away or defaced with a sharp instrument. This does not look like the wanton and indiscriminate mischief of a victorious enemy; it seems rather to indicate the personal hatred of a private foe, prevailing in the very palace of the royal victim. Is it not probable that the defacement was effected by the rage of the parricide brothers, or that Essarhaddon, like the Caracalla of Roman history, chose to remove from the walls of his palace the features of that unhappy father by whose unnatural murder the throne had been made vacant for his accession ?

The names and records have been found, more or less perfect, of three successors of Sennacherib. Of these the first is "Essarhaddon his son," and the last probably Sardanapalus, whose tragical death coincided with the fall of the Assyrian empire.

That fall has left its own record upon the palaces of Nineveh, in a language which it requires no laborious scholar to decipher. The sculptured slabs, broken and calcined by the heat, cry from the wall, and the charred beams of timber, buried in the same ruin, answer them, "Wo to him that buildeth a town with blood, and establisheth a city by iniquity." If anything else could be needed to show that the city fell not with slow decline, in the decrepitude of old age, but in the midst of her prosperity, with "the noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the prancing horses, and of the jumping chariots," with the lifting up both of "the bright sword and the glittering spear," it is found in the ruined gate described by Mr. Layard on pp. 120-123.

To our eye, this ruin is the most impressive sight among all the solemn remains of Nineveh. In the northern wall of the inclosure of Kuyunjik is a mound which rises high above the line of the mounds. Entering a narrow tunnel in its side, we come before a façade of winged bulls in the noblest style of Assyrian art. Upon the colossal form, symbolical of swiftness and strength, rises the human head, not with that expression of stolid repose which marks the Egyptian sculptures, but instinct with that calm, intellectual, inexorable determination, which characterizes the heroic sculptures of Nineveh. But the sculptures are unfinished. The curling of the beard is barely begun to be executed; and upon the sides of the bulls the artist had but scratched with his chisel the outline of the plumage of the wings when he was interrupted by some catastrophe, before he had had time so much as to carve a letter upon their base, to show by whose command they were erected. What that catastrophe was, is indicated plainly enough by the calcined marble, and by the thick beams of charred wood which may still be traced, in

perfect form, in the mass of clay which covers them. Mr. Layard speaks thus fitly of this eloquent ruin :

The entrance formed by these colossal bulls was fourteen feet and a quarter wide. It was paved with large slabs of limestone, still bearing the marks of chariot wheels. The sculptures were buried in a mass of brick and earth, mingled with charcoal and charred wood; for the gates of the land had been set wide open unto the enemy, and the fire had devoured the bars.' They were lighted from above by a deep shaft sunk from the top of the mound. It would be difficult to describe the effect produced, or the reflections suggested by these solemn and majestic figures, dimly visible amidst the gloom, when, after winding through the dark, underground passages, you suddenly came into their presence. Between them Sennacherib and his hosts had gone forth in all their might and glory to the conquest of distant lands, and had returned rich with spoil and captives, amongst whom may have been the handmaidens and wealth of Israel. Through them, too, the Assyrian monarch had entered his capital in shame, after his last and fatal defeat. Then the lofty walls, now but long lines of low, wave-like mounds, had stretched far to the right and to the left-a basement of stone supporting a curtain of solid brick masonry, crowned with battlements and studded with frowning towers." Pp. 121, 122.

The narrow limits of this article forbid us to speak, as we had intended, of Mr. Layard as a writer of books of travels. We consider him to be the best of models in that department of literature. Every reader attests him to be lively and instructive; after some opportunities of comparing, we know him to be eminently and carefully truthful. In a traveler, rare indeed is this triple combination. We have had occasion, in another article, to allude to his high and deserved eulogy of our American missionaries. The testimonial is equally honorable to himself and to them. Should the distinguished author and scholar ever visit America, (which we are told is not improbable,) his generosity to our citizens, shown in this and other methods, will be sure to be duly honored.

