Transcriber's Note:
Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has been preserved.
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Many spelling inconsistencies were noted and unchanged in the text
(e.g. Geisner/Geismer, Eldridge/Elbridge, Williamsburg/Williamsburgh,
Thoulouse/Toulouse, Albermarle/Albemarle).
On page 20, "becames destructive" should possibly be "becomes
destructive".
Evident errors in the printing of the letter from the Count de
Vergennes on pages 73 and 74 have been left as printed.
On page 117, "public powder" should possibly be "public power".
On page 271, "Crochet" should possibly be "Crocket".
On page 582, the date May 27 is repeated.
Inconsistent punctuation in the legal citations (pages 147 to 162),
has been left as printed.
[Illustration: Th. Jefferson]
THE
WRITINGS
OF
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
BEING HIS
AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES,
ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL
AND PRIVATE.
PUBLISHED BY THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS
ON THE LIBRARY,
FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS,
DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES, TABLES OF CONTENTS, AND A COPIOUS INDEX
TO EACH VOLUME, AS WELL AS A GENERAL INDEX TO THE WHOLE,
BY THE EDITOR
H. A. WASHINGTON.
VOL. I.
NEW YORK:
H. W. DERBY, 625 BROADWAY.
1861.
Entered, according by Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by
TAYLOR & MAURY,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of
Columbia.
STEREOTYPED BY
THOMAS B. SMITH
216 William St., N. Y.
PREFACE.
Mr. Jefferson having, by his last will and testament, bequeathed to
his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, all his manuscript papers,
Congress, by an act of the 12th of April, 1848, made an appropriation
for the purpose of purchasing them for the Government; and, by the
same act, an additional appropriation was made to print and publish
them under the direction and supervision of the Joint Committee on
the Library. It is under the authority of this act that the present
publication is made. The immense mass of manuscript left by Mr.
Jefferson having been deposited with the Editor, he has carefully gone
through the whole, and selected from it, for the present publication,
everything which possesses permanent public interest either on account
of its intrinsic value, or as matter of history, or as illustrating
the character of the distinguished Author, or as embodying his views
upon the almost infinite variety of topics, philosophical, moral,
religious, scientific, historical, and political, so ably discussed
by him--thus making this work a complete depository of the writings
of Thomas Jefferson. Under the view which the Editor has taken of his
editorial duties, and the instructions of the Library Committee, he has
not felt himself at liberty to encumber the publication with matter of
his own farther than is necessary to illustrate the text. Such notes as
have been appended will, therefore, be found to be purely explanatory
and historical in their character. Under the impression that the value
of such publications as the present depends much upon facility of
reference, a particular Index has been appended to each volume as well
as a general Index to the whole.
CONTENTS TO VOL. I.
BOOK I.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 1.
APPENDIX TO AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 111.
BOOK II.
PART I--LETTERS WRITTEN BEFORE HIS MISSION TO
EUROPE--(1773-1783), 181.
PART II--LETTERS WRITTEN WHILE IN EUROPE--(1784-1790), 338.
Adams, John, letters written to, 205, 356, 358, 365, 370,
376, 378, 416, 436, 437, 460, 486, 492, 497, 510, 501,
511, 529, 569, 584, 591.
Aranda, Count de, letter written to, 470.
Auberteuil, Hilliard d', 535.
Bancroft, Dr., letter written to, 535.
Bannister, J. Jr., letter written to, 466.
Bellini, Mr., letter written to, 443.
Buchanan and Hay, letter written to, 578.
Campbell, Colonel, letter written to, 295.
Carmichael, William, letters written to, 392, 469, 473, 551,
579.
Carr, Peter, letter written to, 395.
Cary, Colonel A., letters written to, 197, 507.
Castries, Monsieur de, letters written to, 361, 374.
Cathalan, Monsieur, letter written to, 600.
Chastellux, Chevalier de, letters written to, 321, 339.
Commissioners of the French Treasury, letter written to, 519.
Crevecœur, Monsieur de, letter written to, 594.
Delegates in Congress, from Georgia, letter written to, 500.
Delegates in Congress, from Virginia, letters written to,
287, 307.
Desbordes, Monsieur, letter written to, 462.
Drayton, William, letter written to, 554.
Dumas, W. F., letters written to, 528, 552.
Dumas and Short, letter written to, 415.
Forrest, Colonel Uriah, letter written to, 338.
Franklin, Dr. Benjamin, letters written to, 204, 448, 525.
Franklin, W. T., letter written to, 555.
French and Nephew, letter written to, 362.
Gates, Major General, letters written to, 238, 251, 254, 260,
262, 266, 268, 275, 294, 314.
Geisner, Baron, letter written to, 427.
Gerry, Eldridge, letters written to, 454, 556.
Governor of Georgia, letter written to, 499.
Governor of Maryland, letter written to, 343.
Governor of Virginia, letters written to, 402, 513, 599.
Greene, Major General, letter written to, 509.
Hartley, David, letter written to, 422.
Henry, Patrick, letter written to, 212.
Hogendorp, letter written to, 463.
Hopkinson, F., letters written to, 440, 503.
Humphreys, Colonel, letters written to, 496, 559.
Izard, R., letter written to, 441.
Jay, John, letters written to, 332, 339, 344, 380, 384, 403,
408, 452, 457, 522, 537, 538, 543, 545, 571, 573, 574,
582, 602.
Jones, John Paul, letters written to, 391, 594.
Jones, Joseph, letter written to, 353.
La Fayette, letters written to, 311, 579, 596.
La Luzerne, Chevalier de, letter written to, 326.
Lambe, Mr., letter written to, 581.
La Morleine, Monsieur, letter written to, 578.
Langdon, John, letter written to, 428.
La Valee, Monsieur de, letter written to, 429.
La Rouene, Marquis de, letter written to, 512.
Lee, Richard Henry, letters written to, 204, 540.
Livingston, Robert R., letters written to, 320, 327, 330,
331.
---- From, 329, 331.
Madison, James, letters written to, 315, 324, 412, 431, 446,
531.
Marbois, Monsieur de, letter written to, 297.
Mathews, Colonel, letter written to, 233.
McPherson, Charles, letter written to, 195.
Monroe, James, letters written to, 317, 345, 358, 405, 526,
564, 586, 605.
---- From, 316.
O'Bryan, Richard, letter written to, 477.
Osgood, Samuel, letter written to, 450.
Otto, Mr., letter written to, 558
Page, John, letters written to, 181, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190,
191, 193, 210, 399, 548.
Pleasants, T., letter written to, 563.
Poncens, Marquis de, letter written to, 430.
Portail, Monsieur du, letter written to, 357.
President of Congress, letters written to, 285, 287, 299,
300, 301, 302, 303, 304.
Price, Dr., letter written to, 376.
Randolph, Edmund, letters written to, 312, 433.
Randolph, John, letters written to, 200, 202.
Riedesel, General de, letter written to, 240.
Rittenhouse, David, letters written to, 210, 515.
Ross, James, letter written to, 560.
St. Victour and Bettinger, letter written to, 570.
Seward, W. W., letter written to, 478.
Short, William, letter written to, 372.
Small, Dr. William, letter written to, 198.
Steptoe, Mr., letter written to, 323.
Stevens, General Edward, letters written to, 244, 250, 252,
253, 274, 278.
Stewart, A., letter written to, 517.
Style, Dr., letter written to, 363.
Thompson, Charles, letters written to, 354, 542.
Thulemeyer, Baron de, letters written to, 368, 469.
Trist, Mrs., letter written to, 394.
Unger, John Louis de, letter written to, 278.
Van Staphorst, N. & J., letters written to, 369, 461, 471.
Vergennes, Count de, letters written to, 385, 456, 479, 490,
537, 547, 577.
Washington, George, letters written to, 221, 225, 230, 231,
232, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 249, 255, 257, 265, 267,
268, 270, 271, 276, 279, 282, 291, 292, 296, 297, 304,
305, 309, 313, 325, 333.
---- From, 328.
Wythe, George, letter written to, 211.
----* (address lost), 207, 246, 272, 289.
BOOK I.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WITH APPENDIX.
INTRODUCTORY TO BOOK I.
In the arrangement which has been adopted, Book I. comprises the
Autobiography and Appendix. The Autobiography extends to the 21st of
March, 1790, when Mr. Jefferson arrived in New York to enter upon the
duties of the Department of State, and embraces a variety of important
subjects, such as the rise and progress of the difficulties between
Great Britain and her North American Colonies--the circumstances
connected with the Declaration of Independence--the debates in Congress
upon the adoption thereof, as reduced to writing by Mr. Jefferson
at the time--the history of the Articles of Confederation--early
stages of the French Revolution--revision of the Penal Code of
Virginia--abolition of her laws of Primogeniture--overthrow of her
Church Establishment--Act of Religious Freedom, &c.--all matter
interesting in itself, but rendered particularly so by the fact that
it comes from one who was himself a chief actor in the scenes which he
describes.
BOOK I.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WITH APPENDIX.
JANUARY 6, 1821. At the age of 77, I begin to make some memoranda, and
state some recollections of dates and facts concerning myself, for my
own more ready reference, and for the information of my family.
The tradition in my father's family was, that their ancestor came to
this country from Wales, and from near the mountain of Snowdon, the
highest in Great Britain. I noted once a case from Wales, in the law
reports, where a person of our name was either plaintiff or defendant;
and one of the same name was secretary to the Virginia Company. These
are the only instances in which I have met with the name in that
country. I have found it in our early records; but the first particular
information I have of any ancestor was of my grandfather, who lived
at the place in Chesterfield called Ozborne's, and owned the lands
afterwards the glebe of the parish. He had three sons; Thomas who died
young, Field who settled on the waters of Roanoke and left numerous
descendants, and Peter, my father, who settled on the lands I still
own, called Shadwell, adjoining my present residence. He was born
February 29, 1707-8, and intermarried 1739, with Jane Randolph, of
the age of 19, daughter of Isham Randolph, one of the seven sons of
that name and family, settled at Dungeoness in Goochland. They trace
their pedigree far back in England and Scotland, to which let every one
ascribe the faith and merit he chooses.
My father's education had been quite neglected; but being of a strong
mind, sound judgment, and eager after information, he read much
and improved himself, insomuch that he was chosen, with Joshua Fry,
Professor of Mathematics in William and Mary college, to continue
the boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina, which had been
begun by Colonel Byrd; and was afterwards employed with the same Mr.
Fry, to make the first map of Virginia which had ever been made, that
of Captain Smith being merely a conjectural sketch. They possessed
excellent materials for so much of the country as is below the blue
ridge; little being then known beyond that ridge. He was the third
or fourth settler, about the year 1737, of the part of the country in
which I live. He died, August 17th, 1757, leaving my mother a widow,
who lived till 1776, with six daughters and two sons, myself the
elder. To my younger brother he left his estate on James River, called
Snowden, after the supposed birth-place of the family: to myself, the
lands on which I was born and live.
He placed me at the English school at five years of age; and at the
Latin at nine, where I continued until his death. My teacher, Mr.
Douglas, a clergyman from Scotland, with the rudiments of the Latin and
Greek languages, taught me the French; and on the death of my father, I
went to the Reverend Mr. Maury, a correct classical scholar, with whom
I continued two years; and then, to wit, in the spring of 1760, went to
William and Mary college, where I continued two years. It was my great
good fortune, and what probably fixed the destinies of my life, that
Dr. William Small of Scotland, was then professor of Mathematics, a man
profound in most of the useful branches of science, with a happy talent
of communication, correct and gentlemanly manners, and an enlarged and
liberal mind. He, most happily for me, became soon attached to me, and
made me his daily companion when not engaged in the school; and from
his conversation I got my first views of the expansion of science,
and of the system of things in which we are placed. Fortunately, the
philosophical chair became vacant soon after my arrival at college,
and he was appointed to fill it _per interim_: and he was the first
who ever gave, in that college, regular lectures in Ethics, Rhetoric
and Belles lettres. He returned to Europe in 1762, having previously
filled up the measure of his goodness to me, by procuring for me, from
his most intimate friend, George Wythe, a reception as a student of
law, under his direction, and introduced me to the acquaintance and
familiar table of Governor Fauquier, the ablest man who had ever filled
that office. With him, and at his table, Dr. Small and Mr. Wythe, his
_amici omnium horarum_, and myself, formed a _partie quarree_, and to
the habitual conversations on these occasions I owed much instruction.
Mr. Wythe continued to be my faithful and beloved mentor in youth,
and my most affectionate friend through life. In 1767, he led me into
the practice of the law at the bar of the General court, at which I
continued until the Revolution shut up the courts of justice.[1]
In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the
county in which I live, and so continued until it was closed by the
Revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the
emancipation of slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the
regal government, nothing liberal could expect success. Our minds were
circumscribed within narrow limits, by an habitual belief that it was
our duty to be subordinate to the mother country in all matters of
government, to direct all our labors in subservience to her interests,
and even to observe a bigoted intolerance for all religions but
hers. The difficulties with our representatives were of habit and
despair, not of reflection and conviction. Experience soon proved
that they could bring their minds to rights, on the first summons of
their attention. But the King's Council, which acted as another house
of legislature, held their places at will, and were in most humble
obedience to that will: the Governor too, who had a negative on our
laws, held by the same tenure, and with still greater devotedness to
it: and, last of all, the Royal negative closed the last door to every
hope of amelioration.
On the 1st of January, 1772, I was married to Martha Skelton, widow
of Bathurst Skelton, and daughter of John Wayles, then twenty-three
years old. Mr. Wayles was a lawyer of much practice, to which he was
introduced more by his great industry, punctuality, and practical
readiness, than by eminence in the science of his profession. He was
a most agreeable companion, full of pleasantry and good humor, and
welcomed in every society. He acquired a handsome fortune, and died
in May, 1773, leaving three daughters: the portion which came on
that event to Mrs. Jefferson, after the debts should be paid, which
were very considerable, was about equal to my own patrimony, and
consequently doubled the ease of our circumstances.
When the famous Resolutions of 1765, against the Stamp-act, were
proposed, I was yet a student of law in Williamsburgh. I attended the
debate, however, at the door of the lobby of the House of Burgesses,
and heard the splendid display of Mr. Henry's talents as a popular
orator. They were great indeed; such as I have never heard from any
other man. He appeared to me to speak as Homer wrote. Mr. Johnson, a
lawyer, and member from the Northern Neck, seconded the resolutions,
and by him the learning and the logic of the case were chiefly
maintained. My recollections of these transactions may be seen page 60
of the life of Patrick Henry, by Wirt, to whom I furnished them.
In May, 1769, a meeting of the General Assembly was called by the
Governor, Lord Botetourt. I had then become a member; and to that
meeting became known the joint resolutions and address of the
Lords and Commons, of 1768-9, on the proceedings in Massachusetts.
Counter-resolutions, and an address to the King by the House of
Burgesses, were agreed to with little opposition, and a spirit
manifestly displayed itself of considering the cause of Massachusetts
as a common one. The Governor dissolved us: but we met the next day in
the Apollo[2] of the Raleigh tavern, formed ourselves into a voluntary
convention, drew up articles of association against the use of any
merchandise imported from Great Britain, signed and recommended them
to the people, repaired to our several counties, and were re-elected
without any other exception than of the very few who had declined
assent to our proceedings.
Nothing of particular excitement occurring for a considerable time,
our countrymen seemed to fall into a state of insensibility to our
situation; the duty on tea, not yet repealed, and the declaratory act
of a right in the British Parliament to bind us by their laws in all
cases whatsoever, still suspended over us. But a court of inquiry held
in Rhode Island in 1762, with a power to send persons to England to be
tried for offences committed here, was considered, at our session of
the spring of 1773, as demanding attention. Not thinking our old and
leading members up to the point of forwardness and zeal which the times
required, Mr. Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Francis L. Lee, Mr. Carr and
myself agreed to meet in the evening, in a private room of the Raleigh,
to consult on the state of things. There may have been a member or two
more whom I do not recollect. We were all sensible that the most urgent
of all measures was that of coming to an understanding with all the
other colonies, to consider the British claims as a common cause to
all, and to produce a unity of action: and, for this purpose, that a
committee of correspondence in each colony would be the best instrument
for inter-communication: and that their first measure would probably
be, to propose a meeting of deputies from every colony, at some central
place, who should be charged with the direction of the measures which
should be taken by all. We, therefore, drew up the resolutions which
may be seen in Wirt, page 87. The consulting members proposed to me to
move them, but I urged that it should be done by Mr. Carr, my friend
and brother-in-law, then a new member, to whom I wished an opportunity
should be given of making known to the house his great worth and
talents. It was so agreed; he moved them, they were agreed to _nem.
con._, and a committee of correspondence appointed, of whom Peyton
Randolph, the speaker, was chairman. The Governor (then Lord Dunmore)
dissolved us, but the committee met the next day, prepared a circular
letter to the speakers of the other colonies, inclosing to each a
copy of the resolutions, and left it in charge with their chairman to
forward them by expresses.
The origination of these committees of correspondence between the
colonies has been since claimed for Massachusetts, and Marshall[3] has
given into this error, although the very note of his appendix to which
he refers, shows that their establishment was confined to their own
towns. This matter will be seen clearly stated in a letter of Samuel
Adams Wells to me of April 2nd, 1819, and my answer of May 12th. I
was corrected by the letter of Mr. Wells in the information I had
given Mr. Wirt, as stated in his note, page 87, that the messengers
of Massachusetts and Virginia crossed each other on the way, bearing
similar propositions; for Mr. Wells shows that Massachusetts did not
adopt the measure, but on the receipt of our proposition, delivered at
their next session. Their message, therefore, which passed ours, must
have related to something else, for I well remember Peyton Randolph's
informing me of the crossing of our messengers.[4]
The next event which excited our sympathies for Massachusetts, was
the Boston port bill, by which that port was to be shut up on the 1st
of June, 1774. This arrived while we were in session in the spring
of that year. The lead in the House, on these subjects, being no
longer left to the old members, Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, Fr. L. Lee,
three or four other members, whom I do not recollect, and myself,
agreeing that we must boldly take an unequivocal stand in the line with
Massachusetts, determined to meet and consult on the proper measures,
in the council-chamber, for the benefit of the library in that room.
We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from
the lethargy into which they had fallen, as to passing events; and
thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer
would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example
of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distresses in the
war of '55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help,
therefore, of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary
precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him,
we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for
appointing the 1st day of June, on which the port-bill was to commence,
for a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to
avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness
in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and
Parliament to moderation and justice. To give greater emphasis to our
proposition, we agreed to wait the next morning on Mr. Nicholas, whose
grave and religious character was more in unison with the tone of our
resolution, and to solicit him to move it. We accordingly went to him
in the morning. He moved it the same day; the 1st of June was proposed;
and it passed without opposition. The Governor dissolved us, as
usual. We retired to the Apollo, as before, agreed to an association,
and instructed the committee of correspondence to propose to the
corresponding committees of the other colonies, to appoint deputies to
meet in Congress at such place, _annually_, as should be convenient,
to direct, from time to time, the measures required by the general
interest: and we declared that an attack on any one colony, should
be considered as an attack on the whole. This was in May. We further
recommended to the several counties to elect deputies to meet at
Williamsburgh, the 1st of August ensuing, to consider the state of the
colony, and particularly to appoint delegates to a general Congress,
should that measure be acceded to by the committees of correspondence
generally. It was acceded to; Philadelphia was appointed for the place,
and the 5th of September for the time of meeting. We returned home, and
in our several counties invited the clergy to meet assemblies of the
people on the 1st of June, to perform the ceremonies of the day, and
to address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The people met
generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenances, and the effect
of the day, through the whole colony, was like a shock of electricity,
arousing every man, and placing him erect and solidly on his centre.
They chose, universally, delegates for the convention. Being elected
one for my own county, I prepared a draught of instructions to be given
to the delegates whom we should send to the Congress, which I meant
to propose at our meeting.[5] In this I took the ground that, from
the beginning, I had thought the only one orthodox or tenable, which
was, that the relation between Great Britain and these colonies was
exactly the same as that of England and Scotland, after the accession
of James, and until the union, and the same as her present relations
with Hanover, having the same executive chief, but no other necessary
political connection; and that our emigration from England to this
country gave her no more rights over us, than the emigrations of the
Danes and Saxons gave to the present authorities of the mother country,
over England. In this doctrine, however, I had never been able to get
any one to agree with me but Mr. Wythe. He concurred in it from the
first dawn of the question, What was the political relation between
us and England? Our other patriots, Randolph, the Lees, Nicholas,
Pendleton, stopped at the half-way house of John Dickinson, who
admitted that England had a right to regulate our commerce, and to
lay duties on it for the purposes of regulation, but not of raising
revenue. But for this ground there was no foundation in compact, in any
acknowledged principles of colonization, nor in reason: expatriation
being a natural right, and acted on as such, by all nations, in all
ages. I set out for Williamsburg some days before that appointed for
our meeting, but was taken ill of a dysentery on the road, and was
unable to proceed. I sent on, therefore, to Williamsburgh, two copies
of my draught, the one under cover to Peyton Randolph, who I knew would
be in the chair of the convention, the other to Patrick Henry. Whether
Mr. Henry disapproved the ground taken, or was too lazy to read it (for
he was the laziest man in reading I ever knew) I never learned: but
he communicated it to nobody. Peyton Randolph informed the convention
he had received such a paper from a member, prevented by sickness from
offering it in his place, and he laid it on the table for perusal. It
was read generally by the members, approved by many, though thought too
bold for the present state of things; but they printed it in pamphlet
form, under the title of "A Summary View of the Rights of British
America." It found its way to England, was taken up by the opposition,
interpolated a little by Mr. Burke so as to make it answer opposition
purposes, and in that form ran rapidly through several editions. This
information I had from Parson Hurt, who happened at the time to be
in London, whither he had gone to receive clerical orders; and I was
informed afterwards by Peyton Randolph, that it had procured me the
honor of having my name inserted in a long list of proscriptions,
enrolled in a bill of attainder commenced in one of the Houses of
Parliament, but suppressed in embryo by the hasty step of events, which
warned them to be a little cautious. Montague, agent of the House of
Burgesses in England, made extracts from the bill, copied the names,
and sent them to Peyton Randolph. The names, I think, were about
twenty, which he repeated to me, but I recollect those only of Hancock,
the two Adamses, Peyton Randolph himself, Patrick Henry, and myself.[6]
The convention met on the 1st of August, renewed their association,
appointed delegates to the Congress, gave them instructions very
temperately and properly expressed, both as to style and matter;[7]
and they repaired to Philadelphia at the time appointed. The splendid
proceedings of that Congress, at their first session, belong to general
history, are known to every one, and need not therefore be noted here.
They terminated their session on the 26th of October, to meet again
on the 10th of May ensuing. The convention, at their ensuing session
of March, '75, approved of the proceedings of Congress, thanked their
delegates, and reappointed the same persons to represent the colony
at the meeting to be held in May: and foreseeing the probability that
Peyton Randolph, their president, and speaker also of the House of
Burgesses, might be called off, they added me, in that event, to the
delegation.
Mr. Randolph was, according to expectation, obliged to leave the chair
of Congress, to attend the General Assembly summoned by Lord Dunmore,
to meet on the 1st day of June, 1775. Lord North's conciliatory
propositions, as they were called, had been received by the Governor,
and furnished the subject for which this assembly was convened. Mr.
Randolph accordingly attended, and the tenor of these propositions
being generally known, as having been addressed to all the governors,
he was anxious that the answer of our Assembly, likely to be the first,
should harmonize with what he knew to be the sentiments and wishes of
the body he had recently left. He feared that Mr. Nicholas, whose mind
was not yet up to the mark of the times, would undertake the answer,
and therefore pressed me to prepare it. I did so, and, with his aid,
carried it through the House, with long and doubtful scruples from
Mr. Nicholas and James Mercer, and a dash of cold water on it here
and there, enfeebling it somewhat, but finally with unanimity, or
a vote approaching it. This being passed, I repaired immediately to
Philadelphia, and conveyed to Congress the first notice they had of
it. It was entirely approved there. I took my seat with them on the
21st of June. On the 24th, a committee which had been appointed to
prepare a declaration of the causes of taking up arms, brought in their
report (drawn I believe by J. Rutledge) which, not being liked, the
House recommitted it, on the 26th, and added Mr. Dickinson and myself
to the committee. On the rising of the House, the committee having not
yet met, I happened to find myself near Governor W. Livingston, and
proposed to him to draw the paper. He excused himself and proposed
that I should draw it. On my pressing him with urgency, "we are as
yet but new acquaintances, sir," said he, "why are you so earnest for
my doing it?" "Because," said I, "I have been informed that you drew
the Address to the people of Great Britain, a production, certainly,
of the finest pen in America." "On that," says he, "perhaps, sir, you
may not have been correctly informed." I had received the information
in Virginia from Colonel Harrison on his return from that Congress.
Lee, Livingston, and Jay had been the committee for that draught.
The first, prepared by Lee, had been disapproved and recommitted. The
second was drawn by Jay, but being presented by Governor Livingston,
had led Colonel Harrison into the error. The next morning, walking in
the hall of Congress, many members being assembled, but the House not
yet formed, I observed Mr. Jay speaking to R. H. Lee, and leading him
by the button of his coat to me. "I understand, sir," said he to me,
"that this gentleman informed you, that Governor Livingston drew the
Address to the people of Great Britain." I assured him, at once, that
I had not received that information from Mr. Lee, and that not a word
had ever passed on the subject between Mr. Lee and myself; and after
some explanations the subject was dropped. These gentlemen had had some
sparrings in debate before, and continued ever very hostile to each
other.
I prepared a draught of the declaration committed to us. It was too
strong for Mr. Dickinson. He still retained the hope of reconciliation
with the mother country, and was unwilling it should be lessened by
offensive statements. He was so honest a man, and so able a one, that
he was greatly indulged even by those who could not feel his scruples.
We therefore requested him to take the paper, and put it into a form
he could approve. He did so, preparing an entire new statement, and
preserving of the former only the last four paragraphs and half of
the preceding one. We approved and reported it to Congress, who
accepted it. Congress gave a signal proof of their indulgence to
Mr. Dickinson, and of their great desire not to go too fast for any
respectable part of our body, in permitting him to draw their second
petition to the King according to his own ideas, and passing it with
scarcely any amendment. The disgust against this humility was general;
and Mr. Dickinson's delight at its passage was the only circumstance
which reconciled them to it. The vote being passed, although further
observation on it was out of order, he could not refrain from rising
and expressing his satisfaction, and concluded by saying, "there is but
one word, Mr. President, in the paper which I disapprove, and that is
the word _Congress;_" on which Ben Harrison rose and said, "There is
but one word in the paper, Mr. President, of which I approve, and that
is the word _Congress_."
On the 22d of July, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, R. H. Lee, and myself,
were appointed a committee to consider and report on Lord North's
conciliatory resolution. The answer of the Virginia Assembly on that
subject having been approved, I was requested by the committee to
prepare this report, which will account for the similarity of feature
in the two instruments.
On the 15th of May, 1776, the convention of Virginia instructed their
delegates in Congress, to propose to that body to declare the colonies
independent of Great Britain, and appointed a committee to prepare a
declaration of rights and plan of government.
[8]In Congress, Friday, June 7, 1776. The delegates from Virginia
moved, in obedience to instructions from their constituents, that the
Congress should declare that these United colonies are, and of right
ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved
from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political
connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought
to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken
for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be
formed to bind the colonies more closely together.
The House being obliged to attend at that time to some other business,
the proposition was referred to the next day, when the members were
ordered to attend punctually at ten o'clock.
Saturday, June 8. They proceeded to take it into consideration, and
referred it to a committee of the whole, into which they immediately
resolved themselves, and passed that day and Monday, the 10th, in
debating on the subject.
It was argued by Wilson, Robert R. Livingston, E. Rutledge, Dickinson,
and others--
That, though they were friends to the measures themselves, and saw the
impossibility that we should ever again be united with Great Britain,
yet they were against adopting them at this time:
That the conduct we had formerly observed was wise and proper now, of
deferring to take any capital step till the voice of the people drove
us into it:
That they were our power, and without them our declarations could not
be carried into effect:
That the people of the middle colonies (Maryland, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, the Jerseys and New York) were not yet ripe for bidding
adieu to British connection, but that they were fast ripening, and, in
a short time, would join in the general voice of America:
That the resolution, entered into by this House on the 15th of May,
for suppressing the exercise of all powers derived from the crown, had
shown, by the ferment into which it had thrown these middle colonies,
that they had not yet accommodated their minds to a separation from the
mother country:
That some of them had expressly forbidden their delegates to consent
to such a declaration, and others had given no instructions, and
consequently no powers to give such consent:
That if the delegates of any particular colony had no power to declare
such colony independent, certain they were, the others could not
declare it for them; the colonies being as yet perfectly independent of
each other:
That the assembly of Pennsylvania was now sitting above stairs, their
convention would sit within a few days, the convention of New York was
now sitting, and those of the Jerseys and Delaware counties would meet
on the Monday following, and it was probable these bodies would take up
the question of Independence, and would declare to their delegates the
voice of their state:
That if such a declaration should now be agreed to, these delegates
must retire, and possibly their colonies might secede from the Union:
That such a secession would weaken us more than could be compensated by
any foreign alliance:
That in the event of such a division, foreign powers would either
refuse to join themselves to our fortunes, or, having us so much in
their power as that desperate declaration would place us, they would
insist on terms proportionably more hard and prejudicial:
That we had little reason to expect an alliance with those to whom
alone, as yet, we had cast our eyes:
That France and Spain had reason to be jealous of that rising power,
which would one day certainly strip them of all their American
possessions:
That it was more likely they should form a connection with the
British court, who, if they should find themselves unable otherwise
to extricate themselves from their difficulties, would agree to a
partition of our territories, restoring Canada to France, and the
Floridas to Spain, to accomplish for themselves a recovery of these
colonies:
That it would not be long before we should receive certain information
of the disposition of the French court, from the agent whom we had sent
to Paris for that purpose:
That if this disposition should be favorable, by waiting the event of
the present campaign, which we all hoped would be successful, we should
have reason to expect an alliance on better terms:
That this would in fact work no delay of any effectual aid from such
ally, as, from the advance of the season and distance of our situation,
it was impossible we could receive any assistance during this campaign:
That it was prudent to fix among ourselves the terms on which we should
form alliance, before we declared we would form one at all events:
And that if these were agreed on, and our Declaration of Independence
ready by the time our Ambassador should be prepared to sail, it would
be as well as to go into that Declaration at this day.
On the other side, it was urged by J. Adams, Lee, Wythe, and others,
that no gentleman had argued against the policy or the right of
separation from Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should
ever renew our connection; that they had only opposed its being now
declared:
That the question was not whether, by a Declaration of Independence, we
should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a
fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or parliament of England, we had always been
independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy
from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of
imposing them, and that so far, our connection had been federal only,
and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but
that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the last act of
Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by
his levying war on us, a fact which had long ago proved us out of his
protection; it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and
protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:
That James the II. never declared the people of England out of his
protection, yet his actions proved it, and the Parliament declared it:
No delegates then can be denied, or ever want, a power of declaring an
existing truth:
That the delegates from the Delaware counties having declared their
constituents ready to join, there are only two colonies, Pennsylvania
and Maryland, whose delegates are absolutely tied up, and that these
had, by their instructions, only reserved a right of confirming or
rejecting the measure:
That the instructions from Pennsylvania might be accounted for from the
times in which they were drawn, near a twelvemonth ago, since which the
face of affairs has totally changed:
That within that time, it had become apparent that Britain was
determined to accept nothing less than a _carte-blanche_, and that the
King's answer to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of London,
which had come to hand four days ago, must have satisfied every one of
this point:
That the people wait for us to lead the way:
That _they_ are in favor of the measure, though the instructions given
by some of their _representatives_ are not:
That the voice of the representatives is not always consonant with
the voice of the people, and that this is remarkably the case in these
middle colonies:
That the effect of the resolution of the 15th of May has proved this,
which, raising the murmurs of some in the colonies of Pennsylvania
and Maryland, called forth the opposing voice of the freer part of the
people, and proved them to be the majority even in these colonies:
That the backwardness of these two colonies might be ascribed, partly
to the influence of proprietary power and connections, and partly, to
their having not yet been attacked by the enemy:
That these causes were not likely to be soon removed, as there seemed
no probability that the enemy would make either of these the seat of
this summer's war:
That it would be vain to wait either weeks or months for perfect
unanimity, since it was impossible that all men should ever become of
one sentiment on any question:
That the conduct of some colonies, from the beginning of this contest,
had given reason to suspect it was their settled policy to keep in
the rear of the confederacy, that their particular prospect might be
better, even in the worst event:
That, therefore, it was necessary for those colonies who had thrown
themselves forward and hazarded all from the beginning, to come forward
now also, and put all again to their own hazard:
That the history of the Dutch Revolution, of whom three states only
confederated at first, proved that a secession of some colonies would
not be so dangerous as some apprehended:
That a declaration of Independence alone could render it consistent
with European delicacy, for European powers to treat with us, or even
to receive an Ambassador from us:
That till this, they would not receive our vessels into their ports,
nor acknowledge the adjudications of our courts of admirality to be
legitimate, in cases of capture of British vessels:
That though France and Spain may be jealous of our rising power,
they must think it will be much more formidable with the addition of
Great Britain; and will therefore see it their interest to prevent
a coalition; but should they refuse, we shall be but where we are;
whereas without trying, we shall never know whether they will aid us or
not:
That the present campaign may be unsuccessful, and therefore we had
better propose an alliance while our affairs wear a hopeful aspect:
That to wait the event of this campaign will certainly work delay,
because, during the summer, France may assist us effectually, by
cutting off those supplies of provisions from England and Ireland, on
which the enemy's armies here are to depend; or by setting in motion
the great power they have collected in the West Indies, and calling our
enemy to the defence of the possessions they have there:
That it would be idle to lose time in settling the terms of alliance,
till we had first determined we would enter into alliance:
That it is necessary to lose no time in opening a trade for our people,
who will want clothes, and will want money too, for the payment of
taxes:
And that the only misfortune is, that we did not enter into alliance
with France six months sooner, as, besides opening her ports for the
vent of our last year's produce, she might have marched an army into
Germany, and prevented the petty princes there, from selling their
unhappy subjects to subdue us.
It appearing in the course of these debates, that the colonies of New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina
were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they
were fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait
a while for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1st; but,
that this might occasion as little delay as possible, a committee was
appointed to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The committee were
John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and
myself. Committees were also appointed, at the same time, to prepare a
plan of confederation for the colonies, and to state the terms proper
to be proposed for foreign alliance. The committee for drawing the
Declaration of Independence, desired me to do it. It was accordingly
done, and being approved by them, I reported it to the House on Friday,
the 28th of June, when it was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
On Monday, the 1st of July, the House resolved itself into a committee
of the whole, and resumed the consideration of the original motion
made by the delegates of Virginia, which, being again debated through
the day, was carried in the affirmative by the votes of New Hampshire,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. South Carolina and Pennsylvania
voted against it. Delaware had but two members present, and they
were divided. The delegates from New York declared they were for it
themselves, and were assured their constituents were for it; but that
their instructions having been drawn near a twelvemonth before, when
reconciliation was still the general object, they were enjoined by them
to do nothing which should impede that object. They, therefore, thought
themselves not justifiable in voting on either side, and asked leave to
withdraw from the question; which was given them. The committee rose
and reported their resolution to the House. Mr. Edward Rutledge, of
South Carolina, then requested the determination might be put off to
the next day, as he believed his colleagues, though they disapproved
of the resolution, would then join in it for the sake of unanimity.
The ultimate question, whether the House would agree to the resolution
of the committee, was accordingly postponed to the next day, when it
was again moved, and South Carolina concurred in voting for it. In the
meantime, a third member had come post from the Delaware counties, and
turned the vote of that colony in favor of the resolution. Members of a
different sentiment attending that morning from Pennsylvania also, her
vote was changed, so that the whole twelve colonies who were authorized
to vote at all, gave their voices for it; and, within a few days,[9]
the convention of New York approved of it, and thus supplied the void
occasioned by the withdrawing of her delegates from the vote.
Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of
Independence, which had been reported and lain on the table the Friday
preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The
pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms
with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages
which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out,
lest they should give them offence. The clause too, reprobating the
enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance
to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain
the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to
continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little
tender under those censures; for though their people had very few
slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers
of them to others. The debates, having taken up the greater parts of
the 2d, 3d, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last,
closed; the Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by
the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.
As the sentiments of men are known not only by what they receive,
but what they reject also, I will state the form of the Declaration
as originally reported. The parts struck out by Congress shall be
distinguished by a black line drawn under them[10] and those inserted
by them shall be placed in the margin, or in a concurrent column.
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of
America, in _General_ Congress assembled.
When, in the course of human events,
it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which
have connected them with another, and
to assume among the powers of the earth
the separate and equal station to which
the laws of nature and of nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self evident:
that all men are created equal; that they
are endowed by their creator with
[certain] [_inherent and_] inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that to secure
these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the right of the people to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying its foundation on such
principles, and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their safety and
happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
that governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown that mankind are more disposed
to suffer while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing
the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, [_begun at a distinguished
period and_] pursuing invariably the
same object, evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty to throw
off such government, and to provide new
guards for their future security. Such
has been the patient sufferance of these
colonies; and such is now the necessity
[alter] which constrains them to [_expunge_]
their former systems of government. The
history of the present king of Great Britain
[repeated] is a history of [_unremitting_] injuries
[all having] injuries and usurpations, [_among_ which
appears no solitary fact to contradict
the uniform tenor of the rest, but all
have_] in direct object the establishment of
an absolute tyranny over these states. To
prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid
world [_for the truth of which we pledge a
faith yet unsullied by falsehood_.]
He has refused his assent to laws the
most wholesome and necessary for the
public good.
He has forbidden his governors to
pass laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their
operation till his assent should be
obtained; and, when so suspended, he has
utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for
the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of representation in
the legislature, a right inestimable to
them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies
at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
distant from the depository of their
public records, for the sole purpose of
fatiguing them into compliance with his
measures.
He has dissolved representative houses
repeatedly [_and continually_] for
opposing with manly firmness his
invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time after
such dissolutions to cause others to
be elected, whereby the legislative
powers, incapable of annihilation, have
returned to the people at large for their
exercise, the state remaining, in the
meantime, exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without and convulsions
within.
He has endeavored to prevent the
population of these states; for that
purpose obstructing the laws for
naturalization of foreigners, refusing to
pass others to encourage their migrations
hither, and raising the conditions of new
appropriations of lands.
[obstructed] He has [_suffered_] the administration of
[by] justice [_totally to cease in some of these
states_] refusing his assent to laws for
establishing judiciary powers.
He has made [_our_] judges dependent on
his will alone for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of
their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new
offices, [_by a self-assumed power_]
and sent hither swarms of new officers
to harass our people and eat out their
substance.
He has kept among us in times of peace
standing armies [_and ships of war_]
without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military
independent of, and superior to, the
civil power.
He has combined with others to subject
us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitutions and unacknowledged by our
laws, giving his assent to their acts
of pretended legislation for quartering
large bodies of armed troops among us;
for protecting them by a mock trial from
punishment for any murders which they
should commit on the inhabitants of these
states; for cutting off our trade with
all parts of the world; for imposing
taxes on us without our consent; for
[in many cases] depriving us [ ] of the benefits of trial
by jury; for transporting us beyond seas
to be tried for pretended offences;
for abolishing the free system of
English laws in a neighboring province,
establishing therein an arbitrary
government, and enlarging its boundaries,
so as to render it at once an example
and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule into these
[colonies] [_states_]; for taking away our charters,
abolishing our most valuable laws, and
altering fundamentally the forms of
our governments; for suspending our own
legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us
in all cases whatsoever.
