in the word of the first consul than in all the parchment we could sign."

How long Mr. Jefferson continued to entertain feelings of this sort for Bonaparte may perhaps be ascertained by what follows. After the conqueror of Europe had himself been conquered and dethroned, and banished to the island of Elba, in the Mediterranean, in a letter to John Adams, dated July 5, 1814, the tide of admiration seems to have changed with the change of fortune, and he speaks of him in a very harsh and unkind manner, as follows:- "Shall you and I last to see the course the seven-fold wonders of the times will take? The Attila of the age dethroned, the ruthless destroyer of ten millions of the human race, whose thirst for blood appeared unquenchable, the great oppressor of the rights and liberties of the world, shut up within the circuit of a little island of the Mediterranean, and dwindled to the condition of a humble and degraded pensioner on the bounty of those he has most injured. How miserably, how meanly, has he closed his inflated career! What a sample of the bathos will his history present! He should have perished on the swords of his enemies under the walls of Paris.

"But Bonaparte was a lion in the field only. In civil life a cold-blooded, calculating, unprincipled usurper, without a virtue; no statesman, knowing nothing of commerce, political economy, or civil government, and supplying ignorance by bold presumption. I had supposed him a great man until his entrance into the Assembly des Cinq Cens, eighteenth Brumaire, (an. 8.) From that date, however, I set him down as a great scoundrel only. To the wonders of his rise and fall, we may add that of a Czar of Muscovy, dictating, in Paris, laws and limits to all the

successors of the Cæsars, and holding even the balance in which the fortunes of this new world are suspended."

This extract contains facts enough, under Mr. Jefferson's own authority, to justify the federalists for the opinion they formed of Bonaparte's character, the objects which he, and of course the nation which supported him in pursuing those objects, had in view, the dangers which they apprehended from his supremacy, and the controling influence which he would be able to exert, after having subjugated Europe including Great Britain, over the affairs and interests of this country. The federalists viewed Bonaparte throughout his career as an Attila-a "scourge of God," more nearly resembling his great predecessor than any other personage mentioned in modern history; and it was for a close adherence to him and his measures that they considered Mr. Jefferson as a dangerous man to be placed over the government of their country. They looked with strong apprehensions to the consequences of electing a man to the office of chief magistrate who was friendly to "the ruthless destroyer of ten millions of the human race; to one "whose thirst for blood appeared unquenchable," and who was "the great oppressor of the rights and liberties of the whole world "-" a cold-blooded, calculating, unprincipled usurper, without a virtue." Mr. Jefferson says he "had supposed him to be a great man until his entrance into the assembly," in the eighth year; "from that date he set him down as a great scoundrel only."

The federalists having obtained an earlier insight into his real character, differed essentially from Mr. Jefferson concerning him. They did not form their opinions of him on the comparatively trifling circumstance of his con

duct on the occasion alluded to. They had but little confidence in the characters and conduct of the principal leaders in the revolutionary conflict, and in none less than him. And the farther the revolutionists advanced in their tremendous career, the more strongly were their early opinions and sentiments, respecting both the men and their objects, confirmed; and they were not under the necessity, at so late a period, of acknowledging their error and altering their whole course of thought, as well as of conduct, with regard to them.

And yet, on the simple ground that the federalists had formed these correct sentiments respecting revolutionary France and Frenchmen at an earlier period than himself, Mr. Jefferson, for many years, stigmatized them as Anglomen, friends of monarchy, aristocrats, enemies of freedom, republicanism and the rights of men. By pursuing this course, and rousing up popular prejudice and vulgar passion, he succeeded in depriving them of the public respect and confidence, and in elevating himself to the head of the government.

CHAPTER II.

The Federalists opposed to Mr. Jefferson because he used the government patronage to promote his own and his party's interests -Case of the removal of the New Haven collector-Letter to the New Haven merchants-Collector not removed for want of integrity, capacity or fidelity—Attempt to fix the charge of political intolerance upon Mr. Adams—If it lay against any person, it was Gen. Washington-Doors of honor, &c., burst open by Mr. Jefferson's election-Origin of the doctrine that a change of administration involves the principle of a change of subordinate officers-His election considered by him as a revolutionAll executive officers viewed by him as executive agentsProved by a letter to J. Munroe.

THE federalists were opposed to Mr. Jefferson on the ground that he made use of the patronage of the government to promote the views and interests of himself and his party, without any reference to the public welfare. His immediate predecessor in office, John Adams, had appointed Elizur Goodrich collector of the port of New Haven, Conn. This gentleman performed the duties of his office with strict fidelity to the government, and in a manner entirely acceptable to the inhabitants and merchants of that place. Upon hearing of his removal, the latter united in a respectful but frank and decided remonstrance against the measure, expressing in the fullest manner their approbation of his character and conduct, and requesting that he might be restored to his place. In his reply to this application, Mr. Jefferson, without suggesting the slightest charge against Mr. Goodrich as an officer of the government, places his removal from office solely on political

ground. He says, "The removal, as it is called, of Mr. Goodrich, forms another subject of complaint. Declararations by myself in favor of political tolerance, exhortations to harmony and affection in social intercourse, and to respect for the equal rights of the minority, have, on certain occasions, been quoted and misconstrued into assurances that the tenure of offices was to be undisturbed. But could candor apply such a construction? It is not indeed in the remonstrance that we find it; but it leads to the explanations which that calls for. When it is considered that, during the late administration, those who were not of a particular sect of politics were excluded from all office; when, by a steady pursuit of this measure, nearly the whole offices of the United States were monopolized by that sect; when the public sentiment at length declared itself, and burst open the doors of honor and confidence to those whose opinions they more approved; was it to be imagined that this monopoly of office was to be continued in the hands of the minority? Does it violate their equal rights to assert some rights in the majority also? Is it political intolerance to claim a proportionate share in the direction of the public affairs? Can they not harmonize in society unless they have everything in their own. hands? If the will of the nation, manifested by their various elections, calls for an administration of government according with the opinions of those elected; if, for the fulfilment of that will, displacements are necessary, with whom can they so justly begin as with persons appointed in the last moments of an administration, not for its own aid, but to begin a career at the same time with their successors, by whom they had never been approved, and who could scarcely expect from them a cordial co-operation? Mr. Goodrich was one of these. Was it proper for him