Norfolk gazette and publick ledger (Norfolk [Va.]), 1807-12-30 00:00:00

NORFOLK GAZETTE AND PUBLICK LEDGER  ENTITULAM SUA PRÆMIA LADIS
VOL. IV.]
WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 30, 1807.
[NO. 71.]
THIS PAPER IS PUBLISHED THREE TIMES A WEEK PRICE TO SUBSCRIBERS SIX DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYA- BLE IN ADVANCE—SINGLE PAPER TWELVE AND ONE HALF CENTS—ADVERTISEMENTS ARE INSERTED AT THE RATE OF FIFTY CENTS FOR THE FIRST, AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS PER SQUARE FOR EACH SUCCEEDING INSERTION.
For Freight or Charter, To any Port in the West Indies, the Schooner VICTORIA, burthen 95 tons or 800 barrels. Apply to William Hull, Jun December 21. tf
FOR CHARTER, The fine new Ship PLUTARCH, George Bacon, master, burthen about 350 hogheads. Moses Myers. Dec. 16. tf
For LONDON, The fast-sailing copper-bottomed Ship CA- LEDONIAN, John Dickson, master, will sail with all possible dispatch. For terms of freight or passage, apply to William Dickson. Who has for Sale on board said Ship, 300 tons SALT, loose and in sacks, 60 Crates well assorted Queen's Ware, and a quantity of Stone Pots and Jugs. December 14. tf
For Sale, Freight, or Charter, The American Ship MISERNA, Henry Keele, master, burthen 400 bds tobacco will be ready to receive a cargo in ten days — Apply to Alexander Lockie, or Thomas Wilcock. Who have for Sale on board, 8000 bushels Liverpool SALT. December 4. tf
For Sale, Freight, or Charter, The Ship WILLIAM & MARY, burthen 230 tons, or 2100 barrels, now ready for the reception of a cargo. Apply to Solomon Bedinger. October 28. tf
Scotch Coals and Empty Bottles. 100 tons of the former and 200 crates of the latter, import- ed in the ship Industry from Glasgow—For Sale by William Pennock. Who offers The said SHIP, burthen 260 tons, for Charter. October 7. tf
Liverpool SALT and COAL, For sale on board the ship Jane, William Colley, master.— Apply to the subscriber, William Pennock. Who offers said SHIP, burthen 420 tons, and the ship COURTNEY, burthen 200 tons for charter. October 5. tf
For SALE, 400 boxes choice white & brown Sugar, 50 barrels fine Masevado do. 22 hogsheads second quality do. 20 punch. fine old Antigua, and 10 do Grenada Rum, Fine old L. P. Madeira Wine in bds and pipes, 40 boxes Raisins; 12 boxes English Mustard, 75 do choice Spanish Segrts, 50 do. do. Window Glass, 10 by 12, 10 by 13, 10 by 14, and 12 by 14; 20 boxes Candles; 30 do. Soap, 8 barrels Philadelphia made Sweeping Brooms, 1 box Irish Linen, and 1 do. Hats, with some coarse and fine Cloths, &c. Francis Smith. December 23. 3
NEW SHOES. E. STURTEVANT, No. 77, Main-Street, Has now landing from the Schooner Mary-Ann, capt. Luce, 25 packages SHOES. December 23. tf
FLOUR—A float. 500 barrels superfine FLOUR, Rich- mond and Fredericksburg inspection. Rowland & Triplett. In Store, Family FLOUR of superior quality, And a few firkins of good BUTTER. Dec. 21. 3
NOTICE. A meeting of the Pew-Holders and Members of Christ Church, is requested on Monday, the 4th day of January next, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon at the Church. The Trustees. December 21. tdm
St. Mary's College Lottery of Balti- more, Will commence drawing on the 31st instant, when the price of Tickets will be advanced. It is recommended to those wishing to adventure to apply immediately—Tickets now selling rapidly at Eleven Dollars, and but few remaining for Sale by Rowland & Triplett. December 18. tf
Landing at Newton's wharf the Cargo of the sloop Dispatch, Samuel Hawley, master, from New-Ha- ven, consisting of Pork, Beef, Cheese, Hay, and 10 do- zen Brooms. For Sale by Jennings & Roddey. December 18. tf
For RENT. The STORE, No. 86, Main-Street, with or without the house. Thomas Blanchard. September 29. tf
EXPATRIATION.
[This subject has been much discussed in England, and is likely to become a fruitful source of discussion in this country, it may be acceptable to our readers to know the opinions of writers on the subject in England, with which view we have extracted the following from the Political Register of that bitter, implacable, and illiberal enemy of America, Cobbett, alias Porcupine. It is taken from his Register of the 10th of October, intended as a reply to a writer signing himself S. V.]
SUMMARY OF POLITICKS.
In the present volume of the Register, at p. 433, there is a letter, signed S. V. "on the necessity of a declaratory law, or stipulation, with foreign powers, respecting the expatriation of British subjects, particularly with the United States of America." To me who know how many persons there are in this country, and how many more there are in America, who derive great emolument from acting the double part of British subjects and American citizens, it does not appear at all surprising, that a measure, such as that proposed by S. V. has met with an openly avowed advocate.—S. V. has begun by stating, in support of his doctrine, the opinion of a French writer, named Pequet; but of that opinion it will be best to speak, after we have taken a view of the law of England, in this respect, as far as the statutes go.—In order to show, that the statute law favours the supposition, that a British subject may expatriate himself, and may become, to all intents and purposes, an alien, and of course, justifiable in taking up arms against his native country, S. V. refers to the acts of 14 and 15 Henry 8th, chap. 4, by which act such subject of England, as had settled in other countries, and sworn obedience thereunto, should, so long as they should so remain, pay customs, &c. in England, "as other strangers paid." Whence this writer infers, that, "it is implied, that persons may become subjects to other powers, and that, by such election to depart from their natural allegiance, they become aliens to their native country for so long a time as they shall choose to continue their new subjection; but, if they elect to become subjects of England again, they may have the king's writ, which will entitle them to their former immunities of Englishmen, upon their residing again in England;" than which inference nothing, in my opinion, can be less warranted by the premises. The sole object of this statute was, to prevent such subjects as were settled abroad, and had sworn subjection to foreign states, from enjoying, during their settlement abroad, the rights and immunities enjoyed by their fellow-subjects, who, at the same time, remained at home. The act is purely prohibitory; and does in no possible sense of the words, imply any relinquishment, on the part of England, of its claims to the allegiance of the persons, thus to be treated as aliens, during their settlement abroad, much less does it recognize any right on the part of those persons, to become enemies of England. It supposes fairly and truly, that Englishmen may possibly become subjects of foreign states. The fact was so; nor was it then, nor is it now, to be prevented by the native country; for, a subject being once landed in a foreign country what power have you over him, while he remains there? It is for the foreign country to determine, whether it will admit him to become its subject, and to share in its immunities; it is for you, while he so remains, to deprive him if you please, of the immunities of his native country, as was done by this act of Henry VIII.; but you do not, thereby, lose any of your rights with respect to him, nor he any of his rights with respect to his country, in which, when he returns to it, he is precisely upon the footing that he was before.