[by declaring us He has abdicated government here
out of his [_withdrawing his governors, and
protection, and declaring us out of his allegiance and
waging war against protection_.]
us.]
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our
coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed
the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large
armies of foreign mercenaries to complete
the works of death, desolation and
tyranny already begun with circumstances
[scarcely paralleled of cruelty and perfidy [ ] unworthy the
in the most barbarous head of a civilized nation.
ages, and totally]
He has constrained our fellow citizens
taken captive on the high seas, to bear
arms against their country, to become
the executioners of their friends and
brethren, or to fall themselves by their
hands.
[excited domestic He has [ ] endeavored to bring on the
insurrection among inhabitants of our frontiers, the
us, and has] merciless Indian savages, whose known
rule of warfare is an undistinguished
destruction of all ages, sexes and
conditions [_of existence_.]
[_He has incited treasonable
insurrections of our fellow citizens,
with the allurements of forfeiture and
confiscation of our property._
_He has waged cruel war against human
nature itself violating its most sacred
rights of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people who never
offended him, captivating and carrying
them into slavery in another hemisphere,
or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. This piratical
warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL
powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN
king of Great Britain. Determined to
keep open a market where MEN should
be bought and sold, he has prostituted
his negative for suppressing every
legislative attempt to prohibit or to
restrain this execrable commerce. And
that this assemblage of horrors might
want no fact of distinguished die, he is
now exciting those very people to rise
in arms among us, and to purchase that
liberty of which he has deprived them,
by murdering the people on whom he also
obtruded them: thus paying off former
crimes committed against the LIBERTIES
of one people, with crimes which he
urges them to commit against the LIVES
of another_.]
In every stage of these oppressions we
have petitioned for redress in the most
humble terms: our repeated petitions have
been answered only by repeated injuries.
A prince whose character is thus marked
by every act which may define a tyrant
[free] is unfit to be the ruler of a [ ] people
[_who mean to be free. Future ages
will scarcely believe that the hardiness
of one man adventured, within the short
compass of twelve years only, to lay a
foundation so broad and so undisguised
for tyranny over a people fostered and
fixed in principles of freedom._]
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to
our British brethren. We have warned them
from time to time of attempts by their
[an unwarrantable] legislature to extend [_a_] jurisdiction over
[us] [_these our states_]. We have reminded
them of the circumstances of our
emigration and settlement here, [_no
one of which could warrant so strange
a pretension: that these were effected
at the expense of our own blood and
treasure, unassisted by the wealth or
the strength of Great Britain: that in
constituting indeed, our several forms
of government, we had adopted one common
king, thereby laying a foundation for
perpetual league and amity with them: but
that submission to their parliament was
no part of our constitution, nor ever in
idea, if history may be credited: and_,]
[have] we [ ] appealed to their native justice and
[and we have magnanimity [_as well as to_] the ties of our
conjured them by] common kindred to disavow these usurpations
[would inevitably] which [_were likely to_] interrupt our
connection and correspondence. They
too have been deaf to the voice of
justice and of consanguinity, [_and
when occasions have been given them,
by the regular course of their laws,
of removing from their councils the
disturbers of our harmony, they have, by
their free election, re-established them
in power. At this very time too, they
are permitting their chief magistrate to
send over not only soldiers of our common
blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries
to invade and destroy us. These facts
have given the last stab to agonizing
affection, and manly spirit bids us
to renounce forever these unfeeling
brethren. We must endeavor to forget our
former love for them, and hold them as
we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in
war, in peace friends. We might have been
a free and a great people together; but a
communication of grandeur and of freedom,
it seems, is below their dignity. Be it
so, since they will have it. The road to
happiness and to glory is open to us too.
We will tread it apart from them, and_]
[We must therefore] acquiesce in the necessity which denounces
our [_eternal_] separation [ ]!
[and hold them as we
hold the rest of
mankind, enemies in
war, in peace friends.]
We therefore the representatives We, therefore, the
of the United States of representatives of the United
America in General Congress States of America in General
assembled, do in the name, and Congress assembled, appealing to
by the authority of the good the supreme judge of the world
people of these [_states reject for the rectitude of our
and renounce all allegiance and intentions, do in the name, and
subjection to the kings of Great by the authority of the good
Britain and all others who may people of these colonies,
hereafter claim by, through or solemnly publish and declare,
under them; we utterly dissolve that these united colonies are,
all political connection which and of right ought to be free
may heretofore have subsisted and independent states; that
between us and the people or they are absolved from all
parliament of Great Britain: allegiance to the British crown,
and finally we do assert and and that all political
declare these colonies to be connection between them and the
free and independent states_,] state of Great Britain is, and
and that as free and independent ought to be, totally dissolved,
states, they have full power to and that as free and independent
levy war, conclude peace, states, they have full power to
contract alliances, establish levy war, conclude peace,
commerce, and to do all other contract alliances, establish
acts and things which commerce, and to do all other
independent states may of right acts and things which
do. independent states may of right
do.
And for the support of this And for the support of this
declaration, we mutually pledge declaration, with a firm
to each other our lives, our reliance on the protection of
fortunes, and our sacred honor. divine providence, we mutually
pledge to each other our lives,
our fortunes, and our sacred
honor.
The Declaration thus signed on the 4th, on paper, was engrossed on
parchment, and signed again on the 2d of August.
[Some erroneous statements of the proceedings on the Declaration of
Independence having got before the public in latter times, Mr. Samuel
A. Wells asked explanations of me, which are given in my letter to him
of May 12, '19, before and now again referred to.[11] I took notes in
my place while these things were going on, and at their close wrote
them out in form and with correctness, and from 1 to 7 of the two
preceding sheets, are the originals then written; as the two following
are of the earlier debates on the Confederation, which I took in like
manner.[12]]
On Friday, July 12, the committee appointed to draw the articles
of Confederation reported them, and, on the 22d, the House resolved
themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the
30th and 31st of that month, and 1st of the ensuing, those articles
were debated which determined the proportion, or quota, of money which
each state should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of
voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the
original draught in these words. "Art. XI. All charges of war and
all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or
general welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled, shall
be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the
several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every
age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony,
a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall
be triennially taken and transmitted to the Assembly of the United
States."
Mr. Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not by the number of
inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the "white inhabitants."
He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion to property,
that this was, in theory, the true rule; but that, from a variety of
difficulties, it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice.
The value of the property in every State, could never be estimated
justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State
must therefore be devised, some standard referred to, which would be
more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably
good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained.
He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one
exception only: he observed that negroes are property, and as such,
cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those
States where there are few slaves; that the surplus of profit which
a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses,
&c., whereas a Southern farmer lays out the same surplus in slaves.
There is no more reason, therefore, for taxing the Southern States on
the farmer's head, and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on
their farmer's heads and the heads of their cattle; that the method
proposed would, therefore, tax the Southern States according to their
numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed
on numbers only: that negroes, in fact, should not be considered as
members of the State, more than cattle, and that they have no more
interest in it.
Mr. John Adams observed, that the numbers of people were taken by this
article, as an index of the wealth of the State, and not as subjects
of taxation; that, as to this matter, it was of no consequence by
what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of
slaves; that in some countries the laboring poor were called freemen,
in others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the
state was imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord, employing
ten laborers on his farm, gives them annually as much money as will
buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries at
short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth annually to the State,
increase its exports as much in the one case as the other. Certainly
five hundred freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for
the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves. Therefore, the State
in which are the laborers called freemen, should be taxed no more than
that in which are those called slaves. Suppose, by an extraordinary
operation of nature or of law, one half the laborers of a State
could in the course of one night be transformed into slaves; would
the State be made the poorer or the less able to pay taxes? That the
condition of the laboring poor in most countries, that of the fishermen
particularly of the Northern States, is as abject as that of slaves.
It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus for taxation,
and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth;
that it is the use of the word "property" here, and its application
to some of the people of the State, which produces the fallacy. How
does the Southern farmer procure slaves? Either by importation or by
purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the
number of laborers in his country, and proportionably to its profits
and abilities to pay taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a
transfer of a laborer from one farm to another, which does not change
the annual produce of the State, and therefore, should not change its
tax: that if a Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can,
it is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may
the Southern farmer, working ten slaves; that a State of one hundred
thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle, than one of one hundred
thousand slaves. Therefore, they have no more of that kind of property;
that a slave may indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly
called the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called
the wealth of his employer; but as to the State, both were equally its
wealth, and should, therefore, equally add to the quota of its tax.
Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves should be
counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do as much work
as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one; that this was
proved by the price of labor; the hire of a laborer in the Southern
colonies being from 8 to £12, while in the Northern it was generally
£24.
Mr. Wilson said, that if this amendment should take place, the Southern
colonies would have all the benefit of slaves, whilst the Northern ones
would bear the burthen: that slaves increase the profits of a State,
which the Southern States mean to take to themselves; that they also
increase the burthen of defence, which would of course fall so much
the heavier on the Northern: that slaves occupy the places of freemen,
and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves, and freemen will take their
places. It is our duty to lay every discouragement on the importation
of slaves; but this amendment would give the _jus trium liberorum_
to him who would import slaves: that other kinds of property were
pretty equally distributed through all the colonies: there were as
many cattle, horses and sheep, in the North as the South, and South
as the North; but not so as to slaves: that experience has shown that
those colonies have been always able to pay most, which have the most
inhabitants, whether they be black or white; and the practice of the
Southern colonies has always been to make every farmer pay poll taxes
upon all his laborers, whether they be black or white. He acknowledges,
indeed, that freemen work the most; but they consume the most also.
They do not produce a greater surplus for taxation. The slave is
neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a freeman. Again, white women
are exempted from labor generally, but negro women are not. In this,
then, the Southern States have an advantage as the article now stands.
It has sometimes been said, that slavery is necessary, because the
commodities they raise would be too dear for market if cultivated by
freemen; but now it is said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.
Mr. Payne urged the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the
quotas of the States to the number of souls.
Dr. Witherspoon was of opinion, that the value of lands and houses
was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was
practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer
of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and unequal
between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the food of
freemen, and, therefore, should be taxed; horses also eat the food of
freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said too,
that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State is to
pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always take
slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay. But
the cases are not parallel. In the Southern colonies slaves pervade the
whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent. That as to
the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the quotas according
to the souls, it was temporary only, and related to the moneys
heretofore emitted: whereas we are now entering into a new compact, and
therefore stand on original ground.
August 1. The question being put, the amendment proposed was
rejected by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, against those of
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina. Georgia was
divided.
The other article was in these words. "Art. XVII. In determining
questions, each colony shall have one vote."
July 30, 31, August 1. Present forty-one members. Mr. Chase observed
this article was the most likely to divide us, of any one proposed
in the draught then under consideration: that the larger colonies
had threatened they would not confederate at all, if their weight in
Congress should not be equal to the numbers of people they added to the
confederacy; while the smaller ones declared against a union, if they
did not retain an equal vote for the protection of their rights. That
it was of the utmost consequence to bring the parties together, as,
should we sever from each other, either no foreign power will ally with
us at all, or the different States will form different alliances, and
thus increase the horrors of those scenes of civil war and bloodshed,
which in such a state of separation and independence, would render
us a miserable people. That our importance, our interests, our peace
required that we should confederate, and that mutual sacrifices should
be made to effect a compromise of this difficult question. He was of
opinion, the smaller colonies would lose their rights, if they were
not in some instances allowed an equal vote; and, therefore, that a
discrimination should take place among the questions which would come
before Congress. That the smaller States should be secured in all
questions concerning life or liberty, and the greater ones, in all
respecting property. He, therefore, proposed, that in votes relating to
money, the voice of each colony should be proportioned to the number of
its inhabitants.
Dr. Franklin thought, that the votes should be so proportioned in
all cases. He took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up
their delegates to disagree to this article. He thought it a very
extraordinary language to be held by any State, that they would not
confederate with us, unless we would let them dispose of our money.
Certainly, if we vote equally, we ought to pay equally; but the smaller
States will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. That had
he lived in a State where the representation, originally equal, had
become unequal by time and accident, he might have submitted rather
than disturb government; but that we should be very wrong to set out
in this practice, when it is in our power to establish what is right.
That at the time of the Union between England and Scotland, the latter
had made the objection which the smaller States now do; but experience
had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them: that their
advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen, as in times of
old, that the whale would swallow Jonas, but he thought the prediction
reversed in event, and that Jonas had swallowed the whale; for the
Scotch had in fact got possession of the government, and gave laws
to the English. He reprobated the original agreement of Congress to
vote by colonies, and, therefore, was for their voting, in all cases,
according to the number of taxables.
Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. All men
admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad
that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds
of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, and lessen its
importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of
war and dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the
smaller States will become vassals to the larger; and all experience
has shown that the vassals and subjects of free States are the most
enslaved. He instanced the Helots of Sparta, and the provinces of
Rome. He observed that foreign powers, discovering this blemish, would
make it a handle for disengaging the smaller States from so unequal
a confederacy. That the colonies should in fact be considered as
individuals; and that, as such, in all disputes, they should have an
equal vote; that they are now collected as individuals making a bargain
with each other, and, of course, had a right to vote as individuals.
That in the East India Company they voted by persons, and not by their
proportion of stock. That the Belgic confederacy voted by provinces.
That in questions of war the smaller States were as much interested
as the larger, and therefore, should vote equally; and indeed, that
the larger States were more likely to bring war on the confederacy,
in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He admitted that
equality of representation was an excellent principle, but then it
must be of things which are co-ordinate; that is, of things similar,
and of the same nature: that nothing relating to individuals could
ever come before Congress; nothing but what would respect colonies.
He distinguished between an incorporating and a federal union. The
union of England was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered
by that union; for that its inhabitants were drawn from it by the
hopes of places and employments: nor was it an instance of equality of
representation; because, while Scotland was allowed nearly a thirteenth
of representation, they were to pay only one fortieth of the land tax.
He expressed his hopes, that in the present enlightened state of men's
minds, we might expect a lasting confederacy, if it was founded on fair
principles.
John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He said that
we stand here as the representatives of the people: that in some States
the people are many, in others they are few; that therefore, their
vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes.
Reason, justice and equity never had weight enough on the face of the
earth, to govern the councils of men. It is interest alone which does
it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted: that therefore the
interests within doors, should be the mathematical representatives of
the interests without doors: that the individuality of the colonies is
a mere sound. Does the individuality of a colony increase its wealth
or numbers? If it does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the
scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weigh
in argument. A. has £50, B. £500, C. £1000 in partnership. Is it just
they should equally dispose of the moneys of the partnership? It has
been said, we are independent individuals making a bargain together.
The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to be when our
bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one individual
only; it is to form us like separate parcels of metal, into one common
mass. We shall no longer retain our separate individuality, but become
a single individual as to all questions submitted to the confederacy.
Therefore, all those reasons, which prove the justice and expediency of
equal representation in other assemblies, hold good here. It has been
objected that a proportional vote will endanger the smaller States.
We answer that an equal vote will endanger the larger. Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, are the three greater colonies.
Consider their distance, their difference of produce, of interests,
and of manners, and it is apparent they can never have an interest
or inclination to combine for the oppression of the smaller: that the
smaller will naturally divide on all questions with the larger. Rhode
Island, from its relation, similarity and intercourse, will generally
pursue the same objects with Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware, and
Maryland, with Pennsylvania.
Dr. Rush took notice, that the decay of the liberties of the Dutch
republic proceeded from three causes. 1. The perfect unanimity
requisite on all occasions. 2. Their obligation to consult their
constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last destroyed the
equality of representation, and the liberties of Great Britain also are
sinking from the same defect. That a part of our rights is deposited in
the hands of our legislatures. There, it was admitted, there should be
an equality of representation. Another part of our rights is deposited
in the hands of Congress: why is it not equally necessary there should
be an equal representation there? Were it possible to collect the
whole body of the people together, they would determine the questions
submitted to them by their majority. Why should not the same majority
decide when voting here, by their representatives? The larger colonies
are so providentially divided in situation, as to render every fear
of their combining visionary. Their interests are different, and their
circumstances dissimilar. It is more probable they will become rivals,
and leave it in the power of the smaller States to give preponderance
to any scale they please. The voting by the number of free inhabitants,
will have one excellent effect, that of inducing the colonies to
discourage slavery, and to encourage the increase of their free
inhabitants.
Mr. Hopkins observed, there were four larger, four smaller, and
four middle-sized colonies. That the four largest would contain more
than half the inhabitants of the confederated States, and therefore,
would govern the others as they should please. That history affords
no instance of such a thing as equal representation. The Germanic
body votes by States. The Helvetic body does the same; and so does
the Belgic confederacy. That too little is known of the ancient
confederations, to say what was their practice.
Mr. Wilson thought, that taxation should be in proportion to wealth,
but that representation should accord with the number of freemen. That
government is a collection or result of the wills of all: that if any
government could speak the will of all, it would be perfect; and that,
so far as it departs from this, it becomes imperfect. It has been said
that Congress is a representation of States, not of individuals. I say,
that the objects of its care are all the individuals of the States.
It is strange that annexing the name of "State" to ten thousand men,
should give them an equal right with forty thousand. This must be the
effect of magic, not of reason. As to those matters which are referred
to Congress, we are not so many States; we are one large State. We
lay aside our individuality, whenever we come here. The Germanic
body is a burlesque on government; and their practice, on any point,
is a sufficient authority and proof that it is wrong. The greatest
imperfection in the constitution of the Belgic confederacy is their
voting by provinces. The interest of the whole is constantly sacrificed
to that of the small States. The history of the war in the reign of
Queen Anne sufficiently proves this. It is asked, shall nine colonies
put it into the power of four to govern them as they please? I invert
the question, and ask, shall two millions of people put it in the power
of one million to govern them as they please? It is pretended, too,
that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the greater. Speak
in honest language and say, the minority will be in danger from the
majority. And is there an assembly on earth, where this danger may not
be equally pretended? The truth is, that our proceedings will then be
consentaneous with the interests of the majority, and so they ought
to be. The probability is much greater, that the larger States will
disagree, than that they will combine. I defy the wit of man to invent
a possible case, or to suggest any one thing on earth, which shall
be for the interests of Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and
which will not also be for the interest of the other States.[13]
These articles, reported July 12, '76, were debated from day to day,
and time to time, for two years, were ratified July 9, '78, by ten
States, by New Jersey on the 26th of November of the same year, and
by Delaware on the 23d of February following. Maryland alone held off
two years more, acceding to them March 1, '81, and thus closing the
obligation.
Our delegation had been renewed for the ensuing year, commencing
August 11; but the new government was now organized, a meeting of the
legislature was to be held in October, and I had been elected a member
by my county. I knew that our legislation, under the regal government,
had many very vicious points which urgently required reformation, and
I thought I could be of more use in forwarding that work. I therefore
retired from my seat in Congress on the 2d of September, resigned
it, and took my place in the legislature of my State, on the 7th of
October.
On the 11th, I moved for leave to bring in a bill for the establishment
of courts of justice, the organization of which was of importance. I
drew the bill; it was approved by the committee, reported and passed,
after going through its due course.
On the 12th, I obtained leave to bring in a bill declaring tenants in
tail to hold their lands in fee simple. In the earlier times of the
colony, when lands were to be obtained for little or nothing, some
provident individuals procured large grants; and, desirous of founding
great families for themselves, settled them on their descendants in fee
tail. The transmission of this property from generation to generation,
in the same name, raised up a distinct set of families, who, being
privileged by law in the perpetuation of their wealth, were thus formed
into a Patrician order, distinguished by the splendor and luxury
of their establishments. From this order, too, the king habitually
selected his counsellors of State; the hope of which distinction
devoted the whole corps to the interests and will of the crown. To
annul this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more
harm and danger, than benefit, to society, to make an opening for the
aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for
the direction of the interests of society, and scattered with equal
hand through all its conditions, was deemed essential to a well-ordered
republic.--To effect it, no violence was necessary, no deprivation of
natural right, but rather an enlargement of it by a repeal of the law.
For this would authorize the present holder to divide the property
among his children equally, as his affections were divided; and
would place them, by natural generation, on the level of their fellow
citizens. But this repeal was strongly opposed by Mr. Pendleton, who
was zealously attached to ancient establishments; and who, taken all
in all, was the ablest man in debate I have ever met with. He had not
indeed the poetical fancy of Mr. Henry, his sublime imagination, his
lofty and overwhelming diction; but he was cool, smooth and persuasive;
his language flowing, chaste and embellished; his conceptions quick,
acute and full of resource; never vanquished: for if he lost the main
battle, he returned upon you, and regained so much of it as to make it
a drawn one, by dexterous manœuvres, skirmishes in detail, and the
recovery of small advantages which, little singly, were important all
together. You never knew when you were clear of him, but were harassed
by his perseverance, until the patience was worn down of all who had
less of it than himself. Add to this, that he was one of the most
virtuous and benevolent of men, the kindest friend, the most amiable
and pleasant of companions, which ensured a favorable reception to
whatever came from him. Finding that the general principle of entails
could not be maintained, he took his stand on an amendment which he
proposed, instead of an absolute abolition, to permit the tenant in
tail to convey in fee simple, if he chose it; and he was within a few
votes of saving so much of the old law. But the bill passed finally for
entire abolition.
In that one of the bills for organizing our judiciary system, which
proposed a court of Chancery, I had provided for a trial by jury of all
matters of fact, in that as well as in the courts of law. He defeated
it by the introduction of four words only, "_if either party choose_."
The consequence has been, that as no suitor will say to his judge,
"Sir, I distrust you, give me a jury," juries are rarely, I might
say, perhaps, never, seen in that court, but when called for by the
Chancellor of his own accord.
The first establishment in Virginia which became permanent, was
made in 1607. I have found no mention of negroes in the colony until
about 1650. The first brought here as slaves were by a Dutch ship;
after which the English commenced the trade, and continued it until
the revolutionary war. That suspended, _ipso facto_, their further
importation for the present, and the business of the war pressing
constantly on the legislature, this subject was not acted on finally
until the year '78, when I brought in a bill to prevent their further
importation. This passed without opposition, and stopped the increase
of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final
eradication.
The first settlers of this colony were Englishmen, loyal subjects to
their king and church, and the grant to Sir Walter Raleigh contained
an express proviso that their laws "should not be against the true
Christian faith, now professed in the church of England." As soon
as the state of the colony admitted, it was divided into parishes,
in each of which was established a minister of the Anglican church,
endowed with a fixed salary, in tobacco, a glebe house and land
with the other necessary appendages. To meet these expenses, all the
inhabitants of the parishes were assessed, whether they were or not,
members of the established church. Towards Quakers who came here,
they were most cruelly intolerant, driving them from the colony by the
severest penalties. In process of time, however, other sectarisms were
introduced, chiefly of the Presbyterian family; and the established
clergy, secure for life in their glebes and salaries, adding to these,
generally, the emoluments of a classical school, found employment
enough, in their farms and school-rooms, for the rest of the week, and
devoted Sunday only to the edification of their flock, by service, and
a sermon at their parish church. Their other pastoral functions were
little attended to. Against this inactivity, the zeal and industry
of sectarian preachers had an open and undisputed field; and by the
time of the revolution, a majority of the inhabitants had become
dissenters from the established church, but were still obliged to pay
contributions to support the pastors of the minority. This unrighteous
compulsion, to maintain teachers of what they deemed religious errors,
was grievously felt during the regal government, and without a hope
of relief. But the first republican legislature, which met in '76, was
crowded with petitions to abolish this spiritual tyranny. These brought
on the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged. Our great
opponents were Mr. Pendleton and Robert Carter Nicholas; honest men,
but zealous churchmen. The petitions were referred to the committee
of the whole house on the state of the country and, after desperate
contests in that committee, almost daily from the 11th of October to
the 5th of December, we prevailed so far only, as to repeal the laws
which rendered criminal the maintenance of any religious opinions,
the forbearance of repairing to church, or the exercise of any mode
of worship; and further, to exempt dissenters from contributions to
the support of the established church; and to suspend, only until the
next session, levies on the members of that church for the salaries
of their own incumbents. For although the majority of our citizens
were dissenters, as has been observed, a majority of the legislature
were churchmen. Among these, however, were some reasonable and liberal
men, who enabled us, on some points, to obtain feeble majorities. But
our opponents carried, in the general resolutions of the committee
of November 19, a declaration that religious assemblies ought to be
regulated, and that provision ought to be made for continuing the
succession of the clergy, and superintending their conduct. And, in the
bill now passed, was inserted an express reservation of the question,
Whether a general assessment should not be established by law, on every
one, to the support of the pastor of his choice; or whether all should
be left to voluntary contributions; and on this question, debated at
every session, from '76 to '79, (some of our dissenting allies, having
now secured their particular object, going over to the advocates of a
general assessment,) we could only obtain a suspension from session to
session until '79, when the question against a general assessment was
finally carried, and the establishment of the Anglican church entirely
put down. In justice to the two honest but zealous opponents who have
been named, I must add, that although, from their natural temperaments,
they were more disposed generally to acquiesce in things as they
are, than to risk innovations, yet whenever the public will had once
decided, none were more faithful or exact in their obedience to it.
The seat of our government had originally been fixed in the peninsula
of Jamestown, the first settlement of the colonists; and had been
afterwards removed a few miles inland to Williamsburg. But this was at
a time when our settlements had not extended beyond the tide waters.
Now they had crossed the Alleghany; and the centre of population was
very far removed from what it had been. Yet Williamsburg was still the
depository of our archives, the habitual residence of the Governor and
many other of the public functionaries, the established place for the
sessions of the legislature, and the magazine of our military stores;
and its situation was so exposed that it might be taken at any time in
war, and, at this time particularly, an enemy might in the night run
up either of the rivers, between which it lies, land a force above, and
take possession of the place, without the possibility of saving either
persons or things. I had proposed its removal so early as October, '76;
but it did not prevail until the session of May, '79.
Early in the session of May, '79, I prepared, and obtained leave to
bring in a bill, declaring who should be deemed citizens, asserting the
natural right of expatriation, and prescribing the mode of exercising
it. This, when I withdrew from the house, on the 1st of June following,
I left in the hands of George Mason, and it was passed on the 26th of
that month.
In giving this account of the laws of which I was myself the mover
and draughtsman, I, by no means, mean to claim to myself the merit
of obtaining their passage. I had many occasional and strenuous
coadjutors in debate, and one, most steadfast, able and zealous; who
was himself a host. This was George Mason, a man of the first order
of wisdom among those who acted on the theatre of the revolution,
of expansive mind, profound judgment, cogent in argument, learned in
the lore of our former constitution, and earnest for the republican
change on democratic principles. His elocution was neither flowing nor
smooth; but his language was strong, his manner most impressive, and
strengthened by a dash of biting cynicism, when provocation made it
seasonable.
Mr. Wythe, while speaker in the two sessions of 1777, between his
return from Congress and his appointment to the Chancery, was an able
and constant associate in whatever was before a committee of the whole.
His pure integrity, judgment and reasoning powers, gave him great
weight. Of him, see more in some notes inclosed in my letter of August
31, 1821, to Mr. John Saunderson.[14]
Mr. Madison came into the House in 1776, a new member and young; which
circumstances, concurring with his extreme modesty, prevented his
venturing himself in debate before his removal to the Council of State,
in November, '77. From thence he went to Congress, then consisting
of few members. Trained in these successive schools, he acquired
a habit of self-possession, which placed at ready command the rich
resources of his luminous and discriminating mind, and of his extensive
information, and rendered him the first of every assembly afterwards,
of which he became a member. Never wandering from his subject into vain
declamation, but pursuing it closely, in language pure, classical and
copious, soothing always the feelings of his adversaries by civilities
and softness of expression, he rose to the eminent station which he
held in the great National Convention of 1787; and in that of Virginia
which followed, he sustained the new constitution in all its parts,
bearing off the palm against the logic of George Mason, and the fervid
declamation of Mr. Henry. With these consummate powers, were united
a pure and spotless virtue which no calumny has ever attempted to
sully. Of the powers and polish of his pen, and of the wisdom of his
administration in the highest office of the nation, I need say nothing.
They have spoken, and will forever speak for themselves.
So far we were proceeding in the details of reformation only; selecting
points of legislation, prominent in character and principle, urgent,
and indicative of the strength of the general pulse of reformation.
When I left Congress, in '76, it was in the persuasion that our whole
code must be reviewed, adapted to our republican form of government;
and, now that we had no negatives of Councils, Governors, and Kings
to restrain us from doing right, that it should be corrected, in all
its parts, with a single eye to reason, and the good of those for
whose government it was framed. Early, therefore, in the session
of '76, to which I returned, I moved and presented a bill for the
revision of the laws, which was passed on the 24th of October; and on
the 5th of November, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Wythe, George Mason, Thomas
L. Lee, and myself, were appointed a committee to execute the work.
We agreed to meet at Fredericksburg to settle the plan of operation,
and to distribute the work. We met there accordingly, on the 13th
of January, 1777. The first question was, whether we should propose
to abolish the whole existing system of laws, and prepare a new and
complete Institute, or preserve the general system, and only modify it
to the present state of things. Mr. Pendleton, contrary to his usual
disposition in favor of ancient things, was for the former proposition,
in which he was joined by Mr. Lee. To this it was objected, that to
abrogate our whole system would be a bold measure, and probably far
beyond the views of the legislature; that they had been in the practice
of revising, from time to time, the laws of the colony, omitting the
expired, the repealed, and the obsolete, amending only those retained,
and probably meant we should now do the same, only including the
British statutes as well as our own: that to compose a new Institute,
like those of Justinian and Bracton, or that of Blackstone, which was
the model proposed by Mr. Pendleton, would be an arduous undertaking,
of vast research, of great consideration and judgment; and when reduced
to a text, every word of that text, from the imperfection of human
language, and its incompetence to express distinctly every shade of
idea, would become a subject of question and chicanery, until settled
by repeated adjudications; and this would involve us for ages in
litigation and render property uncertain, until, like the statutes
of old, every word had been tried and settled by numerous decisions,
and by new volumes of reports and commentaries; and that no one of
us, probably, would undertake such a work, which to be systematical,
must be the work of one hand. This last was the opinion of Mr. Wythe,
Mr. Mason, and myself. When we proceeded to the distribution of the
work, Mr. Mason excused himself, as, being no lawyer, he felt himself
unqualified for the work, and he resigned soon after. Mr. Lee excused
himself on the same ground, and died, indeed, in a short time. The
other two gentlemen, therefore, and myself divided the work among
us. The common law and statutes to the 4 James I. (when our separate
legislature was established) were assigned to me; the British statutes,
from that period to the present day, to Mr. Wythe; and the Virginia
laws to Mr. Pendleton. As the law of Descents, and the criminal law
fell of course within my portion, I wished the committee to settle
the leading principles of these, as a guide for me in framing them;
and, with respect to the first, I proposed to abolish the law of
primogeniture, and to make real estate descendible in parcenary to the
next of kin, as personal property is, by the statute of distribution.
Mr. Pendleton wished to preserve the right of primogeniture, but seeing
at once that that could not prevail, he proposed we should adopt
the Hebrew principle, and give a double portion to the elder son. I
observed, that if the eldest son could eat twice as much, or do double
work, it might be a natural evidence of his right to a double portion;
but being on a par in his powers and wants, with his brothers and
sisters, he should be on a par also in the partition of the patrimony;
and such was the decision of the other members.
On the subject of the Criminal law, all were agreed, that the
punishment of death should be abolished, except for treason and murder;
and that, for other felonies, should be substituted hard labor in the
public works, and in some cases, the _Lex talionis_. How this last
revolting principle came to obtain our approbation I do not remember.
There remained, indeed, in our laws, a vestige of it in a single case
of a slave; it was the English law, in the time of the Anglo-Saxons,
copied probably from the Hebrew law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth," and it was the law of several ancient people; but the
modern mind had left it far in the rear of its advances. These points,
however, being settled, we repaired to our respective homes for the
preparation of the work.
In the execution of my part, I thought it material not to vary the
diction of the ancient statutes by modernizing it, nor to give rise
to new questions by new expressions. The text of these statutes had
been so fully explained and defined, by numerous adjudications, as
scarcely ever now to produce a question in our courts. I thought it
would be useful, also, in all new draughts, to reform the style of the
later British statutes, and of our own acts of Assembly; which, from
their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case
within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied
efforts at certainty, by _saids_ and _aforesaids_, by _ors_ and by
_ands_, to make them more plain, are really rendered more perplexed
and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to the lawyers
themselves. We were employed in this work from that time to February,
1779, when we met at Williamsburg, that is to say, Mr. Pendleton, Mr.
Wythe and myself; and meeting day by day, we examined critically our
several parts, sentence by sentence, scrutinizing and amending, until
we had agreed on the whole. We then returned home, had fair copies made
of our several parts, which were reported to the General Assembly,
June 18, 1779, by Mr. Wythe and myself, Mr. Pendleton's residence
being distant, and he having authorized us by letter to declare his
approbation. We had, in this work, brought so much of the Common law
as it was thought necessary to alter, all the British statutes from
_Magna Charta_ to the present day, and all the laws of Virginia,
from the establishment of our legislature, in the 4th Jac. 1. to the
present time, which we thought should be retained, within the compass
of one hundred and twenty-six bills, making a printed folio of ninety
pages only. Some bills were taken out, occasionally, from time to
time, and passed; but the main body of the work was not entered on
by the legislature until after the general peace, in 1785, when, by
the unwearied exertions of Mr. Madison, in opposition to the endless
quibbles, chicaneries, perversions, vexations and delays of lawyers and
demi-lawyers, most of the bills were passed by the legislature, with
little alteration.
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which
had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the
latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with
some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular
proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be
universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure
from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was
proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read,
"a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof
that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection,
the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and
Infidel of every denomination.
Beccaria, and other writers on crimes and punishments, had satisfied
the reasonable world of the unrightfulness and inefficacy of the
punishment of crimes by death; and hard labor on roads, canals and
other public works, had been suggested as a proper substitute. The
Revisors had adopted these opinions; but the general idea of our
country had not yet advanced to that point. The bill, therefore,
for proportioning crimes and punishments, was lost in the House of
Delegates by a majority of a single vote. I learned afterwards, that
the substitute of hard labor in public, was tried (I believe it was
in Pennsylvania) without success. Exhibited as a public spectacle,
with shaved heads and mean clothing, working on the high roads,
produced in the criminals such a prostration of character, such
an abandonment of self-respect, as, instead of reforming, plunged
them into the most desperate and hardened depravity of morals and
character. To pursue the subject of this law.--I was written to in
1785 (being then in Paris) by directors appointed to superintend the
building of a Capitol in Richmond, to advise them as to a plan, and
to add to it one of a Prison. Thinking it a favorable opportunity
of introducing into the State an example of architecture, in the
classic style of antiquity, and the Maison quarrée of Nismes, an
ancient Roman temple, being considered as the most perfect model
existing of what may be called Cubic architecture, I applied to M.
Clerissault, who had published drawings of the Antiquities of Nismes,
to have me a model of the building made in stucco, only changing
the order from Corinthian to Ionic, on account of the difficulty of
the Corinthian capitals. I yielded, with reluctance, to the taste of
Clerissault, in his preference of the modern capital of Scamozzi to
the more noble capital of antiquity. This was executed by the artist
whom Choiseul Gouffier had carried with him to Constantinople, and
employed, while Ambassador there, in making those beautiful models of
the remains of Grecian architecture which are to be seen at Paris. To
adapt the exterior to our use, I drew a plan for the interior, with
the apartments necessary for legislative, executive, and judiciary
purposes; and accommodated in their size and distribution to the form
and dimensions of the building. These were forwarded to the Directors,
in 1786, and were carried into execution, with some variations, not
for the better, the most important of which, however, admit of future
correction. With respect to the plan of a Prison, requested at the
same time, I had heard of a benevolent society, in England, which had
been indulged by the government, in an experiment of the effect of
labor, in _solitary confinement_, on some of their criminals; which
experiment had succeeded beyond expectation. The same idea had been
suggested in France, and an Architect of Lyons had proposed a plan of
a well-contrived edifice, on the principle of solitary confinement.
I procured a copy, and as it was too large for our purposes, I drew
one on a scale less extensive, but susceptible of additions as they
should be wanting. This I sent to the Directors, instead of a plan of
a common prison, in the hope that it would suggest the idea of labor
in solitary confinement, instead of that on the public works, which
we had adopted in our Revised Code. Its principle, accordingly, but
not its exact form, was adopted by Latrobe in carrying the plan into
execution, by the erection of what is now called the Penitentiary,
built under his direction. In the meanwhile, the public opinion was
ripening, by time, by reflection, and by the example of Pennsylvania,
where labor on the highways had been tried, without approbation, from
1786 to '89, and had been followed by their Penitentiary system on the
principle of confinement and labor, which was proceeding auspiciously.
In 1796, our legislature resumed the subject, and passed the law for
amending the Penal laws of the commonwealth. They adopted solitary,
instead of public, labor, established a gradation in the duration
of the confinement, approximated the style of the law more to the
modern usage, and, instead of the settled distinctions of murder and
manslaughter, preserved in my bill, they introduced the new terms of
murder in the first and second degree. Whether these have produced more
or fewer questions of definition, I am not sufficiently informed of our
judiciary transactions to say. I will here, however, insert the text of
my bill, with the notes I made in the course of my researches into the
subject.[15]
The acts of Assembly concerning the College of William and Mary,
were properly within Mr. Pendleton's portion of our work; but these
related chiefly to its revenue, while its constitution, organization
and scope of science, were derived from its charter. We thought that
on this subject, a systematical plan of general education should be
proposed, and I was requested to undertake it. I accordingly prepared
three bills for the Revisal, proposing three distinct grades of
education, reaching all classes. 1st. Elementary schools, for all
children generally, rich and poor. 2d. Colleges, for a middle degree
of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life, and such
as would be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. And, 3d,
an ultimate grade for teaching the sciences generally, and in their
highest degree. The first bill proposed to lay off every county into
Hundreds, or Wards, of a proper size and population for a school, in
which reading, writing, and common arithmetic should be taught; and
that the whole State should be divided into twenty-four districts,
in each of which should be a school for classical learning, grammar,
geography, and the higher branches of numerical arithmetic. The second
bill proposed to amend the constitution of William and Mary college,
to enlarge its sphere of science, and to make it in fact a University.
The third was for the establishment of a library. These bills were not
acted on until the same year, '96, and then only so much of the first
as provided for elementary schools. The College of William and Mary
was an establishment purely of the Church of England; the Visitors
were required to be all of that Church; the Professors to subscribe
its thirty-nine Articles; its Students to learn its Catechism; and one
of its fundamental objects was declared to be, to raise up Ministers
for that church. The religious jealousies, therefore, of all the
dissenters, took alarm lest this might give an ascendancy to the
Anglican sect, and refused acting on that bill. Its local eccentricity,
too, and unhealthy autumnal climate, lessened the general inclination
towards it. And in the Elementary bill, they inserted a provision which
completely defeated it; for they left it to the court of each county to
determine for itself, when this act should be carried into execution,
within their county. One provision of the bill was, that the expenses
of these schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county,
every one in proportion to his general tax rate. This would throw on
wealth the education of the poor; and the justices, being generally
of the more wealthy class, were unwilling to incur that burden, and
I believe it was not suffered to commence in a single county. I shall
recur again to this subject, towards the close of my story, if I should
have life and resolution enough to reach that term; for I am already
tired of talking about myself.
The bill on the subject of slaves, was a mere digest of the existing
laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future
and general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be
kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment, whenever the bill
should be brought on. The principles of the amendment, however, were
agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain
day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public
mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at
this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it,
or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book
of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain
that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.
Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction
between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of
emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree,
as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be, _pari
passu_, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is
left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held
up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or
deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.
I considered four of these bills, passed or reported, as forming a
system by which every fibre would be eradicated of ancient or future
aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican.
The repeal of the laws of entail would prevent the accumulation and
perpetuation of wealth, in select families, and preserve the soil
of the country from being daily more and more absorbed in mortmain.
The abolition of primogeniture, and equal partition of inheritances,
removed the feudal and unnatural distinctions which made one member
of every family rich, and all the rest poor, substituting equal
partition, the best of all Agrarian laws. The restoration of the rights
of conscience relieved the people from taxation for the support of a
religion not theirs; for the establishment was truly of the religion
of the rich, the dissenting sects being entirely composed of the less
wealthy people; and these, by the bill for a general education, would
be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to
exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this
would be effected, without the violation of a single natural right of
any one individual citizen. To these, too, might be added, as a further
security, the introduction of the trial by jury into the Chancery
courts, which have already ingulfed, and continue to ingulf, so great
a proportion of the jurisdiction over our property.
On the 1st of June, 1779, I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth,
and retired from the legislature. Being elected, also, one of
the Visitors of William and Mary college, a self-electing body, I
effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change
in the organization of that institution, by abolishing the Grammar
school, and the two professorships of Divinity and Oriental languages,
and substituting a professorship of Law and Police, one of Anatomy,
Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter
confining us to six professorships, we added the Law of Nature and
Nations, and the Fine Arts to the duties of the Moral professor, and
Natural History to those of the professor of Mathematics and Natural
Philosophy.
Being now, as it were, identified with the Commonwealth itself, to
write my own history, during the two years of my administration, would
be to write the public history of that portion of the revolution within
this State. This has been done by others, and particularly by Mr.
Girardin, who wrote his Continuation of Burke's History of Virginia,
while at Milton, in this neighborhood, had free access to all my
papers while composing it, and has given as faithful an account as
I could myself. For this portion, therefore, of my own life, I refer
altogether to his history. From a belief that, under the pressure of
the invasion under which we were then laboring, the public would have
more confidence in a Military chief, and that the Military commander,
being invested with the Civil power also, both might be wielded with
more energy, promptitude and effect for the defence of the State, I
resigned the administration at the end of my second year, and General
Nelson was appointed to succeed me.
Soon after my leaving Congress, in September, '76, to wit, on the last
day of that month, I had been appointed, with Dr. Franklin, to go
to France, as a Commissioner, to negotiate treaties of alliance and
commerce with that government. Silas Deane, then in France, acting
as[16] agent for procuring military stores, was joined with us in
commission. But such was the state of my family that I could not leave
it, nor could I expose it to the dangers of the sea, and of capture
by the British ships, then covering the ocean. I saw, too, that the
laboring oar was really at home, where much was to be done, of the
most permanent interest, in new modelling our governments, and much
to defend our fanes and fire-sides from the desolations of an invading
enemy, pressing on our country in every point. I declined, therefore,
and Dr. Lee was appointed in my place. On the 15th of June, 1781, I had
been appointed, with Mr. Adams, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Laurens,
a Minister Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace, then expected to
be effected through the mediation of the Empress of Russia. The same
reasons obliged me still to decline; and the negotiation was in fact
never entered on. But, in the autumn of the next year, 1782, Congress
receiving assurances that a general peace would be concluded in the
winter and spring, they renewed my appointment on the 13th of November
of that year. I had, two months before that, lost the cherished
companion of my life, in whose affections, unabated on both sides, I
had lived the last ten years in unchequered happiness. With the public
interests, the state of my mind concurred in recommending the change
of scene proposed; and I accepted the appointment, and left Monticello
on the 19th of December, 1782, for Philadelphia, where I arrived on
the 27th. The Minister of France, Luzerne, offered me a passage in the
Romulus frigate, which I accepting; but she was then lying a few miles
below Baltimore, blocked up in the ice. I remained, therefore, a month
in Philadelphia, looking over the papers in the office of State, in
order to possess myself of the general state of our foreign relations,
and then went to Baltimore, to await the liberation of the frigate from
the ice. After waiting there nearly a month, we received information
that a Provisional treaty of peace had been signed by our Commissioners
on the 3d of September, 1782, to become absolute, on the conclusion of
peace between France and Great Britain. Considering my proceeding to
Europe as now of no utility to the public, I returned immediately to
Philadelphia, to take the orders of Congress, and was excused by them
from further proceeding. I, therefore, returned home, where I arrived
on the 15th of May, 1783.
On the 6th of the following month, I was appointed by the legislature
a delegate to Congress, the appointment to take place on the 1st of
November ensuing, when that of the existing delegation would expire.
I, accordingly, left home on the 16th of October, arrived at Trenton,
where Congress was sitting, on the 3d of November, and took my seat on
the 4th, on which day Congress adjourned, to meet at Annapolis on the
26th.
Congress had now become a very small body, and the members very remiss
in their attendance on its duties, insomuch, that a majority of the
States, necessary by the Confederation to constitute a House even for
minor business, did not assemble until the 13th of December.
They, as early as January 7,1782, had turned their attention to the
moneys current in the several States, and had directed the Financier,
Robert Morris, to report to them a table of rates, at which the foreign
coins should be received at the treasury. That officer, or rather his
assistant, Gouverneur Morris, answered them on the 15th, in an able
and elaborate statement of the denominations of money current in the
several States, and of the comparative value of the foreign coins
chiefly in circulation with us. He went into the consideration of
the necessity of establishing a standard of value with us, and of the
adoption of a money Unit. He proposed for that Unit, such a fraction
of pure silver as would be a common measure of the penny of every
State, without leaving a fraction. This common divisor he found to be
1-1440 of a dollar, or 1-1600 of the crown sterling. The value of a
dollar was, therefore, to be expressed by 1,440 units, and of a crown
by 1,600; each Unit containing a quarter of a grain of fine silver.
Congress turning again their attention to this subject the following
year, the Financier, by a letter of April 30, 1783, further explained
and urged the Unit he had proposed; but nothing more was done on it
until the ensuing year, when it was again taken up, and referred to a
committee, of which I was a member. The general views of the Financier
were sound, and the principle was ingenious on which he proposed to
found his Unit; but it was too minute for ordinary use, too laborious
for computation, either by the head or in figures. The price of a loaf
of bread, 1-20 of a dollar, would be 72 units.
A pound of butter, 1-5 of a dollar, 288 units.
A horse or bullock, of eighty dollars value, would require a notation
of six figures, to wit, 115,200, and the public debt, suppose of eighty
millions, would require twelve figures, to wit, 115,200,000,000 units.
Such a system of money-arithmetic would be entirely unmanageable for
the common purposes of society. I proposed, therefore, instead of this,
to adopt the Dollar as our Unit of account and payment, and that its
divisions and sub-divisions should be in the decimal ratio. I wrote
some Notes on the subject, which I submitted to the consideration of
the Financier. I received his answer and adherence to his general
system, only agreeing to take for his Unit one hundred of those he
first proposed, so that a Dollar should be 14 40-100, and a crown 16
units. I replied to this, and printed my notes and reply on a flying
sheet, which I put into the hands of the members of Congress for
consideration, and the Committee agreed to report on my principle. This
was adopted the ensuing year, and is the system which now prevails. I
insert, here, the Notes and Reply, as showing the different views on
which the adoption of our money system hung.[17] The divisions into
dimes, cents, and mills is now so well understood, that it would be
easy of introduction into the kindred branches of weights and measures.
I use, when I travel, an Odometer of Clarke's invention, which divides
the mile into cents, and I find every one comprehends a distance
readily, when stated to him in miles and cents; so he would in feet and
cents, pounds and cents, &c.
The remissness of Congress, and their permanent session, began to
be a subject of uneasiness; and even some of the legislatures had
recommended to them intermissions, and periodical sessions. As
the Confederation had made no provision for a visible head of the
government, during vacations of Congress, and such a one was necessary
to superintend the executive business, to receive and communicate with
foreign ministers and nations, and to assemble Congress on sudden and
extraordinary emergencies, I proposed, early in April, the appointment
of a committee, to be called the "Committee of the States," to consist
of a member from each State, who should remain in session during the
recess of Congress: that the functions of Congress should be divided
into executive and legislative, the latter to be reserved, and the
former, by a general resolution, to be delegated to that Committee.
This proposition was afterwards agreed to; a Committee appointed, who
entered on duty on the subsequent adjournment of Congress, quarrelled
very soon, split into two parties, abandoned their post, and left
the government without any visible head, until the next meeting in
Congress. We have since seen the same thing take place in the Directory
of France; and I believe it will forever take place in any Executive
consisting of a plurality. Our plan, best, I believe, combines wisdom
and practicability, by providing a plurality of Counsellors, but a
single Arbiter for ultimate decision. I was in France when we heard of
this schism, and separation of our Committee, and, speaking with Dr.
Franklin of this singular disposition of men to quarrel, and divide
into parties, he gave his sentiments, as usual, by way of Apologue. He
mentioned the Eddystone lighthouse, in the British channel, as being
built on a rock, in the mid-channel, totally inaccessible in winter,
from the boisterous character of that sea, in that season; that,
therefore, for the two keepers employed to keep up the lights, all
provisions for the winter were necessarily carried to them in autumn,
as they could never be visited again till the return of the milder
season; that, on the first practicable day in the spring, a boat put
off to them with fresh supplies. The boatmen met at the door one of
the keepers, and accosted him with a "How goes it, friend? Very well.
How is your companion? I do not know. Don't know? Is not he here? I
can't tell. Have not you seen him to-day? No. When did you see him? Not
since last fall. You have killed him? Not I, indeed." They were about
to lay hold of him, as having certainly murdered his companion; but
he desired them to go up stairs and examine for themselves. They went
up, and there found the other keeper. They had quarrelled, it seems,
soon after being left there, had divided into two parties, assigned the
cares below to one, and those above to the other, and had never spoken
to, or seen, one another since.
But to return to our Congress at Annapolis. The definitive treaty of
peace which had been signed at Paris on the 3d of September, 1783,
and received here, could not be ratified without a House of nine
States. On the 23d of December, therefore, we addressed letters to
the several Governors, stating the receipt of the definitive treaty;
that seven States only were in attendance, while nine were necessary
to its ratification; and urging them to press on their delegates the
necessity of their immediate attendance. And on the 26th, to save time,
I moved that the Agent of Marine (Robert Morris) should be instructed
to have ready a vessel at this place, at New York, and at some Eastern
port, to carry over the ratification of the treaty when agreed to.
It met the general sense of the House, but was opposed by Dr. Lee,
on the ground of expense, which it would authorize the Agent to incur
for us; and, he said, it would be better to ratify at once, and send
on the ratification. Some members had before suggested, that seven
States were competent to the ratification. My motion was therefore
postponed, and another brought forward by Mr. Read, of South Carolina,
for an immediate ratification. This was debated the 26th and 27th.
Reed, Lee, Williamson and Jeremiah Chase, urged that ratification was
a mere matter of form, that the treaty was conclusive from the moment
it was signed by the ministers; that, although the Confederation
requires the assent of _nine States to enter into_ a treaty, yet, that
its conclusion could not be called _entrance into it_; that supposing
nine States requisite, it would be in the power of five States to
keep us always at war; that nine States had virtually authorized the
ratification, having ratified the provisional treaty, and instructed
their ministers to agree to a definitive one in the same terms, and
the present one was, in fact, substantially, and almost verbatim, the
same; that there now remain but sixty-seven days for the ratification,
for its passage across the Atlantic, and its exchange; that there was
no hope of our soon having nine States present; in fact, that this was
the ultimate point of time to which we could venture to wait; that if
the ratification was not in Paris by the time stipulated, the treaty
would become void; that if ratified by seven States, it would go under
our seal, without its being known to Great Britain that only seven had
concurred; that it was a question of which they had no right to take
cognizance, and we were only answerable for it to our constituents;
that it was like the ratification which Great Britain had received from
the Dutch, by the negotiations of Sir William Temple.
On the contrary, it was argued by Monroe, Gerry, Howell, Ellery and
myself, that by the modern usage of Europe, the ratification was
considered as the act which gave validity to a treaty, until which, it
was not obligatory.[18] That the commission to the ministers reserved
the ratification to Congress; that the treaty itself stipulated
that it should be ratified; that it became a second question, who
were competent to the ratification? That the Confederation expressly
required nine States to enter into any treaty; that, by this, that
instrument must have intended, that the assent of nine States should
be necessary, as well to the _completion_ as to the _commencement_ of
the treaty, its object having been to guard the rights of the Union in
all those important cases where nine States are called for; that by the
contrary construction, seven States, containing less than one-third
of our whole citizens, might rivet on us a treaty, commenced indeed
under commission and instructions from nine States, but formed by the
minister in express contradiction to such instructions, and in direct
sacrifice of the interests of so great a majority; that the definitive
treaty was admitted not to be a verbal copy of the provisional one,
and whether the departures from it were of substance, or not, was a
question on which nine States alone were competent to decide; that
the circumstances of the ratification of the provisional articles by
nine States, the instructions to our ministers to form a definitive
one by them, and their actual agreement in substance, do not render
us competent to ratify in the present instance; if these circumstances
are in themselves a ratification, nothing further is requisite than to
give attested copies of them, in exchange for the British ratification;
if they are not, we remain where we were, without a ratification by
nine States, and incompetent ourselves to ratify; that it was but four
days since the seven States, now present, unanimously concurred in
a resolution, to be forwarded to the Governors of the absent States,
in which they stated, as a cause for urging on their delegates, that
nine States were necessary to ratify the treaty; that in the case of
the Dutch ratification, Great Britain had courted it, and therefore
was glad to accept it as it was; that they knew our Constitution, and
would object to a ratification by seven; that, if that circumstance was
kept back, it would be known hereafter, and would give them ground to
deny the validity of a ratification, into which they should have been
surprised and cheated, and it would be a dishonorable prostitution
of our seal; that there is a hope of nine States; that if the treaty
would become null, if not ratified in time, it would not be saved by
an imperfect ratification; but that, in fact, it would not be null,
and would be placed on better ground, going in unexceptionable form,
though a few days too late, and rested on the small importance of this
circumstance, and the physical impossibilities which had prevented a
punctual compliance in point of time; that this would be approved by
all nations, and by Great Britain herself, if not determined to renew
the war, and if so determined, she would never want excuses, were this
out of the way. Mr. Read gave notice, he should call for the yeas and
nays; whereon those in opposition, prepared a resolution, expressing
pointedly the reasons of their dissent from his motion. It appearing,
however, that his proposition could not be carried, it was thought
better to make no entry at all. Massachusetts alone would have been
for it; Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Virginia against it, Delaware,
Maryland and North Carolina, would have been divided.
Our body was little numerous, but very contentious. Day after day
was wasted on the most unimportant questions. A member, one of those
afflicted with the morbid rage of debate, of an ardent mind, prompt
imagination, and copious flow of words, who heard with impatience any
logic which was not his own, sitting near me on some occasion of a
trifling but wordy debate, asked me how I could sit in silence, hearing
so much false reasoning, which a word should refute? I observed to him,
that to refute indeed was easy, but to silence was impossible; that in
measures brought forward by myself, I took the laboring oar, as was
incumbent on me; but that in general, I was willing to listen; that
if every sound argument or objection was used by some one or other of
the numerous debaters, it was enough; if not, I thought it sufficient
to suggest the omission, without going into a repetition of what had
been already said by others: that this was a waste and abuse of the
time and patience of the House, which could not be justified. And I
believe, that if the members of deliberate bodies were to observe this
course generally, they would do in a day, what takes them a week; and
it is really more questionable, than may at first be thought, whether
Bonaparte's dumb legislature, which said nothing, and did much, may
not be preferable to one which talks much, and does nothing. I served
with General Washington in the legislature of Virginia, before the
revolution, and, during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never
heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the
main point, which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders
to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of
themselves. If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can
it be otherwise, in a body to which the people send one hundred and
fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing,
and talk by the hour? That one hundred and fifty lawyers should do
business together, ought not to be expected. But to return again to our
subject.
Those who thought seven States competent to the ratification, being
very restless under the loss of their motion, I proposed, on the
third of January, to meet them on middle ground, and therefore moved a
resolution, which premised, that there were but seven States present,
who were unanimous for the ratification, but that they differed in
opinion on the question of competency; that those however in the
negative were unwilling that any powers which it might be supposed
they possessed, should remain unexercised for the restoration of
peace, provided it could be done, saving their good faith, and without
importing any opinion of Congress, that seven States were competent,
and resolving that the treaty be ratified so far as they had power;
that it should be transmitted to our ministers, with instructions to
keep it uncommunicated; to endeavor to obtain three months longer for
exchange of ratifications; that they should be informed, that so soon
as nine States shall be present, a ratification by nine shall be sent
them: if this should get to them before the ultimate point of time for
exchange, they were to use it, and not the other; if not, they were
to offer the act of the seven States in exchange, informing them the
treaty had come to hand while Congress was not in session; that but
seven States were as yet assembled, and these had unanimously concurred
in the ratification. This was debated on the third and fourth; and
on the fifth, a vessel being to sail for England, from this port
(Annapolis), the House directed the President to write to our ministers
accordingly.
January 14. Delegates from Connecticut having attended yesterday, and
another from South Carolina coming in this day, the treaty was ratified
without a dissenting voice; and three instruments of ratification
were ordered to be made out, one of which was sent by Colonel Harmer,
another by Colonel Franks, and the third transmitted to the Agent of
Marine, to be forwarded by any good opportunity.
Congress soon took up the consideration of their foreign relations.
They deemed it necessary to get their commerce placed with every
nation, on a footing as favorable as that of other nations; and for
this purpose, to propose to each a distinct treaty of commerce.
This act too would amount to an acknowledgment, by each, of our
independence, and of our reception into the fraternity of nations;
which, although as possessing our station of right, and in fact
we would not condescend to ask, we were not unwilling to furnish
opportunities for receiving their friendly salutations and welcome.
With France, the United Netherlands, and Sweden, we had already
treaties of commerce; but commissions were given for those countries
also, should any amendments be thought necessary. The other States to
which treaties were to be proposed, were England, Hamburg, Saxony,
Prussia, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Venice, Rome, Naples, Tuscany,
Sardinia, Genoa, Spain, Portugal, the Porte, Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis,
and Morocco.
On the 7th of May Congress resolved that a Minister Plenipotentiary
should be appointed, in addition to Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin, for
negotiating treaties of commerce with foreign nations, and I was
elected to that duty. I accordingly left Annapolis on the 11th, took
with me my eldest daughter, then at Philadelphia (the two others being
too young for the voyage), and proceeded to Boston, in quest of a
passage. While passing through the different States, I made a point of
informing myself of the state of the commerce of each; went on to New
Hampshire with the same view, and returned to Boston. Thence I sailed
on the 5th of July, in the Ceres, a merchant ship of Mr. Nathaniel
Tracey, bound to Cowes. He was himself a passenger, and, after a
pleasant voyage of nineteen days, from land to land, we arrived at
Cowes on the 26th. I was detained there a few days by the indisposition
of my daughter. On the 30th, we embarked for Havre, arrived there on
the 31st, left it on the 3d of August, and arrived at Paris on the 6th.
I called immediately on Dr. Franklin, at Passy, communicated to him
our charge, and we wrote to Mr. Adams, then at the Hague, to join us at
Paris.
Before I had left America, that is to say, in the year 1781, I had
received a letter from M. de Marbois, of the French legation in
Philadelphia, informing me, he had been instructed by his government to
obtain such statistical accounts of the different States of our Union,
as might be useful for their information; and addressing to me a number
of queries relative to the State of Virginia. I had always made it a
practice, whenever an opportunity occurred of obtaining any information
of our country, which might be of use to me in any station, public
or private, to commit it to writing. These memoranda were on loose
papers, bundled up without order, and difficult of recurrence, when
I had occasion for a particular one. I thought this a good occasion
to embody their substance, which I did in the order of Mr. Marbois'
queries, so as to answer his wish, and to arrange them for my own
use. Some friends, to whom they were occasionally communicated, wished
for copies; but their volume rendering this too laborious by hand, I
proposed to get a few printed, for their gratification. I was asked
such a price, however, as exceeded the importance of the object. On
my arrival at Paris, I found it could be done for a fourth of what I
had been asked here. I therefore corrected and enlarged them, and had
two hundred copies printed, under the title of "Notes on Virginia."
I gave a very few copies to some particular friends in Europe, and
sent the rest to my friends in America. An European copy, by the death
of the owner, got into the hands of a bookseller, who engaged its
translation, and when ready for the press, communicated his intentions
and manuscript to me, suggesting that I should correct it, without
asking any other permission for the publication. I never had seen so
wretched an attempt at translation. Interverted, abridged, mutilated,
and often reversing the sense of the original, I found it a blotch of
errors, from beginning to end. I corrected some of the most material,
and, in that form, it was printed in French. A London bookseller, on
seeing the translation, requested me to permit him to print the English
original. I thought it best to do so, to let the world see that it was
not really so bad as the French translation had made it appear. And
this is the true history of that publication.
Mr. Adams soon joined us at Paris, and our first employment was to
prepare a general form, to be proposed to such nations as were disposed
to treat with us. During the negotiations for peace with the British
Commissioner, David Hartley, our Commissioners had proposed, on the
suggestion of Dr. Franklin, to insert an article, exempting from
capture by the public or private armed ships, of either belligerent,
when at war, all merchant vessels and their cargoes, employed merely
in carrying on the commerce between nations. It was refused by
England, and unwisely, in my opinion. For, in the case of a war with
us, their superior commerce places infinitely more at hazard on the
ocean, than ours; and, as hawks abound in proportion to game, so our
privateers would swarm, in proportion to the wealth exposed to their
prize, while theirs would be few, for want of subjects of capture.
We inserted this article in our form, with a provision against the
molestation of fishermen, husbandmen, citizens unarmed, and following
their occupations in unfortified places, for the humane treatment of
prisoners of war, the abolition of contraband of war, which exposes
merchant vessels to such vexatious and ruinous detentions and abuses;
and for the principle of free bottoms, free goods.
In a conference with the Count de Vergennes, it was thought better to
leave to legislative regulation, on both sides, such modifications of
our commercial intercourse, as would voluntarily flow from amicable
dispositions. Without urging, we sounded the ministers of the several
European nations, at the court of Versailles, on their dispositions
towards mutual commerce, and the expediency of encouraging it by the
protection of a treaty. Old Frederic, of Prussia, met us cordially,
and without hesitation, and appointing the Baron de Thulemeyer, his
minister at the Hague, to negotiate with us, we communicated to him our
Projét, which, with little alteration by the King, was soon concluded.
Denmark and Tuscany, entered also into negotiations with us. Other
powers appearing indifferent; we did not think it proper to press them.
They seemed, in fact, to know little about us, but as rebels, who had
been successful in throwing off the yoke of the mother country. They
were ignorant of our commerce, which had been always monopolized by
England, and of the exchange of articles it might offer advantageously
to both parties. They were inclined, therefore, to stand aloof, until
they could see better what relations might be usefully instituted with
us. The negotiations, therefore, begun with Denmark and Tuscany, we
protracted designedly, until our powers had expired; and abstained
from making new propositions to others having no colonies; because our
commerce being an exchange of raw for wrought materials, is a competent
price for admission into the colonies of those possessing them; but
were we to give it, without price, to others, all would claim it,
without price, on the ordinary ground of _gentis amicissimæ_.
Mr. Adams being appointed Minister Plenipotentiary of the United
States, to London, left us in June, and in July, 1785, Dr. Franklin
returned to America, and I was appointed his successor at Paris. In
February, 1786, Mr. Adams wrote to me, pressingly, to join him in
London immediately, as he thought he discovered there some symptoms
of better disposition towards us. Colonel Smith, his secretary of
legation, was the bearer of his urgencies for my immediate attendance.
I, accordingly, left Paris on the 1st of March, and, on my arrival
in London, we agreed on a very summary form of treaty, proposing
an exchange of citizenship for our citizens, our ships, and our
productions generally, except as to office. On my presentation, as
usual, to the King and Queen, at their levées, it was impossible for
anything to be more ungracious, than their notice of Mr. Adams and
myself. I saw, at once, that the ulcerations of mind in that quarter,
left nothing to be expected on the subject of my attendance; and, on
the first conference with the Marquis of Caermarthen, the Minister for
foreign affairs, the distance and disinclination which he betrayed
in his conversation, the vagueness and evasions of his answers to
us, confirmed me in the belief of their aversion to have anything
to do with us. We delivered him, however, our Projét, Mr. Adams not
despairing as much as I did, of its effect. We afterwards, by one or
more notes, requested his appointment of an interview and conference,
which, without directly declining, he evaded, by pretences of other
pressing occupations for the moment. After staying there seven weeks,
till within a few days of the expiration of our commission, I informed
the minister, by note, that my duties at Paris required my return to
that place, and that I should, with pleasure, be the bearer of any
commands to his Ambassador there. He answered, that he had none, and,
wishing me a pleasant journey, I left London the 26th, and arrived at
Paris the 30th of April.
While in London, we entered into negotiations with the Chevalier Pinto,
Ambassador of Portugal, at that place. The only article of difficulty
between us was, a stipulation that our bread stuff should be received
in Portugal, in the form of flour as well as of grain. He approved
of it himself, but observed that several Nobles, of great influence
at their court, were the owners of wind-mills in the neighborhood of
Lisbon, which depended much for their profits on manufacturing our
wheat, and that this stipulation would endanger the whole treaty. He
signed it, however, and its fate was what he had candidly portended.
My duties, at Paris, were confined to a few objects; the receipt of
our whale-oils, salted fish, and salted meats, on favorable terms;
the admission of our rice on equal terms with that of Piedmont,
Egypt and the Levant; a mitigation of the monopolies of our tobacco
by the Farmers-general, and a free admission of our productions into
their islands, were the principal commercial objects which required
attention; and, on these occasions, I was powerfully aided by all
the influence and the energies of the Marquis de La Fayette, who
proved himself equally zealous for the friendship and welfare of both
nations; and, in justice, I must also say, that I found the government
entirely disposed to befriend us on all occasions, and to yield us
every indulgence, not absolutely injurious to themselves. The Count de
Vergennes had the reputation, with the diplomatic corps, of being wary
and slippery in his diplomatic intercourse; and so he might be with
those whom he knew to be slippery, and double-faced themselves. As he
saw that I had no indirect views, practised no subtleties, meddled in
no intrigues, pursued no concealed object, I found him as frank, as
honorable, as easy of access to reason, as any man with whom I had ever
done business; and I must say the same for his successor, Montmorin,
one of the most honest and worthy of human beings.
Our commerce, in the Mediterranean, was placed under early alarm, by
the capture of two of our vessels and crews by the Barbary cruisers.
I was very unwilling that we should acquiesce in the European
humiliation, of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates, and
endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual
depredations from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their
Ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles
of a special confederation, in the following form:
"Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the
piratical States of Barbary.
1. "It is proposed, that the several powers at war with the piratical
States of Barbary, or any two or more of them who shall be willing,
shall enter into a convention to carry on their operations against
those States, in concert, beginning with the Algerines.
2. "This convention shall remain open to any other powers, who shall,
at any future time, wish to accede to it; the parties reserving the
right to prescribe the conditions of such accession, according to the
circumstances existing at the time it shall be proposed.
3. "The object of the convention shall be, to compel the piratical
States to perpetual peace, without price, and to guarantee that peace
to each other.
4. "The operations for obtaining this peace shall be constant cruises
on their coast, with a naval force now to be agreed on. It is not
proposed that this force shall be so considerable as to be inconvenient
to any party. It is believed that half a dozen frigates, with as many
Tenders or Xebecs, one half of which shall be in cruise, while the
other half is at rest, will suffice.
5. "The force agreed to be necessary, shall be furnished by the
parties, in certain quotas, now to be fixed; it being expected, that
each will be willing to contribute, in such proportion as circumstances
may render reasonable.
6. "As miscarriages often proceed from the want of harmony among
officers of different nations, the parties shall now consider and
decide, whether it will not be better to contribute their quotas in
money, to be employed in fitting out and keeping on duty, a single
fleet of the force agreed on.
7. "The difficulties and delays, too, which will attend the management
of these operations, if conducted by the parties themselves separately,
distant as their courts may be from one another, and incapable of
meeting in consultation, suggest a question, whether it will not
be better for them to give full powers, for that purpose, to their
Ambassadors, or other Ministers resident at some one court of Europe,
who shall form a Committee, or Council, for carrying this convention
into effect; wherein, the vote of each member shall be computed in
proportion to the quota of his sovereign, and the majority so computed,
shall prevail in all questions within the view of this convention. The
court of Versailles is proposed, on account of its neighborhood to the
Mediterranean, and because all those powers are represented there, who
are likely to become parties to this convention.
8. "To save to that Council the embarrassment of personal solicitations
for office, and to assure the parties that their contributions will
be applied solely to the object for which they are destined, there
shall be no establishment of officers for the said Council, such as
Commissioners, Secretaries, or any other kind, with either salaries
or perquisites, nor any other lucrative appointments but such whose
functions are to be exercised on board the said vessels.
9. "Should war arise between any two of the parties to this convention,
it shall not extend to this enterprise, nor interrupt it; but as to
this they shall be reputed at peace.
10. "When Algiers shall be reduced to peace, the other piratical
States, if they refuse to discontinue their piracies, shall become the
objects of this convention, either successively or together, as shall
seem best.
11. "Where this convention would interfere with treaties actually
existing between any of the parties and the States of Barbary, the
treaty shall prevail, and such party shall be allowed to withdraw from
the operations against that State."
Spain had just concluded a treaty with Algiers, at the expense of
three millions of dollars, and did not like to relinquish the benefit
of that, until the other party should fail in their observance of
it. Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and
Sweden, were favorably disposed to such an association; but their
representatives at Paris expressed apprehensions that France would
interfere, and, either openly or secretly, support the Barbary powers;
and they required, that I should ascertain the dispositions of the
Count de Vergennes on the subject. I had before taken occasion to
inform him of what we were proposing, and, therefore, did not think it
proper to insinuate any doubt of the fair conduct of his government;
but, stating our propositions, I mentioned the apprehensions
entertained by us, that England would interfere in behalf of those
piratical governments. "She dares not do it," said he. I pressed it
no further. The other Agents were satisfied with this indication of
his sentiments, and nothing was now wanting to bring it into direct
and formal consideration, but the assent of our government, and their
authority to make the formal proposition. I communicated to them
the favorable prospect of protecting our commerce from the Barbary
depredations, and for such a continuance of time, as, by an exclusion
of them from the sea, to change their habits and characters, from a
predatory to an agricultural people: towards which, however, it was
expected they would contribute a frigate, and its expenses, to be
in constant cruise. But they were in no condition to make any such
engagement. Their recommendatory powers for obtaining contributions,
were so openly neglected by the several States, that they declined
an engagement which they were conscious they could not fulfil with
punctuality; and so it fell through.
[19]In 1786, while at Paris, I became acquainted with John Ledyard,
of Connecticut, a man of genius, of some science, and of fearless
courage and enterprise. He had accompanied Captain Cook in his voyage
to the Pacific, had distinguished himself on several occasions by an
unrivalled intrepidity, and published an account of that voyage, with
details unfavorable to Cook's deportment towards the savages, and
lessening our regrets at his fate. Ledyard had come to Paris, in the
hope of forming a company to engage in the fur trade of the Western
coast of America. He was disappointed in this, and, being out of
business, and of a roaming, restless character, I suggested to him the
enterprise of exploring the Western part of our continent, by passing
through St. Petersburg to Kamschatka, and procuring a passage thence in
some of the Russian vessels to Nootka Sound, whence he might make his
way across the continent to the United States; and I undertook to have
the permission of the Empress of Russia solicited. He eagerly embraced
the proposition, and M. de Sémoulin, the Russian Ambassador, and more
particularly Baron Grimm, the special correspondent of the Empress,
solicited her permission for him to pass through her dominions, to the
Western coast of America. And here I must correct a material error,
which I have committed in another place, to the prejudice of the
Empress. In writing some notes of the life of Captain Lewis, prefixed
to his "Expedition to the Pacific," I stated that the Empress gave
the permission asked, and afterwards retracted it. This idea, after a
lapse of twenty-six years, had so insinuated itself into my mind, that
I committed it to paper, without the least suspicion of error. Yet I
find, on recurring to my letters of that date, that the Empress refused
permission at once, considering the enterprise as entirely chimerical.
But Ledyard would not relinquish it, persuading himself that, by
proceeding to St. Petersburg, he could satisfy the Empress of its
practicability, and obtain her permission. He went accordingly, but she
was absent on a visit to some distant part of her dominions,[20] and he
pursued his course to within two hundred miles of Kamschatka, where he
was overtaken by an arrest from the Empress, brought back to Poland,
and there dismissed. I must therefore, in justice, acquit the Empress
of ever having for a moment countenanced, even by the indulgence of an
innocent passage through her territories, this interesting enterprise.
The pecuniary distresses of France produced this year a measure
of which there had been no example for near two centuries, and the
consequences of which, good and evil, are not yet calculable. For its
remote causes, we must go a little back.
Celebrated writers of France and England had already sketched good
principles on the subject of government; yet the American Revolution
seems first to have awakened the thinking part of the French nation
in general, from the sleep of despotism in which they were sunk.
The officers too, who had been to America, were mostly young men,
less shackled by habit and prejudice, and more ready to assent to
the suggestions of common sense, and feeling of common rights, than
others. They came back with new ideas and impressions. The press,
notwithstanding its shackles, began to disseminate them; conversation
assumed new freedoms; Politics became the theme of all societies, male
and female, and a very extensive and zealous party was formed, which
acquired the appellation of the Patriotic party, who, sensible of
the abusive government under which they lived, sighed for occasions
of reforming it. This party comprehended all the honesty of the
kingdom, sufficiently at leisure to think, the men of letters, the
easy Bourgeois, the young nobility, partly from reflection, partly
from mode; for these sentiments became matter of mode, and as such,
united most of the young women to the party. Happily for the nation,
it happened, at the same moment, that the dissipations of the Queen
and court, the abuses of the pension-list, and dilapidations in the
administration of every branch of the finances, had exhausted the
treasures and credit of the nation, insomuch that its most necessary
functions were paralyzed. To reform these abuses would have overset
the Minister; to impose new taxes by the authority of the King,
was known to be impossible, from the determined opposition of the
Parliament to their enregistry. No resource remained then, but to
appeal to the nation. He advised, therefore, the call of an Assembly
of the most distinguished characters of the nation, in the hope that,
by promises of various and valuable improvements in the organization
and regimen of the government, they would be induced to authorize new
taxes, to control the opposition of the Parliament, and to raise the
annual revenue to the level of expenditures. An Assembly of Notables
therefore, about one hundred and fifty in number, named by the King,
convened on the 22d of February. The Minister (Calonne) stated to them,
that the annual excess of expenses beyond the revenue, when Louis XVI.
came to the throne, was thirty-seven millions of livres; that four
hundred and forty millions had been borrowed to re-establish the navy;
that the American war had cost them fourteen hundred and forty millions
(two hundred and fifty-six millions of dollars), and that the interest
of these sums, with other increased expenses, had added forty millions
more to the annual deficit. (But a subsequent and more candid estimate
made it fifty-six millions.) He proffered them an universal redress
of grievances, laid open those grievances fully, pointed out sound
remedies, and, covering his canvas with objects of this magnitude, the
deficit dwindled to a little accessory, scarcely attracting attention.
The persons chosen were the most able and independent characters in the
kingdom, and their support, if it could be obtained, would be enough
for him. They improved the occasion for redressing their grievances,
and agreed that the public wants should be relieved; but went into an
examination of the causes of them. It was supposed that Colonne was
conscious that his accounts could not bear examination; and it was
said, and believed, that he asked of the King, to send four members
to the Bastile, of whom the Marquis de La Fayette was one, to banish
twenty others, and two of his Ministers. The King found it shorter to
banish him. His successor went on in full concert with the Assembly.
The result was an augmentation of the revenue, a promise of economies
in its expenditure, of an annual settlement of the public accounts
before a council, which the Comptroller, having been heretofore obliged
to settle only with the King in person, of course never settled at all;
an acknowledgment that the King could not lay a new tax, a reformation
of the Criminal laws, abolition of torture, suppression of corvees,
reformation of the gabelles, removal of the interior Custom Houses,
free commerce of grain, internal and external, and the establishment of
Provincial Assemblies; which, altogether, constituted a great mass of
improvement in the condition of the nation. The establishment of the
Provincial Assemblies was, in itself, a fundamental improvement. They
would be of the choice of the people, one-third renewed every year,
in those provinces where there are no States, that is to say, over
about three-fourths of the kingdom. They would be partly an Executive
themselves, and partly an Executive Council to the Intendant, to whom
the Executive power, in his province, had been heretofore entirely
delegated. Chosen by the people, they would soften the execution
of hard laws, and, having a right of representation to the King,
they would censure bad laws, suggest good ones, expose abuses, and
their representations, when united, would command respect. To the
other advantages, might be added the precedent itself of calling the
Assemblée des Notables, which would perhaps grow into habit. The hope
was, that the improvements thus promised would be carried into effect;
that they would be maintained during the present reign, and that that
would be long enough for them to take some root in the constitution,
so that they might come to be considered as a part of that, and be
protected by time, and the attachment of the nation.
The Count de Vergennes had died a few days before the meeting of the
Assembly, and the Count de Montmorin had been named Minister of Foreign
Affairs, in his place. Villedeuil succeeded Calonne, as Comptroller
General, and Lomenie de Bryenne, Archbishop of Thoulouse, afterwards of
Sens, and ultimately Cardinal Lomenie, was named Minister principal,
with whom the other Ministers were to transact the business of their
departments, heretofore done with the King in person; and the Duke de
Nivernois, and M. de Malesherbes, were called to the Council. On the
nomination of the Minister principal, the Marshals de Segur and de
Castries retired from the departments of War and Marine, unwilling to
act subordinately, or to share the blame of proceedings taken out of
their direction. They were succeeded by the Count de Brienne, brother
of the Prime Minister, and the Marquis de La Luzerne, brother to him
who had been Minister in the United States.
A dislocated wrist, unsuccessfully set, occasioned advice from
my surgeon, to try the mineral waters of Aix, in Provence, as a
corroborant. I left Paris for that place therefore, on the 28th of
February, and proceeded up the Seine, through Champagne and Burgundy,
and down the Rhone through the Beaujolais by Lyons, Avignon, Nismes to
Aix; where, finding on trial no benefit from the waters, I concluded
to visit the rice country of Piedmont, to see if anything might be
learned there, to benefit the rivalship of our Carolina rice with
that, and thence to make a tour of the seaport towns of France, along
its Southern and Western coast, to inform myself, if anything could be
done to favor our commerce with them. From Aix, therefore, I took my
route by Marseilles, Toulon, Hieres, Nice, across the Col de Tende,
by Coni, Turin, Vercelli, Novara, Milan, Pavia, Novi, Genoa. Thence,
returning along the coast of Savona, Noli, Albenga, Oneglia, Monaco,
Nice, Antibes, Frejus, Aix, Marseilles, Avignon, Nismes, Montpellier,
Frontignan, Cette, Agde, and along the canal of Languedoc, by Bezieres,
Narbonne, Cascassonne, Castelnaudari, through the Souterrain of St.
Feriol, and back by Castelnaudari, to Toulouse; thence to Montauban,
and down the Garonne by Langon to Bordeaux. Thence to Rochefort, la
Rochelle, Nantes, L'Orient; then back by Rennes to Nantes, and up
the Loire by Angers, Tours, Amboise, Blois to Orleans, thence direct
to Paris, where I arrived on the 10th of June. Soon after my return
from this journey, to wit, about the latter part of July, I received
my younger daughter, Maria, from Virginia, by the way of London, the
youngest having died some time before.
