require positive proof, or a combination of particular facts, amounting to moral certainty. But in addition to the authority of Chalmers, three others are quoted by Dr Holmes,* which accord with Chalmers, both in the date of the ordinance and the exception of Roman Catholics. Now it is hardly possible, that four writers at different periods should have fallen into precisely the same error, in regard to a date, and in our judg ment the fact of their coincidence proves to a demonstration, that the book, or document, on the authority of which their statements are made, contains the date of 1664. Whether this was a forgery of the revising committee, as well as the clause excepting Roman Catholics, according to Mr Eddy's conjecture, would doubtless be more difficult to decide. It must be observed, however, that the three authorities above alluded to, are anterior to Chalmers, and that consequently they are distinct and independent testimonies.

This train of facts argues strongly in favor of the quotation of Chalmers, but it must be allowed that the weight of probable testimony is against it. The ruling feature in the legislation of Rhode Island was, from the beginning, religious toleration in its utmost latitude. On many occasions it was expressly enacted, that no civil disabilities should be caused by religious faith. During this very year, in which the obnoxious ordinance is supposed to have passed, there are on record acts of the assembly in direct repugnance to it, and others the year following. In the case of admitting persons to be freemen in the colony, it was expressly enacted in this latter year, that those of competent estates, civil conversation, and obedience to the civil magistrate,' should have the privileges of freemen. It is strange too, that disabilities should be enacted against a class of people, none of whom had attempted to enter the colony. No Roman Catholics came to Rhode Island till 1680. Mr Eddy very justly observes, 'Why a law should be passed to exclude from the privileges of freemen those who were not inhabitants, by those who believed all to be equally entitled to their religious opinions, is difficult to conceive.' In short, all reasoning from analogy, circumstantial evidence, and the uniform tenor of Rhode Island legislation, is against the genuineness of the clause excepting Roman Catholics.

Douglass, i. 443, ii. 83, 104;-British Dominions in America, b. ii. p. 252;-British Empire, ii. 148.

It may be of some consequence to state, that the Rhode Island papers in the Plantation Office in London have been examined, during the present year, with reference to this subject. Mr Lack, the successor of Chalmers in that office, with much courtesy assisted in the inquiry, and obligingly granted every facility for a thorough examination of the papers. Nothing was discovered. This proves only that Chalmers did not quote from any documents in the Plantation Office; but a large portion of the colonial papers are in other offices, which were not examined with a view to this point, and to which Chalmers had access in writing his Annals.

On the whole, the question seems to us far from being settled. Our own opinion, we confess, inclines to the side of Chalmers's quotation, notwithstanding the mass of strong probabilities against it. The concurrence of four writers in stating the same fact, and assigning to it the same date, affords a kind of testimony, which can hardly be set aside without a positive detection of error in the sources of their information. The idea of collusion, or intended deception, on their part, is not to be admitted, because the former was impossible, and there was no motive for the latter. We do not see how an error is to be proved, except by showing that they actually quoted from false authorities.

While on this topic of religious toleration, we will take occasion to mention what we deem an oversight in Dr Holmes, and that is, the omission to state, under the year 1639, the Act concerning Religion, passed by the assembly of Maryland. In this act it is decreed, that no person or persons, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth be anyways troubled, molested, or discountenanced, for, or on account of his or her religion, nor in the free exercise thereof.' Indeed Roger Williams himself could not have dictated an ordinance in a more liberal spirit than this, which was drawn up and put in execution by the Roman Catholic settlers of Maryland. We agree with Mr Walsh* fully, that this statute is not only prior in date, as a charter for all Christian sects, to any legislative act of the kind, of which this country can boast, but provides more minutely and anxiously than any other extant for the protection of the rights of conscience, and the preservation of religious harmony.' Nay, we believe not only, that it was the first statute of the kind in this country, but, as

* Appeal, p. 427.

6

we have expressed on a former occasion,* that it is the first legislative act on record, in any country, for unlimited toleration. This may be said, without any disparagement of Roger Williams, and the early settlers of Rhode Island; for if they did not enact toleration at so early a date, or even afterwards, it is well known that they practised it, and history has raised a monument to their wisdom and forbearance in this respect, which will not be defaced by any controversies about the dates or words of particular ordinances.

The third division of the Annals, embracing our national history, from the declaration of independence down to the present day, constitutes in many respects the most important part of the work. In addition to his personal knowledge of the events of recent years, the author has consulted all the best writers, methodizing and condensing the substance of their writings to suit his purpose. This remark applies with particular emphasis in regard to revolutionary history. Descending to more critical times, when the current of events is tinged with party feuds and political antipathies, Dr Holmes has, notwithstanding the difficulty of the task, as far as we have been able to discover, preserved his accustomed impartiality and discrimination.

