against Buenos-Aires; witness, finally, her blockades of Mexico and Buenos-Aires, her bombardment of San Juan de Ulloa and Martin Garcia, and her threatened bombardment of the defenceless city of Buenos-Aires, filled with a peaceful population, while Rosas alone, and not the Argentine people, is declared to be the sole enemy of France.

If France then has flagrantly violated what is due to the interests of civilization and the obligations of humanity, it becomes a question how far neutrals can be justified in viewing this violation with indifference. Our government has indeed nearly a year ago, as we have reason to believe, offered a friendly remonstrance to France against the blockades of Mexico and Buenos-Aires. The British government too remonstrated simultaneously with ours. Answer was made to the British government, that it would not become the dignity of France to appear to yield to these remonstrances, though the hope was felt that the difficulties would speedily disappear, and with them the blockades which they had occasioned. Whether any diplomatic cajolery was practised on our government, we have no means of knowing; but we do know that some time after the answer to the British remonstrance, a despatch was sent to the foreign office at London, to be forwarded to M. Martiguy, the French charge d'affaires, and that it was directed to him at Buenos-Aires. The natural inference from this direction was, that the French government supposing M. Martiguy to be in Buenos-Aires, the negotiation must have taken a friendly turn, growing out of pacific instructions sent out by the French government, and the blockade have been raised. This was a hoax-not a very dignified one for the government of a great nation; but so far useful that it would procure a relief of four months, until return of mail, from the importunity of England. Nor was it wholly innocent, for the Barings, having notice of this trifling fact of the letter dated to Buenos-Aires, sent out an agent to Buenos-Aires in the packet which carried the mysterious despatch, with instructions to seize upon the hides and wool so long imprisoned in the warehouses of the blockaded city.

The right of blockade being purely a belligerent right, growing out of the necessity which a nation at war with another has of shutting up the port of any city to which it may lay siege, in order to prevent the introduction of such assistance or supplies as may defeat its object of reducing the place, as also of arresting the commerce from which a nation may de

rive increased means of resisting, the question naturally occurs, whether a right which grows only out of a state of war, can properly be substituted for that of which it is only an appendage. The question also occurs, whether a nation having cause of complaint against another, be it real or imaginary, can, in order to punish that country and bring it to terms, make use of a species of coercion, which inflicts greater injury on innocent neutrals than on the nation charged with offence, especially when that mode of coercion is strictly a right of war and not a mode of war A nation in seeking redress of another, is bound to accomplish its object with the least possible injury to neutrals, and the least possible invasion of their rights. England has blockaded one of the South American ports within a few years for the purpose of obtaining redress for an alleged insult to her consul, without a declaration of war; but the blockade was of short continuance, and of little consequent injury to neutrals. Like that of Beunos-Aires, it was in violation of the rights of neutrals, as far as it went. If blockade is not a right in itself, but a right dependant on a state of war, France not having declared war upon Buenos-Aires, her blockade is illegal. Under this view of this case, it well becomes powerful neutrals, who have great interests at stake, to consider how long they will continue to submit to ruinous spoliations.

If we are to continue to submit to a blockade no less unjust towards the country upon which it is imposed than ruinous to the interests of neutrals, let us at least take care that it is confined within legitimate limits. Let us, in conformity with the doctrines set forth by our jurists, acknowledge no paper blockades of extensive coasts, no newly invented blockades by intimidation; none, in short, except effective blockades of ports, so closely surrounded by cruisers as to create an imminent danger of capture to vessels attempting to enter. Our merchant ships have a perfect right to enter any port not thus surrounded on the coasts of the Argentine Republic, and in doing so, they are entitled to the protection of our cruisers. That this protection may be more effectual, it is desirable that our squadron in the river of Plate should be reinforced by four or five sloops of war under an officer of decision and energy, furnished with minute instructions to

Since writing the above, we have noticed with pleasure, the appointment of Commodore Ridgely to the command of the Brazilian station. It is hazarding little to say that the important interests of our country in those seas could not have been intrusted to safer hands.

regulate his conduct, and prescribing the cases when he would be justified in resorting to force.

