The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1805-07-23 00:00:00

CATHOLIC PETITION.
THE order of the day having been read for the house taking into consideration the Petition of the Catholics of Ireland, the petition was read to the house, on the motion of Mr. Fox.
MR. FOX then being called upon by the Speaker, rose and spoke to the following effect:— "I rise, Sir, on the present occasion, with no inconsiderable degree of anxiety, in bringing before the house a measure of so much importance, and pregnant with so many great and essential consequences, distant or immediate; in a degree, indeed, as to exceed in magnitude any measure which it has fallen to my lot to submit to the consideration of parliament. On the other hand, while I am conscious of the importance of the task, I am consoled because the duty is agreeable. I certainly do feel, that after the harrowing duty, of pressing inquiries, and censuring malversations, which are not only disgraceful to individuals, but also to the country, it is some relaxation on entering upon a subject, on which, far from exercising the painful office of an accuser, I am called upon to plead the cause of justice, of policy, and of wisdom—that I am called upon to advocate a measure, which in my opinion, must so eminently contribute to the strength and power of this empire, without taking from others any privilege, advantage, or enjoyment, which any reasonable man can believe he ought exclusively to enjoy; but on the contrary the possession of all which must be doubly secured to every class by the communication. Such appear to be the natural effects of those measures to which I have now the honor of drawing the attention of the house, and however embarrassing the question may be to some, and however doubtful it may be to others, at least it will be admitted, that the principles on which it is agitated, & on which the conclusions they point are founded, spring from sentiments of general good will and common affection. That the question is one of the first importance will not be denied, when I state merely that the petition which I now propose for your consideration does in fact include the claims of at least one fifth in number of all his majesty's European subjects; that it comprehends the wills of between three and four millions of persons. Happy I am, however, as I have already hinted, that I do not press the claims of the petitioners as hostile to the rights or enjoyments of others; and if the house upon the examination of the claims of the petitioners, shall extend to them that justice which they appear to me to deserve, I shall have been instrumental in performing a service most essential to the security, the greatness and the general weal of the empire. Upon matters so various and extensive as those to which the petition naturally draws our attention, it may be difficult to choose where to begin. The first argument, however, which occurs to me, springs from the numbers of those who are interested in the fate of this petition. Indeed I had not understood that the subject had given rise to doubts and debates, I should have thought it impossible there could be a question whether, upon general principles, so large a portion of his majesty's subjects were entitled to an equal share of political privileges with their fellow citizens. Perhaps the general point may not be disputed, but it will be urged that particular circumstances may justify an exception. Upon this point I must request the attention of the house for a few minutes, which may be useful to clear our way before proceeding farther. What I am about to state may indeed seem to be matter of theory rather than of practice. It may be thought then, that there may be some difference whether we state the claims of the Catholics as rights to be acknowledged or indulgences to be conferred. I believe, however, that as to the practical conclusion, there will be little difference, and that in the theory the difference will be more in words than in reality. For my own part, I confess I am perhaps more inclined to adhere to the form of speaking, which was more in fashion about a century ago than now, and to say broadly, that I consider rights to power, to equality of laws and of privileges, to be paramount; that they belong to all the members of the state. At the same time when I lay down the principle generally, I do not deny that the supreme law, the salus populi , may sometimes justify exceptions to the rule. This subject has been considered by many able men in the classes, and laid down by some with more by some with less, generally. Dr. Paley, a writer undoubtedly of great ability, though he inclines to put the theory differently in words from that from which occurs to me as preferable, lays of the original right of government, that it is "a right to do whatever is necessary for the general weal." But on the other hand, it cannot be denied, that the people have a right not to be restrained, unless where restraints are necessary on some, for the general good of the whole. This, therefore, will bring us to the same practical conclusion. That men have a right to be free from unequal restraints; yet, I do not deny that unequal restraints may, in some circumstances, be justified. If restraints be unnecessary, they ought not to be continued; that is in other words, men have a right to the enjoyment of political privileges, when no necessity, founded upon common good, calls for the deprivation. Some would say, therefore, "We are willing to grant this or that, on considerations of policy." I would say, grant it as a matter of right. It will be found, however, that there is really no great difference between us in the end; because it is in the one case allowing the right to hold, where no sufficient ground of exception exists; in the other