior courts are, by the opinions of the court of Appeals. If then, Sir, I can shew, that the court of Appeals formed of the most enlightened men that ever adorned any country, have decided that the duties of the judges of the general court and court of chancery cannot constitutionally be blended, I shall throw it on my opponents, to prove clearly and satisfactorily, that the opinion was and is incorrect, or this committee will decide the question with me and consequently strike so much of the bill as goes to blend these duties. To shew that the court of Appeals have thus decided, I must, after mentioning the names of these illustrious patriots and statesmen, who then formed the court of Appeals, read several passages from the report in the case of Kamper and Hawkins. In the year 1788 when the opinion was given on which I rely, the court of Appeals was composed of the following judges—the honourable Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, &c. (Here Mr. S. read in the printed report, page 58 from the words "in the year," &c. to the word "passage," and p. 59 and 60 from "G. Then" to "persons.") Having now, I think, induced the committee to doubt at least whether these duties can be blended constitutionally, even if I have not satisfied them, that they cannot be blended, I shall conclude after noticing one or two remarks that have been made by those who advocate the bill under consideration. It has been said that the happy effects flowing from the union of those duties in the federal circuit court, should induce the committee to adopt the bill. If we cannot constitutionally unite them, there is an end of the question; but if we may, then I conceive that neither the expedition with which the federal court decides causes, nor the satisfaction given by those decisions are of force in proving the expediency of uniting these duties. Let it be remembered, Sir, that the delay in our county courts arises in a great measure from the difficulty of executing process: whereas in the federal court, the marshal resides near the clerk's office: his deputies are distributed through the state; he forwards the process by an easy, safe, and certain conveyance; his deputies with great punctuality execute the process and return them to the marshal, and no suitors ever heard to complain that process was not been executed and returned. In the state courts, a suitors, to be sure of having his process executed, must carry them himself or send a special messenger whose expenses he pays. The trouble and expense is too great for him, and his cause remains for years as when the bill was first filed. Again in the federal courts, when an issue is made up on the bill, answer &c. the cause is set down for hearing and the parties have the right of calling and examining their witnesses before the court, as in a trial at common law; but in the state courts after an issue is made up, six months are allowed for taking depositions. Something has been said of the delay even in the chancery district court of Williamsburg. I think it a duty I owe to the honourable judge of that court, to say that when causes are for hearing, he will decree them, unless in his opinion, good cause is shewn for a continuance, and that business in that court is every day diminishing, and not increasing, as far as I am able to judge. The delays in the Richmond and Staunton districts may be removed by establishing additional courts of chancery. I am persuaded that we better improve our present judicial system than to try any new one. The bill was lost by a considerable majority.
On Tuesday, the remaining branches of Mr. Smyth's judiciary bill came into discussion, and were lost; as was also a motion of Mr. Love to establish three new chancery courts; one at Fredericksburg, one at Lynchburg, and one at Wythe's courthouse. Of course, not a single vestige of these judiciary systems now remains! On Monday, the motion for postponing 'til
the 31st March, the question of recommending to the people to call a convention to amend our state constitution, was carried—Ayes 59—Nones 58. Yesterday, the finance bill was laid upon the anvil. If we may trust present appearances, the people need be under no apprehensions about an increase of their taxes! If the report, which we gave in our last paper from the Charleston Times , be really true; that is, if "the court of Spain has agreed to make compensation for spoliations committed by her own subjects, but would not consent to pay for those made by French citizens in Spanish ports;" the prospect of an amicable accommodation of our differences is remote indeed. There never has existed any difficulty in settling the first class of claims; the convention of Madrid in 1802 expressly recognises their justice and stipulates for a mode of redress. It is only the last class of claims; that is, claims for American vessels captured by French tribunals in Spanish ports; which the court of Madrid has refused to discharge. It was this class of claims which the plenipotentiaries who formed that convention, could agree upon no mode of arbitration; and which the two governments reserved for future negotiation. It was this class of claims, which the Spanish government expects us to surrender, before she will consent to ratify the convention of 1802, and discharge the claims which she has explicitly admitted. In fine, it is this class of claims, on which the illustrious minister of Spain, the Marquis d'Yrujo, thought proper to feed the opinion of three eminent lawyers of Philadelphia, and one from New-York. Should this report, therefore, be correct, we wonder upon what grounds the Charleston paper has ventured to infer, that "the court of Spain is more favourably disposed towards the United States." The last class of claims is scarce inferior in magnitude to the first. The captures and condemnations of vessels and cargoes, made by Spanish cruisers and Spanish tribunals, amount in number to one hundred and thirteen. The captures of our cargoes and vessels made by French cruisers, and condemned by French tribunals in Spanish ports, amount to one hundred and twelve. Each vessel with her cargo has been estimated, on an average, at 25,000 dols. The whole conjectural account will, therefore, stand thus: 113 vessels and cargoes captured by Spanish cruisers, and condemned by Spanish tribunals 2,825,000 112 do. do. captured by French cruisers, and condemned in Spanish ports 2,800,000 Whole amount of claims, Dols. 5,625,000 It is with much regret that we announce the unfortunate accident which happened on last Monday, to William B. Giles, Esq. our worthy Senator in the Congress of the United States. About 12 miles from this city, on the road leading to it from his house in Amelia, his gig over-set, he himself was thrown out, and his right leg was broken by the violence of the fall. He was immediately conveyed to a public house on the road; the fractured leg was replaced, and we hope that no serious danger is likely to ensue. Mr. Giles was on his way to Washington, to take his seat in the Senate. We cannot but fear that this accident will deprive our public councils, during the present session, of the assistance of one of its most useful members.
