besides Grand & Co. But what if this claim had been made? Was there any proof of it? And whoever the bill was sold to, would it not have gone ultimately to the drawees, Messrs. Willinks, Van Staphorsts & Hubbard, and been by them cashed and charged to the American Government-or dishonored and then returned back by the holders to the original drawer?

Some other points were raised by a Native Virginian, but they are not entitled to notice.

APPENDIX NO. XXXII.-VOL. III. p. 502.

Jefferson and Henry Lee.

Henry Lee wrote to Mr. Jefferson, May 3d, 1826, that he was preparing a new edition of the Memoirs, etc., of his father, General Henry Lee-that he found "the account given of Arnold's invasion was not favorable to his [Jefferson's] foresight or energy "--and he offered to embody, or give literally, in notes to the work, any explanations the latter "might choose to furnish him with," should they appear satisfactory to his (Lee's) judgment. (Lee's Memoirs, etc., 2d edition, p. 203.)

On the 9th of the same month, without waiting for an answer to the above, he again wrote to Mr. Jefferson, "that under the circumstances in which the Governors of States and the Continental Officers were placed, it was reasonable to suppose that, however correct the former may have been, the opinions of the latter would be unfavorable to them." He said, "he had little doubt, if Jefferson had been the 'military chieftain,' and Green the regulated statesman-the élève of Montesquieu and Locke-that Green would have occasioned the same strictures which were actually applied to Jefferson." The letter contained much more in the same courteous strain. (Lee's Memoirs, p. 204.)

Mr. Jefferson replied to the first letter May 15th, 1826, giving that unanswerable defence of his administration, as Governor of Virginia, at the period of Arnold's invasion, which is published (without any address) in the Congress edition of his works, at vol. vii., p. 444. It is not given in Randolph's edition.

On the 30th of May, Jefferson replied to a letter from Lee of May 25th (not published), in which the latter had proposed to make a visit to Monticello. He said, "He should be happy to receive him at the time he mentioned, or at any other, if any other should be more convenient to Mr. Lee."

The visit was made during Mr. Jefferson's last illness, and Mr. Lee sent an account of what he saw to the Richmond Enquirer, containing some fanciful embellishments-all, however, we believe, drawn up in a tone of admiration towards Mr. Jefferson.

In 1827, Lee's edition of his father's Memoirs was published. He made no alterations in their text, in regard to Arnold's invasion of Virginia,' but he subjoined, in notes, his full correspondence with Mr, Jefferson on that subject, and he stated, that the "eloquent justification" of the latter "appeared to be directed

The first edition is not before us. But the editor states in the "advertisement," at the opening of the volume, that he has not "ventured to alter" the text, except in regard "to such obvious mistakes as to dates, names, and places, as could not affect the identity of the composition," and in regard to a particular emendation which is specified.

against severer strictures than those to be found in the Memoirs which applied rather to the inefficiency of the government of Virginia, at the time, than to the particular Executive magistrate."

Thus he not only vindicated Mr. Jefferson on his own judgment, but attempted to exonerate him from all the individual censure inflicted by General Lee.

In his conversations and letters of this period, Henry Lee avowed the most unbounded admiration of Mr. Jefferson's character, talents, and public services.

In 1829, Randolph's edition of Jefferson's Works was published. It contained Jefferson's strictures on General Henry Lee's personal and political conduct on various occasions, and also (in a letter to Colonel Monroe, January 1st, 1815) the following animadversion on General Lee's Memoirs: "Although the Legislature, who were personally intimate with both the means and measures, acquitted me with justice and thanks, yet General Lee has put all these imputations among the romances of his historical novel, for the amusement of credulous and uninquisitive readers."

Henry Lee, the son, took offence at these strictures. He appears to have thought that the editor of Mr. Jefferson's Works was bound to "venture to alter the text," or either omit or explain away by notes, what probably Mr. Jefferson's editor did not believe truth or justice required to be obliterated. Or else, he was fired by finding evidences that Jefferson, as well as his father, had felt resentments, and expressed them-that he had retaliated to the extent of warmly declaring his indignation, where he conceived himself both privately and publicly wronged. Accordingly, the younger Lee, in 1832, published "Observations on the writings ef Thomas Jefferson, with particular reference to the attacks they contain on the Memory of the late General Lee," etc.

Had this work defended General Lee with warmth, and retorted with severity on Mr. Jefferson, in respect to the issues which he himself had raised (or any related ones), nobody, under the circumstances, would have condemned the feelings, however much they might have dissented from the conclusions of an offended son. But when the latter went back to attack Mr. Jefferson's private character, in regard to transactions of old date and themes of old controversy—to rake together and revive Callender's scurrilities-he placed himself in that unfortunate predicament in which a witness never fails to stand who avows enthusiastic admiration until he quarrels, and then suddenly remembers that the subject of his overtures and caresses has always been infamous!

We shall leave Henry Lee's representations and acts, prior to 1829, to answer his later ones. Their comparative credibility needs no other illustrations than are to be drawn from the tenor of Mr. Jefferson's life, and from the feelings and presumed motives of Mr. Lee on these two different occasions.

