field.

A fermon delivered at the opening of the Branch church in Salem, February 6, 1805. By Joshua Spalding, A.M.

A difcourfe delivered at the ordina tion of Rey. Jofeph S. Buckminster to the paftoral charge of the church in Brattle-street, Boston. By Jofeph Buckminfter, D.D. paftor of the north church in Portsmouth, N. H. To which are annexed, the charge, by Rev. Mr. Cufh·ing of Waltham; and the right hand of fellowship, by Rev. Mr. Emerson of Boston. 8vo. pp. 36. Boston. For Young & Minns.

A man in the smoke, and a friend endeavouring to help him out; being remarks on Mr. Baldwin's fermon upon the eternal purpose of God, the foundation of effectual calling. Alfo a fcriptural explanation of the words purpose, elect, and election. By Elias Smith. Portsmouth.

The answer and pleas of Judge Chafe to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the house of reprefentatives of the United States. Salem.

Vol. II. No. 2. 0

Conjectures on prophecies, written in the fore part of the year 1799. By John Bacon, Efq.

Dr. Waterhouse's lecture upon the pernicious effects of tobacco, and ardent and vinous fpirits. Cambridge. Hilliard.

The third number of the Literary Mifcellany, for November, December, and January. Cambridge. Hilliard.

A letter to a federalist, in reply to fome of the popular objections to the motives and tendency of the measures of the prefent administration. Boston. Adams & Rhoades.

A report of the trial of Richard Dennis, the younger, for the murder of James Shaw, with all the evidence, fpeeches, and arguments, as they were delivered by the counsel for the profecution and the prifoner. To which is prefixed, a difcourfe upon the probable caufes of the grofs relaxation of morals

which has for fome time been obfervably increafing in this commuity, and a hint at the remedies which ought to be applied, and particularly at the duty of juries By S. C. Carpenter. Charles

ton, S. C.

New Editions. Illuftrations of Mafonry. By Wm. Preston. The first American improved edition; to which is annexed, many valuable mafonick addenda, and a complete lift of the lodges in the U. States. Edited by George Richards, P.G.S.G L.M. Portfmouth. W. & D. Treadwell. 12mo.

Memoirs of the life, writings, and correfpondence of Sir William Jones. By Sir John Shore, now Lord Teignmouth. 1 vol. 8vo. With a portrait of Sir Wm. Clafück Prefs, Philadelphia.

Jay's fermons. 1 vol. 8vo. Boston. A report of the trial of Jofhua Nettles and Elizabeth Cannon, for the murder of John Cannon. By S. Cullen Carpenter. Charleston, S.Ć.

Perry's spelling-book, carefully revised, corrected, and enlarged. Worces ter. Ifaiah Thomas, juit.

By Subfcription.
Dr. Hunter's facred biography. New

York. Deane & Andrews.

Knox's hints to publick speakers,with an effay on eloquence by Jenningham.

Bofton. For B. & J. Homans.

A beautiful pocket edition of Milton's works. In 2 vols. Charlestown. Etheridge & Stebbins.

Shakespeare's poems, from a late pub

lication by Mr. Malone. Philadelphia G. White & T. J. Rogers.

The hiftory, civil and commercial, of the British colonies in the West Indies. By Bryan Edwards. 4 vols. 8vo. Philadelphia. James Humphreys.

Doclor Johnfon's dictionary of the English language, with a life of the author. By J. Aikin, M. D. 4 vols. 8vo. Philadelphia. James Humphreys.

The young carpenter's affiftant, or a fyftem of architecture adapted to the ftyle of building in the United States. By Owen Biddle, houfe carpenter and teacher of architectural drawing. Philadelphia.

Young fteam engineer's guide. By Oliver Evans.