NUMBER.... EXAMINATION OF THE BRITISH DOCTRINE, WHICH SUBJECTS TO CAPTURE A NEUTRAL TRADE, NOT OPEN IN TIME OF PEACE. Such is the title of a pamphlet of 204 pages, which has just made its appearance at Washington, without the name of the author prefixed; without even an imprint to show, where it was printed. It is evidently the production of some "master spirit" of the nation. At Washington, report has already ascribed it to the pen of Mr. Madison; and the uncommon elegance and force of its style, the comprehension of principle, the extent of information, and the closeness of reasoning which it displays, strongly confirm the opinion. It is clearly in the manner of the celebrated Framer of the Virginia report of '99; and even though it be not written by him, we may venture to say it would not be unworthy of his pen. But from whose-soever genius it may have emanated, whether from the pen of the secretary of state, or from some other author scarcely less worthy of our admiration, we pronounce him entitled to the gratitude of our country and of all neutral nations, for his complete refutation of the plundering doctrine of Great-Britain. It is difficult to give a satisfactory summary of a pamphlet before us, every page and line of which contains important ideas. But it may not be altogether useless, if we give its general outlines, contenting ourselves with referring to the extract in our last page, as a specimen of the manner, in which each part of that outline is filled up. We could indeed have wished & had at one time intended, to have transplanted every part of it into our paper; but we soon recollected, that the value of the principles which it supports, the manner in which they are supported, and the well-earned reputation of its reputed author, would in no long time convey it into almost every man's hand, in the most distant corners of the state. The author begins with a general rule, that a nation not engaged in the war remaining in the same relations of amity and of commercial pursuits, with each of the belligerent nations, as existed prior to the war, it would seem that the war could not effect the intercourse between the neutral and either of the belligerent nations. The safety of the belligerents however, has introduced a few exceptions to this general rule. "Thus all instruments of war, going into the hands of one belligerent nation, may be intercepted, on the high seas, by its adversary. In like manner, a neutral trade with a place actually besieged is liable to be interrupted by the belligerents. It is maintained also on one side, though strangely contested on the other, that the property of a nation at war, in a neutral ship, may be seized and condemned by the enemy of that nation. To these exceptions, G. Britain has undertaken to add another as important as it is new. She asserts a right to intercept the trade of neutrals with her enemies, in all cases where the trade as it respects the ship, the cargo, or even the individual port of destination, was not as free before the war, as it is made during the war." "In applying this doctrine, the British government and courts have not, as yet, extended it beyond the trade of neutrals on the coasts, and with the colonies of enemies. But it is manifest, that this limitation is founded in considerations of expediency only; and that this doctrine is necessarily applicable to every other branch of neutral commerce with a belligerent nation, which was not open to the same nation in time of peace. It might indeed with equal reason be extended further. It might be applied to the case
of a trade legally permitted to foreign nations in time of peace, but not actually carried on by them in time of peace; because in time of peace actually carried on by the nation itself; and which is taken up by foreign nations in time of war only, in consequence of the war, which, by increasing the risk or by finding other employment for the vessels and seamen of the nation itself, invites neutral traders into the defected channels. In both cases, the neutral intervention may be said to result from the pressure of the war; and in both cases, the effect is the same to the belligerent; since in both cases neutrals carry on for him, a trade auxiliary to his prosperity and his revenue, which he could no longer carry on for himself; and which, at the same time, by liberating his naval facilities for the purposes of war, enable him to carry on the war, with more vigour and effect. These inferences cannot be impaired by any found distinction between a trade of neutrals with colonies, and a trade of neutrals with the ports of the mother country. Colonies, more essentially when they are altogether subject to the same authority which governs the parent state, are integral parts of the same dominion or empire. A trade, therefore, between a colonial port and a port of the parent or principal state, is precisely of the same nature with a trade between one and another port of the latter; and a trade between a colony and a foreign port is, in like manner, precisely the same with the trade between a foreign port and the parent country; which is only a more considerable, as a colony may be a less considerable part, of the same country or empire." After some preliminary remarks, the author proceeds to examine the fundamental question; "whether it be a part of the law of nations, that a trade ordinarily shut in time of peace, and opened to neutrals in time of war, on account of the war, is liable, as much as a trade in contraband of war or with a blocked port, to capture and condemnation. It will not be overlooked, that the principle, as thus laid down, does not extend to any of the cases, where a new trade, though opened during a war, is not opened on account of the war, but on considerations which would produce the same measure, if no war existed: from which follows another important observation, that taking into view the probable occurrence of such considerations, the still greater probability of a mixture of such with considerations derived from the war, the impossibility of distinguishing the proportion of these different ingredients in the mixture, with the evident disadvantage of rendering more complicated, instead of simplifying, a rule of conduct between independent nations, to be expounded and enforced by one of the parties themselves, it would seem to require no great effort of candor, to acknowledge the powerful objection in practice, to such a principle, were it really embraced by the most specious theory." The author has tried the principle in question. First—by the writings most generally received as the depositaries and oracles of the law of nations; Secondly—by the evidence of treaties; Thirdly—by the judgment of nations, other than Great Britain; Fourthly—by the conduct of Great Britain herself; Fifthly—by the reasoning employed in favor of the principle. Under the first head, the author very elaborately runs through all the treaties on the law of nations, which have any bearing on the subject. He proves that Grotius had supported no other exceptions to the freedom of neutral commerce, than in the cases of contraband, blockade and carriage of enemy's property; of course his flawless was a proof that the British doctrine was then either unknown, or disregarded; and that the very principles of extreme necessity from which Grotius had deduced these exceptions did not apply to the cases falling within the belligerent claim supported by G. Britain. He proves that Puffendorf deserves to be placed in the same scale with Grotius. Bynkershoek who had treated the subject of belligerent and neutral relations with more attention than his two predecessors, has established the belligerent right to intercept articles on the list of contraband; articles to places besieged or blocked; enemy's goods under the flag of a friend: but does not even glance at the present question. From his greater attention to the subject, his silence must therefore be regarded as more fatal to the British pretension, than that of Grotius. Vattel, after having given his definition of neutrality; after making "impartiality the test of lawfulness in the conduct of neutrals, and the mere pursuit of their own interest, without a design to injure any of the belligerents, the test of impartiality; enters more particularly on the discussion of the active trade, which neutral nations carry on with those at war;" and he at length coincides with Bynkershoek, "in establishing the general freedom of neutral commerce, with the exception of those things relating to the war, and in limiting this exception to the several cases of supplying the enemy with military contraband, of trading with places besieged, or blocked, and of carrying enemy's property." Martens, who was a professor of law in a Hanoverian University, and was therefore a subject of the sovereign of G. Britain and a professor under his patronage, admits only of two exceptions; the cases of a contraband of war, and of blocked or besieged places. For with respect to enemy's property, in neutral ships, or neutral property in enemy's ships, he exempts them both from seizure; the first on the ground, "that a belligerent power cannot exercise hostilities in a neutral place;" and the neutral vessel is a neutral place; and the second on the ground, "that the property belonging to neutral