appeared that the specie then in their vaults was $4,945,444, while their notes in circulation were but $2,000,601.

But the Boston bankers did not allow their hoard of specie to lie idle. Between July 1st, 1814, and January 1st, 1815, it was reduced from $5,468,604 to $1,999,368. It did not flow back into the collapsed arteries of American circulation. Mr. Carey declares, on what he claims to be specific proof, that it was drawn into the British provinces to pay for Government bills and for smuggled goods; that an arrangement was made "with agents of the Government of Lower Canada, whereby an immense amount of British Government bills, drawn in Quebec, were transmitted for sale to New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and disposed of to moneyed men on such advantageous terms as induced them to make large purchases. These bills were forwarded through trusty persons in Boston, and the proceeds being placed to their credit, added immensely to the command the Boston banks had acquired, by the extent of the smuggling trade, over those in the middle and southern States." This commercial intercourse with the enemy was so ostentatiously managed that Mr. Carey copies an advertisement of British Government bills for sale, taken from the Boston Daily Advertiser in 1814.1

Meanwhile, the Federal press and pulpit of Massachusetts so violently denounced the citizens of that State who should take any part of the Government loans, that the agents of the Government were compelled to advertise that the names of subscribers should not be made known."

1 See Olive Branch, seventh edition, pp. 315-319. Lowell, the author of the "Road to Ruin," made a contemporaneous denial of such arrangements. Thereupon Carey said: "That these bills to an immoderate amount, were transmitted from Quebec; that they were drawn for the support of the armies employed in hostilities against this country; that they were paid for in specie, devoted to the support of those armies, are facts too stubborn to be set aside. I hereby publicly dare him [Mr. Lowell], or any other person in the Union, to disprove any of them. They are abundantly sufficient to estab fish the iniquity of the case." We are not aware that any explanations were ever made which tended to relieve the reputation of the parties charged with these transactions.

2 See advertisement of Gilbert and Dean, brokers, in Boston Chronicle, and of Jesse Putnam in Boston Gazette, April 14th, 1814.

The Boston Gazette, April, 1814, said: "Some will say, will you let the country become bankrupt? no, the country will never become bankrupt. But, pray, do not prevent the abusers of their trust becoming bankrupt. Do not prevent them from becoming odions to the public and replaced by better men. Any Federalist who lends money to Government, must go and shake hands with James Madison, and claim fellowship with Felix Grundy. Let him no more call himself a Federalist and friend to his country. He will be called by others infamous. It is very grateful to find that the universal sentiment is that any man who lends his money to the Government at the present time, will forfeit all claim to common honesty and common courtesy among all true friends of the country. God forbid that any Federalist should ever hold up his hand to pay Federalists for money lent to the present rulers; and Federalists can judge

The restored amity of Jefferson and Adams had stood a near chance of being again wrecked at the outset. On Priestley's death, a letter, written to him in 1801 by Jefferson, was published by Lindsay, which reflected with severity on the idea. that "we were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement," and which remarked that "the President himself" (Mr. Adams) had countenanced the latter idea " in one of his answers to addresses." Mr. Adams, on receiving Lindsay's publication, in 1813, called Jefferson's attention to this statement. In reply (June 15th, 1813) the latter exhibited the mingled tact and dignity-consideration for the feelings of another, and respect for himself-which always characterized him in this perplexing class of explanations. He pointed out to Mr. Adams the particular answer to an address which he had referred to 'retracted nothing-reaffirmed his abstract idea-and even ventured to tell Mr. Adams that he considered his expressions on that occasion "lent to the prejudices of his friends." This last was treading on delicate ground, but the mixture of frankness and courtesy prevailed. Mr. Adams was never implacable when kindly approached.

