The New-York gazette, and the weekly Mercury — New-York [N.Y.], 1776-04-22 00:00:00, page 1

Monday, April 22, 177%. .' T ll^
NE^-TOR K ■,#», G A ZIE TTV
WEEKLY M ER CUR
.Containing tpe ft^^^' ; raft ^_._J™^ _
This confufed proposition he endeavours to eftablilh,
by a commentary (upon Ift Samuel, chap 8.) full as far
fetch'd and ridiculous, as he will probably fay mine is
upon the prophecy of Moutt Seir. But this matter must
be treated more seriously, for the fake of a country, is
which (God be thanked) the scriptures are read and re
garded with that reverence, which is due to a revelation
from Heaven. I must, therefore, endeavour to rescue
out of our author's hands that portion of the sacred
history which he has converted into a libel against the
civil coaftitution of Great-Britain; and show in what
ftnfe the passage has been universally received, as well
by the Jews themselves, as by Commentators, venerable
for their piety and learning, in every chriftian country.
The Jews were long privileged with a peculiar form of
government, called a Theocracy, under which the " AI
" mighty either ftirr-d up some person, by an immediate
" lignification of his will, to be their Judge, or, when
" there was none, ruled their proceedings himfelf, by
" Urim and Thumnim, directing what couife they were
“ to follow in the public concerns of the nation."*
But they were of an ungovernable temper, fond of
pomp as well as dominionover their nd Flours, and'being
disgusted with the mifeonduft of Samuel's sons, whom,
in his old age, he h.d made his Afliftant-Judges over
Israel, they came to him, and entreated him to appoint
a King, who might rule their nation, and avenge them of
the Philiflines. Samuel, deeply afflicted at the impious
dtfign they entertained of rejecting the Divine Govern
ment, prays the Almighty for direction, who authorifes
him to hearken to their voice for they have not rejected thee,
hut they have rejected me (fays Gd) that Ifaxid not reign
over them He also inftrudts Samuel to enter afekmn
putej. against them fr &f foil trd ipg-atitude, in pre
ferring a human to a divine government ; and to foew
them rhe manner of the King that Jhad rei,n over them,
since they desired a King to judge them like all the nations.
Now all the nations, which they knew, were ruled by
Kings, whose arbitrary will stood in the place
of Law; and it appears also that the Jews, since the day
that they were brought out of Egypt, had still retained
a particular hankering after the customs of that country.
The Almighty therefore, by his Prophet, not only figni-,
lies his displeasure against all such arbitrary rulers, but
against every people Who would impiously and foolifhiy
prefer such a government to ohe immediately under him
fclf, where, in his Providence, he might think fit to ap
point such a one. And so far 1 have no difference with
cur author. But Samuel proceeds to reason farther with
the Jews, and in the 12th chapter reminds them of the
many deliverances which Ged had given them by the
hands of their Judges. Moses, Jepthah, Gideon, &c.
having with a ft-ong hand brought them out of Egypt ;
having subdued the Assyrians, Ammonites, Moabites and
Philistines before them ; and that, for all this, they pre
ferred a government, even after the most corrupt models,
to his just and righteous government. And to convince
them still further of their folly and ingratitude, the Pro
phet appeals to a signal which he would give them from
Heaven. He accordingly calls down an uncommon storm
in the midst of harvest, and the aftonifhec multitude cry
out We HAVE ADDED TO OUR SINS THIS EVIL
to ask us a King.
Here our author erefts his standard, and here he com
pliments himfelf with mockery of triumph. " These
" portions of scripture (ays he, in all the assurance of
" infallibility )are direct and positive. They admit of no
" equivocal conftru&ion. That the Almig ty hath
" here entered bis protef against monarchial govern
" ment is true, or the scripture is falfe." —But 1 will
take the liberty to fay, that the scripture is true, and that
this author's inference is horribly fa/fe ; nay, further, that
from the whole fpririt of the parage, as well as the reason
of things, it is to be inferred that the Almighty woufe
have as strongly expressed his displeasure against de Jews,
had they reje&ed his government for one of their own ap
pointment, whether it had been Mmarchial or Democra
tical---to be administered by one man or a tboufand men.