The treasonable perfidy of the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder and
Captain General of the United Netherlands, in the war which England
waged against them, for entering into a treaty of commerce with the
United States, is known to all. As their Executive officer, charged
with the conduct of the war, he contrived to baffle all the measures of
the States General, to dislocate all their military plans, and played
false into the hands of England against his own country, on every
possible occasion, confident in her protection, and in that of the King
of Prussia, brother to his Princess. The States General, indignant at
this patricidal conduct, applied to France for aid, according to the
stipulations of the treaty concluded with her in '85. It was assured
to them readily, and in cordial terms, in a letter from the Count de
Vergennes, to the Marquis de Verac, Ambassador of France at the Hague,
of which the following is an extract:
"Extrait de la depéche de Monsieur le Comte de Vergennes à Monsieur le
Marquis de Verac, Ambassadeur de France à la Haye, du 1er Mars, 1786.
"Le Roi concourrera, autant, qu'il sera en son pouvoir, au succes de la
chose, et vous inviterez, de sa part, les patriotes de lui communiquer
leurs vues, leurs plans, et leurs envieux. Vous les assurerez, que le
roi prend un interet veritable à leurs personnes comme à leur cause,
et qu'ils peuvent compter sur sa protection. Ils doivent y compter
d'autant plus, Monsieur, que nous ne dissimulons pas, que si Monsieur
le Stadhoulder reprend son ancienne influence, le systeme Anglois ne
tardera pas de prevaloir, et que notre alliance deviendroit un être
de raison. Les Patriotes sentiront facilement, que cette position
seroit incompatible avec la dignite, comme avec la consideration de
sa majesté. Mais dans le cas, Monsieur, ou les chefs des Patriotes
auroient à craindre une scission, ils auroient le temps suffisant
pour ramener ceux de leurs amis, que les Anglomanes ont egares, et
preparer les choses de manière que la question de nouveau mise en
deliberation, soit decidee selon leurs desirs. Dans cette hypothese, le
roi vous autorise à agir de concert avec eux, de suivre la direction
qu'ils jugeront devoir vous donner, et d'employer tous les moyens
pour augmenter le nombre des partisans de la bonne cause. Il me reste,
Monsieur, de vous parler de la surete personelle des Patriotes. Vous
les assurerez, que dans tout etat de cause, le roi les prend sous
sa protection immediate, et vous ferez connoitre, partout ou vous
le jugerez necessaire, que sa Majesté regarderoit comme une offense
personnelle, tout ce qu'on entreprenderoit contre leur liberté. Il est
à presumer que ce langage, tenu avec energie, en imposera a l'audace
des Anglomanes, et que Monsieur le Prince de Nassau croira courir
quelque risque en provoquant le ressentiment de sa Majesté."[21]
This letter was communicated by the Patriots to me, when at Amsterdam,
in 1788, and a copy sent by me to Mr. Jay, in my letter to him of March
16, 1788.
The object of the Patriots was, to establish a representative and
republican government. The majority of the States General were with
them, but the majority of the populace of the towns was with the Prince
of Orange; and that populace was played off with great effect, by
the triumvirate of * * * Harris, the English Ambassador, afterwards
Lord Malmesbury, the Prince of Orange, a stupid man, and the Princess
as much a man as either of her colleagues, in audaciousness, in
enterprise, and in the thirst of domination. By these, the mobs of the
Hague were excited against the members of the States General; their
persons were insulted and endangered in the streets; the sanctuary
of their houses was violated; and the Prince, whose function and
duty it was to repress and punish these violations of order, took no
steps for that purpose. The States General, for their own protection,
were therefore obliged to place their militia under the command of
a Committee. The Prince filled the courts of London and Berlin with
complaints at this usurpation of his prerogatives, and, forgetting
that he was but the first servant of a Republic, marched his regular
troops against the city of Utrecht, where the States were in session.
They were repulsed by the militia. His interests now became marshalled
with those of the public enemy, and against his own country. The
States, therefore, exercising their rights of sovereignty, deprived
him of all his powers. The great Frederic had died in August, '86. He
had never intended to break with France in support of the Prince of
Orange. During the illness of which he died, he had, through the Duke
of Brunswick, declared to the Marquis de La Fayette, who was then at
Berlin, that he meant not to support the English interest in Holland:
that he might assure the government of France, his only wish was, that
some honorable place in the Constitution should be reserved for the
Stadtholder and his children, and that he would take no part in the
quarrel, unless an entire abolition of the Stadtholderate should be
attempted. But his place was now occupied by Frederic William, his
great nephew, a man of little understanding, much caprice, and very
inconsiderate; and the Princess, his sister, although her husband was
in arms against the legitimate authorities of the country, attempting
to go to Amsterdam, for the purpose of exciting the mobs of that
place, and being refused permission to pass a military post on the
way, he put the Duke of Brunswick at the head of twenty thousand men,
and made demonstrations of marching on Holland. The King of France
hereupon declared, by his Chargé des Affaires in Holland, that if
the Prussian troops continued to menace Holland with an invasion, his
Majesty, in quality of Ally, was determined to succor that province.
In answer to this, Eden gave official information to Count Montmorin,
that England must consider as at an end its convention with France
relative to giving notice of its naval armaments, and that she was
arming generally. War being now imminent, Eden, since Lord Aukland,
questioned me on the effect of our treaty with France, in the case
of a war, and what might be our dispositions. I told him frankly,
and without hesitation, that our dispositions would be neutral, and
that I thought it would be the interest of both these powers that we
should be so; because, it would relieve both from all anxiety as to
feeding their West India islands; that England, too, by suffering us to
remain so, would avoid a heavy land war on our Continent, which might
very much cripple her proceedings elsewhere; that our treaty, indeed,
obliged us to receive into our ports the armed vessels of France,
with their prizes, and to refuse admission to the prizes made on her
by her enemies: that there was a clause, also, by which we guaranteed
to France her American possessions, which might perhaps force us into
the war, if these were attacked. "Then it will be war," said he, "for
they will assuredly be attacked." Liston, at Madrid, about the same
time, made the same inquiries of Carmichael. The Government of France
then declared a determination to form a camp of observation at Givet,
commenced arming her marine, and named the Bailli de Suffrein their
Generalissimo on the Ocean. She secretly engaged, also, in negotiations
with Russia, Austria, and Spain, to form a quadruple alliance. The Duke
of Brunswick having advanced to the confines of Holland, sent some
of his officers to Givet, to reconnoitre the state of things there,
and report them to him. He said afterwards, that "if there had been
only a few tents at that place, he should not have advanced further,
for that the King would not, merely for the interest of his sister,
engage in a war with France." But, finding that there was not a single
company there, he boldly entered the country, took their towns as
fast as he presented himself before them, and advanced on Utrecht. The
States had appointed the Rhingrave of Salm their Commander-in-Chief;
a Prince without talents, without courage, and without principle.
He might have held out in Utrecht for a considerable time, but he
surrendered the place without firing a gun, literally ran away and
hid himself, so that for months it was not known what had become of
him. Amsterdam was then attacked, and capitulated. In the meantime,
the negotiations for the quadruple alliance were proceeding favorably;
but the secrecy with which they were attempted to be conducted, was
penetrated by Fraser, Chargé des Affaires of England at St. Petersburg,
who instantly notified his court, and gave the alarm to Prussia. The
King saw at once what would be his situation, between the jaws of
France, Austria, and Russia. In great dismay, he besought the court
of London not to abandon him, sent Alvensleben to Paris to explain and
soothe; and England, through the Duke of Dorset and Eden, renewed her
conferences for accommodation. The Archbishop, who shuddered at the
idea of war, and preferred a peaceful surrender of right to an armed
vindication of it, received them with open arms, entered into cordial
conferences, and a declaration, and counter-declaration, were cooked up
at Versailles, and sent to London for approbation. They were approved
there, reached Paris at one o'clock of the 27th, and were signed that
night at Versailles. It was said and believed at Paris, that M. de
Montmorin, literally "pleuroit comme un enfant," when obliged to sign
this counter-declaration; so distressed was he by the dishonor of
sacrificing the Patriots, after assurances so solemn of protection, and
absolute encouragement to proceed. The Prince of Orange was reinstated
in all his powers, now become regal. A great emigration of the Patriots
took place; all were deprived of office, many exiled, and their
property confiscated. They were received in France, and subsisted,
for some time, on her bounty. Thus fell Holland, by the treachery
of her Chief, from her honorable independence, to become a province
of England; and so, also, her Stadtholder, from the high station of
the first citizen of a free Republic, to be the servile Viceroy of a
foreign Sovereign. And this was effected by a mere scene of bullying
and demonstration; not one of the parties, France, England, or Prussia,
having ever really meant to encounter actual war for the interest of
the Prince of Orange. But it had all the effect of a real and decisive
war.
Our first essay, in America, to establish a federative government
had fallen, on trial, very short of its object. During the war of
Independence, while the pressure of an external enemy hooped us
together, and their enterprises kept us necessarily on the alert,
the spirit of the people, excited by danger, was a supplement to the
Confederation, and urged them to zealous exertions, whether claimed
by that instrument or not; but, when peace and safety were restored,
and every man became engaged in useful and profitable occupation, less
attention was paid to the calls of Congress. The fundamental defect
of the Confederation was, that Congress was not authorized to act
immediately on the people, and by its own officers. Their power was
only requisitory, and these requisitions were addressed to the several
Legislatures, to be by them carried into execution, without other
coercion than the moral principle of duty. This allowed, in fact, a
negative to every Legislature, on every measure proposed by Congress;
a negative so frequently exercised in practice, as to benumb the action
of the Federal government, and to render it inefficient in its general
objects, and more especially in pecuniary and foreign concerns. The
want, too, of a separation of the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary
functions, worked disadvantageously in practice. Yet this state of
things afforded a happy augury of the future march of our Confederacy,
when it was seen that the good sense and good dispositions of the
people, as soon as they perceived the incompetence of their first
compact, instead of leaving its correction to insurrection and civil
war, agreed, with one voice, to elect deputies to a general Convention,
who should peaceably meet and agree on such a Constitution as "would
ensure peace, justice, liberty, the common defence and general
welfare."
This Convention met at Philadelphia on the 25th of May, '87. It sat
with closed doors, and kept all its proceedings secret, until its
dissolution on the 17th of September, when the results of its labors
were published all together. I received a copy, early in November, and
read and contemplated its provisions with great satisfaction. As not
a member of the Convention, however, nor probably a single citizen of
the Union, had approved it in all its parts, so I, too, found articles
which I thought objectionable. The absence of express declarations
ensuring freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the
person under the uninterrupted protection of the Habeas corpus,
and trial by jury in Civil as well as in Criminal cases, excited my
jealousy; and the re-eligibility of the President for life, I quite
disapproved. I expressed freely, in letters to my friends, and most
particularly to Mr. Madison and General Washington, my approbations
and objections. How the good should be secured and the ill brought
to rights, was the difficulty. To refer it back to a new Convention
might endanger the loss of the whole. My first idea was, that the
nine States first acting, should accept it unconditionally, and thus
secure what in it was good, and that the four last should accept on
the previous condition, that certain amendments should be agreed to;
but a better course was devised, of accepting the whole, and trusting
that the good sense and honest intentions of our citizens, would make
the alterations which should be deemed necessary. Accordingly, all
accepted, six without objection, and seven with recommendations of
specified amendments. Those respecting the press, religion, and juries,
with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the
Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment
against the re-eligibility of the President was not proposed. My fears
of that feature were founded on the importance of the office, on the
fierce contentions it might excite among ourselves, if continuable
for life, and the dangers of interference, either with money or arms,
by foreign nations, to whom the choice of an American President might
become interesting. Examples of this abounded in history; in the
case of the Roman Emperors, for instance; of the Popes, while of any
significance; of the German Emperors; the Kings of Poland, and the
Deys of Barbary. I had observed, too, in the feudal history, and in
the recent instance, particularly, of the Stadtholder of Holland,
how easily offices, or tenures for life, slide into inheritances. My
wish, therefore, was, that the President should be elected for seven
years, and be ineligible afterwards. This term I thought sufficient to
enable him, with the concurrence of the Legislature, to carry through
and establish any system of improvement he should propose for the
general good. But the practice adopted, I think, is better, allowing
his continuance for eight years, with a liability to be dropped at
half way of the term, making that a period of probation. That his
continuance should be restrained to seven years, was the opinion of
the Convention at an earlier stage of its session, when it voted that
term, by a majority of eight against two, and by a simple majority
that he should be ineligible a second time. This opinion was confirmed
by the House so late as July 26, referred to the Committee of detail,
reported favorably by them, and changed to the present form by final
vote, on the last day but one only of their session. Of this change,
three States expressed their disapprobation; New York, by recommending
an amendment, that the President should not be eligible a third
time, and Virginia and North Carolina that he should not be capable
of serving more than eight, in any term of sixteen years; and though
this amendment has not been made in form, yet practice seems to have
established it. The example of four Presidents voluntarily retiring
at the end of their eighth year, and the progress of public opinion,
that the principle is salutary, have given it in practice the force of
precedent and usage; insomuch, that, should a President consent to be
a candidate for a third election, I trust he would be rejected, on this
demonstration of ambitious views.
But there was another amendment, of which none of us thought at the
time, and in the omission of which, lurks the germ that is to destroy
this happy combination of National powers in the General government,
for matters of National concern, and independent powers in the States,
for what concerns the States severally. In England, it was a great
point gained at the Revolution, that the commissions of the Judges,
which had hitherto been during pleasure, should thenceforth be made
during good behavior. A Judiciary, dependent on the will of the King,
had proved itself the most oppressive of all tools, in the hands of
that Magistrate. Nothing, then, could be more salutary, than a change
there, to the tenure of good behavior; and the question of good
behavior, left to the vote of a simple majority in the two Houses of
Parliament. Before the Revolution, we were all good English Whigs,
cordial in their free principles, and in their jealousies of their
Executive Magistrate. These jealousies are very apparent, in all our
state Constitutions; and, in the General government in this instance,
we have gone even beyond the English caution, by requiring a vote
of two-thirds, in one of the Houses, for removing a Judge; a vote
so impossible, where[22] any defence is made, before men of ordinary
prejudices and passions, that our Judges are effectually independent
of the nation. But this ought not to be. I would not, indeed, make them
dependent on the Executive authority, as they formerly were in England;
but I deem it indispensable to the continuance of this government,
that they should be submitted to some practical and impartial control;
and that this, to be imparted, must be compounded of a mixture of
State and Federal authorities. It is not enough that honest men are
appointed Judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of
man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence.
To this bias add that of the _esprit de corps_, of their peculiar
maxim and creed, that "it is the office of a good Judge to enlarge his
jurisdiction," and the absence of responsibility; and how can we expect
impartial decision between the General government, of which they are
themselves so eminent a part, and an individual State, from which they
have nothing to hope or fear? We have seen, too, that contrary to all
correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question
before them, to throw an anchor ahead, and grapple further hold for
future advances of power. They are then, in fact, the corps of sappers
and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the
States, and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in
which they have so important a freehold estate. But it is not by the
consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution,
that good government is effected. Were not this great country already
divided into States, that division must be made, that each might do for
itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do
than a distant authority. Every State again is divided into counties,
each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county
again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every
ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we
should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending
in gradation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs
may be best managed, for the good and prosperity of all. I repeat, that
I do not charge the Judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but
honest error must be arrested, where its toleration leads to public
ruin. As, for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to
Bedlam, so judges should be withdrawn from their bench, whose erroneous
biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in
fame or in fortune; but it saves the Republic, which is the first and
supreme law.
Among the debilities of the government of the Confederation, no one was
more distinguished or more distressing, than the utter impossibility
of obtaining, from the States, the moneys necessary for the payment
of debts, or even for the ordinary expenses of the government. Some
contributed a little, some less, and some nothing; and the last
furnished at length an excuse for the first to do nothing also. Mr.
Adams, while residing at the Hague, had a general authority to borrow
what sums might be requisite, for ordinary and necessary expenses.
Interest on the public debt, and the maintenance of the diplomatic
establishment in Europe, had been habitually provided in this way.
He was now elected Vice-President of the United States, was soon to
return to America, and had referred our bankers to me for future
counsel, on our affairs in their hands. But I had no powers, no
instructions, no means, and no familiarity with the subject. It had
always been exclusively under his management, except as to occasional
and partial deposits in the hands of Mr. Grand, banker in Paris, for
special and local purposes. These last had been exhausted for some
time, and I had fervently pressed the Treasury board to replenish
this particular deposit, as Mr. Grand now refused to make further
advances. They answered candidly, that no funds could be obtained
until the new government should get into action, and have time to make
its arrangements. Mr. Adams had received his appointment to the court
of London, while engaged at Paris, with Dr. Franklin and myself, in
the negotiations under our joint commissions. He had repaired thence
to London, without returning to the Hague, to take leave of that
government. He thought it necessary, however, to do so now, before
he should leave Europe, and accordingly went there. I learned his
departure from London, by a letter from Mrs. Adams, received on the
very day on which he would arrive at the Hague. A consultation with
him, and some provision for the future, was indispensable, while we
could yet avail ourselves of his powers; for when they would be gone,
we should be without resource. I was daily dunned by a Company who
had formerly made a small loan to the United States, the principal of
which was now become due; and our bankers in Amsterdam, had notified
me that the interest on our general debt would be expected in June;
that if we failed to pay it, it would be deemed an act of bankruptcy,
and would effectually destroy the credit of the United States, and all
future prospect of obtaining money there; that the loan they had been
authorized to open, of which a third only was filled, had now ceased
to get forward, and rendered desperate that hope of resource. I saw
that there was not a moment to lose, and set out for the Hague on the
second morning after receiving the information of Mr. Adams's journey.
I went the direct road by Louvres, Senlis, Roye, Pont St. Maxence,
Bois le duc, Gournay, Peronne, Cambray, Bouchain, Valenciennes,
Mons, Bruxelles, Malines, Antwerp, Mordick, and Rotterdam, to the
Hague, where I happily found Mr. Adams. He concurred with me at once
in opinion, that something must be done, and that we ought to risk
ourselves on doing it without instructions, to save the credit of the
United States. We foresaw, that before the new government could be
adopted, assembled, establish its financial system, get the money into
the Treasury, and place it in Europe, considerable time would elapse;
that, therefore, we had better provide at once, for the years '88, '89,
and '90, in order to place our government at its ease, and our credit
in security, during that trying interval. We set out, therefore, by
the way of Leyden, for Amsterdam, where we arrived on the 10th. I had
prepared an estimate, showing that
Florins.
There would be necessary for the year '88--531,937-10
'89--538,540
'90--473,540
------------
Total, 1,544,017-10
Florins.
To meet this,
the bankers had in hand, 79,268-2-8
and the unsold bonds
would yield, 542,800 622,068-2-8
------- -----------
Leaving a deficit of 921,949-7-4
We proposed then to borrow a million,
yielding 920,000
-----------
Which would leave a small deficiency of 1,949-7-4
Mr. Adams accordingly executed 1000 bonds, for 1000 florins each, and
deposited them in the hands of our bankers, with instructions, however,
not to issue them until Congress should ratify the measure. This done,
he returned to London, and I set out for Paris; and, as nothing urgent
forbade it, I determined to return along the banks of the Rhine, to
Strasburg, and thence strike off to Paris. I accordingly left Amsterdam
on the 30th of March, and proceeded by Utrecht, Nimeguen, Cleves,
Duysberg, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Bonne, Coblentz, Nassau, Hocheim,
Frankfort, and made an excursion to Hanau, thence to Mayence, and
another excursion to Rudesheim, and Johansberg; then by Oppenheim,
Worms, and Manheim, making an excursion to Heidelberg, then by Spire,
Carlsruh, Rastadt and Kelh, to Strasburg, where I arrived April the
16th, and proceeded again on the 18th, by Phalsbourg, Fenestrange,
Dieuze, Moyenvie, Nancy, Toul, Ligny, Barleduc, St. Diziers, Vitry,
Chalons sur Marne, Epernay, Chateau Thierri, Meaux, to Paris, where I
arrived on the 23d of April; and I had the satisfaction to reflect,
that by this journey our credit was secured, the new government was
placed at ease for two years to come, and that, as well as myself,
relieved from the torment of incessant duns, whose just complaints
could not be silenced by any means within our power.
A Consular Convention had been agreed on in '84, between Dr. Franklin
and the French government, containing several articles, so entirely
inconsistent with the laws of the several States, and the general
spirit of our citizens, that Congress withheld their ratification, and
sent it back to me, with instructions to get those articles expunged,
or modified so as to render them compatible with our laws. The Minister
unwillingly released us from these concessions, which, indeed,
authorized the exercise of powers very offensive in a free State.
After much discussion, the Convention was reformed in a considerable
degree, and was signed by the Count Montmorin and myself, on the 14th
of November, '88; not, indeed, such as I would have wished, but such as
could be obtained with good humor and friendship.
On my return from Holland, I found Paris as I had left it, still in
high fermentation. Had the Archbishop, on the close of the Assembly of
Notables, immediately carried into operation the measures contemplated,
it was believed they would all have been registered by the Parliament;
but he was slow, presented his edicts, one after another, and at
considerable intervals, which gave time for the feelings excited by the
proceedings of the Notables to cool off, new claims to be advanced, and
a pressure to arise for a fixed constitution, not subject to changes
at the will of the King. Nor should we wonder at this pressure, when
we consider the monstrous abuses of power under which this people
were ground to powder; when we pass in review the weight of their
taxes, and the inequality of their distribution; the oppressions of
the tithes, the tailles, the corvees, the gabelles, the farms and
the barriers; the shackles on commerce by monopolies; on industry by
guilds and corporations; on the freedom of conscience, of thought,
and of speech; on the freedom of the press by the Censure; and of
the person by Lettres de Cachet; the cruelty of the Criminal code
generally; the atrocities of the Rack; the venality of the Judges,
and their partialities to the rich; the monopoly of Military honors
by the Noblesse; the enormous expenses of the Queen, the Princes and
the Court; the prodigalities of pensions; and the riches, luxury,
indolence and immorality of the Clergy. Surely under such a mass of
misrule and oppression, a people might justly press for a thorough
reformation, and might even dismount their rough-shod riders, and
leave them to walk on their own legs. The edicts, relative to the
corvees and free circulation of grain, were first presented to the
Parliament and registered; but those for the impôt territorial, and
stamp tax, offered some time after, were refused by the Parliament,
which proposed a call of the States General, as alone competent to
their authorization. Their refusal produced a Bed of justice, and
their exile to Troyes. The Advocates, however, refusing to attend
them, a suspension in the administration of justice took place. The
Parliament held out for awhile, but the ennui of their exile and
absence from Paris, began at length to be felt, and some dispositions
for compromise to appear. On their consent, therefore, to prolong some
of the former taxes, they were recalled from exile, the King met them
in session, November 19, '87, promised to call the States General in
the year '92, and a majority expressed their assent to register an
edict for successive and annual loans from 1788 to '92; but a protest
being entered by the Duke of Orleans, and this encouraging others in a
disposition to retract, the King ordered peremptorily the registry of
the edict, and left the assembly abruptly. The Parliament immediately
protested, that the votes for the enregistry had not been legally
taken, and that they gave no sanction to the loans proposed. This was
enough to discredit and defeat them. Hereupon issued another edict,
for the establishment of a cour plenière, and the suspension of all the
Parliaments in the kingdom. This being opposed, as might be expected,
by reclamations from all the Parliaments and Provinces, the King gave
way, and by an edict of July 5th, '88, renounced his cour plenière, and
promised the States General for the 1st of May, of the ensuing year;
and the Archbishop, finding the times beyond his faculties, accepted
the promise of a Cardinal's hat, was removed [September '88] from the
Ministry, and M. Necker was called to the department of finance. The
innocent rejoicings of the people of Paris on this change provoked the
interference of an officer of the city guards, whose order for their
dispersion not being obeyed, he charged them with fixed bayonets,
killed two or three, and wounded many. This dispersed them for the
moment, but they collected the next day in great numbers, burnt ten or
twelve guardhouses, killed two or three of the guards, and lost six or
eight more of their own number. The city was hereupon put under Martial
law, and after awhile the tumult subsided. The effect of this change
of ministers, and the promise of the States General at an early day,
tranquillized the nation. But two great questions now occurred. 1st.
What proportion shall the number of deputies of the Tiers etat bear to
those of the Nobles and Clergy? And 2d, shall they sit in the same or
in distinct apartments? M. Necker, desirous of avoiding himself these
knotty questions, proposed a second call of the same Notables, and that
their advice should be asked on the subject. They met, November 9, '88;
and, by five bureaux against one, they recommended the forms of the
States General of 1614; wherein the Houses were separate, and voted by
orders, not by persons. But the whole nation declaring at once against
this, and that the Tiers etat should be, in numbers, equal to both the
other orders, and the Parliament deciding for the same proportion,
it was determined so to be, by a declaration of December 27th, '88.
A Report of M. Necker, to the King, of about the same date, contained
other very important concessions. 1. That the King could neither lay
a new tax, nor prolong an old one. 2. It expressed a readiness to
agree on the periodical meeting of the States. 3. To consult on the
necessary restriction on Lettres de Cachet; and 4. How far the press
might be made free. 5. It admits that the States are to appropriate
the public money; and 6. That Ministers shall be responsible for
public expenditures. And these concessions came from the very heart
of the King. He had not a wish but for the good of the nation; and
for that object, no personal sacrifice would ever have cost him a
moment's regret; but his mind was weakness itself, his constitution
timid, his judgment null, and without sufficient firmness even to
stand by the faith of his word. His Queen, too, haughty and bearing
no contradiction, had an absolute ascendancy over him; and around her
were rallied the King's brother d'Artois, the court generally, and the
aristocratic part of his Ministers, particularly Breteuil, Broglio,
Vauguyon, Foulon, Luzerne, men whose principles of government were
those of the age of Louis XIV. Against this host, the good counsels
of Necker, Montmorin, St. Priest, although in unison with the wishes
of the King himself, were of little avail. The resolutions of the
morning, formed under their advice, would be reversed in the evening,
by the influence of the Queen and court. But the hand of heaven weighed
heavily indeed on the machinations of this junto; producing collateral
incidents, not arising out of the case, yet powerfully co-exciting
the nation to force a regeneration of its government, and overwhelming
with accumulated difficulties, this liberticide resistance. For, while
laboring under the want of money for even ordinary purposes, in a
government which required a million of livres a day, and driven to the
last ditch by the universal call for liberty, there came on a winter
of such severe cold, as was without example in the memory of man, or
in the written records of history. The Mercury was at times 50° below
the freezing point of Fahrenheit, and 22° below that of Reaumur. All
out-door labor was suspended, and the poor, without the wages of labor,
were, of course, without either bread or fuel. The government found
its necessities aggravated by that of procuring immense quantities of
fire-wood, and of keeping great fires at all the cross streets, around
which the people gathered in crowds, to avoid perishing with cold.
Bread, too, was to be bought, and distributed daily, gratis, until
a relaxation of the season should enable the people to work; and the
slender stock of bread stuff had for some time threatened famine, and
had raised that article to an enormous price. So great, indeed, was the
scarcity of bread, that, from the highest to the lowest citizen, the
bakers were permitted to deal but a scanty allowance per head, even
to those who paid for it; and, in cards of invitation to dine in the
richest houses, the guest was notified to bring his own bread. To eke
out the existence of the people, every person who had the means, was
called on for a weekly subscription, which the Curés collected, and
employed in providing messes for the nourishment of the poor, and vied
with each other in devising such economical compositions of food, as
would subsist the greatest number with the smallest means. This want
of bread had been foreseen for some time past, and M. de Montmorin had
desired me to notify it in America, and that, in addition to the market
price, a premium should be given on what should be brought from the
United States. Notice was accordingly given, and produced considerable
supplies. Subsequent information made the importations from America,
during the months of March, April and May, into the Atlantic ports of
France, amount to about twenty-one thousand barrels of flour, besides
what went to other ports, and in other months; while our supplies to
their West Indian islands relieved them also from that drain. This
distress for bread continued till July.
Hitherto no acts of popular violence had been produced by the struggle
for political reformation. Little riots, on ordinary incidents, had
taken place as at other times, in different parts of the kingdom, in
which some lives, perhaps a dozen or twenty, had been lost; but in the
month of April, a more serious one occurred in Paris, unconnected,
indeed, with the Revolutionary principle, but making part of the
history of the day. The Fauxbourg St. Antoine is a quarter of the
city inhabited entirely by the class of day laborers and journeymen
in every line. A rumor was spread among them, that a great paper
manufacturer, of the name of Reveillon, had proposed, on some occasion,
that their wages should be lowered to fifteen sous a day. Inflamed
at once into rage, and without inquiring into its truth, they flew
to his house in vast numbers, destroyed everything in it, and in his
magazines and work-shops, without secreting, however, a pin's worth
to themselves, and were continuing this work of devastation, when the
regular troops were called in. Admonitions being disregarded, they were
of necessity fired on, and a regular action ensued, in which about one
hundred of them were killed, before the rest would disperse. There
had rarely passed a year without such a riot, in some part or other
of the Kingdom; and this is distinguished only as cotemporary with the
Revolution, although not produced by it.
The States General were opened on the 5th of May, '89, by speeches from
the King, the Garde des Sceaux, Lamoignon, and M. Necker. The last
was thought to trip too lightly over the constitutional reformations
which were expected. His notices of them in this speech, were not
as full as in his previous 'Rapport au Roi.' This was observed, to
his disadvantage; but much allowance should have been made for the
situation in which he was placed, between his own counsels, and those
of the ministers and party of the court. Overruled in his own opinions,
compelled to deliver, and to gloss over those of his opponents, and
even to keep their secrets, he could not come forward in his own
attitude.
The composition of the Assembly, although equivalent, on the whole,
to what had been expected, was something different in its elements. It
had been supposed, that a superior education would carry into the scale
of the Commons a respectable portion of the Noblesse. It did so as to
those of Paris, of its vicinity, and of the other considerable cities,
whose greater intercourse with enlightened society had liberalized
their minds, and prepared them to advance up to the measure of the
times. But the Noblesse of the country, which constituted two-thirds
of that body, were far in their rear. Residing constantly on their
patrimonial feuds, and familiarized, by daily habit, with Seigneurial
powers and practices, they had not yet learned to suspect their
inconsistence with reason and right. They were willing to submit
to equality of taxation, but not to descend from their rank and
prerogatives to be incorporated in session with the Tiers etat. Among
the Clergy, on the other hand, it had been apprehended that the higher
orders of the Hierarchy, by their wealth and connections, would have
carried the elections generally; but it turned out, that in most cases,
the lower clergy had obtained the popular majorities. These consisted
of the Curés, sons of the peasantry, who had been employed to do all
the drudgery of parochial services for ten, twenty, or thirty Louis a
year; while their superiors were consuming their princely revenues in
palaces of luxury and indolence.
The objects for which this body was convened, being of the first order
of importance, I felt it very interesting to understand the views
of the parties of which it was composed, and especially the ideas
prevalent as to the organization contemplated for their government.
I went, therefore, daily from Paris to Versailles, and attended
their debates, generally till the hour of adjournment. Those of the
Noblesse were impassioned and tempestuous. They had some able men on
both sides, actuated by equal zeal. The debates of the Commons were
temperate, rational, and inflexibly firm. As preliminary to all other
business, the awful questions came on, shall the States sit in one,
or in distinct apartments? And shall they vote by heads or houses?
The opposition was soon found to consist of the Episcopal order among
the clergy, and two-thirds of the Noblesse; while the Tiers etat
were, to a man, united and determined. After various propositions
of compromise had failed, the Commons undertook to cut the Gordian
knot. The Abbe Sieyes, the most logical head of the nation, (author
of the pamphlet "Qu'est ce que le Tiers etat?" which had electrified
that country, as Paine's Common Sense did us,) after an impressive
speech on the 10th of June, moved that a last invitation should be
sent to the Noblesse and Clergy, to attend in the hall of the States,
collectively or individually, for the verification of powers, to which
the Commons would proceed immediately, either in their presence or
absence. This verification being finished, a motion was made, on the
15th, that they should constitute themselves a National Assembly;
which was decided on the 17th, by a majority of four-fifths. During
the debates on this question, about twenty of the Curés had joined
them, and a proposition was made, in the chamber of the Clergy, that
their whole body should join. This was rejected, at first, by a small
majority only; but, being afterwards somewhat modified, it was decided
affirmatively, by a majority of eleven. While this was under debate,
and unknown to the court, to wit, on the 19th, a council was held in
the afternoon, at Marly, wherein it was proposed that the King should
interpose, by a declaration of his sentiments, in a _seance royale_. A
form of declaration was proposed by Necker, which, while it censured,
in general, the proceedings, both of the Nobles and Commons, announced
the King's views, such as substantially to coincide with the Commons.
It was agreed to in Council, the _seance_ was fixed for the 22d, the
meetings of the States were till then to be suspended, and everything,
in the meantime, kept secret. The members, the next morning (the
20th) repairing to their house, as usual, found the doors shut and
guarded, a proclamation posted up for a _seance royale_ on the 22d,
and a suspension of their meetings in the meantime. Concluding that
their dissolution was now to take place, they repaired to a building
called the "Jeu de paume" (or Tennis court) and there bound themselves
by oath to each other, never to separate, of their own accord, till
they had settled a constitution for the nation, on a solid basis,
and, if separated by force, that they would reassemble in some other
place. The next day they met in the church of St. Louis, and were
joined by a majority of the clergy. The heads of the Aristocracy saw
that all was lost without some bold exertion. The King was still at
Marly. Nobody was permitted to approach him but their friends. He was
assailed by falsehoods in all shapes. He was made to believe that the
Commons were about to absolve the army from their oath of fidelity
to him, and to raise their pay. The court party were now all rage
and desperation. They procured a committee to be held, consisting of
the King and his Ministers, to which Monsieur and the Count d'Artois
should be admitted. At this committee, the latter attacked M. Necker
personally, arraigned his declaration, and proposed one which some of
his prompters had put into his hands. M. Necker was brow-beaten and
intimidated, and the King shaken. He determined that the two plans
should be deliberated on the next day, and the _seance royale_ put
off a day longer. This encouraged a fiercer attack on M. Necker the
next day. His draught of a declaration was entirely broken up, and
that of the Count d'Artois inserted into it. Himself and Montmorin
offered their resignation, which was refused; the Count d'Artois saying
to M. Necker, "No sir, you must be kept as the hostage; we hold you
responsible for all the ill which shall happen." This change of plan
was immediately whispered without doors. The Noblesse were in triumph;
the people in consternation. I was quite alarmed at this state of
things. The soldiery had not yet indicated which side they should
take, and that which they should support would be sure to prevail.
I considered a successful reformation of government in France, as
insuring a general reformation through Europe, and the resurrection,
to a new life, of their people, now ground to dust by the abuses of
the governing powers. I was much acquainted with the leading patriots
of the Assembly. Being from a country which had successfully passed
through a similar reformation, they were disposed to my acquaintance,
and had some confidence in me. I urged, most strenuously, an immediate
compromise; to secure what the government was now ready to yield,
and trust to future occasions for what might still be wanting. It was
well understood that the King would grant, at this time, 1. Freedom
of the person by Habeas corpus: 2. Freedom of conscience: 3. Freedom
of the press: 4. Trial by jury: 5. A representative Legislature: 6.
Annual meetings: 7. The origination of laws: 8. The exclusive right of
taxation and appropriation: and 9. The responsibility of Ministers;
and with the exercise of these powers they could obtain, in future,
whatever might be further necessary to improve and preserve their
constitution. They thought otherwise, however, and events have proved
their lamentable error. For, after thirty years of war, foreign and
domestic, the loss of millions of lives, the prostration of private
happiness, and the foreign subjugation of their own country for a
time, they have obtained no more, nor even that securely. They were
unconscious of (for who could foresee?) the melancholy sequel of
their well-meant perseverance; that their physical force would be
usurped by a first tyrant to trample on the independence, and even the
existence, of other nations: that this would afford a fatal example
for the atrocious conspiracy of Kings against their people; would
generate their unholy and homicide alliance to make common cause among
themselves, and to crush, by the power of the whole, the efforts of any
part to moderate their abuses and oppressions.
When the King passed, the next day, through the lane formed from the
Chateau to the "Hotel des etats," there was a dead silence. He was
about an hour in the House, delivering his speech and declaration.
On his coming out, a feeble cry of "vive le Roi" was raised by some
children, but the people remained silent and sullen. In the close of
his speech, he had ordered that the members should follow him, and
resume their deliberations the next day. The Noblesse followed him, and
so did the Clergy, except about thirty, who, with the Tiers, remained
in the room, and entered into deliberation. They protested against
what the King had done, adhered to all their former proceedings, and
resolved the inviolability of their own persons. An officer came, to
order them out of the room in the King's name. "Tell those who sent
you," said Mirabeau, "that we shall not move hence but at our own will,
or the point of the bayonet." In the afternoon, the people, uneasy,
began to assemble in great numbers in the courts, and vicinities of
the palace. This produced alarm. The Queen sent for M. Necker. He was
conducted, amidst the shouts and acclamations of the multitude, who
filled all the apartments of the palace. He was a few minutes only
with the Queen, and what passed between them did not transpire. The
King went out to ride. He passed through the crowd to his carriage, and
into it, without being in the least noticed. As M. Necker followed him,
universal acclamations were raised of "vive Monsieur Necker, vive le
sauveur de la France opprimée." He was conducted back to his house with
the same demonstrations of affection and anxiety. About two hundred
deputies of the Tiers, catching the enthusiasm of the moment, went to
his house, and extorted from him a promise that he would not resign.
On the 25th, forty-eight of the Nobles joined the Tiers, and among
them the Duke of Orleans. There were then with them one hundred and
sixty-four members of the Clergy, although the minority of that body
still sat apart, and called themselves the Chamber of the Clergy. On
the 26th, the Archbishop of Paris joined the Tiers, as did some others
of the Clergy and of the Noblesse.
These proceedings had thrown the people into violent ferment. It gained
the soldiery, first of the French guards, extended to those of every
other denomination, except the Swiss, and even to the body guards of
the King. They began to quit their barracks, to assemble in squads, to
declare they would defend the life of the King, but would not be the
murderers of their fellow-citizens. They called themselves the soldiers
_of the nation_, and left now no doubt on which side they would be,
in case of rupture. Similar accounts came in from the troops in other
parts of the kingdom, giving good reason to believe they would side
with their fathers and brothers, rather than with their officers.
The operation of this medicine at Versailles was as sudden as it was
powerful. The alarm there was so complete, that in the afternoon of
the 27th, the King wrote, with his own hand, letters to the Presidents
of the Clergy and Nobles, engaging them immediately to join the Tiers.
These two bodies were debating, and hesitating, when notes from the
Count d'Artois decided their compliance. They went in a body, and took
their seats with the Tiers, and thus rendered the union of the orders
in one chamber complete.
The Assembly now entered on the business of their mission, and first
proceeded to arrange the order in which they would take up the heads of
their constitution, as follows:
First, and as Preliminary to the whole, a general Declaration of the
Rights of Man. Then, specifically, the Principles of the Monarchy;
Rights of the Nation; rights of the King; rights of the Citizens;
organization and rights of the National Assembly; forms necessary for
the enactment of Laws; organization and functions of the Provincial
and Municipal Assemblies; duties and limits of the Judiciary power;
functions and duties of the Military power.
A Declaration of the Rights of Man, as the preliminary of their work,
was accordingly prepared and proposed by the Marquis de La Fayette.