it is conceding that which no danger prevents from granting. I was desirous of saying these few words upon this subject, because, in all probability, this discussion will not be only the question of a day, but may be frequently under our consideration. It is to be wished, therefore, that we should understand each other, and not dispute about the form of enunciating certain propositions which, however put, lead to the same practical conclusion. The application of these considerations to the Catholic question then obviously is that they, the Catholics, have a right to equal political principles with others, when the exercise of those principles would not be dangerous to the state at large. In this application, I may think that nothing but necessity can justify the departure from the general principles; others may be contented with expediency, or a much less urgent and visible necessity. But I flatly assert that as we proceed it will be found superfluous to dispute about these modes of distinction, about the degrees of necessity or of expediency, and that we shall find that the privation of political privileges, to which the Catholics are condemned, is wholly unjustified by any circumstances that ought to call for the denial of the right or the refusal of the indulgence. I say then that the Catholics have an equal right with other subjects to a participation of political privileges, but we know that government does not grant such privileges. Whether the penal laws against the Catholics were originally justifiable or not, it is now at all necessary to enquire. It is proper, however, to attend a little to the time and manner of the restraints imposed upon them. No man I believe will hazard any thing so extraordinary as to maintain that the laws against the Catholics are at all events, now good by prescription. Prescription, indeed, may, and does form an undoubted title to property, and for the best reasons; but prescription cannot apply to laws by which bodies of men are restrained. In fact, such restraints are founded upon particular circumstances, they are made on particular occasions, and it would be a solecism of the grossest kind to say, that prescription made those laws good universally, which could only be good in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It may be precipitate to decide, to conclude, that the necessity which justified the deviation is gone, but it would be monstrous to assume a prescription for that which is only just, because it is an exception founded upon specific necessity. In the instance before us, indeed, it will hardly be thought that there has been any prescription in decaying the cessation of the necessity. On the contrary, the evidence seems to have been falling around, and the continuation to some continued, that the necessity to re-enact with fatality to the full enjoyment of political rights, persons thus deprived of the use of them.
It ought to be kept carefully in view that almost all the restraints imposed on the Catholics were imposed from political, not from religious motives. Possibly enough, indeed, some who concurred in imposing those restraints, may have mixed religious feelings with political reasons, though the latter were the only justifiable grounds on which the restraints were founded. To go very far back; it was not religious bigotry that induced Queen Elizabeth to impose those severe penalties and restraints upon the Catholics, of which her reign is the example. The religious sentiments of that princess were not perhaps so different from the doctrines of the Catholics as some may imagine; but during the course of a long reign of over 40 years, or reflects and unquiet peace, Queen Elizabeth was engaged in transactions of the greatest importance with the other powers of Europe, managed by her with so much courage, prudence, and dexterity, as have rendered her reign one of the most glorious in our history. But in her relations with other states, particularly the king of Spain, and during the prevalence of the Catholic league in France, her Catholic subjects were supposed to be no doubt doubly affected, or inclined to co-operate with her external enemies, that they were coerced and restrained, not from religious but political considerations. They were deemed disloyal subjects to Elizabeth's person and government, and for that reason they experienced harsh treatment from her. But in the reigns which followed, amidst innumerable unjust, vigorous, and cruel penal laws, there were few restrictions and disabilities imposed on the Catholics. These took their rise in a later period. In the reign of Charles II. they originated in the jealousy of the religious sentiments of that monarch—a jealousy indeed which appears to have been well founded. At the revolution, it was not Catholics, but Jacobites, that were to be restrained. After the arbitrary attempts and the tyrannical proceedings of James II. had driven him from the throne, it was natural to think that a prince who, from devotion to the religion of the Catholics, had sacrificed a crown, would become the favorite of that body. In Ireland this feeling was more strong; the union of James II. and the Catholics was so much more complete, that the two things could not be separated, & Catholics became objects of peculiar suspicion and severity to the law, as the adherents of the exiled monarch. It was not their religious doctrines, but their political confederacy with James II. that drew down upon them so many penalties, and exposed them to so much severity. William III. I have ever considered one of the greatest princes that ever filled the throne of this or any other country—a character wholly exempt from religious bigotry, on the contrary formed by nature and habit to protect and encourage the principles of freedom and toleration.
