and he says, that blue is here equivalent to bloody. It is a sufficient refutation of this account of the matter to say, that if there was any distinction between the colony of New Haven and the other united colonies of New England in the severity of their punishments, New Haven was the last of the number to gain this bad pre-eminence. Others have said, that certain laws of New Haven, of a more private and domestic kind, were bound in a blue cover, and hence the name. This explanation has as little probability as the preceding for its support. It is well known, that on the restoration of Charles II., the Puritans became the subject of every kind of reproach and contumely. Not only what was deserving of censure in their deportment, but their morality was especially held up to scorn. The epithet blue was applied to any one who looked with disapprobation on the licentiousness of the times. The Presbyterians, under which name all dissenters were often included, as they still dared to be the advocates of decency, were more particularly designated by this term; their religion and their morality being marked by it as mean and contemptible. Thus Butler, 46 'For his religion it was fit To match his learning and his wit; Hudib., Cant. I. That this epithet of derision should find its way to the colonies was a matter of course. It was here applied not only to but to the customs, institutions, persons, and laws of the Puritans by those who wished to render the prevailing system ridiculous. Hence, probably a belief with some, that a distinct system of laws known as the "blue laws," must have had somewhere a local habitation. It seems that the impression, that these laws had been embodied more especially in New Haven, had become quite common as early, at least, as 1767. In the continuation of Smith's History of New York, published in the fourth volume of the Collections of the New York Historical Society, the author states, that, being in New Haven, he examined the early records of the colony. He subjoins the following: "A note ought not to be suppressed respecting these records, to correct a voice of misplaced ridicule. Few there are who speak of the blue laws (a title, of the origin of which the author was ignorant), who do not imagine they form a code of rules for future conduct, drawn up by an enthusiastic, precise set of religionists; and if the inventions of wits, humorists, and buffoons were to be credited, they must consist of many large volumes. The The The volume examined by Judge Smith and Governor Hutchinson was evidently the first volume of the colonial records. The author is correct in saying that this volume contains no code of laws; and there is nothing corresponding to what are called the blue laws to be found in any other volume. He might have added, that the decisions of the magistrates to which he refers, though sometimes relating to matters of decorum, contain no references to any code of laws, or imply any such regulations, as most of those which Peters reports as the blue laws of New Haven. No proceedings before the magistrates, it is believed, are recorded, which imply that the dress of the inhabitants was, in any degree, a matter of their cognizance; much less that such rules were enforced as many of those mentioned by Peters. This author affirms, that among the blue laws never suffered to be printed, were such laws as these, no one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the sabbath day." "No woman shall kiss her child on the sabbath or fasting day." "No one shall read Common Prayer, keep Christmas or saints' day, make mince pies, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of music, except the drum, trumpet, and jewsharp." "Every male shall have his hair cut round according to a cap" and many others like these, of which there is no trace, it is believed, on the records; unless, perhaps, playing cards would have come under censure. Peters places to the account of New Haven laws of other jurisdictions, but which New Haven knew nothing of. For instance, he says there was a blue law, that "no priest shall abide in this dominion; he shall be banished, and suffer death on his return." There was a law against priests and Jesuits in Massachusetts and in New York, and they were to suffer death in certain cases; but there was no such law in New Haven. He mentions also a few laws which may be found substantially in the New Haven code. Thus, he enumerates among the blue laws this against lying: "Whoever publishes a lie to the prejudice of his neighbour, shall sit in the stocks, or be whipped fifteen stripes." The New Haven code, as before stated, contained a law against lying, but it is not here correctly represented; though it is a little remark able, that the author, in this instance, swerves less from the fact than perhaps in the case of any other law in his whole list. He must have felt a peculiar horror of this ordinance; which circumstance probably fixed the terms of it more exactly in his mind. Governor Hutchinson, in his History of Massachusetts, and Dr. Belknap, in his History of New Hampshire, enumerate laws in other colonies, which approach much nearer the character of the code described by Peters than anything which ever was enjoined in the colony of New Haven. Hubbard says, "they," the colonists of New Haven, "were very vigorous in the execution of justice, and especially the punishment of offenders." This account is fully confirmed by the colony records. Their laws were not a dead letter; and the rigid execution of them may have given New Haven very early the reputation of legislating in minute particulars beyond what was fact. It is a little