But the quiet of their march was soon disturbed by information that
troops, and particularly the foreign troops, were advancing on Paris
from various quarters. The King had probably been advised to this,
on the pretext of preserving peace in Paris. But his advisers were
believed to have other things in contemplation. The Marshal de Broglio
was appointed to their command, a high-flying aristocrat, cool and
capable of everything. Some of the French guards were soon arrested,
under other pretexts, but really, on account of their dispositions in
favor of the National cause. The people of Paris forced their prison,
liberated them, and sent a deputation to the Assembly to solicit a
pardon. The Assembly recommended peace and order to the people of
Paris, the prisoners to the King, and asked from him the removal of
the troops. His answer was negative and dry, saying they might remove
themselves, if they pleased, to Noyons or Soissons. In the meantime,
these troops, to the number of twenty or thirty thousand, had arrived,
and were posted in, and between Paris and Versailles. The bridges and
passes were guarded. At three o'clock in the afternoon of the 11th
of July, the Count de La Luzerne was sent to notify M. Necker of his
dismission, and to enjoin him to retire instantly, without saying a
word of it to anybody. He went home, dined, and proposed to his wife a
visit to a friend, but went in fact to his country house at St. Ouen,
and at midnight set out for Brussels. This was not known till the next
day (the 12th,) when the whole Ministry was changed, except Villedeuil,
of the domestic department, and Barenton, Garde des sceaux. The changes
were as follows:
The Baron de Breteuil, President of the Council of Finance; de la
Galaisiere, Comptroller General, in the room of M. Necker; the Marshal
de Broglio, Minister of War, and Foulon under him, in the room of
Puy-Segur; the Duke de la Vauguyon, Minister of Foreign Affairs,
instead of the Count de Montmorin; de La Porte, Minister of Marine, in
place of the Count de La Luzerne; St. Priest was also removed from the
Council. Luzerne and Puy-Segur had been strongly of the Aristocratic
party in the Council, but they were not considered equal to the work
now to be done. The King was now completely in the hands of men,
the principal among whom had been noted, through their lives, for
the Turkish despotism of their characters, and who were associated
around the King, as proper instruments for what was to be executed.
The news of this change began to be known at Paris, about one or two
o'clock. In the afternoon, a body of about one hundred German cavalry
were advanced, and drawn up in the Place Louis XV., and about two
hundred Swiss posted at a little distance in their rear. This drew
people to the spot, who thus accidentally found themselves in front
of the troops, merely at first as spectators; but, as their numbers
increased, their indignation rose. They retired a few steps, and
posted themselves on and behind large piles of stones, large and small,
collected in that place for a bridge, which was to be built adjacent
to it. In this position, happening to be in my carriage on a visit,
I passed through the lane they had formed, without interruption. But
the moment after I had passed, the people attacked the cavalry with
stones. They charged, but the advantageous position of the people, and
the showers of stones, obliged the horse to retire, and quit the field
altogether, leaving one of their number on the ground, and the Swiss
in the rear not moving to their aid. This was the signal for universal
insurrection, and this body of cavalry, to avoid being massacred,
retired towards Versailles. The people now armed themselves with such
weapons as they could find in armorer's shops, and private houses,
and with bludgeons; and were roaming all night, through all parts of
the city, without any decided object. The next day (the 13th,) the
Assembly pressed on the King to send away the troops, to permit the
Bourgeoisie of Paris to arm for the preservation of order in the city,
and offered to send a deputation from their body to tranquillize them;
but their propositions were refused. A committee of magistrates and
electors of the city were appointed by those bodies, to take upon them
its government. The people, now openly joined by the French guards,
forced the prison of St. Lazare, released all the prisoners, and took
a great store of corn, which they carried to the corn-market. Here they
got some arms, and the French guards began to form and train them. The
city-committee determined to raise forty-eight thousand Bourgeoise,
or rather to restrain their numbers to forty-eight thousand. On the
14th, they sent one of their members (Monsieur de Corny) to the Hotel
des Invalides, to ask arms for their Garde Bourgeoise. He was followed
by, and he found there, a great collection of people. The Governor
of the Invalids came out, and represented the impossibility of his
delivering arms, without the orders of those from whom he received
them. De Corny advised the people then to retire, and retired himself;
but the people took possession of the arms. It was remarkable, that
not only the Invalids themselves made no opposition, but that a body
of five thousand foreign troops, within four hundred yards, never
stirred. M. de Corny, and five others, were then sent to ask arms of M.
de Launay, Governor of the Bastile. They found a great collection of
people already before the place, and they immediately planted a flag
of truce, which was answered by a like flag hoisted on the parapet.
The deputation prevailed on the people to fall back a little, advanced
themselves to make their demand of the Governor, and in that instant,
a discharge from the Bastile killed four persons of those nearest to
the deputies. The deputies retired. I happened to be at the house of
M. de Corny, when he returned to it, and received from him a narrative
of these transactions. On the retirement of the deputies, the people
rushed forward, and almost in an instant, were in possession of a
fortification of infinite strength, defended by one hundred men, which
in other times had stood several regular sieges, and had never been
taken. How they forced their entrance has never been explained. They
took all the arms, discharged the prisoners, and such of the garrison
as were not killed in the first moment of fury; carried the Governor
and Lieutenant Governor, to the Place de Grève, (the place of public
execution,) cut off their heads, and sent them through the city, in
triumph, to the Palais royal. About the same instant, a treacherous
correspondence having been discovered in M. de Flesselles, Prevôt
des Marchands, they seized him in the Hotel de Ville, where he was
in the execution of his office, and cut off his head. These events,
carried imperfectly to Versailles, were the subject of two successive
deputations from the Assembly to the King, to both of which he gave dry
and hard answers; for nobody had as yet been permitted to inform him,
truly and fully, of what had passed at Paris. But at night, the Duke
de Liancourt forced his way into the King's bed chamber, and obliged
him to hear a full and animated detail of the disasters of the day
in Paris. He went to bed fearfully impressed. The decapitation of de
Launay worked powerfully through the night on the whole Aristocratic
party; insomuch, that in the morning, those of the greatest influence
on the Count d'Artois, represented to him the absolute necessity that
the King should give up everything to the Assembly. This according with
the dispositions of the King, he went about eleven o'clock, accompanied
only by his brothers, to the Assembly, and there read to them a
speech, in which he asked their interposition to re-establish order.
Although couched in terms of some caution, yet the manner in which
it was delivered, made it evident that it was meant as a surrender
at discretion. He returned to the Chateau a foot, accompanied by the
Assembly. They sent off a deputation to quiet Paris, at the head of
which was the Marquis de La Fayette, who had, the same morning, been
named Commandant en chef of the Milice Bourgeoise; and Monsieur Bailly,
former President of the States General, was called for as Prevôt des
Marchands. The demolition of the Bastile was now ordered and begun. A
body of the Swiss guards, of the regiment of Ventimille, and the city
horse guards joined the people. The alarm at Versailles increased. The
foreign troops were ordered off instantly. Every Minister resigned.
The King confirmed Bailly as Prevôt des Marchands, wrote to M. Necker,
to recall him, sent his letter open to the Assembly, to be forwarded
by them, and invited them to go with him to Paris the next day, to
satisfy the city of his dispositions; and that night, and the next
morning, the Count d'Artois, and M. de Montesson, a deputy connected
with him, Madame de Polignac, Madame de Guiche, and the Count de
Vaudreuil, favorites of the Queen, the Abbe de Vermont her confessor,
the Prince of Conde, and Duke of Bourbon fled. The King came to Paris,
leaving the Queen in consternation for his return. Omitting the less
important figures of the procession, the King's carriage was in the
centre; on each side of it, the Assembly, in two ranks a foot; at their
head the Marquis de La Fayette, as Commander-in-chief, on horseback,
and Bourgeois guards before and behind. About sixty thousand citizens,
of all forms and conditions, armed with the conquests of the Bastile
and Invalids, as far as they would go, the rest with pistols, swords,
pikes, pruning-hooks, scythes, &c., lined all the streets through which
the procession passed, and with the crowds of people in the streets,
doors, and windows, saluted them everywhere with the cries of "vive
la nation," but not a single "vive le Roi" was heard. The King stopped
at the Hotel de Ville. There M. Bailly presented and put into his hat,
the popular cockade, and addressed him. The King being unprepared, and
unable to answer, Bailly went to him, gathered from him some scraps of
sentences, and made out an answer, which he delivered to the audience,
as from the King. On their return, the popular cries were "vive le Roi
et la nation." He was conducted by a garde Bourgeoise to his palace at
Versailles, and thus concluded an "amende honorable," as no sovereign
ever made, and no people ever received.
And here, again, was lost another precious occasion of sparing to
France the crimes and cruelties through which she has since passed,
and to Europe, and finally America, the evils which flowed on them
also from this mortal source. The King was now become a passive
machine in the hands of the National Assembly, and had he been left to
himself, he would have willingly acquiesced in whatever they should
devise as best for the nation. A wise constitution would have been
formed, hereditary in his line, himself placed at its head, with
powers so large as to enable him to do all the good of his station,
and so limited, as to restrain him from its abuse. This he would
have faithfully administered, and more than this, I do not believe,
he ever wished. But he had a Queen of absolute sway over his weak
mind and timid virtue, and of a character the reverse of his in all
points. This angel, as gaudily painted in the rhapsodies of Burke, with
some smartness of fancy, but no sound sense, was proud, disdainful
of restraint, indignant at all obstacles to her will, eager in the
pursuit of pleasure, and firm enough to hold to her desires, or
perish in their wreck. Her inordinate gambling and dissipations, with
those of the Count d'Artois, and others of her _clique_, had been a
sensible item in the exhaustion of the treasury, which called into
action the reforming hand of the nation; and her opposition to it,
her inflexible perverseness, and dauntless spirit, led herself to the
Guillotine, drew the King on with her, and plunged the world into
crimes and calamities which will forever stain the pages of modern
history. I have ever believed, that had there been no Queen, there
would have been no revolution. No force would have been provoked, nor
exercised. The King would have gone hand in hand with the wisdom of his
sounder counsellors, who, guided by the increased lights of the age,
wished only, with the same pace, to advance the principles of their
social constitution. The deed which closed the mortal course of these
sovereigns, I shall neither approve nor condemn. I am not prepared
to say, that the first magistrate of a nation cannot commit treason
against his country, or is unamenable to its punishment; nor yet, that
where there is no written law, no regulated tribunal, there is not
a law in our hearts, and a power in our hands, given for righteous
employment in maintaining right, and redressing wrong. Of those who
judged the King many thought him wilfully criminal; many, that his
existence would keep the nation in perpetual conflict with the horde
of Kings who would war against a generation which might come home to
themselves, and that it were better that one should die than all. I
should not have voted with this portion of the legislature. I should
have shut up the Queen in a convent, putting harm out of her power,
and placed the King in his station, investing him with limited powers,
which, I verily believe, he would have honestly exercised, according
to the measure of his understanding. In this way, no void would have
been created, courting the usurpation of a military adventurer, nor
occasion given for those enormities which demoralized the nations of
the world, and destroyed, and is yet to destroy, millions and millions
of its inhabitants. There are three epochs in history, signalized
by the total extinction of national morality. The first was of the
successors of Alexander, not omitting himself: The next, the successors
of the first Cæsar: The third, our own age. This was begun by the
partition of Poland, followed by that of the treaty of Pilnitz; next
the conflagration of Copenhagen; then the enormities of Bonaparte,
partitioning the earth at his will, and devastating it with fire
and sword; now the conspiracy of Kings, the successors of Bonaparte,
blasphemously calling themselves the Holy Alliance, and treading in the
footsteps of their incarcerated leader; not yet, indeed, usurping the
government of other nations, avowedly and in detail, but controlling by
their armies the forms in which they will permit them to be governed;
and reserving, _in petto_, the order and extent of the usurpations
further meditated. But I will return from a digression, anticipated,
too, in time, into which I have been led by reflection on the criminal
passions which refused to the world a favorable occasion of saving it
from the afflictions it has since suffered.
M. Necker had reached Basle before he was overtaken by the letter of
the King, inviting him back to resume the office he had recently left.
He returned immediately, and all the other Ministers having resigned,
a new administration was named, to wit: St. Priest and Montmorin were
restored; the Archbishop of Bordeaux was appointed Garde des sceaux, La
Tour du Pin, Minister of War; La Luzerne, Minister of Marine. This last
was believed to have been effected by the friendship of Montmorin; for
although differing in politics, they continued firm in friendship, and
Luzerne, although not an able man, was thought an honest one. And the
Prince of Bauvau was taken into the Council.
Seven Princes of the blood Royal, six ex-Ministers, and many of the
high Noblesse, having fled, and the present Ministers, except Luzerne,
being all of the popular party, all the functionaries of government
moved, for the present, in perfect harmony.
In the evening of August the 4th, and on the motion of the Viscount
de Noailles, brother in law of La Fayette, the Assembly abolished all
titles of rank, all the abusive privileges of feudalism, the tithes
and casuals of the Clergy, all Provincial privileges, and, in fine,
the Feudal regimen generally. To the suppression of tithes, the Abbe
Sieyes was vehemently opposed; but his learned and logical arguments
were unheeded, and his estimation lessened by a contrast of his
egoism (for he was beneficed on them), with the generous abandonment
of rights by the other members of the Assembly. Many days were
employed in putting into the form of laws, the numerous demolitions
of ancient abuses; which done, they proceeded to the preliminary work
of a Declaration of rights. There being much concord of sentiment on
the elements of this instrument, it was liberally framed, and passed
with a very general approbation. They then appointed a Committee for
the "reduction of a projet" of a constitution, at the head of which
was the Archbishop of Bordeaux. I received from him, as chairman of
the Committee, a letter of July 20th, requesting me to attend and
assist at their deliberations; but I excused myself, on the obvious
considerations, that my mission was to the King as Chief Magistrate
of the nation, that my duties were limited to the concerns of my own
country, and forbade me to intermeddle with the internal transactions
of that, in which I had been received under a specific character only.
Their plan of a constitution was discussed in sections, and so reported
from time to time, as agreed to by the Committee. The first respected
the general frame of the government; and that this should be formed
into three departments, Executive, Legislative and Judiciary, was
generally agreed. But when they proceeded to subordinate developments,
many and various shades of opinion came into conflict, and schism,
strongly marked, broke the Patriots into fragments of very discordant
principles. The first question, Whether there should be a King? met
with no open opposition; and it was readily agreed, that the government
of France should be monarchical and hereditary. Shall the King have a
negative on the laws? shall that negative be absolute, or suspensive
only? Shall there be two Chambers of Legislation? or one only? If two,
shall one of them be hereditary? or for life? or for a fixed term? and
named by the King? or elected by the people? These questions found
strong differences of opinion, and produced repulsive combinations
among the Patriots. The Aristocracy was cemented by a common principle,
of preserving the ancient regime, or whatever should be nearest
to it. Making this their polar star, they moved in phalanx, gave
preponderance on every question to the minorities of the Patriots, and
always to those who advocated the least change. The features of the new
constitution were thus assuming a fearful aspect, and great alarm was
produced among the honest Patriots by these dissensions in their ranks.
In this uneasy state of things, I received one day a note from the
Marquis de La Fayette, informing me that he should bring a party of six
or eight friends to ask a dinner of me the next day. I assured him of
their welcome. When they arrived, they were La Fayette himself, Duport,
Barnave, Alexander la Meth, Blacon, Mounier, Maubourg, and Dagout.
These were leading Patriots, of honest but differing opinions, sensible
of the necessity of effecting a coalition by mutual sacrifices,
knowing each other, and not afraid, therefore, to unbosom themselves
mutually. This last was a material principle in the selection. With
this view, the Marquis had invited the conference, and had fixed the
time and place inadvertently, as to the embarrassment under which it
might place me. The cloth being removed, and wine set on the table,
after the American manner, the Marquis introduced the objects of the
conference, by summarily reminding them of the state of things in the
Assembly, the course which the principles of the Constitution were
taking, and the inevitable result, unless checked by more concord
among the Patriots themselves. He observed, that although he also had
his opinion, he was ready to sacrifice it to that of his brethren of
the same cause; but that a common opinion must now be formed, or the
Aristocracy would carry everything, and that, whatever they should
now agree on, he, at the head of the National force, would maintain.
The discussions began at the hour of four, and were continued till ten
o'clock in the evening; during which time, I was a silent witness to a
coolness and candor of argument, unusual in the conflicts of political
opinion; to a logical reasoning, and chaste eloquence, disfigured by
no gaudy tinsel of rhetoric or declamation, and truly worthy of being
placed in parallel with the finest dialogues of antiquity, as handed
to us by Xenophon, by Plato and Cicero. The result was, that the King
should have a suspensive veto on the laws, that the legislature should
be composed of a single body only, and that to be chosen by the people.
This Concordate decided the fate of the constitution. The Patriots
all rallied to the principles thus settled, carried every question
agreeably to them, and reduced the Aristocracy to insignificance
and impotence. But duties of exculpation were now incumbent on me.
I waited on Count Montmorin the next morning, and explained to him,
with truth and candor, how it had happened that my house had been made
the scene of conferences of such a character. He told me, he already
knew everything which had passed, that so far from taking umbrage
at the use made of my house on that occasion, he earnestly wished I
would habitually assist at such conferences, being sure I should be
useful in moderating the warmer spirits, and promoting a wholesome
and practicable reformation only. I told him, I knew too well the
duties I owed to the King, to the nation, and to my own country, to
take any part in councils concerning their internal government, and
that I should persevere, with care, in the character of a neutral and
passive spectator, with wishes only, and very sincere ones, that those
measures might prevail which would be for the greatest good of the
nation. I have no doubts, indeed, that this conference was previously
known and approved by this honest Minister, who was in confidence and
communication with the Patriots, and wished for a reasonable reform of
the Constitution.
Here I discontinue my relation of the French Revolution. The minuteness
with which I have so far given its details, is disproportioned to the
general scale of my narrative. But I have thought it justified by the
interest which the whole world must take in this Revolution. As yet,
we are but in the first chapter of its history. The appeal to the
rights of man, which had been made in the United States, was taken
up by France, first of the European nations. From her, the spirit has
spread over those of the South. The tyrants of the North have allied
indeed against it; but it is irresistible. Their opposition will only
multiply its millions of human victims; their own satellites will
catch it, and the condition of man through the civilized world, will be
finally and greatly ameliorated. This is a wonderful instance of great
events from small causes. So inscrutable is the arrangement of causes
and consequences in this world, that a two-penny duty on tea, unjustly
imposed in a sequestered part of it, changes the condition of all its
inhabitants. I have been more minute in relating the early transactions
of this regeneration, because I was in circumstances peculiarly
favorable for a knowledge of the truth. Possessing the confidence and
intimacy of the leading Patriots, and more than all, of the Marquis
Fayette, their head and Atlas, who had no secrets from me, I learned
with correctness the views and proceedings of that party; while my
intercourse with the diplomatic missionaries of Europe at Paris, all
of them with the court, and eager in prying into its councils and
proceedings, gave me a knowledge of these also. My information was
always, and immediately committed to writing, in letters to Mr. Jay,
and often to my friends, and a recurrence to these letters now insures
me against errors of memory.
These opportunities of information ceased at this period, with my
retirement from this interesting scene of action. I had been more than
a year soliciting leave to go home, with a view to place my daughters
in the society and care of their friends, and to return for a short
time to my station at Paris. But the metamorphosis through which
our government was then passing from its Chrysalid to its Organic
form suspended its action in a great degree; and it was not till
the last of August, that I received the permission I had asked. And
here, I cannot leave this great and good country, without expressing
my sense of its pre-eminence of character among the nations of the
earth. A more benevolent people I have never known, nor greater
warmth and devotedness in their select friendships. Their kindness
and accommodation to strangers is unparalleled, and the hospitality
of Paris is beyond anything I had conceived to be practicable in
a large city. Their eminence, too, in science, the communicative
dispositions of their scientific men, the politeness of the general
manners, the ease and vivacity of their conversation, give a charm
to their society, to be found nowhere else. In a comparison of this,
with other countries, we have the proof of primacy, which was given
to Themistocles, after the battle of Salamis. Every general voted to
himself the first reward of valor, and the second to Themistocles.
So, ask the travelled inhabitant of any nation, in what country on
earth would you rather live?--Certainly, in my own, where are all my
friends, my relations, and the earliest and sweetest affections and
recollections of my life. Which would be your second choice? France.
On the 26th of September I left Paris for Havre, where I was detained
by contrary winds until the 8th of October. On that day, and the
9th, I crossed over to Cowes, where I had engaged the Clermont, Capt.
Colley, to touch for me. She did so; but here again we were detained
by contrary winds, until the 22d, when we embarked, and landed at
Norfolk on the 23d of November. On my way home, I passed some days at
Eppington, in Chesterfield, the residence of my friend and connection,
Mr. Eppes; and, while there, I received a letter from the President,
General Washington, by express, covering an appointment to be Secretary
of State.[23] I received it with real regret. My wish had been to
return to Paris, where I had left my household establishment, as
if there myself, and to see the end of the Revolution, which I then
thought would be certainly and happily closed in less than a year. I
then meant to return home, to withdraw from political life, into which
I had been impressed by the circumstances of the times, to sink into
the bosom of my family and friends, and devote myself to studies more
congenial to my mind. In my answer of December 15th, I expressed these
dispositions candidly to the President, and my preference of a return
to Paris; but assured him, that if it was believed I could be more
useful in the administration of the government, I would sacrifice my
own inclinations without hesitation, and repair to that destination;
this I left to his decision. I arrived at Monticello on the 23d
of December, where I received a second letter from the President,
expressing his continued wish that I should take my station there, but
leaving me still at liberty to continue in my former office, if I could
not reconcile myself to that now proposed. This silenced my reluctance,
and I accepted the new appointment.
In the interval of my stay at home, my eldest daughter had been happily
married to the eldest son of the Tuckahoe branch of Randolphs, a young
gentleman of genius, science, and honorable mind, who afterwards filled
a dignified station in the General Government, and the most dignified
in his own State. I left Monticello on the first of March, 1790,
for New York. At Philadelphia I called on the venerable and beloved
Franklin. He was then on the bed of sickness from which he never rose.
My recent return from a country in which he had left so many friends,
and the perilous convulsions to which they had been exposed, revived
all his anxieties to know what part they had taken, what had been
their course, and what their fate. He went over all in succession,
with a rapidity and animation almost too much for his strength. When
all his inquiries were satisfied, and a pause took place, I told him
I had learned with much pleasure that, since his return to America,
he had been occupied in preparing for the world the history of his own
life. I cannot say much of that, said he; but I will give you a sample
of what I shall leave; and he directed his little grandson (William
Bache) who was standing by the bedside, to hand him a paper from the
table, to which he pointed. He did so; and the Doctor putting it into
my hands, desired me to take it and read it at my leisure. It was about
a quire of folio paper, written in a large and running hand, very like
his own. I looked into it slightly, then shut it, and said I would
accept his permission to read it, and would carefully return it. He
said, "no, keep it." Not certain of his meaning, I again looked into
it, folded it for my pocket, and said again, I would certainly return
it. "No," said he, "keep it." I put it into my pocket, and shortly
after took leave of him. He died on the 17th of the ensuing month of
April; and as I understood that he had bequeathed all his papers to his
grandson, William Temple Franklin, I immediately wrote to Mr. Franklin,
to inform him I possessed this paper, which I should consider as his
property, and would deliver to his order. He came on immediately to
New York, called on me for it, and I delivered it to him. As he put
it into his pocket, he said carelessly, he had either the original,
or another copy of it, I do not recollect which. This last expression
struck my attention forcibly, and for the first time suggested to me
the thought that Dr. Franklin had meant it as a confidential deposit
in my hands, and that I had done wrong in parting from it. I have
not yet seen the collection he published of Dr. Franklin's works,
and, therefore, know not if this is among them. I have been told
it is not. It contained a narrative of the negotiations between Dr.
Franklin and the British Ministry, when he was endeavoring to prevent
the contest of arms which followed. The negotiation was brought about
by the intervention of Lord Howe and his sister, who, I believe, was
called Lady Howe, but I may misremember her title. Lord Howe seems
to have been friendly to America, and exceedingly anxious to prevent
a rupture. His intimacy with Dr. Franklin, and his position with the
Ministry, induced him to undertake a mediation between them; in which
his sister seemed to have been associated. They carried from one
to the other, backwards and forwards, the several propositions and
answers which passed, and seconded with their own intercessions, the
importance of mutual sacrifices, to preserve the peace and connection
of the two countries. I remember that Lord North's answers were dry,
unyielding, in the spirit of unconditional submission, and betrayed
an absolute indifference to the occurrence of a rupture; and he said
to the mediators distinctly, at last, that "a rebellion was not to
be deprecated on the part of Great Britain; that the confiscations it
would produce would provide for many of their friends." This expression
was reported by the mediators to Dr. Franklin, and indicated so cool
and calculated a purpose in the Ministry, as to render compromise
hopeless, and the negotiation was discontinued. If this is not among
the papers published, we ask, what has become of it? I delivered
it with my own hands, into those of Temple Franklin. It certainly
established views so atrocious in the British government, that its
suppression would, to them, be worth a great price. But could the
grandson of Dr. Franklin be, in such degree, an accomplice in the
parricide of the memory of his immortal grandfather? The suspension
for more than twenty years of the general publication, bequeathed and
confided to him, produced, for awhile, hard suspicions against him;
and if, at last, all are not published, a part of these suspicions may
remain with some.
I arrived at New York on the 21st of March, where Congress was in
session.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] [See Appendix, note A.]
[2] [The name of a public room in the Raleigh.]
[3] Life of Washington, vol. ii, p. 151.
[4] [See Appendix, note B.]
[5] [See Appendix, note C.]
[6] See Girardin's History of Virginia, Appendix No. 12.
note.
[7] [See Appendix, note D.]
[8] [Here, in the original manuscript, commence the "two
preceding sheets" referred to by Mr. Jefferson, page 26, as
containing "notes" taken by him "whilst these things were
going on." They are easily distinguished from the body of the
MS. in which they were inserted by him, being of a paper very
different in size, quality and color, from that in which the
latter is written.]
[9] July 9.
[10] [In this publication, the parts struck out are printed
in _Italics_ and inclosed in brackets.]
[11] [See Appendix, note B.]
[12] [The above note of the author is on a slip of paper,
pasted in at the end of the Declaration. Here is also sewed
into the MS. a slip of newspaper containing, under the head
"Declaration of Independence," a letter from Thomas M'Kean,
to Messrs. William M'Corkle & Son, dated "Philadelphia, June
16, 1817." This letter is to be found in the Port Folio,
Sept. 1817, p. 249.]
[13] [Here terminate the author's notes of the "earlier
debates on the confederation," and recommences the MS. begun
by him in 1821.]
[14] [See Appendix, note A.]
[15] [See Appendix, note E.]
[16] His ostensible character was to be that of a merchant,
his real one that of agent for military supplies, and also
for sounding the dispositions of the government of France,
and seeing how far they would favor us, either secretly or
openly. His appointment had been by the Committee of foreign
correspondence, March, 1776.
[17] [See Appendix, note F.]
[18] Vattel L. 2, § 156. L. 4, § 77. 1. Mably Droit D'Europe,
86.
[19] [In the original MS., the paragraph ending "fell
through," terminates page 81 between this page and the next,
there is stitched in, a leaf of old writing, constituting a
memorandum, whereof note G. in the Appendix, is a copy.]
[20] The Crimea.
[21] [Extract from the despatch of the Count de Vergennes, to
the Marquis de Verac, Ambassador from France, at the Hague,
dated March 1, 1786:
"The King will give his aid, as far as may be in his power,
towards the success of the affair, and will, on his part,
invite the Patriots to communicate to him their views, their
plans, and their discontents. You may assure them that the
King takes a real interest in themselves as well as their
cause, and that they may rely upon his protection. On this
they may place the greater dependence, as we do not conceal,
that if the Stadtholder resumes his former influence, the
English System will soon prevail, and our alliance become a
mere affair of the imagination. The Patriots will readily
feel, that this position would be incompatible both with
the dignity and consideration of his Majesty. But in case
the Chief of the Patriots should have to fear a division,
they would have time sufficient to reclaim those whom the
Anglomaniacs had misled, and to prepare matters in such
a manner, that the question when again agitated, might be
decided according to their wishes. In such a hypothetical
case, the King authorizes you to act in concert with them,
to pursue the direction which they may think proper to give
you, and to employ every means to augment the number of the
partisans of the good cause. It remains for me to speak of
the personal security of the Patriots. You may assure them,
that under every circumstance, the King will take them under
his immediate protection, and you will make known wherever
you may judge necessary, that his Majesty will regard as a
personal offence every undertaking against their liberty.
It is to be presumed that this language, energetically
maintained, may have some effect on the audacity of the
Anglomaniacs, and that the Prince de Nassau will feel that he
runs some risk in provoking the resentment of his Majesty."]
[22] In the impeachment of Judge Pickering, of New Hampshire,
a habitual and maniac drunkard, no defence was made. Had
there been, the party vote of more than one-third of the
Senate would have acquitted him.
[23] [See Appendix, note H.]
APPENDIX.
[NOTE A.]
LETTER TO JOHN SAUNDERSON, ESQ.
Monticello, August 31, 1820.
SIR,
Your letter of the 19th was received in due time, and I wish it were
in my power to furnish you more fully, than in the enclosed paper,
with materials for the biography of George Wythe; but I possess none
in writing, am very distant from the place of his birth and early
life, and know not a single person in that quarter from whom inquiry
could be made, with the expectation of collecting anything material.
Add to this, that feeble health disables me, almost, from writing;
and entirely from the labor of going into difficult research. I became
acquainted with Mr. Wythe when he was about thirty-five years of age.
He directed my studies in the law, led me into business, and continued,
until death, my most affectionate friend. A close intimacy with him,
during that period of forty odd years, the most important of his
life, enables me to state its leading facts, which, being of my own
knowledge, I vouch their truth. Of what precedes that period, I speak
from hearsay only, in which there may be error, but of little account,
as the character of the facts will themselves manifest. In the epoch
of his birth, I may err a little, stating that from the recollection
of a particular incident, the date of which, within a year or two, I
do not distinctly remember. These scanty outlines you will be able,
I hope, to fill up from other information, and they may serve you,
sometimes, as landmarks to distinguish truth from error, in what you
hear from others. The exalted virtue of the man will also be a polar
star to guide you in all matters which may touch that element of his
character. But on that you will receive imputation from no man; for, as
far as I know, he never had an enemy. Little as I am able to contribute
to the just reputation of this excellent man, it is the act of my life
most gratifying to my heart; and leaves me only to regret that a waning
memory can do no more.
Of Mr. Hancock I can say nothing, having known him only in the chair of
Congress. Having myself been the youngest man but one in that body, the
disparity of age prevented any particular intimacy. But of him there
can be no difficulty in obtaining full information in the North.
I salute you, Sir, with sentiments of great respect,
TH. JEFFERSON.
NOTES FOR THE BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGE WYTHE.
George Wythe was born about the year 1727, or 1728, of a respectable
family in the County of Elizabeth City, on the shores of the
Chesapeake. He inherited, from his father, a fortune sufficient for
independence and ease. He had not the benefit of a regular education
in the schools, but acquired a good one of himself, and without
assistance; insomuch, as to become the best Latin and Greek scholar
in the State. It is said, that while reading the Greek Testament, his
mother held an English one, to aid him in rendering the Greek text
conformably with that. He also acquired, by his own reading, a good
knowledge of Mathematics, and of Natural and Moral Philosophy. He
engaged in the study of the law under the direction of a Mr. Lewis,
of that profession, and went early to the bar of the General Court,
then occupied by men of great ability, learning, and dignity in their
profession. He soon became eminent among them, and, in process of time,
the first at the bar, taking into consideration his superior learning,
correct elocution, and logical style of reasoning; for in pleading he
never indulged himself with an useless or declamatory thought or word;
and became as distinguished by correctness and purity of conduct in
his profession, as he was by his industry and fidelity to those who
employed him. He was early elected to the House of Representatives,
then called the House of Burgesses, and continued in it until the
Revolution. On the first dawn of that, instead of higgling on half-way
principles, as others did who feared to follow their reason, he took
his stand on the solid ground that the only link of political union
between us and Great Britain, was the identity of our Executive; that
that nation and its Parliament had no more authority over us, than we
had over them, and that we were co-ordinate nations with Great Britain
and Hanover.
In 1774, he was a member of a Committee of the House of Burgesses,
appointed to prepare a Petition to the King, a Memorial to the House
of Lords, and a Remonstrance to the House of Commons, on the subject
of the proposed Stamp Act. He was made draughtsman of the last, and,
following his own principles, he so far overwent the timid hesitations
of his colleagues, that his draught was subjected by them to material
modifications; and, when the famous Resolutions of Mr. Henry, in 1775,
were proposed, it was not on any difference of principle that they
were opposed by Wythe, Randolph, Pendleton, Nicholas, Bland, and other
worthies, who had long been the habitual leaders of the House; but
because those papers of the preceding session had already expressed the
same sentiments and assertions of right, and that an answer to them was
yet to be expected.
In August, 1775, he was appointed a member of Congress, and in 1776,
signed the Declaration of Independence, of which he had, in debate,
been an eminent supporter. And subsequently, in the same year, he
was appointed, by the Legislature of Virginia, one of a Committee
to revise the laws of the State, as well of British as of Colonial
enactment, and to prepare bills for re-enacting them, with such
alterations as the change in the form and principles of the government,
and other circumstances, required, and of this work, he executed the
period commencing with the revolution in England, and ending with
the establishment of the new government here; excepting the Acts for
regulating descents, for religious freedom, and for proportioning
crimes and punishments. In 1777, he was chosen Speaker of the House of
Delegates, being of distinguished learning in Parliamentary law and
proceedings; and towards the end of the same year, he was appointed
one of the three Chancellors, to whom that department of the Judiciary
was confided, on the first organization of the new government. On a
subsequent change of the form of that court, he was appointed sole
Chancellor, in which office he continued to act until his death, which
happened in June, 1806, about the seventy-eighth or seventy-ninth year
of his age.
Mr. Wythe had been twice married: first, I believe, to a daughter
of Mr. Lewis, with whom he had studied law, and afterwards to a Miss
Taliaferro, of a wealthy and respectable family in the neighborhood of
Williamsburg; by neither of whom did he leave issue.
No man ever left behind him a character more venerated than George
Wythe. His virtue was of the purest tint; his integrity inflexible,
and his justice exact; of warm patriotism, and, devoted as he was to
liberty, and the natural and equal rights of man, he might truly be
called the Cato of his country, without the avarice of the Roman; for
a more disinterested person never lived. Temperance and regularity
in all his habits, gave him general good health, and his unaffected
modesty and suavity of manners endeared him to every one. He was of
easy elocution, his language chaste, methodical in the arrangement of
his matter, learned and logical in the use of it, and of great urbanity
in debate; not quick of apprehension, but, with a little time, profound
in penetration, and sound in conclusion. In his philosophy he was firm,
and neither troubling, nor perhaps trusting, any one with his religious
creed, he left the world to the conclusion, that that religion must be
good which could produce a life of such exemplary virtue.
His stature was of the middle size, well formed and proportioned, and
the features of his face were manly, comely, and engaging. Such was
George Wythe, the honor of his own, and the model of future times.
[NOTE B.]
LETTER TO SAMUEL A. WELLS, ESQ.
Monticello, May 12, 1819.
SIR,
An absence of some time at an occasional and distant residence, must
apologize for the delay in acknowledging the receipt of your favor
of April 12; and, candor obliges me to add, that it has been somewhat
extended by an aversion to writing, as well as to calls on my memory
for facts so much obliterated from it by time, as to lessen my own
confidence in the traces which seem to remain. One of the inquiries
in your letter, however, may be answered without an appeal to the
memory. It is that respecting the question, whether committees of
correspondence originated in Virginia, or Massachusetts? on which
you suppose me to have claimed it for Virginia; but certainly I
have never made such a claim. The idea, I suppose, has been taken up
from what is said in Wirt's history of Mr. Henry, page 87, and from
an inexact attention to its precise terms. It is there said, "this
House (of Burgesses, of Virginia) had the merit of originating that
powerful engine of resistance, corresponding committees _between
the legislatures of the different colonies_." That the fact, as here
expressed, is true, your letter bears witness, when it says, that the
resolutions of Virginia, for this purpose, were transmitted to the
speakers of the different assemblies, and by that of Massachusetts,
was laid, at the next session, before that body, who appointed a
committee for the specified object: adding, "thus, in Massachusetts,
there were two committees of correspondence, one chosen by the
people, the other appointed by the House of Assembly; in the former,
Massachusetts preceded Virginia; in the latter, Virginia preceded
Massachusetts." To the origination of committees for the interior
correspondence between the counties and towns of a State, I know of
no claim on the part of Virginia; and certainly none was ever made by
myself. I perceive, however, one error, into which memory had led me.
Our committee for national correspondence, was appointed in March,
'73, and I well remember, that going to Williamsburg, in the month of
June following, Peyton Randolph, our Chairman, told me that messengers
bearing despatches between the two States, had crossed each other by
the way, that of Virginia carrying our propositions for a committee
of national correspondence, and that of Massachusetts, bringing, as
my memory suggested, a similar proposition. But here I must have
misremembered; and the resolutions brought us from Massachusetts,
were probably those you mention of the town-meeting of Boston, on
the motion of Mr. Samuel Adams, appointing a committee "to state the
rights of the colonists, and of that province in particular, and the
infringements of them; to communicate them to the several towns, as
the sense of the town of Boston, and to request, of each town, a free
communication of its sentiments on the subject." I suppose, therefore,
that these resolutions were not received, as you think, while the House
of Burgesses was in session in March, 1773, but a few days after we
rose, and were probably what was sent by the messenger, who crossed
ours by the way. They may, however, have been still different. I must,
therefore, have been mistaken in supposing, and stating to Mr. Wirt,
that the proposition of a committee for national correspondence, was
nearly simultaneous in Virginia and Massachusetts.
A similar misapprehension of another passage in Mr. Wirt's book,
for which I am also quoted, has produced a similar reclamation on
the part of Massachusetts, by some of her most distinguished and
estimable citizens. I had been applied to by Mr. Wirt, for such facts
respecting Mr. Henry, as my intimacy with him, and participation in
the transactions of the day, might have placed within my knowledge. I
accordingly committed them to paper; and Virginia being the theatre
of his action, was the only subject within my contemplation. While
speaking of him, of the resolutions and measures here, in which he
had the acknowledged lead, I used the expression, that "Mr. Henry
certainly gave the first impulse to the ball of revolution." [Wirt,
page 41.] The expression is indeed general, and in all its extension,
would comprehend all the sister States; but indulgent construction
would restrain it, as was really meant, to the subject matter under
contemplation, which was Virginia alone; according to the rule of the
lawyers, and a fair canon of general criticism, that every expression
should be construed secundum subjectam materiam. Where the first attack
was made, there must have been of course, the first act of resistance,
and that was in Massachusetts. Our first overt act of war, was Mr.
Henry's embodying a force of militia from several counties, regularly
armed and organized, marching them in military array, and making
reprisal on the King's treasury at the seat of government, for the
public powder taken away by his Governor. This was on the last days of
April, 1775. Your formal battle of Lexington, was ten or twelve days
before that, and greatly overshadowed in importance, as it preceded in
time, our little affray, which merely amounted to a levying of arms
against the King; and very possibly, you had had military affrays
before the regular battle of Lexington.
These explanations will, I hope, assure you, Sir, that so far as either
facts or opinions have been truly quoted from me, they have never been
meant to intercept the just fame of Massachusetts, for the promptitude
and perseverance of her early resistance. We willingly cede to her the
laud of having been (although not exclusively) "the cradle of sound
principles," and, if some of us believe she has deflected from them in
her course, we retain full confidence in her ultimate return to them.