A new and strong tie was beginning indeed to bind the stately old men together. They were speedily becoming the last of the signers of the Declaration of Independence-the last of the great actors and leaders of 1776. Their common and dearly loved friend, Rush, had died in April, 1813, after a brief illness, and when the ink on Jefferson's last letter to him was yet fresh." In his first letter to Adams after that event (May 27th), Jefferson said:

whether Democrats will tax their constituents to pay interest to Federalists." The Boston Centinel proclaimed similar views. In Number 5 of the Road to Ruin, Lowell said: "Money is such a drug (the surest sign of the former prosperity and present insecurity of trade) that men, against their consciences, their honor, their duty, their professions and promises, are willing to lend it secretly, to support the very measures which are both intended and calculated for their ruin." The words which we have italicized in the preceding sentence were contemporaneously construed to imply that a voluntary or extorted agreement had been made by the Federal moneyed men of Boston, not to take any shares in the Government loans.

Rev. Elijah Parish, D.D., thus "held forth" at Byfield, April 7th, 1814: "No peace will ever be made, till the people say there shall be no war. If the rich men continue to furnish money, the war will continue till the mountains are melted with blood-till every field in America is white with the bones of the people."

1 Jefferson designated that to the young men of Philadelphia. This will be found in Mr. Adams's Works, dated May 7th, 1798, and it contains the following sentences: "Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry. I will hazard a prediction that after the most industrious and impartial researches, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions, or systems of education more fit. in general, to be transmitted to your posterity, than those you received from your ancestors." (Adams's Works, vol. ix., p. 188.

2 The letter is dated March 6th, 1813.

"Another of our friends of seventy-six is gone, my dear sir, another of the co-signers of the independence of our country. And a better man than Rush could not have left us, more benevolent, more learned, of finer genius, or more honest. We, too, must go; and that ere long. I believe we are under half a dozen at present; I mean the signers of the Declaration. Yourself, Gerry, Carroll, and myself, are all I know to be living. I am the only one south of the Potomac. Is Robert Treat Payne, or Floyd living? It is long since I have heard of them, and yet I do not recollect to have heard of their deaths."

Appended to a letter from Adams to Jefferson, dated July 15th, 1813, we find the following:

I have been looking for some time for a space in my good husband's letters to add the regards of an old friend, which are still cherished and preserved through all the changes and vicissitudes which have taken place since we first became acquainted, and will, I trust, remain as long as

"A. ADAMS."

Here was voluntary and frank retraction on the part of Mrs. Adams, from the position in which she had placed herself in her correspondence with Jefferson in 1804. Henceforth a succession of friendly messages passed between her and her early friend. She wrote to him and he replied. We regret that the letters have escaped publication. Mrs. Adams, like her husband, never again met Mr. Jefferson, but she had the opportunity, and eagerly availed herself of it, to bestow kindly and assiduous attentions on some of his family. They gratefully appreciated those attentions then, and most warmly remember them now.

Mrs. Adams lost none of the imposing features of her character in the decline of life. An observing and intelligent gentleman who was a guest at Quincy within a year or two of her death, has given us a description of his visit. Mr. Adams shook as if palsied; but the mind and the heart were evidently sound. His spirits seemed as elastic as a boy's. He joked, laughed heartily, and talked about everybody and everything, past and present, with the most complete abandon. He seemed to our highly educated informant to be a vast encyclopedia of written and unwritten knowledge. It gushed out on every possible topic, but was mingled with lively anecdotes and sallies, and he exhi

1 Judge Payne died at his residence in Boston, May 11th, 1814, aged eighty-four. General William Floyd died on his farm, on the Mohawk river, New York, August 4th, 1921, aged eighty-six years.

One from Jefferson to Mrs. Adams is given in his Works, under date of January 11th, 1817. It was in answer to one from her, dated December 15th, 1816.

bited a carelessness in his language which suggested any. thing but pedantry or an attempt at "fine talking." In short, the brave old man was as delightful as he was commanding in conversation. While the guest was deeply enjoying this interview, an aged and stately female entered the apartment, and he was introduced to Mrs. Adams. A cap of exquisite lace surrounded features still exhibiting intellect and energy, though they did not wear the appearance of ever having been beautiful. Her dress was snowy white, and there was that immaculate neatness in her appearance which gives to age almost the sweetness of youth. With less warmth of manner and sociableness than Mr. Adams, she was sufficiently gracious, and her occasional remarks betrayed intellectual vigor and strong sense. The guest went away, feeling that he never again should behold such living specimens of the "great of old."

