The same authority agrees entirely with the opinion of Munos, (as expressed in the preface to his History of the New World,) that Herrera frequently displays great want of judgement and infidelity in adopting or contriving idle fables instead of facts.

All the works of Las Casas breathe the pure benevolent spirit of a devout and religious man, who viewed all the human race as members of one family, bound to love, comfort, and assist each other. In a most curious treatise on the question, whether the heads of a government had any right to alienate part of the national territory, he enters at length, and with great force and argument, into the principles of government, contending, that what concerns all requires the consent of all; that no custom or prescription can run against liberty; that all just government rests on its utility to the governed; that the will of the people is the only law, as its interest is the only cause of government; that all acts of a government, not tending to that interest, are arbitrary and illegal; and that no one could justly have any burthen imposed on him without his con

sent.

All his other productions inculcate the same broad principles and in that which treats expressly on the means of remedying the misfortunes of the natives of the New World, he constantly repeats that liberty is the first and best of possessions; that all men of all nations are free; and that to enslave, even under pretext of conversion, is contrary to all law human and divine. He goes into great detail as to the means of relief for the poor Indians; and it is surely needless to observe, that such a mode as that laid to his charge is no where pointed out. The only passage in which negroes are mentioned, proves, that they had already been introduced. "The Indians," he says, " tormented by the agents of the public authorities, and by their masters, are still more harrassed by the servants and negroes of those masters."

Two MSS. [No. 10536] in the king's library at Paris, though anonymous, seem correctly ascribed to Las Casas. One is a treatise on the donation of Alexander VI.: the object of it is to contend that the kings of Castille are bound to restore their possessions to the natives. The second is a Letter, written in 1555, in which the author advocates strongly the claims of the Indians, on the principles of natural law, and on scriptural declarations of the equality of all men. He speaks of the blacks, as existing in America, but makes no allusion to them in the remedies he proposes for the misfortunes of the natives. He even went so far as to enjoin the priests of his, diocese to refuse absolution to those who would not give liberty and indemnity to their slaves. Can we believe that.

their black skins would make all the difference with a man of this sort, so as to justify the infliction of more multiplied cruelties?

The real history of the final establishment of the Slave Trade, as it appears on the pages of Herrera himself, is this:From the first conquest of America, negro slaves had more or less been imported; in the first instance, by owners of born slaves carrying them from Spain; afterwards, by importation, chiefly through the Portuguese, from Guinea. The settlers, however, found it much cheaper to enslave the native Indians, though less competent to the work, than either to bring over their slaves, who were valuable property in Spain and the islands, or to procure new importations. The consequence was, a profligate, indiscriminate destruction of life. By degrees the importation of Africans increased, and the Spanish government encouraged it as a relief to the Indians, perhaps justly, because the Indians were free, while the Africans imported were most of them born slaves, or brought from a country where slavery was sanctioned by immemorial usage; and because the destruction of life, with these men, was only as one to four of the Indians.

When commissioners were sent out, in 1516, to superintend and assist in the amelioration of the state of the Indians, Ximenes himself, who is to be extolled at the expense of Las Casas, pointed out to them, in their instructions, the propriety of so assisting the Indians, and of encouraging the negro importation; nay, further, he gave directions that armaments should be furnished for assisting the settlers in attacking and enslaving the Caribs, whom he coolly delivers over, en masse, "as fit only for labour, and proper to be condemned to it." That these orders were consistent with the views of Las Casas, no one pretends; on the contrary, we find him protesting against the tolerance which the commissioners thought it necessary, on account of the exhausted state of the country, to extend to the principle of slavery; and, when unsuccessful, setting out once more for Spain.

Ximenes, however, soon after issued orders to suspend the further importation of negroes into America; but Herrera himself gives a reason more creditable to the fiscal than the humane views of this statesman, viz. that the Indians were found to be so reduced in numbers that it was seen the working population must soon be supplied from Africa; and the general importation was therefore suspended for a season, in order that the Spanish government might turn it to account by putting it under the grasp of the revenue. The consequence was, as might be expected, that particular privileges were obtained by individuals, and monopolies were created. Charles I. then in

Flanders, was besieged by Flemish merchants, who sought to obtain these exclusive privileges. The effect of this was, that the settlers gave more for their slaves, and consequently had more inducement to attack the Indians.

In this state of things Las Casas met the new king in Spain, in 1517, when he is stated to have contrived the slave trade, and, according to Robertson's apparent arrangement of facts, to have vanquished the philanthropy of Ximenes, then dead. In this year, at the earnest instance of the commissioners, it is true that the fiscal scheme of Ximenes was revoked by the new ministry, so far as to authorize all Spaniards residing in America to import and purchase slaves; but the trade, it must be recollected, had never for a moment ceased; the only dispute was as to the terms on which it should be permitted with a view to the revenue.

