more mature consideration. So far as it goes, it is certainly “a practice degrading to the character, and if persisted in, may become dangerous to the institutions of the country." But we apprehend that its extent has been very materially exaggerated by our author. Indeed, this whole book seems to us to have been written a little too soon after Mr. Cooper's return to his country. We have rarely known an American remain long in Europe, who did not, upon his coming back, require a certain time, longer or shorter according to the strength of his character, to be as it were renaturalized. They either become fascinated by the splendour and exclusive habits of the upper classes of Europe, and lose their relish for that wholesome equality which forms the excellence of our institutions, or they forget the real state of the republic, and imbibe false views of its condition and temper. Into the former of these errors Mr. Cooper's boldness, independence, and patriotism could never allow him to fall; but in the latter respect his mind seems to have received an unfavourable bias. What a difference is there between the calm confidence of the NOTIONS and the asperity of this Letter!

Mr. Cooper embarked in a controversy intimately connected with the honour of America, in which he was unsupported by his countrymen, and in which two of his most prominent fellow citizens were quoted against him. It is not surprising that he came to entertain the low opinion he holds of the national feelings of this people. But as regards the vast body of the American nation who make the laws, govern the country, and form its public mind, nothing can be more unfounded. Were it true, we should indeed be a singular people. Such an assertion could scarcely be predicated of the meanest tribe on the Guinea coast. The great body of the country is, as a general rule, thoroughly imbued with a distinctive character; they acknowledge as little allegiance of thought as of dominion.

Mr. Cooper says of the whole country-"The practice of quoting the opinions of foreign nations by way of helping to make up its own estimate of the degree of merit that belongs to its public men, is I believe a custom peculiar to America." That class which is pushing on the material civilization of the country, who never borrow any thing from the old world but to improve it, who take the models of their mechanics only to make some valuable additions, and who copy their laws only to adapt them to free institutions, will scarcely know what to make of such a sweeping sentence of "condemnation."

Mr. Cooper has fallen into singular inconsistencies on this subject in the very publication before us. He says, p. 45, "As between me and my country the account current of both profit and honour exhibits a blank sheet, I have never laid any claim to

having conferred either, and I do not feel disposed to admit that I have received either;" but, p. 98, he says, "It has been asserted lately that I owe the little success I have met with at home to foreign approbation. This assertion is unjust to you. The Spy was received with a generous welcome that might have satisfied any one that the heart of this great community was sound." Undoubtedly its heart was sound, and if sound in 1822, why not so now? Has any cloud passed over the thirteen stars since then? Is the eagle's eye less bright? Has any thing taken place to lessen that national pride which is the true basis of patriotism?

66

And if the assertion which we have just quoted be correct, what foundation is there for such a charge as Mr. Cooper makes on p. 43?" Unhappily, there are many reasons why this country can give fame to no one”—and again, p. 110—“Every hour convinces me, more and more, that we are a nation only in namelet Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun say what they please about it." Certainly nothing more offensive ever fell from the lips of those admirers of European institutions, with whom Mr. Cooper has waged so long and honourable a warfare. It seems that his temper has given out in the struggle, and that he has really begun to believe that a majority of his countrymen take sides against him and their own land, with Louis Philippe, Wellington, and Metternich. All the concluding paragraphs of the letter are in the same fatal temper-we know no other word for it; it must, if unchecked, prove fatal to his reputation.

"The American who wishes to illustrate and enforce the peculiar principles of his own country, by the agency of polite literature, will for a long time to come, I fear, find that his constituency, as to all purposes of distinctive thought, is still too much under the influence of foreign theories, to receive him with favour. It is under this conviction that I lay aside the pen.-I confess I have come to this decision with reluctance, for I had hoped to be useful in my generation, and to have yet done something which might have identified my name with those who are to come after me. But it has been ordered differently. I have never been very sanguine as to the immortality of what I have written, a very short period having always sufficed for my ambition; but I am not ashamed to avow, that I have felt a severe mortification that I am to break down on the question of distinctive American thought. So far as you have been indulgent to me, and no one feels its extent more than myself, I thank you with deep sincerity; so far as I stand opposed to that class among you which forms the public of a writer, on points that, however much in error, I honestly believe to be of vital importance to the well-being and dignity of the human race, I can only lament that we are separated by so wide a barrier, as to render further communion, under our old relations, mutually unsatisfactory."

We confess it is with sincere regret that we copy these paragraphs, that show what unjust suspicions are corroding the mind which should entertain only a feeling of honest pride in all that it has done for the reputation of its native land. We regret this sensitiveness the more, for we cannot but consider it a certain, though unfortunate proof of the force of that national feeling,