Perhaps justice to Mr. Jefferson requires that we state more fully than we have done in the text the grounds on which he pronounced the Memoirs, etc., of General Lee a "historical novel." In doing this, we shall not discuss the merits of any of the controversies between the two men.

General Lee's Memoirs were written in 1809. No claim was put forward in them that they were founded on memoranda or journals kept by the writer while he was engaged in the Southern campaigns. The contrary was admitted.

In regard to the events of Arnold's invasion of Virginia, General Lee had no personal knowledge or recollections, as he was absent from the State at the time.

He gave the statements of none of the distinguished officers who commanded in Virginia, at the time, to confirm his own.

His opportunities for investigating historic facts in relation to that period are' therefore, presumed to have been the same with those of any other individual of the same research and capacity, whether in or out of military life.

Between the close of the war of the Revolution and the period of writing his Memoirs, he had been engaged in almost unceasing political hostilities against Jefferson. The latter accused him of attempting to produce a personal alienation between himself and Washington (see vol. ii. p. 298). Lee was in Congress when the struggle took place to elect Jefferson and Burr, in 1801, and was understood to be foremost amongst those who urged "desperate measures to prevent Jefferson's success (see vol. ii. p. 608). He was thenceforth left out of political life, by the ascendency of Jefferson's political friends in Virginia. After eight years of this exclusion, and after a train of circumstances not calculated to soften his asperities of feeling, he wrote the "Memoirs."

Jefferson considered himself treated in them, with gross, and a sort of cunning injustice—for the author, while producing his effect on the mind of the reader, abstained from those explicit and tangible asseverations which could be met and overthrown by well-settled facts. Under these circumstances, he pronounced the work a "historical novel."

Deeply reluctant to carry anything which seemed to savor of mere personal discussion into the limits of aggression, we had ultimately resolved to add nothing to the above explanations. But since the preceding remarks were penned, we have seen the statement put forth in a literary work of great general liberality and candor, that the charges of Henry Lee (the younger) against Jefferson have never been "directly answered." This remark is undeniably true. It is equally true that Callender's charges were never directly answered. Even witnesses of moral respectability, who sincerely believed what they wrote, were never directly answered, so far as we know, when they descended into petty or dirty personal allegations.' And, what is more, they probably never will be directly answered. If it was not held necessary by any friend of Mr. Jefferson contemporaneously to descend into the dirt to prove negatives, when a party in our country religiously believed the author of the Declaration of Independence was an incarnate demon who had no claims to honor or honesty, who spat upon the Bible, who lived in an African brothel, etc., etc., it probably will not be held necessary to do so now, when Mr. Jefferson's character is so well understood, that (as we remarked in the preface) not a candidate for civil office dare rise before any popular constituency within the American Republic and insult his memory.

Whenever, Henry Lee's “vial of rage"-as it is termed in a MS. letter of Mr. Madison, a copy of which lies before us-confines itself to the region of pure argument (as, for example, in his attempt to show that the Declaration of Independence was not much of a production, after all), it is of course entitled to all the weight which the same reasoning would possess by whomsoever uttered. But when he approaches the field of assertion, inference, conjecture, explanation, or conclusion, we are entitled to examine the motives and character of the assailant.

On the motives of Mr. Lee, sufficient light would be thrown already, if we had substantiated by facts our assertion of his sudden change, under the circumstances recorded, from a vehement admiration to a viperous hate of Mr. Jefferson's charac

Unless casually or incidentally, merely to illustrate the credulity or credibility of the witnesses, or the spirit of the times.

ter. It occurring to us that tangible evidence might exist, on this head, which it would be proper to make public, we addressed the gentleman on whom principally devolved the charge of entertaining Mr. Lee, during his visit to Monticello. He remembered having received letters from Mr. Lee, and on search found two, copies of which he placed at our disposal. The first was as follows:

Henry Lee to N. P. Trist.

DEAR SIR: You are probably aware that my late visit to Monticello grew out of a correspondence I had the honor to hold with Mr. Jefferson, and was intended to verify and illustrate the principal public facts to which that correspondence related. You are but too well acquainted with the melancholy cause of my disappointment, and that Providence had already determined to seal those hallowed lips from which I was to receive inspiration. Now that the illustrious patriot has ceased to live among the sons of men, and has attained a stage of existence as immortal as his own glory, a sentiment of more awful reverence and still more pious attachment devotes me to his memory, than actuated me towards his person and character. The utmost justice I am determined to do him, in the case produced by the republication of my father's Memoirs (now in the press), and to that end must publish our correspondence, as my letters will illustrate his, and his will vindicate him better than anything that I could possibly compose. His principal letter is in answer to two of mine, one of the 3d and one of the 9th of May last. Of that of the 9th, I retained a copyor rather composed one from memory; of that of the 3d, I have no copy. The object of this letter is to get a copy of it, and I am sure it will not be asking too much of your politeness, to request that you obtain the consent of Mrs. Randolph, and send me by mail either a copy or the original, as you please. I understand Mr. J. was very careful of his papers, and hope there will be no difficulty in finding this. It will be esteemed the best fortune that ever befell me to find myself able to justify in the least this best of patriots and wisest of men-a man who entered every walk of politics and philosophy, and in all was foremost.