AT the Supreme Judicial Court holden at Ipswich, for the county of Effex, in June, A.D. 1800, Mr. Sullivan, the attorney general, prefented, in behalf of the commonwealth of Maffachusetts,a petition for partition of the Old State-Houfe, which is fituated in Boston. The commonwealth claimed in the petition " to be feized in fee fimple and undivided of feven eighth parts of the estate in common with perfons unknown." The Court ordered publick notice to be given, and affigned a day for a hearing at the term following for the county of Suffolk. At that term, which was holden in February 1801, the town of Boston appeared by Mr. Lowell, and objected to the petition of the commonwealth, and claimed to be fole feized in fee fimple of the eftate, whereof petition was prayed. The county of Norfolk, which was formerly a portion of

the county of Suffolk,* alfo appeared by Mr. Ames, and in their plea denied, that the Commonwealth was feized of more than one half of the eftate, and claimed "to be feized and entitled to their proportional part of the demanded premifes," but did not fpecify that proportion. A fpecial jury was, at the motion of the attorney general, fummoned from the towns of Hingham and Chelsea in the county of Suffolk, to try the iffues, which were feverally joined between the commonwealth and the town of Bofton, and between the commonwealth and the county of Norfolk.

After a hearing of the parties, the Court ordered the caufe to ftand continued to the next term, for the purpose of obtaining further information, and

The divifion took place March 26 1793.

a new day was affigned. At the next term the caufe was again heard. The claim of the county of Norfolk,being by theCourt confidered in aid of that of the commonwealth, was not permitted to be profecuted. The jury, after a full investigation, brought in a verdict, "that the commonwealth had no right to the foil, but were entitled to one half of the building, for the purposes for which it was erected."

Mr. Sullivan appeared for the commonwealth; Mr. Parfons and Mr. Lowell for the town. The Court were equally divided infentiment. The chief juftice Dana and judge Sewall expreffed in their addreffes to the jury an opinion favourable to the town: the judges Bradbury and Strong infifted, that the claim of the commonwealth was well found

ed.*

The attorney general moved for a new trial on the following grounds, 1. That the verdict was rendered against the weight of the evidence. 2. That it was given against the principles of law. 3. That it did not decide the question, which was involved in the iffue. And 4. That as the cafe was to be decided on legal deductions from facts, which were not difputed, and as there was no decifion of the judges on the principles of law, the trial ought not to be confidered as conclufive. The action was continued without any decifion had on this motion, and at the next term in Feb. 1802, the parties agreed to

The judges Paine and Dawes, being citizens of Boston, did not fit in the caufe, and judge Thatcher did not addrefs the jury.

refer the cafe to the Hon. Oliver Wolcott, Efq. of Connecticut, appointed by the Court, the Hon. Benjamin Bourne, Efq. of RhodeIfland, appointed by the attorney general, and the Hon. Jeremiah Smith, Efq. of New-Hampfhire, appointed by the selectmen and town-clerk, "to hear the parties and to determine finally in equity and juftice, what proportion the commonwealth was entitled to have and hold of the faid land and buildings." On 20th July,

1802, the referees met in the fenate-chamber of the New StateHouse in Boston, and the parties were publickly heard.

* A right to the foil in Maffachusetts, which is included within a line running "three miles to the fouth of Charles river and three miles north of Merrimack river from the Atlantick to the South fea," was conveyed by the patent of the council of Plymouth to Sir Henry Rosewell and his affociates. In 1628 this title was confirmed by the royal charter of Charles I., the original defign of which inftrument was, to veft in the patentees the powers of a corporation, which fhould be fimilar to that of the Eaft India Company. The government of the colony immediately exercifed the right of granting land to the fettlers, and to all who came over.

Boston was called by the na, tives Shawmut, and afterwards,

*The facts in this cafe were gleaned from ancient records of the commonwealth, of the county of Suffolk, and of the town of Bofton. Mr. Hutchinson's Hiftory of Massachusetts and governour Winthrop's Journal were frequently quoted at the trial,

probably by the French, Trimontaine. In 1630 the court of affiftants ordered it to be called by its prefent name, which was the only account of its incorporation. But in the fame manner were other towns incorporated. Agawam was ordered to be called Ipfwich; Naumkeag, Salem; Mount Woollafton, Braintree. The peninfula, on which Bofton is built, was originally claimed by a Mr. Blaxton. In 1633 the government of the colony made him a grant of fifty acres at the weft part of the town. This was the only inftance fhewn, in which the government undertook to grant land in a town, after having given it a name. In 1684 certain aged citizens depofed, before the governour of the colony, that the inhabitants purchafed of Mr. Blaxton his right to the foil, and that each householder paid him fix hillings for releafing his right. But the deed from Mr. Blaxton could not be produced, nor was it fhewn that it could be legally demanded, as the first law which made a deed neceffary was enacted in 1641, and the releafe from Blaxton was as early as 1635.