Those who would represent king William as a religious bigot, as a furious persecutor of religious opinion, degrade a character which they either misrepresent, or do not understand. It is perfectly well known that he yielded with the utmost reluctance to the severe restrictions that were imposed upon the Catholics, and he yielded to them only because he was told, that those who were the enemies of his person and title could never safely be entrusted with any portion of power. Whether it would have been wise to soften the restrictions, or to have removed them altogether, is not now the question. King William, contrary to his principles and to his habits, acquiesced in the wishes of a nation he was called to govern, and the restrictions were imposed for the security of the new establishment upon political not upon religious grounds. The years that followed the revolution were years of war, or of suspicious, doubtful truces. During all that time it was the favorite policy of France to embarrass this country by a disputed succession. She naturally, therefore, looked to the Catholics, particularly those of Ireland, as instruments of forwarding her design. The Catholics, were more and more involved in the cause of the exiled family, and therefore rendered objects of dislike and distrust to the friends of the revolution, on account of that connection. Hence the Catholics were in every sense of the word disarmed. They were stripped of power, of distinction, nay of property. But it was owing to their political connexion with the Stuarts, more than to their religious tenets, that they were exposed to these hardships. Some religious bigots, indeed, may have espoused that the measures of severity employed would have operated the conversion of the Catholics of Ireland. With lenient measures it is possible that this conversion might have been effected—but in the way which things were conducted, that was not to be expected. The laws under which the Catholics suffered, were therefore in reality made against the Jacobites; and as the apprehensions of the exiled family long continued, so did the laws made to repress the Catholics. The good conduct of the Catholics of Ireland, during two rebellions, gave them claims to the favourable opinion of the government, but so late as those events they had not ceased to be the objects of suspicion, on account of their supposed political partialities. Soon after the extinction of the last of those rebellions, which occurred during the two first reigns of the house of Brunswick, a new era was commenced. The danger to the constitutional and government of this country from the Stuart family was wholly at an end at the time of his majesty's accession to the throne; nay, during the latter years of George II. it was quite contemptible. Then was the time at which it must have become safe, even in the opinion of the most timid, to mitigate the severity of the laws against the Catholics. I believe that some symptoms of a relaxation in fact, of the prejudices and severities against the Catholics began to appear under the lord-licutenant of the duke of Bedford, who held that office about the time his majesty succeeded to the throne. At that period there appeared circumstances, which proved the cause of the restraints to be at an end. So far from fearing the Catholics as enemies, arms were put into their hands, contrary to law, when upon some occasion the enemy appeared off the coast of Ireland—thus, showing that the Catholics, who by law were held so suspected as to be deprived of arms were armed by the administration for the public defence. That the situation of the Catholics then began to attract the attention of public men, and with it, a disposition to relieve them from the hardships under which they labored, is well known, and I refer to Mr. Burke's letters as a proof of this. I remember that so far back as the year 1776, from an accidental circumstance that fell in this house, the situation of the Catholics of Ireland began to form the topic of conversation, and if the feelings which then appeared, did not immediately disclose themselves in formal propositions, it may have been, that the interest of the immediate questions of the time, and the warmth of party controversy left little room for other consideration. In consequence of the sentiments I have described, however, I have no doubt that the act brought in for the relief of Catholics by Sir George Saville and Mr. Dunning, men whom I have only to recall their memory with feelings of reverence and esteem, was introduced. I believe, too, there is little doubt that that measure had a view to Ireland more than to England, where custom and forbearance had, in point of fact, left so much less to be done for the real relief and security of the Catholics. I thought then, as I have always thought, that to deprive men of political rights for religious opinions, without a strong and imperious necessity, was tyranny. What was done, it was expected might lead to something being done in Ireland to the same end, nor was the expectation disappointed. I remember too, what staggered men at that time, was not any dread of the Pope or the Pretender, or whom it was then usual for many to speak, some with a degree of compassion, some with triumph, but some with the smallest degree of alarm or apprehension. The difficulty most generally felt was, that the long existence of the penal laws, together with what (I beg pardon of the Irish gentlemen) I cannot help calling the ferocious manner in which the higher orders of the Irish proprietors carried themselves towards the lower Catholic body had produced such a degradation in the latter as rendered it doubtful, as Mr. Burke states, how far even in continued good could be trusted with the exercise of political rights. It was feared too, that from the effect of the laws to
