of fever which the world has so often seen in the history of other nations. We are under the bank bubble, as England was under the South Sea bubble, France under the Mississippi bubble, and as every nation is liable to be, under whatever bubble, design, or delusion may puff up in moments when off their guard. We are now taught to believe that ledgerdemain tricks upon paper can produce as solid wealth as hard labor in the earth. It is vain for common sense to urge that nothing can produce but nothing; that it is an idle dream to believe in a philosopher's stone which is to turn everything into gold, and to redeem man from the original sentence of his Maker, 'in the sweat of his brow shall he eat his bread.""

The whole of this letter will be read with interest in his published Works. Taught, as they imagined, by the events of the war, many of the ablest and most conscientious Republican opponents of a National Bank, yielded at this period to the supposed necessity of such an institution. A bill passed Congress chartering the bank of the United States, with a capital of $35,000,000; and it was approved by President Madison, April 10th, 1816. Mr. Jefferson, as usual, uttered no complaints at the proceedings of his friends-but his own opinions remained unchanged, as clearly appears by several letters of the period.'

In a letter to Benjamin Austin, January 9th, he avowed that he had changed the opinions expressed in the Notes on Virginia against home manufactures. Having explained the circumstances that existed when that work was written, and the completely changed ones produced by the subsequent maritime and commercial regulations of the European powers, he said that he who continued against domestic manufactures, must be for reducing us to dependence on foreign nations-that manufactures, to the extent of our own supply, were as necessary to our independence as to our comfort. It has been inferred from this and one or two other letters, and from a passage in one of his Presidential Messages, that Mr. Jefferson favored a protective tariff sufficient to build up domestic manufactures-and this by a second inference has been assumed to be a high protective tariff. At a later period, he declared himself in favor of a revenue tariff, with such incidental protection as could be properly afforded within its limits,—and this, it is believed, is as far as he ever advocated protection.

1 The capital of the first bank had been but $10,000,000.

2 See a letter to John Taylor of Caroline, May 28th: to William H. Crawford, June 20th, 1816, etc.

See his letter to Mr. Pinckney, September 30th, 1820.

Mr. Jefferson's attention was drawn, in 1816, by the Governor of Virginia (his friend Wilson C. Nicholas, then in the third year of his office), to a general system of improvements for the defence, education, and development of the material resources of the State. His replies, dated April 2d, and 19th, will be found to contain many broad and valuable views, but they cannot be given here. Passing over several political letters of interest, we come to one which demands notice.

The first Constitution of Virginia, established in 1776, had, from the period of the publication of Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, constantly encountered the objections against it raised in that work; and these, instead of diminishing by the lapse of time, had acquired force in the public mind. Several attempts had been made to procure a revision of the instrument, but it had been prevented by the eastern counties. The western counties, smarting under a recent defeat of this kind, in 1816, invited a meeting of delegates to promote the object. Samuel Kercheval, a western gentleman, published some letters in favor of a revision, and inclosed them to Jefferson, soliciting his views. The reply was long, and exhibits all the power and daring of its author's earlier political disquisitions. He "besought " Kercheval, however, in a second letter, not "to admit of the possibility" of that reply being published, saying that "many good people would revolt from its doctrines," and that he wished "to leave to those who were to live under it, the settlement of their own Constitution, and to pass in peace the remainder of his time"-that if his "opinions were sound, they would occur to others, and would prevail by their own weight without the aid of names." The letters will be given in the Appendix.'

Professor Tucker, generally correct, and always candid authority, mentions the following facts in regard to Jefferson's first communication to Kercheval:

"As his letter had an extensive circulation notwithstanding his caution, and eventually found its way into the newspapers, the fear that some of them [his views] deemed most exceptionable, would be adopted, under the known influence of his name, and his presumed efforts in their favor, induced many who would otherwise have desired a revision of the Constitution to postpone it during his life.""

Another able and candid Virginia writer, critically versed

'See APPENDIX, No. 29.

"Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. ii., p. 390.

in both the written and unwritten history of his State, Dr. Grigsby, says in his discourse on the Virginia Convention of

1776:

The first Constitution of Virginia withstood, for near fifty years, his [Jefferson's] attacks in the Notes; but when he threw his thoughts into the shape of a letter to Kercheval, the fate of that instrument was sealed. The phrases of that letter were at once stereotyped in the public voice; and it was amusing to observe on the court green, and in debate, how those phrases passed current with men who had never seen or heard of the letter, and who believed that they were clothing their own thoughts in their own words."

Professor Tucker further says, that "when the revision did take place in 1829, several of" Mr. Jefferson's "principles were deliberately rejected in the Convention-one or two by large majorities." He might, had he written late enough, have added, that at a succeeding Convention, in 1851, some of the rejected "principles" were adopted. But irrespective of the fate of his propositions, or of their intrinsic soundness, few more striking tributes have ever been paid to the influence of an aged and retired statesman than are to be found in the fact, that many friends of a revision dared not have it take place during his life, for fear that his bare opinions-for nobody expected his appearance there would bear down all opposition in the Constitutional Convention of a State which swarmed with able public men.

Mr. Jefferson wrote a letter to Sir John Sinclair, July 31st, in which, after reciprocating the congratulations of the latter on the termination of the war between their respective nations, and saying that amicable dispositions towards England had been strong on the part of every American Administration, "from the first to the present one," he made the following important declaration:

"During the first year of my own administration, I thought I discovered in the conduct of Mr. Addington some marks of comity towards us, and a willingness to extend to us the decencies and duties observed towards other nations. My desire to catch at this, and to improve it for the benefit of my own country, induced me, in addition to the official declarations from the Secretary of State, to write with my own hand to Mr. King, then our Minister Plenipotentiary at London, in the following words: [here follows the extract from a letter to Mr. King, of July 13th, 1802, given at page 15 of this volume, except that the first sentence is slightly altered to leave out the irrelevant matter in respect to the occasion of writing.' And then Mr. Jefferson proceeds to say.] "My expectation was that Mr. King would show

And there are two wholly unimportant verbal deviations produced, probably by the copier or printer.

this letter to Mr. Addington, and that it would be received by him as an overture towards a cordial understanding between the two countries. He left the ministry, however, and I never heard more of it, and certainly never perceived any good effect from it."

In a letter to James Maury, four years earlier (April 25th, 1812). Mr. Jefferson alluded to the same facts.' In Mr. Trist's Memoranda occurs the following record of some remarks made by Mr. Jefferson, January 7th, 1826-about six months before his death:

"When I came into office, I wrote to Mr. King, pressing him to retain his office. A short time after, I wrote him a letter with my own hand," which it was my intention he should show to the Ministry, declaring that it then was (as it always has been), my wish that we keep on good terms with that nation. People have taken up an erroneous notion I was hostile to them. This letter was never shown. Some time after, however, I wrote one to Sir John Sinclair, containing an expression of similar sentiments, which was shown, and which produced an immediate change in the conduct of the British Ministry."

The letter to Sinclair here referred to was dated June 30th, 1803, and has been given at page 67 of this volume. And Mr. Jefferson might have added that ten days later he addressed a letter of similar import to the Earl of Buchan, which was also undoubtedly shown.'

1 The following is an extract from the letter:

"The English newspapers suppose me the personal enemy of their nation. I am not so. I am an enemy to its injuries, as I am to those of France. If I could permit myself to have national partialities, and if the conduct of England would have permitted them to be directed towards her, they would have been so. I thought that in the administration of Mr. Addington, I discovered some dispositions toward justice, and even friendship and respect for us, and began to pave the way for cherishing these disposi tions, and improving them into ties of mutual good will." But we had then a Federal minister there, whose dispositions to believe himself, and to inspire others with a belief in our sincerity, his subsequent conduct has brought into doubt; and poor Merry, the English minister here, had learned nothing of diplomacy but its suspicions, without head enough to distinguish when they were misplaced. Mr. Addington and Mr. Fox passed away too soon to avail the two countries of their dispositions."

