The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1805-06-10 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. V. WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NO. DCCXXIX. FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM. MONDAY, JUNE 10th, 1805. PAID IN ADVANCE.
Dr. REES'S NEW CYCLOPÆDIA.
SAMUEL F. BRADFORD AND JOHN CONRAD & Co.
ARE PREPARING TO PUBLISH BY SUBSCRIPTION
THE NEW CYCLOPÆDIA; OR UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES.
IN TWENTY VOLUMES QUARTO.
Formed upon a more enlarged plan of arrangement than the Dictionary of Mr. Chambers.
COMPREHENDING,
The Various articles of that work, with additions and improvements, together with new subjects of Biography, Geography, and History, and adapted to the present improved state of Literature and Science—
By ABRAHAM REES, D. D. F. R. S.
Editor of the last edition of Chambers's Dictionary; with the assistance of eminent professional gentlemen.
Illustrated with new Plates, including Maps, engraved for the work, by some of the most distinguished artists. The whole improved and adapted to this country, by gentlemen of known abilities, by whose aid it will be rendered the most complete work of the kind that has yet appeared.
CONDITIONS.
 I. The work will be printed in Large Quarto, with new types, cast for the purpose, and on a superior woven paper.  II. It will be comprised in about Twenty Volumes, from eight hundred to a thousand pages each.  III. An half volume, in boards, will be regularly published every two months, price Three Dollars, payable on delivery. No advance will be required.  IV. Any subscriber, who, upon receipt of the first half volume, does not approve of the work, shall be at liberty to withdraw his name.  V. Between six and seven hundred plates, engraved in a superior style of elegance, will be comprised in the course of the publication; by far a greater number than is to be found in any other Scientific Dictionary. At the close of the publication will be delivered an elegant Frontispiece, the dedication, preface, and proper title pages for the different volumes.  VI. The work will be put to press as soon as a sufficient number of subscribers are obtained.  VII. A list of the names of those who subscribe will be published in the last volume as the patrons of this great and magnificent work. 
IN this age of improvement, when the arts and sciences are advancing to perfection, with a degree of rapidity unparalleled in any former period, few books have a stronger claim to public attention and patronage than Cyclopaedias, and few are more instructive and amusing. Of the character of the work now offered for the patronage of the American nation, little need be said by its present Editors; its high celebrity is already known to the generality of scientific gentlemen in this country; and, those who are yet unacquainted with it, may best obtain its character from the annexed extracts and review.
The publication commenced in London in the year 1802, and has since regularly progressed with a degree of spirit and industry, perhaps, unrivalled in any similar production. The learning and indefatigable perseverance of Dr. Rees, universally acknowledged, would, alone, seem to guarantee his work to possess no common merit; but, when we consider the ability which he displays in editing the dictionary of Mr. Chambers, and view the brilliant assembly of talents that are now engaged to co-operate with his own in the present undertaking, it will not be deemed presumptuous to conclude, that it will be the most perfect of its kind.
As, however, all European publications are susceptible of amendment and addition in those parts which relate to America, the present Editor has engaged, in the various departments of science and literature, the assistance of gentlemen, whose talents and celebrity do honor to their country, and will essentially enrich this great and important work.
To the article American Biography, which has been very greatly, not to say entirely, neglected in all preceding works of the kind, a proper attention will be paid in the present. This is a subject to which the people of this country cannot be indifferent, since it is not only materially connected with their interest and their honor, but has a strong claim on their gratitude and all the nobler affections of the mind. If the names of the benefactors and ornaments of other countries are faithfully preserved, and transmitted from age to age, with the fondest devotion, why should those of the United States be suffered to sink into oblivion or to survive only in the obscure and neglected column of a newspaper? Shall ours continue to be the only civilized quarter of the globe in which the pen of the biographer is unprofit to the claims of his departed countrymen? Nor let it be apprehended that we are barren of materials for this interesting and important branch of literature; with the names of a Washington, a Franklin, a Hancock, a Hamilton, a Henry, a Kittredge, a Linn, a Searcy, an Emden, a Witherspoon, a Neill, and other numerous worthies to enrich and adorn its pages, the biography of the United States may vie with that of most other countries on earth. It is the determination of the Editor to make such arrangements, that, in this article, the American edition of Rees's Cyclopaedia will have a claim to some degree of originality.
No one who has observed the great progress which has been made in the arts of printing and engraving, in this country, within a few years, can doubt of the superior style of elegance in which this work will be executed, when it is assured that no pains or expense will be spared, and that the best printers and most eminent engravers will be engaged to render it, every way, worthy the patronage of the friends of literature and science.
It is rather a peculiar feature of this Dictionary,
that the names of so many contributors to it are given to the world; but it is a communication which must be acceptable, because the public are thus enabled to judge of the probable ability with which the design will be executed; these gentlemen being already known by their talents in the different provinces in which they are engaged, and their reputation standing pledged for the due performance of their present engagement, as well as for the principles advanced in it. A recent advertisement in the public papers thus states the names and departments of the principal of them:
 'Agriculture—R. W. Dickson, M. D.  'Anatomy (Human)—John Abernethy, F. R. S. assistant surgeon of St. Bartholomew's hospital, &c.  'Anatomy (Comparative)—Mr. James Macartney, lecturer upon comparative anatomy and physiology at St. Bartholomew's hospital, &c.  'Annuities, Survivorship, &c.—William Morgan, F. R. S.  'Antiquities—Mr. Henry Ellis, of St. John's College, Oxford.  'Architecture—William Territt, L. L. D. John Flaxman, R. A. and Mr. Webster.  'British Topography—Mr. John Britton.  'Beaching, Dying, Calico Printing, &c.—Mr. Charles Taylor, and Mr. J. Thompson.  'Botany and Vegetable Materia Medica—William Woodville, M. D. F. R. S.  'Carpentry, &c.—Mr. Peter Nicholson.  'Chemistry and Mineralogy—Mrs. Arthur Aikin.  'English History—Sharon Turner, F. S. A.  'Engraving—Mr. Wilson Lowry, and Mr. Thomas Milton.  'Heraldry—George Naylor, F. S. A. York Herald.  'Medicine—Richard Pearson, M. D. F. S. A.  'Materia Medica—Mr. C. R. Aikin.  'Midwifery—R. Bland, M. D. A. S. S.  'Music—Charles Burney, Mus. D. F. R. S.  'Painting—Henry Fuseli, R. A. Professor of painting.  'Sculpture and Statuary—John Flaxman, R. A. Sculptor to the king.  'Surgery—William Blair, A. M. F. M. S.  'Veterinary Art—Bracy Clark, F. L. S. Veterinary surgeon.  'Zoology, Conchology, &c.—E. Donovan, F. L. S. 
"There can be no doubt of the success of a work, the design of which forms an object of such comprehensive utility, and the execution of which is guaranteed by so many respectable names."
To the single man, it will always prove an entertaining and instructing companion for his leisure hours; to the married man with a family round him, it may be considered as a universal library, and being always within their view, will operate as a perpetual stimulus to gratify a laudable curiosity, and excite to that degree of inquiry, which will inevitably impress on the mind a valuable stock of useful and diffusive knowledge imperceptibly acquired. As an item of bequest to a relative or friend, it will become the more estimable by every repetition in its family descent, and may often impress on the mind of the legatee a more lasting recollection of the donor, than an heirship to many times its value in gold.
Subscriptions received by M. & J. Conrad & Co. Baltimore, Rept. Conrad & Co. Washington city, Somerville, & Conrad, Petersburg, and Bonsal, Conrad, & Co. Norfolk. May 29—w10t
Ten Dollars Reward.
WAS missed on Sunday, the 5th of May a double cased silver Watch, maker's name Croftswate, Dublin, and in the outer case was a watch paper with Mr. Parker's name of Philadelphia—Whoever will bring the said watch to the office of the National Intelligencer, shall receive the above reward, and no questions will be asked. May 1 st .—tf.
ROSS & PLEASANTON
Have just received and offer for sale, wholesale and retail, a large and general assortment of groceries consisting of
 Gun-powder, Imperial, Hyson, Young Hyson and Congo } Teas of the first importation  Mould and dipped candles. Spermaceti } do.  Madeira, Sherry, Malaga, Port and Lisbon } Wines.  Clarret, Bitters and } In bottles.  Sweet Oil, Cognac and other French Brandies.  A variety of the best French Cordials in bottles and casks.  Holland Gin, Jamaica, Antigua, and New-England Old Rish Whiskey. } Rum  Pennington's double & single refined sugar. Do Lump.  Loaf and lump sugar of other manufacturers. Best brown sugar and inferior do. English and American cheese. Pine apple do.  French Muscadel raisins. Rice. 
They have also an invoice of elegant white and gilt china tea sets, together with a variety of the best cut glass.
Besides what are above particularly mentioned they have on hand, and constantly keep every other article in the grocery line. Georgetown, May 29—ep3w.
CELEBRATED WARM SPRINGS In VIRGINIA.
THE subscribers have taken a lease of ten years, of the highly celebrated Medicinal Springs in the county of Bath called the WARM SPRINGS, so justly famed for their great cures and general relief in many complaints.
They are now preparing every necessary comfort and accommodation to suit the amusement of those who have health, (and to promote the recovery of those who want it) and it is deemed necessary to make these things widely known, because complaints have heretofore been made against the entertainment which has been offered.
Preparations are made for at least one hundred constant boarders, besides transient guests, for the accommodation of which, the subscribers will take all possible exertions; and they flatter themselves, that those who may place confidence in this advertisement, will not find the smallest cause for regret or complaint.
ROBERT & GEORGE TURNER. May 1—ep6w
MRS. SMITH AND MRS. WILY respectfully acquaint their friends and the public that they have removed their boarding school from the house they occupied in Water street, to a large brick house fitted up for a school, in the Main street near Mr. Francis Lowndes, with a good garden, yard, and excellent spring of water.