The utmost then that can be brought against Las Casas is, that he countenanced the proceeding by which the Flemish monopolies were destroyed, (or rather were intended to be, for the king again interfered with the freedom of the trade by granting an exclusive privilege to his major domo, which the colonists, in 1523, once more exerted their influence to destroy.) If he had done so, it would have amounted only to this, that, being brought up in a country where slavery was supported by immemorial usage, and sanctioned by the church, he bounded his efforts to prevent the subjugation of newly discovered nations, instead of directing his energies to the destruction of the principle of slavery in any shape. So Wilberforce and Clarkson might be blamed for not emancipating the present and future slave population of our colonies, while they placed bounds to the extension of the trade. He found one race of men in slavery; men whose value would ensure some consideration in their treatment from their masters, and was of opinion, that it was impolitic and inhuman to drive them to enslave and murder a population free and independent, and totally unfit for laborious employment, by throwing difficulties in the way of the colonists using what the existing laws of society, however erroneously, treated as their property.

But we have shown that there is no ground for fixing Las Casas even with the tolerance of slavery in any form, or with any participation in these schemes, which were, after all, mere fiscal regulations, and it does not seem necessary to say any thing more on the strange looseness of Robertson's statements, by which a previous trading regulation of Ximenes is converted into a moral opposition to the arguments of Las Casas in favour of a proposal made, if at all, after that minister's death.

We have already remarked on the comprehensive princi

ples on which his arguments against any infringements of the liberties of man were founded. His writings breathe any thing but the spirit of a partial advocate for a favourite class, and it is impossible to conceive that such a man, if conscious of even a momentary concession to arbitrary or temporizing policy, should not attempt to shield himself from the obvious charge of inconsistency by some apology or palliation.

The acts of Las Casas, in this very year, form a striking comment on what must have been his feelings upon the question, and the means which suggested themselves to his mind, as most honourable to his country, and most consistent with sound policy as well as enlightened humanity. We actually find him zealously employed in collecting a number of Spanish labourers, to whom, by the permission of government, he held out inducements to proceed with him to the colonies; and, if this plan failed, it was not for want of the unwearied exertions of this disinterested friend of his species.

The seeds of error were, however, sown, and historians found the topic favourable for declamation. The tale would turn a paragraph with effect, and no one inquired whether it

was true.

Las Casas had many enemies; two centuries later he would have had still more, for cruelty and rapaciousness would have had more time to know the value of the ill-gotten plunder, which his efforts were directed towards preventing. It is not very probable, that all would have refrained from the practical answer which his conduct would have offered to his arguments. We find they were not slow in fixing the blame of their enormities at the door of others. One of their earliest resources was to ascribe the desolation and depopulation of America to the intolerant and fanatic zeal of the church. How willing would they have been to attribute the miseries of their slaves to Las Casas, the indefatigable labourer in the benevolent task of conciliating and civilizing the minds of the natives; of whom he observes, that it was far easier to make them Christians, than to keep their oppressors so!

Nothing is more unfounded than the charges attempted to be brought by the oppressors of America against the missionaries, who spread over the country in the pious work of conversion. Above all, the Dominicans are entitled to the highest praise, and their mode of conversion is worthy of imitation, even in these more enlightened days of zeal for bringing in the Heathen. Their plan was to conciliate the natives by perpetual and unwearied acts of kindness, to teach them useful arts, and to better their temporal, as well as spiritual, condition: whatever became of their doctrines, they did good, and paved the way for the reception of higher degrees of moral improvement.

Marmontel has lent his name to the absurd and ignorant cry against fanaticism, as the cause of the destruction of the Indians. The time is, we hope, past, when any one who has learned to repeat with emphasis the words superstition and fanaticism, can set up for a philosopher. No assertion was ever more unjust, and opposed to every line of authentic history. Almost without exception, the ecclesiastics of America were the active, nay (if in any thing), the fanatic opposers of the cruelty, avarice, and ambition of the settlers. It was not religion which brought on the misery of the natives; on the contrary, it was religion, and religion alone, which lifted up its voice and its exertions against the oppressors, and has received its reward in all the calumnies which thwarted vice could heap upon the men who stood in the gap of destruction.

Having thus taken a view of the allegations against Las Casas, we willingly leave it with any impartial judge to say, whether they can be considered as proved against a man, whose works and writings were always founded on honest, straight-forward principles of attachment to liberty on the widest basis. On all occasions, we have found him strenuously advocate the equal rights of all men, without distinction of colour, religion, or country; in short, every principle which he professed gives the lie to the calumny attached to his name.

Few men have employed so long a life in such eminent services towards mankind. The friends of religion, morality, and liberty, owe the tribute of the deepest respect to his memory. He was the ornament and benefactor of America, and deserves to be the glory of Europe which gave him birth. We discharge this duty to his memory, not only because we think it of some importance that history should be a tissue of truth rather than of falsehood, but because we feel a consolation in observing, that the enormities practised on America were not without their counterbalance in the heroic virtue of some of the champions of freedom and humanity. We have a duty to discharge, as well towards the departed as towards posterity, and none more sacred than that of tearing down the mark of disgrace, that would disfigure the escutcheon of a great and good man who has descended into the tomb. His talents and virtues often place him in advance of the age in which he lives, and his only appeal for protection and due estimation is to posterity; to it descend his good deeds and his example, and with them should pass the obligation of rendering that debt of homage and respect, which was denied to him by his cotemporaries.