singular, that this colony should have had so extensively the name of regulating the cut of the hair, and the fashion of the dress of the inhabitants, when, of the United Colonies, it was the only one which abstained from all laws of this description. Even the law respecting tobacco in New Haven went no farther than to forbid smoking, where buildings might be endangered. It may be important here to add, that the New Haven colonial records, including the records of the General Court, the court of magistrates, town meetings, and the settlement of estates, are nearly or quite entire, and in good preservation. It is most evident, from a very slight inspection of these volumes, that nothing of any importance was transacted in the colony which was not recorded at the time, and with a detail of particulars; which precludes the possibility of there having been rules of conduct enforced by any public authority, which are not there mentioned.]—Kingsley's Hist. Disc., pp. 104–108. CALUMNIES AGAINST CATHOLIC VOTERS REFUTED. [The series of articles which follows, was occasioned by the effort made by the editor of a leading political journal, to identify Bishop England and the Catholic voters of the United States with one of the political parties of the day, and to charge upon them both the practice of corrupt means for advancing its interests, and also a participation with the European governments in a scheme for the overthrow of the republican institutions of their country. They appeared in the United States Catholic Miscellany, Nos. 10-17 of Vol. XX., for 1840. The two short pieces added, under the same head, are extracted from Nos. 25 and 27 of the same volume.] SECTION I. CATHOLIC VOTERS. We had seen the letter of Bishop England, upon which the editor of the "Baltimore Pilot and Transcript," Mr. Duff Green, who is a writer favourable to the election of General Harrison to the Presidency, has fastened his commentary. It is more than a month since we read the letter upon a Georgia paper. We found it did not contain anything religious, anything Catholic, anything which called for insertion in our columns, and we did not therefore copy it; indeed we had determined not to give it a place in our paper, which is altogether a Catholic, religious publication. It has gone the round of many of the secular journals, and we had let it fall from our memory, until we found that Mr. Green contrived to give it a religious complexion, and to make it the occasion for what we consider a very uncalled for aggression upon the Catholics. In his paper of the 3d of September, Mr. Green prefaces the introduction of the letter by an article which we shall give, after the letter itself shall be spread before our readers. Its history is brief. Bishop England was on his visitation in the city of Columbus, in Muscogee county, in Georgia, in the month of July. The place was almost driven to frenzy by the devices of electioneering; amongst other topics that caused great excitement, was one which attributed all the miseries of the country, real and imagined, to the present administration; and it was urged that if the opposing candidate was elected, the country would be in a most prosperous condition. People were drawn away to all sorts of political meetings, for and against, to distant places, to the ruin of their morals, and to the injury of their property; and they were assured by men of talents and of eloquence, that the support of their particular party was the only way of getting out of their difficulties. The expectation, founded upon this mode of paying debts and of getting rich, became a mania through the country. Several per sons called upon the Bishop, as they did upon many others, to learn his and their opinions. He avoided interfering between the opposite candidates, though as a citizen of nearly twenty years standing, and at least sufficiently aged to form an opinion, he had as good a right to take a side as any other citizen has. His own flock, and other persons who differed with him in religion, made the appeals indiscriminately. He was invited to a barbecue, by a committee deputed from a respectable meeting; that committee brought him a written invitation, and he felt that he ought to give a written reply. He did not feel that it would be proper for him to attend, but he also felt that he owed some courtesy to those who had invited him. He, therefore, took occasion, after explaining the grounds for his declining to meet them, to say that which he still believes to be the fact that the distress of the land is not the result of having one party in power, and will not be removed by a change of administration. He said, moreover, that some of the most eminent citizens were of a different opinion. Was this making a Catholic party? We know some most respectable Catholics who think as these eminent men do, and who differ with the Bishop, but with whom Bishop England is upon the most intimate footing, not only of friendship, but of religion. Is this a Catholic political party? The Bishop, without reference to party, stated, what he still believes, that much of the distress was caused by avaricious, miscalculating, unprincipled speculation; by vain ostentation, by dissipation, and, he thought, the remedy was to be found in habits of industry, economy, and persevering frugality. For our part, we think it became any man who was asked his opinion to say so much, if such was really his conviction. Does Mr. Green think it unbecoming in a bishop to recommend industry, economy, and frugality? The Bishop, moreover, earnestly recommended to a community maddened by stump orators, and set by the ears at each other, by