a hope that such provisions would be rendered unnecessary by the just and amicable regulations of the belligerent powers; and that it is more than probable that a disappointment in this particular can scarcely fail to revive the subject at the next Session. These considerations are too important not to be brought into view in your communications with the British Government; and you will know how and when to do it with the least risk of irritation, and consequently with the greatest probability of useful effect.

I have the honor to be &c

SIR,

TO JAMES MONROE.

D. OF S. MSS. INSTR. DEPARTMENT OF STATE October 11th 1804.

I have the honor to transmit to you a copy of a letter from Thomas Manning with the document it inclosed, respecting the capture of the Brig Camillus and what appears to be a most unprovoked outrage committed on the person of Thomas Carpenter, a native of the United States, then a seaman on board, by order of Lieutenant Sutton, commanding the British armed schooner L'Eclair or Leclerc. Mr. Manning has been informed that recompence for the loss he has sustained must be attempted by his pursuing the judicial remedy against Mr. Sutton, if he thinks it advisable. But the reparation demanded by the honor of our flag whose immunities have factory to the U. States, and more correspondent with the disposition to cherish all the friendly relations which so happily exist between the two Nations, and which are so strongly recommended by their mutual interests.

"The irregularities charged on the French ships of War now at N. York, were first notified to the Government by your representations on that head. You may assure yourself, Sir, that they will be enquired into with that attention which the U. States owe not only to their own jurisdiction; but to their neutral position, to which they will always be as ready to pay respect themselves, as to insist on it from others." -Mad. MSS.

VOL. VII.-II.

been so grossly violated in the person of Carpenter by an officer of the King of Great Britain is the serious concern of the Government, and you will therefore apply for satisfaction in that decided yet friendly manner which is warranted by the highly aggravated conduct of the British officer. The circumstances of the occurrence, though almost incredible from their nature, are as fully supported as can be done by ex parte evidence, which nevertheless Mr. Manning assures me is free from colouring and exaggeration. It will therefore not be a satisfactory answer to the complaint to be presented with the bare denial of Mr. Sutton if he should hazard one; for if the British Government think the harmony of the United States worth preserving they ought to scrutinize with care and punish with rigor misconduct which has such an irritating tendency.

I have the honor to be &c

TO NOAH WEBSTER.1

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12, 1804.

SIR

I received, during a visit to my farm, your letter of Aug. 20, and hoped that I should, in that situation, find leisure to give it as full an answer as my memory and my papers would warrant. An un

From A Collection of Papers on Political Literary and Moral Subjects. By Noah Webster, LL.D. New York, 1843; p. 169.

Webster's letter to which this is a reply is dated New Haven, August 20, 1804, deplores Hamilton's death, and regrets that his eulogists have given him some credit not his due. Dr. Mason has declared the "original germ" of the Constitution was in the bosom of Hamilton," and that he suggested the idea of a radical change at the Annapolis convention. Webster calls attention to his pamphlet Sketches of American Policy eighteen months before the Annapolis convention and says: "I have always understood and declared that you made the first proposal, and brought forward a resolve for the purpose, in the House of Delegates of Virginia, in the session of December, 1785.

In

foreseen pressure of public business, with a particular one of private business interesting to others as well as to myself, having disappointed me, I find myself under the necessity of substituting the few brief remarks which return to the occupations of this place, and the absence of my papers, will admit.

I had observed, as you have done, that a great number of loose assertions have at different times been made with respect to the origin of the reform in our system of federal government, and that this has particularly happened on the late occasion which so strongly excited the effusions of party and personal zeal for the fame of Gen. Hamilton.

The change in our government like most other important improvements ought to be ascribed rather to a series of causes than to any particular and sudden one, and to the participation of many, rather than to the efforts of a single agent. It is certain that the general idea of revising and enlarging the scope of the federal authority, so as to answer the necessary purposes of the Union, grew up in many minds, and by natural degrees, during the experienced inefficacy of the old confederation. The discernment of Gen. Hamilton must have rendered

this I am confident of being correct, for I was in Richmond at that time. If wrong, please to set me right.

"Mr. Paine claims to be the first mover of the proposal for a national government, alledging that he suggested it to some friends in the year 1784 or 1785. Mr. Pelatiah Webster wrote a pamphlet on the subject of a different frame of government in 1784." Webster's Collection &c. 168.

See Madison's introduction to the Journal of the Constitutional Convention, ante, Vol. II, p. 391.

him an early patron of the idea. That the public attention was called to it by yourself at an early period is well known.

In common with others, I derived from my service in the old Congress during the latter stages of the Revolutionary war, a deep impression of the necessity of invigorating the federal authority. I carried this impression with me into the legislature of Virginia; where, in the year 1784, if my recollection does not fail me, Mr. Henry co-operated with me and others in certain resolutions calculated to strengthen the hands of Congress.

In 1785, I made a proposition with success in the legislature of the same state, for the appointment of commissioners to meet at Annapolis such commissioners as might be appointed by other states, in order to form some plan for investing Congress with the regulation and taxation of commerce. 1 This I presume to be the proceeding which gave you the impression that the first proposal of the present constitution was then made. It is possible that something more might have been the subject of conversation, or may have been suggested in debate, but I am induced to believe that the meeting at Annapolis was all that was regularly proposed at that session. I would have consulted the journals of it, but they were either lost or mislaid.

Although the step taken by Virginia was followed by the greater number of the states, the attendance at Annapolis was both so tardy and so deficient, that

1 See, however, Madison's letter to Webster of March 10, 1826, post.

nothing was done on the subject immediately cominitted to the meeting. The consultations took another turn. The expediency of a more radical reform than the commissioners had been authorized to undertake being felt by almost all of them, and each being fortified in his sentiments and expectations by those of others, and by the information gained as to the general preparation of the public mind, it was concluded to recommend to the states a meeting at Philadelphia, the ensuing year, of commissioners with authority to digest and propose a new and effectual system of government for the Union. The manner in which this idea rose into effect, makes it impossible to say with whom it more particularly originated. I do not even recollect the member who first proposed it to the body. I have an indistinct impression that it received its first formal suggestion from Mr. Abraham Clark of New Jersey. Mr. Hamilton was certainly the member who drafted the address.

The legislature of Virginia was the first I believe, that had an opportunity of taking up the recommendation, and the first that concurred in it. It was thought proper to express its concurrence in terms that would give the example as much weight and effect as possible; and with the same view to include in the deputation, the highest characters in the state, such as the governor and chancellor. The same policy led to the appointment of Gen. Washington, who was put at the head of it. It was not known at the time how far he would lend himself