appointed by Congress they will consider themselves as servants of the United States at large, and be more impartial.

Mr. GORHAM, Seconded by Mr. WILSON, proposes to postpone, in order to require the States to appoint commissioners, to give Congress information for a basis for a valuation. On the question, New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, aye; Rhode Island, aye; Connecticut, aye; New York, aye; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no; so it was decided in the negative.

To make the resolution more clear, after the words "or any nine of them," the words "concurring therein" were added. Mr. RUTLEDGE says, that subjecting the acts of the commissioners to the revision of Congress had so varied his plan that he should be against it. On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, aye; Rhode Island, aye; Connecticut, aye; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, aye; Virginia, aye (Mr. MADISON, no;) North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye; so it was agreed to; and the resolution, declaring that a mode should now be fixed, struck out, as executed. The whole report was then committed to a special committee, consisting of Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. GORHAM, and Mr. GILMAN, to be formed into a proper act."

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH.

The declaration of Congress as to general funds, passed on January the twenty-ninth, appears on the

Journals; and Congress resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, in order to consider the funds to be adopted and recommended to the States.

On motion of Mr. MIFFLIN, the impost of five per cent. was taken into consideration. As it seemed to be the general opinion, that some variations from the form in which it had been first recommended would be necessary for reconciling the objecting States to it, it was proposed that the sense of the Committee should be taken on that head. The following questions were accordingly propounded:

day of

Question 1. Is it expedient to alter the impost as recommended on the 1781? Mr. LEE said the States, particularly Virginia, would never concur in the measure unless the term of years were limited, the collection left to the States, and the appropriation annually laid before them.

Mr. WOLCOTT thought the revenue ought to be commensurate, in point of time as well as amount, to the debt; that there was no danger in trusting Congress, considering the responsible mode of its appointment; and that to alter the plan would be a mere condescension to the prejudices of the States.

Mr. GORHAM favored the alteration for the same reason as Mr. LEE. He said private letters informed him that the opposition to the impost law was gaining ground in Massachusetts, and the repeal of Virginia would be very likely to give that opposition the ascendance. He said our measures must be accommodated to the sentiments of the States, whether just or unreasonable.

Mr. HAMILTON dissented from the particular alter

ations suggested, but did not mean to negative the question.

Mr. BLAND was for conforming to the ideas of the States as far as would, in any manner, consist with the object.

On the question the affirmative was unanimous, excepting the voice of Mr. WOLCOTT.

Question 2. Shall the term of duration be limited to twenty-five years ?

Mr. MERCER professed a decided opposition to the principle of general revenue; observed that the liberties of England had been preserved by a separation of the purse from the sword; that, until the debts should be liquidated and apportioned, he would never assent, in Congress or elsewhere, to the scheme of the impost.

Mr. BLAND proposed an alternative of twenty-five years, or until the requisitions of Congress, according to the Articles of Confederation, shall be found adequate. On this proposition the votes were, of New Hampshire, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, divided; South Carolina, aye; so the proposition was not agreed to. On the main question for twenty-five years it was voted in the affirmative.

Question 3. Shall the appointment of collectors be left to the States; they to be amenable to, and under the control of, Congress ?-aye; several States, as New York and Pennsylvania, dissenting.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13TH.

The Committee report to Congress the alterations yesterday agreed on with respect to the five per cent. impost.

The Deputy Secretary at War reported to Congress the result of the inquiry directed by them on the 24th day of January, into the seizure of goods destined for the British prisoners of war, under passport from General Washington. From this Report, it appeared that some of the seizors had pursued their claim under the law of the State; and that, in consequence, the goods had been condemned, and ordered for sale. The papers were referred to a committee, consisting of Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. GORHAM, and Mr. LEE, who, after having retired for a few moments, reported that the Secretary of War should be authorized and directed to cause the goods to be taken from the places where they had been deposited; to employ such force as would be sufficient; and that the Duke de Lauzun, whose legion was in the neighbourhood, should be requested to give the Secretary such aid as he might apply for.

This Report was generally regarded by Congress as intemperate, and the proposed recourse to the French legion as flagrantly imprudent. Mr. HAMILTON said, that if the object had been to embroil the country with their allies, the expedient would have been well conceived.* He added, that the exertion of force would not, under these circumstances, meet

This was an oblique allusion to Mr. LEE, whose enmity to the French was suspected by him, &c.

the sense of the people at large. Mr. GORHAM said, he denied this with respect to the people of Massachusetts.

Mr. LEE, on the part of the Committee, said that the Duke de Lauzun had been recurred to as being in the neighbourhood, and having cavalry under his command which would best answer the occasion; and that the Report was founded on wise and proper considerations.

Mr. MERCER, Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. WILSON, and Mr. MADISON, strenuously opposed the Report, as improper altogether, as far as it related to the French legion, and in other respects so until the State of Pennsylvania should, on a summons, refuse to restore the articles seized.

Mr. RUTLEDGE, with equal warmth, contended for the expediency of the measures reported.

Mr. MERCER and Mr. MADISON at length proposed that Congress should assert the right on this subject, and summon the State of Pennsylvania to redress the wrong immediately. The Report was recommitted, with this proposition, and Mr. WILSON and Mr. MERCER added to the Committee.

The speech of the King of Great Britain on the fifth of December, 1782, arrived and produced great joy in general, except among the merchants who had great quantities of merchandize in store, the price of which immediately and materially fell. The most judicious members of Congress, however, suffered a great diminution of their joy from the impossibility of discharging the arrears and claims of the army, and their apprehensions of new difficulties from that quarter.