the theory on which the metallic conductors of lightning were
introduced, for the security of buildings, and those within them, from
injury by that element—was made in June, 1752; and his letter, giving
an account of it, is dated the 19th of October following. But Mr. de
Romas, a Frenchman, to whom his countryman the Abbé Bertholon ascribes
the honour of the experiment with the kite, made his first attempt on
the 14th of May, 1753: he did not succeed, until the 7th of the next
month; a year after Dr. Franklin had completed his experiments, and
then generally known in Europe. It is noticed by the late ingenious
Dr. Stuber, of Philadelphia, in his continuation of the Life of
Franklin, that “his (Dr. Franklin’s) friend, Mr. Kinnersley,
communicated to him a discovery of” (what Dr. Stuber terms) “the
different kinds of electricity, excited by rubbing glass and sulphur.”
This, it is said, was first observed by Mr. Du Faye; though afterwards
not attended to, for many years. It seems, however, that the
electricians of Europe, with Du Faye himself, had conceived a mistaken
notion on this subject; and that Franklin had, at first, adopted their
doctrine. “But,” says the continuator of his Life, “upon repeating the
experiments, he perceived that Mr. Kinnersley was right; and the
vitreous and the resinous electricity of Du Faye were nothing more
than the positive and negative states which he had before observed;
that the glass globe charged positively, or encreased the quantity of
electricity on the prime conductor,—whilst the globe of sulphur
diminished its natural quantity, or charged negatively.”
Mr. Beveridge, who was appointed by the trustees of the college and
academy of Philadelphia, in June, 1758, professor of languages in that
institution, was one of the ablest masters of the Latin tongue; and
wrote many poetical pieces in that language, in a style of superior
purity and elegance. This excellent Latin scholar originally taught a
grammar-school in Edinburgh, under the patronage of the celebrated Mr.
Ruddiman. While in that station, he taught the Latin to Mr. Thomas
Blacklock, the well-known blind poet; and it was during this time,
that Blacklock wrote his fine paraphrase of Psalm CIV. which his
friend Beveridge afterwards rendered into Latin verse. A collection of
Mr. Beveridge’s poetical pieces, under the title of _Epistolæ
Familiares et alia quædam miscellanea_, was published at Philadelphia,
in the year 1765.
Footnote 265:
A Law Professorship was instituted in the College of Philadelphia, in
the year 1790, and the Hon. James Wilson, LL.D. (late one of the
associate judges of the supreme court of the United States,) was
appointed the first professor: the first course of lectures, under
this appointment, was delivered in the winter of 1790-1. In April,
1792, when the College and University became united into one seminary,
under the latter title, a Professorship of Law was erected in the new
seminary; when Judge Wilson was again appointed to fill that chair:
but no Law-lectures were afterwards delivered.
The lectures composed by the able and very learned Judge, for this
department of the institution, are given entire in his works,
published in three volumes octavo, in the year 1804, by his son Bird
Wilson, Esq. president of the seventh judicial district of
Pennsylvania.
It is much to be regretted, that this important chair in the
University has remained unoccupied, since the death of its late
eminent incumbent: For, as he has justly observed, in his
_Introductory Lecture_, “The science of Law should, in some measure
and in some degree, be the study of every free citizen, and of every
free man. Every free citizen and every free man has duties to perform,
and rights to claim. Unless, in some measure, and in some degree, he
knows those duties and those rights, he can never act a just and an
independent part.”
Footnote 266:
In an Account of Dr. Smith, prefixed to his posthumous works, the
respectable Editor observes—that “Dr. Smith was actuated by a “zeal
bordering on enthusiasm” (as he himself expressed it), in his devotion
to the dissemination of literature and science.”
This gentleman was educated in the university of Aberdeen,[267] in
Scotland, where he graduated as Master of Arts. He soon after obtained
clerical orders, in the Church of England; and, in the year 1759, he was
honoured with the degree of Doctor in Divinity, from the University of
Oxford, on the recommendation of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the
bishops of Durham, Salisbury, Oxford and St. Asaph.[268] About the same
time, he received a similar degree from the University of
Trinity-College, Dublin. Dr. Smith died the 14th of May, 1803, at the
age of seventy-six years.
-----
Footnote 267:
This University was founded in the year 1480; it consists of two
colleges, called the Marischal and the King’s College, under the name
of the University of King Charles. The library belonging to this
ancient university is large; and in both the colleges, the languages,
mathematics, natural philosophy, divinity, &c. are taught by able
professors.
Footnote 268:
These prelates were, respectively, the Doctors—Secker, Trevor, Thomas,
Hume, and Egerton.
-----
On the 10th of April, 1792, an act was passed by the general assembly of
Pennsylvania, for the purpose of enabling the governor to incorporate a
company for opening a canal and water-communication between the rivers
Delaware and Schuylkill: and by this act, David Rittenhouse, William
Moore, Eliston Perot, Cadwallader Evans, jun. and Francis Johnston,
Esquires, were appointed commissioners to receive subscriptions of
stock, for constituting a fund for this purpose.
Thus, after having been engaged in the course of eleven years, at a
prior period, in the improvement of a great natural highway of his
native country, he was again employed, in conjunction with others, by
the legislative body of that country, after a lapse of nineteen years
from the time of his first appointment to a similar duty, in forwarding
the great design of uniting more intimately, and more beneficially for
the purposes of agriculture and commerce, the waters of the beautiful
stream near whose banks he was born, with those of the majestic
Delaware.
This comparatively inconsiderable appointment was presently after
succeeded by a most important one. Dr. Rittenhouse was commissioned to
be Director of the Mint, by President Washington, the 14th of April,
1792; but he did not take the requisite qualifications for that office,
until the 1st of July following. He entered upon the duties of this
arduous and very respectable station with great reluctance: it was,
indeed, pressed upon him; not only by Mr. Jefferson, then secretary of
state, with whom Dr. Rittenhouse had long been in habits of intimate
friendship; but (through the means of Mr. Secretary Hamilton, of the
Treasury,) by the illustrious President himself, who always entertained
the highest regard for him: and this esteem was mutual, notwithstanding
some “shades of difference” in the political tenets of these two great
and good men; for no person could hold a more exalted opinion of the
integrity, abilities, and public services of Washington, than Dr.
Rittenhouse uniformly did. Such was the extreme diffidence with which
our Philosopher accepted this appointment thus honourably conferred on
him, that he declined, for a considerable time, to be sworn into office;
until, finally, on applying to the writer of these memoirs, he obtained
his promise to render such assistance to him as he should be able to do,
in the event of his own incapacity, from want of health or by reason of
any incidental circumstance, to devote a sufficient portion of his time
to the duties of the station. Although the writer was never required to
act in the capacity thus proposed to him, circumstances not occurring to
render it necessary, he shall always consider the arrangement then made
upon the subject, on the voluntary proposition of Dr. Rittenhouse, as an
estimable testimonial of his confidence in his friend and relative: yet
the writer would have introduced the mention of these particulars, into
the present work, with greater hesitation than he does, did he not
conceive that a statement of facts of this kind will evince the delicate
sensibility of Dr. Rittenhouse, on the occasion.