I will now proceed to your quotation from Mr. Galloway's statement
of what passed in Congress, on their Declaration of Independence;
in which statement there is not one word of truth, and where bearing
some resemblance to truth, it is an entire perversion of it. I do not
charge this on Mr. Galloway himself; his desertion having taken place
long before these measures, he doubtless received his information from
some of the loyal friends whom he left behind him. But as yourself,
as well as others, appear embarrassed by inconsistent accounts of
the proceedings on that memorable occasion, and as those who have
endeavored to restore the truth, have themselves committed some errors,
I will give you some extracts from a written document on that subject;
for the truth of which I pledge myself to heaven and earth; having,
while the question of Independence was under consideration before
Congress, taken written notes, in my seat, of what was passing, and
reduced them to form on the final conclusion. I have now before me that
paper, from which the following are extracts. "Friday, June 7th, 1776.
The delegates from Virginia moved, in obedience to instructions from
their constituents, that the Congress should declare that these United
Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States;
that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and
that all political connection between them and the State of Great
Britain is, and ought to be totally dissolved; that measures should be
immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a
Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together. The
House, being obliged to attend at that time to some other business, the
proposition was referred to the next day, when the members were ordered
to attend punctually at ten o'clock. Saturday, June 8th. They proceeded
to take it into consideration, and referred it to a committee of the
whole, into which they immediately resolved themselves, and passed that
day in debating on the subject.
"It appearing in the course of these debates, that the colonies of New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and South Carolina,
were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they
were fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait
a while for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1st. But
that this might occasion as little delay as possible, a Committee was
appointed to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The Committee
were John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston
and myself. This was reported to the House on Friday, the 28th of
June, when it was read and ordered to lie on the table. On Monday,
the 1st of July, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the
whole, and resumed the consideration of the original motion made by the
delegates of Virginia, which, being again debated through the day, was
carried in the affirmative by the votes of New Hampshire, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina and Georgia. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against
it. Delaware had but two members present, and they were divided. The
delegates from New York declared they were for it themselves, and were
assured their constituents were for it; but that their instructions
having been drawn near a twelvemonth before, when reconciliation was
still the general object, they were enjoined by them, to do nothing
which should impede that object. They, therefore, thought themselves
not justifiable in voting on either side, and asked leave to withdraw
from the question, which was given them. The Committee rose, and
reported their resolutions to the House. Mr. Rutledge, of South
Carolina, then requested the determination might be put off to the
next day, as he believed his colleagues, though they disapproved of
the resolution, would then join in it for the sake of unanimity. The
ultimate question, whether the House would agree to the resolution of
the Committee, was accordingly postponed to the next day, when it was
again moved, and South Carolina concurred in voting for it. In the
meantime, a third member had come post from the Delaware counties, and
turned the vote of that colony in favor of the resolution. Members of
a different sentiment attending that morning from Pennsylvania also,
her vote was changed; so that the whole twelve colonies, who were
authorized to vote at all, gave their votes for it; and within a few
days [July 9th] the convention of New York approved of it, and this
supplied the void occasioned by the withdrawing of their delegates from
the vote." [Be careful to observe, that this vacillation and vote were
on the original motion of the 7th of June, by the Virginia delegates,
that Congress should declare the colonies independent.] "Congress
proceeded, the same day, to consider the Declaration of Independence,
which had been reported and laid on the table the Friday preceding,
and on Monday, referred to a Committee of the whole. The pusillanimous
idea, that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still
haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which
conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they
should give them offence. The debates having taken up the greater parts
of the second, third and fourth days of July, were, in the evening
of the last, closed; the Declaration was reported by the Committee,
agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present except Mr.
Dickinson." So far my notes.
Governor M'Kean, in his letter to McCorkle of July 16th, 1817, has
thrown some lights on the transactions of that day; but, trusting to
his memory chiefly, at an age when our memories are not to be trusted,
he has confounded two questions, and ascribed proceedings to one which
belonged to the other. These two questions were, 1st, the Virginia
motion of June the 7th, to declare Independence; and 2d, the actual
Declaration, its matter and form. Thus he states the question on the
Declaration itself, as decided on the 1st of July; but it was the
Virginia motion which was voted on that day in committee of the whole;
South Carolina, as well as Pennsylvania, then voting against it. But
the ultimate decision in _the House_, on the report of the Committee,
being, by request, postponed to the next morning, all the States voted
for it, except New York, whose vote was delayed for the reason before
stated. It was not till the 2d of July, that the Declaration itself was
taken up; nor till the 4th, that it was decided, and it was signed by
every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.
The subsequent signatures of members who were not then present, and
some of them not yet in office, is easily explained, if we observe
who they were; to wit, that they were of New York and Pennsylvania.
New York did not sign till the 15th, because it was not till the
9th (five days after the general signature), that their Convention
authorized them to do so. The Convention of Pennsylvania, learning that
it had been signed by a minority only of their delegates, named a new
delegation on the 20th, leaving out Mr. Dickinson, who had refused to
sign, Willing and Humphreys who had withdrawn, re-appointing the three
members who had signed, Morris, who had not been present, and five new
ones, to wit, Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor and Ross: and Morris, and
the five new members were permitted to sign, because it manifested
the assent of their full delegation, and the express will of their
Convention, which might have been doubted on the former signature
of a minority only. Why the signature of Thornton, of New Hampshire,
was permitted so late as the 4th of November, I cannot now say; but
undoubtedly for some particular reason, which we should find to have
been good, had it been expressed. These were the only post-signers, and
you see, Sir, that there were solid reasons for receiving those of New
York and Pennsylvania, and that this circumstance in no wise affects
the faith of this Declaratory Charter of our rights, and of the rights
of man.
With a view to correct errors of fact before they become inveterate
by repetition, I have stated what I find essentially material in my
papers, but with that brevity, which the labor of writing constrains me
to use.
On the four particular articles of enquiry in your letter, respecting
your grandfather, the venerable Samuel Adams, neither memory nor
memorandums enable me to give any information. I can say that he was
truly a great man, wise in council, fertile in resources, immoveable
in his purposes, and had, I think, a greater share than any other
member, in advising and directing our measures, in the Northern war.
As a speaker, he could not be compared with his living colleague
and namesake, whose deep conceptions, nervous style, and undaunted
firmness, made him truly our bulwark in debate. But Mr. Samuel Adams,
although not of fluent elocution, was so rigorously logical, so clear
in his views, abundant in good sense, and master always of his subject,
that he commanded the most profound attention, whenever he rose in an
assembly, by which the froth of declamation was heard with the most
sovereign contempt. I sincerely rejoice, that the record of his worth
is to be undertaken by one so much disposed as you will be, to hand him
down fairly to that posterity for whose liberty and happiness he was so
zealous a laborer.
With sentiments of sincere veneration for his memory, accept yourself
this tribute to it, with the assurance of my great respect.
* * * * *
P. S. August 6th, 1822. Since the date of this letter, to-wit, this
day, August 6, '22, I have received the new publication of the Secret
Journals of Congress, wherein is stated a resolution of July 19th,
1776, that the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on
parchment, and when engrossed, be signed by every member; and another
of August 2nd, that being engrossed and compared at the table, it was
signed by the members; that is to say, the copy engrossed on parchment
(for durability) was signed by the members, after being compared at
the table, with the original one signed on paper as before stated.
I add this P. S. to the copy of my letter to Mr. Wells, to prevent
confounding the signature of the original with that of the copy
engrossed on parchment.
[NOTE C.]
_On the instructions given to the first delegation of Virginia to
Congress, in August, 1774._
The Legislature of Virginia happened to be in session, in Williamsburg,
when news was received of the passage, by the British Parliament, of
the Boston Port Bill, which was to take effect on the first day of June
then ensuing. The House of Burgesses, thereupon, passed a resolution,
recommending to their fellow-citizens, that that day should be set
apart for fasting and prayer to the Supreme Being, imploring him to
avert the calamities then threatening us, and to give us one heart and
one mind to oppose every invasion of our liberties. The next day, May
the 20th, 1774, the Governor dissolved us. We immediately repaired to
a room in the Raleigh tavern, about one hundred paces distant from the
Capitol, formed ourselves into a meeting, Peyton Randolph in the chair,
and came to resolutions, declaring, that an attack on one colony, to
enforce arbitrary acts, ought to be considered as an attack on all, and
to be opposed by the united wisdom of all. We, therefore, appointed
a Committee of correspondence, to address letters to the Speakers of
the several Houses of Representatives of the colonies, proposing the
appointment of deputies from each, to meet _annually in a General
Congress_, to deliberate on their common interests, and on the measures
to be pursued in common. The members then separated to their several
homes, except those of the Committee, who met the next day, prepared
letters according to instructions, and despatched them by messengers
express, to their several destinations. It had been agreed, also,
by the meeting, that the Burgesses, who should be elected under the
writs then issuing, should be requested to meet in Convention, on a
certain day in August, to learn the results of these letters, and to
appoint delegates to a Congress, should that measure be approved by
the other colonies. At the election, the people re-elected every man
of the former Assembly, as a proof of their approbation of what they
had done. Before I left home, to attend the Convention, I prepared
what I thought might be given, in instruction, to the Delegates who
should be appointed to attend the General Congress proposed. They were
drawn in haste, with a number of blanks, with some uncertainties and
inaccuracies of historical facts, which I neglected at the moment,
knowing they could be readily corrected at the meeting. I set out on my
journey, but was taken sick on the road, and was unable to proceed. I
therefore sent on, by express, two copies, one under cover to Patrick
Henry, the other to Peyton Randolph, who I knew would be in the chair
of the Convention. Of the former, no more was ever heard or known.
Mr. Henry probably thought it too bold, as a first measure, as the
majority of the members did. On the other copy being laid on the table
of the Convention, by Peyton Randolph, as the proposition of a member,
who was prevented from attendance by sickness on the road, tamer
sentiments were preferred, and, I believe, wisely preferred; the leap
I proposed being too long, as yet, for the mass of our citizens. The
distance between these, and the instructions actually adopted, is of
some curiosity, however, as it shews the inequality of pace with which
we moved, and the prudence required to keep front and rear together.
My creed had been formed on unsheathing the sword at Lexington. They
printed the paper, however, and gave it the title of 'A summary view
of the rights of British America.' In this form it got to London, where
the opposition took it up, shaped it to opposition views, and, in that
form, it ran rapidly through several editions.
Mr. Marshall, in his history of General Washington, chapter 3,
speaking of this proposition for Committees of correspondence and for
a General Congress, says, 'this measure had already been proposed in
town meeting, in Boston,' and some pages before, he had said, that 'at
a session of the General Court of Massachusetts, in September, 1770,
that Court, in pursuance of a favorite idea of uniting all the colonies
in one system of measures, elected a Committee of correspondence, to
communicate with such Committees as might be appointed by the other
colonies.' This is an error. The Committees of correspondence, elected
by Massachusetts, were expressly for a correspondence among the several
_towns_ of that province only. Besides the text of their proceedings,
his own note X, proves this. The first proposition for a general
correspondence between the several states, and for a General Congress,
was made by our meeting of May, 1774. Botta, copying Marshall, has
repeated his error, and so it will be handed on from copyist to
copyist, _ad infinitum_. Here follows my proposition, and the more
prudent one which was adopted.
Resolved, That it be an instruction to the said deputies, when
assembled in General Congress, with the deputies from the other states
of British America, to propose to the said Congress, that an humble
and dutiful address be presented to his Majesty, begging leave to
lay before him, as Chief Magistrate of the British empire, the united
complaints of his Majesty's subjects in America; complaints which are
excited by many unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations, attempted
to be made by the legislature of one part of the empire, upon the
rights which God, and the laws, have given equally and independently
to all. To represent to his Majesty that these, his States, have often
individually made humble application to his imperial Throne, to obtain,
through its intervention, some redress of their injured rights; to
none of which, was ever even an answer condescended. Humbly to hope
that this, their joint address, penned in the language of truth, and
divested of those expressions of servility, which would persuade his
Majesty that we are asking favors, and not rights, shall obtain from
his Majesty a more respectful acceptance; and this his Majesty will
think we have reason to expect, when he reflects that he is no more
than the chief officer of the people, appointed by the laws, and
circumscribed with definite powers, to assist in working the great
machine of government, erected for their use, and, consequently,
subject to their superintendence; and, in order that these, our rights,
as well as the invasions of them, may be laid more fully before his
Majesty, to take a view of them, from the origin and first settlement
of these countries.
To remind him that our ancestors, before their emigration to America,
were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and
possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing
from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going
in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies,
under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to
promote public happiness. That their Saxon ancestors had, under this
universal law, in like manner, left their native wilds and woods in the
North of Europe, had possessed themselves of the Island of Britain,
then less charged with inhabitants, and had established there that
system of laws which has so long been the glory and protection of that
country. Nor was ever any claim of superiority or dependence asserted
over them, by that mother country from which they had migrated: and
were such a claim made, it is believed his Majesty's subjects in Great
Britain have too firm a feeling of the rights derived to them from
their ancestors, to bow down the sovereignty of their state before
such visionary pretensions. And it is thought that no circumstance
has occurred to distinguish, materially, the British from the Saxon
emigration. America was conquered, and her settlements made and
firmly established, at the expense of individuals, and not of the
British public. Their own blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their
settlement, their own fortunes expended in making that settlement
effectual. For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered,
and for themselves alone they have right to hold. No shilling was ever
issued from the public treasures of his Majesty, or his ancestors,
for their assistance, till of very late times, after the colonies
had become established on a firm and permanent footing. That then,
indeed, having become valuable to Great Britain for her commercial
purposes, his Parliament was pleased to lend them assistance against
an enemy who would fain have drawn to herself the benefits of their
commerce, to the great aggrandisement of herself, and danger of Great
Britain. Such assistance, and in such circumstances, they had often
before given to Portugal and other allied states, with whom they
carry on a commercial intercourse. Yet these states never supposed,
that by calling in her aid, they thereby submitted themselves to her
sovereignty. Had such terms been proposed, they would have rejected
them with disdain, and trusted for better, to the moderation of their
enemies, or to a vigorous exertion of their own force. We do not,
however, mean to underrate those aids, which, to us, were doubtless
valuable, on whatever principles granted: but we would shew that they
cannot give a title to that authority which the British Parliament
would arrogate over us; and that may amply be repaid by our giving to
the inhabitants of Great Britain such exclusive privileges in trade as
may be advantageous to them, and, at the same time, not too restrictive
to ourselves. That settlement having been thus effected in the wilds
of America, the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of laws,
under which they had hitherto lived in the mother country, and to
continue their union with her, by submitting themselves to the same
common sovereign, who was thereby made the central link, connecting the
several parts of the empire thus newly multiplied.
But that not long were they permitted, however far they thought
themselves removed from the hand of oppression, to hold undisturbed the
rights thus acquired at the hazard of their lives and loss of their
fortunes. A family of Princes was then on the British throne, whose
treasonable crimes against their people, brought on them, afterwards,
the exertion of those sacred and sovereign rights of punishment,
reserved in the hands of the people for cases of extreme necessity,
and judged by the constitution unsafe to be delegated to any other
judicature. While every day brought forth some new and unjustifiable
exertion of power over their subjects on that side of the water, it
was not to be expected that those here, much less able at that time
to oppose the designs of despotism, should be exempted from injury.
Accordingly, this country which had been acquired by the lives, the
labors, and fortunes of individual adventurers, was by these Princes,
several times, parted out and distributed among the favorites and
followers of their fortunes; and, by an assumed right of the Crown
alone, were erected into distinct and independent governments; a
measure, which it is believed, his Majesty's prudence and understanding
would prevent him from imitating at this day; as no exercise of such
power, of dividing and dismembering a country, has ever occurred in his
Majesty's realm of England, though now of very ancient standing; nor
could it be justified or acquiesced under there, or in any part of his
Majesty's empire.
That the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world,
possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right, and which
no law of their own had taken away or abridged, was next the object
of unjust encroachment. Some of the colonies having thought proper
to continue the administration of their government in the name and
under the authority of his Majesty, King Charles the first, whom,
notwithstanding his late deposition by the Commonwealth of England,
they continued in the sovereignty of their State, the Parliament,
for the Commonwealth, took the same in high offence, and assumed upon
themselves the power of prohibiting their trade with all other parts
of the world, except the Island of Great Britain. This arbitrary act,
however, they soon recalled, and by solemn treaty entered into on
the 12th day of March, 1651, between the said Commonwealth, by their
Commissioners, and the colony of Virginia by their House of Burgesses,
it was expressly stipulated by the eighth article of the said treaty,
that they should have 'free trade as the people of England do enjoy
to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that
Commonwealth.' But that, upon the restoration of his Majesty, King
Charles the second, their rights of free commerce fell once more a
victim to arbitrary power; and by several acts of his reign, as well
as of some of his successors, the trade of the colonies was laid under
such restrictions, as show what hopes they might form from the justice
of a British Parliament, were its uncontrolled power admitted over
these States.[24] History has informed us, that bodies of men as well
as of individuals, are susceptible of the spirit of tyranny. A view
of these acts of Parliament for regulation, as it has been affectedly
called, of the American trade, if all other evidences were removed out
of the case, would undeniably evince the truth of this observation.
Besides the duties they impose on our articles of export and import,
they prohibit our going to any markets Northward of Cape Finisterra, in
the kingdom of Spain, for the sale of commodities which Great Britain
will not take from us, and for the purchase of others, with which she
cannot supply us; and that, for no other than the arbitrary purpose of
purchasing for themselves, by a sacrifice of our rights and interests,
certain privileges in their commerce with an allied state, who, in
confidence, that their exclusive trade with America will be continued,
while the principles and power of the British Parliament be the same,
have indulged themselves in every exorbitance which their avarice
could dictate or our necessity extort: have raised their commodities
called for in America, to the double and treble of what they sold for,
before such exclusive privileges were given them, and of what better
commodities of the same kind would cost us elsewhere; and, at the same
time, give us much less for what we carry thither, than might be had
at more convenient ports. That these acts prohibit us from carrying, in
quest of other purchasers, the surplus of our tobaccos, remaining after
the consumption of Great Britain is supplied: so that we must leave
them with the British merchant, for whatever he will please to allow
us, to be by him re-shipped to foreign markets, where he will reap the
benefits of making sale of them for full value. That, to heighten still
the idea of Parliamentary justice, and to show with what moderation
they are like to exercise power, where themselves are to feel no
part of its weight, we take leave to mention to his Majesty, certain
other acts of the British Parliament, by which they would prohibit
us from manufacturing, for our own use, the articles we raise on our
own lands, with our own labor. By an act passed in the fifth year of
the reign of his late Majesty, King George the second, an American
subject is forbidden to make a hat for himself, of the fur which he
has taken, perhaps, on his own soil; an instance of despotism, to
which no parallel can be produced in the most arbitrary ages of British
history. By one other act, passed in the twenty-third year of the same
reign, the iron which we make, we are forbidden to manufacture; and,
heavy as that article is, and necessary in every branch of husbandry,
besides commission and insurance, we are to pay freight for it to Great
Britain, and freight for it back again, for the purpose of supporting,
not men, but machines, in the island of Great Britain. In the same
spirit of equal and impartial legislation, is to be viewed the act
of Parliament, passed in the fifth year of the same reign, by which
American lands are made subject to the demands of British creditors,
while their own lands were still continued unanswerable for their
debts; from which, one of these conclusions must necessarily follow,
either that justice is not the same thing in America as in Britain,
or else, that the British Parliament pay less regard to it here than
there. But, that we do not point out to his Majesty the injustice
of these acts, with intent to rest on that principle the cause of
their nullity; but to show that experience confirms the propriety
of those political principles, which exempt us from the jurisdiction
of the British Parliament. The true ground on which we declare these
acts void, is, that the British Parliament has no right to exercise
authority over us.
That these exercises of usurped power have not been confined to
instances alone, in which themselves were interested; but they have
also intermeddled with the regulation of the internal affairs of the
colonies. The act of the 9th of Anne for establishing a post office in
America, seems to have had little connection with British convenience,
except that of accommodating his Majesty's ministers and favorites with
the sale of a lucrative and easy office.
That thus have we hastened through the reigns which preceded his
Majesty's, during which the violation of our rights were less alarming,
because repeated at more distant intervals, than that rapid and bold
succession of injuries, which is likely to distinguish the present from
all other periods of American story. Scarcely have our minds been able
to emerge from the astonishment into which one stroke of Parliamentary
thunder has involved us, before another more heavy and more alarming is
fallen on us. Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental
opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished
period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers,
too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to
slavery.
[Sidenote: Act for granting certain duties.]
That the act passed in the fourth year of his Majesty's reign, entitled
'an act
[Sidenote: Stamp act.]
One other act passed in the fifth year of his reign, entitled 'an act
[Sidenote: Act declaring the right of Parliament over the colonies.]
One other act passed in the sixth year of his reign, entitled 'an act
[Sidenote: Act for granting duties on paper, tea, &c.]
And one other act passed in the seventh year of his reign, entitled 'an
act
Form that connected chain of Parliamentary usurpation, which has
already been the subject of frequent applications to his Majesty,
and the Houses of Lords and Commons of Great Britain; and, no answers
having yet been condescended to any of these, we shall not trouble his
Majesty with a repetition of the matters they contained.
[Sidenote: Act suspending legislature of New-York.]
But that one other act passed in the same seventh year of his reign,
having been a peculiar attempt, must ever require peculiar mention. It
is entitled 'an act
One free and independent legislature, hereby takes upon itself to
suspend the powers of another, free and independent as itself. Thus
exhibiting a phenomenon unknown in nature, the creator, and creature of
its own power. Not only the principles of common sense, but the common
feelings of human nature must be surrendered up, before his Majesty's
subjects here, can be persuaded to believe, that they hold their
political existence at the will of a British Parliament. Shall these
governments be dissolved, their property annihilated, and their people
reduced to a state of nature, at the imperious breath of a body of men
whom they never saw, in whom they never confided, and over whom they
have no powers of punishment or removal, let their crimes against the
American public be ever so great? Can any one reason be assigned, why
one hundred and sixty thousand electors in the island of Great Britain,
should give law to four millions in the States of America, every
individual of whom is equal to every individual of them in virtue,
in understanding, and in bodily strength? Were this to be admitted,
instead of being a free people, as we have hitherto supposed, and mean
to continue ourselves, we should suddenly be found the slaves, not of
one, but of one hundred and sixty thousand tyrants; distinguished, too,
from all others, by this singular circumstance, that they are removed
from the reach of fear, the only restraining motive which may hold the
hand of a tyrant.
That, by 'an act to discontinue in such manner, and for such time as
are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping
of goods, wares and merchandize, at the town and within the harbor of
Boston, in the province of Massachusetts bay, in North America,'[25]
which was past at the last session of the British Parliament, a large
and populous town, whose trade was their sole subsistence, was deprived
of that trade, and involved in utter ruin. Let us for a while, suppose
the question of right suspended, in order to examine this act on
principles of justice. An act of Parliament had been passed, imposing
duties on teas, to be paid in America, against which act the Americans
had protested, as inauthoritative. The East India Company, who till
that time, had never sent a pound of tea to America on their own
account, step forth on that occasion, the asserters of Parliamentary
right, and send hither many ship loads of that obnoxious commodity. The
masters of their several vessels, however, on their arrival in America,
wisely attended to admonition, and returned with their cargoes. In the
province of New-England alone, the remonstrances of the people were
disregarded, and a compliance, after being many days waited for, was
flatly refused. Whether in this, the master of the vessel was governed
by his obstinacy, or his instructions, let those who know, say. There
are extraordinary situations which require extraordinary interposition.
An exasperated people, who feel that they possess power, are not easily
restrained within limits strictly regular. A number of them assembled
in the town of Boston, threw the tea into the ocean, and dispersed
without doing any other act of violence. If in this they did wrong,
they were known, and were amenable to the laws of the land; against
which, it could not be objected, that they had ever, in any instance,
been obstructed or diverted from the regular course, in favor of
popular offenders. They should, therefore, not have been distrusted
on this occasion. But that ill-fated colony had formerly been bold
in their enmities against the House of Stuart, and were now devoted
to ruin, by that unseen hand which governs the momentous affairs of
this great empire. On the partial representations of a few worthless
ministerial dependants, whose constant office it has been to keep that
government embroiled, and who, by their treacheries, hope to obtain the
dignity of British knighthood, without calling for a party accused,
without asking a proof, without attempting a distinction between the
guilty and the innocent, the whole of that ancient and wealthy town, is
in a moment reduced from opulence to beggary. Men who had spent their
lives in extending the British commerce, who had invested, in that
place, the wealth their honest endeavors had merited, found themselves
and their families, thrown at once on the world, for subsistence by
its charities. Not the hundredth part of the inhabitants of that town,
had been concerned in the act complained of; many of them were in
Great Britain, and in other parts beyond sea; yet all were involved
in one indiscriminate ruin, by a new executive power, unheard of till
then, that of a British Parliament. A property of the value of many
millions of money, was sacrificed to revenge, not repay, the loss of a
few thousands. This is administering justice with a heavy hand indeed!
And when is this tempest to be arrested in its course? Two wharves are
to be opened again when his Majesty shall think proper: the residue,
which lined the extensive shores of the bay of Boston, are forever
interdicted the exercise of commerce. This little exception seems
to have been thrown in for no other purpose, than that of setting a
precedent for investing his Majesty with legislative powers. If the
pulse of his people shall beat calmly under this experiment, another
and another will be tried, till the measure of despotism be filled
up. It would be an insult on common sense, to pretend that this
exception was made, in order to restore its commerce to that great
town. The trade, which cannot be received at two wharves alone, must
of necessity be transferred to some other place; to which it will soon
be followed by that of the two wharves. Considered in this light, it
would be an insolent and cruel mockery at the annihilation of the town
of Boston. By the act for the suppression of riots and tumults in the
town of Boston,[26] passed also in the last session of Parliament, a
murder committed there, is, if the Governor pleases, to be tried in
the court of King's bench, in the island of Great Britain, by a jury
of Middlesex. The witnesses, too, on receipt of such a sum as the
Governor shall think it reasonable for them to expend, are to enter
into recognizance to appear at the trial. This is, in other words,
taxing them to the amount of their recognizance; and that amount may
be whatever a Governor pleases. For who does his Majesty think can
be prevailed on to cross the Atlantic for the sole purpose of bearing
evidence to a fact? His expenses are to be borne, indeed, as they shall
be estimated by a Governor; but who are to feed the wife and children
whom he leaves behind, and who have had no other subsistence but his
daily labor? Those epidemical disorders, too, so terrible in a foreign
climate, is the cure of them to be estimated among the articles of
expense, and their danger to be warded off by the Almighty power of a
Parliament? And the wretched criminal, if he happen to have offended
on the American side, stripped of his privilege of trial by peers of
his vicinage, removed from the place where alone full evidence could
be obtained, without money, without counsel, without friends, without
exculpatory proof, is tried before Judges predetermined to condemn.
The cowards who would suffer a countryman to be torn from the bowels of
their society, in order to be thus offered a sacrifice to Parliamentary
tyranny, would merit that everlasting infamy now fixed on the authors
of the act! A clause, for a similar purpose, had been introduced into
an act passed in the twelfth year of his Majesty's reign, entitled, 'an
act for the better securing and preserving his Majesty's Dock-yards,
Magazines, Ships, Ammunition and Stores;' against which, as meriting
the same censures, the several colonies have already protested.
That these are the acts of power, assumed by a body of men foreign to
our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws; against which we do,
on behalf of the inhabitants of British America, enter this, our solemn
and determined protest. And we do earnestly intreat his Majesty, as
yet the only mediatory power between the several States of the British
empire, to recommend to his Parliament of Great Britain, the total
revocation of these acts, which, however nugatory they may be, may yet
prove the cause of further discontents and jealousies among us.
That we next proceed to consider the conduct of his Majesty, as holding
the Executive powers of the laws of these States, and mark out his
deviations from the line of duty. By the Constitution of Great Britain,
as well as of the several American States, his Majesty possesses the
power of refusing to pass into a law, any bill which has already passed
the other two branches of the legislature. His Majesty, however, and
his ancestors, conscious of the impropriety of opposing their single
opinion to the united wisdom of two Houses of Parliament, while their
proceedings were unbiassed by interested principles, for several ages
past, have modestly declined the exercise of this power, in that part
of his empire called Great Britain. But, by change of circumstances,
other principles than those of justice simply, have obtained an
influence on their determinations. The addition of new States to
the British empire has produced an addition of new, and, sometimes,
opposite interests. It is now, therefore, the great office of his
Majesty to resume the exercise of his negative power, and to prevent
the passage of laws by any one legislature of the empire, which might
bear injuriously on the rights and interests of another. Yet this will
not excuse the wanton exercise of this power, which we have seen his
Majesty practice on the laws of the American legislature. For the most
trifling reasons, and, sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his
Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition
of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies,
where it was, unhappily, introduced in their infant state. But previous
to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to
exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts
to effect this, by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might
amount to a prohibition, having been hitherto defeated by his Majesty's
negative: thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British
corsairs, to the lasting interests of the American States, and to the
rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay,
the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was
scarcely ever known to fail of success, though, in the opposite scale,
were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful
an abuse of a power, trusted with his Majesty for other purposes, as
if, not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions.
With equal inattention to the necessities of his people here has his
Majesty permitted our laws to lie neglected, in England, for years,
neither confirming them by his assent, nor annulling them by his
negative: so, that such of them as have no suspending clause, we hold
on the most precarious of all tenures, his Majesty's will; and such of
them as suspend themselves till his Majesty's assent be obtained, we
have feared might be called into existence at some future and distant
period, when time and change of circumstances shall have rendered
them destructive to his people here. And, to render this grievance
still more oppressive, his Majesty, by his instructions, has laid
his Governors under such restrictions, that they can pass no law, of
any moment, unless it have such suspending clause: so that, however
immediate may be the call for legislative interposition, the law cannot
be executed, till it has twice crossed the Atlantic, by which time the
evil may have spent its whole force.
But in what terms reconcilable to Majesty, and at the same time to
truth, shall we speak of a late instruction to his Majesty's Governor
of the colony of Virginia, by which he is forbidden to assent to any
law for the division of a county, unless the new county will consent to
have no representative in Assembly? That colony has as yet affixed no
boundary to the Westward. Their Western counties, therefore, are of an
indefinite extent. Some of them are actually seated many hundred miles
from their Eastern limits. Is it possible, then, that his Majesty can
have bestowed a single thought on the situation of those people, who in
order to obtain justice for injuries, however great or small, must, by
the laws of that colony, attend their county court at such a distance,
with all their witnesses, monthly, till their litigation be determined?
Or does his Majesty seriously wish, and publish it to the world, that
his subjects should give up the glorious right of representation, with
all the benefits derived from that, and submit themselves the absolute
slaves of his sovereign will? Or is it rather meant to confine the
legislative body to their present numbers, that they may be the cheaper
bargain, whenever they shall become worth a purchase?
One of the articles of impeachment against Tresilian, and the other
Judges of Westminster Hall, in the reign of Richard the Second, for
which they suffered death, as traitors to their country, was, that
they had advised the King, that he might dissolve his Parliament at
any time; and succeeding kings have adopted the opinion of these unjust
Judges. Since the establishment, however, of the British constitution,
at the glorious Revolution, on its free and ancient principles,
neither his Majesty, nor his ancestors, have exercised such a power
of dissolution in the island of Great Britain;[27] and when his
Majesty was petitioned, by the united voice of his people there, to
dissolve the present Parliament, who had become obnoxious to them, his
Ministers were heard to declare, in open Parliament, that his Majesty
possessed no such power by the constitution. But how different their
language, and his practice, here! To declare, as their duty required,
the known rights of their country, to oppose the usurpation of every
foreign judicature, to disregard the imperious mandates of a Minister
or Governor, have been the avowed causes of dissolving Houses of
Representatives in America. But if such powers be really vested in his
Majesty, can he suppose they are there placed to awe the members from
such purposes as these? When the representative body have lost the
confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale
of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves
powers which the people never put into their hands, then, indeed, their
continuing in office becomes dangerous to the State, and calls for an
exercise of the power of dissolution. Such being the cause for which
the representative body should, and should not, be dissolved, will
it not appear strange, to an unbiassed observer, that that of Great
Britain was not dissolved, while those of the colonies have repeatedly
incurred that sentence?
But your Majesty, or your Governors, have carried this power beyond
every limit known or provided for by the laws. After dissolving
one House of Representatives, they have refused to call another, so
that, for a great length of time, the legislature provided by the
laws, has been out of existence. From the nature of things, every
society must, at all times, possess within itself the sovereign
powers of legislation. The feelings of human nature revolt against
the supposition of a State so situated, as that it may not, in any
emergency, provide against dangers which, perhaps, threaten immediate
ruin. While those bodies are in existence to whom the people have
delegated the powers of legislation, they alone possess, and may
exercise, those powers. But when they are dissolved, by the lopping
off one or more of their branches, the power reverts to the people, who
may use it to unlimited extent, either assembling together in person,
sending deputies, or in any other way they may think proper. We forbear
to trace consequences further; the dangers are conspicuous with which
this practice is replete.
That we shall, at this time also, take notice of an error in the nature
of our land holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our
settlement. The introduction of the Feudal tenures into the kingdom
of England, though ancient, is well enough understood to set this
matter in a proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement,
feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown, and very few, if
any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon
ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in
absolute dominion, disincumbered with any superior, answering nearly
to the nature of those possessions which the Feudalist term Allodial.
William the Norman, first introduced that system generally. The lands
which had belonged to those who fell in the battle of Hastings, and
in the subsequent insurrections of his reign, formed a considerable
proportion of the lands of the whole kingdom. These he granted out,
subject to feudal duties, as did he also those of a great number of
his new subjects, who, by persuasions or threats, were induced to
surrender them for that purpose. But still, much was left in the hands
of his Saxon subjects, held of no superior, and not subject to feudal
conditions. These, therefore, by express laws, enacted to render
uniform the system of military defence, were made liable to the same
military duties as if they had been feuds; and the Norman lawyers soon
found means to saddle them, also, with the other feudal burthens. But
still they had not been surrendered to the King, they were not derived
from his grant, and therefore they were not holden of him. A general
principle was introduced, that "all lands in England were held either
mediately or immediately of the Crown;" but this was borrowed from
those holdings which were truly feudal, and only applied to others
for the purposes of illustration. Feudal holdings were, therefore, but
exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands
were held in absolute right. These, therefore, still form the basis
or groundwork of the Common law, to prevail wheresoever the exceptions
have not taken place. America was not conquered by William the Norman,
nor its lands surrendered to him or any of his successors. Possessions
there are, undoubtedly, of the Allodial nature. Our ancestors, however,
who migrated hither, were laborers, not lawyers. The fictitious
principle, that all lands belong originally to the King, they were
early persuaded to believe real, and accordingly took grants of their
own lands from the Crown. And while the Crown continued to grant for
small sums and on reasonable rents, there was no inducement to arrest
the error, and lay it open to public view. But his Majesty has lately
taken on him to advance the terms of purchase and of holding, to the
double of what they were; by which means, the acquisition of lands
being rendered difficult, the population of our country is likely to
be checked. It is time, therefore, for us to lay this matter before
his Majesty, and to declare, that he has no right to grant lands of
himself. From the nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the
lands within the limits, which any particular party has circumscribed
around itself, are assumed by that society, and subject to their
allotment; this may be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by
their legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority,
and, if they are allotted in neither of these ways, each individual of
the society, may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant,
and occupancy will give him title.
That, in order to enforce the arbitrary measures before complained
of, his Majesty has, from time to time, sent among us large bodies
of armed forces, not made up of the people here, nor raised by the
authority of our laws. Did his Majesty possess such a right as this,
it might swallow up all our other rights, whenever he should think
proper. But his Majesty has no right to land a single armed man on our
shores; and those whom he sends here are liable to our laws, for the
suppression and punishment of riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies,
or are hostile bodies invading us in defiance of law. When, in the
course of the late war, it became expedient that a body of Hanoverian
troops should be brought over for the defence of Great Britain, his
Majesty's grandfather, our late sovereign, did not pretend to introduce
them under any authority he possessed. Such a measure would have given
just alarm to his subjects of Great Britain, whose liberties would not
be safe if armed men of another country, and of another spirit, might
be brought into the realm at any time, without the consent of their
legislature. He, therefore, applied to Parliament, who passed an act
for that purpose, limiting the number to be brought in, and the time
they were to continue. In like manner is his Majesty restrained in
every part of the empire. He possesses indeed the executive power of
the laws in every State; but they are the laws of the particular State,
which he is to administer within that State, and not those of any one
within the limits of another. Every State must judge for itself, the
number of armed men which they may safely trust among them, of whom
they are to consist, and under what restrictions they are to be laid.
To render these proceedings still more criminal against our laws,
instead of subjecting the military to the civil power, his majesty
has expressly made the civil subordinate to the military. But can his
Majesty thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect a power
superior to that which erected himself? He has done it indeed by force;
but let him remember that force cannot give right.
That these are our grievances, which we have thus laid before his
Majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a
free people, claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature,
and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate. Let those flatter,
who fear: it is not an American art. To give praise where it is not
due might be well from the venal, but would ill beseem those who are
asserting the rights of human nature. They know, and will, therefore,
say, that Kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people.
Open your breast, Sire, to liberal and expanded thought. Let not the
name of George the third, be a blot on the page of history. You are
surrounded by British counsellors, but remember that they are parties.
You have no ministers for American affairs, because you have none
taken from among us, nor amenable to the laws on which they are to
give you advice. It behoves you, therefore, to think and to act for
yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong
are legible to every reader; to pursue them, requires not the aid
of many counsellors. The whole art of government consists in the art
of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you
credit where you fail. No longer persevere in sacrificing the rights
of one part of the empire to the inordinate desires of another; but
deal out to all, equal and impartial right. Let no act be passed by
any one legislature, which may infringe on the rights and liberties
of another. This is the important post in which fortune has placed
you, holding the balance of a great, if a well-poised empire. This,
Sire, is the advice of your great American council, on the observance
of which may perhaps depend your felicity and future fame, and the
preservation of that harmony which alone can continue, both to Great
Britain and America, the reciprocal advantages of their connection.
It is neither our wish nor our interest to separate from her. We are
willing, on our part, to sacrifice everything which reason can ask, to
the restoration of that tranquillity for which all must wish. On their
part, let them be ready to establish union on a generous plan. Let
them name their terms, but let them be just. Accept of every commercial
preference it is in our power to give, for such things as we can raise
for their use, or they make for ours. But let them not think to exclude
us from going to other markets to dispose of those commodities which
they cannot use, nor to supply those wants which they cannot supply.
Still less, let it be proposed, that our properties, within our own
territories, shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth, but
our own. The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time:
the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. This, Sire, is
our last, our determined resolution. And that you will be pleased to
interpose, with that efficacy which your earnest endeavors may insure,
to procure redress of these our great grievances, to quiet the minds
of your subjects in British America against any apprehensions of future
encroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony through the whole
empire, and that that may continue to the latest ages of time, is the
fervent prayer of all British America.
[NOTE D.]
August, 1774.
_Instructions for the Deputies appointed to meet in General Congress on
the part of this Colony._
The unhappy disputes between Great Britain and her American colonies,
which began about the third year of the reign of his present Majesty,
and since, continually increasing, have proceeded to lengths so
dangerous and alarming, as to excite just apprehensions in the minds
of his Majesty's faithful subjects of this colony, that they are in
danger of being deprived of their natural, ancient, constitutional,
and chartered rights, have compelled them to take the same into their
most serious consideration; and, being deprived of their usual and
accustomed mode of making known their grievances, have appointed
us their representatives to consider what is proper to be done in
this dangerous crisis of American affairs. It being our opinion that
the united wisdom of North America should be collected in a General
Congress of all the colonies, we have appointed the Honorable Peyton
Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard
Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton, Esquires, deputies to
represent this colony in the said Congress, to be held at Philadelphia,
on the first Monday in September next.
