Newspaper Page Text
From ike Charleston Observer.
(communicated.)
Your readers are aware of the fact, that tni9
production is attributed by Gen Blair, a mem
ber of Congress from this State, to 1 homas
Cooper, M L\ President of the College at Co
lumbia. On a careful perusal ot the pamphlet,
it has occurred to my mind, that a candid and
thinking man might at least be pardonable, in
withholding his assent to such an opinion. 1
know nothing of the or tginof this prod uction^t
ter, and then say, whether he is prepared to
lay all the concentrated absurdities and abomi.
oatio is of this piece on the head of this o ^
man-who is even now hanging over the grave
if any person after having weighed the follow
ing suggestions, is still disposed to cherish the
opinion that Dr. Cooper is the aut hor of this
pamphlet, or is still more confirmed than ever
in the correctness of his opinion, l would here
declare once for all, that I cannot hold myselt re
sponsible for his conviction?. I call upon you Mr.
Editor, yourself, to say, whether the following
thoughts are not entitle, at least, to a coo ex
lamination.
1. It m iy be supposed, from the very na
ture of the case, that Dr. Cooper is a man of
good breeding— that he is a gentleman. I his
is not a bold assumption; a mere gratuity; a
lie has ranked
.intended for the good of m«n—for his temp°^
ral, as well as his spiritual eternal goo •
The second. » The Sen of man .s Lord also
„f tho Sabbath,” assert, that Jesus Christ is
competent to deternmine and decide what --
are law ful, end what are unlawlul, on that clay
The other passages were intended to correct
certain errors ot the Pharisees, & to teach, tha ,
allhough the Sabbath is a divine institution yet
^iti sanctity is not at all invaded by the perfor
mance of acts of benevolence or merejr p v ®*
r i u. oxaies, over ten years
of age, knows that this is the legitimate appli
cation of the precepts of Jesus Christ. It he
does not know it, it is because that schoolboy
a non campus mentis. But what say our
“ Laymas ?” Reader could you believe it ?
•• Christ was opposed to the Sabbath.” Ilis ar
gument must he something like this “ 1 he
Sabbath was made for man;” therefore there is
no Sabbath. It strikes me, that this logic might
be somewhat improved th\i«:■“ The Sabbath
was made for man,” therefore neither man nor
the Sabbath was ever made. Look at another
passage. “The Son of man is Lord of the
Sabbath," therefore there is no Sabbath of
which the Son of man is the Lord. Certainly,
this is not the reasoning of a logical mind.
But this writer tell us, that “ Christ was op
posed to the Sabbath” by practice. His prool
rests upon the passages already explained, and
upon John 5 1G. “Therefore did the Jews
persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because
subtle begging of the question
Priestly and Jefferson, and many others—men ^_ o ___ _
of high accomplishments—among his personal j j ia( j j oue these things on tha Sabbath day;
friends: he has taken a diploma in one of the nm j j £ verse, “had broken the Sabbath.’
Judge
friends; he has taken a diplom
liberal professions; and he was once a
on the Pennsylvania Bench. Oi his career,
while clad hi ermine 1 need not speak. Suffice
it to say, The Doctor has seen the world, and
mingled irt refined and literary circles. W ho
then is prepared to charge such a man with
writing and publishing mere Billingsgate ?-—
What mind is capable of 6uch an aroaz ng
stretch of credulity, as to believe that a man
born and educated in England, and welcomed
and patronized by accomplished and lettered
men in our republic, would employ, when wai
ting on a subject of grave moment, language
which is excluded from all the better circles ot
of human life, and which can hardly be said to
t»e current any where but in the kennels of de
bauchery, and the dens ot gamblers ? Aud yet
Kuch language may be found every where in
this production. The whole piece is charac
terized by Imn abuse. Specimens are hardlv
necessary. Every eve can discern-*.^ B n.«ci
for itself. Take the following as a fare sample
.—imiv . r Pho i®»,11r'T tebs us of the base
He of the law judges”—'Judge Story” is either
‘groosly ignorant,” or he lias asserted what he
"knows is not law”—the persons who ordained
the Sabbath, are, in the chaste and civil Ian
guage of this writer, “those avaricious, arnbi
tious, fraudulent, and impudent imposters, the
Christain Priests”—these men are “the block
heads,”who, by their "bigoted violence,” inakt
it their business ' to terrify and rule the wise.”