Mr. Trist supposed he meant to be understood that the first named letter was written by the Secretary of State.

His feelings towards England in 1816, are strongly illustrated by a letter he wrote to Monroe. Various courses having been proposed in Congress to perpetuate the memory of the British outrage in destroying the Capitol, and an inscription on the new building being the one generally preferred, the Secretary of State consulted Mr. Jefferson as to its tenor. The latter replied October 16th, proposing that if there was any inscription it should be as follows: "Founded 1791-Burnt by a British army 1814-Restored by Congress 1817.” But he questioned the utility of any inscription. He said the "barbarism of the conflagration would immortalize that of the nation." But he thought that in future England had vastly more to dread from us than we from her-that she was "falling from her transcendent sphere "-and he added:

"It is for the interest of all that she should be maintained, nearly on a par with other members of the republic of nations. Her power, absorbed into that of any other, would be an object of dread to all, and to us more than all, because we are accessible to her alone, and through her alone. The armies of Bonaparte with the fleets of Britain, would change the aspect of our destinies. Under these prospects should we perpetuate hatred against her? Should we not, on the contrary, begin to open ourselves to other and more rational dispositions? It is not improbable that the circumstances of the war and her own circumstances may have brought her wise men to begin to view

He informed a member of his family, in conversation, that no circumstance ever gave him more pain than the conduct of Mr. King on this occasion, that it was with difficulty he could bring himself to believe it, and that he shuddered to learn that the Federal leaders were willing to inflict serious injury on their country for the sake of injuring his Administration.

The precise proofs which he had that his letter was not shown, are not within our knowledge. We would fain hope that there may have been some mistake or misapprehension in the matter-either that Mr. King did communicate the letter -that he did not receive it-or that he mistook its intended destination. The last would be a most flimsy excuse, and the second is entirely improbable. Mr. King's unpublished correspondence may fortunately establish the first fact. He was an ultra-Federalist, and one of the fondest of the admirers of England-but his conduct during the war of 1812, would seem to show that he had no foreign or partisan partialities strong enough to interfere with the calls of honor and patriotism.

A number of Mr. Jefferson's unpublished family letters in 1816 are before us. They abound in the usual expressions of strong affection, and they show that he was deeply interesting himself in the education of his grandchildren.

Mr. Eppes, since his second marriage, had been much sepa

us with other and even with kindred eyes. Should not our wise men, then, lifted above the passions of the ordinary citizen, begin to contemplate what will be the interests of our country on so important a change among the elements which influence it? I think it would be better to give her time to show her present temper, and to prepare the minds of our citizens for a corresponding change of disposition, by acts of comity towards England, rather than by commemoration of hatred. These views might be greatly extended. Perhaps, however, they are premature, and that I may see the ruin of England nearer than it really is."

In a letter to John Adams, November 25th, Mr. Jefferson expressed equivalent views; and he said that were England "under a government which could treat us with justice and equity, he should himself feel with great strength the ties which bound us together, of origin, language, laws and manners; and he was persuaded the two people would become in future, as it was with the ancient Greeks, among whom it was reproachful for Greek to be found fighting against Greek in a foreign army."

Mr. Adams was in a less placable mood. He saw no prospect of a change in the Government of England, and less of any relenting on its part towards the United States. He replied:

"Instead of turning their eyes to us,' their innate feelings will turn them from us. They have been taught from their cradles to despise, scorn, insult, and abuse us. They hate us more vigorously than they do the French. They would sooner adopt the simple monarchy of France than our republican institutions.

"Britain will never be our friend till we are her master.

*

"This will happen in less time than you and I have been struggling with her power; provided we remain united. Aye! there's the rub! I fear there will be greater difficul ties to preserve our Union, than you and I, our fathers, brothers, friends, disciples, and sons have had to form it. Towards Great Britain, I would adopt their own maxim. An English jockey says, if I have a wild horse to break, I begin by convincing him I am his master; and then I will convince him that I am his friend.' I am well assured that nothing will restrain Great Britain from injuring us but fear."