The author had said before, that Samuel did not shew
the manner of any " particular King, but the general
" manner of the Kings of the earth, whom Israel was fb
" eagerly copying after." If he means to confine him
felf to these Kings, I have given them to him, to make
the best of them. But if he means to argue from parti-
Calais to generals, and to make the old Prophet extend
hiaferotef agairft all future monarchial governments such
as were to subsist some thousands of years afterwards,
however limited and mixt, particularly that of Great-
Britain (which must certainly be our author's meaning, or
he proves nothing to his purpose) I fay then, if this be
his meaning, I cannot so easily part with him. For in
this lies Our whole difference, and the particular case of
the Jews cannot be applied to any other nation, in this
anftance, as none else was ever in similar circumstances.
Acherley, in his Britannic Conftitutiens (and I
think our author borrows some of his principles, where
they can serve his purpose) fays expressly—" That the
" nations round about Israel invested their Kings with
0 absolute power---and that it is a wild imagination to
" fay, that the Ifraelitilh Kings, who were but copies
« (of these Kings) should, either in their ele^ion or
" power, be a pattern to Great-Britain."---“ There can
" not be found, either in the Old or New Testament, any
" particular description of the race of men, rubich are or ever
" were Kings of this nation." ---Hove then can there be a
fcriptureprottf against a race of men, who are not even
described in scripture ? | Mark that, Common Sense.
Let me add one authority more, from a Cummeatator
at least as good as our author, and who, ncverthelefs,
flatly contradicts him---! mean the celebrated Grotlus.
* Lewtb's Commentaries.
Mark that, Cato," is a favourite expression ts eur
€#thw i, the fbffa&ff of the Fotefteu
ASSIZE of BREAD. Flour at 17$. per Cent.
A White Loaf of the fineft FLOUR, to weigh
1 ilb. 11 1-2 oz. for 4 Coppers.
Published March 18, 1776.
" Monarchy," fay, he (meaning probably the institu
tion of Monarchy) " is ranked in scripture as one of the
" 'fins of Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced
'' against them. The history of that tranfadion" (either
the tranfaftion of Monarchy, or the tranfa&ion of de
nouncing a curse in reserve) "is worth attending to."
IN the conclusion of my last letter, I charged the
author of Common Sense with perverting the scrip
ture, in his account of the origin of the fewifh
Monarchy I proceed to offer some remarks in sup
port of that charge.
^ Printed by HUGH GAINE, Printer, Bookseller, and Stationer, at the Bible and Crown, in Hanover-Square.
To the PEOPLE of Pennsylvania.
LETTER VI.
Grotius, I fear, is too learned for us inferior writers
(fcri,tores minorum gentium) to follow him in this place.
But Sidney, that great martyr to liberty, adopts the
fame explanation. " Samuel's words, fays he, are
" acknowledged by all interpreters, who were not malici
" ous or mad, to be a dissuasion of the Jews from their
" wicked purpose; not a description of what a King might
" J u stly do, by virtue of his office, but what thoft, who
" should be set up against God and his law, would do
" when they should have the power in their hands."
Both Grotius and Sidney are well warranted in this in
terpretation, not only by the Hebrew text, but other clear
passages of scripture, and particularly the 17th chapter of
Deuteronomy, where, with the approbation of Heaven,
the duty of a good King is described and limited. The
Jews commonly uraderftpod this chapter as containing an
absolute promise from Heaven of a royal government, and
a fufficient authority for the request made to Samuel more
than three hundred years afterwards. Others understood
it conditionally,---that if they did reject the divine go
vernment, and set up one of their own appointment,
God would permit them, but their King should be chosen
in the manner, and with the qualifications, in that chap
ter described. All this, however, they disregarded, when
they aiked an arbitrary King, like those of their neigh
bouring nations ; and therefore, it is demonstratively cer
tain that Samuel, in entering his ,rotefl against such
King's, did not protest against Kings or monarchial govern
ments generally. Either this remark is true, or one part of
scripture is a dire& contradiction to the other. But let
the passage to which I refer speak for itfelf.
When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy
God givetb thee, and jhaltfay, I will set a King over me,
like as all the nations that are about me ; tbeu shalt in any
wife set bim King over tbee, whom the Lord tby God Jball
CHUSE, one from among thy brethren, not a Jiranger, &c.
