seeing the miserable state of religion, foretold the near approach of antichrist; others presaged some reformation at hand-the world was in expectation. Luther appeared!

The history of this event, and of him who is its most conspicuons figure, is eminently fitted to shew the futility of attempting to meet that thirst after something-which men begin more extensively at this moment than for a century past-by form, or ceremony, or any of those other things by which Christendom, was smothered in the fifteenth century. We agree with Mr. Newman most heartily, that there is a stretching toward something in all men's minds, a dissatisfaction with the present, and a panting toward something which seems to be embosomed in the future. That something is not in the Church of Rome, nor have the Oxford tracts touched its very skirts. The something comes. It is the rushing from afar of His chariot-wheels that awakens the souls of men and constitutes one of the awful signs of the times. The "something" admitted by Mr. Newman after which earth groans and thirstswhich he tries to lull and deadenwe say it deliberately and solemnly -is "the All and in All." It has struck us forcibly that there is much of parallel between the time that immediately preceded the Reformation and the days in which we now live - much common much in the one that seems to type out the other. Let us endeavour to trace these signs of the times. Let us, after our review of the processes that prepared the earth for its reformation in the sixteenth century, look briefly into those intermingling elements and startling facts that powerfully distinguish the times in which we live.

Rapid changes take place in every department of human life, and society at large appears to heave with earnest and ceaseless activity. The lethargy in which our forefathers spent their existence has been rolled away; and in its place we behold a restlessness, as if all humanity were convulsed by some universal and great paralysis.

Institutions are explored with inquisitorial research. Opinions stereotyped to a former generation are broken up and tested by a new analysis, or measured on a maturer experience; and mighty systems that reached our age accompanied by countless testimonies prophetic of their immortality, have been broken up and reconstructed or cast away. There is an insatiable and not unfrequently a morbid thirst every where. A feverish uneasiness is wide spread, and on the increase where ever we meet the elements of society, or trace the operations of man. We confess we are not disposed to augur evil results from this striking fact; rather we prognosticate the greatest good. We see in the breaking up of all ancient things, and in the disorganisation of the most hoary monuments of earthly grandeur, the process necessarily preliminary to the erection of that temple, constructed of precious and living stones, whereof the many mansions shall be ever vocal with songs of undying sweetness. We see already in the stirring of the waters of the world the shadow of the descending angel, who is to impregnate them with healing. We dare not approve the course or propose for imitation the conduct of those who identify destruction with amelioration, and believe that the pathway of the Goth is that alone on which monuments of immortality can be raised. This were to lend the sanction of sacred precept to practices that need restraint rather than incentive. Without being guilty of this, we may trace the analogies of history, the ordinary procedure of God, and the coincidences of the day we live with those records, we can plainly decipher on the page of ancient prophecy. Or if we abstain by a wise and wary decision from fixing dates and pronouncing certain present events to be fulfilments of prophecies wrapt in the mysteriousness of 2000 years, there is no reason to abstain from gathering together the signs and characteristics of the age, and rendering these fixed and visible to all,

felt. The families of the far west obey their chief, and those of the desert their scheik. Add yet more to their numbers, and we find them forced to form themselves into monarchies (mixed or absolute), aristocracies, or democracies, as chance or design originally ordains. Bring these several states into yet closer contact, and you have a family of states, as you before had of individuals, and the necessity immediately arises for a chief amongst them. That chief is the law of nations. Every day that contact is becoming yet closer and closer, and consequently the necessity for enlarging and perfecting that law which is to govern them all increases in proportion. It is, therefore, we find that in the last century more progress has been made in establishing some general code paramount to that of any one separate state, than in any three preceding, precisely because in that century the relations of the various states have drawn them nearer to one another, and the inventions of philosophy have infinitely extended the facilities of intercourse. There can be no longer such an anomaly as an isolated individual in the great family of the world. But though much has been done, more remains to be done. Useful laws with regard to navigation, war, neutrality, and treaties, are now adopted by the leading powers of both hemispheres, as binding on all. Yet another great step remains to be taken-means to he provided for giving those laws a sanction by a union so powerful, that no single state dare infringe what it in common with all has agreed to observe, without experiencing the futility of such an attempt, and suffering whatever penalty may be attached to such conduct. In a wellgoverned individual state no subject can say when he pleases, "I abjure alike the benefit and the restraint of the laws, and, retracting that portion of my natural liberty which I had surrendered to the commonwealth, return to the state of nature." Such language would have little weight, for, as it has been well said,

nemo potest exuere patriam;" he is born clad in his country's laws, as surely as in his own skin. Yet at present the law of nations is so little settled, or we should rather say, has