That I may express further my sentiments towards him, I beg leave to inclose for your perusal a rough sketch of a general order, which, at the request of a military friend, I prepared the other day. The news of Mr. Adams's death arriving, rendered it inexecutable and useless, and I had no wish to blend the two names. With the most exalted esteem for Mr. Jefferson's daughter-more to be honored than either of Epamimondas's-and sincere respect for yourself,

I remain, dear sir,

Your very obedient and very humble servt.,

MR. TRIST, Monticello.

H. LEE. WASHINGTON, 20th July, 1826.

The General-in-Chief has received, through the Department of War, the following order of the President: [Here follows order.]

"The event thus announced to the army overspreads the nation with sorrow. The Republic mourns its second founder, Liberty her most ardent advocate; philo. sophy her great disciple, and learning her munificent friend. The author of the Declaration of Independence-the leader of our second Revolution-the founder of Louisiana-the sage of Monticello-the beloved and venerated THOMAS JEFFERsox is no more. 'Full of years, and full of honors,' the day of his death was that. of his own and of his country's greatest glory.

"His were conquests—the conquests of truth over error—of reason over prejudice-of wisdom over violence-victories of the mind!—triumphs of patriotism and philanthropy.

"The army of the United States, consecrated to freedom and science and the service of the country, will feel peculiar and melancholy pride in obeying this order of the President, and in paying solemn honors to the memory of a man, whose sublime genius, extensive capacity, and splendid acquirements were unceas ingly exerted through a long life, first, for the good of his country, and next for the good of mankind."

[The above is copied from the original, now in my possession; said original being the paper inclosed in H. Lee's letter to me, dated, “Washington, 20th July, 1826."

PHILADELPHIA, April 4th, 1858.

N. P. TRIST.]

The other letter is very curious, but as it would not, strictly speaking, throw any further light on the only point which the foregoing was presented to illustrate, we shall not here transcribe it.

The character of the individual who has made himself witness and judge, in respect to the public and private life of Thomas Jefferson, has been passed upon in a high quarter, and under circumstances which admit of no pretence that political or personal prejudices influenced the verdict. When General Jackson was a candidate for the Presidency, in 1827 and 1828, Henry Lee labored and wrote for him with vehement energy, and with his customary ability. We could give on his own authority, did we suppose it called for, a striking specimen of his sharp electioneering tactics. He gave out that he was writing a life of General Jackson. He was a brilliant man in his address. He had borne a major's commission in the army of the United States, in the war of 1812. He represented a family which had been as distinguished for its talents, patriotism, and influence as any in the United States, and which yet had most honored and worthy representatives. Jackson knew him in these phases, and on his election promptly commissioned him ConsulGeneral for the United States, for the City and Kingdom of Algiers, in the place of Mr. Shaler, resigned.

Lee's nomination was transmitted to the Senate of the United States, January 22d, 1830, and on the 10th of February, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. On the 8th of March, Mr. Tazewell, of Virginia, by direction of the Committee, moved "that the Committee of Foreign Relations to whom was referred the nomination of Henry Lee, as Consul," etc., "be empowered to send for perThe Senate adjourned while this motion was under consideration. On the resumption of its consideration, March 10th, it was ordered, on motion of Mr. McKinley, that it lie on the table. The Senate then took up the nomination and rejected it unanimously. On motion of Mr. Burnet, seconded by one fifth of the senators present, the yeas and nays were ordered, and they stood: yeas, none; nays, forty-six.' Comment is unnecessary.

sons.

1 Those who voted against confirmation were: Messrs Adams, of Miss.; Barnard, of Pa.; Barton, of Mo.; Benton, of Mo.; Bell, of N. H.; Bibb, of Ky.; Brown, of N. C.; Burnet, of O.; Chambers, of Md.; Chase, of Vt.; Clayton, of Del.; Dickinson, of N. J.; Dudley, of N. Y.; Ellis, of Miss.; Foot, of Con. Frelinghuysen, of N. J.; Grundy, of Ten.; Hayne, of S. C.; Hendricks, of Ia.; Holmes, of Me.; Iredell, of N. C.; Johnston, of La.; Kane, of Ill; King, of Ala.; Knight, of R. I.; Livingston, of La.; McLean, of Ill.; McKinley, of Ala; Marks, of Pa; Naudain, of Del.; Robbins, of R. I.; Rowan, of Ky.; Ruggles, of O.; Sanford, of N. Y.; Seymour, of Vt.; Silsbee, of Mass.; Smith, of Md.; Smith, of S. C.; Sprague, of Me.; Tazewell, of Va.; Troup, of Ga.; Tyler, of Va.; Webster, of Mass.; White, of Ten.; Willey, of Con.; Woodbury, of N. H.-46.

Absent, Forsyth of Ga, and Noble, of Ia.