erous fathers. Of the prominent revolutionary patriots, JOHN ADAMS and THOMAS JEFFERSON, the twin pillars of independence in the Continental Congress, were serving the country, at the time when the constitution was formed, on foreign embassies. HANCOCK, SAMUEL ADAMS, PATRICK HENRY, were opposed to innovation, and were not elected to the Convention, or refused to attend. WASHINGTON, as the presiding officer, took no part in the debates, though his name and influence were far more powerful than any other single cause in determining the result, and recommending its adoption to the people. FRANKLIN, who was just then terminating his long career, by a close corresponding well with its calm and varied glories, could now, under the disadvantages of extreme old age, and feeble health, do little more than throw the shield of his world-renowned name over the acts of the Assembly. SHERMAN, ELLSWORTH, and others who were active in proceedings, were no doubt already somewhat advanced in years, but the labor, the responsibility, and, on the whole, the ultimate honor of forming the constitution devolved upon a younger class, still comparatively unknown to fame, the most prominent of whom among the members of the Convention, were such men as MADISON, HAMILTON, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, PINCKNEYS, RANDOLPH, WILSON, ELLSWORTH, and RUFUS KING. The Constitutional Convention was a body so limited in number, and considered at the time of so much importance, that almost every member was a citizen of weight and influence within his sphere; but the persons we have mentioned were those who generally gave the impulse to the proceedings, and are mainly responsible for their character.

Of these persons the one who was considered at the time, perhaps by all, certainly by the large and respectable portion of the community which then and since sympathized with him in his peculiar opinions and feelings, as decidedly the primus inter pares, the prominent one among the intellectual and moral peers of the republic, was HAMILTON. Although it has been generally understood that this distinguished patriot and statesman did not fully concur, as a member of the Convention, in some of the leading principles of the constitution, the decision and activity with which after its adopion he labored by his eloquence as a

member of the New York Convention, and with his pen, as a writer in the Federalist, in recommending it to the people, brought him before the country as one of the principal champions of the new form of government. It is, therefore, not without a feeling of surprise and almost regret, that we find, from the complete record of the debates, now published, for the first time, in the Madison papers, how very small was the part taken by Hamilton in forming the constitution, which he afterwards defended with so much energy and effect; and how entirely adverse the spirit of the new plan was to his own ideas of political justice, expediency, or truth. Of the four months, during which the Convention sate, he was absent nearly two, and those the busiest of the whole. During the time when he was in attendance, he appears, from the report, to have hardly made any attempt to exercise influence, either in suggesting plans of his own or maturing those of others. His reason for this inactivity, so foreign to his natural character, as repeatedly given by himself, was a total disapprobation of the leading principles of all the plans proposed. Thus, in a speech made on the 18th of June, a month after the opening of the Convention,-in the discussion of the comparative merits of the two projects of Randolph and Patterson, which divided the opinions of the meeting, he remarks, that he "had hitherto been silent on the business before the Convention, partly from respect to others, whose superior abilities, age, and experience, rendered him unwilling to bring forward ideas dissimilar to theirs; and partly from his delicate situation with respect to his own State, to whose sentiments, as expressed by his colleague, he could by no means accede. He was obliged, however, to declare himself unfriendly to both plans." On the 29th of June he left the Convention, and, though he is said by Mr. Madison to have resumed his seat on the 13th of August, his name does not appear again in the proceedings until the 6th of September, about three weeks before the close. In the discussion of that day, upon the mode of electing the President, he made some observations, which he prefaced by saying," that he had been restrained from entering into the discussion by his dislike of the scheme of government in general; but, as he meant

to support the plan to be recommended as better than nothing, he wished in this place to offer a few remarks." In fact, no sooner was the plan adopted and sent out to the people, than he became its most active and strenuous supporter. In the New York Convention he was the leading champion of the constitution, and simultaneously with his efforts in that body, wrote, as is well known, above two-thirds of the Federalist,-by far the most effective, if not the only formal defence of the system that was furnished at the time through the press :-a work, which, by its great intrinsic merit, taken in connection with the interesting character of the subject and of the crisis when it appeared, has been rescued from the class of ephemeral newspaper publications to which it belonged by its form, and incorporated with the standard and classical literature of the country.