subjects" is itself neutral. "It would have been easy (adds our author) to add to the authorities here selected, other respectable Jurists within the same period; as well as a phalanx of later date, both in the fourth and north of Europe; but the testimony of Grotius, of Puffendorf, of Vattel and of Martens, is more than sufficient for the occasion. They are the luminaries and oracles, to whom the appeal is generally made by nations, who prefer an appeal to law rather than to power; an appeal which is made by no nation more readily than by G. Britain, when she has sufficient confidence in the justice of her cause." When our author comes to the examination of TREATIES, he lays down a standard by which they are to be applied to the present subject: "The authority of every treaty, says our commentator, is to be considered as opposed to the principle asserted by Great Britain, where it either stipulates a general freedom of neutral commerce with a specification of exceptions to it, and an omission of this British exception; or where it stipulates not only a neutral right generally to a free trade with belligerent nations, but particularly a right to trade freely in and between the parts of such nations. These stipulations, by the force of the terms, necessarily comprehend the coasting and colonial trades, as well as other branches of commerce." That he may not descend to "treaties of too remote a period, partaking of too little of the civilization & spirit of more modern times, to edify them by its examples," he commences his review with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. These treaties he divides into those to which Great-Britain was not a party, and those to which England first, and then Great-Britain was a party: 1. He quotes the treaty of 1650 between the United Provinces and Spain, specifying that the inhabitants of each may sail and trade with all which freedom and safety in all the kingdoms, &c. which are in peace with the other. The Pyrenean treaty between France and Spain in 1659, stipulates that the French shall have liberty to trade to all parts whatsoever, even though they should be in a war with his Catholic Majesty, and that "all merchandise may be transported by them to other countries in war with Spain as was allowed before the said war." The last expression is properly construed by our author to be a "mode of describing the indefinite right to trade, as if no war had arisen, and consequently to enter into any new channels of trade, which might be opened to them." The treaty of 1662 between France and the U. Provinces: the treaty of Breda in 1667 between the U. Provinces and England; that of 1672 between France and Sweden, that of 1675 between Sweden and the U. Provinces; a declaration made in 1676 by Spain and the U. Provinces confirming the treaty of 1650; the treaty of 1678 between the same provinces and France; of 1679, between Sweden and the same; of 1679, between France and the United Provinces; of 1701, between Denmark and the U. Provinces; of 1716, between France and the Hanse towns; and many others confirm the same doctrine: That is, they all secure to the power remaining at peace, the right of trading in all countries at any time, in all articles not contraband, and to all places not blockaded. Such at least is the stipulation of all of them with a slight shade of difference; but there is not one of them which recognises the late British distinction between a trade shut during a peace and opened in time of war. To this list are to be also added all the treaties and conventions, entered into in the years 1780 and 1800; the two acts of an armed neutrality. To this list too "of the conventional monuments of Europe" we may add the "testimony of the only nation at once civilized and independent in the American Hemisphere. The U. States have or have had treaties with France, Holland, Sweden, Russia, Spain and G. Britain, and in all of these except that with Great Britain, they have positively maintained the principle that neutrals may trade freely between neutral and belligerent ports, and between one belligerent port and another, whether under the same or different jurisdictions." The treaty with G. Britain was silent. "It merely omitted a stipulation on the subject, as it did on many others, contained in other treaties." 2. The list of treaties to which G. Britain was a party, confirms the same opinion. The treaties with Sweden in 1654, 1656, and 1661, secure the right of trading with the enemies of the other, with the usual exceptions of contraband and blockade. A treaty with Spain in 1667, with the United Provinces in the same year, with Denmark in 1669, and 1670, in the latter of which the trade of colonies is for the first time introduced into treaties, all contain similar stipulations. In a declaration of the same date with the marine treaty of Dec. 1, 1674, with the U. Provinces, it is stated as the true meaning of the latter, that the ships of either may not only pass and trade from a neutral port or place to a place in enmity with the other party, or from a place in enmity to a neutral place, but also from a port or place in enmity to a port or place in enmity with the other, whether the said places belong to one and the same enemy or to several enemies. A stronger contradiction could not possibly exist to the British doctrine. But why should we multiply similar instances? Our author enumerates 23 other treaties, in which this doctrine is not only not countenanced, but contradicted by provisions similar to those we have mentioned. In the treaty with Russia of 5-17 June 1801, which constitutes one of that number, the provision is most explicit. In article 3d. Sect. 2, it is stipulated that the effects on board neutral ships shall be free, with the exception of contraband of war and of enemy's property; and that under the latter denomination shall not be comprised in any case, the merchandise of the produce, growth or manufacture of the countries at war which should have been acquired by the subjects of the neutral power, and should be transported on their account. Can any thing be more evident than that an exemption is here given to the colonial, as well as the coasting trade of belligerent nations? "Such then (says, our author) is the accumulated and irresistible testimony borne by G. B. in her own treaties, against the doctrine asserted by her." In fact there is one treaty only, which was discovered by our author in his elaborate research "for a long period of time and through voluminous collections, which formed an exception to the general mass." This was in a Danish treaty of June 1681, with England and Holland. We must refer to our author, for an explanation of the reasons that gave birth to this diplomatic phenomenon.
EXTRACTS FROM THE JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES. Wednesday, January 15. An engrossed bill, To amend the act, entitled, an act, to extend the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, was read a third time and several blanks therein filled up, and passed the house—Ayes 89—Nones 62. An engrossed bill, To amend the act, for further continuing and amending the act, entitled, an act, for reducing into one the several acts concerning executions, and for the relief of insolvent debtors, was read a third time and passed the house. Ordered, that the clerk carry the said bills to the senate and desire their concurrence. A bill, For removing the district court from the Sweet Springs to the town of Lewisburg in the county of Greenbrier was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time—Ayes 75—Nones 67.
Thursday, January 16. A communication from the senate by their clerk. The senate have passed the bill, allowing Edward Houchins a sum of money for his present relief and placing him on the pension list. They have also passed the bill, allowing a claim to Jesse Meryman, administrator of Thomas Meryman, dec'd. with amendments, to which they request the concurrence of the house of delegates. The house proceeded to consider the amendments to the said bill, and the same being read, were agreed to by the house. The house proceeded to consider the senate's amendments to the bill, For incorporating the town of Wheeling in the county of Ohio; which bill with the amendments was heretofore laid upon the table; and the same being read, were agreed to by the house. Ordered that the clerk acquaint the senate thereof. An engrossed bill, For removing the district court from the Sweet Springs to the town of Lewisburg in the county of Greenbrier, was read a third time and passed the house—Ayes 78—Nones 71. Ordered, that the clerk carry the said bills to the senate and desire their concurrence. The house according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a committee of the whole house on the bill, To amend the judiciary system; and after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Tazewell reported, that the committee of the whole house had according to order, had the said bill under consideration, and made several amendments thereto, but not having time to go through the same, had directed him to move for leave to sit again. Resolved therefore, that this house will again to-morrow resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the aforesaid bill. Friday, January 17. A communication from the senate by their clerk.