gain the Catholics, by changing the natural current of property, by interdicting to Catholics the acquisition of many kinds of it, while by civil wars and revolutions, the Catholics had been almost entirely deprived of all property, such an extraordinary state of things had arisen as would defy the application of common political principles. I would not be thought to compare the respective classes of society, those who had, and those who had not property, to the negroes and whites in the West-India islands—but certainly property was almost entirely in the hands of those who were called the Protestant Ascendancy, and the Catholics remained not merely destitute of property, but in circumstances of degradation, that most peculiarly marked that strange and unnatural state of human society. Nevertheless, in a government like this, so complicated in its nature, and aiming by so many concurrent operations at the support of liberty and good administration, it is so material that property and power should go hand in hand, and that there should in the want of property be no circumstance beyond the want of it, to give a peculiarly feature to the individual, it was necessary to begin with laying a foundation, on which the farther extension of the rights of the Catholics should be built. The first object, then, was to enable the Catholics to acquire property, from doing which they were prohibited. This law was attended by the most beneficial consequences. Not only a new impulse was given to industry, and a new extension to the productive powers of wealth, which already existed, but a vast additional mass of wealth was created in the hands of those who had possessed little or none before. The Catholic body then began to assume a new character. The line of demarcation between those who had property and those who had not was thus gradually rendered less marked, and the Catholics have not only advanced in wealth, but have recovered much of that property of which, by adverse circumstances, they had long before been deprived. This latter point I allude to, particularly, in order to obviate an apprehension, that a concession of the Catholic claims would lead to a re-emption of all that property which is secured by the act of settlement. This appears to be one of the wildest alarms that can be conceived. But suppose the attempt to give back all past forfeitures were made, what would be the consequence? Would it not be to strip of their property those Catholics who have now acquired it? Would it not be to strip those Catholics who are now rich and opulent, in favor of those who are not? Surely there is little reason to apprehend that the public would exert the power with which they might be indulged, to produce effects by which they themselves must be the immediate and principal sufferers. The disabilities under which the Catholics labour, are of two sorts. Incapacity to hold certain offices, civil and military, and to sit in parliament. Those who have been in the habit of confiding that odious chapter of our statute law, which, in the eyes of all enlightened men at home and abroad must ever stand as the most questionable parts of a political system, so much admired on the whole know well that the restraints as to those points are of very different kinds. In some of them the incapacity is varied by the individual operates as a limitation on the prerogative of the crown. The crown is restrained in its general power of appointing to offices by the law, which says that the Catholic shall not be appointed. The object of the test act was to prevent Charles the Second from employing Catholics. And here let me state an observation on this point, which is rather whimsical, but at the same time is very strong and convincing. It will show very strikingly the different views which our ancestors entertained from us in the nature of this species of restriction. It is now contended that the great reason for excluding Catholics from the service of a Protestant King is analogy, and that as the king is a Protestant, so his servants shall be of the same religion. But when the difference of sects exists, as it does among us, this analogical beauty and perfection of the constitution is quite lost. The reason, however, why our ancestors would not suffer Charles II. to employ Catholics was, because they had doubts whether he himself was not a Catholic. This was far more formidable than our view of the case. But had they been satisfied of Charles II. being a sincere Protestant, they might not have been so averse to his employing Catholics. But if the king was supposed to have a secret leaning to the Catholic religion, he might be suspected of bad motives in wishing to employ persons of the same religion. But surely it is strange, that at a time when there can be no suspicion (I speak now generally of the reigning sovereign), that the king on the throne being a Roman Catholic, his prerogative should be restrained as to the employment of Catholics, because he is a Protestant. The test act however, which was introduced in the reign of Charles II. has received the approbation of many great men, and even of Mr. Locke himself, though it, perhaps, may be thought that his sentiments published in a political pamphlet, probably with some view to particular occasions, may not be deemed of authority equal to his more general doctrine. In the succeeding reign, however, James II. wished to procure the repeal of the test act. But as James II. was a Catholic, it was the prevailing opinion, that in all the circumstances of the case, to have repealed that act, would have committed to that prince means which he was but too likely to employ against the liberties of the country. It was afterwards continued, even in the reign of king William, who was no friend to restrictions of that sort, because the high church party, who had concurred with the settlement at the revolution, thought they had obtained a security for the church against a body of men, by whom they were, or affected to be, afraid, while the other party by a force of compromise acquiesced, being afraid of the consequences of the clamor which might have been raised, had the act been repealed. Thus the law continued not only to operate against the Roman Catholics but against other Dissenters from the church. The test act requires those who undertake offices to do certain things—but how has it been enforced in Ireland? There it has with respect to Protestants been in many points repealed. How has it applied to the Catholics? It has been given up as to many subordinate offices, as to the military profession below a certain rank, as to the bar wholly, with the exception of a few superior stations. After this review of the situations from which the Catholics are excluded, the enemies of their claims then come and say, "Why surely you don't all expect to be chancellors and high officers, and therefore you have no reason to complain that any one of you is injured by the exclusion." This cold and unfeeling argument to console the Catholics under a degradation, deserves to be examined. (To be Continued.)