so weak an executive to enforce its sanction, that we frequently see different countries, as their interests vary, voting most opposite rules as the guide to all, and enforcing its own law of nations so far as it may have power to do so. Need we remind our readers of the conflicting decisions of Russia, America, France, and England, on the great question of the right of search in the last war. We repeat that the great desideratum for the perfection of an international code is to give to it an executive sufficiently strong to enforce its decrees, and that can only be accomplished by a union of the majority of the strength of the world for the benefit of all. No war can then arise on any international question, if that union be sufficiently powerful, for there would then be a fixed code, by a reference to which all quarrels on such points would be necessarily decided. When we re

flect that no war can well arise except from some nation infringing a clear right of another, we may imagine of what benefit such a tribunal would be to the whole human race. We have not sufficient vanity to lead us to propose any plan by which a scheme so extensive could be completed; but firmly believing as we do that no greater benefit could be conferred on mankind, and feeling that the increasing necessity for some such system must at last originate it, we regard with great concern any misunderstanding likely to confuse the clear principles of international law, or afford a faulty precedent, which may hereafter be perverted to the dangerous service of designing ambition. Interested in the subject as we are, we would as soon see an erroneous decision on the roll at Westminster, as a foul precedent in the great code of nations. It is therefore that we feel a peculiar interest in M'Leod's case, because it has been argued chiefly on principles of international law; and by the length of time it has been pending, as well as the great interests it involves, has attracted universal attention. A false step, therefore, taken in it, or a wrong principle established, would consequently retard more or less-though we are confident, if the world lasts sufficiently long, nothing can prevent finally—that consumma

tion which we so devoutly wish accomplished, and to which every day brings us slowly nearer. We shall therefore make some observations on this highly interesting case, apologising first to our reader for detaining him so long with our preface, if he be not one "of soul congenial to our own."

Before we can argue a point we must first state the case; and it is as well that we should put into a connected form facts, which are scattered over so long an interval of time, and which, when merely read by unconnected shreds and patches in the daily journals, are apt either to slip from the memory, or convey an erroneous or incomplete impression. As our space is limited, our statement must be brief.

In the year 1837 the disputes which had so long prevailed between the English settlers and the revolutionary party of the French Canadians, headed by Papineau, eventuated in a partial rebellion; which taught at least the instructive moral, that a leader may desert his party when he finds that rebellion can be accompanied with danger. It is not our present object to enter into a history of that contest, the successful termination of which is due mainly to the loyalty of the English yeomen, and the energetic talent of the then Sir John Colborne. Let us proceed, however, to consider how affairs sped in Upper Canada, where was laid the first scene of a drama which as yet we hardly know whether to designate a tragedy or comedy. In Upper Canada the population, chiefly an agricultural race of hardy yeomen, amounted to nearly half a million. From the latter end of October, 1837, many of the French Canadians in Lower Canada had been in open rebellion, yet it was not till the 4th of December of the same year that any disturbance took place in the adjoining upper province; and in three days the militia, headed by Sir Francis Head, dispersed or captured the entire body of rebels, unaided by a single company of her majesty's forces, and without the loss of even one man. We request the reader to keep this important fact in mind, as it clearly establishes the point that the province of Upper Canada had no wish for revolution-that they

were perfectly contented with the government under which they lived, and determined also to put down any attempt to subvert it. The abortive effort made by the revolutionary party, and which was quelled in a few days by the loyal inhabitants, unaided by aught save their own true hearts and stout arms, was consequently succeeded by a repose as profound as though no rebellion existed in an adjoining province, or had been attempted in their own. "In about a week," says Sir Francis Head, in his despatch of January 8, 1838, to Mr. Fox, “perfect tranquillity was restored, and from that moment not a man had been seen in arms against the government in any part of the province, with the exception of" the very thing to which we beg the reader's attention.

McKenzie, who had in vain sought to excite an insurrection in Upper Canada, escaping to Buffalo, on the American side of the river St. Lawrence, which separates the province of Upper Canada from the state of New York, and connects with its stream the great lakes Ontario and Erie, soon found amongst the Ame rican population of that town many who had nothing better to do than sympathise with him, on account of his failure to convince a contented people that their own government was a bad one. To use once more the words of Sir Francis Head"A number of American citizens in Buffalo, and other towns on the frontier of New York, enlisted as soldiers, with the avowed object of invading Canada and establishing a provisional government. Public meetings were held to forward this design of invading a country with which the United States were at peace. Yolunteers were called for, and arms ammunition, and provisions, were supplied by contributions openly made." To this statement must be added, that the insurgents at Detroit and various other places found means to supply themselves with arms from the public arsenals belonging to the United States, and that in no instance where they attacked depository of public military stores did they lose a single man,-a tolerable proof of the feeble resistance they met. The muskets which they used were stamped with the mark of the

any