now believes it all.

This sort of talk is common with those who wish to frame an excuse for the men who condemned that, in the days of Elizabeth, which they had approved in the days of Edward; but there is no foundation for such assertions. They are sheer misapprehension, or something worse, Besides, in regard to the comparative degree of conformity to the "Popish Missals," the difference is precisely the other way.

Another point on which Mr. Bacon dwells at some length, but to which we can only allude, is the treatment of the Indians. On this subject he holds the following strong lan

guage:

"All the maligners of the Puritans may be defied to show that one rood of ground, within this [New Haven] colony, was acquired otherwise than by a free, fair bargain, and equitable payment." (p. 95.) "There is no hazard in asserting, that the general course of the policy adopted by our fathers, in respect to the Indians, was characterized by kindness. The right of the Indians to the soil was admitted and respected." (p. 330.)

Now we have no quarrel with the memory of these settlers, about the title of their lands. It is not our purpose to go into a discussion of any of these points, but we cannot forbear expressing our surprise, that Mr. Bacon should represent the settlers of New Haven, as purchasing the land on which they established the colony. If we wished to represent the planters of New Haven colony, as a set of overreaching, swindling sharpers, we would talk about their "purchasing" the land of the Indians, and then bring forward the "consideration," "the fair bargain and equitable payment," to wit: "twelve coats of English trucking cloth, twelve alchemy spoons, twelve hatchets, twelve hoes, two dozen knives, twelve porringers, and four cases of French knives and scissors," as evidence of it. But such are not the facts. The colonists never pretended to buy, in the common acceptation of that language, any part of their lands. The first colonists went to New Haven in the fall of 1637, and Mr. Davenport and his company arrived there in April, 1638. In November of that year, the colonists and the Indians of Quinnipiac entered into an "agreement," in which the Indians "jointly and severally gave, and yielded up, all right, title, and interest," to their lands, except certain small portions, "to be set out by the English," for their own resi

dence. Now the "considerations" which moved them to make this gift, was not what was paid by the whites, but the privilege of fleeing to them "for shelter," and of receiving their assistance in "defending them from wrong." The whites do not even pretend that they bought or paid for these lands; and the articles which they gave the Indians form no part of the consideration in the "agreement." The Indians "gave and yielded up" the possession of their lands, as they understood the language, and the whites accepted of them on the conditions mentioned, as they understood the language; consequently, when they come to mention the various articles given to the Indians, they are described as presents, not as pay. "And the English planters, ... do further, of their own accord, by way of free and thankful retribution, give," etc. Such is the language of the "agreement" between the whites and Indians. Is this the language of "bargain" and "payment"? The true nature of this transaction, was, that of a gift of land from the Indians to the English, for the sake of securing their protection, and the gift of a few trinkets from the English to the Indians-a view vastly more honorable to the English, than the one taken by Mr. Bacon. In December of the same year, Mantoese, an Indian sachem, living on the northern borders of Quinnipiac, "did freely of his own accord, give, grant, and yield up, all his right, title," etc., to a tract of country "ten miles wide and thirteen miles long," and the planters, "accepting this free gift of the land,” did, "by way of thankful retribution, give," etc., "eleven coats made of English trucking cloth, and one coat of English cloth," etc. In neither of these deeds, is there one syllable about purchase, or "bargain," or "payment." It was a deed of free gift of a few weak and persecuted Indians, to secure the protection of the whites. In this representation, who are properly the "maligners of the Puritans," Mr. Bacon and his associates, or those who deny the correctness of his statements on this head?

The assertion that "the right of the Indians to the soil was admitted and respected," should also be understood with some qualification. That they had a certain sort of "right to the soil," has always been theoretically acknowledged in this country; but it has never been acknowledged that they possessed any absolute ownership of it. The theory of the settlers was, from the first, that the Indians had the right of occupancy, as long as they pleased to remain on it, but that they had no right

to sell it, except to the English, and that in accordance with the laws of the colonists. The complete independence of the Indian tribes was never acknowledged by the colonists; but they were held to be in "a state of dependance and pupilage," owing subjection to the laws and regulations of the colonists. This subject was so ably discussed, and so clearly settled, in the case of Johnson v. McIntosh, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1823, that we are surprised to see it so often mooted. We are surprised that men who have said so much on this subject, should have forgotten that case.

There is one point in which we feel no particular interest, and yet as a matter of history, it ought not to be entirely overlooked. We conclude from what Mr. Bacon says in several places, that he intends to represent the "old school" presbyterians and congregationalists of the present day, as the successors of the "old school" folks, in the days of Chauncy and Edwards; and the "new school" of modern days, as the true representatives of the party of Edwards and Bellamy. This representation is correct in some points, but incorrect in others. If we look at the measures of the two parties, the "new school" of the present day, is the true representative of the "new school" of a century ago; but if we look at their doctrines, the present "new school," is much more like the "old," than the "new school" of the last century.