They solicit the patronage of the inhabitants of George town and its vicinity, which they have liberally experienced, and gratefully acknowledge. They teach reading, writing, English grammar and geography. The best masters attend to instruct the young ladies in music, dancing, arithmetic, French and drawing. Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Wily continue to teach plain work, marking, embroidery in lamb's wool, silk and chenille, with a variety of other kinds of needle work, in the afternoon. April 26—6w.
STELLE'S HOTEL & CITY TAVERN.
THE Subscriber takes this method of thanking his friends and the public for their favors whilst on the Capitol Square and begs leave to acquaint them that having purchased and now occupying the tavern, late Tunnicliff's hotel; which he has commenced enlarging and improving—he respectfully solicits a continuance of the patronage of his friends and the public, assuring them that 'tis his full determination to fit up his present hotel, and to conduct it, as to merit, he hopes, the presence of the public travelling, as well as those coming to the permanent seat of the Government of our Land of Liberty.
PONTIUS D. STELLE. Washington City, March 25—tf
By an order from the Orphan's court of Washington county, district of Columbia, will be sold to the highest bidder on the 25th inst. at Mr. Semmes's tavern, George town, a negro woman, & three small boys, late the property of John Young, deceased, on a credit of six months, giving bond and good security, bearing interest from date. CHARLES YOUNG, Adm'r. June 3—3t
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21.
Mr. Hopkinson's speech, continued.
In Hardy's trial, page. 13, chief justice Eyre states to the grand jury, "Jurors and judges ought to feel an extraordinary anxiety that prosecutions of this nature should proceed upon solid grounds. I can easily conceive, therefore, that it must be a great relief to jurors placed in the responsible situation in which you now stand, bound to do justice to their country and to the parties accused, and anxious to discharge this trust faithfully; for I am that it is consolation and comfort to us, who have upon us the responsibility of declaring what the law is in cases in which the public and the individual are so deeply interested; to have such men as the great Sir Matthew Hale, and an eminent judge of our own times, who, with the experience of a century, concurs with him in opinion, Sir Michael Foster for our guides.
"To proceed by steps—From these writers upon the law of treason (who speak as I have before observed, upon the authority of adjudged cases) we learn, that not only acts of immediate and direct attempt against the king's life, are overt acts of compassing his death, but that all the remoter steps taken with a view to effect to bring about the actual attempt, are equally overt acts of this species of treason; even the meeting and consulting what steps should be taken in order to bring about the end proposed, has been always deemed to be an act done in prosecution of the design, and as such an overt act of this treason. This is our first step in the present enquiry. I proceed to observe, that the overt acts I have been now speaking of have reference, nearer or more remote, to a direct and immediate attempt upon the life of the king; but that the same authority informs us, that they who aim directly at the life of the king, (such for instance, as the persons who were concerned in the assassination plot in the reign of king William) are not the only persons who can be said to compass or imagine the death of the king. "The entering into measures which, in the nature of things, or in the common experience of mankind, do obviously tend to bring the life of the king into danger, is also compassing and imagining the death of the king;" and the measures which are taken will be at once evidence of the compassing, and overt acts of it."
Where is the criminality of such instruction and direction; but in what does it differ in principle and in all its possible consequences to the prisoner, from the conduct of judge Chase? The learned English judge thought he was obliging the jury, not encroaching upon them—by stating fully and precisely the legal construction of those acts which would probably be given to them in evidence to support the charges of treason. It is true the treason charged upon Hardy was not that of levying war,—it was that of compassing the king's death. Now what overt acts amount to a compassing of the king's death, is a question of law resting upon long and established decisions and precedent. And judge Eyre thought it no crime to declare to the jury his opinion of the law in this respect. So in our case treason by levying war, is a general constitutional definition of the offence; but the application of this general definition, and the fixing and describing such overt acts as amount to a levying of war, is matter of legal construction, depending upon a knowledge of former adjudications, which the judge was bound to know, or he was not worthy of his office, and which he was also bound to communicate to the jury. The difference of the cases is only here. Chief justice Eyre formed his opinion on deliberation and he reduced it to writing; but he also publicly delivered it with all the weight of his name and authority in the face of all the jurors and of the country. Whereas judge Chase gave his opinion privately to the counsel, to be at their disposal and discretion; to use it for the benefit of their client if they could; or to disregard and suppress it if they thought proper. It might forever have been concealed from the jurors and from the world, if the counsel of Fries had not themselves made it public. This practice of delivering opinions on points of law in charges to grand juries, is not confined to the English courts. It is
the same in the United States. The managers have pronounced a very deserved eulogium upon the official conduct and character of judge Ldell. The respondent has been referred to him as a bright example of justice and impartiality, and it has been lamented that with such an example before him, judge Chase should have so wandered from the path of rectitude. We take their standard of excellence. We agree to be judged by judge Iredell; and if I show that the humane and learned judge really did the same thing for which the respondent now stands on his trial, I hope there will be an end of the complaint. On the first trial of this same John Fries for the same offence, judge Iredell actually committed, with some circumstances of aggravation, the same enormous crime for which judge Chase is now impeached. He did form an opinion on the law of treason, he did reduce that opinion to writing, and he did deliver that opinion, the same in substance, and nearly the same in words with that delivered by judge Chase. This bright example was before our eyes, he is now here, and let us be judged by him. In the charge delivered to the grand jury in 1799, who found the first bill against Fries for treason, speaking of those cases which he thought would come before the court, the judge says, "the only species of treason likely to come before you, is that of levying war against the United States. There have been various opinions, and different determinations on the import of those words. But I think I am warranted in saying, that if in the case of the insurgents who may come under your consideration, the intention was to prevent by force of arms the execution of any act of the Congress of the United States altogether, (as for instance the land tax act, the object of their opposition) any forcible opposition calculated to carry that intention into effect, was a levying war against the United States, and of course an act of treason. But if the intention was merely to defeat its operation in a particular instance, or through the agency of a particular officer, from some private or partial motive, though a high resistance may have been committed, it did not amount to the crime of treason. The particular motive must however be the sole ingredient in the case, for if combined with a general view to obstruct the execution of the act, the offence must be deemed treason."
Judge Iredell, therefore, so far from conceiving it to be a crime to have an opinion upon the law of treason in levying war and the overt acts which would constitute it, to reduce that opinion to writing and to deliver both to counsel and jury, seems to have considered it, as chief justice Eyre had done before him, to be his duty to do so. The opinion delivered by this respectable judge coincides entirely with that of judge Chase, and the manner of delivering was, on our opponents' principles, vastly more exceptionable. The novelty of this proceeding seems to have vanished on investigation. There is indeed one striking difference in the two opinions—That judge Chase goes more fully and clearly into the definition of the offence, and is more particularly careful to state those distinctions and discriminations which might serve the accused, and reduce his transgression to some lesser offence, provided they could appear in his case. He sets out not only the description and character of those overt acts which constitute treason, but enumerates also with equal care such as will not amount to that offence. If these favorable discriminations might in any way have been useful to the accused, they were put fully into the power both of the counsel and the jury.
The gentleman who opened the prosecution, (Mr. Randolph) took occasion to speak in very handsome, and I doubt not very deserved terms of applause, of a distinguished judge in Virginia. This same judge has published an edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, into which he has introduced a variety of his own opinions on the constitution and laws of the United States. It hereafter a person should be accused under the operation of some of those statutes, on the construction of which judge Tucker has published his comments and opinions, would it be any impeachment of the justice and impartiality of this judge to say, he had made up his opinion, he had reduced it to writing, he had delivered it to the world and therefore he had prejudged the case. No, this would be a sort of reasoning even more absurd than the Rhamnon non sequitur . The house manager (Mr. Randolph) to enforce and exemplify his doctrines on this subject.

LORD MELLVILLE'S CASE.
Mr. Whitbread having moved the resolution of censure against lord Melville in the House of Commons, April 3, which he introduced at considerable length, an interesting discussion followed in which the chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Pitt) expressed his sentiments very fully on the manner in which these charges were advanced and pressed.
