Page:American Historical Review, Vol. 23.djvu/163

Rh by Deschamps as an essential part of the "colonial question". It displays decided limitations in the treatment of events in the colonies, such as the revolt of the mulattoes in St. Domingo under Ogé, which though small and unsuccessful certainly had an important influence. Likewise the treatment of the assembly of Saint Marc (ch. III.) shows some rather careless workmanship. A comparison of the summary (p. 61) of the "Constitutional Bases" issued by that assembly with the text of them published by Castonnet des Fosses (La Perte d'une Colonie, p. 57) will reveal not only some awkward translation but even inaccurate and misleading statements of fact. Also, I am very curious to know the authority for the statement that the word acceptation as used in the "Bases" "precluded the possibility of a refusal" of them by the king and the National Assembly. The principles of the "Bases" do not appear quite so extremely radical and arrogant as the author represents them, as will be evident from a comparison of them with the " instructions" of March 28 (p. 54) and with the principles finally adopted by the Constituent Assembly (p. 132). In spite of its crudeness and limitations the Assembly of Saint Marc proposed an extremely interesting solution of the colonial problem, comparable in statesmanship to those offered by the Stamp Act Congress and the Congress of 1774 in our own revolutionary movement.

It is rather surprising to find Professor Garrett treating the work of Deschamps in such a summary fashion as he does in his bibliography. He there dismisses it with the remark that it is "full of typographical errors, inaccurate statistics and misstatements of fact". Now Deschamps (Les Colonies pendant la Revolution: la Constituante et la Réforme Coloniale) covers the identical ground covered by Professor Garrett, although in less detail, because he has treated the "colonial question" in a more comprehensive way. His work has enjoyed a good reputation. It would seem therefore to be incumbent upon the author to have indicated in his foot-notes at least some important facts to justify his comment upon such a comparatively recent writer in the same field. He has cited Deschamps only four times and in each case as an authority. However inaccurate in details it might prove under critical analysis, yet there is a breadth of view in Deschamps's book which makes it valuable and delightful.

's biographies are out of print, men remember him as Eldon's brother, prize law is of but sporadic importance, and admiralty is a neglected mystery to lawyers and laymen who dwell away from deep water.