The next act of parliament to which he refers, is that of the 3d James I. chapter the 4th. This was "an act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish Recusants." Sections 18, 22, and 23, are those which apply to this question. The first of these sections make it felony in any natural born subject of the king to enter into the service of any foreign prince or state, without having previously taken the oath of allegiance and abjuration; the 22d section makes it high treason in any one to persuade any of the king's subjects to withdraw themselves from their natural obedience, or to move them to promise obedience to any other prince or state, particularly the Pope, or See of Rome; the 23d section makes it high treason in any of the king's subjects to be so willingly withdrawn or reconciled.—Here, to be sure, there is nothing positively in favour of the idea of the right of a subject to expatriate himself. Yet, does S. V. after the manner of my lord Peter, make a shift to twist this act to his purpose; for, says he, though it is made treason in a subject to be "so withdrawn, if the person withdraws his allegiance of his own mere motion, I apprehend he is not subject to the penalty mentioned in the 23d section." This statute "therefore, says he, "does not essentially disannul the inference of the statute of Henry VIII.; which last mentioned statute does, he says, in the last section, "clearly admit the right of expatriation." As S. V. draws no positive inference from this act of James I. and merely introduces it for the purpose of disarming it of its hostility, we will leave it where it is, and see, for a moment, whether the last section of the act of Henry VIII. does "clearly admit the right of expatriation." The words of that section I will insert, after having given the substance of the preamble and of the preceding section; there being but two sections in the act. The preamble states, that many subjects of this realm have gone with their wives and families into foreign countries, that they have there built houses and settled in
trade, have sworn obedience to the powers there, and have thus deprived their native country of the advantages, which she would naturally derive from their exertions and their wealth; that this tends to increase the opulence and strength of those countries, and to the diminution of the opulence and strength of England; wherefore, it is, in the first enacting clause, ordained, that, for the future, as long as such persons so remain, they shall be compelled to pay customs, subsidies, and tolls in the same manner as other strangers; but, that (and now we come to the words of the much-relied upon section), "if hereafter it shall happen any such person or persons do return into the realm, and here to tarry and inhabit, that then he or they shall be restored to all such liberties and freedoms in paying of customs and subsidies, and all other charges, as all other Englishmen do use to pay, and to have a writ out of the Chancery for the same." Verily, my lord Peter, in discovering a permission to wear shoulder-knots, was a bungler compared to him, who has, in this section, found out "a clear admission of the right of expatriation!" There is not, in this act, a word about allegiance or alienage. No such matter was before the parliament, who were contriving merely how they should prevent subjects settled abroad from enjoying those immunities which were enjoyed by subjects residing at home.
And, as to the "king's writ," who would not imagine, from the manner in which it is mentioned by S. V. that it was an instrument to re-naturalize the party? The writ, as we find in the foregoing section, was merely an order, issued from the chancery, "to the customers, comptrollers, and other officers of the king's custom, in every port, haven, or creek, within the realm;" and, the purpose of it in the case contemplated, was, to remove the disabilities of the party as far as related to customs, subsidies and tolls. The last statute, to which we are referred by S. V. is that of the 5th George I. chapter 27th, made as a check to the emigration of artificers. S. V. calls this an indefinite and very general term; but, he will gather, from the preamble of the act, that merchants are not meant to be included, though that I suppose, is what he would drive it. This act says, that, if any artificer or manufacturer go into a foreign country and does not return within six months, after warning given him, he shall be deemed an alien; "by which statute," says S. V. "we see, that Englishmen are expressly allowed to become subjects of other powers." Expressly!—Where does he find this? Does the act say any such thing? No; the act is penal all through; and, from the foregoing part of the section, it is obvious, that the party offending was to be considered as an alien, only as that construction of his character would expose him to punishment, or inconvenience. In case of disobedience, after having received due notice to return home, such emigrated artificer is rendered incapable of taking any legacy that shall be devised to him in his kingdom, or being an executor or administrator of any person in this kingdom, of taking any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, by descent, devise, or purchase; and is to forfeit all his lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods and chattels in this kingdom, to the king; after which come the only words that S. V. has thought proper to notice, to wit; "and shall, from thenceforth, be, and be deemed and taken to be an alien, and shall be out of his majesty's protection."
But, all this is merely for punishment. The emigrant is to be an alien only as far as he is punished by being taken in that character; and, if found in arms against his country, would, notwithstanding this act, be liable to be punished as a traitor. Besides, what does this act make for the doctrine of S. V. upon the supposition that no warning be given to the emigrant to return home? In that case, he is not to be "deemed an alien." So that according to S. V.'s construction of this act, if two weavers, Jack and Dick, emigrate, and are afterwards found in arms against their country, Jack, who has had due warning to return home, is a prisoner of war, because he is to be deemed an alien; while poor Dick, who has had no warning, and who does not add contumacy to his original offence, is to be hanged by the neck till he is dead! The warning being necessary to the perfecting of alienage, no man can be deemed an alien, even in the sense of this act, until the warning be given. This warning to the emigrant is neither more nor less than a threat of being deprived of the right of taking legacies, holding lands, &c. and this S. V. denominates "an express permission to become a subject of a foreign state!" But, if, for argument's sake, we were to adopt this absurd construction of the act of George I. what would it avail S. V. as to his main purpose; namely, that of enabling men to withdraw themselves from their allegiance to the king, in order to their security when they had sworn allegiance to the American States? First, they must be artificers or manufacturers; next they must, from our ambassador in America, have had due warning to return home; and next, they must have refused to obey that warning. Is there one single emigrant to America, who can plead this title to the quality of alien? Why, then, refer to this act? And if for the purpose of sanctioning the principle of alienage, pray remember the subjoined conditions. Alienage upon such conditions, I do not perceive any very great objection to. Let it be made law, that whosoever shall choose to withdraw his allegiance, and become a citizen of America, shall, at once, be, for ever, deprived of the rights and immunities of an Englishman; shall take no legacy, hold no lands or houses, forfeit all his goods, chattels, annuities, and debts, and be entitled to no protection whatever from England; pass such a law, for future operation, and I have not only no objection to it, if you except those only who have made fortunes from the public revenue, but will give it my
hearty assent. But, I am not to be inveigled to give my approbation to an alienage "pro tempore," to a to-and-fro, a backward-and-forward, allegiance, however convenient it might be to some persons, an allegiance that would enable a man, as an American citizen, to ship off powder to the French, or to command a privateer in the service of France, to-day; and, in two months afterwards, to claim, as an Englishman, his right of throwing into jail, as his debtor, some English merchant, whom he might have ruined by his privateer; and all this, with perfect security to himself.—After this, the question, "does it seem reasonable that the character of a British subject is unalienable," requires but little by way of answer. Nor do I see any necessity for a declaratory law, or a positive stipulation, upon the subject. To the latter I should object, because it would be an unmerited compliment to the Americans, who are the only nation that has hitherto had the audacity to raise a standard of alienage; and because it would seem, as if we thought it necessary to justify ourselves in the eyes of the world for not permitting our laws to bend to their insolent regulations; and, to the former I should object, because it would, as well as a stipulation, imply a doubt as to the past, and give rise to claims of exemption on the part of those, who have heretofore become what they call citizens of the United States.