Tbe people of the United States are represent
ed as characterized by "ignorance, folly and
credulity,” and the American Congress is com
»• >sed of a set of deliberate and designing
k lives who first "impose upon the understand
i igs” of tho people, and then pick their
pockets ” Is this the language of one who has
moved in the best circles of society 1 1 hope,
Mr. Editor, that all due charity will be exer
cised towards that man, (if perchance such a
tnan can he found,) who is disposed to think Dr
Cooper too much of a gentleman to writ© in
B ich a style.
2. Dr Cooper holds a high li'erary station,
and the muni naturally revolts from iho idea,
that » man thus situated should send out into
the world such a bundle of mere trash as this
pamphlet contains. This gentleman is at the
head of the principal College in the State ot S.
Carolina. lie will of cours^ ivish to honor his
station-to fill his place with dignity. Those
who are committed to his care and training,
are soon to be the active and etficient members
of the community, to impress their own char
acters on the Republic, and bless or scourge
the world. A President of a College, it would
seem, could hardly avoid viewing things in this
light. The absorbing feeling of his heart—the
master-passionfof his soul, would he to exhibit
in himself a specimen of human nature that
might be safely imitated. In such a. station
we look for the sublime of intellect and of moral
power—the stamp of greatness and of goodness
But what is this pamphlet ? Its language is
low ; its character undignified and rancorous;
nnd its tendency, unmixed and unpalliated evi!
It breaths any thing else, rather than the ethe
real spirit of intellectual and moral elevation.—
I can hardly efface the impression from my
own mind, that this production was written by
some person whose mental powers have not
been very regularly caultivaled. but who has
occasionally come in contact with men of supe.
rior intellect, and of more systematic inform* ■
lion—Soma hanger on of the Theatre, who has
picked up a little hero and a little there, and
who has opened in this pamphlet, a kind ot
commission business in other men’s wares.
5 ltt is generally understood that Dr Coop
er is a man of a logical mind—of strong reason
ing powers’, and it is not possible that this
pamphlet is the production of such a genius.—
.It is not necessary to analyze the whole course
of reasoning adopted by our author ; tw*o or
three instances will settle the matter, and set
tle it forever, to the satisfaction of every dis
criminating mind. The manner in which this
writer disposes of the Sabbath, and endeavors
to blot oat its “divine authority and obligation,”
is truly wonderful.
“Christ” says he, “was opposed to the Sab
bath, by precept ; by example.” But now for
the proof. “By precept. 2. Mark 22. “The
Sabbath was made for mac ; not man for the
Sabbath." 2. Mark 28. Luke ch. 6. v. 5 —
“The son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”
Luke 13 v -15. “Thou hypocrite! doth not
each one of you, on tho Sahbth day, loose his
ox or his ass from the stall ? and his adver
saries were ashamed.” 12 Mat. 11. Which
of you, if a sheep fall into a pit, will not lift
him out on the Sabbath day."
These passages are adduced to show, that
“ Christ was opposed to the Sabbath.” But do
♦bey prove any such thing ? Certainly not.
Every man of common sense knows this. The
first quotation, “The Sabbath was made for
man, $tc.” taken in its connexions, teaches us
that the Sabbath is a benevolent institution,
■ hand, contended that they did not, cry f What Statesman, and especially nu
, infringe upon the sanctity of that Father; would assume such a responsibility, l-
tuiton; that even these very ob- l tremble at the thought. This “Laiman
lowledged the validity of the prm- a kind of lshmaeJ. “His liana is a g ;,ini51 cve
and 18 verse, “had broke
This fact is not in point. The conclusion of
the writer, is a mere begging of the questi
on. J;;sus Chri.t, on this occasion, and re
peatedly at other times; did those things which
the Pharisees considered a violation of the
Sabbath ; hut whenever he entered upon a
vindication of his conduct, such vindication
was always founded upon the compatibility
of these acts with the designs ot tha Sab
bath, and never upon the assumption that
the Sabbath was not a divine institution.—
Wiiat unblushing sophistry ! Reader, fix your
eye upon it. Jesus Christ performed cures on
the Sabbath ; the Puarisees, whose opiuious
were almost always wrong, asserted that these
acts were a violation of that holy day ; Christ,
on the oilier hand, contended that they did not,
in any sense
divine instil
inr.’ors acknowledged the validity ol the prm
ciple on which lie acied nj tho kind atten
tions which they bestowed upon “the ox and
the ass of the stall”—and the conclusion ot
this writer is that “Christ was opposed to the
Sabbath.” This deduction is not in keeping
-with i tie promises. Such is the logf} ol A
Layman : but who will buzzard the assertion,
tna» t his Layman i -Dr. Cooper
Take anotner instance of tms writer's logic.