The Speaker having put the question on the first resolution, the chancellor of the Exchequer rose and spoke nearly as follows:
Without pretending to deny that the hon. gentleman has in a great measure adhered to the promise which he made of considering this subject with moderation and coolness, I must be permitted to say that he has not persevered in this resolution to the end. Instead of keeping strictly to facts, which ought alone to be considered in a criminal charge, he has appealed to the feelings of various descriptions of persons, upon topics that are not applicable to the present occasion. He has touched upon the public burthens, and hinted at the supposition that these burthens, required by the pressure of the times, have been aggravated by the money, the raising of which forms so heavy a tax on the people.—Sir, I am willing to allow, as every man must, that if the public money be squandered by any malversation on the part of the officers—(hear, hear)—then the matter becomes a subject for grave consideration and serious enquiry. But what I complain of is this, that the hon. gentleman has endeavored to mislead the public, by endeavoring to circulate the notion that great additions have been made to the public burthens, when no such additions have in the smallest degree taken place, for he knows that not a shilling has been lost to the public—(Hear! hear!)—that no allegation of any such loss has been mentioned, and that in fact, no mischief whatever has resulted from this transaction—(A roar of hear! hear! from the opposition benches)—Sir, the house must be sensible that it is very little consistent with the moderation and candor that ought to accompany a serious charge of this nature, to proceed with such violence, and interrupt a member with clamour. But they need not expect to interrupt me with such noise, which I must consider as an attempt to influence the passions of the house; and I have the less doubt on the subject, when I recollect the numberless misrepresentations both in and out of the house on this affair—misrepresentations which have been attended with no little mischief. It has been stated, not only that a very considerable loss has been sustained, but that our seamen have, in consequence of the transactions now before us, been prevented from receiving in proper time the money due to their valour, and their meritorious services. (No! No! from the opposition.) There has not been the slightest grounds for saying any such thing, for I can safely aver that the delay of an hour has never taken place in paying such money, and I do, therefore, most grievously, and justly complain, that this affair has not been treated with proper candor and moderation. But I have not only to complain that the hon. gentleman laid aside that moderation with which he commenced, but that he has given a totally mistaken view of the materials on which he founds his charge. The hon. gentleman tells us that the noble lord had an opportunity of answering for himself, as if he had been on a fair and impartial trial—that questions were put to him—that he was informed as to the nature of the charge against him, and allowed to say whatever he chose in his own defence. Now, whatever inference the house may draw from all this, it was certainly anything but a fair and impartial trial, for it wanted those circumstances that accompany a criminal trial in all well regulated countries. The noble lord had not an opportunity of knowing exactly the charges against him. A copy of these charges had not been given him. He had no opportunity of calling witnesses in his favor, nor of cross-examining those who might appear against him. Above all, it was a point attended to in every trial, that a man should not criminate himself. Now these are circumstances that clearly point out, that neither the noble lord nor the other persons who were examined, ought to be considered as having been brought to any thing like a trial, upon which a final judgment could be safely passed. They had been examined, and required to answer questions without being made acquainted with the exact view with which such questions were put, and without hearing the nature of the enquiry exactly stated to them. I do not lay this, Sir, with any view to give an opinion on the merits of the points before us. My object is to show that our materials are not such as to afford a safe ground for any final decision. With respect to the matters themselves, I do not wish to deny that they are of the most grave and important nature. I do again contend, that the public has not only sustained no loss, but that it has not even sustained any inconvenience from the manner in which
the money was applied. Yet, at the same time, I admit, that if the public money be even incorrectly managed by a public officer, he is responsible for his conduct. But I beg leave to say, that, from a full consideration of this report, I am convinced that all the circumstances are not before us in the full, clear and satisfactory manner, in which they ought to be, before we can give a fair and impartial judgment upon them. If this be the fact, we can much less pass any censure in the present state of the case. If I felt this to be the true state of the question before I came to the house, my opinion is much more confirmed now, from the manner in which the subject has been treated by the right hon. gentleman. He has argued from the documents now before us, but has not attended, in many cases, to several circumstances that vary the nature of some transactions, and the extent and degree of others. The conclusions which he draws are not those of the commissioners, but such as himself finds it convenient to draw from several circumstances combined together, which, from their not being fully known, cannot be completely understood.
The hon. gentleman first rested his case on three grounds, but he afterwards varied it, and reduced it to one single question. He himself, however, has admitted that the whole is so connected together, that it is impossible to pass any judgment on one part of the transaction without taking into account all the rest; and yet, after all this, he proposes that the house should come to a decision on one single part of the charge without pretending to judge of the others, which he leaves to a future occasion. Now, as to the charge of participation, he has not said so much as on the other two—Yet certainly it would have been much more proper that this should not have been mentioned at all, as the hon. gentleman does not mean at present to insist upon it, because, of all others, this is the charge which is most likely to wound the feelings of those who are nearly connected with the noble lord, and of all those impartial men who do not wish that an accusation of such a serious nature should be brought against a man, except under circumstances when they might be prepared to come to a decision on the point. I am desirous, however, that the matter should be examined with all that moderation, seriousness, and coolness, which ought ever to attend an affair of this nature. There are a variety of circumstances wanting that are material, as applicable to the charges;—there are many points that require explanation. Without any long delay, not much beyond the holidays, by agreeing to the motion for a secret committee, for which I shall have the honor to move, the house will have the matter clearly before them; and it is only by this mode of proceeding that the whole can be fully investigated, so as to prepare it for a just and impartial decision. Now, Sir, the first charge is, that certain sums properly applicable only to the naval department, have been applied to other purposes. At present I shall not enter at large either upon this or the other charges—but content myself with shewing the necessity of some further enquiry into the circumstances. Nothing appears here as to the motive with which the thing was done. It is mentioned that the money was applied to other services occasionally. But as to all the circumstances relative to the motive and the precise necessity that existed for making such a loan, we are at present in the dark. Yet the house will agree, that in examining the conduct of a man with a view to pass a sentence of guilty or not guilty, it is of great importance, that the motives which led to the transaction should be known, in order to ascertain the exact degree of delinquency that attaches to it, or whether there is any delinquency in the case at all. Is the house prepared to deny that the transaction may be proved to rest upon such grounds as not only to entitle the noble lord to an indemnity, but even to the highest praise for having incurred the responsibility. I only say this much on this head, in order to induce the house to agree with me, that it would not answer the purpose of justice to come to a decision, without a further examination into the affair.
There is a statement of a sum lent to the treasury. I do not think myself at liberty at present to enter upon a particular examination of that transaction; but whether it was illegal or not; whether any share that I had in it was proper or improper, remains to be enquired into. After this enquiry it will be for the house to determine, whether I am liable to censure or punishment, and I shall submit, as I of course must do, to their decision. In the mean time, however, it is certain that the public have sustained no loss, and it may be supposed that, if any money was applied in any manner suggested in the report, it has been for great public purposes, in which, perhaps, the salvation of the country might be concerned, and which were of such a nature that they could not be executed, except with secrecy. I believe it will be found that two thirds of the sum mentioned in the report were applied in this manner. The noble lord occupied situations in which he alone was
put an analogous case. He stated that a judge holding a criminal court might properly give the legal description of murder, and the circumstances and ingredients that in point of law would constitute this offence. But, says he, he may not go on to apply this definition to the overt acts laid in the indictment. This principle is a novelty to me. I never heard of overt acts in an indictment for murder. The general charge of the offence is laid in legal and general terms, but there is no specification of the particular facts and circumstances by which the charge is to be supported. But suppose a judge, knowing that a man was coming before him for trial, accused of going into the street with a declared resolution to kill the first person he should meet; and this judge were to say to any person or in any place, verbally or in writing, that a killing under such circumstances was murder, and a full manifestation of malice in legal construction, would this be called a prejudication of the case? Is it not a mere declaration of the law existing and established long before the case, which it was the duty of the judge to know, to obey and to declare? If the facts proved before the jury brought the accused within the law, the consequence of conviction followed, not by the will of the judge, but by the sentence of the law; and while this question was left open, the case was in no wise prejudged. To explain this point still further, I will put the case of libelling. This offence, like that of treason, consists of two parts;—the act and the intent. Would it be criminals in a judge, knowing that such a case was to come before him, to inform himself, if necessary, of the law of libel, to make up his mind upon the constituent parts of the offence, and to declare them to the grand jury, the court or any body else? Might he not be of opinion, and write and say, that a libel is a malicious defamation of any person in writing, in order or intending to excite their wrath, or to expose them to public hatred or contempt? Here the fact of publication must be proved and the malicious intent. And might not a judge state what in contemplation of law is a malicious and defamatory writing, and that if such an one is published with intent to injure and defame, it is in law a libel? Apply this doctrine to the case of Fries. May not a judge have an opinion and declare, that an insurrection of a body with intent or in order to resist the execution of any law of the United States, and the carrying that intent into execution by actual force and violence, is treason against the United States by levying war? There is no prejudication in either case; the facts and the intent which constitute the crime, and on which the guilt or innocence of the accused depends, are left wholly untouched, and come without prejudice or bias to the jury. I have heard the phrase "prejudging the law" repeated over and over again. Judge Chase prejudged the law against Fries, we are told—I confess the phrase is a very singular one to me. I know not precisely how to understand it. I can comprehend what is meant when I hear of prejudging a man's case—in prejudging the facts of any case. But as to the law, I presume it is always prejudged; always settled, certain and ascertained. It is never a question in a case of murder, whether a killing with malice premeditated or not; that is murder. The law has prejudged that; and so in all other cases the question is, whether the facts proved bring the case within the law. And so it was in Fries's case, and upon that point judge Chase neither gave nor intimated nor had an opinion; for as the evidence had not been heard, he could not anticipate what facts would be proved.
I hope and trust, Sir, that the first specification of this article is now disposed of to the satisfaction of this hon. court, and the complete justification of the respondent. Part of it, when tested by the evidence, turns out to be wholly unfounded; and the rest which is true, has been fully justified both on principle and by precedent. If there was some haze and error in the conduct of the judge, which however I neither believe nor admit, there was certainly no criminality in the act. There was nothing impure in the motive—nothing injurious in the consequence.
