all cases in which his interests are concerned, or his passions enlisted, of the slightest claim whatever to credit.*

[* I should deem what is said in the text in relation to the Mazzei letter and the controversies which have arisen out of it, as having exhausted the whole subject, and requiring neither corroboration or supplement, were it not for Mr. Tucker's remarks in regard to it. They are contained between pages 518 and 528 in the first volume of his Life of Jefferson. Nor would I have the judicious reader to suppose that I deem the intrinsic force of those remarks sufficient to entitle them to the notice I am about to bestow on them. But when I reflect on the manner and the place in which this biography has been got up, and the auspices under which it was ushered into the world, as well as some other circumstances which will appear in the sequel, it seems to be the safer course not to permit this portion of that work to escape exposure.

When these "Observations on the Writings of Jefferson" were first published, they excited that attention which it was natural to expect for a work of such ability, boldness and novelty, on a subject so interesting to the American public. Rumours were rife of a thousand pens ready to leap from their inkstands to vindicate the fame of the hero of American jacobinism. Reflection, however, gave them the early advice of Sancho to Don Quixote, to turn back while the world was yet unapprized of his having undertaken his high adventures; and wiser than the Knight, they all took it. At the University of Virginia, however, within sight of Monticello, and a short ride of the whole magazine of press-copies which had been there collected, it was for some time thought that the genius and resources of the learned brotherhood might produce something to parry this attack upon Mr. Jefferson's reputation, and (what was of more difficulty) render his own writings less destructive to his fame. From the anxious cogitations employed upon this subject resulted, it would seem, Mr. Tucker's book, which was to be an abridgement of Mr. Jefferson's Writings, interspersed with such remarks and reflections as might best serve to cover their imperfections, neutralize their poison, and avert the blows which they drew upon their author. How well Mr. Tucker has performed this task it is no part of mine to examine; but I must beg him to separate as completely my respect for him, from that with which I may seem to treat his book, as he assures us Mr. Jefferson did his respect for the character of Washington, from that with which he regarded his measures. Nor will I here withhold the praise I think due to his book-that as an abridgement of Mr. Jefferson's Writings it is tolerably fair,-that his efforts to be candid are not unfrequent, and the more laudable as they are evidently painful,-and that the occasional success of those efforts afford to the judicious reader a sufficient antidote to the bane of those Writings and that character, which Mr. Tucker holds up to the admiration of mankind. But how lamentable an absence his work shows of that earnestness in the pursuit of truth, which is the highest virtue of the historian, the following remarks will show.

Mr. Tucker says that we have abundant evidence to satisfy a candid inquirer, that Gen. Washington was not "designated in that passage of the letter which says, 'against us are the executive, and two out of three branches of the legislature," nor "comprehended among the apostates, who, though Samsons in the field, and Solomons in the council," &c. And what is this abun dant evidence? Why, that "not only in bis, (Mr. Jefferson's) diary, does he repeatedly express his conviction that Gen. Washington was a republican in his attachments," "but also in several of his letters to individuals of the same party as himself; and in the long letter he wrote to Gen. Washington to dissuade him from retiring at the end of the first term, he not only would not have urged him to continue, if he had believed that his principles were opposed to those to which he showed through life such a rooted attachment, and on which his hopes of favour with his countrymen rested, but he would never have ventured to censure so roundly as he did in that letter the principles which he believed were those of Gen. Washington, This letter, then, is

LETTER VIII.

WE have at length reached the point of time, in the progress of this tasteless but not unfruitful investigation, at which the letter

of itself utterly inconsistent with the fact that he intended to comprehend in his letter to Mazzei him, whom he had at all other times excepted. They were plainly meant for Hamilton, Adams, Jay, the Pinkneys, and some others who had been distinguished in the revolution as soldiers or statesmen, and who then guided the executive councils, but who, by their Anglican attachments and antigallican prejudices, were endeavouring as much as they could to assimilate our government to that of Great Britian."