It is further directed, that he shall not be given to
covetousness, — not multiply borfes, nor wives to himfelf, —
nor grtCTiy mbipy to wfyf g^' ~.,af%„.,. _That when
he mail fir upon the throne fhis kingdom, be (bail write a
c °py °f 'be law in a book (which it was underflood he was
to do with his own hand.)---That this book yZrg// be with
bim (or always carried about him) and be Jhall read therein
all the days of bis life, that be may learn to fear the Lord his
God, to keep the words of the law, and make it the rule of
his government, as well as private life. If he does this,
God promises a blessing on his government, to prolong his
days in bis kingdom, be, and bis children, in the midst of
Israel. Does not this smell strong of monarchy, and even
of hereditary monarchy ? Is not some fort of approbation,
yea and a blefiing, promised to both, when religious ly
administered, notwithstanding all that this writer his said
to the contrary ?
But he has not the candour to compare scripture with
scripture ; nor does he give a single passage compleat, and
connected with the parts necessary to explain it a clear
proof that other craft may be employed, as well as King
craft and Prieft-craft, in " with-holding the scripture
from the people," even in Protestant countries. Had our
author proceeded a little further, or given the passages
Compleat as he went along, it would have appeared that,
notwithstanding the just displeasure of the Almighty, and
his protest against the Jews for throwing off his righteous
government, yet, as mercy and forgivenefs are his chief
delight, and he knows that there is no perfection in man,
the matter was pretty amicably fettled at last, and the
divine countenance was given to the establishment of
monarchy, even in the person of Saul. God himfelf
directed his election and appointment ; and to prepare him
for bis office, gave him aav'aer heart, and also the spirit
of prophecy.
As to the thunder- storm in which our author exults, as an
absolute difapprobatioß of ail monarchial government, it
was no more than a sign called for by Samuel, to convince
the people that he spoke in the name of the Lord. But
what did he speak in the verses immediately preceding ?
Not, surely, that God had a particular quarrel with
monaicbial government, as such, and that “ blood would
attend it ;" but rather the contrary---that since the Jews
would still insist upon a government of their own appoint
ment, the Almighty would yet give them a blessing under
that very form, upon condition of rheir obedience to his
l aw * If j e will fear the Lord and serve bim, .and obex ; \
voice, &c. then feall both ye, and aljo the King 'b ^CTt^i^h
ever you, continue following the Lord; to which dm\ ,
following the Lord a blessing is always promi fed in Scripts re.
But if you will net obey, &c.---the hand of the Lord seas
be against you. So it would have been for disobedience
had they not asked a King! and, immediately after the
thunder storm, Samuel confirms this dodbito and com
forts the people. Fear not, said he; although you have
thus finned, the Lord will not forfake his People. As
for me, God forbid that IRout'd fin against the Lord and cease
to pray for you. Put I will inftrud you in the good andrigbt
way. Thus, it leeras, a good and right way was yet to
be found under monarchial government. From all which
it is plain, that the Almighty had now pardonedthe Jews;
and the Prophet follows the example, promising still to
proceed in the difeharge of his duty among them, as a
people yet in covenant with God. But, as I hinted before
it did not suit our author's purpose to take notice of such
pillages as these; and he has been guilty of still as great
a perverfioa of scripture concerning David, whom Cod
undeniably approved of and appointed to monarchial rule.
“ The high encomium given to David, takes no notice
" of him officially as a King, but only as a man after
" God's own heart." I Know the po r r equ voarion
which the author has here in reserve to offer, for his
faying that this character was not given to Daril officially
as a King, but as a man. kis true, that when 3 roue!
firft applied the Character to David, he had not yet entered
on his office ; but when it was predicted that the kingdom
should not be continued in the family of Saul, because he
had violated the law, and intruded himfelf into the
Priest's duty, which did not belong to him ; the Prophet
tells him, that the Lord bath fought bim a man after bis
own heart, with the express defigfl of making him the
successor of Saul, on account of his excellent and God
He tells us that Samuel, in this passage, does not speak
of what our author calls the " general manner of Kings,"
or thejufl and honest right of a King to do such things,"
because his right is otherwise described elsewhere, as shall
be shewn. The Prophet only speaks of such a right as
the Kings round about Israel had acquired, which was
not a true right : for such is not the fignification of the
original word Mifhpat, but such an action as (being
founded in might and violence) hath the tffeaum juris,
or comes in the place of right.
Monday, 46 Min. after 12
Tuefda,, 38 Min. after 1
Wednesday, z 4 Min. after 2
Thursday, 16 Min. after 3
HIGH-WATER at NEW-YORK, this Week.