As soon as he had determined to accept the Directorship of the Mint, he
began to make suitable arrangements for carrying the institution into
operation. Towards this end, he suggested to the secretary of state the
expediency of purchasing two contiguous houses and lots of ground,
conveniently situated, for the establishment; in preference to taking
buildings upon lease, for a purpose that seemed to require something
like a permanent position. His proposal relative to this matter, it
appears, was communicated to the secretary of state, for the purpose of
being submitted to the consideration of the President: for, on the 9th
of June, 1792, his approbation of the plan was expressed in the
following note to the secretary.
“Dear Sir,
“I am in sentiment with you and the Director of the Mint, respecting
the purchase of the lots and houses which are offered for sale, in
preference to renting—as the latter will certainly exceed the interest
of the former.
“That all the applications may be brought to view, and considered, for
Coining &c., Mr. Lear will lay the letters and engravings before you,
to be shewn to the Director of the Mint:—I have no other object or
wish in doing it, than to obtain the best. Yours, &c.
“G^o. WASHINGTON.
“Mr. JEFFERSON.”
---
Dr. Rittenhouse executed this high trust with great ability and
unimpeachable integrity, during three years; at the expiration of which
he resigned it, on the 30th of June, 1795. He had, long before,
expressed his anxious wish to retire from this station; but continued in
office until that time, on the solicitation of the President and at the
earnest desire of Mr. Jefferson.
As he was the first person appointed to that office, after the
institution of the Mint under the present federal government of the
Union, the duties that devolved upon him, in conducting it, were arduous
and complicated. He directed the construction of the machinery; made
arrangements for providing the necessary apparatus; and, in daily visits
to the Mint, whenever his health permitted, personally superintended,
with the most sedulous fidelity, not only the general economy of the
institution, but its operations in the various departments;—duties,
which his love of system and order, his extensive knowledge, and his
practical skill in mechanicks, eminently qualified him to perform with
peculiar correctness. At those times when he was prevented, by
indisposition, from attending at the Mint in person, reports were made
to him by the proper officers, either verbally or in writing, of the
state of the institution and the progress of its business; and those
officers received from him, on such occasions, the instructions
requisite for their several departments.
In conducting the affairs of the Mint, Dr. Rittenhouse was seconded by
capable and trusty officers; among whom was Mr. Voight, the Chief
Coiner, with whose ingenuity and skill, as an operative mechanic, he was
well acquainted, having long before employed him in that capacity, while
he was engaged in constructing one of his Orreries and carrying on other
branches of his professional business. Dr. Nicholas Way, a physician of
some eminence, officiated at the same time as Treasurer of the Mint; and
that respectable co-adjutor of the then Head of this important
institution in the national economy, has borne testimony to his
scrupulous attention to the public interests, in its direction:—“I have
been informed by his colleague in office, Dr. Way,”—says Dr. Benjamin
Rush,[269] who succeeded that gentleman in the Treasurership of the
Mint,—“that, in several instances, he,” (speaking of the Director) “paid
for work done at the Mint out of his salary,[270] where he thought the
charges for it would be deemed extravagant by the United States.[271]
-----
Footnote 269:
See his Eulogium on Rittenhouse.
Footnote 270:
His salary was two thousand dollars per annum.
Footnote 271:
A particular instance, of a similar kind, occurred within the
knowledge of the Memorialist. Mr. Peter Getz was, lately, a
self-taught mechanic of singular ingenuity, in the borough of
Lancaster; where he many years exercised the trade of a silver-smith
and jeweller, and was remarkable for the extraordinary accuracy,
elegance, and beauty of the workmanship he executed. This person was a
candidate for the place of chief coiner or engraver in the mint; and,
on that occasion, he offered to present to Dr. Rittenhouse, in the
summer of 1792, a small pair of scales—such as are commonly called
gold-scales—of exquisite workmanship as well as great exactness, as a
specimen of his skill as an artist. The Director conceived, that an
instrument equally well suited to the use for which this was designed,
though less ornamental, could be procured for the mint, if desirable,
for less money than this was worth as a matter of curiosity; he would
not, therefore, purchase it for the mint: but being determined not to
accept it as a present, and desirous at the same time to make
compensation to the artist for his work, he insisted on his receiving
twenty dollars for the instrument; on payment of which, he retained it
himself.
-----
When Dr. Rittenhouse resigned the Directorship of the Mint, in June
1792, he was succeeded in that office by Henry William De Saussure, Esq.
of South Carolina, a gentleman of distinguished talents and
respectability. But Mr. De Saussure did not long hold the appointment:
Some invidious and illiberal, as well as ill-founded insinuations, were
soon cast upon the establishment and the manner in which it was
conducted, by certain persons in the government, who had very early
evinced an hostility to the institution itself; and it is not
improbable, that some of this description were also influenced in their
inimical views towards it, by personal considerations. Mr. De Saussure,
disgusted with such unworthy conduct, retired from the Directorship,
after having held that office only a few months; during which short
period, he executed his trust in such a manner, as to obtain the
approbation of President Washington, and entitle him to the public
esteem.
The following letter, which was addressed by Mr. De Saussure to the
editors of the Charleston City Gazette, and published in that paper,
soon after his resignation, will serve to elucidate this subject: as a
vindication of that gentleman, and also of his predecessor, from the
injurious aspersions so unjustly thrown out against the institution of
the Mint by its enemies, that publication is entitled to a place in the
Memoirs of Rittenhouse; it shall now close the narrative of Dr.
Rittenhouse’s connexion with the Mint.
“Messrs. Freneau and Payne,
“I was filled with no less indignation than surprise, on reading the
debates in the house of representatives of the United States, on
Tuesday the 19th of January, respecting the Mint, to find that a good
deal of censure had been thrown out by some of the members against the
management of that establishment, in such general and indiscriminating
terms as might be deemed to implicate me, during the short time I was
in the Directorship.
“Several members spoke in hasty and unguarded terms; and one member,
whose name the printer had not given, passed all the bounds of
moderation. He is represented as having said, “that the institution is
a bad one, and is badly conducted: it had been most scandalously
carried on, and with very little advantage to the public. If the
institution is not better carried on than it has been, it ought to be
thrown aside.”—If I could tamely endure these imputations, which in
their generality may be supposed to reach me, I should be unworthy the
esteem of my fellow-citizens.
“It ought, perhaps, to be sufficient for me to produce to the public
eye the entire approbation which the President of the United States
was pleased to express of my conduct, when quitting the office of the
Director. I laid before him a full and exact state of the situation of
the Mint, and of the coinage prior to, and during my being in office.
His approbation is contained in a letter which he wrote me at the
moment of my leaving Philadelphia,—dated the 1st of Nov. 1795; from
which these words are an extract—“I cannot, at this moment of your
departure, but express my regret, that it was not accordant with your
views to remain in the Directorship of the Mint: Permit me to add
thereto, that your conduct therein gave entire satisfaction; and to
wish you a pleasant voyage, and a happy meeting with your friends in
South Carolina.”