As the foregoing extract contains both assertions and inferences, it will be proper to consider, first, its statements, and then its logic. It asserts that Mr. Jefferson "had at all other times excepted" Gen. Washington from the re proaches which the letter to Mazzei cast upon his advisers. Yet the very next topic to which this biographer adverts is introduced by the following ex tract of a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Col. Monroe, (page 528:) "You will have seen by the proceedings of congress the truth of what I always observed to you, that one man outweighs them all in influence over the people, who have supported his judgment against their own and that of their representatives. Republicanism must lie on its oars; resign the vessel to its pilot; and themselves to the course he thinks best for them." The father of the republic is the "one man" (one is italicised in Mr. Tucker's text,) here alluded to, as forcing repub. licanism to lie upon its oars, and the conduct which produces this unhappy result is charged to proceed from "his judgment," and not that of any advisers.

In the same volume at page 379, Mr. Tucker has recorded another proof of Mr. Jefferson's pretended suspicions of Gen. Washington's monarchical tendencies, and of how calmly and closely Mr. Jefferson watched for words and incidents which might be tortured into proofs of them. "The President (Washington) then remarked, that 'he did not like throwing too much into democratic hands, for that if they did not do what the constitution called on them to do, the government would be at an end, and must then assume another form."" He stopped here; and Mr. Jefferson remarks: "I kept silence, to see whether he would say any thing more in the same line, or add any qualifying expression to soften what he had said; but he did neither."

Mr. Tucker (page 513) abridges a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Giles, dated December 31, 1795, in which the writer imputes to Mr. Edmund Randolph's "want of firmness the President's habitual concert with the British and antirepublican party," and "warmly condemns that disposition to halt between two parties, and deems it to be as immoral as to pursue a middle line between honest men and rogues." "9

These are some of many contradictions, which Mr. Tucker has himself recorded, of his assertion that Mr. Jefferson "had at all other times excepted" Gen. Washington from reproaches like those contained in the Mazzei letter. Another assertion of the extract under consideration is, that, at the date of the Mazzei letter, (April 24th, 1796,) Hamilton, Adams, Jay, the Pinkneys, and some others then guided the executive councils. To appreciate fully the gratuitousness, (considering the character of Washington, it must be added,) the impudence of this statement, the reader must bear in mind that not one of the persons here named was a member of the cabinet at the period referred to:

that gave occasion to it, was written. In pursuing it you will find, that notwithstanding the professions of friendship, respect,

That body then consisted of Col. Pickering, Mr. Wolcot, Col. M'Henry, and Mr. Charles Lee. If there be any so besotted with Jeffersonianism as to believe, that he who by the suffrages of all mankind has been regarded as the Colossus of American independence, and the father of the republic, was habitually the tool of others, can they suppose that his justice, which has been so universally lauded, could have permitted him to fix the responsibility of the executive conduct upon one set of men, while it was under the guidance of another? Yet Mr. Tucker asserts this to be the fact, and that the reproaches of Mr. Jefferson against the executive "were plainly meant" for these illustrious men, who were in no way connected with that department. This is going beyond and contradicting Mr. Jefferson himself, who in his letter to Mr. Madison plainly admits that Washington was included in the reproached executive, and in that to Mr. Van Buren, is silent upon that conclusive word, and divides his censures of the Samsons and Solomons among the whole Society of the Cincinnati.