I Friday, 6 Min. after 4
Saturday, 52 Min. after 4 I
Sunday, 28 Min. after 5
Ftrfl garter next Thurfday.|
It has been asked—why does not Cato come to the
point? Heis but yet in the suburbs. Softly, gentlemen.
If this be true, why do,o&, who are in the citadel, make
foch a noise, and betray such fears ? Can you not let me
pursue the siege in my own way? I really thought that if
I could sap, or overturn your foundations, the aerial part
of your fabric would tumble to the ground. You call on
me to ffiew my plan ? I have done it, and mentioned, as
such, a fafe return to a connexion with our ancient friends
and kindred, accompanied with all the advantages we
lave formerly experienced, and perhaps more; which, I
trust, are things yet practicable ; or if it should proye
otherwise, we can lose nothing by the exercise of deliber
ation and wisdom, in the mean while. But what have
you done ? Although it was incumbent on you to have
Ihewn the advantages of your plan, to the great and ref
pe&able number of good men who will always be averse
to changes, except in the last necessity ; although you
ought to resolve their honest doubts, concerning their
future fafety and peace, which have been plentifully
thrown out to you; in short, although you ought to have
counted the cofl of your work, and have tried to reconcile,
with your design, a multitude of interests, commercial,
political and (economical, —you have only entertained us
with some loose declamations upon abuses in the English
government; and shocked us, for want of better arguments,
,by a perversion of things sacred; filling the papers with
persona! invedives and calumnies against all who cannot
swallow, at a venture, every crude notion, which you
may cook up, as the politics of the day. This will as
little agree with the stomachs of others as with mine ;
although I have declared that, when the last necessity
comes, I have no expedient in view, but to take my
chance with you, for oetter and f• worie.
CAT O.
BEFORE I enter on the more immediate purpose of
this letter, I think it necessary, once for all, to
endeavour to fettle as clearly as I can, the following point,
viz. How far personality is concerned in any political
debate. The general maxim is, that measures and not
men is the thing in question, and the maxim is undeniably
just when rightly understood. Cato, as a refuge for
hirafelf, hath quoted the author of Common sense, who,
in his preface fays, " That the object for attention is the
doctrine rtfelf, not the man , that is, not the rank or
condition of the man ; for whether he is with those whose
fortune is already made, or with those whose fortune is
yet to make, or among those who seldom think or care
whether they make any, is a matter wholly out of the
qweftiom, and entirely confined to himfelf. But the
political characters, political dependencies, and political
connexions of men, being of a public mature, differ
exceedingly from the circumstances of private life : And
they are in many instances so nearly related to the mea
sures they propose, that, to prevent our being deceived
by the last, we mus be acquainted with the firft. A total
ignorance of men lays us under the danger of mistaking
plausibility for principle.. Could the wolf bleat like the
lamb, the flock would soon be inticed into ruin; where
fore, to prevent the mifehief, he ought to be seen as well
as beard. There never was, nor ever will be, nor ever
ought to be, any important political debate carried on,
in which a total separation in all cases between men and
measures could be admitted with (efficient fafety. When
^have now done with our author on this head, and can
re fah one of his polite expressions.— I despise him"
eq ' h; asa pervertcruf scripture, and of the fundamental
ft styles of mixt government. I am threatened with
br ug “ huhted from every lane and lurking hele,"
H^t tn. I fkuik in no such places, but keep the open
ftr # et<. " Wait a little," fay others, —“ Cato will soon
“ be found tripping, and Humbling upon Tory-noc
" TEINE, the divine right of Kings, non-resistance,
" and the like." Well, gentlemen ! wait patiently till
it fuhappens; but let me, in the mean time, have fair
02^. I claim it of the public, as being engaged in a
carfe which is of the utrn <ft importance to them, as well
as to fayfelf; and while I handle it decently, f can rely
on toeir candor. I have got over what some may have
vie.ed asthe m@ft thorny part of my way ; and, upon the
'wl matter. I contend for this— That wbete & people
a? a hi to ebufe their own forms of government, as has been
the ~fe of all the world for some tboufand years, there is no
pars' -ular denunciation of God's displeasure against any
F ^M, whether MONARCHIAL or DEMOCAAT ICAL,
under which such a people may think their civil bappinrfs bf
fecund, and their duty to God best performed.