Mr. Jefferson's style as a writer has attracted so much notice, that his account of the manner in which it was formed, and his opinions on one or two important questions in respect to our language, will be matters of curiosity to a class of readers. On receiving from John Waldo a copy of his "Rudiments of English Grammar," Mr. Jefferson wrote to him, August 16th, 1813:

"I am entirely unqualified to give that critical opinion of it which you do me the favor to ask. Mine has been a life of business, of that kind which appeals to a man's conscience, as well as his industry, not to let it suffer, and the few moments allowed me from labor have been devoted to more attractive studies, that of grammar having never been a favorite with me. The scanty foundation, laid in at school, has carried me through a life of much hasty writing, more indebted for style to reading and memory, than to rules of grammar. I have been pleased to see that in all cases you appeal to usage, as the arbiter of language; and justly consider that as giving law to grammar, and not grammar to usage. I concur entirely with you in opposition to Purists, who would destroy all strength and beauty of style, by subjecting it to a rigorous compliance with their rules. Fill up all the ellipses and syllepses of Tacitus, Sallust, Livy, etc., and the elegance and force of their sententious brevity are extinguished."

After citing several illustrations in the Latin, he says:

"Wire-draw these expressions by filling up the whole syntax and sense, and they become dull paraphrases on rich sentiments.

I am no friend, therefore, to what is called Purism, but a zealous one to the Neology, which has introduced these two words without the authority of any dictionary. 1. consider the one as destroying the nerve and beauty of language, while the other

improves both, and adds to its copiousness. I have been not a little disappointed, and made suspicious of my own judgment, on seeing the Edinburgh Reviews, the ablest critics of the age, set their faces against the introduction of new words into the English language; they are particularly apprehensive that the writers of the United States will adulterate it. Certainly so great a growing population, spread over such an extent of country, with such a variety of climates, of productions, of arts, must enlarge their language to make it answer its purpose of expressing all ideas, the new as well as the old. The new circumstances under which we are placed, call for new words, new phrases, and for the transfer of old words to new objects. An American dialect will therefore be formed; so will a West-Indian and Asiatic, as a Scotch and an Irish are already formed. But whether will these adulterate or enrich the English language? Has the beautiful poetry of Burns, or his Scottish dialect, disfigured it? Did the Athenians consider the Doric, the Ionian, the Æolic, and other dialects, as disfiguring or as beautifying their language? Did they fastidiously disavow Herodotus, Pindar, Theocritus, Sappho, Alcæus, or Grecian writers? On the contrary, they were sensible that the variety of dialects, still infinitely varied by poetical license, constituted the riches of their language, and made the Grecian Homer the first of poets, as he must ever remain, until a language equally ductile and copious shall again be spoken.

"Every language has a set of terminations, which make a part of its peculiar idiom. Every root among the Greeks was permitted to vary its termination, so as to express its radical idea in the form of any one of the parts of speech; to wit, as a noun, an adjective, a verb, participle, or adverb; and each of these parts of speech again, by still varying the termination, could vary the shade of idea existing in the mind."

Having exhibited the convenience that would result from adopting the last-named system in the English language, Mr. Jefferson presents and illustrates by numerous examples two other available sources of copiousness: first, the joining in one word the root and every other member of its family with prepositions and other words; and, second, the joining in one word one family of roots with another. He then adds:

"If we wish to be assured from experiment of the effect of a judicious spirit of Neology, look at the French language. Even before the revolution, it was deemed much more copious than the English; at a time, too, when they had an academy which endeavored to arrest the progress of their language, by fixing it to a Dictionary, out of which no word was ever to be sought, used, or tolerated. The institution of parliamentary assemblies in 1789, for which their language had no apposite terms or phrases, as having never before needed them, first obliged them to adopt the Parliamentary vocabulary of England; and other new circumstances called for corresponding new words; until by the number of these adopted, and by the analogies for adoption which they have legitimated, I think we may say with truth, that a Dictionnaire Néologique of these would be half as large as the dictionary of the academy; and that at this time it is the language in which every shade of idea, distinctly perceived by the mind, may be more exactly expressed, than in any language at this day spoken by man. Yet I have no hesitation in saying that the English