S. V. seems to think, that he has reduced the law, as it is at present held, to a sad absurdity. "It is requisite," says he, "to make a declaratory law upon the subject of expatriation, because it has been held by persons, sitting in judgment upon the claims of creditors of individuals of a foreign nation, that, although the character of a British subject is unalienable by the individual, yet the acceptance of that subject of another country, bars all right to complain of the acts of the latter." "Now," says he, "what is this, that a British subject cannot expatriate himself, but having expatriated himself, he must no more look to his parent country for redress against the acts of his new task-masters? Here is a declaration that a British subject cannot withdraw his allegiance in one line, and, in the next, that he may accept of the character of a foreign subject; or, in other words, that he may alien his unalienable rights." This passage would have reflected honour upon counsellor Bothereh himself. It is really a choice specimen of what a man of talents may do in the way of beating plain words out of their honest meaning. But, Mr. Lawyer Bothereh, the little word cannot, like a great number of other words, little as well as big, has two meanings; and, in the judiciously confounding of these consists, as far as my observation has gone, no small part of the art of the family of Bothereh. Cannot, sir, in the language of the law, and in the sense in which you use it, in the above passage, means a legal inability or prohibition with respect to the doing of a thing, and not a physical inability to do it. For instance, we say, that a man cannot sit in the house of commons, unless he has a clear real estate, worth three hundred pounds a year; but, do we thereby mean to say, that no man ever does sit there who has not such an estate? We say, that a man cannot kill game, unless he have such or such a qualification; but, do we thereby mean to aver, that there are not thousands who do kill game without any other qualification than that of a steady hand and a sharp eye? Speaking, in the same sense, with reference to the laws of England, I say that a man cannot become a subject to another state; but, I know that many do become subjects of other states; and therefore, sir, I see here none of that gross and troublesome inconsistency, of which you complain. The same illustrations will serve for your monosyllable may. But, now, Sir, let us put the case (which is, perhaps, drawn from real life) a little plainer than you have put it. A British subject in America, previous to the close of the rebellion, whose name, for want of a better, shall be Twister, has a debt due to him from another American. Mr. Twister becomes a citizen of the United States, takes the oath of allegiance to them, and abjures the authority of his sovereign and country.
By-and-by a treaty is made between England and America, in which it is stipulated, that America shall cause to be paid all debts due to English subjects, which debts were prevented from being paid by any acts of the government of America, and of which debts Twister's was one. "Oh!" says he, "I am an English subject still; for my allegiance is unalienable;" and forward he comes with his claim. "No," says America, "that will not do, Mr. Twister; you are our subject; and our stipulation goes only to the payment of debts due to English subjects." Back he twists to us: "For God's sake," says he, "compel these fellows to do me justice!" "No," say we, "for, though you cannot, agreeably to our laws, become the subject of another state; yet as you have so become, you have forfeited all just claim to our protection; and you must e'en settle the matter with that state in the best manner that you can." Would to God that all the decisions of all our courts were as just as this!
It is complained of by S. V. that we permit the subjects of other countries to become subjects of this country, at the same time that we will not extend the principle where our own subjects are concerned, and are desirous of becoming subjects of other countries. I wish from my soul that we kept out all foreigners without a single exception. They are the curse of this country, and always have been its curse. But, when we naturalize people, there is some little ceremony attending it. The persons naturalized are few in number. We do not swear them in by dozen after dozen, like special constables at the eve of Pitt's going to dine in the city. Besides, we have never, that I know of, pro-

tended to any right to exonerate these naturalized persons from any of the duties, which they owe to their parent state, and this is precisely the insolent pretension which the Americans put forward. These naturalized persons, as long as they are under our power, are under the protection of the laws, and are entitled to all the rights and immunities here enjoyed; but, if they were to return home, or if they were taken in arms against their native country, they would be left by us to experience whatever treatment that country might think proper to adopt with respect to them. But, what the Americans claim, is, that, in virtue of a little bit of printed paper, the blanks of which are filled up for nine-pence, well and duly paid, to some one of their half million of petitioners, a British subject becomes released, for as long a time as he pleases, from all the obligations appertaining to his natural allegiance; that in virtue of the aforesaid nine-penny certificate, he may, though a director of the "Honourable" East India Company, carry on a private trade to Hindostan without risk of seizure by the British power; that he may supply the enemies of Great Britain with provision and arms and ammunition, without subjecting himself to punishment by Great Britain, though he should, at the same time, be residing in London; and, not to tire the reader with an endless list of base and traitorous acts, that he may, if war should break out between America and England, carry arms against the latter, with no other risk than that to which a lawful enemy is exposed. Now, a word or two upon the reasonableness of our laws, as touching allegiance, in opposition to the opinion of Monsieur Pecquet, whom S. V. has chosen for his guide. "The citizen," says this writer, "as an inhabitant of the world, reserves always a sort of natural liberty to renounce the particular advantages of his birth, and to become the subject of a other state, without which he would be, in reality, a slave. There are no ties of this sort supportable, except such as are formed by affection. Emigrations never takes place but in the hope of being better off in another country than at home."
