services, and giving him a year's pay and subsistence to bring him to Europe. He, however, stayed three years and a half, as he says, to solicit what was due him; but Mr. Jefferson presumes, "in hopes of finding some opening for further employment." Madame Neckar is further told, that if he has not a certificate of what was allowed him, he must have received the money, and if he has the certificates, Mr. Jefferson will represent his claims, and will ensure its meeting with justice; and lastly, that his object is to be received into the Hospital of Invalids, and having no just title to admission, wishes to found a claim on his American commission and American grievances. VOL. I.-35 274 CHAPTER XII. Further opinions on the Federal Constitution. Mr. Madison's and Mr. Jefferson's respective views on Declarations of Rights. Discoveries and improvements in Science. Progress of the French Revolution. Mr. Jefferson submits a Bill of Rights to La Fayette. Visits Versailles almost daily. Connexion of Lake Erie with the Ohio. Views of the French Revolution. Titular distinctions in the United States. The doctrine that one generation cannot bind another. Mr. Madison's views on this subject. Further objections to the doctrine. State of parties in Paris. His mode of passing his time there. Leaves France. Stops at the Isle of Wight. Arrival at Norfolk. His papers narrowly escape conflagration. Return to Monticello. Reception by his slaves. Appointed Secretary of State. Marriage of his eldest daughter. Sets out for New York. Interview with Dr. Franklin. 1789-1790. In March of that year, about the time that the new constitution of the United States was about to be subjected to the test of experiment, Mr. Jefferson gave a full exposition of his views of it in a letter to Judge Hopkinson, of Pennsylvania. It seems that the judge had written to Mr. Jefferson that he was regarded as an anti-federalist, as the opposers of the constitution were now denominated. Mr. Jefferson thus states how far he agreed with the two parties: "I am not a federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in any thing else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven without a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore, I protest to you, I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that of the anti-federalists. I approved, from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in the new constitution: the consolidation of the government; the organization into executive, legislative and judiciary; the subdivision of the legislative; the happy compromise of interests between the great and little states, by the different manner of voting in the different houses; the voting by persons instead of states; the qualified negative on laws given to the executive; which, however, I should have liked better if associated with the judiciary also, as in New York; and the power of taxation. I thought, at first, that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be. What I disapproved from the first moment also, was the want of a bill of rights, to guard liberty against the legislative, as well as executive branches of government: that is to say, to secure freedom in religion; freedom of the press; freedom from monopolies; freedom from unlawful imprisonment; freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury, in all cases determinable by the laws of the land. I disapproved also the perpetual re-eligibility of the president. To these points of disapprobation I adhere." He then states, that although he had wished that the nine first conventions might accept the constitution, as that number was sufficient for it to go into operation, and the four last reject it, as the means of obtaining amendments, yet he rather preferred the plan pursued by Massachusetts, which adopted the constitution, and at the same time recommended amendments. On the subject of the re-eligibility of the president, he says: "since the thing is established, I would wish it not to be altered during the life of our great leader, whose executive talents are superior to those, I believe, of any man in the world, and who, alone, by the authority of his name, and the confidence reposed in his perfect integrity, is fully qualified to put the new government so under way, as to secure it against the efforts of opposition. But having derived from our error all the good there was in it, I hope we shall correct it the moment we can no longer have the same name at the helm." He thus notices his practice of openly avowing his sentiments, a virtue which he often carried beyond the verge of prudence, and for the exercise of which he occasionally incurred the censure both of friends and enemies; from one, for the opinions themselves, and from the other, for his unguarded frankness in avowing them. "I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own. A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself. My great wish is, to go on in a strict and silent performance of my duty: to avoid attracting notice, and to keep my name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise. The attaching circumstance of my present office is, that I can do its duties unseen by those for whom they are done." We have seen that one of Mr. Jefferson's objections to the new constitution was, that it was not accompanied with a Declaration of Rights. Mr. Madison, though, on the whole, friendly to such declarations, did not attach the same importance to them as Mr. Jefferson. His views on the subject are fully disclosed in a letter to Mr. Jefferson, dated in October, 1788, and they are so marked by that deep sagacity and dispassionate wisdom which have ever characterized his political speculations, that they are here given at length, with the permission of the venerable author, in the following Extract of a letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. "Dear Sir, The little pamphlet herewith inclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution. Various and numerous as they appcar, they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition. The articles relating to treaties, to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all the errors in the system, positive and negative, put together. It is true, nevertheless, that not a *By the State Conventions. few, particularly in Virginia, have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honourable and patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty and individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided, as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favour of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time, I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favoured it because I supposed it might be of use, and, if properly executed, could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light. 1. Because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. Because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition, would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power. One of the objections in New England was, that the Constitution, by prohibiting religious tests, opened a door for Jews, Turks, and Infidels. 3. Because the limited powers of the federal government, and the jealousy of the subordinate governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the state governments, and exists in no other. 4. Because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its control is most needed. Repeated |