“To those who know the President of the United States well,—who know
the caution with which he is accustomed to speak, and that he
possesses the talent of correctly estimating, as well as vigorously
overcoming, the difficulties which present themselves in every
circumstance of business,—this would rescue any character from the
unqualified censure of the members of the house of representatives.
But I will go further, and will shew the grounds on which the
President formed his judgment, so that every man may form his own
opinion.”
The Writer then proceeds with some details, respecting the condition of
the Mint on his coming into office, and at the time he left it; in the
course of which he states some difficulties, and unavoidable
obstructions to the progress of the coinage, which existed in the time
of his predecessor, and some of which could not be obviated while he
remained in the direction: and to this statement he annexes a table,
exhibiting an account of the gold and silver coinage at the Mint, from
its establishment to the close of October, 1795; at the foot of which he
remarks, that “there never was any period at which the Mint was supplied
with bullion, in a state for coinage, sufficient to keep it regularly
and fully employed for any considerable time; except,” continues the
writer, “near the close of my direction; to wit, from the 1st to the
24th of October.” Mr. De Saussure thus concludes his very satisfactory
letter on this subject:
“Whilst I am vindicating myself from the censure, indiscriminately
thrown upon the management of the Mint, I do by no means concede that
the censure is justly applicable to my respectable predecessor. The
solid talents of Mr. Rittenhouse will be remembered with pride, and
his mild virtue recollected with tenderness, by his countrymen, when
many of his censors will be forgotten in the silent dust. His lofty
and correct mind, capable alike of ascending to the sublimest heights
of science, and of condescending to regulate the minute movements of
mechanical machinery, organized the Mint, and created the workmen and
the apparatus; amidst the complicated difficulties from which the most
persevering minds might have shrunk without dishonour. A very long and
debilitating state of ill health prevented him from giving the
establishment all the activity of which it was susceptible; and he
long wished to retire before he was permitted. His country suffered
him to retire, without remembering, that it was the duty of a liberal
nation to provide an independent retreat in his old age, for one of
the noblest of her Philosophers; and to this neglect, it is attempted
to add unmerited obloquy.
“I quit the ungrateful theme with disgust. I am consoled by the
approbation of _him_, by whom to be approved, will gladden the heart
through a long life. I rejoice that I quitted an office which subjects
its holder to such unjust censure, by the advice of my friends, who in
prophetic spirit told me, ‘that such offices were suited to men who
could bear up against censure, though they did not deserve it,’ which
they did not believe me formed to endure.”
“HENRY WM. DE SAUSSURE.
Charleston, S. C. Feb. 5. 1796.”
---
A national coin having been always considered as a proper, if not an
absolutely necessary, attribute of the sovereignty of a state,[272] the
establishment of a Mint, for the United States, was pretty early
contemplated. A plan for that purpose was brought into the view of
congress, in the last year of the war; although no national coinage was
instituted until ten years afterwards. The early part of the year 1780
was extremely disastrous to the affairs of the United States. The fall
of Charleston, S. C. depressed the spirits of the country: and the
almost total failure of public credit, accompanied by a want of money,
and other means of carrying on the war, about that period, paralyzed the
measures of the government. Such was the apathy of the public mind, in
regard to the perilous condition of the country at that crisis, that
many members of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, which was convened
on the 10th of May, in that year, came thither with petitions from their
constituents, praying to be exempt from the payment of taxes.
-----
Footnote 272:
“Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty: to transfer its
exercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign.”
See a Report made to congress, in the year 1790, by Thomas Jefferson,
Esq. then secretary of state, on certain Proposals for supplying the
United States with Copper Coinage, offered by Mr. John H. Mitchell, a
foreign artist.
-----
But while this assembly were in session, a letter was received from
General Washington by the Supreme Executive Council of the state, and by
them confidentially communicated to the legislative body, in which the
distressed condition of the army was faithfully described. Among other
things the General stated, that, notwithstanding his confidence in the
attachment of the army to the cause of their country, the distresses of
the soldiery, arising from a destitution of those necessaries which were
indispensable, had become extreme; insomuch, that appearances of mutiny
were so strongly marked on the countenances of the army, as to occasion
in his mind hourly apprehensions of the event.
This appalling information, and from such a source, elicited some
latent sparks of public spirit. Voluntary contributions were
immediately begun; and Robert Morris, Esq. a merchant of the highest
credit—as well as a man whose patriotism, talents and enterprize,
inspired confidence—contributed two hundred pounds, Pennsylvania
currency, in (what was then called) _hard money_. This subscription
commenced the 8th of June, 1780: but it amounted, in the whole to only
200_l._ hard money, and 101,360_l._ in the public bills of credit, or
paper-money, denominated _continental_.
On the 17th of the same month, however, a meeting of the contributors to
this fund (which was intended as a donation, towards carrying on the
recruiting service,) and of others, was convened in Philadelphia: with a
view to promote the object more extensively. At this meeting it was
resolved—“to open a security-subscription, to the amount of 300,000_l._
in real money; the subscribers to execute bonds to the amount of their
subscription, and to form a Bank thereon, for supplying the army.”
This was the origin of the “Bank of North-America,” which thus took its
rise from an association of “a number of patriotic persons” in the city
of Philadelphia. The plan they formed for the purpose was communicated
to congress by the secretary at war, on the 20th of June; and the next
day they were honoured with a vote of thanks.
On the 20th of February, 1781, Mr. Morris was unanimously elected by
congress to the office of Superintendant of Finance, then first created.
This gentleman arranged, in the spring following[273], the system of the
present Bank of North-America; whereupon, many of the subscribers to the
first-formed bank transferred their subscriptions to this institution.
These were incorporated by an ordinance of congress[274], passed the
31st of December, 1781; and in the beginning of the succeeding year,
this Bank commenced its operations in Philadelphia. By the incorporating
ordinance, the following gentlemen were nominated by congress to be the
president and directors of the institution, until a choice of a new
direction should be made by the stockholders; namely, Thomas Willing,
Thomas Fitzsimons, John Maxwell Nesbitt, James Wilson, Henry Hill,
Samuel Osgood, Cadwalader Morris, Andrew Caldwell, Samuel Inglis, Samuel
Meredith, William Bingham, and Timothy Matlack, Esquires. Mr. Willing, a
merchant of high credit and respectability, was president of the board.
-----
Footnote 273:
The plan of the Bank of North-America, which was submitted to congress
by their order, was approved by them on the 26th of May, 1781.
Footnote 274:
When the question, respecting the incorporation of the Bank of
North-America was taken in congress, twenty members voted in the
affirmative and only four in the negative. But the votes were then
taken by states; and of these, the delegates from New-York and
Delaware were absent, Pennsylvania (having only two members of her
delegation present) was divided, Massachusetts (having also but two
members present) voted in the negative: all the southern states were
in the affirmative, with the single exception of Mr. Madison’s vote,
his three colleagues (from Virginia) being on the affirmative side of
the question.