Suppose this latter assertion to be true, it is no argument in favour of the doctrine before laid down. Apprentices seldom run away, and sailors seldom desert, without the hope of being better off; but, would you, for that reason, conclude, that they have a right to run away, in the one case, or to desert in the other case? But, here, Monsieur Pecquet would say, there is a breach of obligations; and, is there, then, no breach of obligations when the citizen, as he calls him, deserts his country? When a child is born, and even Monsieur Pecquet would, I suppose, have allowed that he must be born, there are, in the country where he was born, a people, by some of whom he must be nursed and fed and clothed and reared up to man's estate. There was a long time when he was able to do nothing in the way of producing those necessaries of life, by which he himself was sustained; and during all that time, the nation (some or other of them no matter who) were compelled to provide him with those necessaries; and, what is more, to take care to protect him against all violence, whether from foes foreign or domestic. And, being now grown a man, shall he say to the nation, I made no bargain with you, I entered into no indentures, nor did I take any bounty money when I was born; and, therefore, you have no claim upon me, and I, "as an inhabitant of the world have a sort of natural right to become a subject of any state that I please, and, if it should so happen to suit, to kill as many of you as I can?" Shall he say this; and will S. V. seriously say, that he is a slave, unless he has a right to act agreeably to his words? Monsieur Pecquet seems to have overlooked the obligations contracted by man with the nation, in his childhood and in his youth. The nation were compelled to support him. No one of them, and no number of them, dared to kill him, either by blows or by starvation. He could reserve no natural right, for he never had any, except, perhaps, the right of using his senses, and of crying for food. The nation, observe, could not cast him out; and cannot now take from him the rights of his birth; but, unless he can, at his pleasure, divest himself of the duties of his birth, S. V. and Monsieur Pecquet hold him to be, "in reality a slave!" The reciprocity, of which, in other cases, S. V. talks so much, is here completely lost sight of; and, indeed, it is utterly impossible to maintain this principle of Monsieur Pecquet, with any shew of justice, unless it be allowed, that as the grown up "citizen" has "a sort of natural right to become the subject of another state whenever he pleases," the nation have always "a sort of natural right" to throw the new-born "citizen" into the river, or to leave him upon the bare earth to the care of that "world," as an inhabitant of which, he, when grown up, will claim the privilege of acting.—So much for the principle in the abstract; let us now follow S. V. in a view of its application to our present concerns. His main object appears to be to provide beforehand impunity for the persons and security for the property of all those British subjects (and very numerous they are) who may, if war should take place between America and England, be exposed to punishment or loss, in consequence of the part they may take in that war, or in consequence of confiscations levelled at British subjects. He seems to make pretty sure, that some of these persons would, in case of war, be found in arms against their native country, and asks, whether it would not be a "melancholy thing, that such persons should be dealt with as traitors." To which I answer, that it would certainly be melancholy to reflect, that men should be so base as to raise their hands against the nation, in whose bosom they had been warmed into life, nursed, fed, and reared up to manhood: but, that, if, nevertheless, so base they should prove, I, though I never saw punishment of any sort with pleasure, and never saw an execution in my life, should feel no sorrow at seeing such men die upon the gallows. For, observe, the question here, is not, whether, in certain extreme cases, men may or may not be justified in taking up arms against their rulers. The principle of S. V. is of quite a different nature. It justifies taking up arms against one's native country; it justifies universal desertion and universal paricide; a principle well enough to be broached and maintained by the Americans, the greater part of whom have, properly speaking, no country; but, a principle to be held in execration by all the rest of mankind. As to the "perilous situation" in which the Americanized English would be placed, in case of war, there is always a ready way to avoid that; they having nothing to do but to return to their own country, or to remain inactive in America. "This would expose them to great loss, and, perhaps, to great odium, and even to
persecution such as being confined within their respective townships, assessed in double taxes, and "seeing their debtors, private as well as public, freed from their demands." May be so; but, they emigrated for their own pleasure; after being reared up to manhood by the nation, they went away from it, "in the hope of being better off;" and, it is but fair, that they should take the bad with the good. The instance chosen by S. V. is, perhaps, as perfect as any that could have been pitched upon. Mr. Eustace chose to go to America; he chose there to marry, by which he became entitled, as S. V. says, to the rights of citizenship; he then came home and, as is usual, eat his way to the English bar; then a change of ministry sent him as envoy to America, with a pretty decent salary, leaving his father in England, in the receipt of a pension of 4,000 pounds a year for life. Now, if this gentleman, who, observe, besides the general obligations attending his infancy and youth, has received from the nation a share of those benefits arising from endowed colleges, which endowments are supported by the labour of the nation; if this gentleman were (I do not suppose the thing possible, mind) to take up arms against his native country, or to aid, either directly or indirectly, any of its enemies, he ought, if it were possible, to be banged at every cross-road in the kingdom.—This applies equally well to merchants, manufacturers and land-holders. They have become, no matter how, rich from the soil and the labour of the nation; and, if they choose to withdraw themselves and to carry those riches with them, "in the hope of being better off," be all the "perils," which they will experience in case of war, upon their own heads. It is right they should experience peril: it is right they should suffer: or what can be supposed more unjust, than that the man, who turns his back upon his country, merely for his own interest's sake, should, in all possible cases, be, by the indulgence of his country, placed, as to property as well as person, in as perfect security as the man who remains at home, and who, by the labour or the skill of his manhood, repays the nation for the care and the labour it bestowed upon his infancy? At every step that we advance, there is some new aspect, in which the detestableness of this principle appears. Allow the right of expatriation, and I see hardly any ground, upon which resistance, of any sort, against government, however villainous and tyrannical that government may be, can be justified. This principle, if acted upon, would dissolve all obligations between the governors and the governed, the former of whom might reasonably say to the latter, "why do you stay here; why do you remain our subject if you can better yourself elsewhere?" So that in the end, tyranny would be reserved for those only who had not the means of expatriating themselves, and never would there be a struggle made either for the preservation, or the restoration of freedom.—This abominable principle is at war with the ordinances of the creator, who has, by the gift of different languages, divided mankind into different nations, by which means is kept up that emulation, which is the great cause of exertion both of body and mind, and which, in various ways, does, more than all other causes, distinguish man from the brute.
NEW-YORK, December 23. If Mr. Gardener, the member to the legislature from this state, is really the writer of the following letter from which Coleman got his extracts—and that he is the writer we have no doubt—it is said congress will send him home with a flea in his ear.—Pub. Ad. December 24.
A letter from a member of congress to his friend in New York.
WASHINGTON, December 19, 1807.
Dear Sir, Yesterday we received a message from the president of a confidential nature. We immediately closed our doors, and they are still closed. Of course I am not permitted to inform you either what the president has communicated to us, or what we have done in consequence of it. But I may be permitted to tell you we are doing no good. I fear we are about to plunge the nation in the most dreadful calamities—unnecessarily and wantonly—I am now more than ever persuaded that there is but too much French Influence.—And it is well that those who succumb to it should act in secret. This is the reason, and I pledge myself to you, almost the only reason why we sit with closed doors. Our deliberations no more require secrecy at this moment, than they did when we were debating on the subject of fortifications. Nay, sir, we are in my opinion, violating the great rights of the people, by sitting at this moment with closed doors.—I cannot express to you in terms sufficiently strong, my abhorrence of what we are doing, and the manner in which we are doing it."
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 22. Extract of a letter from the agent for the U. States at Tortola, dated November 26, 1807 to a respectable merchant in this city.
"Having received information, that there were a number of impressed American seamen on board his majesty's brig Hart; as soon as she came into port, I waited on admiral Cochrane, who behaved in the most polite manner, and said he had orders not to admit any Americans to be in his fleet, and immediately sent the names of ten, which I gave him, on board the Hart, with orders for them to be sent on board his ship immediately.—They were accordingly sent, and six of them instantly, discharged—the others, it is too evident, were not Americans."
"The brig Second Attempt, Mr. Gamble passenger, arrived off St. Thomas harbour, was ordered off and gone to Curacoa—the admiral permits the Danish islands to be supplied with provisions by flags, but will not allow American vessels to go to them."
WASHINGTON CITY, December 23. We have the satisfaction of announcing the arrival of Col. Monroe, in this city last night.