POLITE ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR YOUNG LADIES. AT WILLIAMSBURG. To those who are acquainted with the excellent society of Williamsburg, a recommendation of it as an eligible scene for the education of Young Ladies, is unnecessary. Mr. & Mrs. ANNISON, who continue to receive some pupils into their family, have endeavored to add to the advantages of the situation, by forming an establishment, intended to unite, under the same roof, the various branches of female instruction and improvement. Parents, who feel interested on this subject, are invited to enquire into the merit of their institution. Letters addressed to Mr. L. Anderson, Post-Master, Williamsburg, will be duly attended to. June 18. (Ttf)
TO BE SOLD. On liberal credit, and in lot to suit purchasers, FROM two hundred and fifty to three hundred acres of LAND, in the county of Henrico, about four miles from Richmond—a distance which renders it both liable toillage, yet sufficiently near to one of the best and most improving markets in the United States. The advantages of small farms near large towns, are obvious and generally admitted, as not to require particular enumeration. Persons residing in the city with large families, and who are obliged to keep horses, would be able in one year to save more than the original purchase. For further particulars enquire of Mr. Thomas Norvell. May 4. (offit.)
NOTICE. THE co-partnership of ROBERT GAMBLE & SONS, will be dissolved by mutual consent, on Saturday, the 11th instant. All persons indebted to the said firm, are earnestly entreated to make immediate payment to either of the subscribers. A compliance with this request will prevent the painful necessity of resorting to coercive measures. The books will be placed in the possession of Messrs. John and Robert Gamble jun. who are authorized to settle all accounts due by, or to the concern. R. GAMBLE. JOHN G. GAMBLE. R. GAMBLE, jr. Richmond, May 6th, 1805. The subscribers take this method of informing their friends and the public, that they intend carrying on the mercantile business, under the firm of JOHN & ROBERT GAMBLE Jrs. They are now receiving by the ship Rolla, a choice selection of LONDON GOODS, and daily expect from Liverpool, a general assortment of HARDWARE, &c. suitable for the season—which will be sold by the piece, package or dozen, on the most moderate terms, for cash, merchantable country produce, or the usual credit to substantial and punctilious customers. They have on hand Madeira & Sherry Wine, Cornish Brandy, West-India Rum, Whiskey, Sugar, Pepper, Allum, Copperas and Brimstone, (in pipes, hds. and cañks) Cotton and Wool Cards, Patent Shot, Steel, Bar Iron, Hollow Iron Ware, German Shevies, Cutting Knives and Wheat-hooks, Oznaburghs, Ticklenburgs and Brown Hollans, Suits, Cut Herrings &c. They also possess large and convenient Brick warehouses covered with slate, for receiving and storing Flour, Tobacco &c. Those gentlemen who favor them with consignments, will find their charges reasonable, and may rely on their best exertions to afford satisfaction. The highest rates given for Bees-Wax, good Bear, Deer, and Otter skins, and other shipping Furs. JOHN G. GAMBLE. ROBERT GAMBLE, jr. The subscriber (Robert Gamble, sen.) avails himself of this opportunity to thank his numerous friends for the very large share of patronage he has received in the Mercantile line—and hereby tenders to the public his future services as a Commission Merchant. He flatters himself, his long experience (with other circumstances unnecessary here to mention) entitles him to the confidence of those who may have business of that nature to transact in this city—assuring such of his best exertions to merit approbation. Those who yet remain indebted to the late firm of Gamble and Gatten, of Staunton, of Gamble & Temple, Robert Gamble & Co. and Robert Gamble of the city of Richmond, are once more earnestly requested to make immediate payment of their respective balances. Such as continue regardless of this last notice cannot expect longer indulgence. Ro. GAMBLE. cp5w oswf. Richmond, May 10, 1805.