-----
Some doubts having arisen, respecting the right of congress, under the
then existing confederation, to exercise the power of erecting any
corporate body, an act was passed by the general assembly of
Pennsylvania, the 1st of April, 1782, to incorporate this Bank, in order
to obviate such doubts. That act was repealed, the 13th of September,
1785; but on the 18th of March, 1787, the charter was renewed for the
term of fourteen years, and has been since further continued.
It was by means of this establishment, that Mr. Morris, the
superintendant of the finances, was enabled to support the public
credit, and, in the words of Dr. Gordon, “to keep things in motion,” at
a most critical period of the American affairs, and when the national
credit was in the lowest possible state of depression.[275]
-----
Footnote 275:
Whatever failings (and these were of a venial nature) may have
appeared in the transactions of Mr. Morris, as a private citizen, in
the latter part of a life long devoted to honourable and useful
pursuits, yet the eminent services which he rendered to his country,
in times of her greatest peril, entitled him to the gratitude of his
compatriots; for, in his numerous and important official and other
public negotiations, his honour and integrity were alike
irreproachable. His merits ought not only to rescue his name from
oblivion, but they give him a just claim to be placed in the list of
American worthies; while his subsequent misfortunes —— —— —— —— ——
but,
“No further seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from his dread abode,
(There they alike in trembling hope repose,)
The bosom of his Father and his God.”
_Gray._
Mr. Morris, who was long distinguished for his talents and his
services in this country, was a native of Lancashire, in England. He
died in Philadelphia on the 8th of May, 1806.
-----
The establishment of a Mint seems to be a necessary appendage to that of
a national Bank. Accordingly, Mr. Morris, in his capacity of
superintendant of the finances, addressed a letter to congress, on the
15th of January 1782, “touching the establishment of a Mint.” On the
21st of the succeeding month, they approved his proposal,—directing him,
at the same time, “to prepare and report to congress a plan:” But
nothing further appears to have been done in this business, until the
16th of October 1786, when congress passed “An Ordinance for the
establishment of the Mint of the United States,” &c.
About two years, however, after the commencement of the present federal
government (viz. March 3. 1791,) a resolution of congress was passed,
concerning the establishing of a Mint, under such regulations as should
be directed by law. Previously to this, the late Alexander Hamilton,
Esq. had communicated to the house of representatives, by their order,
the result of his enquiries and reflexions on the subject, in a diffuse
and masterly official report. In his report, this able financier, alike
distinguished as a statesman and a soldier,[276] remarked, that “the
unequal values allowed in different parts of the Union to coins of the
same intrinsic worth; the defective species of them, which embarrass the
circulation of them in some of the states; and the dissimilarity in
their several monies of account, are inconveniences, which if not to be
ascribed to the want of a national coinage, will at least be most
effectually remedied by the establishment of one; a measure that will at
the same time give additional security against impositions, by
counterfeit as well as by base currencies.”—“It was with great reason,
therefore,” continues the Secretary, “that the attention of congress,
under the late confederation, was repeatedly drawn to the establishment
of a Mint; and it is with equal reason that the subject has been
resumed; now that the favourable change which has taken place in the
situation of public affairs, admits of its being carried into
execution.”
-----
Footnote 276:
“The task of re-creating public credit,” (says Chief Justice Marshal,
in his _Life of Washington_,) “of drawing order and arrangement from
the chaotic confusion in which the finances of America were involved,
and of devising means which should render the revenue productive, and
commensurate with the demand, was justly classed among the most
arduous of the duties which devolved on the new government[276a]. In
discharging it, much aid was expected from the head of the treasury.
To Colonel Hamilton[276b] was assigned this important, and at that
time intricate department.
“This gentleman was a native of the island of St. Croix, and, at a
very early period of life, had been placed by his friends in New-York.
Possessing an ardent temper, he caught fire from the concussions of
the moment, and with all the enthusiasm of youth, engaged first his
pen, and afterwards his sword, in the stern contest between the
American colenies and their parent state. Among the first troops
raised by New-York was a corps of artillery, in which he was appointed
a captain. Soon after the war was transferred to the Hudson, his
superior endowments recommended him to the attention of the commander
in chief, into whose family, before completing his twenty-first year,
he was invited to enter. Equally brave and intelligent, he continued
in this situation to display a degree of firmness and capacity which
commanded the confidence and esteem of his general, and of the
principal officers in the army.
“After the capitulation at York-Town, the war languished throughout
the American continent, and the probability that its termination was
approaching daily increased.
“The critical circumstances of the existing government rendered the
events of the civil, more interesting than those of the military
department, and Colonel Hamilton accepted a seat in the congress of
the United States. In all the important acts of the day, he performed
a conspicuous part, and was greatly distinguished among those
distinguished characters whom the crisis had attracted to the councils
of their country. He had afterwards been active in promoting those
measures which led to the convention at Philadelphia, of which he was
a member, and had greatly contributed to the adoption of the
constitution by the state of New-York. In the distinguished part he
had performed, both in the military and civil transactions of his
country, he had acquired a great degree of well merited fame; and the
frankness of his manners, the openness of his temper, the warmth of
his feelings, and the sincerity of his heart, had secured him many
valuable friends.
“To talents of the highest grade, he united a patient industry, not
always the companion of genius, which fitted him in a peculiar manner
for the difficulties to be encountered by the man who should be placed
at the head of the American finances.”
The disastrous death of this celebrated man happened on the 12th day
of July, 1804, at the age of about forty-seven years.
Footnote 276a:
This was in the year 1789.
Footnote 276b:
Afterwards promoted to the rank of Major-General.
-----
The Mint has been continued in Philadelphia, ever since its
establishment,—a great commercial city being very properly considered
the most suitable situation for such an institution; its operations have
been conducted, for many years past, with activity; and there are few
coins superior in beauty, to those of the American Mint.
In less than a year after Dr. Rittenhouse had engaged himself in the
duties appertaining to the Directorship of the Mint, he was again called
upon to assist his countrymen, by the aid of his talents, in effecting
an important water-communication, inland, which was then contemplated.
An association, called “The Conewago-Canal Company,” was formed in
Philadelphia, in pursuance of a law enacted the 13th of April, 1791; by
which the sum of fourteen thousand dollars was appropriated, for the
purpose of improving the navigation of the river Susquehanna, between
Wright’s Ferry (now the thriving town of Columbia) and the mouth of the
Swatara. This company consisted of seventeen members, of whom Dr.
Rittenhouse was one: and they were incorporated by an act of assembly,
passed the 10th of April, 1793.
Just about this period, an occurrence took place at Philadelphia, then
the seat of the national government, which excited much public feeling
at the time, and—contrary to the expectations of some good men of
sanguine dispositions—became the source of many political evils,
afterwards. This was the formation of what was called the Democratic
Society; a political association, produced by the effervescences of the
French revolution, while that all-important event was yet viewed in a
favourable light by free nations: and of this society, Dr. Rittenhouse
was elected President.