“All public prayer is forbidden by Christ.”
But how does no attempt to establish this as
sertion ? By an appeal to a set ol Scriptures
which apply to another point. Matt 6 5
and 6 “And when thou prayest, thou shall
not be as the hypocrites are : for they love to
pray standing in the Synagogues, and in the
corners of the streets, that they may he seen
of men. Verily I say unto you, they have
their reward. But when thou prayest, enter
into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy
door, prav to thy Father, which is in secret;
and thy Father; winch seeth in secret shall
reward thee openly.” These, and many other
kindred passages refer exclusively to secret or
closet prayer, and were levelled at that ostenta
tion exhibited by many of the Jews who per«
formed their personal devotions in the Syna
gogues and in the corners of the streets —
They chose the most public places for what
ought to have be.n their secret prayers. This
is the argumeul of a “A Layman : Jesus
Christ teaches his disciples to pray in secret,
therefore they must never pray in public!—
‘ Such” says he “are the precepts and the prac
tice of Christ He never practised ; he ex
pressly forbade all public prayer.” Is this
true ? The ■ Layman” may think so, hut Dr.
Cooper knows better. “He never practised”
public prayer! What says the Evangelist
Luke ch. 11 verse 1 ? “And it came to pass
that as he wan praying in a certain place, when
he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him,
Lord, teach ns to pray, as John a so taught
his disciples." Ht*ie it seems that it was the
fact of hit praying with his disciples, that led
one ofihem io at .k the req .* •>. "Lord, teach
us to prav.” "Ho never practised” public
prayer! Did "Jl Layn.an” ever read the 17ih
chapter ol J<»lm ? if not, let linn read it now,
and he will not only learn the facr, that Christ
prayed in public, hut he will there find a record
of one of tho prayers which he made when all
the disciples were present except Judas Prob
ably Judas dial ked public prayer. I> it true,
that "all prayer is ordered to be private?”
“when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down,
and prayed with them all." But surely enough
has been said on this subject, to show tbht Hus
writer’s sweeping conclusions are not justified
by his promises.
One instance more to prove that this pamph
let was not written by a man ol a sound miod.
In one part of this production, the Members ol
Congress are told how they ought to pray, and
in atiolher all prayer is turned into ridicule.—
• Why do ye not pray silently, seriously aud
shortly, each /or himself? Is it possible that
this * Layman" should direct men to pray "seri
ously,” and I hep represent “all pray” as a mat
ter ot mere mockery? Let .the reader glance his
eye again over that paragraph wfcich commen
ces withthis intcrrogatory-r-“w?/i!er all what is
prayer 1 And when he has read it, let him
tell me how to reconcile this view ol prayer.
with a direction from the same pen to ”pray
seriously? Put both of these things into one
precept, and it reads thus: “Pray seriously, but
all prayer is consumate folly.”
There is certainly a deep mystery hanging
over this little pamphlet. But it sometimes
happens, that a small circumstance, either of
time or proximity, may shed light upon an o
cean ot darkness. May it not be so in the
present case ? Is it not possible that there is
<. mistake respecting the authorship of this
paiAuhlel; that it did not issue from the Col
lege, \»ut from another large building, in Co
lumbia ! 1 mean the Lunatic Asyum] for sure
ly such reasoning as this, bears a stronger re*
semblance to the ravings of a maniac than to
the deductions of a sound and logical mind !
4. To attribute this production to Dr
Thomas Cooper, would seem to be a reflection
upon the Stale *f South Carolina. This State
contains many Christains of different denomi
nations—Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists,
Congregationalisms, and Presbyterians—-and
many, very inaay ofthese professors of religion,
are the warm friends ot Literature and the
Sciences The Bible is reverenced here. Its
moral principles contribute to the welfare of
the Republic ; and it is considered as the safe
aud only guide to heaven. Can it be possible,
that such a people would select the writer ol
such a production as this, to be the guide ot
young gentlemen—lhe rising hopes of the coun
try ? What Stataman, and especially what
is
every
Iimu.” Cbristdins, nnd especially Alimstcrs, ot
every name are treated with utter contempt.—
it cannot be doubted, that the wise and the good
u> every community, wilt look well to the foun
tains of learning, undone of the fundamental
principles of State policy, will be to adopt such
a system ol intellectual and moral training, as
will bast prftnote the knowledge and virtue of
(he rising generation. Taking it for granted,
that the Stale of South Carolina has not been
remiss in this matter, w ho is prepared to fa
ther this production upon the President ol
(hen College ? What would the feeling?