DOCTOR WILSON HAS removed his Apothecary Shop to the lower floor of the Bell Tavern, where he has a general supply of MEDICINES, PAINTS, & OTHER ARTICLES IN THE APOTHECARY LINE. He takes the liberty to observe, that he has not an article of medicine but such as he uses in his own practice. Physicians, merchants and others, who may be pleased to patronize him, shall be supplied on the most reduced terms. Persons of needy circumstances, by paying the retail prices of his medicines, will be prescribed for gratis. May 21. (offit.)
NOTICE. THE subscribers having purchased from Christian Veltman the exclusive right of making, using and vending to others to be used, within the United States, his PATENT METALIC HONE, do hereby forewarn all persons from making or vending the said Patent Hone, without authority from them. They also beg leave to inform the public that they carry on the business under the firm of JEFFREY COBBS & Co. in the town of Warren, Albemarle county, Virginia, where orders would be thankfully received and faithfully executed upon the shortest notice. JOHN STAPLES, JEFFREY COBBS, DAVID COBBS. Warren, July 2. (law8r. *)
IN HANOVER COUNTY COURT, April 29th, 1805. Austin Morris, Plaintiff. John Crenshaw, Defendant. In Chancery. THIS day came the plaintiff by his counsel, and the defendant not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this country, that he is not an inhabitant of this country, on the motion of the plaintiff it is Decreed and Ordered, That the defendant do appear here on the first day of the next quarterly term, and answer the bill of the plaintiff; and that a copy of this order be forthwith published in some one of the newspapers printed in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and that another copy be posted at the front door of the Court-house in this county. A Copy. Teste, THOS: POLLARD, D. C. H. C. (T2m) May 23.
VIRGINIA, to wit: At a Chancery District Court held in the city of Williamsburg, the 6th day of April, 1805. Helen Gilmour, widow and relict of Robert Gilmour, deceased, and John Morton Gilmour and Robert Gilmour, only children of the said Robert Gilmour, deceased, Plaintiffs. Against Bogle Bonneriville and company, and Bogle Jameson and company, and James Mc Gregor, John Robertson and Cunningham Corbett, trustees for the creditors of the aforesaid companies, and Gavin Lawson, Defendants. It appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, that the defendant Gavin Lawson, since the institution of this suit, has left this country, and the said defendant not having given security according to the acts of assembly and the rules of this court—on the motion of the plaintiffs, by their counsel, it is ORDERED, that the said defendant do appear here on the first day of the next term, and answer the bill of the plaintiffs; and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper of the city of Richmond for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the former capitol in this city. A Copy. Teste, ANTY ROBINSON, C. C. May 21. r2m
A TRACT OF LAND. JOHN GILMER, wishes to sell a tract of land consisting of 350 acres, lying within half a mile of Charlottesville. Any person wishing to purchase, may see the land, and know the terms by applying to him in that place. June 4. (1a w5w.) The subscriber will sell at public auction to the highest bidder for ready money, at Zachariah Brooks's Tavern, in the town of Manchester, on Saturday the 3d day of August next, two likely negro BOYS Nelson and Harrison; conveyed in trust by the deed of Andrew Scott, dec'd. to secure the payment of a debt; interest and cost therein, acknowledged to be due Lyle and McCrede. July 2. RICHARD B. GOODE. cp5w.
FOR SALE. THAT valuable TRACT OF LAND, in the county of King & Queen, late the property of Wm. Campbell, dec'd. called the Taylor's Bridge Tract; containing about four hundred acres, a large proportion of which is rich low ground, abundantly stocked with good timber, and well adapted to the cultivation of grain. It will be sold on the premises, on the 5th of September, if fair, if not, the next fair day, and may be divided to accommodate purchasers, on a credit of six, twelve, and eighteen months. Bonds with approved security, to bear interest from the date, if not punctually paid, together with interest on the land, will be required. Wm & WILY CAMPBELL, Executors. King & Queen, July 12. (ETow.)