That Dr. Rittenhouse should have been selected as the President of the
Democratic Society, and chosen for that station, can be readily
accounted for. This gentleman had evinced, from the commencement of the
troubles between the American colonies of Great-Britain and the parent
country, an ardent attachment to the cause of his native land. The
benevolence of his disposition rendered him the well-wisher of all
mankind: hence every thing that, in his view, bore the semblance of
oppression, was odious to him. But the wrongs which the country of his
nativity, more particularly, experienced, from the unconstitutional
claims of the British Parliament, roused those feelings of patriotism,
with which his virtuous breast was animated, at the beginning of the
American discontents: he was, therefore, an early and decided Whig; and
the same principles that induced him to become such, continued to
actuate him throughout the contest between the two countries.
The benignity of his temper must, nevertheless, have induced him to be
truly rejoiced at the return of peace. When that happy event took place,
he had too much goodness of heart to remember past injuries, too much
understanding to be influenced by unworthy and mischievous prejudices;
he had not a particle of malignity in his nature. At the period of the
Declaration of American Independence by Congress, he believed, with a
great majority of his countrymen, that necessity justified the
separation: and from that epocha, he was heartily disposed to hold the
mother-country, as his compatriots then declared they did the rest of
mankind,—“enemies in war, in peace friends.”
When the French revolution commenced, the benevolence of his feelings
led him to believe, as almost every American then did, that it would
meliorate the condition of a great nation, whose inhabitants constituted
a large portion of the population of the European world;—a nation,
which, by the rigourous policy of its government, under a long
succession of ambitious and arbitrary monarchs, anterior to the one then
on the tottering throne of that ill-fated country, had become extremely
corrupt among the higher orders of the people; and in which, the
inferior classes were subjected to great oppression. The American people
having, on their separation from the mother-country, instituted for
themselves, as an independent nation, a constitution wholly republican;
they were disposed to attribute the vices of the French government,
before the revolution, to the circumstance of its being a monarchy, and
the sufferings of the people of France, as necessarily resulting from
the monarchial system of rule over them. When, therefore, a republican
form of government was erected in France on the ruins of the throne; the
excesses, and even the atrocities of the people, which attended the
demolition of the ancient government of that country, and the
establishment of political institutions entirely new to its inhabitants,
found palliatives in the dispositions of most good men among us: they
were ascribed to the strong conflicting passions naturally produced
between the great body of the people, on the one part, and their rulers
on the other; excited by the long sufferings of the former, and an
unwillingness to part with power, in the latter. Great enormities were
considered as the inevitable consequences of these opposite interests,
when brought into action amidst a population of many millions of men,
whose national characteristic is that of levity of temper and vehement
passions; and a conflict, wherein all the malign dispositions of the
most depraved characters, actuated by motives the most flagitious,
intermingled themselves with the designs of those who meant well. Such
men, freed from all the restraints of government and law, and utterly
disregarding all the obligations of either religious or moral duties,
had then an opportunity of giving a full vent to their views, whether of
ambition, avarice or personal resentments; and they did not fail to
embrace it. While, on the one hand, demagogues fanned the popular flame
by the vilest artifices; put on the semblance of patriotism, and by
practising the most detestable hypocrisy, professed themselves to be the
friends of the people, whom they were deluding into premeditated ruin.
Even virtuous Frenchmen, and many of them possessing no inconsiderable
share of discernment, soon fell victims to the machiavelian policy of
these pretended patriots. These, in their turn, were sacrificed under
the denunciations of their compeers, or other aspiring villains; and
thus, others still in succession: until, finally, a fortunate military
usurper, restored the monarchy in his own person, with absolute sway;
and by substituting an horrible military despotism, in the place of a
most sanguinary anarchy, confounded all ranks of his subjects in one
vast mass of miserable slaves; who have been since employed in
destroying the peace, freedom and happiness of their fellow-men, in
other countries. Such have been, hitherto, the fruits of the French
revolution; from which, at its commencement, myriads of good men fondly
anticipated an issue precisely the reverse.[277]
-----
Footnote 277:
The deleterious, though—as it might almost be called—fascinating
influence, of the revolution undertaken by the people of France,
extended itself far and wide, prior to the murder of their king, even
in countries under the milder forms of government: many characters of
great worth were every where misled by the plausibility of the avowed
designs of its authors and supporters; and in no country was the
infatuation more general, than in the United States. In England
itself, it begat a kind of political frenzy; and, had not the wise and
salutary writings of the celebrated Burke arrested its progress, in
good time, the most fatal consequences must have ensued. Among the
literary and scientific men in Britain, who became deeply infected by
the revolution-mania of that day, was Dr. Erasmus Darwin, Miss Anna
Seward (one of his biographers) remarks, that the Doctor has
introduced into his _Botanic Garden_ an allegory, representing
_Liberty_ “as a great form, slumbering within the iron cage and marble
walls of the French Bastile, unconscious of his chains; till, touched
by the patriot flame, he rends his flimsy bonds, lifts his colossal
form, and rears his hundred arms over his foes; calls to the good and
brave of every country, with a voice that echoes like the thunder of
heaven to the polar extremities;
“Gives to the winds his banner broad, unfurl’d,
“And gathers in its shade the living world!”
In consequence of Darwin’s use of this grossly misapplied figure;—as
the issue of the French revolution too fatally proves it to have
been,—Miss Seward offers the following apology for the subject of her
friendly pen:
“This sublime sally of a too-confiding imagination, has made the poet
and his work countless foes. They triumphed over him,” says his fair
biographer, “on a result so contrary,—on the mortal wounds given by
French crimes to real Liberty. They forget, or choose to forget, that
this part of the poem (though published after the other) appeared in
1791, antecedent to the dire regicide, and to all those unprecedented
scenes of sanguinary cruelty inflicted on France, by three of her
republican tyrants; compared to whom, the most remorseless of her
monarchs was mild and merciful.”
-----
Notwithstanding the criminal excesses committed by many of the French
revolutionists, before the institution of their short lived and
turbulent republic, it was hoped by most true Americans, attached by
fidelity as well as principle to that system of government, which was
then the legitimate one in their own country, that its ultimate
establishment in France would produce permanent benefits, to that
country at least, which would infinitely overbalance what were
considered, by zealous republicans, as temporary and partial evils, such
as seemed to be unavoidable, in bringing about a radical change in the
fundamental institutions of a great and powerful empire. Many Americans
were not, indeed, so sanguine in their expectations: but such were,
nevertheless, the prevailing sentiments of the citizens of the United
States,—even among the best-informed men.
The deliberative and cautionary proceedings (as they purported to be) of
the more prominent revolutionary characters in France, in their minor
popular assemblies, prior to the establishment of their national
constitutional form of government, were judged of, in the United States,
with respect to their objects and utility, as similar assemblies, under
the denominations of councils of safety, committees of safety, &c. were
considered by their own citizens, at the commencement of the American
revolution: they were deemed to be necessary agents of the people in
each country, respectively, during the interregnum which succeeded the
abandonment of their ancient governments.
The Jacobin Club of Paris was one of these political engines of the
French revolution, for some time after its commencement; and, perhaps,
that assembly contained many worthy members, originally, although it
afterwards became notoriously infamous, by the monstrous enormity of the
crimes it countenanced and produced.