WILL BE SOLD, On Saturday the first day of February next, at Zachariah Brooks's Tavern in this place. ALL THE HOUSEHOLD & KITCHEN FURNITURE, one excellent milk Cow, and sundry other articles, belonging to the estate of Wm. Jackson, dec'd.—Also, at same time and place will be hired for the remainder of the year, a valuable negro man, a likely negro boy, woman and girl, belonging to said deceased. Terms will be made known on the day of sale. All those who have claims against said deceased, are requested to bring them forward properly authenticated, and those who are indebted are requested to make immediate payment. THOMAS TREDWAY, Administrator, with the will annexed. Manchester, January 23. 3p. NOTICE. BY virtue of a deed of trust, executed to me by John Kelso, to secure the payment of a debt due by him to John and Wm. Bell, I shall, on the 25th of February next, at the house of the said John Kelso, in the upper end of the county of Cumberland, proceed to sell so much of that valuable FARM, containing 550 acres of Land, on which he now lives, (subject to two prior deeds of trust) as will pay the sum due to the said John and Wm. Bell, of about six hundred and fifty pounds, with some interest thereon, for the benefit of John Kelso. CREED TAYLOR, Trustee. (epids.) P. S. On the above land, is one of the best farms in the surrounding country, in fine order, with an excellent crop of wheat sown on it, and it is within 2 miles of a manufacturing mill on Appomattox, from whence there is a good navigation to the Petersburg canal. I will dispose of it at private sale and give a reasonable credit for the balance after receiving 2000 dols in cash. JOHN KELSO. LAND FOR SALE. THE Subscriber will sell a great bargain, in the TRACT OF LAND, whereon he now lives, lying on the waters of Hardware river, in North Garden, in Albemarle county, containing about 500 acres. It is a rich soil, producing excellent Tobacco, Corn and wheat, with a stream running thro' it, supposed sufficient to turn a grist mill. It is supposed no one would purchase without viewing it, therefore it is unnecessary to be more particular in the description. Any one wishing to see the land or enquire of terms, will apply to the subscriber on the premises. MATTHEW BROWN. January 21. 76. WILL BE PUBLISHED, AT the Office of the Enquirer a SKETCH of the proceedings of the present General Assembly. It will contain the TITLES of all the acts passed; the CONTENTS of such as are of a general nature; a statement of TAXES & APPROPRIATIONS, for the current year; the state of the ARMOURY, PENITENTIARY, &c. with such other matters of a miscellaneous nature, as may be condensed within the allotted space. This Sketch will be printed in the pamphlet form, at two dollars per hundred. Such of the members of the Assembly as may wish to procure a certain number of copies, are requested to leave their names at the Office of the Enquirer. January 23. Printing, IN ALL ITS VARIETY, EXECUTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE ENQUIRER.

EXTRACT FROM AN "EXAMINATION OF THE BRITISH DOCTRINE," which subjects to capture a neutral trade, not open in time of peace." [Just Published at Washington.]
Thus stood the admiralty law in Great-Britain as announced by British tribunals, and officially communicated by the British cabinet, to the neutral world. So it had continued to stand, as a pledge and safeguard to neutrals, conforming themselves to it, from the dates of those authorities, the last of which is as far back as the spring of the year 1801.
With what astonishment, then, must the neutral world now learn, from the decision of Sir William Scott on the 28th July, 1805, that, according to the rule of law just laid down, after much deliberation, by the lords of appeals "the circumstances of landing the goods, or securing the duties do not furnish complete evidence of the termination of the voyage;" and that without this complete evidence, derived from the original intention of the importing voyage, the voyage from the neutral port will be treated as the continuance of the voyage from the colony to the mother country.
This political change in the judicial rules of condemnation, admits no other satisfactory, than a commercial explanation: for the loss of character, which it induces, is a greater sacrifice than could be made to the cupidity of cruisers, or the value of their prizes to the public.
The whole course, indeed, of modifications pursued by the instructions, and by the decisions of the courts as they appear from day to day, can leave no doubt that the primary object of Great-Britain has been to transfer to herself as large a share as possible of the commercial advantages yielded by the colonies of her enemies. An absolute monopoly was embarrassed by the irresistible pretensions of neutral countries; more especially of the United States, whose neighborhood and habits of intercourse, together with other considerations, forbade a perseverance in the original attempt to exclude them. They were accordingly the first of the neutral nations towards which a relaxation was afforded. The relaxation, after considerable delay, was extended, by the instruction of 1798, to the neutral nations of Europe. That instruction was founded on a compromise between the interest and the prudence of Great-Britain. It permitted neutral nations to trade directly with the colonies of her enemies; without trading in colonial productions with one another; and permitted all of them to carry those productions directly to Great-Britain. This arrangement was manifestly calculated to limit the importations of each neutral country to the amount of its own consumption; and consequently to turn the immense residue of colonial wealth, through neutral vessels into her own market; whence it might be dispensed, under her own regulations, to the neutral countries of Europe having no direct commerce with the West-Indies, and even to the belligerent nations whose commerce with their respective colonies has as completely destroyed, as has their commerce with foreign countries. The arrangement was specious, but proved to be deceptive. It was expected that the expense and delay of a circuitous trade through the United States would prevent importations and re-exportations, interfering with the projected trade directly from the West-Indies to herself; and as long as this expectation was in any degree indulged, the right of re-exportation was admitted, though reluctantly, both by the government and the courts. Experience, however, finally showed, that the activity, the capital, and the economy employed by the American traders, overpowered the disadvantages incident to the circuit through the ports of the United States; and secured to them the profits of supplying Europe with the colonial productions of her enemies. In proportion as this unforeseen operation disclosed itself, the commercial jealousy of Great-Britain began to take alarm. Obstructions were to be thrown in the way of importations. Re-exportations were seen with growing discontent. The idea of continuity, by which two voyages were consolidated into one, came into vogue. The Vice-Admiralty courts, regardless of the interior decisions in England, would not allow that the landing of a cargo, and paying the duties, prevented it against condemnation. At length appeared the feintise of Sir Wm. Scott, above cited, carrying into effect the construction of the inferior courts, as having been deliberately sanctioned by the Lords of Appeal. The doctrine established by that decision has been followed by other decisions, and dictates, at first requiring the re-exportation, in another market, then other conditions, one after another, as they were found necessary; till it is finally understood, that no precautions whatever are to bar the cruisers from suspending, nor the courts from scrutinizing the intention of the original importer, and that the proof of this intention not to re-export the articles, is to fall on the claimant. To fill up the measure of judicial despotism, these wanton innovations are now extended to vessels returning from the belligerent mother countries, as well as to those going thither from the United States; with the addition of demands of proof never before heard of in prize courts, on points utterly unknown to the law of nations.