Suffer me now, Sir, to offer you some observations on the second specification of the first article of impeachment. I hope it will not be necessary to trespass greatly on your patience in refuting it. It charges judge Chase with "restricting the counsel for the said John Fries from recurring to such English authorities as they believed apposite, or from citing certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed illustrative of the positions upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client." This charge consists of two parts:—1. it complains of a restriction as to English authorities, and as to American statutes. I will consider them distinctly—first, Sir, permit me to remark that these allegations are made to support the general charge of partiality, oppression and injustice. But what becomes of these pretences when we bear in mind the testimony of Mr. Rawle, the district attorney, and always, and in every situation, a gentleman whose character, in all its relations both public and private, bears the first stamp of respectability, and fears no competition for credit. He has informed this hon. court that this restriction so grievously complained of, and now the subject of a criminal prosecution, was imposed upon him as well as upon the counsel of Fries. Is this the character or the conduct of partiality or oppression? Does it evince that strong appetite the judge is said to have, to drink the heart's blood of this unfortunate German, and stain the pure ermine of justice with his gore. I have always understood by partiality in a judge, a favoring bias to one party to the prejudice of the other; but where a restriction is put equally on both sides, I cannot conjecture how it can be resolved into partiality or oppression. It will be seen presently that as far as this restriction could have any operation, it was friendly in that operation to John Fries. But, Sir, what was this restriction so much complained of and now magnified into a high crime? That certain English decisions in the law of treason, made before the revolution of 1683, should not or ought not to be read to the jury. And pray, Sir, what were these decisions? I will take their character from Mr. Lewis himself, and no man is better acquainted with them. He says they were decisions of dependent and corrupt judges, who carried the doctrine of constructive treason to the most dangerous and extravagant lengths. True, they were sanguinary, cruel and tyrannical in the extreme—and could the exclusion of such cases injure John Fries? If cases which extenuated and softened the crime of treason had been rejected, he might indeed have suffered; but how he was or could be injured by keeping from the jury those cases which aggravated his offence, I am really at a loss to learn.—The restriction there was on the United States. Had they been adduced by the attorney general, no doubt they would have been ably answered by the defendant's counsel; but the ability of the counsel was not inferior to Fries's counsel; and if judge Chase had indeed a design to oppress and injure John Fries, and to convict him on strained constructions of treason, his best policy would surely have been to have suffered these cases to have come forward, and if supported by his authority and the talents of the counsel of the United States, they might have had their influence with the jury, notwithstanding the able refutations they might have received. But why and for what good purpose did the counsel desire to read these cases, operating, if they operated at all, directly against the life of their client? Why would they fatigue the court and impose upon the jury with those wicked and ridiculous decisions against a man who wished his flag's horns in the king's belly—and another, who declared he would make his son heir to the crown. Sir, there could have been but one object in this attempt. It was this, to excite such horror in the minds of the jurors by reciting these tales of tyranny and blood, as would create a general prejudice in them against all the laws of treason. The abhorrence which would be honestly given to such extraordinary cases of cruelty practiced under the law of treason, they hoped would extend itself to all cases of treason, even the most just and upright. I know another and ingenious coloring and pretence has been given for this design, this strange anxiety to read cases, which so strongly support prosecutions for treason. It has been said by Mr. Lewis, not here as a witness, but in Philadelphia as counsel for John Fries, that his object in desiring to read these extravagant cases was of this sort. That many of the decisions on the law of treason made since the revolution of 1683, and which are received as authorities in modern courts, were actually grounded on the iniquitous cases decided before the revolution; and therefore, says Mr. Lewis, we wished to lay these cases before the jury that they might place no reliance on those since the revolution, which were derived from them. Could the gentleman be sincere in this pretence? How far would he carry it? To all decisions since the revolution, and are we to have no adjudications on this subject which may be relied upon as found, legal and virtuous? I apprehend he does not mean so much. He desired I presume only to discredit such of the English decisions since the revolution, as were derived from those corrupt sources alluded to. Then most assuredly, he was premature in his attempt to read these precious cases. If the district attorney should read, and rely upon any case decided since the revolution to convict John Fries, and Mr. Lewis could trace that decision back to the horrible times spoken of, and shew that it was derived from and grounded upon the opinions of those corrupt and dependent judges, it would surely have been competent for him to do so, and no court would have attempted to prevent him. But that he is to deluge the court and jury with a mias of trash and corruption, and so declared to be by himself, by way of anticipation and when no necessity had occurred or probably would occur to justify it, could not be endured by any court knowing its duties and respecting its dignity. These cases
are law, or they are no law. If the former, their operation and influence were against the prisoner; if the latter, the court should not suffer them to be read to mislead and impose upon the jury. So far, Sir, and I shall trouble you no further, on the exclusion of these English statutes. Now, as to the statutes of the United States. That any such restriction was laid on the counsel of John Fries, rests wholly and entirely on the testimony and recollection of Mr. Lewis. I will, Sir, first consider the nature and extent of this charge against the respondent, supposing the fact to be so. I presume it will be granted to me that a judge has some sort of authority in a court; that he does not sit there as a mere cypher, without power or command. Among the acknowledged powers of a judge, is that of regulating and directing in some degree the argument before him, and preventing the introduction of matter either grossly improper or palpably irrelevant to the issue. If then it be demonstrated that these statutes of the United States had really and truly nothing under heaven to do with the trial of John Fries, I hope the judge will not be condemned for excluding them. John Fries, Sir, was indicted for the treason of levying war against the United States, and for no other offence. This crime is created and defined by the constitution of the United States. It became the duty of the attorney of the United States to shew to that court and jury, that the prisoner had been guilty of the treason charged in the indictment according to its definition and description in the constitution, or the prosecution must fail. If, on the other hand he did shew this to the satisfaction of the court and the jury, John Fries must necessarily be convicted. Now, Sir, what possible influence or control could any act of Congress have over the character of a crime defined in and derived from the higher authority of the constitution. The act of Congress could not enlarge, restrict, or in any way alter or affect the constitutional description. To what proper purpose then could any act of Congress be read? Why, Sir, we have heard something about a legislative construction of the constitution; and that these acts of Congress defining sedition and other offences, might be used and were important to shew what was intended by the constitution in the description of treason. In the first place, Sir, Congress in passing these statutes never had the most remote idea or intention of giving any sort of construction or opinion upon the law of treason; and if they had such an intention, it was beyond their powers and rights; and should be wholly disregarded, not only by that court, but by this. The construction of the constitution, in common with every other law, belongs exclusively to the judiciary, as best qualified both from its permanency and independence as well as from legal learning to exercise so important a right. The necessity of a power existing somewhere to judge of the constitution, and of the conformity or non-conformity of laws to the provisions of it, results from the very nature of a written constitution. It is in vain we have an instrument paramount to ordinary legislation, if there is no authority to check encroachments upon it, and there is no department of government with whom this power can be so safely lodged, or by whom it can be so ably and impartially exercised as the judiciary. If the legislature, the very branch of government most controlled by the constitution, and intended to be so, shall be permitted to assume the wide and unlimited right of construction, the constitution will sink at once into a dead and worthless letter; moulded into various, fantastic shapes at the will of the legislature, and purporting one thing to-day and another to-morrow, and nothing at last. But Congress, I repeat, Sir, in passing the sedition law, had no intention whatever of giving their construction to the constitutional description of treason, or of affecting or touching it in any way. The counsel of Fries were therefore about to use or abuse the act of the legislature to purposes never contemplated or intended. Should the court suffer a delusion of this sort to be practiced upon a jury, equally disrespectful to the court and to the Congress?
(To be continued.)
LOST.
On board the ship Jupiter, Capt. L.W., from London bound to New York, the following certificates of United States debt, viz:
  No. 11,137 for 5000 Dolls. defer. 6 per Cts.   11,138 1000 do.   11,139 1000 do.   11,140 1000 do.   11,141 1000 do.   11,142 1000 do. 
Issued by Joseph Norriss, Esq Register of the Treasury, on the 24th May, 1799, in favor of James Haysgate of London, merchant.
For the renewal of which, application will be made at the Treasury of the United States. JOHN DAVIDSON. May 24—ep6w
RAGS.
THE highest price CASH, given for clean RAGS, by EDGAR PATTERSON, George town, and SAMUEL STETTENUS, near the Centre market, Washington.

concerned. Whatever money he might have applied by transferring from one service to another in these situations, I know not, nor can I give any explanation. But if the largest sum be clearly and explicitly accounted for, even tho' the noble lord should not be able now to account for the rest, and I am not aware that he can, this will at least go to induce the house to believe that the remainder might be applied with equal propriety. Now another point of accusation is, that sums were allowed to remain in the hands of the pay-master, from which lord Melville understood him to have derived some private benefit before these sums were applied to the public service. I beg leave at present not to be understood as pretending to say that it is justifiable in any person to apply the public money to views of private emolument, even though no loss has accrued to the public money. (Dear! Dear!) This matter will come to be discussed when the affair is completely before us. But this I do affirm that it is most material that we should be fully acquainted with the nature of the mischief done, and the extent to which it has been carried. The commissioners, it ought to be observed, do not pretend to say that there were larger issues from the exchequer to the bank than if a more plain and correct mode of conducting the business of the navy had been adopted. They admit as a fact, that the issues were not larger. There were none that could increase or accelerate the employment of the money, and consequently it is evident that the burden of the people have not been augmented; nor has it been proved that a single individual has been retarded in receiving his payments. The honorable gentleman, therefore, brings charges founded upon statements which the commissioners themselves did not intend to represent as any grounds of blame. I do not say that in the application of the money to different purposes from what it was originally designed, especially to purchase, there was no risk. But then if no loss has been incurred, this ought to be accounted a strong presumption that the money was not applied without proper care and security. It does not appear that any service has been rendered by this transaction. Upon the whole, it is certainly my opinion, and I trust that those who have read the report carefully, have perceived, that before a proper decision can be given, many circumstances of elucidation are required. In some points it also appears from the report, that the commissioners are not altogether accurate, and this constitutes another ground for having this subject further listed. One of these points is this:—It seems that money had been carried to the house of Messrs. Courts and Co. not by draughts on the bank, which is the usual way, but another mode which has been occasionally resorted to. On this account the commissioners supposed that the money had not been transmitted from the bank immediately to the house of Courts & Co. but had been lodged somewhere else before it came into their hands. By this means they imagined that six millions were in they knew not what hazard, and one million they stated at a particular period. This million was, in fact, transmitted directly to the house of Courts, as would appear on a further enquiry; therefore, this main point would have been explained to the satisfaction of the commission, if it had been more fully investigated.
