honour, and of the Christian, the love of God. Mr. Jefferson gives the Hebrew psalmist the palm "over all the hymnists of every language and of every time;" and he cites a passage from Sternhold, even "the leaden Sternhold," to prove the sublimity of the original.

Another learned dissertation follows on the 28th of October, suggested by a passage from Theognis, which had been quoted by Mr. Adams. It is indeed a curious and interesting spectacle to see these veteran statesmen, for many years political opponents and rivals, the one upwards of seventy, and the other near eighty, passing their vacant hours in disquisitions often so foreign to their former pursuits, and to those subjects which were generally supposed to occupy their minds. It would seem as if, sated with political speculation and party contentions, these questions of the schools had to them the charm of novelty; or perhaps the exemption of such subjects from all tinge of acrimony or passion of any kind better harmonized with the quiet and placidity which age covets above all things.

But Mr. Jefferson could not long confine himself to these shadowy topics, so foreign to the habitual bent of his mind.

In the investigation of a fanciful theory of Theognis concerning the motives which occasion the commerce between the sexes, he insensibly glides into political speculation. He agrees with Mr. Adams that there is a natural aristocracy among men, the grounds of which are virtue and talents. Formerly," he says, "bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missiles of death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humour, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these, it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I

consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure election of these aristoi into the offices of government. The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy."

He then adverts to the difference of opinion between them on this point. He thinks the fears of an invasion of property are groundless, as is proved by the course of the several state legislatures. He says that their difference of opinion may be ascribed to a difference of locality-that in Massachusetts and Connecticut there seemed to be "a traditionary reverence for certain families," which had rendered the public offices nearly hereditary. He ascribes this partly to the real merit of these families, and partly to the strict alliance between church and state. "In Virginia," he says, "we have nothing of this. There were wealthy families, but the only object of their ambition was a scat in the king's council;" "their court was paid to the crown and its creatures, and they philippized in all collisions between the king and the people; hence they were unpopular, and this unpopularity continues attached to their names." Adverting to the laws of Virginia in abolishing entails and the right of primogeniture, as laying the axe to the root of the pseudo-aristocracy, he says the work would have been complete had the law also passed for the diffusion of learning. "Worth and genius would then have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts."

He contrasts the situation of man in this country to that in the old world-every one here by his property and situation being interested in preserving law and order. He lastly, in a spirit of prophecy, which every day seems to make more

probable, adverts to the change which science and the example of this country have had on the rights of the people. "An insurrection has consequently begun, of science, talents and courage, against rank and birth, which have fallen into contempt. It has failed in its first effort, because the mobs of the cities, the instrument used for its accomplishment, debased by ignorance, poverty and vice, could not be restrained to rational action. But the world will recover from the panic of this first catastrophe. Resort may be had to the people of the country, a more governable power, from their principles and subordination; and rank, and birth, and tinselaristocracy will finally shrink into insignificance even there;" and aware that his sentiments were not those of his corrcspondent, concludes in the following words: "I have thus stated my opinion on a point on which we differ, not with a view to controversy, for we are too old to change opinions which are the result of a long life of inquiry and reflection, but on the suggestion of a former letter of yours, that we ought not to die before we have explained ourselves to each other. We acted in perfect harmony through a long and perilous contest for our liberty and independence. A constitution has been acquired, which, though neither of us thinks perfect, yet both consider as competent to render our fellow citizens the happiest and the securest on whom the sun has ever shone. If we do not think exactly alike as to its imperfections, it matters little to our country, which, after devoting to it long lives of disinterested labour, we have delivered over to our successors in life, who will be able to take care of it and of themselves."

Although Mr. Jefferson was a consummate politician whenever he deemed a resort to policy expedient and allowable, and few men then had more penetration in fathoming the purposes of others or in concealing his own, yet in his familiar conversation, and often in his letters, he was remarkably

unguarded; and it was to his frank disclosures on these occasions that may be ascribed much of that excess of animosity which he experienced beyond any of his political associates. Though liberal as most men in estimating the private characters of individuals, and friendly in his personal intercourse with them, he was not sparing of his censures on their political principles and measures; and his denunciations, often pithy and terse, were repeated as well by his friends, for the purpose of giving aid to their cause, as by his enemies, for the sake of injuring him.

He bitterly complains, in a letter to Mr. Thomas Leiper, of Philadelphia, that an extract of a letter to a gentleman in England, with whom he had been long intimate, had been published in the newspapers; especially as some passages, taken singly, were calculated to convey a wrong impression of the whole. His correspondent had written to him to ask his friendly offices with the executive of the United States towards effecting a reconciliation between the two countries. Mr. Jefferson, in his answer, after referring to the numerous aggressions of England towards America and the forbearance of the latter, said that if there were any conditions which that country could offer and this should accept, he was ready to be the bearer of them: and to show that he was free from that undue attachment to France with which his enemies accused him, he made some harsh remarks concerning Napoleon. These having been published in England, and republished here, Mr. Leiper, who had always taken a leading part among the democratic party in Philadelphia, sent to him to inquire if it was genuine, and to explain a sentiment respecting the ruler of France, not yet embraced by the mass of the republican party. He thus defends himself for the unreserved expression of his opinions: "What am I to do? Am I to button myself up in Jesuitical reserve, rudely declining any answer, or answering in terms so unmeaning as only

to prove my distrust? Must I withdraw myself from all interchange of sentiment with the world? I cannot do this. It is at war with my habits and temper. I cannot act as if all were unfaithful, because some are so."

Mr. Jefferson, however, repeats his declaration that Napoleon was "an unprincipled tyrant, who was deluging the continent of Europe with blood." "Surely," he says, "none of us wish to see Bonaparte conquer Russia, and lay thus at his feet the whole continent of Europe. This done, England would be but a breakfast; and although I am free from the visionary fears which the votaries of England have affected to entertain, because I believe he cannot effect the conquest of Europe; yet put all Europe into his hands, and he might spare such a force as I would as lief not have to encounter, when I see how much trouble a handful of British soldiers in Canada has given us. No. It cannot be our interest that all Europe should be reduced to a single monarchy." Having thus made known his sentiments, he requests Mr. Leiper to give the requisite explanations to their common friends.

In December, 1814, he received from Dr. Walter Jones, formerly a representative in Congress from Virginia, an essay on the parties of the United States, with which he was highly pleased. But he takes occasion to qualify this remark of the author," that the people ought to possess as much political power as can possibly consist with the order and security of society," in lieu of which he would say, "that the people being the only safe depository of power, should exercise in person every function which their qualifications enable them to exercise, consistently with the order and security of society; that we now find them equal to the election of those who shall be invested with their executive and legislative powers, and to act themselves in the judiciary, as judges in questions of fact, and that the range of their powers ought to be enlarged."