These unexampled and vexatious proceedings manifestly have in view the entire destruction of colonial exports from the U. States; and it would be more candid in Great-Britain, if not more just, to give public notice, at once, that in all such cases capture and condemnation would be authorized.
Her present system, as subsidiary to the extension of her commerce, will be still further seen in her concurrent measures, of a type not less extraordinary than that of any which have preceded them.
According to the instructions issued within the period of the existing war, or to the received interpretation of them, the permission given to neutrals by those of 1799, to carry the produce of enemy's colonies, is, if it were to be given to Great-Britain, has not been continued. At first view this might appear to be inconsistent with the policy ascribed to her, in obstructing re-exportations from the United States. The act of Parliament, of June 27, 1805, however, which has been already noticed, changes this appearance of duplicity from that policy, into a new proof, and even an extension of that policy. By the regulations of that act a direct trade is opened between the British colonies in the West-Indies and those of her enemies; and her enemies themselves are invited to enter into the trade. Whilst neutrals, therefore, are excluded from carrying colonial produce directly from the colonies to Great-Britain, the commercial views of Great-Britain are answered by the substitution of another channel through her own colonies; with the additional advantage of a monopoly to her own ships, in the transportation from her colonies across the Atlantic; and for the sake of this advantage, or for that of repressing the growth of neutral rivalry, or on both these accounts, she has been willing to encounter all the reproach of cultivating an avowed commerce with her enemies, in the very moment of laying new restrictions on that of neutral trade with them.
Further; the act of Parliament, of June 27, 1805, providing for a trade between Great-Britain and the colonies of her enemies, through the medium of free ports in her own colonies, was preceded by an act of April 10, 1805, authorizing licenses to British subjects, to import, during the war, into Great-Britain, in neutral vessels, for their own or neutral account, from the American colonies of her enemies, most of their productions; requiring, at the same time, that all fur and coffee so imported should be re-exported; and that the value of a certain portion of the imports from such colonies should be returned in goods and commodities from Great-Britain.
Again; in concert with the act of June 27, instructions, founded on another act of Parliament, were issued June 29, 1805, authorizing British subjects to export in neutral vessels to France, Spain, and Holland, a long list of articles, including their re-export colonial productions; and to import therefrom a long list of such articles as suited her own wants.
To complete the arrangement, in all its forms, it has been officially announced in the American Gazette, conformably to a resolution of the British privy council, of August 3, 1805, that the trade with the settlements and islands belonging to the enemy, in America and the West-Indies, is to be carried on thro' the medium of the British free ports in the West-Indies, and not otherwise.
The system of Great-Britain may, therefore, now be considered as announced to all the world, without disguise, and by the most solemn acts of her government. Her navy having destroyed the trade of her enemies, as well between the mother countries and their colonies, as between the former and neutral countries; and her courts, by putting an end to re-exportations from neutral countries, reducing the importations into these, to the mere amount of their own consumption; the immense surplus of productions accumulating in the American possessions of her enemies can find no outlet but through the free ports provided for it; nor any other market than the British market, and those to which the finds it for her interest to distribute it; with a view to which, she not only allows her enemies to trade with her possessions, but allows her own subjects to trade with her enemies. And thus, in defiance as well of her treason laws and of her trade laws, as of the rights of neutrality, under the law of nations, we find her, in the just and emphatic language of the President, "taking to herself, by an inconsistency at which reason revolts, a commerce with her own enemy, which she denies to a neutral, on the ground of aiding that enemy in the war."
But let us return for a moment to the series of instructions of which an historical review has been taken—and advert to some additional lights in which the judicial construction and application of them present the conduct of Great-Britain.
Prior to the orders of November 6, 1793, the general principle forbidding to neutrals a trade opened to them during the war, must, if it be a principle of the law of nations, as asserted by Great-Britain, have been the rule of Admiralty decisions. Accordingly, it appears, by 4 Rob. Appendix p. 12, that condemnations in cases prior to that date were, in the court of Appeals, made to rest on that principle.
The orders of November 6, 1793, designated for the operation of the principle, the trade with the colonies of the enemy; as well the trade to, as the trade from, them.
The orders of January, 1794, expressly revoking the orders of November, 1793, designated for capture, the trade only from the West-India Islands of the enemy, and bound directly to Europe, only.
The orders of January, 1798, revoking expressly the orders of January, 1794, designated for capture the trade from the islands or settlements of the enemies, directly to any port in Europe; excepting what might be bound to British ports, or to the ports of the country to which the neutral vessels should belong.
Without entering into a variety of minute questions growing out of the varied and very inaccurate expressions in which the orders are penned, several of very great importance occur, in expounding and applying the rules laid down.
The first question is, whether the first order of 1793, which made no express reference to the general principle, and which was limited to the colonial branch of the enemy's trade, was to be understood as merely a specification of certain cases to which the general principle was applicable, leaving the general principle in force as to all unspecified cases; or whether this specification of certain cases was to be understood as implying a legalization of cases unspecified.
The question arises, also, under the successive orders, each of them revoking the orders immediately preceding, whether it was to be understood, that the specification of certain cases did, or did not, legalize the cases omitted in the same order, but specified in the orders preceding.
The more obvious construction of the original order, even, seems to be, rather that it was meant to define the only cases to which the general belligerent claim was to be applied, than that it was meant merely to notify the claim in those particular cases; a claim not merely requiring notification in those cases, than in the cases not notified.
With respect to the orders of posterior dates, the fair construction implies, that the belligerent claim was narrowed, first, by all the difference between the orders of 1793 and those of 1794; and finally, by all the difference between the orders of 1794, and those of 1798.
Taking the whole together under these constructions, the application of the general principle of capture was restricted by these orders to the trade of neutrals from the colonies of enemies, directly to ports, other than their own respective ports and the British ports; and consequently there remained exempt from capture:
1st. The coasting trade, and every branch of trade not colonial.
2d. The trade from any neutral country, to belligerent colonies.
3d. The trade by neutrals from any belligerent country to its own colonies, and to the colonies of another belligerent country.