oi the people be, could they be fairly and fully
expressed on this subject? Carry this pampb
Vst through every District read it in every hab
itation, from the towering dome to the hanihle
c ibv-in, and I venture to predict that|nine tenths
of all tine pou.Hiation would way, it ** no* posei
ble that this piece was written by a man who is
patronized and supported by the State of South
Carolina. Such an admission would be a re
flection on the character of the State. With
these remarks I am disposed to leave the ques
tionof authorship to be settled by every reader
for himself—suggesting this solitary caution,
that no one ougnt to saddle this heterogeneous
muss of sophistry and impiety upon Dr. Coop
et, unless he has good reason for so doing
I have not the vanity, Mr. Editor, to sup
pose that 1 have proved to the satisfaction of
your readers, that Dr. Cooper did not write
this pamphlet. Perhaps some of them may
conclude that the very facts and principles here
stated, are “confirmation strong” that tho Au
thor of this production is none other than the
very man selected by Gen. Blair. But leaving
th is point I can tell you some things respecting
the writer of this piece w hich may be relied on
as morally certain.*
side ef the question. Does be wish to know?
Let him read John, 3 chap. 19 and 20 verses.
Secondly, the writer of this pamphlet is ei
ther an ignorant or a dishonest man. A few
words will establish this charge. How are we
to account for this assertion? Christ “never
practised; he expressly iorbadeall public pray
er." Had he never read Luke 11 : 1. where
the fact, that Christ prayed with his disciples,
recorded ? Or John 17 chapter, w’hich is
a transcript of one of his public prayers? Had
he never read Mat. 18: 19 and 20—where
Christ has promised that public prayer shall he
answered ? If "A Layman” was unacquainted
with these Scriptures, then ho was too igno
rant of this subject to write and publish upon
it; if he knew that these things were recorded
in the Gospel, and intentionally avoided notic
ing them, in this discussion, then he is chargea
ble with downright dishonesty —He may choose
for himself either side ot this alternative. ^
Take one example more. ‘ All prayer ”
says this Layman, “is ordered to be private;
and he who orders it to be public, is no Chris
tian, if the command of Chiist, the example
of Christ, and the directions of the Scripture,
have any authority.” Not to repeat what has
already been said, did not this writer know
that the Apostle Paul has given repeated "di
rections” respecting public prayer? Seo 1 Cor.
11:1-16- and 14 Chap. 14-17 verses. Was not
Paul a “Christian V* And Hre not bis wri
tings a part of "the Scripture?” Or will “A
Layman” tell us, that Paul is not valid author
ity? Then it was dishonest for him to quote
this same Apostle for the purpose of disprov
ing the existence of the Sabbath.t Here then
is this “Layman” caught on one or the other ot
the hoi ns of a very unpleasant dilema! He is
either ignorant of the scriptures of which he
makes so many sweeping assertions, or he kept
hack a part of the testimony in h:s possession.
TUefirst is unpardonable in a writer, and the
other is not quite honest. As I do not wish to
make “A Layman” worse than be has exhibit
ed himself, htftnay select that horn or the di
lemma which i9 most to his liking.
Thirdly this “Layman” is a man of a bad
spirit. There is a peculiar ualoveliness of
moral temper diffused through this whole pro
duction. I am glad that such feelings, it they
exist and be expressed in our world, are found
among the opposers of the Gospel 'O my
soul come not thou into their secret; unto their
assembly, mine honor, be not thou united.”*
Fifty Nuch men as the writer of this pamphlet,
with all their unsanctified passions in a blaze
against the Bible, and against one another,
would make a hell! How true it is that no cul
ture, no philosophy except that which is bap
tized of heaven, can soften and sanctify the
human heart. The Gospel has power to save
It can save man from his worst enemy—him
self. It can save him from the killing sting of
death. It has a moral power to traiu his way
ward spirit for Heaven. It would be well for
"A Layman,” to think of this. That man, as
well a? the writer ofthese remarks, must soon
die. It is a fact well known—a fact often
written in tears and blood upon almost every
day’s providence that men who hold the sen
timents avowed in this pamphlet, generally
find their death pillow lull of thorns, and as to
tfteir eternal state, we know nothing save what
is disclosed in the Bible.
