Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.