It may appear, at first blush, as if this sudden change of position was a proof, in Hamilton, either of a very fickle mind, or of insincerity in one or the other of the opposite courses which he took before and after the adoption of the constitution. But a nearer view of the circumstances under which he acted shows that neither conclusion is necessary. The constitution was opposed, in the Convention, by two distinct classes of persons, on directly opposite grounds. One of these classes considered both of the plans which chiefly occupied the attention of the meeting, and particularly that of Governor Randolph, which finally became, with many alterations, the basis of the constitution, as too strong. The other class regarded even this plan as much too weak. Hamilton, as we have seen, belonged to this latter class, and made no secret of his opinions. In the speech of the 18th of June, alluded to above, he explained at some length the nature of the system which he should himself have recommended, and, at the close of his remarks, read a formal draft of a constitution founded on his own views, which appears in the present report. Towards the close of the proceedings he gave to Mr. Madison another still more formal draft, of which the latter took a copy, and which is published in the appendix to the work before us. It provides for an Executive and Senate, who are to hold their places, like the judges, during

good behavior; the Senate being, like the House of Representatives, made up of members elected from each State in numbers proportioned to their wealth and population. The governors of the States were to be appointed by the general government, and to possess an unqualified negative on the acts of the State legislatures. It is hardly neces sary to say, that in this system the political efficiency of the States is entirely destroyed, and that the confederation is consolidated into a simple elective monarchy. Even this plan, however, did not probably indicate the full extent of Hamilton's theoretical views, which undoubtedly included a preference for even the hereditary feature of the British constitution. He was aware that this preference was not shared by any considerable portion of the American people, and did not make it the basis of either of the two systems which he drafted for the constitution; but it is very distinctly expressed in many of his remarks, even as reported by the candid and considerate pen of Madison. It stands out in still bolder relief under the less delicate, though perhaps not less correct hand of Yates. Thus, in his speech of the 18th of June, he is represented by Madison as saying, that he adopts the sentiments of Necker, that "the British government is the only government in the world which unites public strength with individual security." He declares the British House of Lords to be a "noble institution"-the British executive, the "only good model" for this part of the government. "The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emolument so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad, and, at the same time, was both sufficiently independent, and sufficiently controlled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home." The same ideas are thus expressed in the report of the same speech in Yates: "I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced." Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy." "It is admitted that you cannot have a good executive upon a democratic plan. See the excellency of the British executive. He is placed above temptation. He can have no distinct interest from

the public welfare. Nothing short of such an executive can be efficient." After reading his plan, he concludes his speech, according to the report of Yates, in the following terms:-"I confess that this plan, and that from Virginia, are very remote from the ideas of the people. Perhaps the Jersey plan is nearest their expectation. But the people are gradually ripening in their ideas of government. They begin to be tired of an excess of democracy: and what even is the Virginian plan, but pork still, with a little change of the sauce?"

Hamilton's opposition to the constitution, while a member of the Convention, proceeded, therefore, from his conviction that it was too weak to accomplish the object of government. Had it been opposed in the New York Convention, or before the people, on the same ground, he would have found it difficult, without obvious inconsistency, to occupy the position which he took as its leading champion and advocate. But this was not the case. The constitution, after it had been adopted in the Convention and submitted to the people, was publicly opposed in the State Conventions, popular meetings, and newspaper publications, on no other ground, than that it was altogether too strong-that the liberties of the people were in danger-that the rights of the States would be lost in the overwhelming power of the general government-that the form of administration established by it would be, in short, nothing better than an elective monarchy, and the future President a despot in disguise, who, as Patrick Henry afterwards said in the Virginia Convention, would place one foot on the borders of Maine, and the other on the farthest extremity of Georgia, and thus bestride the narrow world like a colossus, while the citizens, like the degenerate Romans in the time of Cæsar, would have no option left but to

"Walk under his huge legs, and creep

about

To find themselves dishonorable graves."