Ph
In the first place, the Author is a very unhap-
man “The Sabbath day,” “the Christian
priests,” and “public prayer” appear to throw
him into perfect agonies. And he seems to be
aware that he shall not be able to succeed a
gainst the amount of ignorance and bigotry
which fills the world This is the source ot his
misery. He is like “the Viper,” in the Fable,
gnawing tho 'file ” If you were to take this
"Layman,” and plant him down in sight ofa
Theological Seminary, w here young men are
trained up for th;- Gospel Ministry, and at the
same time make it his official duty to attend
“public prayers”—and I do not see how he
could live out half his days. This writer is
Then Jesus Christ has heid out a strong ; certainly troubled about many things; and al
motive to induce his disciples to disohev
his own commands. He has said that social
or public prayer shall be answered- See Mat.
18, 19 and 20. Surely this promise is not made
in reference to “private” prayer, tor the per
sons to whom the promise is made, “are gath
ered together” in the name of Christ. Follow
up tho "Layman” a little farther on this point.
“All prayer,” 6ays he, “is ordered to be
private ; and he who orders it to be public, is
no christain, if the command of Christ, t;.e ex
ample ot Christ, and the directions of the Scrip
tures, have any authority." We have alrea
dy seen, that “the example of Christ, is in
favor of public prayer—that he has promised
that such prayer shall be answered—and that
his “command” so much relied upon by "A
Layman,” goes no farther than to direct that,
personal prayer should be offered up in the re
tirement of the ' closet.” As to the other as
sertions quoted above, I appeal to "the scrip
tures” Were those “hundred and twenty,"
embracing the Apostles among them, "no
Christians” who are said, in Acts I, J4, to have
‘ continued with one accord in prayer and sup
plication?” Or the eleven, when the place of
Judas was Tilled by the appointment of Mathi-
as; were they “no Christians,” because they
prayed in a social or-public manner? See Acts
1, 24 and 25. What shall we say of the Apos
tle Paul? Was he "no Cliristianl” The
*Layman’ has quoted this Apostle, as good au
thority, in attempting to settle another point
But Paul too must be set aside as "no Chris
tian,” for we are told, Acts 20, 30. That
though he effects to treat the Christian reli
gion with great acrimony and levity, I have no
doubt but he is subject to occasional visita
tions when he more than fears that the Bible
j i9 true. He probably lives in dread of death,
| «$’• » judgment bar. In this very pamphlet, we
may detect extra efforts to keep his courage
up. His last sentence is of this character.—
“On what pretence can a hired and paid priest,
put himself on an equality with tbe hold and
fearless honesty of the men he abuses as infi
dels ? Can you tell ?” I can tell this "Lay
man” why some men are “infidels” without
being quite certain that they are on the right
* As to the authorship of the pamphlet, we know noth
in? except from the testimony of General Blair. In a
letter to lhe Editor of lhe Camden Journal, dated Wash
ington City, 4th Feb. 1831, tbe General says: ‘‘I was in
formed by two respectable Members of Congress, Irons
the South, friends and admirers of Dr. Cooper, that a
pamphlet, written by him, and worth its weight in gold, was
sold in the Post-Office, and recommended me to buy and
send some of them to my constituents.
The Post-Master'told me he understood them to hare
been written by Dr. Cooper, and that a large bundle of
them had been brought into the office, addressed to one of
tbe members above alluded to. The same gentleman in
formed G*u. Tuckeir, the Hon. John Campbell, and oth
ers, Dr. Cooper waS the author of this pamphlet, and one
of these gentlemen has conversed with me this evening on
the subject, and still represents Dr. Cooper as the au
thor.” It may be further remarked, that Dr. Cooper,
though charged with w riting it, by Gen. Blair, has return
ed an. evasive answer, instead of a prompt denial, and
this circumstance, in the minds of nut a few, fastens its
authorship upon him. Others still who are well acquaint
ed with Dr. Cooper’s style and sentiments, consider thut
it bears a striking resemblance to other productions of his
pen.—Editor.
t The passage referred to, is Col. 2, 16, “Let no man
therefore judge )ou in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
a holy day, or of the r.cw moon, or of the Sabbath days.”
