The New Hampshire Gazette

From the National Advocate.

TO THE EDITOR,

SIR—The treaty lately concluded at Ghent seems to give general satisfaction! but, I must confess, there are some omissions which very much surprise me. There is, in the first place, no provision made for the tories, as in the treaty of 1783. Congress is not even required to "recommend" them to the forgiveness of their fellow citizens. How this has happened, considering the well known magnanimity of the British government, I am at a loss to account—perhaps you, or some of your correspondents, may explain it. It is certain, that this class of men have lately made greater sacrifices of principle, if not of property, in the cause of Great Britain than they or their predecessors did in the old war; and it seems very extraordinary that the British commissioners did not insist upon retaining "the territory east of Penobscot," as an asylum for these afflicted people, at being so contiguous to Nova Scotia, and a climate so congenial with the constitution and temper of their souls.

Again. Although they have promised to steal no more, there is no provision made for restoring the slaves already stolen from the southern states by Cockburn and Co.

Now, I should like to know whether, from the studied regard to reciprocity, so conspicuous in the several articles of the treaty, one of these omissions was considered as a fair offset to the other—or whether, (as some will have it) by a conduct so opposite to that observed towards their Indian allies, the British Commissioners chose this way to show their ineffable contempt for a class of men, who have, for the second and last time, deceived them by their misrepresentations and false assurances? Pray let us hear from you on this subject.

SIMON SEARCHER.

P. S. After all the speculations of your correspondents, will not this latter construction best account for the mysterious conduct of the three strangers who lately disappeared from Gadsby's Hotel?