And that they may be the better informed of our sentiments, touching
the conduct we wish them to observe on this important occasion, we
desire that they will express, in the first place, our faith and true
allegiance to his Majesty, King George the third, our lawful and
rightful sovereign; and that we are determined, with our lives and
fortunes, to support him in the legal exercise of all his just rights
and prerogatives. And, however misrepresented, we sincerely approve
of a constitutional connection with Great Britain, and wish, most
ardently, a return of that intercourse of affection and commercial
connection, that formerly united both countries, which can only be
effected by a removal of those causes of discontent, which have of late
unhappily divided us.
It cannot admit of a doubt, but the British subjects in America are
entitled to the same rights and privileges as their fellow subjects
possess in Britain; and therefore, that the power assumed by the
British Parliament to bind America by their statutes _in all cases_
whatsoever, is unconstitutional, and the source of these unhappy
differences.
The end of government would be defeated by the British Parliament
exercising a power over the lives, the property, and the liberty of
American subjects, who are not, and, from their local circumstances,
cannot be, there represented. Of this nature, we consider the several
acts of Parliament for raising a revenue in America, for extending the
jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty, for seizing American subjects,
and transporting them to Britain to be tried for crimes committed in
America, and the several late oppressive acts respecting the town of
Boston, and Province of the Massachusetts Bay.
The original constitution of the American colonies possessing their
assemblies with the sole right of directing their internal polity, it
is absolutely destructive of the end of their institution, that their
legislatures should be suspended, or prevented, by hasty dissolutions,
from exercising their legislative powers.
Wanting the protection of Britain, we have long acquiesced in their
acts of navigation, restrictive of our commerce, which we consider as
an ample recompense for such protection; but as those acts derive their
efficacy from that foundation alone, we have reason to expect they will
be restrained, so as to produce the reasonable purposes of Britain, and
not injurious to us.
To obtain redress of these grievances, without which the people of
America can neither be safe, free, nor happy, they are willing to
undergo the great inconvenience that will be derived to them, from
stopping all imports whatever, from Great Britain, after the first day
of November next, and also to cease exporting any commodity whatsoever,
to the same place, after the tenth day of August, 1775. The earnest
desire we have to make as quick and full payment as possible of our
debts to Great Britain, and to avoid the heavy injury that would
arise to this country from an earlier adoption of the non-exportation
plan, after the people have already applied so much of their labor
to the perfecting of the present crop, by which means, they have been
prevented from pursuing other methods of clothing and supporting their
families, have rendered it necessary to restrain you in this article of
non-exportation; but it is our desire, that you cordially co-operate
with our sister colonies in General Congress, in such other just and
proper methods as they, or the majority, shall deem necessary for the
accomplishment of these valuable ends.
The proclamation issued by General Gage, in the government of the
Province of the Massachusetts Bay, declaring it treason for the
inhabitants of that province to assemble themselves to consider of
their grievances, and form associations for their common conduct on the
occasion, and requiring the civil magistrates and officers to apprehend
all such persons, to be tried for their supposed offences, is the
most alarming process that ever appeared in a British government; and
the said General Gage hath, thereby, assumed, and taken upon himself,
powers denied by the constitution to our legal sovereign; that he,
not having condescended to disclose by what authority he exercises
such extensive and unheard of powers, we are at a loss to determine,
whether he intends to justify himself as the representative of the
King, or as the Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty's forces in America.
If he considers himself as acting in the character of his Majesty's
representative, we would remind him that the statute 25th, Edward
the third has expressed and defined all treasonable offences, and
that the legislature of Great Britain had declared, that no offence
shall be construed to be treason, but such as is pointed out by that
statute, and that this was done to take out of the hands of tyrannical
Kings, and of weak and wicked Ministers, that deadly weapon, which
constructive treason had furnished them with, and which had drawn the
blood of the best and honestest men in the kingdom; and that the King
of Great Britain hath no right by his proclamation, to subject his
people to imprisonment, pains, and penalties.
That if the said General Gage conceives he is empowered to act in this
manner, as the Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty's forces in America,
this odious and illegal proclamation must be considered as a plain
and full declaration, that this despotic Viceroy will be bound by no
law, nor regard the constitutional rights of his Majesty's subjects,
whenever they interfere with the plan he has formed for oppressing
the good people of the Massachusetts Bay; and, therefore, that the
executing, or attempting to execute, such proclamations, will justify
resistance and reprisal.
[NOTE E.]
Monticello, November 1. 1778.
DEAR SIR,
I have got through the bill for "proportioning crimes and punishments
in cases heretofore capital," and now enclose it to you with a request
that you will be so good, as scrupulously to examine and correct
it, that it may be presented to our committee with as few defects
as possible. In its style, I have aimed at accuracy, brevity, and
simplicity, preserving, however, the very words of the established
law, wherever their meaning had been sanctioned by judicial decisions,
or rendered technical by usage. The same matter, if couched in the
modern statutory language, with all its tautologies, redundancies,
and circumlocutions, would have spread itself over many pages, and
been unintelligible to those whom it most concerns. Indeed, I wished
to exhibit a sample of reformation in the barbarous style into which
modern statutes have degenerated from their ancient simplicity. And I
must pray you to be as watchful over what I have not said, as what is
said; for the omissions of this bill have all their positive meaning.
I have thought it better to drop, in silence, the laws we mean to
discontinue, and let them be swept away by the general negative words
of this, than to detail them in clauses of express repeal. By the side
of the text I have written the notes I made, as I went along, for the
benefit of my own memory. They may serve to draw your attention to
questions, to which the expressions or the omissions of the text may
give rise. The extracts from the Anglo-Saxon laws, the sources of the
Common law, I wrote in their original, for my own satisfaction;[28] but
I have added Latin, or liberal English translations. From the time of
Canute to that of the Magna Charta, you know, the text of our statutes
is preserved to us in Latin only, and some old French.
I have strictly observed the scale of punishments settled by the
Committee, without being entirely satisfied with it. The _Lex
talionis_, although a restitution of the Common law, to the simplicity
of which we have generally found it so advantageous to return, will
be revolting to the humanized feelings of modern times. An eye for an
eye, and a hand for a hand, will exhibit spectacles in execution whose
moral effect would be questionable; and even the _membrum pro membro_
of Bracton, or the punishment of the offending member, although long
authorized by our law, for the same offence in a slave has, you know,
been not long since repealed, in conformity with public sentiment. This
needs reconsideration.
I have heard little of the proceedings of the Assembly, and do not
expect to be with you till about the close of the month. In the
meantime, present me respectfully to Mrs. Wythe, and accept assurances
of the affectionate esteem and respect of, dear Sir,
Your friend and servant.
George Wythe, Esq.
_A Bill for proportioning Crimes and Punishments, in cases heretofore
Capital._
Whereas, it frequently happens that wicked and dissolute men, resigning
themselves to the dominion of inordinate passions, commit violations on
the lives, liberties, and property of others, and, the secure enjoyment
of these having principally induced men to enter into society,
government would be defective in its principal purpose, were it not to
restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who
perpetrate them; but it appears, at the same time, equally deducible
from the purposes of society, that a member thereof, committing an
inferior injury, does not wholly forfeit the protection of his fellow
citizens, but, after suffering a punishment in proportion to his
offence, is entitled to their protection from all greater pain, so that
it becomes a duty in the legislature to arrange, in a proper scale,
the crimes which it may be necessary for them to repress, and to adjust
thereto a corresponding gradation of punishments.
And whereas, the reformation of offenders, though an object worthy
the attention of the laws, is not effected at all by capital
punishments, which exterminate instead of reforming, and should be
the last melancholy resource against those whose existence is become
inconsistent with the safety of their fellow citizens, which also
weaken the State, by cutting off so many who, if reformed, might
be restored sound members to society, who, even under a course of
correction, might be rendered useful in various labors for the public,
and would be living and long-continued spectacles to deter others from
committing the like offences.
And forasmuch as the experience of all ages and countries hath shown,
that cruel and sanguinary laws defeat their own purpose, by engaging
the benevolence of mankind to withhold prosecutions, to smother
testimony, or to listen to it with bias, when, if the punishment were
only proportioned to the injury, men would feel it their inclination,
as well as their duty, to see the laws observed.
For rendering crimes and punishments, therefore, more proportionate to
each other:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no crime shall be
henceforth punished by the deprivation of life or limb,[29] except
those hereinafter ordained to be so punished.
[30]If a man do levy war[31] against the Commonwealth [_in the
same_], or be adherent to the enemies of the Commonwealth [_within
the same_],[32] giving to them aid or comfort in the Commonwealth, or
elsewhere, and thereof be convicted of open deed, by the evidence of
two sufficient witnesses, or his own voluntary confession, the said
cases, and no[33] others, shall be adjudged treasons which extend to
the Commonwealth, and the person so convicted shall suffer death, by
hanging,[34] and shall forfeit his lands and goods to the Commonwealth.
If any person commit petty treason, or a husband murder his wife, a
parent[35] his child, or a child his parent, he shall suffer death by
hanging, and his body be delivered to Anatomists to be dissected.
Whosoever committeth murder by poisoning shall suffer death by poison.
Whosoever committeth murder by way of duel shall suffer death by
hanging; and if he were the challenger, his body, after death, shall be
gibbetted.[36] He who removeth it from the gibbet shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor; and the officer shall see that it be replaced.
Whosoever shall commit murder in any other way shall suffer death by
hanging.
And in all cases of Petty treason and murder, one half of the lands
and goods of the offender, shall be forfeited to the next of kin
to the person killed, and the other half descend and go to his own
representatives. Save only, where one shall slay the challenger in
a duel,[37] in which case, no part of his lands or goods shall be
forfeited to the kindred of the party slain, but, instead thereof, a
moiety shall go to the Commonwealth.
The same evidence[38] shall suffice, and order and course[39] of
trial be observed in cases of Petty treason, as in those of other[40]
murders.
Whosoever shall be guilty of manslaughter,[41] shall, for the first
offence, be condemned to hard[42] labor for seven years in the public
works, shall forfeit one half of his lands and goods to the next of kin
to the person slain; the other half to be sequestered during such term,
in the hands and to the use of the Commonwealth, allowing a reasonable
part of the profits for the support of his family. The second offence
shall be deemed murder.
And where persons, meaning to commit a trespass[43] only, or larceny,
or other unlawful deed, and doing an act from which involuntary
homicide hath ensued, have heretofore been adjudged guilty of
manslaughter, or of murder, by transferring such their unlawful
intention to an act, much more penal than they could have in probable
contemplation; no such case shall hereafter be deemed manslaughter,
unless manslaughter was intended, nor murder, unless murder was
intended.
In other cases of homicide, the law will not add to the miseries of the
party, by punishments and forfeitures.[44]
Whenever sentence of death shall have been pronounced against any
person for treason or murder, execution shall be done on the next
day but one after such sentence, unless it be Sunday, and then on the
Monday following.[45]
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape,[46] Polygamy,[47] or Sodomy[48]
with man or woman, shall be punished, if a man, by castration,[49] if a
woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half
inch in diameter at the least.
But no one shall be punished for Polygamy, who shall have married after
probable information of the death of his or her husband or wife, or
after his or her husband or wife, hath absented him or herself, so that
no notice of his or her being alive hath reached such person for seven
years together, or hath suffered the punishments before prescribed for
rape, polygamy, or sodomy.
Whosoever on purpose, and of malice forethought, shall maim[50]
another, or shall disfigure him, by cutting out or disabling the
tongue, slitting or cutting off a nose, lip, or ear, branding, or
otherwise, shall be maimed, or disfigured in like[51] sort: or if that
cannot be, for want of the same part, then as nearly as may be, in some
other part of at least equal value and estimation, in the opinion of
a jury, and moreover, shall forfeit one half of his lands and goods to
the sufferer.
Whosoever shall counterfeit[52] any coin, current by law within this
Commonwealth, or any paper bills issued in the nature of money, or
of certificates of loan on the credit of this Commonwealth, or of all
or any of the United States of America, or any Inspectors' notes for
tobacco, or shall pass any such counterfeit coin, paper, bills, or
notes, knowing them to be counterfeit; or, for the sake of lucre, shall
diminish,[53] case, or wash any such coin, shall be condemned to hard
labor six years in the public works, and shall forfeit all his lands
and goods to the Commonwealth.
[54]Whosoever committeth Arson, shall be condemned to hard labor
five years in the public works, and shall make good the loss of the
sufferers threefold.[55]
If any person shall, within this Commonwealth, or being a citizen
thereof, shall without the same, wilfully destroy,[56] or run[57] away
with any sea-vessel, or goods laden on board thereof, or plunder or
pilfer any wreck, he shall be condemned to hard labor five years in the
public works, and shall make good the loss of the sufferers threefold.
Whosoever committeth Robbery,[58] shall be condemned to hard labor
four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the
persons injured.
Whatsoever act, if committed on any Mansion house, would be deemed
Burglary,[59] shall be Burglary, if committed on any other house; and
he, who is guilty of Burglary, shall be condemned to hard labor four
years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the
persons injured.
Whatsoever act, if committed in the night time, shall constitute
the crime of Burglary, shall, if committed in the day, be deemed
House-breaking;[60] and whosoever is guilty thereof, shall be
condemned to hard labor three years in the public works, and shall make
reparation to the persons injured.
Whosoever shall be guilty of Horse-stealing,[61] shall be condemned to
hard labor three years in the public works, and shall make reparation
to the person injured.
Grand Larceny[62] shall be where the goods stolen are of the value of
five dollars; and whosoever shall be guilty thereof, shall be forthwith
put in the pillory for one half hour, shall be condemned to hard
labor[63] two years in the public works, and shall make reparation to
the person injured.
Petty Larceny shall be, where the goods stolen are of less value than
five dollars; and whosoever shall be guilty thereof, shall be forthwith
put in the pillory for a quarter of an hour, shall be condemned to hard
labor one year in the public works, and shall make reparation to the
person injured.
Robbery[64] or larceny of bonds, bills obligatory, bills of exchange,
or promissory notes for the payment of money or tobacco, lottery
tickets, paper bills issued in the nature of money, or of certificates
of loan on the credit of this Commonwealth, or of all or any of the
United States of America, or Inspectors' notes for tobacco, shall
be punished in the same manner as robbery or larceny of the money or
tobacco due on, or represented by such papers.
Buyers[65] and receivers of goods taken by way of robbery or larceny,
knowing them to have been so taken, shall be deemed accessaries to such
robbery or larceny after the fact.
Prison-breakers[66], also, shall be deemed accessaries after the fact,
to traitors or felons whom they enlarge from prison.[67]
All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by
exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, enchantment,
or sorcery, or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking
and whipping, at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding fifteen
stripes.[68]
If the principal offenders be fled,[69] or secreted from justice,
in any case not touching life or member, the accessaries may,
notwithstanding, be prosecuted as if their principal were
convicted.[70]
If any offender stand mute of obstinacy,[71] or challenge peremptorily
more of the jurors than by law he may, being first warned of the
consequence thereof, the court shall proceed as if he had confessed the
charge.[72]
Pardon and Privilege of clergy, shall henceforth be abolished, that
none may be induced to injure through hope of impunity. But if the
verdict be against the defendant, and the court before whom the
offence is heard and determined, shall doubt that it may be untrue for
defect of testimony, or other cause, they may direct a new trial to be
had.[73]
No attainder shall work corruption of blood in any case.
In all cases of forfeiture, the widow's dower shall be saved to her,
during her title thereto; after which it shall be disposed of as if no
such saving had been.
The aid of Counsel,[74] and examination of their witnesses on oath,
shall be allowed to defendants in criminal prosecutions.
Slaves guilty of any offence[75] punishable in others by labor in the
public works, shall be transported to such parts in the West Indies,
South America, or Africa, as the Governor shall direct, there to be
continued in slavery.
[NOTE F.]
_Notes on the Establishment of a Money Unit, and of a Coinage for the
United States._
In fixing the Unit of Money, these circumstances are of principal
importance.
I. That it be of _convenient size_ to be applied as a measure to the
common money transactions of life.
II. That its parts and multiples be in _an easy proportion_ to each
other, so as to facilitate the money arithmetic.
III. That the Unit and its parts, or divisions, be _so nearly of the
value of some of the known coins_, as that they may be of easy adoption
for the people.
The Spanish Dollar seems to fulfil all these conditions.
I. Taking into our view all money transactions, great and small,
I question if a common measure of more _convenient size_ than the
Dollar could be proposed. The value of 100, 1000, 10,000 dollars is
well estimated by the mind; so is that of the tenth or the hundredth
of a dollar. Few transactions are above or below these limits. The
expediency of attending to the size of the money Unit will be evident,
to any one who will consider how inconvenient it would be to a
manufacturer or merchant, if, instead of the yard for measuring cloth,
either the inch or the mile had been made the Unit of Measure.
II. The most _easy ratio_ of multiplication and division, is that by
ten. Every one knows the facility of Decimal Arithmetic. Every one
remembers, that, when learning Money-Arithmetic, he used to be puzzled
with adding the farthings, taking out the fours and carrying them on;
adding the pence, taking out the twelves and carrying them on; adding
the shillings, taking out the twenties and carrying them on; but when
he came to the pounds, where he had only tens to carry forward, it was
easy and free from error. The bulk of mankind are school-boys through
life. These little perplexities are always great to them. And even
mathematical heads feel the relief of an easier, substituted for a
more difficult process. Foreigners, too, who trade and travel among
us, will find a great facility in understanding our coins and accounts
from this ratio of subdivision. Those who have had occasion to convert
the livres, sols, and deniers of the French; the gilders, stivers, and
frenings of the Dutch; the pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of
these several States, into each other, can judge how much they would
have been aided, had their several subdivisions been in a decimal
ratio. Certainly, in all cases, where we are free to choose between
easy and difficult modes of operation, it is most rational to choose
the easy. The Financier, therefore, in his report, well proposes that
our Coins should be in decimal proportions to one another. If we adopt
the Dollar for our Unit, we should strike four coins, one of gold, two
of silver, and one of copper, viz.:
1. A golden piece, equal in value to ten dollars:
2. The Unit or Dollar itself, of silver:
3. The tenth of a Dollar, of silver also:
4. The hundredth of a Dollar, of copper.
Compare the arithmetical operations, on the same sum of money expressed
in this form, and expressed in the pound sterling and its division.
£ s. d. qrs. Dollars.
Addition. 8 13 11 1-2 = 38.65
4 12 8 3-4 = 20.61
------------ -----
13 6 8 1-4 = 59.26
£ s. d. qrs. Dollars.
Subtraction. 8 13 11 1-2 = 38.65
4 12 8 3-4 = 20.61
------------ -----
4 1 2 3-4 = 18.04
Multiplication by 8.
£ s. d. qrs. Dollars.
8 13 11 1-2 = 38.65
20 8
---- ------
173 $309.20
12
----
2087
4
----
8350
8
------
4)66,800
12)16 700
20) 1391 8
£69 11 8
Division by 8.
£ s. d. qrs. Dollars.
8 13 11 1-2 = 8)38.65
20 4.83
----
173
12
----
2087
4
----
8)8350
4)1043
12) 260 3-4
20) 21 8 3-4
£1 1 8 3-4
A bare inspection of the above operations will evince the labor which
is occasioned by subdividing the Unit into 20ths, 240ths, and 960ths,
as the English do, and as we have done; and the ease of subdivision
in a decimal ratio. The same difference arises in making payment.
An Englishman, to pay £8, 13_s._ 11_d._ 1-2 qrs., must find, by
calculation, what combination of the coins of his country will pay
this sum; but an American, having the same sum to pay, thus expressed
$38.65, will know, by inspection only, that three golden pieces, eight
units or dollars, six tenths, and five coppers, pay it precisely.
III. The third condition required is, that the Unit, its multiples, and
subdivisions, coincide in value with some of the known coins so nearly,
that the people may, by a quick reference in the mind, estimate their
value. If this be not attended to, they will be very long in adopting
the innovation, if ever they adopt it. Let us examine, in this point of
view, each of the four coins proposed.
1. The golden piece will be 1-5 more than a half joe, and 1-15 more
than a double guinea. It will be readily estimated, then, by reference
to either of them; but more readily and accurately as equal to ten
dollars.
2. The Unit, or Dollar, is a known coin, and the most familiar of all,
to the minds of the people. It is already adopted from South to North;
has identified our currency, and therefore happily offers itself as a
Unit already introduced. Our public debt, our requisitions, and their
appointments, have given it actual and long possession of the place
of Unit. The course of our commerce, too, will bring us more of this
than of any other foreign coin, and therefore renders it more worthy
of attention. I know of no Unit which can be proposed in competition
with the Dollar, but the Pound. But what is the Pound? 1547 grains
of fine silver in Georgia; 1289 grains in Virginia, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire; 1031 1-4 grains in
Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; 966 3-4 grains in
North Carolina and New York. Which of these shall we adopt? To which
State give that pre-eminence of which all are so jealous? And on which
impose the difficulties of a new estimate of their corn, their cattle,
and other commodities? Or shall we hang the pound sterling, as a common
badge, about all their necks? This contains 1718 3-4 grains of pure
silver. It is difficult to familiarize a new coin to the people; it
is more difficult to familiarize them to a new coin with an old name.
Happily, the dollar is familiar to them all, and is already as much
referred to for a measure of value, as their respective provincial
pounds.
3. The tenth will be precisely the Spanish bit, or half pistereen. This
is a coin perfectly familiar to us all. When we shall make a new coin,
then, equal in value to this, it will be of ready estimate with the
people.
4. The hundredth, or copper, will differ little from the copper of
the four Eastern States, which is 1-108 of a dollar; still less from
the penny of New York and North Carolina, which is 1-96 of a dollar;
and somewhat more from the penny or copper of Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and Maryland, which is 1-90 of a dollar.
It will be about the medium between the old and the new coppers of
these States, and will therefore soon be substituted for them both.
In Virginia, coppers have never been in use. It will be as easy,
therefore, to introduce them there of one value as of another. The
copper coin proposed will be nearly equal to three-fourths of their
penny, which is the same with the penny lawful of the Eastern States.
A great deal of small change is useful in a State, and tends to reduce
the price of small articles. Perhaps it would not be amiss to coin
three more pieces of silver, one of the value of five-tenths, or half
a dollar, one of the value of two-tenths, which would be equal to the
Spanish pistereen, and one of the value of five coppers, which would be
equal to the Spanish half-bit. We should then have five silver coins,
viz.:
1. The Unit or Dollar:
2. The half dollar or five-tenths:
3. The double tenth, equal to 2, or one-fifth of a dollar, or to
the pistereen:
4. The tenth, equal to a Spanish bit:
5. The five copper piece, equal to .5, or one-twentieth of a
dollar, or the half-bit.
The plan reported by the Financier is worthy of his sound judgment. It
admits, however, of objection, in the size of the Unit. He proposes
that this shall be the 1440th part of a dollar: so that it will
require 1440 of his units to make the one before proposed. He was led
to adopt this by a mathematical attention to our old currencies, all
of which this Unit will measure without leaving a fraction. But as
our object is to get rid of those currencies, the advantage derived
from this coincidence will soon be past, whereas the inconveniences of
this Unit will forever remain, if they do not altogether prevent its
introduction. It is defective in two of the three requisites of a Money
Unit. 1. It is inconvenient in its application to the ordinary money
transactions. 10.000 dollars will require eight figures to express
them, to wit 14,400,000 units. A horse or bullock of eighty dollars
value, will require a notation of six figures, to wit, 115,200 units.
As a money of account, this will be laborious, even when facilitated
by the aid of decimal arithmetic: as a common measure of the value of
property, it will be too minute to be comprehended by the people. The
French are subjected to very laborious calculations, the Livre being
their ordinary money of account, and this but between l-5th and l-6th
of a dollar; but what will be our labors, should our money of account
be 1-1440th of a dollar? 2. It is neither equal, nor near to any of the
known coins in value.
If we determine that a Dollar shall be our Unit, we must then say with
precision what a Dollar is. This coin, struck at different times, of
different weights and fineness, is of different values. Sir Isaac
Newton's assay and representation to the Lords of the Treasury, in
1717, of those which he examined, make their values as follows:
dwts. grs.
The Seville piece of eight 17--12 containing 387 grains of
pure silver
The Mexico piece of eight 17--10 5-9 " 385 1-2
The Pillar piece of eight 17--9 " 385 3-4
The new Seville piece of eight 14-- " 308 7-10
The Financier states the old Dollar as containing 376 grains of fine
silver, and the new 365 grains. If the Dollars circulating among us be
of every date equally, we should examine the quantity of pure metal in
each, and from them form an average for our Unit. This is a work proper
to be committed to mathematicians as well as merchants, and which
should be decided on actual and accurate experiment.
The quantum of alloy is also to be decided. Some is necessary, to
prevent the coin from wearing too fast; too much, fills our pockets
with copper, instead of silver. The silver coin assayed by Sir Isaac
Newton, varied from 1 1-2 to 76 pennyweights alloy, in the pound troy
of mixed metal. The British standard has 18 dwt.; the Spanish coins
assayed by Sir Isaac Newton, have from 18 to 19 1-2 dwt.; the new
French crown has in fact 19 1-2, though by edict, it should have 20
dwt., that is 1-12.
The taste of our countrymen will require, that their furniture plate
should be as good as the British standard. Taste cannot be controlled
by law. Let it then give the law, in a point which is indifferent to a
certain degree. Let the Legislature fix the alloy of furniture plate
at 18 dwt., the British standard, and Congress that of their coin at
one ounce in the pound, the French standard. This proportion has been
found convenient for the alloy of gold coin, and it will simplify the
system of our mint to alloy both metals in the same degree. The coin,
too, being the least pure, will be the less easily melted into plate.
These reasons are light, indeed, and, of course, will only weigh, if no
heavier ones can be opposed to them.
The proportion between the values of gold and silver is a mercantile
problem altogether. It would be inaccurate to fix it by the popular
exchanges of a half Joe for eight dollars, a Louis for four French
crowns, or five Louis for twenty-three dollars. The first of these,
would be to adopt the Spanish proportion between gold and silver;
the second, the French; the third, a mere popular barter, wherein
convenience is consulted more than accuracy. The legal proportion
in Spain is 16 for 1; in England, 15 1-2 for 1; in France, 15 for
1. The Spaniards and English are found, in experience, to retain an
over-proportion of gold coins, and to lose their silver. The French
have a greater proportion of silver. The difference at market has
been on the decrease. The Financier states it at present, as at 14 1-2
for one. Just principles will lead us to disregard legal proportions
altogether; to enquire into the market price of gold, in the several
countries with which we shall principally be connected in commerce, and
to take an average from them. Perhaps we might, with safety, lean to a
proportion somewhat above par for gold, considering our neighborhood,
and commerce with the sources of the coins, and the tendency which
the high price of gold in Spain has, to draw thither all that of their
mines, leaving silver principally for our and other markets. It is not
impossible that 15 for 1, may be found an eligible proportion. I state
it, however, as a conjecture only.
As to the alloy for gold coin, the British is an ounce in the pound;
the French, Spanish, and Portuguese differ from that, only from a
quarter of a grain, to a grain and a half. I should, therefore, prefer
the British, merely because its fraction stands in a more simple form,
and facilitates the calculations into which it enters.
Should the Unit be fixed at 365 grains of pure silver, gold at 15 for
1, and the alloy of both be one-twelfth, the weight of the coins will
be as follows:
Grains. Grains. dwt. Grains.
of pure metal of alloy will weigh
The Golden piece containing 242 1-3 22.12 11 - 1.45
The Unit or Dollar 365 33.18 16 - 14.18
The half dollar, or five tenths, 182 1-2 16.59 8 - 7.09
The fifth, or Pistereen, 73 6.63 3 - 7.63
The tenth, or Bit. 36 1-2 3.318 1 - 15.818
The twentieth, or half Bit, 18 1-4 1.659 19.9
The quantity of fine silver which shall constitute the Unit, being
settled, and the proportion of the value of gold to that of silver; a
table should be formed from the assay before suggested, classing the
several foreign coins according to their fineness, declaring the worth
of a pennyweight or grain in each class, and that they shall be lawful
tenders at those rates, if not clipped or otherwise diminished; and,
where diminished, offering their value for them at the mint, deducting
the expense of re-coinage. Here the Legislatures should co-operate
with Congress, in providing that no money be received or paid at their
treasuries, or by any of their officers, or any bank, but on actual
weight; in making it criminal, in a high degree, to diminish their
own coins, and, in some smaller degree, to offer them in payment when
diminished.
That this subject may be properly prepared, and in readiness for
Congress to take up at their meeting in November, something must now
be done. The present session drawing to a close, they probably would
not choose to enter far into this undertaking themselves. The Committee
of the States, however, during the recess, will have time to digest
it thoroughly, if Congress will fix some general principles for their
government. Suppose they be instructed,
To appoint proper persons to assay and examine, with the utmost
accuracy practicable, the Spanish milled dollars of different dates, in
circulation with us.
To assay and examine, in like manner, the fineness of all the other
coins which may be found in circulation within these States.
To report to the Committee the result of these assays, by them to be
laid before Congress.
To appoint, also, proper persons to enquire what are the proportions
between the values of fine gold, and fine silver, at the markets of
the several countries with which we are, or probably may be, connected
in commerce; and what would be a proper proportion here, having
regard to the average of their values at those markets, and to other
circumstances, and to report the same to the Committee, by them to be
laid before Congress.
To prepare an Ordinance for establishing the Unit of Money within these
States; for subdividing it; and for striking coins of gold, silver, and
copper, on the following principles:
That the Money Unit of these States shall be equal in value to a
Spanish milled dollar containing so much fine silver as the assay,
before directed, shall show to be contained, on an average, in dollars
of the several dates in circulation with us.
That this Unit shall be divided into tenths and hundredths; that there
shall be a coin of silver of the value of a Unit; one other of the same
metal, of the value of one-tenth of a Unit; one other of copper, of the
value of the hundredth of a Unit.
That there shall be a coin of gold of the value of ten Units, according
to the report before directed, and the judgment of the Committee
thereon.
That the alloy of the said coins of gold and silver, shall be equal in
weight to one-eleventh part of the fine metal.
That there be proper devices for these coins.
That measures be proposed for preventing their diminution, and also
their currency, and that of any others, when diminished.
That the several foreign coins be described and classed in the said
Ordinance, the fineness of each class stated, and its value by weight
estimated in Units and decimal parts of Units.
And that the said draught of an Ordinance be reported to Congress at
their next meeting, for their consideration and determination.
_Supplementary Explanations._
The preceding notes having been submitted to the consideration of the
Financier, he favored me with his opinion and observations on them,
which render necessary the following supplementary explanations.
I observed, in the preceding notes, that the true proportion of value
between gold and silver was a mercantile problem altogether, and that,
perhaps, fifteen for one, might be found an eligible proportion. The
Financier is so good as to inform me, that this would be higher than
the market would justify. Confident of his better information on this
subject, I recede from that idea.[76]
He also informs me, that the several coins, in circulation among us,
have been already assayed with accuracy, and the result published in
a work on that subject. The assay of Sir Isaac Newton had superseded,
in my mind, the necessity of this operation as to the older coins,
which were the subject of his examination. This later work, with equal
reason, may be considered as saving the same trouble as to the latter
coins.
So far, then, I accede to the opinions of the Financier. On the other
hand, he seems to concur with me, in thinking his smallest fractional
division too minute for a Unit, and, therefore, proposes to transfer
that denomination to his largest silver coin, containing 1000 of the
units first proposed, and worth about 4s. 2d. lawful, or 25-36 of a
Dollar. The only question then remaining between us is, whether the
Dollar, or this coin, be best for the Unit. We both agree that _the
ease of adoption with the people_, is the thing to be aimed at.
1. As to the Dollar, events have overtaken and superseded the question.
It is no longer a doubt whether the people can adopt it with ease;
they have adopted it, and will have to be turned out of that, into
another tract of calculation, if another Unit be assumed. They have
now two Units, which they use with equal facility, viz., the Pound of
their respective State, and the Dollar. The first of these is peculiar
to each State: the second, happily, common to all. In each State, the
people have an easy rule of converting the pound of their State into
dollars, or dollars into pounds; and this is enough for them, without
knowing how this may be done in every State of the Union. Such of them
as live near enough the borders of their State to have dealings with
their neighbors, learn also the rule of their neighbors: thus, in
Virginia and the Eastern States, where the dollar is 6s. or 3-10 of
a pound, to turn pounds into dollars, they multiply by 10 and divide
by 3. To turn dollars into pounds, they multiply by 3, and divide by
10. Those in Virginia who live near to Carolina, where the dollar is
8s. or 4-10 of a pound, learn the operation of that State, which is a
multiplication by 4, and division by 10, _et e converso_. Those who
live near Maryland, where the dollar is 7s. 6d. or 3-8 of a pound,
multiply by 3, and divide by 8, _et e converso_. All these operations
are easy, and have been found, by experience, not too much for the
arithmetic of the people, when they have occasion to convert their old
Unit into dollars, or the reverse.
2. As to the Unit of the Financier; in the States where the dollars is
3-10 of a pound, this Unit will be 5-24. Its conversion into the pound
then, will be by a multiplication of 5, and a division by 24. In the
States where the dollar is 3-8 of a pound, this Unit will be 25-96 of a
pound, and the operation must be to multiply by 25, and divide by 96,
_et e converso_. Where the dollar is 4-10 of a pound, this Unit will
be 5-18. The simplicity of the fraction, and of course the facility
of conversion and reconversion, is therefore against this Unit, and in
favor of the dollar, in every instance. The only advantage it has over
the dollar, is, that it will in every case express our farthing without
a remainder; whereas, though the dollar and its decimals will do this
in many cases, it will not in all. But, even in these, by extending
your notation one figure further, to wit, to thousands, you approximate
to perfect accuracy within less than the two-thousandth part of a
dollar; an atom in money which every one would neglect. Against this
single inconvenience, the other advantages of the dollar are more than
sufficient to preponderate. This Unit will present to the people a new
coin, and whether they endeavor to estimate its value by comparing it
with a Pound, or with a Dollar, the Units they now possess, they will
find the fraction very compound, and of course less accommodated to
their comprehension and habits than the dollar. Indeed the probability
is, that they could never be led to compute in it generally.
The Financier supposes that the 1-100 part of a dollar is not
sufficiently small, where the poor are purchasers or vendors. If it is
not, make a smaller coin. But I suspect that it is small enough. Let
us examine facts, in countries where we are acquainted with them. In
Virginia, where our towns are few, small, and of course their demand
for necessaries very limited, we have never yet been able to introduce
a copper coin at all. The smallest coin which anybody will receive
there, is the half-bit, or 1-20 of a dollar. In those States where
the towns are larger and more populous, a more habitual barter of
small wants, has called for a copper coin of 1-90, 1-96, or 1-108 of
a dollar. In England, where the towns are many and populous, and where
ages of experience have matured the conveniences of intercourse, they
have found that some wants may be supplied for a farthing, or 1-208 of
a dollar, and they have accommodated a coin to this want. This business
is evidently progressive. In Virginia, we are far behind. In some
other States, they are further advanced, to wit, to the appreciation
of 1-90, 1-96, 1-108 of a dollar. To this most advanced state, then, I
accommodated my smallest coin in the decimal arrangement, as _a money
of payment_, corresponding with the _money of account_. I have no doubt
the time will come when a smaller coin will be called for. When that
comes, let it be made. It will probably be the half of the copper I
suppose, that is to say, 5-1000 or .005 of a dollar, this being very
nearly the farthing of England. But it will be time enough to make it,
when the people shall be ready to receive it.
My proposition then, is, that our notation of money shall be decimal,
descending _ad libitum_ of the person noting; that the Unit of this
notation shall be a Dollar; that coins shall be accommodated to it
from ten dollars to the hundredth of a dollar and that, to set this on
foot, the resolutions be adopted which were proposed in the notes, only
substituting _an enquiry into the fineness of the coins_ in lieu of _an
assay of them_.
[NOTE G.]
I have sometimes asked myself, whether my country is the better for
my having lived at all? I do not know that it is. I have been the
instrument of doing the following things; but they would have been done
by others; some of them, perhaps, a little better.
The Rivanna had never been used for navigation; scarcely an empty
canoe had ever passed down it. Soon after I came of age, I examined its
obstructions, set on foot a subscription for removing them, got an Act
of Assembly passed, and the thing effected, so as to be used completely
and fully for carrying down all our produce.
The Declaration of Independence.
I proposed the demolition of the church establishment, and the freedom
of religion. It could only be done by degrees; to wit, the Act of 1776,
c. 2. exempted dissenters from contributions to the Church, and left
the Church clergy to be supported by voluntary contributions of their
own sect; was continued from year to year, and made perpetual 1779, c.
36. I prepared the act for religious freedom in 1777, as part of the
revisal, which was not reported to the Assembly till 1779, and that
particular law not passed till 1785, and then by the efforts of Mr.
Madison.
The act putting an end to entails.
The act prohibiting the importation of slaves.
The act concerning citizens, and establishing the natural right of man
to expatriate himself, at will.
The act changing the course of descents, and giving the inheritance to
all the children, &c., equally, I drew as part of the revisal.
The act for apportioning crimes and punishments, part of the same work,
I drew. When proposed to the legislature, by Mr. Madison, in 1785, it
failed by a single vote. G. K. Taylor afterwards, in 1796, proposed
the same subject; avoiding the adoption of any part of the diction of
mine, the text of which had been studiously drawn in the technical
terms of the law, so as to give no occasion for new questions by
new expressions. When I drew mine, public labor was thought the best
punishment to be substituted for death. But, while I was in France,
I heard of a society in England, who had successfully introduced
solitary confinement, and saw the drawing of a prison at Lyons, in
France, formed on the idea of solitary confinement. And, being applied
to by the Governor of Virginia for the plan of a Capitol and Prison, I
sent him the Lyons plan, accompanying it with a drawing on a smaller
scale, better adapted to our use. This was in June, 1786. Mr. Taylor
very judiciously adopted this idea, (which had now been acted on in
Philadelphia, probably from the English model) and substituted labor in
confinement, to the public labor proposed by the Committee of revisal;
which themselves would have done, had they been to act on the subject
again. The public mind was ripe for this in 1796, when Mr. Taylor
proposed it, and ripened chiefly by the experiment in Philadelphia;
whereas, in 1785, when it had been proposed to our Assembly, they were
not quite ripe for it.
In 1789 and 1790, I had a great number of olive plants, of the best
kind, sent from Marseilles to Charleston, for South Carolina and
Georgia. They were planted, and are flourishing; and, though not yet
multiplied, they will be the germ of that cultivation in those States.
In 1790, I got a cask of heavy upland rice, from the river Denbigh,
in Africa, about lat. 9° 30' North, which I sent to Charleston, in
hopes it might supersede the culture of the wet rice, which renders
South Carolina and Georgia so pestilential through the summer. It was
divided, and a part sent to Georgia. I know not whether it has been
attended to in South Carolina; but it has spread in the upper parts
of Georgia, so as to have become almost general, and is highly prized.
Perhaps it may answer in Tennessee and Kentucky. The greatest service
which can be rendered any country is, to add an useful plant to its
culture; especially, a bread grain; next in value to bread is oil.
Whether the act for the more general diffusion of knowledge will ever
be carried into complete effect, I know not. It was received by the
legislature with great enthusiasm at first; and a small effort was made
in 1796, by the act to establish public schools, to carry a part of it
into effect, viz., that for the establishment of free English schools;
but the option given to the courts has defeated the intention of the
act.[77]
[NOTE H.]