4th. The trade between belligerent colonies, whether belonging to the same or to different belligerent countries.
Applying this rule of implication to the two orders only of 1794 and 1798; and admitting those of 1795 not to have superseded, by implication, the claims to capture in cases not therein specified, there will be no other exception to the relaxations or exemptions just enumerated in favor of neutral commerce, but the coasting trade, and other trades not colonial, to which Great-Britain has applied, or may choose to apply, the general principle.
In general the high court of admiralty seems, by applying the assumed principle to the coasting trade, to have pursued that construction of the original order of 1793, which left the general principle in force as to cases not specified in it; and to have considered the relaxations in the succeeding orders of 1794 and 1798, as referring solely to the colonial trade.
There appears, however, at no time to have been any clear and fixed opinion in the court, with respect to the illegality and penal consequences of the coasting trade.
Few cases are reported, perhaps few have occurred, of difficulties relative to this branch of trade. In 1 Rob. p. 104, the subject is incidentally brought into view, in a case where a French vessel had been purchased. The doctrine held by the judge is expressed as follows: "We certainly do allow it [the purchase] but only to persons conducting themselves in a fair neutral manner, &c. besides, this vessel appears to have been engaged in the coasting trade of France. The court has never gone so far as to say, that pursuing one voyage of that kind would be insufficient to fix a hostile character. But in my opinion, a habit of such trading would. Such a voyage however, must raise a strong degree of suspicion against a neutral claim; and the plunging at once into a trade so highly dangerous, creates a presumption that there is an enemy proprietor lurking behind the cover of a neutral name." Here, not the coasting trade itself, but the presumption of enemy's property found in it, is made the ground of animadversion.
In the case of the Speculator, the same idea presents itself.
The Emanuel 3 was itself the case of the coasting trade. In this case the judge defended with great energy and rigor, on the manifest illegality of the coasting trade. "Can there be described" says he "a more effective accommodation that can be given to an enemy during war than to undertake it for him during his own inability." He did not however, proceed further than to refuse freight on the principle settled by ancient judgments, that "neutrals are not permitted to trade on freight." He particularly refers to the case of the Mercurius [Lords, March 7, 1753] in which freight was refused. Why were not the ships confiscated in these cases? That being laid down in other cases as a penalty in the penalty for illegal voyages, and actually applied ultimately to cases of a trade between a colony and the mother country, to which the coasting trade is strictly analogous.
both being trades from one port to another part of the same nation. It is not even to be inferred from the authorities here cited, that a coasting trade, in the produce of the country, if carried not on freight, but as property belonging to the neutral owner of the ship, is subject to any penalty. This indulgence to the coasting, a rigor towards the colonial trade, is to be explained by the fertility of the one, and the little value of the other, as a source of capture and commercial profit, or in what other way?
With respect to the orders of '94 and '98, and the colonial trade, it appears to have been in general understood, that they were to be construed as successively enlarging the trade of neutrals with the colonies of enemies, in the manner and to the extent above explained.
The dilemma was indeed unavoidable; either the orders were to be considered as relaxations, (and if relaxations at all, is that extent) or as leaving the general principle in force as to cases not specified in the orders, and therefore as no relaxations at all.
This latter decision would have given a character of mockery to the profession and parade of making, in their orders, so many sacrifices of belligerent rights to a spirit of moderation and amity towards neutrals. The former side of the dilemma, therefore, was necessarily taken. The orders, those of '94 and '98 at least, were relaxations.
As relaxations however in the extent required by an obvious and consistent interpretation, the door opened to neutral commerce with the belligerent colonies, was found to be wider than was compatible either with the interests of British commerce, the avidity of British cruisers, or the probable intentions of the British government.
What was to be the remedy? The first tried was that of shutting the door gradually, by the dint of constructions, as may be seen by tracing the colonial cases adjudged by Sir William Scott, and reported by Robinson, and the decisions of the Lords of Appeals referred to by the reporter.
The task was assuredly not a little difficult, of which there is the strongest demonstration in the crooked and contradictory reasonings and decrees, into which it forced the very eminent talents of the judge who presides in the high court of admiralty.
In addition to the evidence already presented, take the following comparison between his rule of construction in the case of the Providencia, and the rule of construction in the case of the Emanuel 5.
In the former case, August 16, 1799, he asserts, the first instructions were to bring in all ships which had been trading with any colony of the enemy; but this country afterwards receded from those directions; and the second orders were to bring in all ships laden with the produce of the West-India islands, coming directly from the ports of the said islands to any port in Europe. I cannot but consider this as an abandonment of the former law, [injunction] and I cannot but think that a cruiser taking this instruction, in conjunction with those given before, must have inferred that it was no longer the intention of government to bring in, and much less to confiscate, [was there room for this distinction?] "cargoes of West-India produce, unless coming to some port in Europe." This was followed by instructions now in force, which direct the bringing in of all vessels laden with the produce of the French and Spanish settlements, coming from the ports of such settlements to any port of Europe, other than the ports of that country to which the vessel belongs. It is certainly not laid down in the negative that they shall not bring in such vessels as are coming from such settlements to their own ports; but looking at the former instruction, I think it was a strong admonition to cruisers not to bring in such ships, and I believe it has been generally to understand flood and acted upon by them; and in this country to which the vessels belonged, have been uniformly restored on proof of the neutrality of the property.
The reasoning here is plain and just. The first instructions designated for capture the colonial trade, without distinguishing between Europe and America: the second designated the trade to Europe only: therefore, by fair inference, the trade to America was exempted from capture.
Again, the second orders designated for capture the trade to Europe: the third orders designated the trade to ports of Europe not being of Great Britain or of the country owning the vessel: therefore by fair inference the trade to Great Britain and to countries owning the vessels, was exempted from capture.
In the Emanuel, November 7, 1799, the case was that of a neutral ship taken on a voyage last from France to a French colony. According to the reasoning of Sir William Scott, just quoted, the inevitable inference ought to have been that the voyage was legal.
The first instructions designated for capture the trade to and from the colonies. Both the second and third designated for capture the trade only from the colonies; therefore, according to that reasoning, the trade to the colonies, was exempted from capture.
Hear nevertheless the reasoning employed by the judge himself in this case.
After combating the neutral right to trade with the colonies of an enemy, by arguments applicable, in principle, as well to a trade between neutral ports and the colonies, as to a trade between the mother country and its colonies; he proceeds to state, in answer to all pleas for a neutral trade from the mother country to its colonies, "that the true rule to this court is the text of the instructions; what is not found therein permitted, is understood to be prohibited upon this plain principle, that the colony trade is generally prohibited, and that whatever is not specifically relaxed, continues in a state of interdiction."