declamations which were for the most part froth and falsehood, to lay aside unkind feelings to allow that mutual freedom of thought and action which is congenial to good republican simplicity; to vote as before God they should deem best for the good of the country, and peaceably to abide the result of the ballot-box. Does Mr. Green consider this unbecoming language for a Catholic bishop? We do not. The obnoxious letter is thus printed: "Columbus, July 25, 1840. my whom, in the presence of God, we shall con- esteem, your obliged fellow-citizen, "JOHN, Bishop of Charleston. are "correct of themselves." What, then, caused Mr. Green to "regret the publication of the letter?" "Because the expressions will be connected with the political and party discussions." Now we are authorized to say that, with the publication of the letter, Bishop England has just as little concern as had General Green. The connexion of the expressions with political and party discussion, so far as we have seen, is altogether the work of Mr. Duff Green, and certainly not imputable to the bishop. "GENTLEMEN: I have been honoured by your invitation to attend, on Tuesday next, at the feast to be given in honour of certain distinguished citizens of Georgia and Alabama, by the Democratic citizens of Muscogee county. "Generally speaking, I should feel it would be more prudent for me to unite with fellowcitizens only at the ballot-box, in using my right as a member of the republic, to approve or to censure the conduct of those to whom we entrust the guardianship of our liberties. On the pre- We now ask whether this letter, written sent occasion, I feel the additional force of a under such circumstances, be a crime, the monition given by my brethren at the last coun- perpetration of which should give great pain cil, (a few months since,) upon this very subject, to Mr. Duff Green? Even Mr. Green himin a pastoral letter. I trust, then, that my re-self avows that the Bishop's expressions spectfully declining your invitation, will not be considered as wanting in courtesy to you. The body to which I belong professes to be one of peace and conciliation; should its members unite actively with political parties mutually opposed, while each declares that it seeks only the prosperity of our republic, their capacity to promote peace and conciliation would be at an end. You will feel that the influence of such a ministry of good-will would, in our present state of excitement, be useful, if not necessary, and I am sure you will approve of the determination by which I am bound. 1 think, however, I may venture to say that the best remedy for our present unfortunate position is to be found in preferring industry to speculation, labour to cabal, economy to ostentation, patient and persevering frugality to dissipation. I, therefore, consider that man who aids in making our lands productive, to be our most useful citizen; I regard the laborious, well-conducted mechanic, as preferable to the speculator in stocks, or to the usurer. The former creates the wealth of a nation-the latter endeavours to get into its possession, under the pretext of its management; I also believe that our federal government has had as little influence in producing the present distress in our states, as it had in producing that which afflicts Europe; and that it has as little power to alleviate that distress as it has constitutional right to interfere with its causes. "Because the expressions will receive an interpretation conveying unmerited imputations, calculated to blend religious faith with party zeal, and thus embitter a political controversy already too much excited." The interpreter is the person chargeable with this, and that interpreter is Mr. Duff Green, and not the writer of the letter, whose expressions were "correct of themselves." Mr. Green's commentary is the following: "BISHOP ENGLAND'S LETTER. "A friend has called our attention to the letter of Bishop England, published in the Republican, of Monday. We insert it below. "Soine of our most eminent citizens have expressed deliberate opinions widely different from mine. I have given full consideration of their reasoning, but cannot come into their conclusions. In one point, however, I should hope we could all unite. That laying aside unkind feelings, bitterness, strife, and mere partisan attachments, we should endeavour to bring back our habits of good republican simplicity, and zealous for our country's good, endeavour, by the peaceable process of the ballot-box, to place in the The Protestant community have been warnadministration of our government those citizensed, as well from the pulpit as from the press, that "To those who know us, we need not say that the perusal has given us great pain. We are aware that there is a deep and abiding prejudice against Catholicism, and that many believe there is a well arranged pian on the part of Catholic monarchies in the world, to revolutionize our government, by the introductions of Catholic emigrants. the money expended in getting up schools, as well as that used in sending pauper and other Catholic population to this country, is part of a system which, looking to the nature of our institutions, contemplates a great religious as well as civil revolution, by the means of imported Catholic votes. It is also believed, that the publication of Van Buren's letter to the Pope got him Catholic votes at the late election. It was, therefore, with great pleasure that we read the pastoral letter addressed to the Catholics, as a body, admonishing them to moderation in political discussions. It was under the influence of the perusal of that letter that our article, in