“Glikhican never forgave himself for having committed this crime, although many times, and long before his becoming a Christian, he had begged the woman’s pardon with tears in his eyes, and received her free and full forgiveness. In vain she pointed out to him all the circumstances that he could have all edged to excuse the deed; in vain she reminded him of his unwillingness at the time, and his having been in a manner compelled to do it by his French associates; nothing that she did say could assuage his sorrow or quiet the perturbation of his mind; he called himself a wretch, a monster, a _coward_, (the proud feelings of an Indian must be well understood to judge of the force of this self-accusation,) and to the moment of his death the remembrance of this fatal act preyed like a canker worm upon his spirits. I ought to add, that from the time of his conversion he lived the life of a Christian, and died as such.” In the “Report on the condition of the Indians of Upper Canada,” published by the Aborigines Protection Society, we find the following statements respecting the attempts which have been made to civilize them:— “It is an important additional fact in regard to the light in which the Indians of North America were once looked upon, that their rights are stipulated for in the treaty of Utrecht. But on the other hand, modern writers on the laws of nations seem inclined to exclude them from its benefits. And modern statesmen carry this theory further, so as to sacrifice them by positive injustice in practice. Sir Francis Bond Head recommended the discontinuance of payment due by treaty to certain tribes, on the ground of those tribes being at war with our present allies, the people of the United States; a matter undoubtedly deserving grave consideration, in reference to the point especially raised, namely, the supply of arms; but which also involves a question of international rights, on this occasion much too summarily disposed of by the Canadian governor. Lord Glenelg hesitated to adopt his recommendation, but his lordship does not seem to have taken entirely a just view of the case.[79] “It is strictly within the limits of truth to say, that neither the Home government, nor the Colonial authorities have acted up to the injunctions of those two documents of 1670, and 1763, which are unquestionably binding to this day; and the extent to which these injunctions have been neglected, fully accounts to us for the ruin of the Indians. That extent is proved, “First,—By the unjust and improvident manner in which the land of the Indians has been dealt with by us, their insecurity of title, and their actual removal from it in late remarkable cases under an oppressive and fraudulent treaty, and by unjust contracts. “Second,—By the neglect of obvious means of securing justice to Indians in courts of law, in their participation of civil rights; and in just regulations of trading with them. And