responding "with the friends of America in Great Britain, "Ireland, and other parts of the world."* By that Committee a few months afterwards, Silas Deane, of Connecticut, was despatched on a private mission to Paris. His instructions, which bear the date of the 3d of March, direct him to inform the Count de Vergennes, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, "that if we should, as there is a great ap"pearance we shall, come to a total separation from Great Britain, France would be looked upon as the Power, whose "friendship it would be fittest for us to obtain and culti"vate."

Besides the other causes of alienation from England at this juncture, there was one less obvious, but probably not less real. It had been a saying of the Marquis de Montcalm, that our conquests along the St. Lawrence would hereafter lead to the severance of our own American Colonies from the parent State, and that France would thus obtain a compensation for her loss.** While Canada was still in the hands of a powerful enemy, New England was compelled to lean on Old England for support. The removal of the external pressure tended to loosen this connecting tie. Such change of feeling may have wrought unconsciously with many, nay, with most, of those whom it affected, but as it had not escaped the foresight of a statesman, so did it not fail to leaven and imbue the great body of the people.

Under the influence of the various motives and causes which I have endeavoured to explain, but above all, no doubt from the feeling of petitions slighted, and wrongs unredressed, the Congress now took up the question of Independence in good earnest. Early in June, a distinct proposal

* On the first unauthorized notions of aid from France, in the autumn of 1775, see a curious passage in the Life of John Jay, by his son William Jay, vol. i. p. 39.

** On the prediction of the Marquis de Montcalm, and on this whole branch of the subject, I would refer the reader to that most able Speech on Colonial Government delivered by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, February 8. 1850. It is only through this speech that the words of Montcalm are known to me; I have since heard from America that their authenticity is often called in question. (1853.)

to that effect was moved by Mr. Richard Henry Lee, and seconded by Mr. John Adams; the latter the most conspicuous among its defenders in debate. On the other side the principal speaker was Mr. Dickinson. He observed that since the Member for Massachusetts had thought fit to commence by invoking a Heathen God, the God of Eloquence, he, for his own part, should more solemnly implore the true God, the ruler of the Universe, that if the proposed measure was for the benefit of America nothing which he should say against it might make the least impression. He then urged that a Declaration of Independence, at such a juncture, might divide the people of America, and firmly unite against them the people of England. Yet even Mr. Dickinson went no further than to counsel that some assurance should be obtained of aid from a foreign Power before they renounced their connexion with Great Britain, and that the Declaration of Independence should be the condition to be offered for such aid. So far, under a sense of ill-usage, had the old spirit of loyalty declined!

Without expressly adopting the Resolution thus before them, the Congress appointed a Committee to prepare a Declaration in the form desired. This Committee was to consist of five members, including John Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin. Jefferson, though the youngest of all, was deputed to hold the pen. In his own Memoirs may be seen the draft, as he had first framed it, with some slight amendments by Franklin and Adams, and as it was then reported to the House. Several alterations of importance were subsequently made by the Congress at large. They deemed it wiser to omit the passages which conveyed a censure on the British people, and to aim their complaints and charges as directly as possible against the King. Thus, as they imagined, they should in great measure keep clear of offence to their friends in England. On other grounds of policy they also determined to strike out a clause inserted by Jefferson, repro

* A sketch of Mr. Dickinson's speech will be found in Dr. Ramsay's History (vol. i. p. 339.).

bating in strong terms the African slave-trade. That clause it was found would displease the Southern Colonies, which had never sought to prohibit the importation of slaves, but, on the contrary, desired to continue it. "Our Northern bre66 thren," adds Jefferson, "also, I believe, felt a little tender "under these censures, for though their people had very few "slaves themselves, yet they had been considerable carriers "of them to others."*

It is remarkable that Jefferson, in his first draft, had not scrupled to avail himself of the low and most unworthy prejudice which then prevailed against the nation north of Tweed. We find him therein complain of the King and people at home because they have permitted themselves "to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but "Scotch and foreign mercenaries." But this passage also was struck out by his colleagues.