Now as what is not permitted, not specifically relaxed, is by the instruction to continue prohibited, the question to be decided is, what it is that is permitted, or specifically relaxed by the instructions? It is what is positively and expressly permitted or relaxed? Then there is no permission or relaxation at all; for every thing positive and express in the instruction is for the capture, not for the permission or relaxation. Is it to be a permission or relaxation implied and inferred from a positive and specified prohibition in one order, and an omission of that or of a part of that prohibition, in a succeeding order? Then the neutral trade from a belligerent country to its colonies, which was prohibited in the order of 1798, and omitted in the orders of 1794 and 1798, was as much permitted, as specially relaxed, as the trade from a neutral country to the colonies of an enemy, is permitted or relaxed by the omission in the orders of 1794 and '98, to prohibit the trade to the colonies, which as well as the trade from the colonies, was positively and specially prohibited by the previous order of 1793; or to refer to the reasoning of Sir William Scott, in the former case of the Providencia, as much permitted or relaxed as the trade from the colonies going not to Europe, was inferred to be so from the order of 1794, taken in conjunction with the order of 1793; the order of '93 having prohibited the trade from the colonies generally, and the order of '94 having omitted to prohibit more of the trade from the colonies than what was bound to some port in Europe.
The judge concludes with declaring, "I see no favorable distinction between an outward and return voyage. I consider the intent of the instruction to apply equally to both communications, though the return voyage is the only one specially mentioned."
What favorable distinction, then, could the judge see between the outward and the return voyage, in a trade between a neutral country, and the colonies of an enemy, more than between the two voyages to Spain, a mother country, and the colonies? Is not the return voyage the only one specially mentioned, whether the instruction be applied to the former trade or to the latter trade? This is self-evident. Either then he must admit this distinction in both, and say that the return voyage only being specially mentioned, the outward voyage is in both trades permitted; or he must reject the distinction in both, and say that the outward voyage, tho' the return voyage only be specially mentioned, is prohibited in both. A different course however was pursued. The instruction was applied to the outward voyage in the neutral trade from the mother country to the colony, without being considered as applicable to the outward voyage in the trade from the neutral country to a colony;
which last has not as yet been subjected to condemnation. Whether that is to be its future destiny, as has happened to some other branches of commerce, where it was equally precluded by legal decisions and even official assurances, is among the arcana of the admiralty cabinet of Great Britain.
The judgment in this case, it is to be observed, did not go beyond the condemnation of the goods. The vessel was restored, but with a forfeiture of freight and expenses.
By degrees, however, with the aid of alleged fraud, of false destination, and of contraband in the outward voyages, the ship as well as the cargo were brought within the rules of condemnation in the high court of admiralty. The decision of the lords of appeal has finally established, in the case of a voyage from a Spanish colony to a neutral, but forbidden port in Europe, that any illegal trade of neutrals with the colonies of an enemy forfeits both ship and cargo. (6)
Other examples might be drawn from the proceedings in the British courts of admiralty, to illustrate the constructive return towards the general principle which had been mitigated by successive instructions, and the casual and entangled decisions, which have been employed for the purpose. These illustrations cannot be here pursued, without too great an addition to the prolixity which has already been incurred. It will only therefore be remarked generally; first, that the course of proceedings, as they relate to the coasting, and different branches of the colonial trade; to the grounds on which they have been interdicted to neutrals; and to the penalties attached to breaches of the interdictions, compose a labyrinth for which no concentration of principles, no thread of reasoning whatever, affords a clue: Secondly, that constructive decisions, as appears in the last volume of Robinson's reports, have not only restored, in a great measure, the operation of the general principle; but have introduced collateral principles, greatly extending the mischiefs of its operation.
Whilst all the considerations therefore which originally led to the examination of this principle, are acquiring additional force, it is fortunate that so irresistible a testimony against its legitimacy, should have been furnished by the conduct of Great-Britain herself.
(1) President's message, December 3, 1805.
(2) 2 Rob. p. 244.
(3) 1 Rob. 249.
(4) 2 Rob. p. 126.
(5) 2 Rob. p. 129.
(6) 4 Rob. Appen. p. 11.
SALES AT AUCTION.
Will be sold at public auction, on Tuesday the 28th instant, at the late dwelling house of Andrew McKim, decd.
ALL his household and kitchen furniture, and one valuable cow. Terms of sale, cash for all sums under ten dollars, and for all over that sum a credit will be allowed of 9 months on giving approved endorsed notes.
ROBERT McKIM, & ALEXANDER McKIM, } Administrators. N. B. The house to be rented, and immediate possession given. Jan. 21. &th tdf.
THE subscriber wishes to sell two WAGGONS & TEAMS, one of six horses, wagon and gears, and the necessary appendages; the other six mules, wagon, gear, &c. Both have been used in hauling coal, and judging by the quantity hauled last year, are capable of doing as much as any others employed. On receiving a part of the money a credit will be allowed for the balance. A purchaser can be accommodated with an extra mule, or horse to each team, and may have in his power to employ both drivers at a moderate hire, for a part, or for the residue over the year, as may be agreed on. I would also sell a mare, and a valuable mule, both well suited to the purposes of a plantation; the mule is perhaps as large as any in the State. JAMES BRANDER. (16th 2w) Manchester, January 21.
WARM SPRINGS, IN THE COUNTY OF BATH, VIRGINIA.
HAVING taken a lease on the WARM SPRINGS for 10 years, from the 1st April, 1805; we wish to acquaint the public, that at a great expense and much labour, we have improved it, to accommodate gentlemen, 150 persons, having erected 15 new houses, among them a range of framed stables 240 feet long, together with other stables roomy enough to hold about 100 horses, also 10 new houses 21 by 17 feet, built convenient to the Bath, with fine chimneys, and finished off neatly; a large and commodious sitting room for the ladies, furnished with different kinds of instruments of music, and kept for that purpose only. A new Bath will be made distinct from the present one, intended for such persons as may not desire to mix with the young and healthy.