This scripture is cited by “A Layman," to disprove the
existence of “tbe Lord’s Day,” or the Christian Sabbal/i.
But every expression in this verse, shows, that it relates
to a controversy between Jews and Christians and so fur
as the weekly Sabbath was concerned, it respected the
time, whether the first or the seventh day of the week
should be observed, aud not tbe existence of the Institu
tion. Jews, or Christians who hau a strong partiality for
Jewish institutions, must not condemn those Christians
w ho observed tht first and not the seventh day of the week.
Or it may refer to the numerous other sabbaths, or days
of rest, which were observed under the Jewish economy,
And which were not binding under the Christian dispen
sation.
the expense of oaf fellow subjects in the East
Indies.
DISTURBANCES IN PARIS
Paris, Feb 15, Twelve o’clock.
We passed yesterday a troublesome evening,
and rather a terrific night. A detestable ma> -
ncenvre or imprudence of the Curlist faction
has produced great disorders and a serious
popular agitation in Paris. A funeral Ma9sfor
tbe Duke of Berry was celebrated yesterday at
tbe church of St. Gertnain 1’Auxerrois, and,
as it appears, against the advice of the magis
trates of Palis. In that old sanctuary, all the
celebrities of the Carlist faction had a rendez
vous, and collect money for the wounded of the
ex-royal Guard. A bust of tbe Duke de Bor
deaux was paraded in the church, and the con
sequence was, that the crowd assembled with
out rushed into the church, and put io flight
the whole assembly. The people then broke
into the presbytery, and were prevented, with
the utmost difficulty, by the National Guard,
from precipitating into the Seine several priests.
The multitude around the church was immense
the whole afternoon. In a short time the fine
gilded cross, with the fleurs-de fis at its an
gles, which crowns the steeple, raised a gen
era! cry of rage. The National Guard joined
the people ia demanding its destruction.
Workmen were sent for, and under the protec
tion ol the National Guard, at torch light, with
Municipal Guards about lh3 church, the cross
was precipitated and fell with a thundering
noise, amidst the tumultuous applause of the
people, and the full chorus of the Marseillois.
in this manner the Bourbon and Catholic em
blem was torn from the tower of tbe old parish
church of Charles X, which he loaded with
splendid riches—a tower frcni which the knell
of the massacre of St. Bartholomew was rung
in ancient days.
Tbe night has been pretty calm, but immense
parties of people, shouting “down with the
Priests,” filled the streets.
This morning, from seven o’clock to nine,
another scene took place, of which it is im
possible to give any description. The multi
tude succeeded in taking possession of the
Church, and not an altar, nor a chair, nor a bit
of wood is left All tbe gold and silver orna
ments were conveyed to tbe Louvre, in mock
ceremony, and some of them thrown on the
tomb of the victims, opposite which the Cu
rate of the Church had thought proper to per
form this Carlist exhibition. However, nobo
dy pefished. The National Guard saved eve*
ry priest w ho was attacked. We u ic pate to
fresh disorders to day though Paris continues
in the most violent state of effervescence.
Tho Italian movements are commenced on
all sides. There are rumours this morning of
a complete revolution at Munich.
From Galignani’* Messenger, of Wednesday, 16th Feb.
The Archbishop ot Paris, being considered
the cause of the disgraceful proceedings of the
ceremony at St. Germain 1’Auxerrois, by hav
ing either authorised or suffered its celebra
tion was tbe principal object of the popular
wrath. At seven in the morning an ungov
ernable multitude proceeded to his palace,
and the work of destruction commenced on
Monday night was renewed with double ardour.
The furniture, books, Imen, papers, and interi
or decorations, were thrown out cd the win
dow into tbe Court and gardens, where they
were broken and then cast into the Seine. A
cross, wiifc a full s zod figure • of Christ,
was absolutely crushed to atoms. The number
of volumes amounted to several thousands,
many of them very valuable, from their anti
quity, variety or costly bindings. A great
quantity of portable articles were carried off.
FOREIGN.
New York, April 6.
LATEST FROM EUROPE.
We have received by the Packet ship York,
Gapt. Bursely, Liverpool papers to February
24th, and London to 23d inclusive.
Our time will only permit us to make the
following extracts, which comprise an abstract
of all the news of importance. The King of
the French had refused the crown of Belgium
for his son. The revolutionary spirit had dif*
fused itself throughout Italy, and provisonal
governments were established in many places.