Chief Justice Marshall has observed (in his _Life of Washington_,) that
“soon after the arrival of Mr. Genet,[278] a Democratic Society was
formed in Philadelphia, which seems to have taken for its model the
Jacobin Club of Paris:”—“Its organization,” continues the historian,
“appears to have been completed on the 30th of May, 1793.”
-----
Footnote 278:
Mr. Genet arrived in Philadelphia the 16th of May, 1793; and in the
evening of the same day a meeting of the citizens was held at the
state-house, when a committee was appointed to draw up an address to
this minister from the republic of France: Mr. Rittenhouse was the
first named on that committee. At a meeting of the citizens held the
next day, he, as chairman of that committee, reported an address
accordingly; which, being adopted by the persons then assembled, was
presented to the new minister, the ensuing morning.
The president’s proclamation of neutrality had then been issued
between three and four weeks:[278a] the addressers therefore say,
keeping this in their view; “Earnestly giving to the national
exertions (of France) our wishes and our prayers, we cannot resist the
pleasing hope, that although America is not a party in the existing
war, she may still be able, in a state of peace, to demonstrate the
sincerity of her friendship, by affording very useful assistance to
her sister republic.”—The “useful assistance,” here alluded to, and
which it was supposed France might derive from this country, “in a
state of peace,” did not contemplate any infringement of the
neutrality of the United States: Nor could Mr. Genet, himself,
consider the language of the address in any other than its true sense;
for, in his extempore answer, (a written one was also returned,) he
says, “From the remote situation of America, and other circumstances,
France does not expect that America should become a party in the war;
but remembering that she has already combated for your liberties, (and
if it was necessary, and she had the power, would cheerfully again
enlist in your cause,) we hope, (and every thing I hear and see
assures me our hope will be realized,) that her citizens will be
treated as brothers, in danger and distress.” This declaration of the
French minister, made immediately after his arrival at the seat of the
American government, forbad the addressers to believe, that either he
or any other agent of the French government would afterwards undertake
to violate the neutrality of the United States.
Footnote 278a:
It is dated the 22d of April, 1793.
-----
It will nevertheless be recollected, that, about that period, the shock
given to the humane feelings of the American people, by the murder of
Louis XVI. their benefactor during the war in this country, and by the
death and sufferings of his queen and family, had mostly subsided. The
great American public still continued warmly and sincerely attached to
what was then viewed as the cause of the French people: and therefore,
whatever may have been the real design of setting up a Democratic
Society in Philadelphia, at that point of time—a design only known to
its founders,—it is certain, that many highly estimable and meritorious
citizens, and firm friends of the existing government, were elected
members of that society, without any previous intimation being given to
them of such an intention: some of those persons never attended any of
the meetings of the society; and others soon discontinued their
attendance. If it were actually formed on the model of the Jacobin Club
of Paris, by some of those with whom the scheme originated, it cannot be
rationally presumed that men of great purity of reputation, in public as
well as private life, would either seek admission into such an assembly,
knowing it had any criminal views; nor would they, if chosen members of
it without their knowledge and consent, participate in its proceedings,
should these be found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or dishonourable.
Yet it is a matter of notoriety, that persons of such characters were in
some instances enrolled among the members of the Democratic Society in
Philadelphia, at its commencement and soon after its organization, in
the spring of 1793.
It may be readily supposed, that such of its members as meant well,
would be desirous of placing at the head of that body, a man of
unimpeachable patriotism and integrity; and it is equally reasonable to
conclude, that, had there been a majority of its members, whose secret
designs were inimical to the true interest of the country or the
well-being of the government,—even these would wish to disguise their
intentions, under the nominal auspices of a character universally
respected and esteemed. Such a man was Dr. Rittenhouse; and therefore
was he selected by the Philadelphia Democratic Society, as their
President. At the time of his election to that station, he held the
highly important office of Director of the Mint, under a commission from
President Washington; for whose public and private character he always
entertained the most exalted respect, besides the personal regard, which
the writer of these Memoirs knows to have subsisted between them. It is
not presumable, taking all considerations into view, that Dr.
Rittenhouse suffered any serious diminution in the esteem of that
virtuous and discerning statesman, by the circumstance of the Doctor
being placed at the head of the Democratic Society: for he not only
continued to hold the Directorship of the Mint, but, when he offered his
resignation of that high trust, two years afterwards, the President’s
reluctance to accept it yielded only to the Doctor’s urgent solicitation
to decline a further continuance in the office.
Whatever, therefore, may have been the real views and intentions of some
of the members of the Democratic Society which was formed in
Philadelphia, in 1793,—even if those of a majority of their number were
highly unjustifiable,—no imputation, unfavourable to Dr. Rittenhouse’s
character, either as a good citizen or an upright man, could in the
smallest degree be attached to him, by reason of his having been chosen
a President of that body, at the time of its organization.[279]
-----
Footnote 279:
Many months after the death of Dr. Rittenhouse, the same licentious
writer who publicly charged him with being an Atheist, declared, in
the same public manner, what was equally untrue. He asserted, not only
that Mr. Rittenhouse “volunteered as president of the Democratic
Society, in Philadelphia,” but that “he himself signed the
inflammatory resolves against the excise-law, which encouraged the
malecontents to rise in open rebellion.” The fact is, that the
“inflammatory resolves” referred to, were entered into by that body,
on the 8th of May, 1794; and were not signed by Mr. Rittenhouse, but
by another person, as “President pro tem.”
-----
That Dr. Rittenhouse was a zealous advocate for the liberties of
mankind, is unquestionable: but, much as he abhorred slavery and
oppression of every kind, did he deprecate turbulence and licentiousness
in the people, and wars of ambition, avarice or injustice, undertaken by
their rulers. He was decidedly friendly to those measures of civil
government, which are best calculated to maintain order, tranquillity,
and safety in the state, on just and honourable principles. It can
scarcely be doubted by any one, intimately acquainted with his
character, that he must have concurred in sentiments similar to those
attributed by the biographer of Washington to that great man, or this
subject,—in the following observation: “Between a balanced republic and
a democracy the difference is like that between order and chaos. Real
liberty, he thought, was to be secured only by preserving the authority
of the laws, and maintaining the energy of government. Scarcely did
society present two characters which, in his opinion, less resembled
each other, than a patriot and a demagogue.”
Mr. Rittenhouse, it must be rationally supposed, was less acquainted
with mankind, than General Washington was known to be: he had much fewer
and more limited opportunities of studying human nature; and professions
of pretended patriots were, therefore, more likely to impose on the
unsuspecting honesty of his nature. He may even have been deceived, for
a while, and ere the plausible fallacies of theorists in matters of
civil polity, emanating from the philosophy of the French school, had
yet been manifested to the world. A practical philosopher himself, he
must have contemplated with pity, if not with indignation, the doctrines
of the followers of Pyrrho: with whom it was a fundamental principle,
that there is nothing that can be denominated true or false, right or
wrong, honest or dishonest, just or unjust; or, in other words, that
there is no standard beyond law or custom; and that uncertainty and
doubt are attached to all things. Nevertheless, on these doctrines of
the sceptical philosophers of antiquity are founded that monstrous and
wicked tenet of most of the modern sceptics, that _the end justifies the
means_!—a principle destructive of all the foundations of religion and
morals. Well might the Abbé le Blanc exclaim, when noticing this
mischievous sect of philosophers, seventy years ago,—“Is it not
surprising, that men should endeavour to acquire the esteem of the
public, by striving to break the most sacred band of all societies; in
declaring their opinion to others, that there is neither virtue nor
vice, truth nor doubt.”—“Our modern philosophers,”[280] says the learned
Abbé in another place, “have been _too confident_.”
