turer, 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."

Jefferson's stay in Paris was now drawing to a close. Necker and Montmorin were restored to office, and the Assembly appointed a committee to project a Constitution. Its chairman, the Archbishop of Bordeaux, on July 20 wrote Jefferson a letter requesting him to attend and assist at their deliberations; but Jefferson excused himself on the ground of his official duties. The Committee soon got into difficulties, and schisms of opinion "broke the Patriots into fragments of very discordant principles." They agreed that the Government of France should be monarchical. But should the King have a veto on legislation? Should there be two Chambers? If so should one be hereditary? or nominative? or elective? As dissensions grew in their ranks the patriot leaders became alarmed. "In this uneasy state of things," writes Jefferson, "I received one day a note from the Marquis de Lafayette informing me that he should bring a party of six or eight friends to ask a dinner of me 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 candour 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 chosen by the people. This Concordat 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 candour how it 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 doubt 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."

At this point Jefferson's narrative of the French Revolution concludes. He was now ready to return home for a short holiday as he supposed, but as it turned out for

the rest of his days. His account of these stirring events has been very briefly resumed; but enough has been set down to show the wisdom of his counsels and the prudence of his conduct.

CHAPTER III

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

"The perfection consists in this, that out of many moderate varieties arises the goodly and the graceful symmetry that commends the whole pile and structure." MILTON

W

E must now return to events less important to
Europe but of mighty consequence to the New
World.

The form of union submitted to Congress in November, 1777 and adopted by the thirteen States in March, 1781 - a loose confederacy without a President or executive other than committees of Congress-had proved unsatisfactory. Congress, it has been said, was a mere Rump without dignity or power. Its finances instead of being restored after the peace went to rack and ruin; its army dwindled to eighty men; it was "despised abroad and disobeyed at home." The first thing needful was to balance the budget; so in 1786 the States were asked to amend the Articles of Confederation by empowering Congress to collect revenue by customs duties on imports. All the States except New York agreed, but the New York veto could not be surmounted. A remedy was urgent. At last in May, 1787, a Convention met in Philadelphia to draw up a constitution. Over this Convention Washington presided. Its proceedings were secret; but from very accurate notes taken by James Madison and published after his death, we know how the constitution was hatched out, and what were the constitutional

aims of the leading men who took part. In his Memoir Jefferson gives a succinct account of the need for a closer union, and of his own views on the Constitution adopted by the Convention. The fundamental defect of the Confederation, he says, was that Congress had no authority to act immediately and by its own officers. Its requisitions had to be addressed to the several State legislatures, and compliance was voluntary. Thus every State legislature had a negative on every measure proposed by Congress. No wonder that it lost credit abroad and at home. But State patriotism was naturally jealous of centralisation, and there were still Antifederalists like Patrick Henry who could not be persuaded of the need for closer Union. Jefferson was not one of them. He saw as clearly as Madison the urgent need of a better constitution to ensure peace, justice, liberty, common defence, and general welfare.2

The Convention sat with closed doors at Philadelphia from May 25, 1787, until September 17, when the results of its labours were published. Jefferson received a copy early in November. At that time the Constitution was still sub judice, open to criticism and subject to confirmation by the thirteen States. Jefferson approved most of the articles, but thought some objectionable. He especially disliked that which made the President reeligible for life, and felt very strongly the absence of express guarantees to secure freedom of religion and of the press, freedom of the person by habeas corpus, and trial by

All the available materials are collected and skilfully edited in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Max Farrand, 1911.

2

Jefferson wrote to Madison on March 31, 1787: "That a thorough reform of the existing system is indispensable, no one who has a capacity to judge will deny; and with hand and heart I hope the business will be essayed in a full convention."