The Duke of Modena was still alive. The
disturbances in Paris did not threaten any seri
ous consequences to the existing government
The promoters of these disturbances would be
puunt*hed with the utmost rigor. The English
papers incline to the opinion, that a general
war on the Continent iu which Great Britain
would be involved, was almost inevitable.—
Tbe Russian army had entered Poland, and
several recounters had taken {dace between
the former and the Polish troops generally re
sulting the advantage of the latter. Warsaw
was to be the scene of the decisive conflict.
Ireland was returning to order, and the British
Parliament seriously discussing measures for
her. immediate relief O'Connell had taken
his seat iu the lower house. The subject ot
reform was daily the subject of debate.
London, Feb. 22.
It is said that Ministers intend to abandon
their plan of laying « duty of a penny per pound
on cottons, and allowing a duty on exported
goods. Instead of this we are told that they
intend to propose a duty ol 5 2ths of a penny
on all cottons without a drawback. We think
that the system of drawbacks as a permanent
measure ought to be avoided, if possible ; but
we are decidedly of opinion that the duty on
cottons ought to be ad valorum duty, or that
the produce of our own colonies ought to be
exempted from taxation altogether. For in
stance, what can be more unjust than to lay tbe
same duty upon the fine Sea Island cotton as
upon the corse Bengal cotton, the former being
worth say ls6d a pound, while the latter will
uot fetch more than 3d or 4d ? This is taxing
flie poor wearers of coarse cottons for the ben
efit of the rich wearers of the fine ones, when
the principal reason aliedged for the modifica
tion of.luties was to give a boon to the labor
ing classes ! But this is not all. It is giving
a preference to our rivals, the Americans, at
correspondence of the jour, of commerce,
London, Feb. 5, 1831—5 o,clock.
On the 4d mst. Parliament reassembled.^—
Mr. Hunt, the great missionary of Reform, took
the oaths aud his seat, and Ministers an
nounced that on the first of March their plan of
reform should be presented for the considera
tion of the CornmonsofGre.it Britain and Ire
land, by Lord John Russell, a branch of one of
the highest among the noble families of the
realm. Could CasUercagh & Canning look,from
their graves, &, witness the actual advance and
apparently irres:stahle jnrogress of principles,
which were their utter aborreuce when living,
they might learn, as many of their surviving
adherents and sycophants will, that neither the
proud mans contumely, the counsels of the
wicked, nor the sword of the oppressor, shall
forever prevail against the righteous cause of
the poor.
Last night the civil list, in a novel form, wa3
submitted to the House. On every former
commencement of a new reign, it was usual
to conclude in the amounts of money stipulated
to be allowed throughout the reign for the
annual expenses of the crown, the diplomatic,
judicial, and many other salaries, which thus
became unchangeable and irreclaimable by
Parliament. Under the proposed system these
items will be subject, to the annual revision,
ot the Legislature, the civil list will be reduced
trorn /l,200,000 to/510,000, and Parliament
will hcreatter be at liberty to economize in res
pect to the difference between these two sums,
us occasion may require, without any breach;
of faith with the sovreign. 1
These proceedings on the part of the new
Ministry amply refute the assertions of lato
so strenuously made by their adversaries, that
their professions of economy were hollow, that
they were not able to amalgamate their d.flkrent
principles so as to form a consistent and feasi.
ble project of reform, and that Lord Grey’s
embarrassment between bis old pledges which
he never expected to be called on to redeem,
and the peril of his order, if tbe ostensible ob
ject ot his past efforts in Parliament should be
really attained, made it a certainty (hat no re
form ivould take place that would either prove
his sincerity, or satisfy the demand? of his ad
herence. Mr. Brougham's acceptance of a
peerage, after haviug declared in the House of
Commons, that !et who would be Minister, he
shonid cn a day which he named bring on the
question of Reform, has been cited over and
over again as proof positive that he had de
serted the cause, which, for want of him must
be abandoned to his fate. But his former
place is not empty, and he will continue a
staunch reformer in his new one.
The American stocks are, 3 per cts. 86 1-4*
U. S. Bank shares /26 10 a 15; Pennsylvania
5s, 1850 100 1-2 1858 102; Louisiana, Wil
son's, 100 a 101; Baring’s 99/ Ohio 6s 110.