Richmond County Court, June 1805. IN CHANCERY. Vincent Redman, Compt. Against Ann Y. McNeill, William R. Kel-? Def'ts. Dick, and Barnes Beckwith, IT appearing to the Court, that the defendant, Ann Y. McNeill, is not an inhabitant of this state, and not having entered her appearance and given security according to law, and the rules of this court—on the motion of the complainant by his counsel, it is ordered, that the said Ann Y. McNeill, do appear here on the first Monday in August next, and answer the complaints in bill, and that a copy of this order be published in the Enquirer printed in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and a copy also posted at the front door of this court-house; and it is further ordered and decreed, that the defendants Kellick and Beckwith do not pay, convey away, or secrete the debts and effects due and belonging to the said Ann Y. McNeill, until the further order of the court in the premises. A Copy, teste, B. McCARTY, C. C. (ETow.) July 9.
NEAL NELSON, BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURER, MAIN-STREET, RICHMOND. MANSON 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 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—round the instep. D—round the heel and instep. E—round the ball. G—across the ball of the foot. F—the heel against a perpendicular, and G—a knife at the end of the great toe—set down in figures the number of inches and quarters, in the different measures. January 1. (offit.)
WILL BE SOLD at public auction to the highest bidder for ready money, at Zachariah Brooks's Tavern, in the town of Manchester, on Saturday the 3d day of August next, by virtue of a deed of trust, executed to the subscriber by Richardson Harris, late of the county of Chesterfield, to secure the payment of a debt due to Lyle and McCrede, and the expense necessarily incurred; five negroes, viz. Sally, Eliza, Charles, Phillis and Anaky, or so many thereof as will be sufficient to satisfy the debt, interest and cost. RICHARD B. GOODE. July 2. cp5w.
BY virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed to the subscriber by Charles Clarke, of the county of Chesterfield, to secure the payment of a debt therein acknowledged to be due Lyle and McCrede, and the expense necessary to carry the trust into execution, will be sold at public auction to the highest bidder for ready money, at Zachariah Brooks's Tavern, in the town of Manchester, on Saturday the 3d day of August next, two hundred and twenty acres of LAND, more or less, lying in the county of Chesterfield, and adjoining the lands of Col. John Harris, John Ford, Alexander Saunders, and Samuel Smith. RICHARD B. GOODE. July 2. cp5w.
BROKER'S OFFICE. THE Subscriber has opened a Broker's Office, opposite the Union Tavern, and over the Counting-house of Thomas and Anson Ladd. All business confided to him, will be transacted with great fidelity. THOMAS NORVELL. HE HAS FOR SALE, VIRGINIA BANK STOCK, on a credit of 6 and 12 months. March 12. (Tf)
FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD. RUN AWAY from the subscriber, living near the Bowling Green, on the 29d inst. a negro man named PETER, between thirty and forty years old, about five feet ten inches high, he is black and rather spare made; had on when he went off, a light coloured drab coat, a red striped waistcoat, corduroy or thickset breeches and dark mixed stockings—he has left the greater part of all his rags on the left foot, and when spoken to, is apt to appear surprised. I will give the above reward if taken out of the state of Virginia, and thirty dollars if taken in the state, and out of this county, and ten dollars if taken in this county or contained in any jail so that I get him, or if brought home all reasonable charges paid. JOHN C. WOOLFOLK. July 2. (St.)
VIRGINIA. In the Superior Court of Chancery held in Richmond, Between Thomas Price and John Sandridge, Plaintiffs. And Alexander Outlaw, senior, and Alexander Outlaw, junior, Defendants. On motion of the defendant, Alexander Outlaw, junior, by counsel, this cause is ordered to be re-docketed; thereupon the said defendant filed his answer, to which the plaintiffs replied generally, and commissions are awarded the plaintiffs and the said defendant, to examine and take the depositions of their witnesses; and on the further motion of the said defendant, the court referred the accounts, between him and the plaintiffs in this suit, to one of its commissioners, to be by him examined, stated, settled, and to the court reported with any special matters thought pertinent by himself, or required by the parties to be specially stated. A Copy. Teste, PETER TINSLEY, C. C.
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE. Richmond, 25th May, 1805. THE parties will take Notice, that I have appointed the twenty-ninth day of July next, to commence the account directed by the annexed decree of the Court—on which day they are requested to attend at my office in this city, with the accounts & vouchers prepared, and ready for examination and settlement—and with copies of the court papers. SAMUEL GREENHOW, M. C. May 21.
Printing, IN ALL ITS VARIETY, EXECUTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE ENQUIRER.