So much for Mr. Tucker's statements-now for his logic. To appreciate the force of that, the reader must bear in mind that the charge against Mr. Jefferson is of duplicity that while he praised Washington to himself and his friends, he secretly traduced him to answer his own sinister ends, and that as a proof of the latter branch of this charge, his letter to his Italian gossip is referred to. And what is it that Mr. Tucker so confidently pronounces as "of itself utterly inconsistent with the fact that he intended to comprehend" Gen. Washington in that precious epistle? Why, that several years before, "he wrote a long letter to the General to dissuade him from retiring at the end of the first term." And why is that "utterly inconsistent with the fact that he wrote a letter abusive of Gen. Washington several years after? Why, first, says Mr. Tucker, because "he would not have urged him to continue" in office if he had believed him to entertain monarchical attachments. But Mr. Tucker says that Mr. Adams was comprehended in this abuse, was "endeavouring as much as he could to assimilate our government to that of Great Britain;" and has also recorded (page 532) while the first contest for the presidency was pending between Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, (the very year of the letter to Mazzei) the latter wrote to Mr. Madison "to urge on his behalf that Mr. Adams should be preferred on the ground of seniority, both as to years and public services," in case "of an equality of electoral votes between" them, and said that "he was impelled both by duty and inclination" to take that course. Thus it seems by Mr. Tucker's own showing, that Mr. Jefferson might urge the election to the presidency of one comprehended in the reproachful clauses of the letter to Mazzei. Mr. Tucker must, therefore, be driven to rely solely on his second reason to establish the utter inconsistency he contends for, viz: that Mr. Jefferson "would never have ventured to censure so roundly as he did in that letter (the long one to Gen. Washington) the principles which he believed were those of Gen. Washington."

This will be readily admitted. No one pretends, or can be so stupid as to imagine that Mr. Jefferson really believed Gen. Washington to entertain monarchical attachments, or to have ever "acted in concert" with a party which was "British and anti-republican." Mr. Jefferson is charged with asserting, not what he believed to be true of Gen. Washington, but what he knew to be false; and Mr. Tucker relies on the truth of one half of the charge to disprove the whole of it! Verily if he will teach the law students of the University to meet actions of slander by so simple a process, our courts will soon cease to be troubled with that pestiferous class of cases.

Having thus summarily and satisfactorily (to himself at least,) disposed of the first in his arrangement of the charges against Mr. Jefferson, growing out of the Mazzei letter, he next essays to dissipate those which relate to the sup

meditation, and retirement; notwithstanding the new declaration of fidelity and devotion which it was intended to prefer to Gen.

posed correspondence between Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson subsequent to the retirement of the former from the presidency. The biographer treats the alleged suppositions on this subject as nearly gratuitous; and rests this conclusion upon Mr. Jefferson's denial and the nature of the testimony which alone is opposed to that denial. But it is the duty of the historian to collect as well as to weigh evidence, and the sources from which to seek it in reference to this subject were well known, and peculiarly accessible, to Mr. Tucker. What would have been the result of properly directed inquiries by him is ap parent from the following correspondence, which proves, too, that one at least of Mr. Tucker's assertions, viz: that “no one is alive who pretends to have heard Rawlins make the assertion," is perfectly gratuitous.

Ravensworth, December 1, 1838.

MY DEAR SIR,-The publication of Mr. Jefferson's "Writings," and of works to which they have given rise, has directed attention anew to the subject of a correspondence, which is alleged to have taken place between Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson, after the former retired from the Presidency. You are aware that, in a letter to Mr. Van Buren, dated June 29, 1824, Mr. Jefferson denied that any letters whatever passed between Gen. Washington and himself after the period referred to. For though his denial is pointed more particularly against any correspondence between them on the subject of his famous letter to Mazzei, it extends plainly enough to the existence of any upon any subject. His words are- "My last parting with Gen. Washington was at the inauguration of Mr. Adams, in March, 1797, and was warmly affectionate; and I never had any reason to believe any change on his part, as there certainly was none on mine. But one session of congress intervened between that and his death, the year following, in my passage to and from which, as it happened to be not convenient to call on him, I never had another opportunity; and as to the cessation of correspondence observed during that short interval, no particular circumstance occurred for epistolary communication, and both of us were too much oppressed with letter writing to trouble either the other with a letter about nothing."

It is obvious that any correspondence, and especially an angry one, between Washington and Jefferson, after March, 1797, is incompatible with the veracity of the foregoing extract. Still I should deem the argument on this subject in Major Lee's "Observations on the Writings of Jefferson" sufficient to satisfy candid inquirers after truth, were it not for the statements Professor Tucker has given to the world in his recent biography of that gentleman. He says, at page 524 of the first volume of that work, "The supposition," viz: of the correspondence in question, "seems to be either a mere inference from doubtful facts, or to rest on vague, unsupported and improbable rumour." Then after stating the inference and arguing against its justice, he adds, "There was also a rumour on this subject that Rawlins, whom Gen. Washington employed about this time as an amanuensis, told a merchant in Alexandria that he had copied a letter from the General to Mr. Jefferson relative to the Mazzei letter, which was so very severe "it made his hair stand on end." I have inquired into this story, and it seems as unsupported as the rest. Rawlins is dead; and no one is alive who pretends to have heard Rawlins make the assertion."

