Lolme, together with the ingenious and masterly eulogy of Blackstone, had rendered this aimost the universal opinion of the scholar, the lawyer, and speculative reasoner in England and her dependencies, as well as the general sentiment of patriotism. When then the confederate states were about to enter on the experiment of a permanent constitution of government, these preconceived opinions would naturally exert an influence, and those who entertained them would be led to inquire how far the same benefits were attainable by us. They would of course know that there were no materials in this country whereof to form either kings or nobles; since as there had always existed a perfect equality of civil rights, there would be an invincible repugnance to a privileged class and hereditary distinctions. Yet some may have indulged the hope that the prejudices which could not be instantaneously overcome might be sapped by degrees; and thus the minds of our citizens be reconciled in time to that form of government and to those civil institutions which they deemed essential to stability.

The prestige of rank too was somewhat greater with some in this country, in consequence of our never having had a nobility. Our people knowing nothing of these privileged orders, except as exhibited in works of fiction, or in the occasional details of a newspaper, saw them through the magnifying process of the imagination, and thus conceived for them a degree of homage and respect which the reality would not have inspired.

But, in addition to the probability of those opinions deduced from general reasoning, we have the direct evidence of many facts to show that a kindred desire of the artificial distinctions of rank prevailed. Of this character were the fondness with which the Society of the Cincinnati clung to that institution, and the reluctance with which they relinquished the hereditary principle: the actual attempt to bestow a

titular dignity on the office of President; the further attempts to make a distinction between the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, both as to their daily compensation and the style of their address * the imitation of regal forms, so far as public opinion would tolerate them, in the President's morning levees; in his opening speeches at each session of Congress; and in the ceremonial adopted when he appeared in public; and lastly, the fact that at a ball in New York, a raised scat, obviously and purposely having an analogy to a throne, was prepared for the President and Mrs. Washington. Besides, the predilections of Alexander Hamilton for a monarchical government were well known †. With his usual frankness he did

* Some of the journals of the day in the northern states, not satisfied with bestowing the gratuitous title of "honourable" on the members of the house of representatives, affected to style the members of the senate "most honourable." Nay, some went so far as to extend this distinction to the wives of the members, as "the most honourable Mrs. A." and "the honourable Mrs. B."

The opinions which Mr. Jefferson imputed to Mr. Hamilton have been frequently called in question by some of Mr. Hamilton's admirers, for the double purpose of screening him and his political adherents from the popular odium attached to those sentiments, and of casting on Mr. Jefferson the reproach of uttering an unfounded slander against an adversary. But they thus aim at a concealment of his opinions, which his own frank and proud spirit disdained. Those opinions are well known to all his associates, and they who may refuse to abide by the testimony of a rival and an opponent, cannot reject that of a personal and party friend, as was Mr. Gouverneur Morris.

In a letter from Mr. Morris to Mr. Walsh, of Philadelphia, in a sketch of the political character of Hamilton, he says: General Hamilton hated republican government, because he confounded it with democratic government; and he detested the latter, because he believed it must end in despotism, and be, in the mean time, destructive of morality." And subsequently: "But although General Hamilton knew these things [that no monarchy could be established but by the mob'] from the study of history, he never failed on every occasion to advocate the excellence of, and avow his attachment to, monarchical government."

The same gentleman writes to Mr. Aaron Ogden, December 28, 1804, a few months after General Hamilton's death: "Our poor friend Hamil

not disguise them from his friends; and it furnished a fair presumption that those who admired him as a politician, and supported all his measures, could not have strongly objected to his principles. If they had, however they may have esteemed the talents and virtues of the individual, for they were many, they would have opposed those plans which had an obvious tendency to favour the augmentation of executive power, and which there was reason to suppose constituted with him their strongest recommendation.

Such we can easily suppose to have been the views of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Adams, and a large proportion of those whose opinions on government had been formed before the revolution. But the speculations on political rights, to which the contest with Great Britain and the question of independence gave rise, greatly favoured the doctrines of political equality and the hatred of power, in any form that could control the public will. There are in the heart of every man principles which readily prepare him for republican doctrines, and, after a few years, some of the speculative politicians began to think that the free, simple, and equal government, which was suited to the tastes and habits of our people, was also the best in theory. But they were jealous of the opposite opinion, from a consciousness of the revolution their own minds had experienced, and the known prevalence of the favourable opinion which was generally entertained of the English government.

Thus, while the great body of the people were partial to the form of government to which they had been accustomed, and dreamed of no other, the leading statesmen did differ

ton bestrode his hobby to the great annoyance of his friends, and not without injury to himself. More a theoretic than a practical man, he was not sufficiently convinced that a system may be good in itself, and bad in relation to particular circumstances. He well knew that his favourite form was inadmissible, unless as the result of civil war," &c. Life of G. Morris, Vol. III.

on this point; some preferring the republican form in theory, and believing that no other would be tolerated in practice; and others regretting that they were obliged to yield so far to popular prejudice as to forego the form they deemed the best, but determined to avail themselves of every opportunity of improving the existing government into that form. Nor were they without hopes that, by siding with the general government in every question of power between that and the separate states, and with the executive in all questions between that and the legislature, and by continually increasing the patronage of the executive by means of an army, a navy, and the multiplication of civil offices, they would ultimately obtain their object.

There were strong reasons why Mr. Jefferson's sentiments should be of an opposite character. He had always been among the foremost of his countrymen in favour of popular rights; and when these became fashionable in Paris, and were there recommended by wit and genius-were advocated by philosophers, and even by ladies, and many of the courtiers -all his partialities for that imposing metropolis, and its gay and cultivated society, gave new force to his republican zeal. When he returned to America he found its politicians even then differing in their views of the incipient revolution in France. Some already regarded it with distrust, and prognosticated evil from the violence and excesses with which it had been recently accompanied. These persons were the party who were most liberally disposed towards England. Mr. Jefferson's resentment towards that country, which neither his mission to France nor the illiberal commercial policy of England herself had suffered him to weaken, still further inclined him to take a different side from her partisans, and this circumstance might have influenced his course, if that had not been already decided by his attachment to liberal principles.

The first Congress under the new constitution assembled at New York on the 1st day of April, 1789, and continued in session till the 29th of September following. It is from the discussions of a body thus constituted that the historian can learn the form and pressure of the times, whether it merely reflects the sentiments of its constituents, or, as is sometimes the case, gives to them their first impulse. In the deliberations of this body it is easy to see in embryo those local and political divisions which have since so agitated and distracted the country, and which, for good or for evil, seem likely to continue to be the grounds of party distinction among us.

On two of the most interesting subjects discussed, the members seem to have been governed altogether by local considerations: these were the impost, and the selection of a spot for the permanent seat of government. In providing an adequate revenue, it was admitted on all sides that no mode was so eligible as by laying duties on imports; but in selecting the objects of duty, and determining its amount, it was soon found that there was a conflict of interests and wishes between the two great divisions of the union. The northern states having already succeeded in manufacturing some articles, both for themselves and the southern states, would be obviously benefited by taxing similar articles imported from abroad by way of securing to themselves a greater share of the home market; while the last-mentioned states being exclusively agricultural, and consequently mere consumers, had as direct an interest in keeping open the competition between foreign and domestic producers. This collision of interests manifested itself in laying duties on iron, salt, and foreign tonnage; but in nothing was it so apparent as in laying the duty on molasses, which was opposed by the eastern states, not only because that commodity had a more extensive consumption in those states, but also