Another point is the manner in which the accounts were kept, and the payments made by the sub-accountants. It is certain that it has always been found convenient that a small balance should remain in the hands of the sub-accountants. A large sum was drawn on the bank, and this, for the sake of convenience in their payments, was given in small sums to the sub-accountants who often kept them in the bank in their own names, and drew as they found it necessary to satisfy their different small demands. Why then the question arises, whether it was necessary that larger sums should be issued from the Exchequer to the bank, in consequence of an individual drawing profit from the use of some of the money, and whether any inconvenience occurred from this circumstance? Now the house knew that no money can be issued from the exchequer to the bank on account of the treasurer of the navy, without the order of the navy board, the board of admiralty, the victualling board, and others connected with that department. The commissioners seemed to suppose that this had been decided, and that it was impossible that larger sums should not have been issued than was actually necessary for the immediate demands of the service. With regard to any inconvenience, none had been alleged, nor was any ground stated for a charge on that head. But there is another circumstance of some importance, which deserves to be mentioned, and the commissioners seemed not clearly to have understood. In attending to the balances they do not appear to have taken into account certain assignments outstanding for which the holders might demand instant payment. With regard to the total balances in the bank, they said that they ought not to exceed twenty days, whereas, in fact, they observe
that they amounted to thirty-three, and sometimes to forty-five days. They seemed, however, to think, that they might fairly be fourteen days. When they found forty-five days balances, they took an unfavorable period—but if they had taken the average of two periods, if they had looked at the assignments outstanding, and deducted the sums in the out parts, the balances would be brought to fourteen days, the number mentioned by the clerk, whom they examined, and only six days beyond their own number. Now on a point so involved, where it is necessary that accuracy should be consulted, and where that can only be attained by patient investigation, I leave it to the house to judge whether the matter is in a proper situation for a decision. With regard to the point of the balance there are no less than four errors. This may show to the house how very complicated these things are. They cannot be prepared for the final decision of the house without a secret committee, who may examine the whole with patience and attention. Now, with regard to another point, that of the participation, that is a transaction in which above all, further investigation is of importance. After what the hon. gentleman said at the outset of his speech, with respect to his moderation, I did hope that this point would not have been touched upon, especially after the letter written by the noble lord, which must be considered of equal weight with his oath. The hon. gentleman observed, that lord Melville had refused to answer the commissioners when they questioned him relative to his deriving any private advantage from the application of the money. But whoever looks at the report cannot but be convinced that the grounds on which the noble lord refused to answer, were, that from the manner in which Mr. Trotter kept his accounts, it was impossible for him to say, that he had not advanced him public money without his knowledge. On the face of the account 100,000l. is the whole sum of the advance to lord Melville. It is known, that of all the sums of 160 millions which had passed through the hands of lord Melville every farthing had been applied to the purposes for which it was issued, and has been regularly accounted for. The hon. gentleman draws his suppositions from different particulars; the exact result of which it is extremely difficult to estimate. All this renders it necessary that the matter should be further investigated. Now, if a committee be appointed to sit this transaction to the bottom, I will venture to assert , that it will be proved, from the manner in which the accounts were kept, a great many sums drawn in the name of the treasurer, for his private account, were, in fact, applied to official purposes. But, at all events, a further investigation is necessary, before judgment is passed. It is impossible to say, at present, what went to lord Melville's salary, as treasurer, which Mr. Trotter was accustomed to receive. He was also accustomed to receive a salary on account of an office in Scotland, and his dividends in the funds. All these formed a part of the account, and made it extremely difficult to unravel. How in these circumstances can the house refuse to institute an enquiry by a select committee? I put it to the candor of the gentlemen of the house whether lord Melville could possibly wish to receive any of this petty private benefit, with the conviction that he was acting improperly? No motive appears for such a strange circumstance. Why, then, it is evident, we have not the materials for a final decision before us. It is evident that lord Melville had not an opportunity of defending himself before the commissioners. They put questions which he was required to answer, but he had not witnesses, nor any power to cross examine them. I now, therefore, stand up, according to the course of parliament for a secret committee to sit this affair to the bottom. This cannot occasion any delay that will be of material consequence, and besides the thing is absolutely necessary in order to answer the purposes of justice. I shall not at present enter upon the merits of the subject, because I think it would be premature. When the whole case is before the house, then an opportunity will be given to discuss the matter, and come to a just and impartial decision. I shall now, therefore, only move, by way of amendment, that the circumstances relative to the conduct of lord Melville, as treasurer of the navy, to be found in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, be referred to a select committee of this house, to examine the matter fully, and report as shall appear to them to the house.
Mr. Fox objected, that the mode proposed, as he conceived, from his recollection of a case that happened about five and twenty years ago, would prevent the original resolutions from appearing on the journals of the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered, that he meant to substitute his motion for that proposed; and, for that purpose, to move the previous question upon each of the resolutions.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, JUNE 10.
In addition to the interesting information contained in the following official papers, we are enabled, from an authentic source, to state, that at SURINAM, naval stores, as well as all the articles enumerated in the subjoined proclamations, are admitted in any neutral vessel.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, Bridge Town, 9th April, 1805.
MR. ORDERSON, WHEREAS IN HIS EXCELLENCY'S second proclamation, bearing date the 2d inst. the preamble alledges a former one to have been misunderstood, we request that you will be good enough to insert under this, His Excellency's proclamation bearing date the 23. October, 1804, and likewise that bearing date the 2d inst. in order that the public may, by being able to compare them, be satisfied that no misconception has arisen on our part. The two proclamations differ in these particulars:— 1st, The former one lays open the trade to and from this Island, with all neutrals not in hostility with His Majesty; and the latter restricts it to Americans only, and goes on the actual produce of the United States; and 2ly, In the number of specified articles, which the former Proclamation admits here, the latter excepts to the importation of Horses.
H. DALRYMPLE, Collector. SAM. REDDISH, Comptroller.
Barbadoes. By his Excellency the Governor, &c.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas by my proclamation issued on the 16th day of this inst. October, in Council, I did admit certain articles therein specified, of American produce to be imported into this island in foreign bottoms: and whereas on the 17th day of this month I received a letter from Earl Camden, one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, dated "D. Wning Fleet, 5th Sept. 1804," whereof the following is an extract—"I am to instruct you not to open the ports of the island over which you preside, for the admission of articles from the American states, which are not allowed to be imported by law (except in cases of real and very great necessity) and not to fail to apprise me in every instance wherein you shall so do, and to state at the same time the reasons which induced you to adopt the measure."
"Now, know ye, that in consequence thereof I do, by and with the advice of his Majesty's Council for this island, revoke my said Proclamation of the 16th inst. and do, by and with the advice and consent of his Majesty's Council as aforesaid, issue this my present Proclamation, informing all concerned, that, whereas I look upon the following articles:—scantling, planks, slats, heading, boards, shingles, hoops or squared timber of any sort, horses, neat cattle, sheep, hogs, poultry, or live stock of any sort;—bread, biscuit, flour, peas, beans, potatoes, wheat, rice, oats, barley, or grain of any sort; as being of the first necessity, and such as the Colony cannot exist without, no more than they can be supplied with from Britain or her other colonies: I do by and with the advice of his Majesty's Council for this island, permit the above articles to be imported into this island in the ships or vessels of powers not in hostility with his Majesty; and that for the space of one year, and until this proclamation shall be recalled by me or the commander in chief of this island for the time being: whereof all concerned are to take notice.
Given under my hand and seal at Arms, in the Council chamber at Pilgrim, this 23d day of October, 1804." Sec. &c. &c.
Barbadoes. By his Excellency the Governor, &c.
A PROCLAMATION.
"Whereas on the 23d day of October, last, I did, for the reasons therein mentioned, issue my proclamation by and with the advice of his Majesty's Council, admitting, under the restrictions therein mentioned, the importation of certain articles in neutral bottoms. And whereas the intent and meaning of my said proclamation seems to have been misunderstood: Now, know ye, that the intent of my said proclamation is to allow, under the restrictions and for the time therein specified, the articles therein enumerated (horses excepted) to be imported from the United States of America, being the actual produce of the United States, in neutral bottoms, and the vessels of the said states are not to be allowed to enter at the ports of this island any articles whatsoever not being of the produce of the said states. And my said proclamation of the 23d of October, with the interpretation herein given to it, stands hereby confirmed.
"Given under my hand and seal at Arms, in the council chamber, this 2d day of April, 1805." &c.
A new life boat, on a very superior construction, was launched some days ago at Dover, while the wind and the surf were so high that no other boat could venture out to sea. At a certain time she appeared completely lost between the billows, which immediately after she mounted with surprising agility. In the midst of the storm, her sails were managed with the greatest ease. After going out a considerable distance, she returned to shore, and ran upon the beach without the slightest injury. She is called a Cab.
London Paper.
New York, June 7.
Capt. Edwards from Madeira, informs that news was received just before he sailed, of the Toulon fleet having arrived at Cadiz; that they ran in there in the night; and that lord Nelson was lying off the harbour. The Portuguese were in expectation of a war with England; and several British men of war were daily off Madeira.
NEW-YORK, June 5.
A conspiracy, says a London paper, has been discovered in the electorate of Wirtemberg. The number of persons arrested are considerable. The object of the conspiracy was to carry off the electress, princess royal of England, and a number of other persons in high credit with the court. A special commission is appointed to examine the prisoners. Most of them have been confined in a citadel.
American Academy of Arts.
By private letters from Paris, we learn, that his majesty the emperor Napoleon has presented to Mr. Livingston, late minister from the United States to the French court, on behalf of the Academy of Arts established in this city, and of which his majesty is an honorary member, a very valuable collection, estimated at fifty thousand livres 10,000 dollars. It must be matter of pride to the inhabitants of this city, to have given birth to an institution, which has shown itself worthy of such distinguished patronage; and it is hoped, that this high testimonial of respect, will inspire them with fresh zeal for the advancement of an establishment, which has attracted such conspicuous attention abroad, and which, if properly supported, cannot fail to add lustre to our national character.
Admiral Missiessy, who commanded the French squadron, lately in the West Indies, is an old officer of the French marine. In the American war he blockaded up sir Roger Curtis, at Port Mahon, in Minorca.