We last evening published an extra paper, containing the important act passed by congress laying an embargo. We now again publish that act, with the most interesting part of the proceedings connected with it.
The following confidential message was communicated to both houses on Friday last.
To the Senate and house of representatives of the United States.
The communications now made, showing the great and increasing dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise are threatened, on
the high seas and elsewhere, from the belligerent powers of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in safety these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the subject to the consideration of congress; who will doubtless perceive all the advantage which may be expected from an inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States.
Their wisdom will also see the necessity of making every preparation for whatever events may grow out of the present crisis.
I ask a return of the letters of Messrs. Armstrong and Champagny, which it would be improper to make publick.
TH: JEFFERSON.
December 18, 1807.
Extract of a letter from the Grand Judge, minister of justice, to the imperial attorney general for the council of prizes.
(TRANSLATION.)
PARIS, Sept. 18, 1807.
SIR—I have submitted to his majesty the emperor and king the doubts raised by his excellency the minister of marine and colonies, on the extent of certain dispositions of the imperial decree of the 21st November, 1806, which has declared the British isles in a state of blockade.
The following are his majesty's intention on the points in question:
1. Many vessels of war by virtue of the imperial decree of the 21st November last, seize on board neutral vessels, either English property, or even all merchandise proceeding from the English manufactures or territory.
Answer—His majesty has intimated that as he did not think proper to express any exception in his decree, there is no ground for making any in its execution in relation to any whomsoever ( à l'égard de qui que ce soit ). His majesty has postponed a decision on the question whether French armed vessels ought to capture neutral vessels bound to or from England, even when they have no English merchandise on board,
(Signed)
REGNIER.
A bill (substantially the same with that finally passed) passed the senate about 3 P. M. of the same day, on the passage of which the yeas and nays were as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bradley, Condit, Gailhard, Gilman, Gregg, Howland, Kitchell, Matthewson, Milledge, Moore, Mitchell, Parker, Pope, Robinson, Smith, of Md. Smith, of N. Y. Smith, of Ten. Tiffin, Thruston, Turner.
Nays—Messrs. Crawford, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Mclay, Pickering, and White.
In the mean time the house of representatives continued in secret session and till near 6 P. M. when an adjournment, not without great opposition, was carried.
On Saturday the bill exclusively occupied the secret deliberations of the house till half past 5 P. M. when they again adjourned.
On Monday, the whole day from 11 A. M. till past 11 P. M. was occupied on the bill, when it passed with amendments—yeas 82—nays 44; as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. L. J. Alston, W. Alston, Bacon, Bard, Barker, Bassett, Blake, Blount, Boyle, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, G. W. Campbell, Carlton, Chandler, M. Clay, Clopton, Cook, Crowninshield, Cutts, Dawson, Deane, Desha, Durell, Findley, Fisk, Franklin, Gardner, Goodwyn, Green, Heister, Helms, Holmes, Howard, Irlsey, Johnson, Jones, Kean, Knight, Lambert, Love, Marion, McCrery, J. Montgomery, N. R. Moore, T. Moore, Jer. Morrow John Morrow, Mumford, Nelson, Newbold, Newton, Nicholas, Porter, Pugh, Rea, Pen. Rhea, Ten. J. Richards, M. Richards, Riker, Sawyer, Seaver, Sloan, Smith, J. K. Smith, Southard, Storer, Swart, Taylor, Thomas, Trigg, Tromp, Van Allen, Van Cortlandt, Wharton, Whitehill, Wilbour, M. Williams, Wilson, Winn, and Withersell—82.
Nays—Messrs. Alexander, Bibb, Blackledge, J. Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Cobb, Culpepper, Dana, Davenport, Elliot, Ely, Gardener, Garnett, Goldsborough, Gray, Harris, Hoge, Holland, Jenkins, Kelly, Key, Kirkpatrick, Lewis, Livermore, Lyon, Masters, Milner, Mosely, Pitkin, Quincy, Randolph, Rowan, Russell, Smelt, S. Smith, Stanford, Stedman, Sturges, Taggart, Talmadge, Upham, Van Horne, and Van Rensselaer—44.
On Tuesday the amendments of the house were agreed to by the senate, and the bill about 2 P. M. received the signature of the president. When between 3 and 4 P. M. the injunction of secrecy was removed in both houses.
[The act published in our last.]
EMBARGO.
This is a strong measure proceeding from the energy of the publick councils, appealing to the patriotism of their constituents, and is of all measures the one peculiarly adapted to the crisis. The honest judgment of all parties has anticipated and called for it.
The measure could no longer, in fact, be delayed without sacrificing the vital interests of the nation.
Great Britain by interpolations into the maritime code operating upon her enemies through violated rights of neutrals, furnished an occasion which was seized by the French government for the decree of November 1806, interdicting commerce with Great Britain, which was adopted by the allies of France, particularly by Spain, in her decree of February 1807.
The decree of November was followed by the retaliating British order of January 1807, making war on all neutral trade usually carried on from the ports of one enemy to those of another.
France, again seconded by Spain and other allies, is retaliating on this order, by new constructions extending their decrees to all trade from British territories or in British articles.
And it is clear that if not already done, Great Britain meditates further retaliations, most probably an interdict of all trade by this country, [now the only neutral one] with the enemies of Great Britain, that is to say with the whole commercial world.
To these destructive operations against our commerce, is to be added the late proclamation of Great Britain on the subject of seamen. This extraordinary instrument, instead of relinquishing the pretensions with respect to alleged deserters on board national ships, extends it to all British seamen on board; varying only the mode of process, from that used by Berkeley, to a redress to be obtained by the government itself. And with respect
to seamen on board merchant vessels, the proclamation has made it the duty of all her sea officers to search for and seize all such as they may call British natives; whether wanted or not for the service of their respective ships. From the proportion of American citizens heretofore taken under the name of British seamen, may be calculated the number of victims to be added by this formal sanction to the claim of British officers, and the conversion of that claim into a duty.
Thus the ocean presents a field only where no harvest is to be reaped but that of danger, of spoliation and of disgrace.
Under such circumstances the best to be done is what has been done; a dignified retirement within ourselves; a watchful preservation of our resources; and a demonstration to the world, that we possess a virtue and a patriotism which can take any shape that will best suit the occasion.
It is singularly fortunate that an embargo, whilst it guards our essential resources, will have the collateral effect of making it the interest of all nations to change the system which has driven our commerce from the ocean.
Great Britain will feel it in her manufactures, in the loss of naval stores, and above all in the supplies essential to her colonies; to the number of which she is adding by new conquests.
France will feel it in the loss of all those colonial luxuries, which she has hitherto received through our neutral commerce; and her colonies will at once be cut off from the sale of their productions, and the source of their supplies.
Spain will feel it, more perhaps than any, in the failure of imported food, not making enough within herself, and in her populous and important colonies which depend wholly on us for the supply of their daily wants.