One word of commendation is due to Messrs. Putnam & Company, the publishers for Mr. Layard on this side of the Atlantic. When the two volumes on " Nineveh and its Remains" appeared in London at the close of 1848, the republication of them in this country was undertaken by Mr. Putnam, who employed Prof. Robinson to introduce the work to American readers in a preface. The adventure, as our readers know, was successful; and thereupon the publisher, we believe, was moved by a feeling in which many publishers are thought to be deficient. Unless we are misinformed, it happened to Mr. Layard-what has rarely happened to English authors whose works have been reprinted in this country, and quite as rarely to American authors whose works have been reprinted in Great Britain that he was one day surprised with a respectable re

mittance from a bookseller who had republished his book in a foreign country, and who was under no contract or legal obligation to pay him anything. Of course it was quite in the recognized order of things, for the same publisher to lay before the American public this second work, with its fresh and rich discoveries. He has done so by an arrangement with the London publishers, which gives us the massive volume to which our references have been made in this article. The difference in price between this and such an edition as might have been printed from smaller type on cheap paper, is less than the dif ference in value; and to those who must have something less expensive, the same publishers offer an abridged edition, containing the substance and the results of the whole work, at a price which brings it within the reach of every reader.

Note to the Article in the Number for August, 1852, on "THE SOURCES OF OUR POPULATION."

SINCE Our No. for August, 1853, was published, a portion of the multifarious information collected in the Census of 1850, has been given to the public. Though the results of the Census strikingly confirm the conclusions at which we arrived, in the main, they require a modification in one particular; and we refer to the matter now, lest the discrepancy between our calculations and the Census returns, should seem, to hasty readers, greater than it really is. The three main points of the article were these:-1. Religious destitution. 2. The number of natives of our country, who were not of Anglo-Saxon descent; and 3. The number of foreigners among us, in the middle of the year 1850.

1. With regard to religious destitution; the incredulity with which our remarks on this point were received by many, has been entirely overcome by the returns of the Census. It appears that there is one church edifice "for every five hundred and fifty-seven free inhabitants, or for every six hundred and forty-six of the entire population;" and that the average number which these houses will accommodate, is three hundred and eighty-four. Allowing for the aged, the young, and the sick, this is a large supply. Of course these are not distributed just where they should be, nor is the preaching in them always of the right kind; nevertheless, it is clear that our country is much better supplied with the means of grace, (at least in quantity,) than was generally supposed.

2. The relative proportion of our native population-as regards race—is unaf fected by the Census, nor have we seen any reason to alter our figures, although they have been called in question, on one occasion. It was claimed that the German element of our population, amounted to four millions; but the data on which the claim was founded, suffice to refute it. For example, it was assumed that the Germans, by blood or birth, amounted to two millions in the year 1800. If that had been the fact, they would by natural increase, without any accessions from abroad, have risen to the number of eight millions, in 1850; that is, to double the number actually claimed. Again, if there were two millions of the German stock in the country, in 1800, who composed the rest of the population? The total white population in 1800, was only four million three hundred and four thousand four hundred and eighty-nine. If we take two millions from that number, there will remain two million three hundred and four thousand four hundred and eighty-nine whites who were not Germans. Take now from this number all the Irish, French, Highland-Scotch, and other white, but not Anglo-Saxon portion of our population in that year, and the German would nearly equal, if it did not predominate over the English element of our population. This is a conclusion, which is, prima facie, absurd.

3. With regard to our foreign-born population in 1850, the Census returns show that it was more numerous than we supposed, although they do not require us materially to modify our final estimates. We set down the foreign population at a little more than a million and a half,-"say one million five hundred and eleven thousand nine hundred and ninety-three," in 1850, and in 1852, at about two million two hundred thousand. By the Census it appears that the whole population of foreign birth, in 1850, was two million two hundred and ten thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight. It will be seen, however, by refering to pages 404 and 405, that we had reference only to those who had come into our ports as passengers from foreign lands, or through Canals. Making this deduction, there would be left a fraction over two millions of foreign birth. This would leave a serious discrepancy between our estimates and the Census; but on this point, we have a few things to say.