We yesterday received a letter from our correspondent at Havana; but he observes, that nothing new had transpired relative to governmental affairs since his former communication concerning the imprisonment of the American consul.
We are informed by a gentleman who was lately in Paris, that the emperor Bonaparte had made Mr. Livingston a present of a rich portrait of himself which cost forty thousand florins. Accompanying the portrait was a complimentary letter, from Bonaparte.
The brig Levant, arrived yesterday from Malaga, touched at Gibraltar and got under weigh with the U. S. brig Syren, lieut. Stewart, bound to Tangiers. Saw her afterwards in a bay where two Tripolitans were said to be lying. The schooner Two Brothers, Lindley, of Marblehead, likewise failed from Gibraltar in company with the Levant, and afterwards spoke her. Capt. Lindley informed that he had seen the privateers run under the fort when the Syren entered the bay.
New York, June 4.
FROM FRANCE.
By a passenger in the brig Alliance, from Nantz, the Editors of the New York Gazette have received the following interesting information:
"His Majesty the Emperor of France and King of Italy left Paris the 28th March last for Milan, there to be crowned king; the 25th of May was appointed for the coronation. Previous to his leaving Paris, he was pleased to order the long pending American claims to be closed, reserving three millions of livres to be applied to any unsubstantiated claims that remained behind. The American minister had given notice to the several claimants that he was ready to draw on the American government for the amount of their respective awards, in such sums as they should choose, and in francs."
"Mr. Livingston, our late minister to the French court, had returned to Paris from Italy, and with his family was expected at Nantz, in order to embark for New York in the ship Mississippi, capt. H. Skidmore, to sail the 10th or 15th of May."
"The Pope left Paris the 3d of April."
"Gen. Murat has been created a prince, and appointed Grand Admiral of France."
"The Toulon fleet had been out 19 days when the Alliance failed."
"Bulwer was extremely dull at Nantz, there was a total stagnation. Colonial produce pouring in from all parts of America and Lisbon. Coffee was 48 sous, cotton dull."
"Some warm notes had passed between Mr. Armstrong, the American minister, and M. Talleyrand, respecting the conduct of the American government towards Spain. Dispatches respecting which are brought by the Alliance to the secretary of state. General Napoleon has told Mr. Armstrong, that the Spanish government cannot, nor shall not, pay the demands of America at present."
"It was reported that Lucien Bonaparte was arrested in Italy, by order of Napoleon. Some said he was in the Temple at Paris."
"Admiral Bruix, commander of the Imperial Fleet, at Brest, and inspector of the coasts of the ocean, died in Paris the 20th of March, of grief; in consequence of a blow in the face from the Emperor, during a private audience at the Tuileries."
PHILADELPHIA, June 5.
From Lisbon, May 2.—Since our last of the 26th ult. we have had the arrival of several more cargoes of wheat from France and some of flour from America, the greater part of which would probably have been re-exported to Spain in our small coasters; but this trade for a moment, is checked by the appearance of an Algerine squadron who have made some captures near Cape St. Vincent; a Portuguese squadron is fitting out to oppose them. In the interior tales for exportation are suspended, and for the consumption of the country they are not now so brisk as they have been.
"The appearance of our harvest is very favorable, and should it continue so, prices will be no doubt lower during the summer which we think it our duty to communicate to you, and hope the information may be useful. Flour 20 dollars. 50 cents."
On Monday afternoon the editor of the Freeman's Journal was arrested by virtue of a warrant under the hand and seal of Matthew Lawler, mayor of this city, on the oath of Thomas P. Norris, charging him with publishing a malicious, false, and scandalous libel against his character and reputation, in the Journal of Monday May 27th, 1805. The editor accordingly entered into a recognizance of 500 dollars, with two sureties in 250 dollars each, to appear at the next mayor's court, (June 27th) to keep the peace & be of good behavior during the said time, &c. &c.
FREEMAN'S JOURNAL.
Baltimore, June 5.
By capt. M'Neal of the Three Brothers, arrived from Antigua yesterday, we learn that on the 16th ult. the gov. of Antigua had received dispatches from the government of Barbadoes, stating, that the combined Spanish and French fleets, consisting of fifty-two sail has been seen steering westward from the coast of Europe.
The Stock-holders in the THEATRE are requested to meet at RHODES TAVERN on FRIDAY next at 10 A. M. for the purpose of electing a Board of Directors for the ensuing year.
NOTICE.
THE Inhabitants residing West of the President's square, are requested to meet at the house late Israel Loring's Vendue store, on Monday next at half past 7 o'clock in the evening, for the purpose of instructing the representatives from the western wards, to vacate their seats in a Council, unduly elected, and which can neither represent nor possess the confidence of the citizens generally.
June 8.
For Sale or Rent, A TWO STORY HOUSE, near the Branch Bank on E street, containing 5 rooms a good cellar and a garden. Possession may be had immediately, for terms apply to
LEWIS MORIN, Pennsylvania Avenue.
June 10.—3t District of Columbia, county of Washington, to wit:
UPON the petition of John Thomas Frost, an insolvent debtor confined in jail in the county of Washington, in the district aforesaid, praying relief under the act of congress, entitled, "An act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia," it is ordered that notice of his application be given to his creditors and that on the 17th day of June inst. at 9 o'clock, A. M. at the court room in the Capitol the oath of an insolvent debtor will be administered to the said John Thomas Frost, and a trustee appointed agreeably to the said act, unless sufficient cause then and there be shown to the contrary.
It is also ordered that this notice be published three times in the National Intelligencer and Washington Federalist prior to that day.
By order of the hon. Wm. Cranch, esquire, one of the assistant judges of the Circuit court of the district of Columbia. U. FORREST, Ck. June 10.—3t

PROPOSALS
For carrying the Mails of the United States, on the following post-roads, will be received at the General post-office, in Washington until the 10th day of July next, inclusive.
IN MAINE
1. FROM Saco by Dennysville, Machias, Grandis, Calais, Harrington, Steuben and Gouldsboro' to Sullivan once a week.
May 1 to November 1.—Leave Saco every Wednesday at 2 p m and arrive at Dennysville by 6 p m. Leave Dennysville at 7 a m and arrive at Sullivan on the next Sunday by 6 p m. Returning —Leave Sullivan every Sunday at 6 a m and arrive at Dennysville on Wednesday by 6 a m. Leave Dennysville at 7 a m and arrive at Saco on the next Sunday by 6 p m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Saco every Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Sullivan on Monday by 10 a m. Leave Sullivan on Monday at 2 p m and arrive at Saco on Tuesday by 6 p m.
2. From Dennysville to Ellport once a week. Leave Dennysville every Wednesday at 6 a m and arrive at Ellport at 9 a m. Leave Ellport at noon and arrive at Dennysville by 2 p m.
3. From Sullivan by Trenton, Bluehill, Calais, Buckalo, Prospect, Belfast and Ducktrap to Camden once a week.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Sullivan every Monday at 1 p m and arrive at Camden on Wednesday by 6 p m. Leave Camden every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Sullivan on Monday by 10 a m.
4. From Buckton by Frankfort, Hampden, Bangor, Eddington and Orrington to Buckton once a week. Leave Buckton every Friday at 8 a m and arrive at Eddington by 4 p m. Leave Eddington every Saturday at 4 a m and arrive at Buckton on Monday by 2 p m.
5. From Camden by Thomaston, Warren, Waldoboro', Noblesboro' and Newcastle to Wiscasset twice a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Wiscasset every Wednesday and Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Camden on Thursday and Saturday by 11 a m. Leave Camden every Tuesday and Thursday at 1 p m and arrive at Wiscasset on Wednesday and Friday by 11 a m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Camden every Monday and Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Wiscasset by 6 p m. Leave Wiscasset every Thursday and Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Camden by 6 p m.
6. From Wiscasset by New Milford, Dethier, Gardner, Hallowell, Augusta, Waterville, Monmouth, Green, Lewistown, New Gloucester, Gray and Falmouth to Portland once a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Portland every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Hallowell on Tuesday by 3 p m. Leave Hallowell at 4 p m and arrive at Wiscasset on Wednesday by 11 a m. Leave Wiscasset every Wednesday at 2 p m and arrive at Hallowell on Thursday by 8 a m. Leave Hallowell at 9 a m and arrive at Portland on Friday by 7 p m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Portland every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Wiscasset on Thursday by 6 p m. Returning —Leave Wiscasset every Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Portland on Monday by 10 a m.
7. From Hallowell by Augusta, Waterville, Fairfield and Canaan to Norridgewock once a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Hallowell every Thursday at noon and arrive at Norridgewock on Friday by 6 p m. Leave Norridgewock every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Hallowell on Monday by 7 a m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Hallowell every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Norridgewock on Sunday by 6 p m. Leave Norridgewock on Monday at 6 p m and arrive at Hallowell on Tuesday by 6 p m.
8. From Hallowell by Augusta, Mt. Vernon, Doyl, Sharon, Farmington, Chester, Readfield and Augusta to Hallowell once a week. Leave Hallowell every Thursday at noon and arrive at Farmington on Friday by 6 p m. Leave Farmington every Wednesday at 6 a m and arrive at Hallowell on Thursday by 10 a m.
9. From Wiscasset by Bath, Brunswick, North Yarmouth, and Falmouth to Portland three times a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Wiscasset every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Portland the next days by 11 a m. Leave Portland every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 p m and arrive at Wiscasset the next days by 11 a m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Wiscasset every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 a m and arrive at Portland by 6 p m. Leave Portland every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a m and arrive at Wiscasset by 6 p m.