Acherlky shall again shelter me in this conclusion,
which is the main purport of the present letter. "Jesus
4 RrsT left all the potentates of this world, and their
: ^ 3*ti3, ;c < -•*•. • \Luir<v'erAl,ri,hM & by the temporal
" laws of each nation and never mmated wh, t
" ro,M or government was most conveni
" ent or eligible," This dire&ly contradi&s our
author, who fays that the Almighty has entered his
protest against the particular form of monarchy. Yet
Acherley was a good whig, and desired to leave
scripture out of the institution of modern governments.
It might be well for the author of Common 'enle to
follow the example, in his future works, without flirting
up an old dispute, of which our fathers were long since
wearied.
like disposition. The Lord bath commanded bim (this man
after his own heart) to be Captain over bis people, because
ttuu [haul] bath not kept that which the Lord commanded
thee. That one man is here rejected from being a King,
be /? -'h's disobedience to God, and another chosen
as his successor, because of his goodness of heart, and
regard to religion, "is true, or scripture is falfe." But
on greater than Samuel, even St. Paul, puts this
bev'i.d all doubt, and appropriates the encomium to
Di , not merely as a King eleß, but one actually exer
ci,.gbe office. " When be bad removed bim (fays the
" Apostle, meaning Saul) be raised up unto them David,
" tobe their King, to %übom also be gave teflimony and said,
" ihave found David, the fen cf %fe, a man after mine
" v.^ bears, which fall fulfil all „ will," namely, in
his character cf a King.
Nurnerc^ are the passage, of scripture which might be
bre^ht to ffiew, that the Almighty approved of David
officially as a King, on account of his public virtues and
th la divine blessing was given to the Jewish monarchy
under his direction. The reader may consult 2 Samuel,
v. .0, iz.-.-viii. 6.-- 1 Kings, viil. j6---Pfaltn Ixxviii.
70. 71, 72 —Psalm Ixxxix. 20, 28.
LETTER 11.
To C A T O.
Wheatper Bulhel, ss. gd.
Flour, 18s. od.
Brown Bread, 15s. od.
Weft-India Rum, ss. od.
New-England, do. 3s. ^d.
PRICE-CURRENT, in NEW-YORK.
Mufcovado Sugar, 645. od.
Single refin'd ditto, is. 2d.
Molasses, is. gd.
Beef per Barrel, 60s. od.
Pork, Bos. od.
I now proceed to Cato's third letter, in the opening of
which be defects the fubjeft of independence, and renews
his attack on the Committee, Cato's manner of writing
has as much order in it as the motion of a fqoirrel; he
frequently writes as if he knew not what to write next,
just as the other, and jumps about only because he cannot
stand still; tho' lam femetimet angry with him for hie
Cato is just as unfortunate in the following paragraph.
" Those, fays he, who made the appeal (that is, puM/hed
" the pamphlet) have but little cause to triumph in its
( tuckcri. Of Crahev seem sensible, and, like tru^
" quacks, are confrandy feftering us hi t ^ditunal arfeg.
'' till the stomachs of their patients begin wholly to
" revolt,' It fe Cato's hard fare to be always detected :
For perhaps there never was a pamphlet, since the use of
letters were known; about which so little pains were
taken, and of which so great a number went off in so
short a time ; lam certain that I am within compafg
when I fay one hundred and twenty thousand. The book:
was turned upon the world like an orphan, to fhift for
itfelf; no plan was formed to support it, neitherhath the
author ever published a syllable on the fubje& from that
time, till alter the appearance of Cato's fourth letter;
wherefore, what Cato fays of additional doses administered
by the author is an absolute falfity. Besides which, it
comes with an ill grace from one, who frequently publishes
two letters in a week, and often puts them both into one
paper. Cato here, Cato there, look where you will.
At the diftanceof a few lines from the above quotations,
Cato prelents us with a retrofpe&ive view of our former
state, in which, fays he, " we considered our connexion
" with Great-Bri^ain as our chief happiness. W^
" flourifhed, grew rich and populous, to a degree not to
" be paralleled in history." This assertion is truly of the
legerdemain kind, appearing at once both right and wrong.