-----
Footnote 280:
The Abbé le Blanc (or the writer who assumed that appellation) names,
of this metaphysical tribe, Hobbes, Lord Shaftesbury, Tindal and
Collins, all Englishmen; though his own country has long been the
superlatively prolific soil of infidelity in religion, and chimerical
theories in every department of science: such philosophers abound in
France. He observes very justly, however, that “there is nothing so
improperly made use of, as the name philosopher.” See _Le Blanc’s
Letters on the English and French Nations_.
-----
This is certainly correct, in one point of view; although the assertion
seems to imply a contradiction in terms, so far as it applies to the
metaphysical scepticism of many, assuming the honourable appellation of
Philosophers, without being entitled to the true character. What were
the sentiments of Dr. Rittenhouse, concerning the tenets of men of this
description, may be fairly inferred, not only from the manner in which
he has introduced the names of Berkeley and Hume into the Oration which
he pronounced before the Philosophical Society, in the year 1775, but
from other observations and reflexions contained in that discourse, as
well as from the general tenure of opinions expressed by him on various
occasions.
At an early period of the French revolution, a circumstance occurred,
which, from its connexion in some particulars with the life of our
Philosopher, is here entitled to notice.
On the 7th of August 1783, and after peace had been proclaimed, congress
unanimously passed a resolution in the following words——“Resolved, That
an equestrian statue of General Washington be erected at the place where
the residence of Congress shall be established;—that the statue be of
bronze: the General to be represented in a Roman dress, holding a
truncheon in his right hand, and his head, encircled with a laurel
wreath. The Statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which are to
be represented, in _basso relievo_, the following principal events of
the war, in which General Washington commanded in person: the evacuation
of Boston;—the capture of the Hessions, at Trenton;—the battle of
Princeton;—the action of Monmouth;—and the surrender of York.—On the
upper part of the front of the pedestal, to be engraved as follows: “The
United States in Congress assembled ordered this Statue to be erected,
in the year of our Lord 1783, in honour of GEORGE WASHINGTON, the
illustrious Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States of
America, during the war which vindicated and secured their Liberty,
Sovereignty and Independence.”[281]
-----
Footnote 281:
The legislature of Virginia, in their first session after the
resignation of the Commander in Chief, passed the following
resolution:—
“Resolved, that the executive be requested to take measures for
procuring a Statue of General Washington, to be of the finest marble
and best workmanship, with the following inscription on its pedestal.
“The general assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia have caused this
statue to be erected as a monument of affection and gratitude to
GEORGE WASHINGTON, who, uniting to the endowments of the HERO, the
virtues of the PATRIOT, and exerting both in establishing the
Liberties of his Country, has rendered his name dear to his
fellow-citizens, and given the world an immortal example of true
glory.”
This resolution was afterwards carried into effect: the statue which
it decreed was executed by Houdon, and occupies a conspicuous place,
in a spacious area in the centre of the capital at Richmond, in
Virginia.
-----
This was an honourable testimony of the gratitude and affectionate
respect of the nation, towards the Hero and Patriot, who so eminently
merited both; and it was a sincere effusion of the heart, in the
representatives of the American people, while the transcendent virtues
of a WASHINGTON, and his then recent services in his country’s cause,
yet inspired every generous breast with a faithful remembrance of his
worth: It was a laudable proof of the patriotism that actuated the
public mind, at a period, when, in the words of an enlightened
historian,[282] “the glow of expression in which the high sense
universally entertained of his services was conveyed, manifested a
warmth of feeling seldom equalled in the history of man.”
-----
Footnote 282:
Chief-Justice Marshall, in his _Life of George Washington_.
-----
The fascination which the revolution of France spread over a large
portion of Europe and America, for some time after its commencement, and
during the time it yet bore the semblance of a virtuous cause,—while it
seemed to enchant the true friends of freedom every where; and the
oft-resounded and captivating _name_ of “Liberty,” produced in men of
ardent tempers, and speculative notions, ideas of its _reality_ of the
most extravagant nature, and in numerous instances of very mischievous
tendency.
Among those of the latter description was Joseph Ceracchi, an Italian
artist of celebrity. Mr. Ceracchi was a statuary, of great eminence in
his profession; and to the manners and accomplishments of a gentleman,
he united much genius and taste. Though born and bred in the dominions
of the papal see, he fostered the principles of a republican. Conceiving
that the genius of a free government comported with these alone, he
became an enthusiastic admirer of the French _republic_. Finding the
turbulent state of France, at the beginning of her troubles,
unfavourable to the exercise of his art, in that country; and believing
as he did, that the tranquil and prosperous condition of the United
States would afford full employment for his talents, in a manner
congenial to his inclinations, as well as beneficial to his private
interest; he arrived, with his wife—a German lady of some distinction—at
Philadelphia, then the seat of the national government, sometime (it is
supposed) in the year 1793.
The great equestrian statue, which congress had, ten years before,
decreed to be erected in honour of General Washington, had not yet been
executed; and Mr. Ceracchi imagined that the gratitude of the American
republic would furnish, besides this primary work, ample scope for the
exercise of his talents, in erecting honorary memorials of some of the
more illustrious characters, which the American revolution had produced.
The aptitude, beauty and magnificence, which the artist designed to
display in some great public monuments of this kind, were exhibited in
models which he executed, for the purpose of testifying his abilities in
the art he professed: these were universally admired, as the productions
of superior genius, taste and skill. Yet Mr. Ceracchi remained
unemployed: the national council did not, even at that late day, avail
themselves of so favourable an opportunity of engaging him to erect the
statue _decreed_ to WASHINGTON,—a work which continues unexecuted at the
present moment[283]! and the talents of that eminent artist were, not
long afterwards, for ever lost to the country.
-----
Footnote 283:
“If the example of all the republics that have preceded us did not
authorize the hope, that history will not find us guilty of
ingratitude, but only of delay, the national neglect of the memory of
Washington would be sufficient to repress every sentiment of
patriotism and public spirit. Of this neglect, aggravated by the
solemn steps taken by congress to obtain a right to remove the body of
the Founder of our Liberties to a place of public and honourable
sepulture, and the abandonment of that right when obtained, it is
painful to speak—nor is it necessary. There is not wanting a general
sentiment of the disgrace which the nation suffers, while the body of
Washington rests upon a trussle, crouded into a damp and narrow vault,
in which the rapid decay of the wooden support must in a few years
mingle his ashes with those of his worthy but unknown relations.