10. From Brunswick, by Buxton and Litchfield, to Hallowell, once a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Brunswick every Friday at 7 a m and arrive at Hallowell by 3 p m. Leave Hallowell
well at 6 p m and arrive at Brunswick on Saturday by 2 p m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Brunswick every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Hallowell by 6 p m. Leave Hallowell every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Brunswick by 6 p m.
11. From Portland, by Windham, Bridgton, Waterville, Paris, Buckfield, Turner, Norway and Poland to Portland, once a week. Leave Portland every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Turner on Thursday by 10 a m. Leave Turner every Saturday at 6 p m and arrive at Portland the next Monday by 4 p m.
12. From Portland, by Saccarappa, Gorham, Standish, Falmouth, Hiram and Brownfield to Friburg once a week. Leave Portland every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Friburg by 10 a m. Returning —Leave Friburg every Tuesday at 2 p m and arrive at Portland on Wednesday by 6 p m.
13. From Portland by Gorham, Buckfield, Limerick, Limington, Parsonsfield, Newfield, Shapleigh, Lebanon, Doyl, Sanford, Alfred, and Waterville to Portland once a week. Leave Portland every Monday at 11 a m and arrive at Doyl on Wednesday by 6 p m. Leave Doyl on Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Portland the next Monday by 8 a m.
14. From Portland by Scarboro', Biddeford, Kennebunk, Doyl, Saccarappa, Berwick and Dover N. H. to Portsmouth three times a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Portland every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Portsmouth the next Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by noon. Returning —Leave Portsmouth every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 12 1-2 p m and arrive at Portland on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday by 11 1-2 a m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Portland every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Portsmouth by 6 p m. Leave Portsmouth every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a m and arrive at Portland by 6 p m.
15. From Portland by Scarboro', Biddeford, Kennebunk, Wells, and York to Portsmouth three times a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Portland every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 1 1-2 p m and arrive at Portsmouth the next days by 11 a m. Returning —Leave Portsmouth every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8 p m and arrive at Portland the next days by 11 a m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Portland every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Portsmouth by 6 p m. Leave Portsmouth every Monday, Wednesday and Friday by 6 a m and arrive at Portland by 6 p m.
16. From Wiscasset to Booth Bay once a week. Leave Booth Bay every Wednesday at 7 a m and arrive at Wiscasset by 11 a m. Leave Wiscasset at 1 p m and arrive at Booth Bay by 5 p m.
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
17. From Portsmouth by Dover, Rochester, Middletown, Oppe, Moultoboro', Center Harbor, and Plymouth to Dover and Newbury V. and from Newbury by Haverhill, Plymouth, New Hampshire, Meredith, Gilmanstown, Nottingham and Durham to Portsmouth once a week. Leave Portsmouth every Tuesday at 2 p m and arrive at Plymouth on Thursday by 7 p m. Leave Plymouth on Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Haverhill on Friday by 5 p m and at Newbury by 7 p m. Returning —Leave Newbury every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Plymouth by 6 p m. Leave Plymouth at 7 p m and arrive at Portsmouth on Tuesday by 10 a m.
18. From Fryburg in Maine by Conway, Bartlett, Rolfe's brooks, and Jefferson to Lancaster once in two weeks. Leave Fryburg every other Tuesday at 1 p m and arrive at Lancaster on Wednesday by 6 p m. Leave Lancaster every other Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Fryburg on Tuesday by 10 a m.
19. From Exeter by Epping, Nottingham, Epsom, Pembroke, Concord, Salisbury, Grafton, Lebanon and Pelham to Hanover once a week. Leave Exeter every Tuesday at 9 a m and arrive at Concord by 10 a m on Wednesday. Leave Concord at 11 a m and arrive at Salisbury by 3 p m. Leave Salisbury at 4 p m and arrive at Hanover on Friday by 8 a m. Returning —Leave Hanover every Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Concord on Saturday by 2 p m. Leave Concord at 3 p m and arrive at Exeter on Monday by 3 p m.
20. From Portsmouth by Exeter, Kingston, Haverhill, Andover, Wilmingdon, Woburn, Medford and Charlestown, to Boston three times a week. Leave Portsmouth every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 3 a m and arrive at Exeter by 7 1-2 a m. Leave Exeter at 8 a m and arrive at Boston by 7 p m. Returning —Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 3 a m and arrive at Exeter by 3 1-2 p m. Leave Exeter at 4 p m and arrive at Portsmouth by 7 p m.
21. From Exeter by Chester, Londonderry, Merrimack, Amherst, Peterboro', Marlboro', and Chesterfield to Brattleboro' once a week. Leave Exeter every Tuesday at 9 a m and arrive at Chesterfield by 1 p m. Returning —Leave Chesterfield every Monday and Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Exeter on Tuesday and Friday by 10 a m. Leave Chesterfield on Wednesday and Saturday at 5 a m and arrive at Londonderry by 1 p m. Returning —Leave Londonderry every Monday and Thursday at 11 a m and arrive at Exeter on Tuesday and Friday by 7 p m. Leave Exeter on
Leave Exeter every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Amherst on Wednesday evening, arrive at Keene on Thursday by 3 p m. Leave Keene at 4 p m and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 10 a m. Returning —Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Keene on Saturday by 9 a m. Leave Keene at 10 a m and arrive at Exeter the next Monday by 3 p m.
22. From Salisbury by Andover, New Chester and Bridgewater to Plymouth and thence by Holderness, New Hampshire and Saabourntown to Salisbury one week and the reverse the next week. Leave Salisbury every Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Plymouth by 1 p m. Leave Plymouth at 2 p m and arrive at Salisbury on Friday by noon.
23. From Hanover by Orford, Haverhill, Bath, Littleton, Dalton, Lancaster, Goffstown, Lunenburg and Concord to Littleton, thence by Bath, Haverhill and Orford to Hanover once a week. Leave Hanover every Friday at 9 a m and arrive at Haverhill by 6 p m. Leave Haverhill at 5 p m and arrive at Goffstown on Sunday noon and return to Hanover the next Tuesday by 6 p m.
24. From Newburyport by Haverhill and Salem to Windham once a week. Leave Windham every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Newburyport by one p m. Leave Newburyport every Monday at 4 p m and arrive at Windham on Tuesday by noon.
IN VERMONT.
25. From Littleton N. H. by Littleton V. St. Johnsbury, Danville, Waver, Greenboro', Craftsboro', Eden and Johnson to St. Albans, once in two weeks. Leave Littleton N. H. every other Monday at 6 a m and arrive at St. Albans, the next Wednesday by 6 p m. Leave St. Albans every other Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Littleton N. H. on Saturday by 6 p m.
26. From Windsor by Woodstock, Royalton, Randolph, Williamstown, Berlin, Montpelier, Middlesex, Waterbury, Bolton, Jericho, and Wiltton to Burlington once a week. Leave Windsor every Saturday at 2 p m and arrive at Montpelier on Monday by 3 p m and at Burlington on Tuesday by 1 p m. Returning —Leave Burlington at 3 p m on Tuesday, arrive at Montpelier on Wednesday by 6 p m and arrive at Windsor on Friday by noon.
27. From Montpelier by Berlin, Barre, Washington, Corinth, Bradford, Newbury, Ryegate, Barnet and Peacham to Danville once a week. Leave Montpelier every Thursday at noon, arrive at Newbury on Friday by 7 p m. Leave Newbury every Saturday at 5 a m and arrive at Danville by 5 p m. Returning —Leave Danville every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Montpelier on Thursday by 11 a m.
28. From Rutland, by Pitsfield, Brattleboro', Manchester, Middlebury, New Haven, Vergennes, Ferrisburg, Charlotte, Shelburne, Burlington, Colchester, Milton, Georgia, St. Albans and Swanton to Highgate once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 5 a m and arrive at Burlington on Tuesday by 4 p m and arrive at Highgate on Wednesday by 7 p m. Returning —Leave Highgate every Thursday at 5 a m and arrive at Burlington on Friday by 8 a m and arrive at Rutland on Saturday by 7 p m.
29. From Rutland by Castleton, Fairhaven, Brandon, Orwell, Shoreham, Addison, Vergennes, Willsboro', Essex, C. H. Peru and Plattsburg to Champlain once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 5 a m and arrive at Fairhaven by 10 a m. Leave Fairhaven at 11 a m and arrive at Champlain on Thursday by 10 a m. Returning —Leave Champlain every Thursday at 2 p m and arrive at Rutland the next Sunday by 6 p m.
30. From Middlebury by New Haven, Meneton, Hydesburgh, Wiliston, Jericho, Essex, Westford, Fairfax, Fairfield and Sheldon to Huntshurg and thence by Berkshire, Enniskill, Bakerfield, Cambridge, Underkill, Jericho, Richmond, Huntington, Starksboro' & Bristol to Middlebury once a week. Leave Middlebury every Tuesday at 6 a m, and arrive at Jericho by 4 p m and at Huntshurg on Friday by 2 p m. Returning —Leave Huntshurg every Friday at 3 p m, and arrive at Middlebury on Monday by 7 p m.
31. From Rutland by Clarendon, Shrewsbury, Salis and Reading to Windsor once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Windsor by 10 a m. Returning —Leave Windsor every Tuesday at 2 p m and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday by 7 p m.
32. From Rutland by Clarendon, Danby, Dorset, Manchester, Arlington, Shaftsbury, Bennington and Pittsfield to Lansingburg twice a week. Leave Rutland every Monday and Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Bennington on Tuesday and Friday by 10 a m. Leave Bennington Wednesday and Saturday at 5 a m and arrive at Lansingburg by 1 p m. Returning —Leave Lansingburg every Monday and Thursday at 11 a m and arrive at Bennington by 7 p m. Leave Bennington on
Tuesday and Friday at 5 a m and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday and Saturday by 6 p m.
33. From Rutland by Cavendish, Chester, Rockingham, Bellows Falls and Westminster to Walpole once a week. Leave Rutland every Wednesday at 2 p m and arrive at Walpole by 6 p m on Thursday. Leave Walpole every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Rutland on Sunday by 10 a m.