With the views which Hamilton entertained of the character of the constitution, it was easy for him, without even the appearance of inconsistency, to defend the constitution against an opposition founded on such apprehen

sions. Believing the plan, as he did, to be quite too weak, it was no very difficult exercise of his faculties to find reasons which tended to show that it was, at least, not too strong. In points of detail there was, no doubt, a probability that his position, as the leading champion in the New York Convention, would sometimes lead him to express views at variance with those which he had supported before. This result appears, in fact, to have occurred on one rather remarkable occasion, and to have produced a disagreeable scene, which occupied the meeting for two days. In the discussion of the relations established by the constitution between the general and State governments, Hamilton remarked that," the State governments were necessary to secure the liberty of the people, and treated as chimerical the idea that they could ever be hostile to the general government." In reply to these remarks, Mr. Lansing, who had also been a member of the general Convention said, that he " was firmly persuaded that a hostility between them would exist-that this was a received opinion in the general Convention—that Hamilton himself then entertained the same view, and argued with much decision and great plausibility, that the State governments ought to be subverted, at least, so far as to leave them only corporate rights, and that even in that situation they would danger the existence of the general government. The honorable gentleman's reflections had probably induced him to correct that sentiment." Mr. Hamilton, says the report of the debate, "here interrupted Mr. Lansing, and contradicted in the most positive terms the charge of inconsistency included in the preceding observations. This produced a warm personal altercation between these gentlemen, which engrossed the remainder of that and the greater part of the following day." The particulars of this altercation are not given in the report. It might not, perhaps, be easy to reconcile the assertion here attributed to Hamilton, with some of his remarks, as reported by Madison and Yates; and though no great importance can ever be attached to particular expressions in reports, not revised by the speaker himself, it cannot be questioned that the general view of Hamilton, as developed in his

en

speeches and drafts, contemplated leaving to the States a much less considerable share of power than they, in fact, possess under the present constitution. It may be proper to remark, that far from regarding the opinions on government expressed by Hamilton in the general Convention-including even his avowed admiration of the British constitution-as evidences either of erroneous judgment, or of undue aspirations after political distinction,-we consider them rather as showing the firmness and ability with which he reasoned from the premises then before the world, and the honorable frankness with which he declared his conclusions, without inquiring whether they were likely to be popular or not. He had too much sagacity not to know, if he entertained any ambitious views, the surest way of defeating them would be to declare himself in favor of a strong government.

"Lowliness is young Ambition's ladder."

As to the correctness of his opinion, although a preference for the British constitution over others might not be thought, at the present day, to argue, in a citizen of the United States, much soundness of judgment, it should be recollected that the constitution of the United States did not then exist. The State constitutions had been very recently established, and, as their value cannot be realized without the co-existence of an effective general government, they had not yet, in practice, worked very well. The attempts at purely democratic institutions, which had been made in other countries in ancient and modern times, had been all unsuccessful, and had thrown discredit on the very name of democracy, which was, accordingly, a bye-word of reproach with all parties in the Convention. The British constitution was, in fact, as Hamilton and others described it," the only model then existing of good government." It was natural, therefore, and necessary, that men of powerful intellect and extensive information should desire to see it copied in this country, as closely as the popular feeling would permit. The opposition to such a course was the result of state pride and the instinctive jealousy of power inherent everywhere in the mass, rather than from an enlightened

preference for the particular form of government now established, which, at the opening of the Convention, was not contemplated, even in some of its most important features, by any one. It appeared in the Convention too strong to one-half of the members, and too weak to the other. One of its two most essential principles, and the one which is probably ever regarded by most persons as the most beautiful and characteristic trait in the system-we mean the equal vote of the States in the Senate-was extorted from the Convention with the utmost difficulty, in the way of compromise, by the smaller States, and was regarded by the prominent members, at the time, as fatal to the success of the plan; for Randolph, the father of it, for this reason chiefly, renounced his offspring, and refused to sign the constitution as adopted, though he afterwards became reconciled to it, and defended it vigorously in the Virginia Convention. But the force of circumstances is a safer, as well as a more efficient guide for practical purposes than mere theory. The friends of a stronger and more consolidated system yielded with a good grace to what they probably thought the honest prejudices and errors of less enlightened men, and even stood forward as open champions of a system which they valued only as "better than nothing." The result was, a form of government which no one anticipated, but which has far surpassed, in its practical operations, through the first, and, of course, the most dangerous half century of its existence, the most sanguine calculations that had been formed by any one of the results of his own favorite views. This constitution, thus tried and approved by the only sure test of experience, has now become another "model of good government"- the "model republic"-as the British constitution may still, perhaps, be called the "model monarchy." Those among us, if any such there be, even with this splendid system in full operation around them, who still feel the same preference which Hamilton did for the British constitution, must do it on other grounds, and from an abstract preference for monarchical forms and principles over republican ones, even when the latter are ascertained to be practicable, and are working out the best results,