Such numerous mutilations of the Draft were by no means welcome to those who had framed it. Franklin, who was sitting next to Jefferson, turned round to him, and said, "I have made it a rule, whenever in my power, to avoid "becoming the draftsman of papers to be reviewed by a "public body. I took my lesson from an incident which I "will relate to you. When I was a journeyman printer, one "of my companions, an apprentice hatter, having served "out his time, was about to open shop for himself. His first concern was to have a handsome sign-board, with a proper "inscription. He composed it in these words; - JOHN "THOMPSON, HATTER, MAKES AND SELLS HATS FOR READY "MONEY; with a figure of a hat subjoined. But he thought "he would submit it to his friends for their amendments. "The first he showed it to thought the word HATTER tauto"logous, because followed by the words MAKES HATS, which "showed he was a hatter. It was struck out. The next ob"served, that the word MAKES might as well be omitted, be66 cause his customers would not care who made the hats; if "good to their mind, they would buy, by whomsoever * Memoirs and Correspondence, vol. i. p. 16. ed. 1829.

"made. He struck it out. A third said he thought the "words, FOR READY MONEY, were useless, as it was not the "custom of the place to sell on credit. Every one who "purchased expected to pay. They were parted with; and "the inscription now stood: 'John Thompson sells Hats.' "SELLS hats, says his next friend, why nobody will expect "you to give them away. What, then, is the use of that "word? It was stricken out, and HATS followed, the rather as there was one painted on the board. So his inscription 'was reduced ultimately to JOHN THOMPSON, with the figure "of a hat subjoined."*

----- on

It is the part of an historian (so at least it seems to me, and on that principle are the foregoing chapters framed) to neglect no tale or incident, however trifling it may appear, that can best illustrate the feelings which produced, or the circumstances which attended, any great crisis in human affairs. But the changes in the Draft of the Declaration, though galling to the pride of its authors, were in truth mere matters of detail. On its general principle the main point, that is to say, of Independence a division was taken at the beginning of July. Nine Colonies declared in its favour. Four others - namely, South Carolina and Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware - either voted against it or would not vote at all. But within a few days, or even hours, means were found to elude or to overcome that obstacle. The delegates of South Carolina were induced to declare that, although they continued to think the measure hurtful, they would vote for it for the sake of unanimity. In the Pennsylvanian delegation a minority assumed unto themselves the part of a majority, and undertook to give their signatures as such. By such means a seeming concord an unanimity on paper was attained.** The Declaration of Independence, appearing as

* Life of Franklin, by Sparks, p. 407.

** These transactions, which for a long time remained secret, are explained by Mr. Jefferson, partly in his Memoirs, and partly in his appended Letter to Mr. Wells, dated May 12. 1819. He states that as to Pennsylvania, "The Convention, learning that the Declaration had been

the act of the whole people, was finally adopted and signed by every member present at the time, except only Mr. Dickinson. This was on the 4th of July — a day which has ever since been celebrated as a festival by the Americans as the birth-day, for thus they deemed it, of their freedom. And among all the coincidences of date which History records, there is none perhaps so striking as that John Adams and Jefferson, the two main movers of this Declaration, should both-after filling with signal reputation the highest office in their native land expire on the fiftieth anniversary of the day on which this their own handiwork, this the foundation of their own greatness, was first sent forth.

This memorable Declaration, on which the fate of so many millions of people, present and future, has depended for weal or for woe, commences by briefly stating, that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. The document then proceeds at great length, and with much bitterness of language, to enumerate what it terms the "repeated injuries and usur"pations" proceeding from "the present King of Great "Britain." As already explained, the Congress had purposely, so far as possible, avoided any acrimonious allusions, either to the Parliament or to the people of that country. "We hold them," says the Declaration, "as we "hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace "friends." The last paragraph, or summing up of this document, sets forth with these words: "We, therefore, "the representatives of the United States of America, in "General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme

"signed by a minority only of their delegates, named a new delegation on "the 20th (of July)." None of the New York delegates were present on the 4th, and the signatures from that State were delayed for several days in order to obtain fresh powers from their provincial Convention. One Member (Mr. Thornton, of New Hampshire) was permitted to add his signature so late as the 4th of November.