It is a happy consideration also attending this measure that although it will have these effects, salutary it may be hoped, on the policy of the great contending nations, it affords neither of them the slightest ground for complaint. The embargo violates the rights of none. Its object is to secure ourselves. It is a measure of precaution, not of aggression. It is resorted to by all nations, when their great interests require it. All of them have made us on different occasions feel the effects of such a resort on our commercial interests. And it could be the less murmured at, by those who may be incidentally affected by the present embargo; inasmuch as they have forced us into the measure, by the direct effect on us, of measures founded in an alleged regard for their own eventual safety and essential interests.
But may not the embargo bring on war from some of the nations affected by it? Certainly not; if war be not predetermined on against us. Being a measure of peace and precaution; being universal, and therefore impartial; extending in reality as well as ostensibly to all nations, there is not a shadow of pretext to make it a cause of war. War, therefore, let it be repeated, cannot be the result; unless it be in pursuance of a predetermined plan of hostility against this country.
Will it not be an impediment to amicable negotiations with nations with which we have unsettled differences?—Not more than any other precaution; not more certainly than military preparations, with which depending negotiations are frequently accompanied, and sometimes professedly armed. The policy of President Washington sent Mr. Jay into negotiation, with an embargo in his hand. Would the treaty be made have been the worse, if the embargo had not been rescinded?
Might not the embargo have been better modified? Might not, particularly, the vessels of the several foreign nations have been allowed to carry on trade from our ports?
The plausibility of such an exception vanishes at once, when tested by its inevitable and inadmissible consequences.
1. It would have given so decided and exclusive an advantage to one of the belligerent parties, that it would have been difficult to justify it to the others. Great Britain, having the command of the sea and the means of conveyance, would have supplied her wants, whilst her enemies, having neither, would be left destitute.
2. Having the monopoly of our market, her agents would obtain supplies at half their value.
3. The competition to sell to them, would have made every purchase a favour, and consequently a source of dreadful influence.
4. Our mariners thrown out of employment, would have been easily enticed into foreign service, never probably to be regained. Our ships might perhaps be bought up at the same time for half their value, and be lost to the nation.
5. In fine the exception, thus operating in favour of Great Britain, would have done what above all things she would have wished. It would have given her a monopoly of the trade of this country and of the world; would have secured all her supplies on the best terms, whilst her enemies and rivals would go without altogether; and to crown the whole, it would without the benefit of more than a very scanty market for our produce, have given her the greatest possible interest persevering in those regulations, and prolonging that state of things, which forms the present affecting crisis to this country.
The embargo then is the best expedient in its best form. It has been recommended by the president, who has the best means of knowing the policy of foreign governments, and it has been adopted by congress, who are alone able to provide in such cases for the security of the publick rights and interests: adopted almost unanimously by the senate, and by as large a majority in the house of representatives as is to be expected in any case, where an honest difference of opinion may be added to the habitual opposition of party spirit.
All that remains then for a people confiding in their government is to rally round the measure which that government has adopted for their good, and to secure its just effect, by patiently and proudly submitting to every inconvenience which such a measure necessarily carries with it.—Nat. Intel.
GEORGE-TOWN, December 23.
The house of representatives closed their doors on Friday last, and continued to sit with them closed on Saturday and Monday, till unusually late hours. On Monday they sat till half after ten at night. We have not been able to learn the subjects of their deliberations, except in one instance. A law laying an embargo has certainly passed, and received the sanction of the President yesterday morning. This embargo is general, with this single exception—that foreign vessels, which are now

actually laden, shall be suffered to depart. The law is to take effect from its passage. Such, we believe, are the leading features of the bill. It is rumoured, and we fear it is too true, that this measure has been adopted at the instance of France.
We are of opinion, that the embargo bill could not have been the only subject under consideration, during the time the house sat with closed doors. We are led to this opinion by a variety of circumstances, but particularly by the number of confidential messages which passed between the two houses yesterday. We do not pretend to know the particular points under consideration; but we believe them to be important, and pregnant with the most serious consequences to our country. Yesterday in debate, Mr. Masters observed, that "since the dark and midnight vote (alluding to the night before) his hopes of peace with Britain were greatly diminished;" and yesterday a member of the legislature of some eminence, who belongs to the presidential squad, told the editor of this paper, that war was almost certain; but that it would take a prophet to tell with what power it would be—France or England.
Wash. Fed.
CONGRESSIONAL REGISTER.
Tuesday, December 22.
The doors of the house, which had remained closed since Friday, were opened to-day, a quarter before 12. When the editor entered, a bill was in reading, which goes to provide for extinguishing claims against the United States, by opening the statute of limitations. Twice read, and made the order of the day for Monday next.
On motion of Mr. Blount, the house resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of the whole on the fortification bill, which was suspended on Friday last by the president's confidential message.
Mr. Masters, after some prefatory observations, in which he was interrupted for the purpose of closing the doors, moved that the bill be recommitted to a committee of the whole, for the purpose of there moving to strike out one million, and inserting 1,500,000 dollars. After some observations from various gentlemen, the question on recommitting was taken, and lost—ayes 34—nays 79.
The question on agreeing to one million of dollars, the sum reported by the committee of the whole, then recurred, when, on motion of Mr. Bacon, the galleries were cleared. In a few minutes the doors were again opened. The editor found Mr. Cook speaking against the propriety of the sum, as being too small, reported by the committee of the whole. This appeared to be Mr. C's object, but that part of his speech which the editor heard was little else than a laboured apology for some spirited and many observations made by him on Wednesday last. Mr. Cook was followed by Mr. Sloan, who took occasion to observe, that "some gentlemen made such iniquent and such long speeches on that floor, that they certainly must often speak without having thought." The report of the committee of the whole was then concurred in without a division. Some amendments in the phraseology of the bill were then made, and it was ordered to have a third reading to-day.
Mr. Thomas, from the committee appointed on that subject, reported a bill, supplemental to the act authorising grants of land to certain refugees from Canada and Nova Scotia. Twice read, and made the order for to-morrow.
Mr. Crowninshield offered a resolution, authorising the President to cause a line of telegraphs to be established along the sea-board, and in such other parts of the country as he may judge expedient. Referred to a committee of the whole, and made the order for to-morrow.
On motion of Mr. H. Alston, the committee of ways and means were instructed to inquire into the expediency of continuing for a longer time the act fixing the present salaries of the officers of government, which expires by its own limitation, on the first of January next.
The doors were again closed, in consequence of a confidential message from the senate, when the editor being unwell, returned home. He hears the house soon afterwards adjourned.
NOTICE.
There will be a Charitable Sermon preached in the Episcopal Church on Sunday morning next by the Rev. Thomas Davis, for the benefit of the Children under the care of the Female Charitable Society.
The solicitors for some time past have declined making personal application for fear of being troublesome, though the number of distressed. On has under their care have increased—they flat or themselves, on this occasion, to receive from a generous publick a sufficient supply to answer their present demands.
Mary Chandler, Sec'y.
December 30.
TO CARPENTERS.