with, perhaps, as little alloy of any kind as is consistent with the imperfection of all human institutions.

Most of the remarks which we have made upon the part taken by Hamilton in the proceedings of the general Convention, apply with equal force to GOUVERNEUR MORRIS and RUFUS KING, -whoapproached, if they did not fully equal him in talent, shared his political opinions, and pursued practically nearly the same course. Gouverneur Morris was absent from the Convention for several weeks after the opening, but resumed his seat in season to oppose the report of the compromise committee in favor of the equal vote of the States in the Senate, which formed the principal crisis in the progress of the debates. The leading features of the constitution having been settled by the adoption of this report, though without his concurrence, and against his opinion, he nevertheless appears, like Hamilton, to have cheerfully acquiesced in the result, and took a rather more active part in the subsequent debates on matters of detail. The only independent proposition of much importance which he submitted to the Convention, was that of establishing a Council of State to aid the President in the discharge of his executive duties. This suggestion was afterwards renewed in a different form by Mr. Madison. Mr. Morris was a member of the committee of five, appointed on the 9th of September to arrange the articles that had been agreed upon, and revise the style. The other members were Dr. JOHNSON of Connecticut, HAMILTON, MADISON, and KING. It has been stated, --we do not recollect in what quarter, that in this committee MORRIS held the pen. If so, he is, of course, entitled to the honor of having made the final draft of the constitution. But as every clause, and almost every word, had been the subject of long discussion, and finally settled by vote, there was, at this stage of the business, not much scope for revision. MORRIS does not appear to have been a member of the State Convention of Pennsylvania, where he then resided. Mr. KING, whose activity in the general Convention was rather less than that of Morris, was a member of the Massachusetts Convention, and took an efficient part in the proceedings.

The persons whom we have thus far

mentioned, belonged to the portion of the Convention whose views in regard to the strength of the constitution went far beyond the plan finally adopted. This plan, though much undefined in the course of the debates, represented, as proposed, the feeling of Virginia. It is impossible, in reading the history of the country at this period, not to be struck with the great predominance of Virginia in the affairs of the Union, and her vast superiority in political efficiency and intelligence over her sister States. If any doubt were entertained upon this subject after the perusal of the work before us, it would be settled by a comparison of the debates in the State Conventions of the other States with those in the State Convention of Virginia. The debates in the Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania Conventions, were highly creditable to those States, and, though imperfectly reported, comprehend fine specimens of eloquence, as may well be supposed, when it is recollected that they were honored by the presence of such men as KING, AMES, JAY, WILSON, and HAMILTON. But the Virginia volume, while it includes the speeches of champions, on both sides of the question, who would not have shrunk from comparison with any of those, such as MADISON, HENRY, and MARSHALL, is fuller, richer, and, on the whole, far superior in general ability. The decided ascendency of Virginia at this period is naturally accounted for, as well by her precedence in years, population, and extent of territory, as by the simultaneous appearance among her citizens of several individuals,-WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON, MADISON, HENRY, MARSHALL,-who must have taken the lead in public affairs in whatever part of the Union they might have flourished, and who have left the decided impression of their personal qualities upon several of the great departments of our social institutions.

At the particular moment of the establishment of the constitution, the influence of Madison in his native State was, perhaps, more conspicuous than that of any other person. It seems to have been his mission,-as honorable an one as could well devolve upon any individual,-to be the immediate agent in recommending and carrying through all its stages from the first to the last, the great reform then necessary in the