which has so often kindled in him a brighter flame. It is plain, that his dearest fame is that which he has gained in America, and that all the homage he has received abroad is tasteless and unsatisfactory to him, while he thinks his star is waning in his native land. Let him recur to the cheerful spirit which penned the Preface to the third edition of the Spy: "We are told by the booksellers, that the public is pleased with the tale, and we take this occasion to say that we are delighted with the public." If this be Mr. Cooper's fixed temper, it is not hazardous to predict that he has passed the zenith of his fame. Break down on the question of distinctive American thought, indeed! One of his genius, who maintains the great cardinal American principles, can never break down, till the republic itself give way; and far superior abilities would not sustain him, if he suffer himself for an instant to falter, from an undying belief, not only in the permanence of our institutions, and the truths upon which they rest, but that they will confer honour upon all those who vindicate them against the ignorant arrogance of the old world, and the upstart presumption of the new. Certain it is, that until Mr. Cooper told us of it himself, we never dreamed his reputation was less than his deserts -and as to his deserts, we have already expressed our opinion. We have lately recognised Mr. Cooper's hand in several able communications in an administration paper of the city of New York. Many of them treat of the French Question, which he views as a matter intimately connected with our national honour and highest interests. He has affixed to these articles an elementary signature (A. B. C.), but they bear intrinsic marks of their author. We hear that he is engaged upon a satire, to be entitled THE MANNIKINS. If he succeed in this, it will be a triumph in what has been to him, hitherto, an untried path.

ART. VIII.—THE FRENCH QUESTION.

1.—Message from the President of the United States, of the 17th January, 1833, transmitting to the House of Representatives sundry papers upon the subject of the claims against the French government, for spoliations on American commerce, since September, 1800. Washington: 1833.

2.-Message from the President of the United States, of the 27th December, 1834, to the House of Representatives, transmitting correspondence with the government of France, in relation to the refusal of that government to make provision for the execution of the Treaty between the United States and France. Washington: 1835.

3.-Proceedings and Discussions in the French Chamber of Deputies, on the subject of the Treaty between France and the United States, which was signed at Paris on the 4th July, 1831. Translated from the Paris Moniteur, by order of the Secretary of State of the United States. Washington: 1834.

4.-Rapport fait au nom de la Commission chargée d'examiner le Projet de loi relatif au Traité du 4 Juillet, 1831; par M. DUMON, Député de Lot-et-Garonne. (Séance du 28 Mars, 1835.) Supplément au Journal des Débats, du 29 Mars, 1835.

THREE months ago we prepared some observations upon the history of our relations with France, the publication of which it was thought best to postpone until the progress of events should enable us to terminate them with less abruptness and uncertainty than we were then obliged to do. Although we are still, and may remain until we are compelled to go to press with the present article, without information of the final action of the French Chambers, it seems to be generally understood that the bill presented to the Deputies in February last, will become a law. How far it may be deemed a satisfactory fulfilment of the treaty, is another question, upon which we may remark hereafter. For the present, however, we are content to look upon it in the light of an effectual compliance with past stipulations, or at least to be received in lieu of such compliance, and as affording in its reception and passage an earnest of a returning sense of justice, and a pledge of future amity. Our object now is to review the past, and to place before our readers some of the principal incidents of a series of transactions, certainly the most anomalous and peculiar which have occurred in the history of our foreign intercourse. We have determined to do this, notwithstanding all that has been so ably said and written upon the subject, because, in so wide a field of discussion, many points have necessarily been omitted, or but cur

sorily touched; and because, entertaining as we do a strong, independent impression of our own in regard to the whole controversy, neither hastily adopted nor readily to be removed, we deem it our peculiar duty, connected as we are with a grave and patriotic journal, to incorporate it therewith, and in doing so to make a record of the facts from which it was derived.

In accomplishing this we may deem it necessary to violate the epic rule a little, and in our eduction of the Trojan war "ab gemino ovo," to transgress the Horatian maxim. That we are under this necessity is not, however, any fault of our own, but of those who, not content with twenty years of spoliation and twenty years of diplomacy, have recently opened back for themselves and for us, the old interminable history of neutral rights and violated decrees, with their long chain of clashing consequences. It was time to set ourselves to school again, when we found that the discussion from being executive, was, on both sides of the water, to become representative; and that the difficulties which the coolness of cabinet deliberation had spent a quarter of a century in removing, were forthwith to be sprung afresh as topics for heated and inflammatory appeals to the various feelings and interests of a popular assembly. Here, to be sure, no one has asserted any intention of opening a similar discussion; but not a few have been found who have justified its propriety in the French Chamber, and will scarcely listen to the suggestion that a popular body may exceed even the plenitude of its extensive powers. Be that as it may, the exercise of a high and at least a dubious prerogative, has already so nearly disturbed the harmony of the two nations, that it behooves them both, and certainly America not the least of the two, to study the grounds on which it has been asserted; that in the multiplied relations which the future promises to produce, the past may serve as a guide and a beacon.

The ferment to which the President's message to Congress of last December gave rise, was in all points of view a beneficial one, whether the recommendation therein of a particular remedy for the breach of the treaty, was or was not well advised. The subject was one upon which too much apathy prevailed in both countries. In the United States attention enough had not been bestowed upon the history of the negotiation which terminated in the treaty, nor upon the unceremonious manner in which the treaty itself was dispensed with in France. In the latter country the payment of twenty-five millions, so important to the debtor, was deemed of no consequence to the creditor. The Duc de Broglie resigned, and the dun of five and twenty years was supposed to be silenced. "Let us not hesitate to reject the treaty," said M. Salverte from the tribune; "a refusal will not be the signal of a rupture between the United States and France. The immediate consequence of a rejection will be, an overture for, and a conclu