All writers on Cato's fide have used the fame argument,
and conceived themselves invincible; nevertheless, a
single expression, properly placed, diftolvos the charm, for
the cheat lies in putting the consequence for the cause ; for
had we not fiurifhed the connexion had never exited, or
never been regarded, and this is fully proved by the
negle& ihewn to the firft settlers, who had every difficulty
to hruggle with, unnoticed and unnaffifted by the British
Court.
Cato proceeds very industriously to sum up the former
declarations of Congress and other public bodies, some of
which were made upwards of a year ago, to prove that
the do&rine of Independence hath no fanflion from them.
To this I shall give Cato one general answer, which is,
that had he produced a thousand more such authorities
they would new amount to nothing They are out of date.
Times and things are altered. 'The true character ofthe
King was but little known among the body of the people
a y^ ar ag®,---willing to believe him good, they fondly
called him so, but have since found, that Cato's Royal
Sovereign is a Royal Savage.
hypocrisy shall be banilhed from the earth, the knowledge
of mea will be unnecessary, because, their miafurea
cannot then be fraudulent; but until that time ceme
(which never will come) they ought, under proper
limitations, to go together# We have already too much
lecrdcy in feme things, and too little in others ; were
men more known, and measures mere concealed, we
Should have fewer hypocrites, and more security.
As fne chief delign of these letters is to deleft and
expose the fai/hoods and fallacious reasonings of C.to, me
must not expert, (when detected) to be treated like one
Who had debated taiily; for I will be bold to fay, and to
prove, that a gruffer violation ®f truth and reason scarcely
ever came from the pen of a writer; and the explanations
which he hath endeavoured to impose on the passages
which he hath quoted from Common Sense, are such as
never exited in the mind of the author, nor can they be
drawn from the words themselves. Neither must Cato
expert to be spared, where his careleOoefs of expression,
and viable want cf companion and sentiment, shall giva
occasion to raise any moral or philosophical reflexion
thereon. These things being premised, I now proceed to
review the latter part of Cato's second letter.
In this place, Cato begins his firft attack on Common
^ en f e 5 b wt a 8 he only difeovers his ill will, and neither
eftersany arguments against it, nor makes any quotation
from it, I ihould in this place past him by, were it not
for the following strange aflertion: "If little notice,
" fays Cato (little apportion be means) has yet been taken
" of the publications concerning Independence, it it
" neither owing to the popularity of the doctrine, tho
" unanswerable nature of the arguments, nor the fear of
" opposing them, as the vanity of the author would
" suggest." As Cato hath given us the negative reasons,
he ought to have given us the real ones; ter as Ist positively
tells what it was not owing to; he undoubtedly knows
what it was owing to, that bedelayed bis answers so long;
but instead of telling us that (which perhaps is not proper
t® be told) he flies from the argument with the following
plump declaration " nine tenths of the people of
Pennsylvania (favs he) yet abhor the do&rine. Bur flop,
Cato I nocquitefo faft Sriend. If this be true, how camo
they, so late as the 2d of March last, to eleft for a
Burgess of this City, a Gentleman of known independent
principles, and one of the very few to whom the author
ot Common Sense shewed some part thereof while in
manuscript.
Cato hath introduced the above-mentioned long quo^
tation of authorities against independency, with the fol
lowing curious preface. " Nor have many weeks, fays
" he, yet elapsed, since the firft open proposition sot
" independence was published to the world. By what
" men of consequence is this scheme supported, or
" whether by any, may possibly be the fubjea of future
" enquiry. Certainly it hath no countenance from the
" Congress, to whose sentiments we look up with
" reverence. On the contrary, it is dirtily repugnant
"to every declaration of that refpeftable body." Now,
Cato, thou haft nailed thyfelf with a witness! directly
repugnant to every declaration of that refyeaable body 1
mind that, Cato, and mark what follows. It appears by
an extract from the Resolves of the Congress, printed in
the front of the Oration delivered by Dr. Smith, in
honour of that brave man General Montgomery, that he
(the Doaor) was appointed by that honourable body to
compose and deliver the fame, in the execution of which,
the orator exclaimed loudly against the dc^rine of inde
pendence, but when a motion was afterwards made in
Congress (according to former usage) to return the -Orator
thanks, and request a copy for the press, the motion was
rejected from every part of the House, and thrown out
without a division.
Fine Salt, ---None.
Coarse Salt, 4^ 6^
Indian Corn perßu.v 1
Coffee, is. id
Chocolate, 225. per Doz.