New York, October 13, 1789.
SIR,
In the selection of characters to fill the important offices of
Government, in the United States, I was naturally led to contemplate
the talents and dispositions which I knew you to possess and entertain
for the service of your country; and without being able to consult
your inclination, or to derive any knowledge of your intention from
your letters, either to myself or to any other of your friends, I was
determined, as well by motives of private regard, as a conviction of
public propriety, to nominate you for the Department of State, which,
under its present organization, involves many of the most interesting
objects of the Executive authority. But grateful as your acceptance of
this commission would be to me, I am, at the same time, desirous to
accommodate your wishes, and I have, therefore, forborne to nominate
your successor at the court of Versailles, until I should be informed
of your determination.
Being on the eve of a journey through the Eastern States, with a view
to observe the situation of the country, and in a hope of perfectly
re-establishing my health, which a series of indispositions has much
impaired, I have deemed it proper to make this communication of your
appointment, in order that you might lose no time, should it be your
_wish_ to visit Virginia during the recess of Congress, which will
probably be the most convenient season, both as it may respect your
private concerns and the public service.
Unwilling, as I am, to interfere in the direction of your choice of
assistants, I shall only take the liberty of observing to you, that
from warm recommendations which I have received in behalf of Roger
Alden, Esq., assistant Secretary to the late Congress, I have placed
all the papers thereunto belonging, under his care. Those papers which
more properly appertain to the office of Foreign Affairs, are under the
superintendence of Mr. Jay, who has been so obliging as to continue his
good offices, and they are in the immediate charge of Mr. Remsen.
With sentiments of very great esteem and regard,
I have the honor to be, sir,
Your most obedient servant,
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
The Honorable Thomas Jefferson.
I take this occasion to acknowledge the receipt of your several favors,
of the 4th and 5th of December of the last, and 10th of May of the
present year, and to thank you for the communications therein.
G. W.
New York, November 30, 1789.
DEAR SIR,
You will perceive by the enclosed letter, (which was left for you at
the office of Foreign Affairs, when I made a journey to the Eastern
States,) the motives on which I acted with regard to yourself, and the
occasion of my explaining them at that early period.
Having now reason to hope, from Mr. Trumbull's report, that you will
be arrived at Norfolk before this time, (on which event I would most
cordially congratulate you,) and having a safe conveyance by Mr.
Griffin, I forward your commission to Virginia; with a request to
be made acquainted with your sentiments as soon as you shall find it
convenient to communicate them to me.
With sentiments of very great esteem and regard,
I am, dear sir,
Your most obedient humble servant,
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
The Honorable Thomas Jefferson.
FOOTNOTES:
[24] 12. C. 2. c. 18. 15. C. 2. c. 11. 25. C. 2. c. 7. 7. 8.
W. M. c. 22. 11. W. 34. Anne. 6. C. 2. c. 13.
[25] 14. G. 3.
[26] 14. G. 3.
[27] On further inquiry, I find two instances of dissolutions
before the Parliament would, of itself, have been at an end:
viz., the Parliament called to meet August 24, 1698, was
dissolved by King William, December 19, 1700, and a new one
called, to meet February 6, 1701, which was also dissolved,
November 11, 1701, and a new one met December 30, 1701.
[28] [In this publication, the original Saxon words are
given, but, owing to the want of Saxon letter, they are
printed in common type.]
[29] This takes away the punishment of cutting off the hand
of a person striking an other, or drawing his sword in one of
the superior courts of justice. Stamf. P. C. 38. 33. H. 8.
c. 12. In an earlier stage of the Common law, it was death.
Gif hwa gefeohte on Cyninges huse sy he scyldig ealles his
yrfes, and sy on Cyninges dome hwæther he lif age de nage: si
quis in regis domo pugnet, perdat omnem suam haereditatem,
et in regis sit arbitrio, possideat vitam an non possideat.
Ll. Inae. 6. Gif hwa on Cyninges healle gefeohte, oththe his
wæpne gebrede, and hine mon gefo, sy thæt on Cyninges dome
swa death, swa lif, swa he him forgyfan wille: si quis in
aula regia pugnet, vel arma sua extrahat et capiatur, sit
in regis arbitrio tam mors quam vita, sicut ei condonare
voluerit. Ll. Alfr. 7. Gif hwa on Cyninges hirede gefeohte
tholige thæt lifes, buton se Cyning him gearian wille:
si quis in regia dimicat, perdat vitam, nisi rex hoc illi
condonare velit. Ll. Cnuti. 56. 4. Bl. 125.
[30] 25. E. 3. st. 5. c. 2. 7. W. 3. c. 3. § 2.
[31] Though the crime of an accomplice in treason is not here
described, yet, Lord Coke says, the partaking and maintaining
a treason herein described, makes him a principal in that
treason: it being a rule that in treason all are principals.
3 Inst. 138. 2 Inst. 590. 1 H. 6. 5.
[32] These words in the English statute narrow its operation.
A man adhering to the enemies of the Commonwealth, in a
foreign country, would certainly not be guilty of treason
with us, if these words be retained. The convictions of
treason of that kind in England have been under that branch
of the statute which makes the compassing the king's death
treason. Foster 196. 197. But as we omit that branch, we must
by other means reach this flagrant case.
[33] The stat. 25. E. 3. directs all other cases of treasons
to await the opinion of Parliament. This has the effect of
negative words, excluding all other treasons. As we drop
that part of the statute, we must, by negative words, prevent
an inundation of common law treasons. I strike out the word
"it," therefore, and insert "the said cases, and no others."
Quære, how far those negative words may affect the case of
accomplices above mentioned? Though if their case was within
the statute, so as that it needed not await the opinion of
Parliament, it should seem to be also within our act, so as
not to be ousted by the negative words.
[34] This implies "by the neck." See 2 Hawk. 544. notes n. o.
[35] By the stat. 21. Jac. 1. c. 27. and Act Ass. 1170. c.
12. concealment by the mother of the death of a bastard child
is made murder. In justification of this, it is said, that
shame is a feeling which operates so strongly on the mind,
as frequently to induce the mother of such a child to murder
it, in order to conceal her disgrace. The act of concealment,
therefore, proves she was influenced by shame, and that
influence produces a presumption that she murdered the child.
The effect of this law then is, to make what, in its nature,
is only presumptive evidence of a murder conclusive of that
fact. To this I answer, 1. So many children die before or
soon after birth, that to presume all those murdered who are
found dead, is a presumption which will lead us oftener wrong
than right, and consequently would shed more blood than it
would save. 2. If the child were born dead, the mother would
naturally choose rather to conceal it, in hopes of still
keeping a good character in the neighborhood. So that the
act of concealment is far from proving the guilt of murder on
the mother. 3. If shame be a powerful affection of the mind,
is not parental love also? Is it not the strongest affection
known? Is it not greater than even that of self-preservation?
While we draw presumptions from shame, one affection of the
mind, against the life of the prisoner, should we not give
some weight to presumptions from parental love, an affection
at least as strong, in favor of life? If concealment of the
fact is a presumptive evidence of murder, so strong as to
overbalance all other evidence that may possibly be produced
to take away the presumption, why not trust the force of this
incontestable presumption to the jury, who are, in a regular
course, to hear presumptive, as well as positive testimony?
If the presumption arising from the act of concealment,
may be destroyed by proof positive or circumstantial to the
contrary, why should the legislature preclude that contrary
proof? Objection. The crime is difficult to prove, being
usually committed in secret. Answer. But circumstantial
proof will do; for example, marks of violence, the behavior,
countenance, &c. of the prisoner, &c. And if conclusive
proof be difficult to be obtained, shall we therefore fasten
irremovably upon equivocal proof? Can we change the nature of
what is contestable, and make it incontestable? Can we make
that conclusive which God and nature have made inconclusive?
Solon made no law against parricide, supposing it impossible
that any one could be guilty of it; and the Persians, from
the same opinion, adjudged all who killed their reputed
parents to be bastards; and although parental be yet stronger
than filial affection, we admit saticide proved on the most
equivocal testimony, whilst they rejected all proof of an
act certainly not more repugnant to nature, as of a thing
impossible, unprovable. See Beccaria, § 31.
[36] 25. G. 2. c. 37.
[37] Quære, if the estates of both parties in a duel, should
not be forfeited? The deceased is equally guilty with a
suicide.
[38] Quære, if these words may not be omitted? By the Common
law, one witness in treason was sufficient. Foster 233.
Plowd. 8. a. Mirror e. 3. § 34. Waterhouse on Fortese. de
laud. 252. Carth. 144. per. Holt. But Lord Coke, contra 3
inst. 26. The stat. 1. E. 6. c. 12. & 5. E. 6. c. 11. first
required two witnesses in treason. The clause against high
treason supra, does the same as to high treason; but it seems
if 1st and 5th E. 6. are dropped, Petty treason will be tried
and proved, as at Common law, by one witness. But quære,
Lord Coke being contra, whose opinion it is ever dangerous to
neglect.
[39] These words are intended to take away the peremptory
challenge of thirty-five jurors. The same words being used 1.
2. Ph. & M. c. 10. are deemed to have restored the peremptory
challenge in high treason; and consequently are sufficient to
take it away. Foster 237.
[40] Petty treason is considered in law only as an aggravated
murder. Foster 107. 323. A pardon of all murders, pardons
Petty treason. 1 Hale P. C. 378. see 2 H. P. C. 340. 342. It
is also included in the word "felony," so that a pardon of
all felonies, pardons Petty treason.
[41] Manslaughter is punishable at law, by burning in the
hands, and forfeiture of chattels.
[42] It is best, in this act, to lay down principles only,
in order that it may not forever be undergoing change; and,
to carry into effect the minuter parts of it, frame a bill
"for the employment and government of felons, or malefactors,
condemned to labor for the Commonwealth," which may serve
as an Appendix to this, and in which all the particulars
requisite may be directed; and as experience will, from
time to time, be pointing out amendments, these may be made
without touching this fundamental act. See More's Utopia
p. 50. for some good hints. Fugitives might, in such a
bill, be obliged to work two days for every one they absent
themselves.
[43] The shooting at a wild fowl, and killing a man, is
homicide by misadventure. Shooting at a pullet, without any
design to take it away, is manslaughter; and with a design
to take it away, is murder. 6 Sta. tr. 222. To shoot at the
poultry of another, and thereby set fire to his house, is
arson, in the opinion of some. Dalt. c. 116. 1. Hale's P. C.
569. c. contra.
[44] Beccaria. § 32. Suicide. Homicides are, 1. Justifiable.
2. Excusable. 3. Felonious. For the last, punishments have
been already provided. The first are held to be totally
without guilt, or rather commendable. The second are in
some cases not quite unblamable. These should subject the
party to marks of contrition; viz., the killing of a man
in defence of property; so also in defence of one's person,
which is a species of excusable homicide; because, although
cases may happen where these also are commendable yet
most frequently they are done on too slight appearance of
danger; as in return for a blow, kick, fillip, &c.; or on a
person's getting into a house, not animo furandi, but perhaps
veneris causa, &c. Bracton says, "si quis furem nocturnum
occident ita demum impune foret, si parcere ei sine periculo
suo non potuit, si autem potuit, aliter erit. Item erit
si quis hamsokne quae dicitur invasio domus contra pacem
domini regis in domo sua se defenderit, et invasor occisus
fuerit; impersecutus et insultus remanebit, si ille quem
invasit aliter se defendere non potuit; dicitur enim quod
non est dignus habere pacem qui non vult observare eam."
L. 3. c. 23. § 3. "Qui latronem occiderit, non tenetur,
nocturnum vel diurnum, si aliter periculum evadere non
possit; tenetur tamen si possit. Item non tenetur si per
infortunium, et non animo et voluntate occidendi, nec dolus,
nec culpa ejus inveniatur." L. 3. c. 36. § 1. The stat. 24.
H. 8. c. 5. is therefore merely declaratory of the Common
law. See on the general subject Puffend. 2. 5. § 10. 11.
12. 16. 17. Excusable homicides are by misadventure, or in
self-defence. It is the opinion of some lawyers, that the
Common law punished these with death, and that the statute
of Marlbridge, c. 26. and Gloucester, c. 9. first took away
this by giving them title to a pardon, as matter of right,
and a writ of restitution of their goods. See 2. Inst. 148.
315. 3. Inst. 55. Bracton L. 3. c. 4. § 2. Fleta L. 1. c.
23. § 14. 15. 21. E. 3. 23. But it is believed never to have
been capital. 1. H. P. C. 425. 1 Hawk. 75. Foster, 282. 4.
Bl. 188. It seems doubtful also, whether at Common law, the
party forfeited all his chattels in this case, or only paid
a weregild. Foster, ubi supra, doubts, and thinks it of no
consequence, as the statute of Gloucester entitles the party
to Royal grace, which goes as well to forfeiture as life.
To me there seems no reason for calling these excusable
homicides, and the killing a man in defence of property,
a justifiable homicide. The latter is less guiltless than
misadventure or self-defence.
Suicide is by law punishable by forfeiture of chattels.
This bill exempts it from forfeiture. The suicide injures
the State less than he who leaves it with his effects. If
the latter then be not punished, the former should not.
As to the example, we need not fear its influence. Men are
too much attached to life, to exhibit frequent instances of
depriving themselves of it. At any rate, the quasi-punishment
of confiscation will not prevent it. For if one be found
who can calmly determine to renounce life, who is so weary
of his existence here, as rather to make experiment of what
is beyond the grave, can we suppose him, in such a state of
mind, susceptible of influence from the losses to his family
from confiscation? That men in general, too, disapprove of
this severity, is apparent from the constant practice of
juries finding the suicide in a state of insanity; because
they have no other way of saving the forfeiture. Let it then
be done away.
[45] Beccaria. § 19. 25. G. 2. c. 37.
[46] 13. E. 1. e. 34. Forcible abduction of a woman having
substance, is felony by 3. H. 7. c. 2. 3. Inst. 61. 4. Bl.
208. If goods be taken, it will be felony as to them, without
this statute; and as to the abduction of the woman, quære if
not better to leave that, and also kidnapping, 4. Bl. 219.
to the Common law remedies, viz., fine, imprisonment, and
pillory, Raym. 474. 2 Show. 221. Skin. 47. Comb. 10. the
writs of Homine replegiando, Capias in Withernam, Habeas
corpus, and the action of trespass? Rape was felony at the
Common law. 3. Inst. 60. but see 2. Inst. 181. further--for
its definition see 2. Inst. 180. Bracton, L. 3. c. 28.
§ 1. says the punishment of rape is "amissio membrorum,
ut sit membrum pro membro, quia virgo, cum corrumpitur,
membrum amittit, et ideo corruptor puniatur in eo in quo
deliquit; oculos igitur amittat propter aspectum decoris
quo virginem concupivit; amittat et testiculos qui calorem
stupri induxerunt. Olim quidem corruptores virginitatis et
castitatis suspendebantur et eorum fautores, &c. Modernis
tamen temporibus aliter observatur," &c. And Fleta, "solet
justiciarius pro quolibet mahemio ad amissionem testiculorum
vel oculorum convictum condemnare, sed non sine errore,
eo quod id judicium nisi in corruptione virginum tantum
competebat; nam pro virginitatis corruptione solebant abscidi
et merito judicari, ut sic pro membro quod abstulit, membrum
per quod deliquit amitteret, viz., testiculos, qui calorem
stupri induxerunt," &c. Fleta, L. 1. c. 40. § 4. "Gif theow
man theowne to nydhed genyde, gabte mid his eowende:" "Si
servus servam ad stuprum coegerit, compenset hoc virga sua
virili. Si quis puellam," &c. Ll. Aelfridi. 25. "Hi purgist
femme per forze forfait ad les membres." Ll. Gul. conq. 19.
In Dyer, 305, a man was indicted, and found guilty of a rape
on a girl of seven years old. The court "doubted of the rape
of so tender a girl; but if she had been nine years old, it
would have been otherwise." 14. Eliz. Therefore the statute
18. Eliz. e. 6. says, "For plain declaration of law, be it
enacted, that if any person shall unlawfully and carnally
know and abuse any woman child, under the age of ten years,
&c., he shall suffer as a felon, without allowance of
clergy." Lord Hale, however, 1. P. C. 630. thinks it rape
independent of that statute, to know carnally, a girl under
twelve, the age of consent. Yet 4. Bl. 212. seems to neglect
this opinion; and as it was founded on the words of 3. E. 1.
e. 13. and this is with us omitted, the offence of carnally
knowing a girl under twelve, or ten years of age, will not be
distinguished from that of any other.
[47] 1. Jac. 1. e. 11. Polygamy was not penal till the
statute 1. Jac. The law contented itself with the nullity of
the act. 4. Bl. 163. 3. Inst. 88.
[48] 25. H. 8. c. 6. Buggery is twofold. 1. With mankind,
2. with beasts. Buggery is the Genus, of which Sodomy
and Bestiality, are the species. 12. Co. 37. says, "note
that Sodomy is with mankind." But Finch's L. B. 3. c. 24.
"Sodomiary is a carnal copulation against nature, to wit,
of man or woman in the same sex, or of either of them
with beasts." 12. Co. 36. says, "it appears by the ancient
authorities of the law that this was felony." Yet the 25. H.
8. declares it felony, as if supposed not to be so. Britton,
c. 9. says, that Sodomites are to be burnt. F. N. B. 269. b.
Fleta, L. 1. c. 37. says, "percorantes et Sodomitae in terra
vivi confodiantur." The Mirror makes it treason. Bestiality
can never make any progress; it cannot therefore be injurious
to society in any great degree, which is the true measure
of criminality in foro civili, and will ever be properly and
severely punished, by universal derision. It may, therefore;
be omitted. It was anciently punished with death, as it
has been latterly. Ll. Aelfrid. 31. and 25. H. 8. c. 6. see
Beccaria. § 31. Montesq.
[49] Bracton, Fleta, &c.
[50] 22. 23. Car. 2. c. l. Maiming was felony at the Common
law. Britton, c. 25. "Mahemium autem dici poteri, aubi
aliquis in aliqua parte sui corparis laesionem acceperit,
per quam affectus sit inutilis ad pugnandum: ut si manus
amputetur, vel pes, oculus privetur, vel scerda de osse
capitis la veter, vel si quis dentes praecisores amiserit,
vel castratus fuerit, et talis pro mahemiato poterit
adjudicari." Fleta L. 1. c. 40. "Et volons que nul maheme
ne soit tenus forsque de membre tollet dount home est plus
feble a combatre, sicome del oyl, ou de la mayn, ou del pie,
ou de la tete debruse, ou de les dentz devant." Britton, c.
25. For further definitions, see Bracton, L. 3. c. 24. § 3.
4. Finch L. B. 3. c. 12. Co. L. 126. a. b. 288. a. 3. Bl.
121. 4. Bl. 205. Stamf. P. C. L. 1. c. 41. I do not find
any of these definitions confine the offence to wilful and
malicious perpetrations of it. 22. 23. Car. 2. c. 1. called
the Coventry act, has the words "on purpose and of malice
forethought." Nor does the Common law prescribe the same
punishment for disfiguring, as for maiming.
[51] The punishment was by retaliation. "Et come ascun appele
serra de tele felonie atteint et attende jugement, si soit
le judgment tiel que il perde autriel membre come il avera
tollet al pleintyfe. Et sy la pleynte soi faite de femme que
avera tollet a home ses membres, en tiel cas perdra la femme
la une meyn par jugement, come le membre dount ele axera
trespasse." Britton, c. 25. Fleta, B. 1. c. 40. Ll. Aelfr.
19. 40.
[52] 25. E. 3. st. 5. c. 2. 5. El. c. 11. 18. El. c. 1. 8.
9. W. 3. c. 26. 15. 16. G. 2. c. 28. 7. Ann. c. 25. By the
laws of Aethelstan and Canute, this was punished by cutting
off the hand. "Gif se mynetere ful wurthe slea man tha hand
of, the he that ful mid worthe and sette uppon tha mynet
smiththan." In English characters and words "if the minter
foul [criminal] wert, slay the hand off, that he the foul
[crime] with wrought, and set upon the mint-smithery." Ll.
Aethelst. 14. "Et si quis praeter hanc, falsam fecerit,
perdat manum quacum falsam confecit." Ll. Cnuti. 8. It had
been death by the Ll. Aethelredi sub fine. By those of II.
I. "si quis cum falso denario inventus fuerit--fiat justitia
mea, saltem de dextro puguo et de testiculis." Anno 1108.
Operae pretium vero est audire quam severus rex fuerit in
pravos. Monetarios enim fere omnes totius Angliae fecit
ementulari, et manus dextras abscindi, quia monetam furtive
corruperant. Wilkins ib. et anno 1125. When the Common
law became settled, it appears to have been punishable by
death. "Est aluid genus criminis quod sub nomine falsi
continetur, et tangit coronam domini regis, et ultimum
inducit supplicium, sicut de illis qui falsam fabricant
monetam, et qui de re non reproba, faciunt reprobam; sicut
sunt retonsores denariorum." Bract. L. 3. c. § 2. Fleta, L.
1. c. 22. § 4. Lord Hale thinks it was deemed petty treason
at common law. 1. H. P. C. 220. 224. The bringing in false
money with intent to merchandize, and make payment of it, is
treason, by 25. E. 3. But the best proof of the intention, is
the act of passing it, and why not leave room for repentance
here, as in other cases of felonies intended? l. H. P. C.
229.
[53] Clipping, filing, rounding, impairing, scaling,
lightening, (the words in the statutes) are included in
"diminishing;" gilding, in the word "casing;" coloring
in the word "washing;" and falsifying, or making, is
"counterfeiting."
[54] 43. L. c. 13. confined to four counties. 22. 23. Car. 2.
c. 7. 9. G. 1. c. 22. 9. G. 3. c. 29.
[55] Arson was a felony at Common law--3. Inst. 66; punished
by a fine, Ll. Aethelst. 6. But Ll. Cnuti, 61. make it a
"scelus inexpiable." "Hus brec and bærnet and open thyfth
æberemorth and hlaford swice æfter woruld laga is botleds."
Word for word, "house break and burnt, and open theft, and
manifest murther, and lord-treachery, afterworld's law is
bootless." Bracton says it was punished by death. "Si quis
turbida seditione incendium fecerit nequiter et in felonia,
vel ob inimicitias, vel praedandi causa, capitali puniatur
poena vel senteutia." Bract. L. 3. 27. He defines it as
commissible by burning "aedes alienas." Ib. Britton, c.
9. "Ausi soit enquis de ceux que felonisement en temps de
pees cient autre _blees_ ou autre _mesons_ ars, et ceux que
serrount de ceo atteyntz, soient ars issint que eux soient
punys par mesme cele chose dount ilz pecherent." Fleta, L.
1. c. 37. is a copy of Bracton. The Mirror c. 1. § 8. says,
"Ardours sont que ardent citie, ville, maison home, maison
beast, ou auters chatelx, de lour felonie en temps de pace
pour haine ou vengeance." Again, c. 2. § 11. pointing out
the words of the appellor "jeo dise que Sebright, &c., entiel
meason ou _biens_ mist de feu." Coke 3. Inst. 67. says, "the
ancient authors extended this felony further than houses,
viz., to sacks of corn, waynes or carts of coal, wood or
other goods." He denies it as commissible, not only on the
inset houses, parcel of the mansion house, but the outset
also, as barn, stable, cowhouse, sheep house, dairy house,
mill house, and the like, parcel of the mansion house. But
"burning of a barn, being no parcel of a mansion house, is no
felony," unless there be corn or hay within it. Ib. The 22.
23. Car. 2. and 9. G. 1. are the principal statutes against
arson. They extend the offence beyond the Common law.
[56] 1. Ann. st. 2. c. 9. 12. Ann. c. 18. 4. G. I. c. 12. 26.
G. 2. c. 19.
[57] 11. 12. W. 3. c. 7.
[58] Robbery was a felony at Common law. 3 Inst. 68. "Scelus
inexpiable," by the Ll. Cnuti. 61. [See before in Arson.]
It was punished with death. Britt. c. 15, "de robbours et de
larouns et de semblables mesfesours, soit ausi ententivement
enquis--et tauntost soient ceux robbours juges a la mort."
Fleta says, "si quis convictus fuerit de bonis viri robbatis
vel asportatis ad sectam regis judicium capitale subibit." L.
1. c. 39. See also Bract. L. 3. c. 32. § 1.
[59] Burglary was felony at the Common law. 3 Inst. 63.
It was not distinguished by ancient authors, except the
Mirror, from simple House-breaking, ib. 65. Burglary and
House-breaking were called "Hamsockne diximus etiam de
pacis violatione et de immunitatibus domus, si quis hoc in
posterum fecerit ut perdat omne quod habet, et sit in regis
arbitrio utrum vitam habeat. Eac we quædon be mundbryce and
be ham socnum, sethe hit ofer this do thæt he dolie ealles
thæs the age, and sy on Cyninges dome hwæther he life age;
and we quoth of mound-breach, and of home-seeking he who it
after this do, that he dole all that he owe [owns], and is
in king's doom whether he life owes [owns.] Ll. Eadmundi.
c. 6. and see Ll. Cnuti. 61. "hus brec," in notes on Arson.
ante. A Burglar was also called a Burgessor. "Et soit enquis
de Burgessours et sunt tenus Burgessours trestous ceux que
_felonisement_ en temps de pees debrusout esglises ou auter
mesons, ou murs ou portes de nos cytes, ou de nos Burghes."
Britt. c. 10. "Burglaria est nocturna diruptio habitaculi
alicujus, vel ecclesiae, etiam murorum, partarumve civitatis
aut burgi, ad feloniam aliquam perpetrandam. _Noctanter_
dico, recentiores secutus; veteres enim hoc non adjungunt.
Spelm. gloss. verb. Burglaria. It was punished with death.
Ib. citn. from the office of a Coroner. It may be committed
in the outset houses, as well as inset. 3 Inst. 65. though
not under the same roof or contiguous, provided they be
within the Curtilage or Homestall. 4 Bl. 225. As by the
Common law, all felonies were clergiable, the stat. 23 H.
8. c. 1. 5. E. 6. c. 9. and 18 El. c. 7. first distinguished
them, by taking the clerical privilege of impunity from the
principals, and 3. 4. W. M. c. 9. from accessories before the
fact. No _statute_ defines what Burglary is. The 12 Ann. c.
7. decides the doubt whether, where breaking is subsequent to
entry, it is Burglary. Bacon's Elements had affirmed, and 1.
H. P. C. 554. had denied it. Our bill must distinguish them
by different degrees of punishment.
[60] At the Common law, the offence of Housebreaking was
not distinguished from Burglary, and neither of them from
any other larceny. The statutes at first took away clergy
from Burglary, which made a leading distinction between the
two offences. Later statutes, however, have taken clergy
from so many cases of Housebreaking, as nearly to bring
the offences together again. These are 23 H. 8. c. 1. 1.
E. 6. c. 12. 5 and 6 E. 6. c. 9. 3 and 4 W. M. c. 9. 39
El. c. 15. 10 and 11 W. 3 c. 23. 12 Ann. c. 7. See Barr.
428. 4 Bl. 240. The circumstances which in these statutes
characterize the offence, seem to have been occasional
and unsystematical. The houses on which Burglary may be
committed, and the circumstances which constitute that crime
being ascertained, it will be better to define Housebreaking
by the same subjects and circumstances, and let the crimes be
distinguished only by the hour at which they are committed,
and the degree of punishment.
[61] The offence of Horse-stealing seems properly
distinguishable from other larcenies, here, where these
animals generally run at large, the temptation being so great
and frequent, and the facility of commission so remarkable.
See 1 E. 6. c. 12. 23 E. 6. c. 33. 31 El. c. 12.
[62] The distinction between grand and petty larceny, is very
ancient. At first 8d. was the sum which constituted grand
larceny. Ll. Aethelst. c. 1. "Ne parcatur ulli furi, qui
furtum manutenens captus sit, supra 12. annos nato, et supra
8. denarios." Afterwards, in the same king's reign it was
raised to 12d. "non parcatur alicui furi ultra 12 denarios,
et ultra 12 annos nato--ut occidemus illum et capiamus omne
quod possidet, et imprimis sumamus rei furto ablatae pretium
ab haerede, ac dividatur postea reliquum in duas partes,
una pars uxori, si munda, et facinoris conscia non sit; et
residuum in duo, dimidium capiat rex, dimidium societas." Ll.
Aethelst. Wilkins, p. 65.
[63] Ll. Inae. c. 7. "Si quis furetur ita ut uxor ejus et
infans ipsius nesciant, solvat 60. solidos poenae loco. Si
autem furetur testantibus omnibus haeredibus suis, _abeant
omnes in servitutem_." Ina was king of the West-Saxons,
and began to reign A. C. 688. After the union of the
Heptarchy, i. e. temp. Aethelst. inter 924 and 940, we find
it punishable with death as above. So it was inter 1017 and
1035, i. e. temp. Cnuti. Ll. Cnuti 61. cited in notes on
Arson. In the time of William the conqueror, it seems to
have been made punishable by fine only. Ll. Gul. conq. apud
Wilk. p. 218, 220. This commutation, however, was taken away
by Ll. H. 1. anno 1108. "Si quis in furto vel latrocinio
deprehensus fuisset, suspenderetur; sublata wirgildorum, id
est, pecuniarae redemptionis lege." Larceny is the felonious
taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another. 1.
As to the taking, the 3. 4. W. M. c. 9 § 5. is not additional
to the Common law, but declaratory of it; because where
only the care or use, and not the possession, of things is
delivered, to take them was larceny at the Common law. The
33. H. 6. c. 1. and 21 H. 8. c. 7. indeed, have added to
the Common law, by making it larceny in a servant to convert
things of his master's. But quære, if they should be imitated
more than as to other breaches of trust in general. 2. As
to the subject of larceny, 4 G. 2. c. 32. 6 G. 3. c. 36. 48.
43. El. c. 7. 15. Car. 2. c. 2. 23. G. 2. c. 26. 31. G. 2. c.
35. 9. G. 3. c. 41. 25. G. 2. c. 10. have extended larceny to
things of various sorts either real, or fixed to the reality.
But the enumeration is unsystematical, and in this country,
where the produce of the earth is so spontaneous, as to have
rendered things of this kind scarcely a breach of civility or
good manners, in the eyes of the people, quære, if it would
not too much enlarge the field of Criminal law? The same may
be questioned of 9 G. 1. c. 22. 13 Car. 2. c. 10. 10 G. 2. c.
32. 5 G. 3. c. 14. 22 and 23 Car. 2. c. 25. 37 E. 3. c. 19.
making it felony to steal animals feræ naturæ.
[64] 2 G. 2. c. 25 § 3. 7 G. 3. c. 50.
[65] 3. 4. W. M. c. 9. § 4. 5 Ann. c. 31. § 5. 4 G. 1. c. 11.
§ 1.
[66] 1 E. 2.
[67] Breach of prison at the Common law was capital, without
regard to the crime for which the party was committed.
"Cum pro criminis qualitate in carcerem recepti fuerint,
conspiraverint (ut ruptis vinculis aut fracto carcere)
evadant, amplius (quam causa pro qua recepti sunt exposeit)
puniendi sunt, videlicet ultimo supplicio, quamvis ex eo
crimine innocentes inveniantur, propter quod inducti sunt in
carcerem et imparcati. Bracton L. 3. c. 9. § 4. Britt. c. 11.
Fleta, L. 1. c. 26. § 4. Yet in the Y. B. Hill. 1. H. 7. 2.
Hussey says, that by the opinion of Billing and Choke, and
all the justices, it was a felony in strangers only, but not
in the prisoner himself. S. C. Fitz. Abr. Coron. 48. They are
principal felons, not accessaries. ib. Whether it was felony
in the prisoner at Common law, is doubted. Stam. P. C. 30.
b The Mirror c. 5. § 1, says, 'abusion est a tener escape
de prisoner, ou de bruserie del gaole pur peche mortell, car
cel usage n'est garrant per nul ley, ne in nul part est use
forsque in cest realme, et en France, eins [mais] est leu
garrantie de ceo faire per la ley de nature." 2 Inst. 589.
The stat. 1. E. 2. de fraugentibus prisonam, restrained the
judgment of life and limb for prison breaking, to cases where
the offence of the prisoner required such judgment.
It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame
laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them
with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in
order to punish them. The law of nature impels every one
to escape from confinement; it should not, therefore, be
subjected to punishment. Let the legislator restrain his
criminal by walls, not by parchment. As to strangers breaking
prison to enlarge an offender, they should, and may be fairly
considered as accessaries after the fact. This bill says
nothing of the prisoner releasing himself by breach of jail,
he will have the benefit of the first section of the bill,
which repeals the judgment of life and death at the common
law.
[68] Gif wiccan owwe wigleras nansworan, owwe morthwyrhtan
owwe fule afylede æbere horcwenan ahwhar on lande wurthan
agytene, thonne fyrsie man of earde and clænsie tha theode,
owwe on earde forfare hi mid ealle, buton hi geswican and
the deoper gebetan: if witches, or weirds, man-swearers,
or murther-wroughters, or foul, defiled, open whore-queens,
anywhere in the land were gotten, then force them off earth,
and cleanse the nation, or in earth forth-fare them withal,
buton they beseech, and deeply better. Ll. Ed. et Guthr.
c. 11. "Sagae, mulieres barbara, factitantes sacrificia,
aut pestiferi, si cui mortem intulerint, neque id inficiari
poterint, capitis poena esto." Ll. Aethelst. c. 6. apud
Lambard. Ll. Aelfr. 30. Ll. Cnuti. c. 4. "Mesme cel jugement
(d'etrears) eyent sorcers, et sorceresses, &c. ut supra."
Fleta ut et ubi supra. 3. Inst. 44. Trial of witches before
Hale in 1664. The statutes 33 H. 8. c. 8. 5. El. c. 16 and
1. Jac. 1. c. 12. seem to be only in confirmation of the
Common law. 9 G. 2. c. 25. punishes them with pillory, and a
year's imprisonment. 3 E. 6. c. 15. 5 El. c. 15. punish fond,
fantastical and false prophecies, by fine and imprisonment.
[69] 1 Ann. c. 9. § 2.
[70] As every treason includes within it a misprision
of treason, so every felony includes a misprision, or
misdemeanor. 1 Hale P. C. 652. 708. "Licet fuerit felonia,
tamen in eo continetur misprisio." 2 R. 3 10. Both principal
and accessary, therefore, may be proceeded against in any
case, either for felony or misprision, at the Common law.
Capital cases not being mentioned here, accessaries to them
will of course be triable for misprisions, if the offender
flies.
[71] E. 1. c. 12.
[72] Whether the judgment of penance lay at Common law.
See 2 Inst. 178. 2 H. P. C. 321. 4 Bl. 322. It was given on
standing mute; but on challenging more than the legal number,
whether that sentence, or sentence of death is to be given,
seems doubtful. 2 H. P. C. 316. Quære, whether it would not
be better to consider the supernumerary challenge as merely
void, and to proceed in the trial? Quære too, in case of
silence?
[73] "Cum Clericus sic de crimine convictus degradetur
non sequitur alia poena pro uno delicto, vel pluribus ante
degradationem perpetratis. Satis enim sufficit ei pro poena
degradatio, quae est magna capitis diminutio, nisi forte
convictus fuerit de apostatia, quia hinc primo degradetur, et
postea per manum laicalem comburetur, secundum quod accidit
in concilio Oxoni celebrato a bonae memoriae S. Cantuanen.
Archiepiscopo de quodam diacono, qui se apostatavit pro
quadam Judaea; qui cum esset per episcopum degradatus, statim
fuit igni traditus per manum laicalem." Bract. L. 3. c.
9. § 2. "Et mesme cel jugement (i. e. qui ils soient ars)
eyent sorcers et sorceresses, et sodomites et mescreauntz
apertement atteyntz." Britt. c. 9. "Christiani autem
Apostatae, sortilegii, et hujusmodi detractari debent et
comburi." Fleta, L. 1. c. 37. § 2. see 3. Inst. 39. 12. Rep.
92. 1. H. P. C. 393. The extent of the clerical privilege
at the Common law. 1. As to the crimes, seems very obscure
and uncertain. It extended to no case where the judgment
was not of life, or limb. Note in 2. H. P. C. 326. This
therefore excluded it in trespass, petty larceny, or killing
se defendendo. In high treason against the person of the
King, it seems not to have been allowed. Note 1. H. P. C.
185. Treasons, therefore, not against the King's person
immediately, petty treasons and felonies, seem to have been
the cases where it was allowed; and even of those, not for
insidiatio varium, depopulatio agrorum, or combustio domorum.
The statute de Clero, 25. E. 3. st. 3. c. 4. settled the
law on this head. 2. As to the persons, it extended to all
clerks, always, and toties quoties. 2. H. P. C. 374. To nuns
also. Fitz. Abr. Corone. 461. 22. E. 3. The clerical habit
and tonsure were considered as evidence of the person being
clerical. 26. Assiz. 19. 20. E. 2. Fitz. Corone. 233. By the
9. E. 4. 28. b. 34. H. 6. 49 a. b. simple reading became the
evidence. This extended impunity to a great number of laymen,
and toties quoties. The stat. 4. H. 7. c. 13. directed that
real clerks should, upon a second arraignment, produce their
orders, and all others to be burnt in the hand with M. or T.
on the first allowance of clergy, and not to be admitted to
it a second time. A heretic, Jew, or Turk (as being incapable
of orders) could not have clergy. 11. Co. Rep. 29 b. But a
Greek, or other alien, reading in a book of his own country,
might. Bro. Clergie. 20. So a blind man, if he could speak
Latin. Ib. 21. qu. 11. Rep. 29. b. The orders entitling the
party, were bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons, the
inferior being reckoned Clerici in minoribus. 2. H. P. C.
373. Quære, however, if this distinction is not founded on
the stat. 23. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 32. By merely dropping
all the statutes, it should seem that none but clerks would
be entitled to this privilege, and that they would, toties
quoties.
[74] 1. Ann. c. 9.
[75] Manslaughter, counterfeiting, arson, asportation of
vessels, robbery, burglary, house-breaking, horse-stealing,
larceny.
[76] In a newspaper, which frequently gives good details in
political economy, I find, under the Hamburgh head, that the
present market price of Gold and Silver is, in England, 15.5
for 1: in Russia, 15: in Holland, 14.75: in Savoy, 14.6:
in France, 14.42: in Spain, 14.3: in Germany, 14.155: the
average of which is 14.675 or 14 5-8. I would still incline
to give a little more than the market price for gold, because
of its superior convenience in transportation.
[77] [It appears, from a blank space at the bottom of this
paper, that a continuation had been intended. Indeed, from
the loose manner in which the above notes are written, it may
be inferred, that they were originally intended as memoranda
only, to be used in some more permanent form.]
BOOK II.
CORRESPONDENCE.
PART I.--BEFORE HIS MISSION TO EUROPE, 1773-1783.
PART II.--WHILE MINISTER TO FRANCE, 1784-1790.
PART III.--FROM HIS RETURN TO UNITED STATES TO HIS DEATH, 1790-1826.
INTRODUCTORY TO BOOK II.
This division of the work includes all the Correspondence, official
and private, of Thomas Jefferson, from 1762 to his death in 1826, which
possesses general interest or permanent public value. For the purpose
of easy reference, it has been classified as follows:
PART I.--LETTERS WRITTEN BEFORE HIS MISSION TO EUROPE.--The letters
included in this division, consist principally of the private
correspondence of the Author's youth, and his official letters while
Governor of Virginia. The former are interesting mainly as illustrating
his character, his views, and his purposes in life. The latter,
relating to the period of the invasion of Virginia, and the military
operations in the South, possess no inconsiderable historical value.