TO HIRE,
A black MAN belonging to the estate of Thomas Brashwood, deceased; also, a BOY about 13 or 14 years of age, and a WOMAN, all belonging to said estate. Apply to
Keyner Gilbert, Guardian.
December 23.
tf
For RENT,
(Possession to be had the 1st of January.)
The STORE-ROOM on Commerce and Water-streets, lately occupied by Mr. Edward Clarke, it may be had with or without a Room in the second story—it is very spacious, may be immediately accommodated for two stores, and will be rented in that manner if preferred. For terms apply to
John Nivison.
December 28.
6
For RENT,
(And immediate possession given.)
The Brick-House, Store, and Cellars, at the corner of Gilbert's Lane, on Main-street, near the market, an excellent stand for a Dry Good or Grocery Store. Apply to
Niemeyer & Von Kapff.
December 28.
tf
Silk and Fancy GOODS.
For Sale at the Store of Mr. Edwin Stark, Main-Street, a small assortment of
Plain and plaid Silk; plain and figured Ribbons; black Modes and Sarsenet; Silk Damasked and Sered Shawls; Ladies' and Gentlemen's Silk Stockings; Thread Laces and Fancy Trimmings; a small parcel of Gold Combs, Ear-Rings, Breast-Pins, &c. &c.
The above will be sold very low for cash if applied for immediately.
December 28.
2*
THE PUBLICK LEDGER.
WEDNESDAY EVENING, DEC. 30, 1807.
EMBARGO.—It is now no longer a matter of doubt as to the immediate cause of this severe measure, which is to produce universal distress to our country, and ruin to thousands of industrious citizens. The despatches from France submitted by the President in his message of the 18th, which latter is published in this day's paper, have produced this measure, at least to appearance. The documents accompanying the message, are partially submitted to the people, a letter from the French grand judge, which has been published in almost every paper in the United States, the people are permitted to see, but the more interesting documents are withheld; be it so—there must be secrets in state affairs. We have, however, enough to satisfy our minds of the real origin and cause of this measure. The article which we copy from the National Intelligencer, under the title of "Embargo", ought to be regarded as more than semi-official. We view it as the governmental expose, or apology to the people for the distress which they are to experience. We feel the difficulty of our undertaking, when we endeavour to investigate upon a few hours reflection, a state paper, the production of some of the first talents of our country, aided for any thing we know to the contrary, by those of another country—But having for our object truth, and directed by an honest regard for the honour, the interests, and independence of our native country, we will examine this document, which we venture to assert, discloses fully the views of those men, who direct the affairs of this nation.
This paper may be considered as an apology to the people of this country, as well for our own government, as for that of France, and which latter circumstance induced the hint that it was possibly a production of talents of both nations.
The paper commences by stating that Great Britain by her conduct provoked France to pass the decree of the 21st of November, which has compelled our government to resort to the measure of embargo, and thus it is endeavoured to be shown, that whatever the people may suffer, they are to ascribe it to Great Britain. But we hope and believe that the people of this country are not to be duped by such contemptible artifices. It is no part of our business to examine into the conduct of G. Britain and France, as regards their conduct towards each other, and yet we might demand if the seizure of British manufactures in neutral countries, the arrest of British subjects and even her publick minister in a neutral country—of compelling neutral nations to shut their ports against Great Britain, are not evidences of a total disregard on the part of France of neutral rights. These, however, are not objects for our investigation, and we have not yet subscribed to that logic that justifies one act of violence by another. The United States have a Treaty with France, which treaty has been hitherto observed by the United States, and which secures not only the right of trading freely to all the dominions of a nation at war with France, of carrying the productions of such nation, which have been purchased, but of carrying the goods of an enemy in our vessels not being contraband. Let the treaty speak for itself—
"ART. 12. It shall be lawful for the citizens of either country to sail with their ships and merchandise (contraband goods always excepted) from any port whatever, to any port of the enemy of the other, and to sail and trade with their ships and merchandise, with perfect security and liberty, from the countries, ports and places of those who are enemies of both, or of either party, without any opposition or disturbance whatever, and to pass not only directly from the places and ports of the enemy aforementioned, to neutral ports and places, but also from one place belonging to an enemy, to another place belonging to an enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction of the same power, or under the several; unless such ports or places shall be actually blockaded, besieged or invested."
"And whereas it frequently happens, that vessels sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the same is either besieged, blockaded or invested, it is agreed that every vessel, so circumstanced, may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor any part of her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless, after notice of such blockade or investment, she shall again attempt to enter; but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she shall think proper. Nor shall any vessel of either, that may have entered into such port or place before the same was actually besieged, blockaded, or invested by the other, be restrained from quitting such place with her cargo, nor if found therein after the reduction and surrender of such place, shall such vessel or her cargo be liable to confiscation, but they shall be restored to the owners thereof."
"ART. 14. It is hereby stipulated that free ships shall give a freedom to goods, and that every thing shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on board the ships belonging to the citizens of either of the contracting parties, although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted. It is also agreed, in like manner, that the same liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free ship, with this effect, that although they be enemies to either party, they are not to be taken out of that free ship, unless they are soldiers and in actual service of the enemy."
We have some time been accustomed to hear of British apologists, but what will the people of this country think, when they understand that the official paper of their government is converted into a "Moneur," to justify France for the violation of a treaty which secured to the United States such important advantages?
Will any man after this say that there is no French influence? We presume that Great-Britain has been instrumental in preventing France from doing justice to the United States as to the boundaries of Louisiana! This is not the first treaty which France has violated with this country, nor the first time that she has found apologists for her conduct, though not before by those who enjoyed the confidence of our government.
The paper then proceeds to speak of this measure, which in consoling phraseology is termed "a dignified retirement within ourselves." To be sure some of our "hard bargains" hired at the rate of six dollars per day, and gentlemen with comfortable appointments from five to twenty-five thousand dollars per annum, may bear this "dignified retirement" with a great deal of philosophy, and for any length of time; but the planter whose produce is rotting in his barn, the industrious tradesman whose support and that of his family derived from the enterprizes of commerce, with various other classes of our fellow citizens, who will be exposed to ruin and want, will not find quite so much comfort in this "dignified retirement." Those are pretty words!—We are not willing to ascribe unworthy motives to any men, but when we look at the non-importation act, and the embargo, and examine what will be their operations, we are forced to a conclusion that they have been produced by those foreign attachments and prejudices, which filled the mind of our illustrious Washington with serious apprehension.
There are many other parts of this paper, which merit notice, and will no doubt invite a discussion, by persons better qualified than we are.