First, we came nearer to the true state of the facts than any one else. A careful writer had placed the Irish-born population as high as two millions; others as high as three millions; and others, still, had counted all those of foreign birth as high as five

millions or more. Secondly, we were more nearly correct in regard to the number of natives of Ireland and Germany. In common with all who published on the subject, we took it for granted that the great mass of immigrants were German and Irish, and therefore made little allowance for others. It appears that the natives of Ireland in the country in 1850, were less than one million, that is, nine hundred and sixty-one thousand seven hundred and nineteen; and the natives of Germany, five hundred and seventy-three thousand two hundred and twenty-two. Both, together, amount to one million five hundred and thirty-four thousand nine hundred and fortyfour. Thirdly, of the remaining number of foreigners, more than one half are of the Anglo-Saxon race. The natives of England were two hundred and seventy-eight thousand six hundred and seventy-five; of Scotland, seventy thousand five hundred and fifty; of Wales, twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight; of British America, one hundred and forty-seven thousand seven hundred; of France, fifty-four thousand and sixty-nine; and of all others, ninety-five thousand and twenty-two. The number from France and "all others," is somewhat larger than we supposed, while the number from Great Britain has taken every one by surprise; amounting to three hundred and seventy-nine thousand and ninety-three; leaving out those from British America. Of these, perhaps twenty thousand were Highlanders; and the Welch, if not to be classed with Anglo-Saxons, ought not to be placed among Celts. Fourthly, our error did not arise from under-estimating the number of immigrants, as some suppose. For example, the author of an interesting article in the North British Review, for November, 1852, on "The Modern Exodus in its Effects on the British Islands," in allusion to us, says: "We are satisfied, however, that this writer under-estimates the number of Irish, and probably also of Germans. For example, he gives the total number of immigrants, from all countries, from 1790 to 1850, at two million seven hundred and fifty-nine thousand three hundred and twenty-nine. Dr. Chickering, a first authority, however, shows them to amount, in the thirty-three years ending October, 1852, to three million two hundred and twelve thousand three hundred and eighty-five, of whom one million five hundred and ninety-seven thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven arrived in the last five years." If the writer of this extract had carefully compared our estimates with those of Dr. Chickering, he would have seen that they nearly agree. Add to our number-two million seven hundred and fifty nine thousand three hundred and twenty-nine-the six hundred and fifty thousand in round numbers, who came between 1850 and 1852, and then subtract the two hundred and thirty-four thousand whom we suppose to have come before 1820, and we have this result, three million one hundred and seventy-five thousand three hundred and twenty-nine. If we had time to compare our estimates with Dr. C's more carefully, they would probably approximate still more nearly together. The Census has probably satisfied this writer already, that our estimates of Irish and German immigration were not too low. The real source of our error was this. The rate of mortality among the immigrants was placed too high. Contrary to our better judgment, we were induced by others to rate the mortality as high as five per cent.; thus placing the average life of immigrants, after arriving here, at twenty years. Now the Census shows that only one in ninety die annually in Wisconsin; and in all the Western States, but one in eighty. The reason is too obvious to be explained. The same reason operates substantially in regard to the immigrants. They are not infants, nor aged people, but in the vigor of life, and their chance of life is at least half as good as that of emigrants from the Eastern to the Western States; that is forty years. These things being premised, our former estimates may be modified as follows:-The Anglo-Saxon element of our population is very nearly fourteen million and seven hundred thousand. That from British America and Wales-probably half Protestant, and quite a proportion Anglo-Saxon—one hundred and seventy-seven thousand five hundred and sixty-eight. That from France and all other countries, not German, Irish, or African, six hundred and twenty-two thousand one hundred and sixty-eight.

We need make no apology for pains to show the substantial accuracy of our former conclusions, to those who are aware that important, political, as well as other consequences, depend on an over-estimate of our population who are of foreign birth. There were two or three typographical errors in the above Article, but so obvious that the reader would correct them for himself.