reference to the act of the lord proprietors establishing religious toleration in Maryland, was penned. That article has brought us more than one letter, calling upon us to open our press, against the Catholic influence, and one imputing our not doing so, to a desire to conciliate Catholic votes. We have forborne to notice these letters, because, until the result of the Illinois elections, and this letter of Bishop England, we had seen nothing in the progress of the canvass, to justify a belief that any attempt to bring the Catholics as a body to vote for Mr. Van Buren, would receive the countenance of the Catholic clergy, or of any distinguished member of that body. politics as well as in religion; but we cannot close our eyes to the fact, that the elections in Illinois have been carried for the administration by the imported Catholic voters. We cannot close our eyes to the fact, that Mr. Van Buren is in a condition to make any sacrifice to secure his re-election, and that his partisans in Illinois. have obtained this foreign Catholic aid, by an ap peal to the passions and prejudices of men whose residence in the country had not qualified them to understand our institutions; and they were permitted to vote, before they had become citizens, or relinquished their allegiance to a foreign government. We will add a word more. We are sensible that no political press in this city has dared to speak out on this subject, under a belief that the effect would be to prejudice the private interest of the publisher, and to drive the whole Catholic vote over to Mr. Van Buren. We are sure-we know that there are timid and time-serving Protestants of our own party, who will be frightened, and censure us. We act upon no such principle. In the first place, we believe that there are many Catholics who concur with us in all our regrets at the publication of this letter, who will admit the justice of our remarks, and who will regret it no less on account of its tendency to injure the Catholic cause, than for any bearing it may have it may operate on Catholic voters, but we are prepared to do our duty, as the conductor of a free press, regardless of such influence. The candid of his own admirers cannot but see in Bishop England's letter, and the circumstances to which we refer, a justification for all we have said, and more." "We regret the publication of this letter, be-on politics. We are not prepared to say how far cause there are those who will find in it, considering the relation which Bishop England bears to the Pope and to the Catholics of this country, (it is said, that he has been designated by the Pope, as INQUISITOR-General of the United States,') a confirmation of their worst fears, and because we greatly regret that one occupying so important a place in the Catholic church, should have used expressions, which, however correct of themselves, will be connected with the political and party discussions, and receive an interpretation, conveying unmerited imputations, calculated to blend religious faith with party zeal, and thus embitter a political controversy, already too much excited. "While speaking on this subject, we take the occasion to say, that whatever may be the dreams of religious enthusiasts abroad, we have no apprehension that any scheme to establish any sectarian religion in this country, can ever prevail. Where there is so much zeal and system, it would be surprising if the Catholic clergy abroad, did not avail themselves of the wide field presented to them in the fertile regions of the West, to extend what they believe to be the true faith. It is the principle on which other Christian denominations act, and they have as much right as Protestants to erect schools, to send out missionaries, and to digest schemes of proselytism. This is their duty, and so long as the Catholic clergy believe that theirs is the true faith, they will exert themyelves to extend that faith. It is only when we find those who exercise a spiritual control, like that of Bishop Eng. land, putting aside his priestly robes, and entering the field of politics, as he has done in this instance, that we feel called upon to examine how far that spiritual control is calculated to exercise an undue influence over the minds of men, and to call upon all good Catholics, as well as Protestants, to resist it. We are the advo. cates of toleration. We are for toleration in specu This commentary contains an assault upon Bishop England, for an assumed partisanship against the party of Mr. Green, which the Bishop positively did not commit, unless Mr. Green will assert that this party is deservedly characterized as noted for " lation," " cabal," ," "ostentation," and "dissipation," for "usury," "monopoly of commerce," "and seeking to create sectional preferences and facilities, by the use of the public purse." It is not for us to say that the General is unacquainted with his employers: but so far as we can perceive, Bishop England has indeed denounced bad practices, but did not attribute them to either of the parties engaged in the contest, that task he has left to those whose better acquaintance with the perpetrators qualifies them better for its discharge. But suppose the Bishop had "put aside his priestly robes, and entered into the field of politics," as Mr. Green asserts he has done in this instance, why does the General again clothe him in those robes? Why not assail him without thus covering him with what he had put off? Is it not manifest that the object was to mangle the robes under the pretext of merely wounding the politician? To strike Dr. England, would be a poor vengeance; but to strike, and to wound, and |