We have also taken a lease on the SWEET SPRINGS in the county of Monroe, distant 50 miles from the Warm, for 9 years, and are making the necessary preparations for the accommodation of the visitors. The British attention will be paid to give satisfaction, as we know from many years experience, that without it but few visitors can be expected. It is with much satisfaction that we have it in our power to assure the public that the different houses of entertainment on the roads leading to the Springs have of late been much attended to by the proprietors, most of which (above the ridge) the subscribers have wished, and have found that appearances run to indicate that in future travellers will be well accommodated. We wish to purchase a Blacksmith, for one that comes well recommended, a generous price will be given. Also wanted to employ a discreet elderly woman to undertake the management of the place of house-keeper, either at the Warm or Sweet Springs, one inclined to be industrious, and qualified to discharge such duties, will meet with liberal encouragement, on application to us. ROBERT & GEORGE TURNER. January 21. ephs.
VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR SALE.
TWO HOUSES and LOTS on Shockoe Hill, in a most desirable part of the city, and possessing every accommodation for a family. A long credit will be allowed, or Virginia Bank Stock at a very liberal price taken in exchange. I have 8000 acres of Virginia land warrants which I will sell low for cash. THOMAS NORVELL. Jan. 11. cf.
GEORGE WILY, BROKER & COMMISSION MERCHANT, Near the Basin.
BUYS and sells all kinds of Produce—Also, ands Lots, and houses, Bank Stock, &c.
He has for Sale, LOTS No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, which make one entire square in Du-Val's addition. There is a good Spring attached to them. These lots are well worth the attention of any gentleman wishing to build a summer retreat for his family. July 23.—at.
BY virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed to the subscriber by Andrew Callen, to secure to Archibald Hughes the payment of a sum of money, as expressed therein, will be sold, on Friday the 24th inst. for ready money, a LOT, with a brick house thereon, known in Duval's plan of lots by the No. 46. The sale will take place on the premises, between the hours of twelve & two o'Clock, P. M. THOMAS UNDERWOOD, Jr. Trustee. January 2.
TO BE RENTED.
A BRICK HOUSE, near that of Mr. Robert Gordon, on the Hill, calculated to accommodate a small family comfortably; attached to it is a half acre of ground well inclosed. JAS. GREENHOW. December 7. cf.
GENERAL OFFICE OF INSURANCE, JANUARY 30th, 1806.
THE general meeting of the Mutual Insurance Company against Fire on Goods and Furniture, in the state of Virginia, which took place this day agreeably to notice previously given, in the public papers, was too thin to authorize any proceedings, as to the general concerns of the company. The meeting was therefore adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning of Tuesday the fourth day of next month.
As the affairs of the company are in such a state as to require immediate attention, and as most of the members are now liable to incur all the disadvantages of the institution, without a possibility of being, in any degree, benefited by it, should any accident occur to them, it is earnestly hoped, as a matter of the first consequence to their individual interests, that they will be pointed to attending the said meeting, either personally or by proxy. Wm. H. FITZWILLIAMSON, P. A. Richmond, January 21st. tmd.
TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION,
At the front door of the Eagle Tavern, in the city of Richmond, on the eighteenth day of March next, ensuing.
THAT most valuable estate, situated in the county of Wythe, and commonwealth of Virginia, and heretofore well known by the name of Cliffton's Lead Mines; but which, for sometime past has been considered, as the property of Stephen Austin and company, of the city of Philadelphia, by virtue of a purchase thereof by them, made under a decree of the high court of chancery of the said commonwealth, with the terms whereof they have not complied.
That purchase was made on the 20th day of February 1793, for the sum of £ 6,505, and since that period, they have made funds great and valuable improvements on the said estate.
The well known value of the property, and the certainty which the subscribers feel, that those who mean to become purchasers will satisfy themselves thereof, on view, renders any further description of the property to be sold unnecessary.
The sale will be made in conformity to two several decrees of the superior court of chancery, which is directed by law to be held at the Capitol in the city of Richmond aforesaid, the one pronounced on the 28th day of June, and the other on the 7th day of October, in the year 1802.
Credit will be given to the purchaser or purchasers, for a term of nine months for one, and eighteen months for the other moiety of the purchase money, each moiety being secured not only by a bond with good security made payable to the subscribers, or the survivors of them, their executors, administrators or assigns, for the uses in the said decree specified, and bearing interest from the date; but also, by the retention of the legal estate, until the whole purchase money, with such interest, shall be fully paid; on which payment a conveyance or conveyances will be executed to the purchaser or purchasers in virtue of the said decree by
JOHN WICKHAM, JOHN WARDEN, WILLIAM HAY, } Commissioners of the court. Jan. 21. Sw.
Northumberland County Court, 12th Nov. 1805. IN CHANCERY.
Leroy Ogle, against Richard Moore, John Davis, and William Pearson. } Defs.
THE Defendant, Richard Moore, not having entered his appearance, and given security according to the act of Assembly, and the rule of this court; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this state, on the motion of the complainant by his counsel: It is decreed and ordered, that the said defendant appear here on the fifth day of March court next, and answer the bill of the complainant, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some public newspaper, published in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and another copy posted at the front door of the Court house of this county. And it is further ordered, that the defendants, Davis and Pearson, do not pay away, convey or secrete any money or property they may have belonging to the said Richard Moore, but that they retain the same in their hands, subject to the future order of the court. A Copy, FLEM. BATES, C. M. C. December 12. (th 2 m.)
Northumberland County Court, 12th Nov. 1805. IN CHANCERY.
James V. Ball & Spencer Ball, Compts. against William B. Travers and Henry } Defs.
THE Defendant, William B. Travers, not having entered his appearance, and given security according to the act of Assembly, and the rule of this court; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this state; on the motion of the complainants by their counsel: It is decreed and ordered that the said defendants appear here on the fifth day of March court next, and answer the bill of the complainants, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some public newspaper published in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and another copy posted at the front door of the Court house of this county. And it is further ordered, that the defendant Henry, do not pay away, convey or secrete any money or property he may have belonging to the said William B. Travers, but that he retain the same in his hands, subject to the future order of the court. A Copy, FLEM. BATES, C. M. C. December 12. (th 2 m.)
NOTICE.
HAVING commenced the BURR MILL STONE MAKING, in September last, at my shop, near the Basin of the Canal, I have now finished for sale stones of 4 feet 4 feet 6 and 5 feet diameters of best quality and workmanship. I have a large proportion of Close Hord Burr's, suitable for grinding corn, and will shortly receive additional supplies of good materials. Those who please to favour me with their commands, will be served faithfully on reasonable terms. I will choose bolting Cloths for those who desire it, suitable to their purposes. I tender my thanks to the public for past favours, and hope for future encouragement. JOHN MOODY. December 24. T&S. w.