Knowing how long Mr. Tucker has enjoyed your intimate acquaintance, I confess I was surprised at the assertion with which this extract concludes. Recollecting how often he has seen from your door the trees of Mount Vernon,-how well he knew your near relationship to Gen. Washington, your double connexion with his family, and the strong likelihood of your being able to give him authentic information concerning its traditions,-it seemed to me so natural and proper that he should have applied to you when inquiring," "into

Washington, and the new grant of confidence which it actually extracted from him; the same deceitful and injurious practices,

the truth of this story," (as he undertakes to call the assertions of such men as Col. Pickering and Dr. Stuart,) that it is even yet with difficulty that I can reconcile the respect I feel for Mr. Tucker with his omission to have done so. You will see, at once, the natural effect of the part he has taken. It may now be fairly and forcibly urged-that here is a work, assuming the character of impartial history, written by a gentleman whose children are the grandchildren of the niece of Washington-that the author's connexion with the family of that illustrious man, while it afforded the means of obtaining that more intimate knowledge of him which is seldom transferred to history, naturally made him also more anxious to disseminate it accurately-yet he treats the assertion of a nearer connexion of that same family as an idle story. It cannot be supposed that he did so until he had exhausted those sources of information on the subject, to which he had the easiest access, and as he obtained none worthy of his regard it must be presumed that none such existed.

I think you will agree with me that truth in relation to this point of history is in danger of suppression, and that too, to the detriment of the characters of those whom you respect, and to the undue advantage of the reputation of one, whom the family of Washington (as far as I have the honour of their acquaintance,) regard with a very different sentiment. To prevent this is an object of sufficient importance, I hope, to entitle me to your compliance with the request which is the object of this letter, and to justify which I have fatigued you with this long preface. Will you, my dear sir, give me a written statement of whatever your memory can furnish on the subject of this last correspondence? It is proper to tell you that, with your permission, I shall make use of the testimony you may furnish in the edition of Major Lee's "Observations on the Writings of Mr. Jefferson," which I am preparing for the press. Please therefore make it as circumstantial as you can conveniently; for details will carry that conviction to the minds of strangers, which your character will exact from those who know you. But however brief your statement, it will be important, and gratefully received by, dear sir,

TO LAWRENCE LEWIS, Esq.

Yours, most sincerely,

C. C. LEE.

DEAR SIR,-In compliance with your request, I now send you all the information I have upon the subject of the letters said to have passed between Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson, a short time before the death of the General: I resided at Mount Vernon at the time. An old friend, Mr. Francis Thornton, and Mr. Samuel Washington called to see me. After dinner, whilst sitting round the table, Col. Tobias Lear and G. W. P. Custis, being also present, Mr. Thornton inquired, “if a very friendly correspondence had not taken place between Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson, but a short time before the General's death-that such was the report in Fredericksburg." I answered, it must be one of the many reports in circulation, without the least foundation. Col. Lear immediately said, "Yes, it is so, for I have seen the letters." (At this time Col. Lear had been put in possession of all Gen. Washington's letters and papers by the late Judge Washington, and was daily in the office arranging and selecting those papers necessary for the Biography of Washington.) I stated my reasons for supposing it a mere report, and reminded Col. Lear of a conversation which had taken place between himself, Gen. Washington, and Dr. David Stuart, when I was present. He said, "yes, but it was after that." It so happened, that Dr. Stuart came to Mount Vernon that evening. I informed him of Lear's assertion. He appeared to doubt it, and referred to the conversation between Lear, Gen. Washington and himself, when I was present. He then remarked, I shall see Lear in Alexandria in the morning, and will get him to be more