Exertions not altogether worthy of the object, but such as the present
fashion of finance authorizes, are made, to give to his memory that
honour in other cities, which is denied him in the metropolis of the
Union.” [See the _Ann. Oration delivered before the Society of
Artists, in Philadelphia, in May, 1811, by B. H. Latrobe, Esq._]
-----
Among the gentlemen with whom Mr. Ceracchi became acquainted, in
Philadelphia, were some members of the Philosophical Society in that
city; and, on their recommendation of him, he was, himself, soon
associated with this institution.
In this body, as the Writer believes, Dr. Rittenhouse acquired a
knowledge of Mr. Ceracchi’s person and character. Both Dr. and Mrs.
Rittenhouse, from their kind and unceasing attentions to this gentleman
and his wife, appear to have considered them as persons of merit: the
Doctor, particularly, by his friendly deportment towards the husband,
during the time he continued his residence in this country, testified
the esteem he had conceived for this ingenious foreigner; heightened
too, perhaps, by a delicate sensibility towards him, on account of the
disappointment in his expectations of public patronage in his
profession, which he experienced while here. For it is known to the
Memorialist, that when, in consequence of such disappointment, Mr.
Ceracchi became embarrassed in his pecuniary affairs, Dr. Rittenhouse
contributed liberally to his relief.
Some time in the summer of the year 1794 (if the Writer’s recollection
be correct,) our benevolent philosopher having occasion to view the
canal, intended to form a communication between the waters of the
Delaware and the Schuylkill, invited Mr. Ceracchi to accompany him, for
the purpose of examining the quality of the marble in the great quarries
of that material, situated near the margin of the latter river, in the
vicinity of the western end of the canal. The Memorialist joined in this
little excursion, during which, Dr. Rittenhouse was, as usual,
communicative, cheerful and instructive.
On inspecting the quarries just mentioned—so far as time then permitted
an examination of them,—Mr. Ceracchi seemed to think they contained only
laminated strata of stone; not massy blocks, without fissures or veins,
like the marbles of Carrara, and those in some other parts of Europe:
that, although this Schuylkill marble was generally of a good quality
and of a whiteness sufficiently pure, it could not be obtained in masses
thick enough for the larger subjects of fine statuary. Yet this artist
observed, that a large proportion of the slabs appeared to be of
dimensions suitable for various subjects of sculpture; and more
especially, that they furnished an excellent material for many purposes,
ornamental as well as useful, in public edifices and other
structures[284]. No other quarries of marble were viewed, on this
excursion: but it is probable Mr. Ceracchi would have found the marbles
of Hitner’s and Henderson’s quarries—which are at nearly the same
distance from Philadelphia, though not situated very near the river
Schuylkill—much better adapted in every respect, to the uses he
contemplated. This unfortunate man appeared to have possessed, in
addition to genius and fine professional talents, the exalted virtue of
gratitude. Dr. Rittenhouse was his benefactor; and the Philosophical
Society had elected him a member of their body: a fine bust of the
Philosopher in the antique style, was executed by Ceracchi in white
marble, and by him presented to the Society, on the 6th of February,
1795. It is supposed that he left America about twelve months after this
date; and it is said, that he afterwards perished on a scaffold, in
Paris, in consequence of its being alleged, that he was engaged in a
conspiracy against the life of Bonaparte.
Footnote 284:
Mr. B. H. Latrobe, in speaking of the great improvement in
architecture recently manifested in Philadelphia, notices the peculiar
advantages derived to that city, from the valuable marbles in its
vicinity. “The beautiful marble,” says he, “with which this
neighbourhood abounds, and the excellence of all other building
materials, give to Philadelphia great advantages in this branch of the
fine arts.” (See Mr. Latrobe’s _Annual Oration_, delivered before the
_Society of Artists, in Philadelphia_, May 8th, 1811.) The correct
taste and superior skill of this gentleman, as an Architect and Civil
Engineer, are well known in the United States. In Philadelphia, _the
Bank of Pennsylvania_ will, more especially, remain a lasting monument
of his talents in architectural science, as well as of the excellent
quality of the marble (for such purposes) of which that edifice is
constructed.
-----
In the spring of the year 1794, the Earl of Buchan, P. S. S. A. and
James Anderson, LL. D. both distinguished characters in Scotland, were
elected members of the American Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia:
and it appears probable, from a note addressed to Dr. Rittenhouse by
President Washington, that they had been put in nomination, or, at
least, that their election had been advocated by the former, at the
instance of the latter; the note is in these words—
“The President presents his compliments to Mr. Rittenhouse, and thanks
him for the attention he has given to the case of Mr. Anderson and the
Earl of Buchan.
“Sunday afternoon, 20th April, 1794.”
At the commencement of the following year, Lord Buchan[285] wrote to Dr.
Rittenhouse the following letter:
“_Dryburgh Abbey, Jan. 12, 1795._
“Sir,
“My worthy friend, Mr. John Miller, son of the eminent professor, John
Miller, of Glasgow, whom I recommend to your attention, has charged
himself with this letter, and will deliver to you a Writing-Box, which
I dedicate to your use, as President of the Philosophical Society at
Philadelphia, and to your successors in office, as a testimony of my
high esteem for your literary character and for that of the Society
over which you preside.
“This Box is made of Yew, of Black Cherry tree, and Acacia and
Barberry, and veneered with Holly; all the growth of my garden at this
place, and joined, fitted and finished, by my own joiner, in this
house.
“On the lid is an authentic picture of Copernicus, and in the inside
thereof is a similar one of Napier. That of Copernicus is from the
accurate copy of the Chancellor Hupazzuoski’s original picture, which
was sent by the learned Dr. Wolf, of Dantzic, to the Royal Society of
London; and this limning of mine is most faithfully delineated and
shaded, from a drawing made by Mr. Thomas Parke, of Picadilly,
formerly a pupil of Valentine Green, engraver at London, from the
picture in the Royal Society, on a scale proportional in all parts and
with great fidelity; so that I can assure you of my limning being a
fac simile, as to the features and countenance. That of Napier[286] is
indeed a most exquisitely beautiful piece, by John Brown, of
Edinburgh, executed with the black-lead pencil, from an original
portrait in the possession of Lord Napier; and, as a drawing with
black-lead, excels, I believe, every thing of the kind now extant: Mr.
Brown having by drawing, during twelve years in Italy, from statues,
obtained a super-eminent accuracy and beauty of design.
“I consecrate this interesting piece of furniture to American Science,
and to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia: willing, however,
that in consideration of the high esteem I bear to you personally, you
should have the custody and use of it in your own house, during your
life; producing it only to the Society for the use of the Secretary,
when you think proper. I have subjoined by way of postscript to this
letter, some particulars relating to the Residence of Copernicus, and
his Tomb; which I wish you to communicate to our Society.[287]
“Permit me to repeat my earnest request, that you should be kind and
attentive to the Bearer (and his Family,) who I hope will have the
happiness to obtain a literary establishment in the United States, and
prove of much utility to the public. I am, Sir, with esteem, your
obliged humble servant—