In our own review alluded to above, we concluded, in the following words, a list of arguments adduced, _or supposed to be adduced_, in proof of Virginia's disloyalty. "6. Virginia was infected with republicanism. She wished to set up for herself. Thus intent, she demands of Berkeley a distinct acknowledgment of her Assembly's supremacy. His reply was 'I am but the servant of the Assembly.' Berkeley, therefore, was republican, and his tumultuous election proves nothing but the republicanism of Virginia." To which our reply was thus. "6. The reasoning here is reasoning in a circle. Virginia is first declared republican. From this assumed fact, deductions are made which prove Berkeley so--and Berkeley's republicanism, thus proved, is made to establish that of Virginia. But Berkeley's answer (from which Mr. Bancroft has extracted the words, 'I am but the servant of the Assembly,') runs thus. 'You desire me to do that concerning your titles and claims to land in this northern part of America, which I am in no capacity to do: for I am but the servant of the Assembly: neither do they arrogate to themselves any power farther than the miserable distractions in England force them to. For when God shall be pleased to take away and dissipate the unnatural divisions of their native country, they will immediately return to their professed obedience.'--_Smith's New York_. It will be seen that Mr. Bancroft has been disingenuous in quoting only a _portion_ of this sentence. _The whole_ proves incontestibly that neither Berkeley nor the Assembly _arrogated to themselves any power beyond what they were forced to assume by circumstances_--in a word it proves their loyalty." We are now, however, fully persuaded that Mr. Bancroft had not only no intention of representing Virginia as disloyal--but that his work, closely examined, will not admit of such interpretation. As an offset to our argument just quoted, we copy the following (the passage to which our remarks had reference) from page 245 of Mr. B.'s only published volume.