+ " Mr. Blaxton left England, being "diffatisfied there, and not a thorough

a conformift: but he was more diffatis"fied with the non-conformity of the "new-commers. He told them, he came from England because he did not "like the Lords Bishops, but he could "not join with the Lords Brethren. He "claimed the whole peninfula upon " which Boston is built, because he first "slept upon it. He had a grant of a handfome lot there, at the weft part of the town, but he chofe to quit "all, and removed to the fouthard, at

very

"or near what is fince called Provi"dence, where he lived to old age." 1 Hutchiníon's Hift. Col. Mai, 21,

The town produced a deed of release of the foil to them, dated in 1684, from an Indian chief whofe name was Wampatuck. In the recital to this deed he mentions, that he had been informed by aged Indians and by his own council,that his grandfather Chickatabut, who originally owned the foil, granted it to the inhabitants of Bofton. But this deed was executed in the time of James II. when the colony feared that they fhould lose their charter, and was probably fabricated for the circumftances of the times.

Whether the foil, on which the houfe ftands, was originally the fcite of a fort, or whether it was used for a market place, was very doubtful. The spot was most ineligible for any purposes of defence, and the circumftances of the colony would not permit the conftruction of a fort for ornament. Before 1635 a fort was built on what is now called Fort Hill. The streets were not named by the authority of the town until 1708. And though Mr. Winthrop, in his Journal, fays, that in 1632 a fort was erected “in the cornhill," yet it did not appear, whether the street, where the houfe now ftands, was at that time, as it is at prefent, called Cornhill, or whether corn was not cultivated on Fort Hill, which might have led Mr. Winthrop to adopt the expreffion. It was equally uncertain, whether this fort was intended for defence against the French, or against the Indians.

When it was first proposed, that a houfe fhould be erected for the accommodation of the colony, the county of Suffolk, and the town, the latter propofed, that if

any of the citizens would undertake to build the houfe, they fhould be entitled to the profits of the building. By this was probably meant, that the publick objects being first attained, the proprietors fhould be entitled to all advantages, which could be derived from other ufes, to which the house could be applied, together with the right to the foil. Nothing was done in confequence of this offer.

A houfe, which was in 1657 built at the expense of the town by fubfcriptions obtained from the inhabitants, was ufed by the refpective governments of the colony, the county, and the town. In 1660 the town offered to the general court the use of this building for legislative and other purpofes of the government, praying at the fame time, that in confideration thereof the court would remit the proportion of the colony tax, to which the town would be liable for one year. The court accept ed the offer, and remitted the tax on the further condition, that the county of Suffolk likewife should have the privilege of ufing the houfe for the feffions of its courts of juftice. The town always received the rent of the cellar and of thofe parts of the building, which were not occupied for the above purposes. One half of the expences of repairing that building was paid by the colony, one

The time when the general court first occupied this building was not difcovered, till after the difcuffion had been closed. The above fact, which took place in the year 1660, was found by Mr. Lowell in one of the ancient journals of the general court and was by confent of the parties submitted to the referees.

quarter by the county of Suffolk, and one quarter by the town. In 1693 this proportion was establifhed by law.

After the conflagration in 1711, in which the Old Town-House was confumed, the province defignated this fpot, being the feite of that building, for a new StateHoufe. Accordingly a house, of which the walls of the prefent were part, was built, and the expenfe was defrayed by the province, the county, and the town, in the proportion which was establifhed in 1693. That houfe was partly confumed by fire in 1747, and again repaired. The town remonftrated against its share of the burden. Faneuil-Hall, in which all municipal affairs were then tranfacted, having been built five years before, the town had no further ufe for the StateHouse. In the remonstrance it is faid, that the house was originally built on land belonging to the town. Of that building, which is the fubject of the prefent controverfy, the commonwealth, the county, and the town have continued in poffeffion to the prefent day.

Sketch of the arguments of Mr. Parfons for the town, and of the Attorney General for the commonwealth.*

Mr. PARSONS. The referees are bound by the terms of the fub

This sketch was formed from a few brief minutes, which were taken at the hearing before the referees. If there are errours in the statement of the facts, or in the heads of the arguments, they must be attributed to the writer. At the fame time he wishes, that he could have done juftice to the eloquence of the learned counsel on both fides.