With regard to the probable result of the French demands. against Buenos-Aires, recent information from those countries justifies the opinion that France is very unlikely to succeed in enforcing them. The insurrection which she had excited in Corientes against Rosas, has been put down after a short campaign. Cullen, instead of bringing over the province of Santa Fe to the combined interests of the French and unitarians, has paid with his life the forfeit of his meditated treason. Rivera, too, who had proclaimed that he owed his triumph over the constitutional government of Uraguay, to the assistance of the French, and upon whom they had mainly depended for the overthrow of Rosas, is already retiring upon his capital before the united forces of Rosas and the exiled authorities. The latest arrivals from the river La Plata bring information of the passage of the Uraguay by the allied armies under Echague, to the number of three or four thousand. The schemes of conquest and domination which had their origin in ambition, injustice, and a vain-glorious and overbearing spirit, are likely to meet with merited discomfiture. Without despatching to the Rio de la Plata such an extensive military expedition as we would fain hope would not be contemplated with indifference by either the United States or England, France can make no impression upon the Argentine Republic. We both trust and believe then, that Rosas will sustain himself in the position which he has assumed, as the defender of the honor and independence of his country, and, in fact, of all the South American states. The best turn that the affair could take, would be its settlement by the mediation of a neutral power, through whose good offices something might be conceded to the susceptibility of the assailants, without infringing what is essential to the independence of the Argentine confederation.

ART. IV.-A Popular Essay on subjects of Penal Law, and on uninterrupted Solitary Confinement at Labor, as contradistinguished to Solitary Confinement at Night and Joint Labor by Day, in a Letter to JOHN BACON, Esquire, President of the Philadelphia Society for alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons. By FRANCIS LIEBER, Corresponding Member of the Society; Professor of History in the South Carolina College. Philadelphia: 1838. Published by order of the Society. 8vo. pp. 96.

THERE are few subjects which embrace a larger share of human interests than Prison Discipline. On the one hand, it is of the utmost importance to the public peace, order, and security, that offences should be properly, certainly, and duly punished; and it is very desirable, on the other hand, that the offender should be arrested, reformed, and restored to society, with as little expense, exposure, and suffering, as may be consistent with the attainment of these ends.

In this country there are two systems of discipline, differing from each other chiefly in one point. The Auburn system (so called because it is most fully, and, as some think, most successfully, carried out at the penitentiary at Auburn, New York) separates the convicts by night, but suffers them to work together during the day, requiring however the most rigid non-intercourse. Hence it is also called the social and the silent system. The Pennsylvania system (so called because it was first adopted by that state) separates each convict from the presence of his fellows, and confines him to labor in an apartment by himself, where he also eats and sleeps; thus secluding him night and day from all intercourse with the world; and suffering none to see or converse with him but the officers and inspectors of the prison, or such as have authority by law. Hence it is called the separate or solitary

system.

The question, which of these modes of discipline is best adapted to secure the legitimate ends of punishment, is not likely to be determined, until time has shown the result of the two plans upon a generation of convicts. It has been said, that we must wait patiently for an experience of ten years; that is, not for ten years of discipline, for that has already elapsedbut for a class of prisoners who have tried the two systems

sufficiently to feel their full power and fair influence, and who have afterwards enjoyed, for an average of ten years, the ordinary privileges of citizenship, in such a form as to test the permanency of the effects. We do not place much reliance upon this test, inasmuch as the designation of this or that individual as a specimen of prison reform, would of itself be highly prejudicial to his interests; and, moreover, the notions of reform entertained by different minds, are as various as the features of the human face.

In the mean time, however, different states and countries are adopting one or the other of the prevailing systems, and are incurring great expense in buildings and arrangements of various kinds, which it will be difficult to persuade them to abandon or essentially modify, if the system they adopt should prove ineligible. The consequences of error must be endured for half a century, perhaps. It is of some consequence, therefore, that all we can adduce by way of argument or evidence in favor of or against either system, should be well considered.

One of the objections, (and, so far as popular feeling is concerned, the most formidable,) to the Pennsylvania system, is its EXPENSIVENESS; at least, this has turned the scale with some who unhesitatingly admit the superiority of its discipline. Hence it is fairly presumed, that this would have been adopted in several instances in this country, if it could have been shown that the profits to the state would have equalled those which the Auburn discipline promises. Our present object is to inquire into the validity of this objection. This we shall do in the spirit of truth and humanity, seeking nothing but the highest welfare of all parties concerned.

It is not relevant to the present object, to consider the origin, nor to discuss at large the limitations of the right of punishment. This has been done with much clearness and ability, in a late letter of Professor Lieber, to the "Philadelphia Society for the Alleviation of the Miseries of Public Prisons," which we have placed at the head of this article. We beg our readers, therefore, to understand, that we take it for a given point, that the objects more or less directly secured as the effects of punishment, are not to be confounded with the ground of the right of society to punish. The right to punish, is founded in its justice, on which also rests the