We have pointed out some inaccuracies in Mr. Bacon's work; we feel bound to render him the praise of giving a more correct account of the extravagances of 1740, and immediately before and after, enacted under the name of religion, than we have ever seen from the pen of any congregationalist. Of the leading historians of that period, Dr. Chauncy, was strongly prejudiced on one side, and Dr. Trumbull, not much less so on the other. Trumbull's account of the difficulty with Mr. Noyes, was mainly copied from the account given by Mr Bird, the minister of the "dissenting congregation ;" and his account of the difficulty with Rev. Mr. Robbins, of Branford, almost entirely from a pamphlet published by Mr. Robbins, who considered himself the aggrieved party. Trumbull's account of the "Wellingford Controversy," should also be taken with some grains of allowance. On such of these points as Mr. Bacon has had occasion to treat he has pursued a much more impartial course than any of his predecessors.

ART. III.-1. Oficio del Consul Encargado Interinamente del Consulado General de Francia en Buenos-Aires, al Sr. Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de la Confederacion Argentina. Contestacion del Sr. Ministro y otros documentos relativos al mismo asunto. Buenos-Aires: 1838. Imprenta del Estado. 2. Ultimatum del Sr. Consul de Francia Mr. Aimé Roger, dirigido al Gobierno de Buenos-Aires, Encargado de las Relaciones Exteriores de la Confederacion Argentina, con la correspondente contestacion y documentos que le son relativos. BuenosAires: 1838. Imprenta del Estado.

3. El Nacional.

159.

Montevideo: Junio 2, de 1839. Numero

4. Manifiesto sobre la Infamia, Alevosia y Perfidia con que el Almirante Frances Mr. Leblanc, y demas Agentes de la Francia residentes en Montevideo, han hostilizado y sometido a la tirania del Rebelde Fructuoso Rivera, al Estado Oriental del Uraguay, que, conforme a su constitucion, se hallaba bajo la presidencia legal del Brigdier General D. Manuel Oribe. Buenos-Aires: 1838. Imprenta del Estado.

THE first two of the above publications are pamphlets put forth by the government of Buenos-Aires, with a view to make the world acquainted with the true state of its quarrel with France, and with the motives which that powerful nation deemed sufficient to justify her in blockading the port of Buenos-Aires, and even extending her hostilities to the capture, by force of arms, of the island of Martin Garcia, a dependancy of Buenos-Aires. The last pamphlet contains a manifesto of the constitutional president of the Oriental Republic of Uraguay, subsequent to his expulsion from Montevideo, the seat of gov ernment, by the insurgent chief Don Fructuoso Rivera, encouraged and assisted by the arts of the French consul at Montevideo, and of the French admiral before the port. These publications consist, the two first entirely, and the last chiefly, of official correspondence, which passed between the respective parties. It follows that as all parties to the various differences, state their own grievances, and speak in their own defence, the several collections of official documents may

be taken together as a fair exposition of the questions at issue. With these documents before us, we purpose then to trace out the origin and progress of the disputes, by placing the arguments of both parties before the reader, and, having illustrated the question by some personal information, which a familiarity with the scenes and actions has placed within our reach, to institute an inquiry as to how far the conduct of France can be reconciled with a just regard to the interests of civilization, or the obligations of humanity.

We learn from the first collection of documents placed at the head of this article, that in the year 1830, a claim of exemption from militia duty, was advanced on behalf of his countrymen, domiciliated in the Argentine confederation, by the then consul general of France. The argument in favor of this claim, was founded on an alleged right conferred by the law of nations, on the usage of France in conferring the rights and obligations of citizenship only where they are voluntarily sought, and on the terms of a capitulation, entered into in 1829, in a moment of revolution, by the viscount of Venancourt, at the head of the armed French residents of Buenos Aires, and the intrusive government of Rivadavia, having possession of the city, but not recognised in the province, and which was soon after driven out. This exemption was also claimed on the ground of its having been conceded by treaty to British subjects, and of free will to the citizens of the United States.

To this claim of exemption from military duty, made by the French consul general, on behalf of his countrymen, both transient and permanent residents, reply was made by Don' Tomas Manuel Anchorena, then minister of foreign affairs of Buenos-Aires, that by the law of the Republic of the tenth of April, 1821, travellers and transient residents were not considered as domiciliated in the country, nor liable to perform military duty; but those foreigners only were considered as domiciliated, and therefore thus liable, who were owners of retail shops or groceries, proprietors of real estate, or who exercised any mechanic art in the country; also the wholesale merchant established in a commercial house, together with his clerks and dependants; and in general all those whatever might be their trade or occupation, who had resided for two years uninterruptedly in the province. It was also stated that the government was determined to enforce this law with regard to those who had willingly assumed the obligation of obeying