That part of the paper, which notices the policy of a modified embargo, we cannot pass over without notice. If the embargo had not been extended to foreign vessels, we are told that it would have been a positive evidence of our partiality to England, because having a superior marine, she would carry off what supplies she wanted, without allowing France to approach our shores. Upon this principle we might have imposed an embargo many years past. In good sober truth, then, because the fleets of England are superior to those of France, the people of America must lose the fruits of their industry? But then the English having a monopoly would buy our produce at half its value. We might answer such school-boy argument, by saying that "half a loaf is better than no bread." It is not just as easy to make a nation of merchants act with the same concert, as a disciplined corps of "back-stair" legislators? But then these English merchants would not buy of those who would sell cheapest, and best , but of their favourites. There is an old adage that answers this objection "there is no favour in trade." But then it seems our mariners would enter into foreign service; certainly if they could get no employment at home, they would do so, rather than starve , nor could any but a flinty-hearted philosopher in "dignified retirement" blame them. But then there is another evil, "our ships would be purchased at half their value." We presume if it was even to be the case, the merchants of the United States do not require guardians, and that they would prefer half the value of their vessels, to losing them totally by decay. This silly objection might be answered by observing that a British subject cannot hold a foreign built ship, but under special circumstances, which do not embrace the case of an ordinary purchase.
In fine, if our apprehensions from the power of France, if a fear of her depredations on our commerce, produced this embargo, there is no cause for such apprehensions and fears, because she has no marine to annoy us—if the embargo has not been imposed on account of our apprehensions from France, why has it been imposed?—Or why was it not imposed before and not until dispatches were received from France ? If Great Britain had threatened us, then indeed an embargo would have been necessary, because she has the means of carrying destruction to our commerce. She is not more hostile than she has been for many months; on the contrary, a minister of peace from her is now within our waters. The sentiments of England have been known ever since the meeting of congress, at all events before the arrival of the Revenge. Dispatches from France have produced more action in one day, than all the information which months have procured, could produce.
[Upon the Embargo Law the Editor of the Washington Federalist makes the following remarks.]
We learn that the above law, when received from the senate, contained only the first section. The second section was an amendment of the house of representatives.
A motion was made by a member in the minority, to amend the bill, by giving it a limited duration, and confining the embargo solely to American vessels—Negatived.
Another motion was made, by another member of the minority, to exempt from the effect of the embargo, the vessels of all nations, who by treaty had stipulated with the United States that they should not be subject to such a provision—Negatived.
Many attempts were made by the minority to adjourn, to give time for deliberation, but they failed, every motion being negatived. The advocates for an adjournment, were answered only by an obstinate and contemptuous silence, or a rude and vociferous call for the question. At length, at half past eleven o'clock Monday night, the question on the passage of the bill was taken and carried.
REBELLION IN SPAIN.
By the ship Spencer, arrived at Baltimore from St. Sebastians, information has been received that a most formidable rebellion had broken out in Spain, at the head of which was the Prince of Asturias, and a number of the principal nobility. It is further stated that the General Junot, with an army of from 60 to 70,000 French troops, had marched to Madrid to oppose the insurgents. The Prince and a number of the nobles had been taken and imprisoned.
These particulars we notice in the northern papers, as also the following:
Important State Paper.
The 29th of this month, his Catholic Majesty, has passed to the council the following royal decree:
GOD, who watches over and protects his creatures, will not permit the execution of atrocious deeds, when the victims are innocent. Thus, therefore, has his omnipotence rescued me from the most unheard of catastrophe. My people, my subjects, all have a due sense of my christianity and regular habits—all love me, and from all do I receive proofs of veneration, such as are due to the respect of a father who tenderly loves his children; thus did I live persuaded of my supreme happiness, when an unknown hand discovered the most enormous and unnatural plan, contrived in my own palace, and against my person. My life, which has been so often in danger, had become a burthen to my successor, who, prepossessed, blind and devoid of every principle of religion which my paternal care and love had impressed upon his mind, had consulted, and even admitted a plan to dethrone me. I, myself, enquired into and investigated the veracity of this attempt, and surprised him in my own apartment, in possession of the cypher of intelligence which he received from traitors. I called together my president, ad interim, of the council, together with other ministers, to undertake the discovery. All was done in due form, and the result was, that I decreed the confinement of several criminals, and also that of my son, to his own apartment; this was an additional grief to the many that already afflicted me—truly as it is the most heinous, so, likewise, is it the most necessary to punish. And I ordered the publication of the facts, desirous to disclose to my subjects a pang which might be lessened by the proofs of their loyalty. I have therefore communicated it in order that it may circulate in due form.
Dated in San Lorenzo, the 30th October, 1807. Signed by the president of the council ad interim.
Published this day, the preceding royal decree, according to his orders, which I communicate to you. You will therefore extend it to all the courts of justice under your direction, for the reasons stated therein, acknowledging the receipt of said decree, and that you circulate it immediately.
May God preserve your life for many years. Madrid, 1st November, 1807.
(Signed) DON BARTOLOMEO MUÑOS.
A letter from Washington to the Editor of the U.S. Gazette, of the 17th, says "Yesterday in the course of debate in the house of representatives, as Mr. Sturges was giving a general view of our difficulties and negotiations with the British government, he stated that it was well understood that the British had refused to blend the affair of the Chesapeake with the other points in controversy, and that our government insisted on discussing them in connexion. While Mr. S. was stating these facts he was called to order by Mr. Nicholas, and afterwards by Mr. Crowninshield on the score of revealing what he was not at liberty to communicate. Mr. S. observed that in what he was about to say, he placed no reliance upon any confidential communications; he derived his information from other distinct and independent sources, and was therefore in order while stating it to the house."
From this intimation it appears that in the recent confidential communication to the house, information was given of the determination of the British government to separate, and of ours to blend, the affair of the Chesapeake with the other points in controversy. If neither party recedes from this determination, there must of course be war. Had not Mr. S. been interrupted, no inference could have been drawn relative to the contents of the confidential communications. It is thus, that an officious zeal, to prevent a disclosure of secrets disappoints its own purposes."
Gazette Marine Memoranda.
ARRIVED.
Sch'r Richmond Packet, Le Fort, 4 days from New-York.
Sch'r Sally, Richardson, 7 days from Boston, Salt, Moses Myers.
Sch'r Prudence Mary, Shaw, 5 days from New-York.
The ship Golden Rule, from Liverpool bound to this port was spoken Dec. 22, in lat. 33, long. 79.
The schooner Richmond Packet, Capt. Le Fort, will take freight for Richmond. Apply on board at Newton's wharf.
Ferguson's Packet will sail for Baltimore on Friday next. Dec. 30.
TO-MORROW, 31st instant, at my Office, at 12 o'clock, will be sold on a credit of 2 and 3 months, for approved paper, the entire CARGO of the British schooner Commerce, from Jamaica, consisting of 89 hhds. 60 bbls. 30 bags Jamaica SUGAR. Wm. B. Lamb.
NORFOLK BLUES, You are desired to attend a Muster on Saturday afternoon, at 4 o'clock, on the usual parade ground. Dec. 30.
First quality Jamaica COFFEE, Just received and for Sale, 77 tierces and 24 barrels prime Green COFFEE, James & Thomas Tucker.
10,000 bushels coarse SALT, on board the Ship Eliza, for sale. Apply to C. & F. Whittle.