34. From Bennington, by Marlboro' Wilmington and Woodford, to Brattleboro' once a week. Leave Bennington every Thursday at 9 p m and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 11 a m. Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Bennington on Saturday by 4 p m.
IN MASSACHUSETTS.
35. From Salem, by Danvers, Topsfield, Boxford, Haverhill and Gloucester, to Pembroke N. H. once a week. Leave Salem every Monday at 1 p m and arrive at Pembroke on Tuesday by 6 p m. Leave Pembroke every Saturday at 7 p m and arrive at Salem on Monday by 10 a m.
36. From Boston, by Salem and Manchester, to Gloucester three times a week. Leave Gloucester every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Boston by 6 p m. Leave Boston every Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Gloucester by 6 p m.
37. From Salem to Marblehead six times a week. Leave Salem every day (Sunday excepted) at noon and arrive at Marblehead by 1 p m. Leave Marblehead every day at 2 p m and arrive at Salem by 3 p m.
38. From Boston, by Medford, Woburn, Billerica, Chelmsford, Tyngsboro', Dunstable, Amherst, Francisstown, Washington and Claremont, to Windsor, Vt. once a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday at 5 a m, arrive at Billerica by noon and at Amherst by 7 p m. Leave Amherst on Thursday at 5 a m and arrive at Windsor by 6 p m. Returning —Leave Windsor every Monday at 5 a m and arrive at Amherst by 6 p m. Leave Amherst on Tuesday at 5 a m and arrive at Boston by 5 p m.
39. From Billerica, by Patuxet bridge, D. cut, Pelham and Windham, to Londonderry once a week. Leave Billerica every Wednesday at 1 p m and arrive at Londonderry on Thursday by 9 a m. Leave Londonderry every Thursday at 10 a m and arrive at Billerica by 7 p m.
40. From Boston, by Concord, Lexington, Groton, Townsend, Athol, New Ipswich, Jaffrey, Milford and Keene, to Walpole twice a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday and Saturday at 4 a m and arrive at Keene on Thursday and Monday by noon. Leave Keene at 12 1-2 p m and arrive at Walpole by 9 p m. Returning —Leave Walpole every Wednesday and Saturday at 4 a m and arrive at Keene by noon. Leave Keene at 12 1-2 p m and arrive at Boston on Thursday and Monday by 8 p m.
41. From Concord, by Stow, Bolton and Lancaster, to Leominster twice a week. Leave Concord every Wednesday and Saturday at 1 p m and arrive at Leominster, by 7 p m. Leave Leominster every Monday and Thursday at 5 a m and arrive at Concord by 11 a m.
42. From Leominster, by Westminster, Templeton, Gerry, Athol, New Salem, Wendell and Montague, to Greenfield one week. Leave Leominster every Thursday at 5 a m and arrive at Greenfield by 7 p m. Leave Greenfield every Friday at 5 a m and arrive at Leominster by 7 p m.
43. From Worcester, by Boylston and Sterling, to Lancaster once a week. Leave Worcester every Wednesday at 8 a m and arrive at Lancaster by noon. Leave Lancaster every Wednesday at 1 p m and arrive at Worcester by 5 p m.
44. From Worcester, by Holden, Rutland, Barre, Petersham, Athol, Orange, Warwick, Northfield, New Salem, Wendell and Kinross, to Brattleboro' once a week. Leave Worcester every Thursday at 5 a m and arrive at Brattleboro' Friday by 10 a m. Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Worcester on Saturday by 7 p m.
45. From Shrewsbury, by Holden, Rutland, Greene, Hardwick, Pelham, Amherst and Hadley, to Northampton once a week. Leave Shrewsbury every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Northampton on Wednesday by 10 a m. Leave Northampton every Wednesday at 1 p m and arrive at Shrewsbury on Thursday by 7 p m.
46. From Brookfield, by Belchertown, Hadley, Northampton, Chesterfield, Worthington, Partridgefield, Dalton, Pittsfield, Hancock and New Lebanon, to Albany twice a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Brookfield every Monday and Thursday at 9 a m and arrive at Albany on Tuesday and Friday by 7 p m. Leave Albany every Wednesday and Saturday at 9 a m and arrive at Brookfield on Thursday and Monday by 7 p m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Brookfield every Monday and Thursday at 9 a m and arrive at Northampton by 7 p m. Leave Northampton every Tuesday and Friday at 5 a m and arrive at Albany on
Wednesday & Saturday by 3 p m. Returning —Leave Albany every Tuesday & Friday at 9 a m and arrive at Pittsfield by 8 p m. Leave Pittsfield every Wednesday & Saturday at 5 a m and arrive at Northampton by 3 p m. Leave Northampton every Thursday & Monday at 4 a m and arrive at Brookfield by 7 p m.
47. From Suffield, by Westfield, Southampton, Northampton, Hatfield, Whiteley, Deerfield, Greenfield, Barnardstown, Hinddale, Brattleboro', Farny, Westminster, Walpole, Charlestown, Claremont, Cornish, Windham, Hartland & Pitsfield, to Haverhill twice a week. Leave Suffield every Monday and Thursday at 4 a m and arrive at Northampton at 1 p m and arrive at Brattleboro' on Tuesday and Friday by 10 a m. Leave Brattleboro' at 1 p m and arrive at Windsor on Wednesday and Saturday by noon. Leave Windsor at 12 1-2 p m and arrive at Haverhill by 3 p m. Returning —Leave Haverhill every Monday & Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Windsor by noon. Leave Windsor at 12 1-2 p m and arrive at Brattleboro' on Tuesday and Friday by 11 a m. Leave Brattleboro' at 1 p m and arrive at Suffield on Wednesday & Saturday by 8 p m.
48. From Springfield, by West Springfield, Ruffin, Braintree, London, Bethlem, Tyngsboro', Stockbridge and West Stockbridge to Kinderhook once a week. Leave Springfield every Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Kinderhook on Friday by 6 p m. Leave Kinderhook every Saturday by 6 a m and arrive at Stockbridge by 6 p m. Leave Stockbridge every Tuesday at 4 p m and arrive at Springfield on Wednesday by 6 p m.
49. From Boston by Dedham, Medford, Medway, Bellingham, Milford, Mendon, Uxbridge, Douglas, Thompson, Ponet, Ashford, and Tolland to Hartford once a week. Leave Boston every Tuesday at 9 a m and arrive at Hartford on Thursday by 5 p m. Leave Hartford every Friday at 8 a m and arrive at Boston on Monday by 4 p m.
50. From Boston by Dedham, Wrentham, Attleboro, Providence, Seekonk, Plainfield, Jewett's city, Chester, New London, Lyme, Jaybrook, Killingworth, Guilford and Grandison to New Haven three times a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 5 a m and arrive at Providence by noon. Leave Providence at 12 1-2 p m and arrive at New Haven on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 1 p m. Returning —Leave New Haven every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 3 a m and arrive at Providence on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a m and arrive at Boston same day by noon.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 5 a m and arrive at Plainfield by 3 p m. Leave Plainfield every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a m and arrive at New Haven by 8 p m.
51. From Boston, by Milford, Cranston, East Greenwich, Berkeley and Tackett, to New Bedford three times a week. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Boston every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 3 a m and arrive at New Bedford by 8 p m. Leave New Bedford every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 3 a m and arrive at Boston by 8 p m. Returning —Leave New Bedford every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 9 a m and arrive at Boston by 7 p m.
52. From New Bedford to Nantucket twice a week. Leave New Bedford every Tuesday and Saturday at 9 p m and at Nantucket in 24 hours. Leave Nantucket every Friday and Tuesday at 3 a m and arrive at New Bedford by 8 a m, wind and weather permitting.
53. From Boston by Dorchester, Quincy, Braintree, Weymouth, Henvor, Pembroke and Kingston, to Plymouth three times a week. Leave Boston every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Plymouth by 6 p m. Leave Plymouth every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 7 a m and arrive at Boston by 6 p m.
54. From Weymouth by Hingham, Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield and Duxbury to Kingston once a week. Leave Weymouth every Wednesday at 5 a m and arrive at Kingston by 11 a m. Leave Kingston every Wednesday at 1 p m and arrive at Weymouth by 7 p m.
55. From Plymouth by Sandwich, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Harwich, Chatham, Orleans, Falmouth, Wellfleet, Millington and Truro to Provincetown once a week. Leave Plymouth every Wednesday at 6 a m and arrive at Sandwich by 10 a m. Leave Sandwich at 12 1-2 p m and arrive at Provincetown on Friday by 11 a m. Leave Provincetown every Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Plymouth on Monday by 6 p m.
56. From Sandwich by Falmouth and Halmoske to Edgartown once a week. Leave Sandwich every Wednesday at 11 a m and arrive at Edgartown on Thursday by 1 p m. Leave Edgartown every Thursday at 4 p m and arrive at Sandwich on Friday by 7 p m.
57. From Sandwich by Wareham, Rochester, New Bedford and Little Compton to Newport once a week. Leave Sandwich every Wednesday at 6 a m and arrive at Newport on Thursday by 3 p m. Leave Newport every Thursday at 6 p m and arrive at Sandwich on Saturday by 5 p m.
IN RHODE ISLAND.
58. From Providence by Barrington, Warren and Bristol to Newport six times a week in summer and three times in winter. May 1 to November 1.—Leave Providence every day (Sunday excepted) at 7 a m and arrive at Newport by 4 p m. Leave Newport every day (Sunday excepted) at 8 a m and arrive at Providence by 4 p m.
November 1 to May 1.—Leave Providence every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 7 a m and arrive at Newport by 4 p m. Leave Newport every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 7 a m and arrive at Providence by 4 p m.
(To be continued)