Many and valuable improvements have been introduced into this second edition. The history is brought twenty-one years further down, and a great many new notes are added. Books published since the first edition have contributed to throw light on the history of the American revolution, and the characters and deeds of the eminent statesmen, patriots, and heroes, who were instrumental in effecting it. They have also afforded assistance in tracing the progress of the arts and sciences, and of the literary, humane, and other institutions of the country, upon all of which Dr Holmes has said as much as was consistent with his general design. One of the most agreeable and instructive parts of his performance is the short biographical notices of distinguished Americans, which are contained in the notes.

On one subject we could have wished to see more full information, than Dr Holmes has communicated. We mean the legislative and legal history of the country. There are two classes of materials from which this is to be derived, the jour

*North American Review, Vol. xx. p. 102.

nals of the colonial assemblies, and the original statutes in detail. From some experience in this inquiry, we are well aware of the difficulty of procuring this description of documents with any degree of completeness. In all the colonies there was great negligence in preserving them, and it is very rare to find a complete copy either of the journals, or of the laws as originally passed, in any of the old states. In most cases they were printed, and in others not; but even the printed copies have been lost, or so much scattered, as to render it almost impossible to procure an entire set. Hening's Collection of the Laws of Virginia, in thirteen volumes, is an honorable exception, honorable to the state at whose charge it was published, and to the editor as a testimony of his learning, research, and industry. It is beyond all comparison the most complete and valuable collection of materials for history, which has been published in any of the states; and if the other states would follow this noble example of Virginia, nothing more could be desired in this department.

After having derived much satisfaction ourselves from Dr Holmes's work, we recommend it with confidence to such persons as take an interest in the topics on which it treats. It would be a valuable acquisition to every library, public or private, in the country. It is the best repository of historical, chronological, and biographical knowledge respecting America, that can be found embodied in one work.

A. N. Everett.

ART. VIII.-The Works of Antonio Canova in Sculpture and Modelling, engraved in Outline by Henry Moses, with Descriptions from the Italian of the Countess Albrizzi, and a Biographical Memoir by Count Cicognara. 2 vols. folio. London. 1824.

In a preceding number of this journal,* we gave some account of the principal events in the life of Canova, and of the most remarkable among the multiplied productions of his chisel. Not long after the article containing it appeared, the grave closed over this celebrated artist, who died at Venice on the thirteenth

* North American Review, Vol. x. p. 372.

of October, 1822, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, universally lamented throughout the civilized world, as one of those rare individuals whose extraordinary and unrivalled genius throws a lustre on the period in which they live, and whose loss is, in the nature of things, altogether irreparable. The biographical memoirs and collections of engravings of his works, which have appeared since his death, supply materials for a somewhat ampler notice than we were then able to furnish; and we avail ourselves with pleasure of the opportunity for rendering complete justice to the memory of this great artist, who has particularly recommended himself to the attention of Americans, by consecrating one of his works to the honor of our political savior and father. A tribute of this kind is the more necessary in this country, because the British journalists, with their characteristic jealousy of all foreign excellence, have studiously underrated the merit of Canova, even since his death, in the vain attempt to give their own countryman, Chantrey, a preëminence over him, which that justly distinguished and amiable sculptor would himself as little dream of claiming, as any competent judge of assigning it to him. One of the publications, from which we drew the materials for our former article on this subject, was the series of descriptions of the works of Canova by the Countess Albrizzi of Venice; and we mentioned, in the course of our remarks, that that lady had announced the intention of publishing a collection of engravings of them, with a biography by herself of her illustrious countryman and friend. The work now before us, although no satisfactory account is given of its origin by the British editors, appears to be a reprint, in an English dress, of the one which Mad. Albrizzi has probably published in pursuance of this intention, but which has not yet reached us. It contains a complete collection of engravings in outline of all the productions of Canova, accompanied by the commentaries of this lady, and by a biography, which is, however, not from her pen, but that of Count Cicognara, a Venetian nobleman, well known to the world by his literary talent and taste in the fine arts. The descriptions of Mad. Albrizzi are of a poetical rather than critical character, and probably appear to more advantage in their original shape, than in the present translation, which, however, is not a bad one. The biography is a judicious and unpretending narrative of the leading incidents in a life of exclusive and untiring devotion to art, and of which the best and only faithful