appearance of the face indicated power and repose, not that terrible vehemence of wrathful emotions with which it was sometimes animated. His bust and features seem to afford a good likeness of the man.

Mr. Adams wrote much, but he only wrote books designed to meet the need of the hour. His most important writings are: a Discourse on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765; the State papers in the quarrel between the Colony of Massachusetts and Governor Hutchinson; the Rights and Grievances of the American Colonies, 1774; his Plans of Government of the Independent States, 1776; the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1779; the Defense of the American Constitution, 1786; and the papers on Davila, written while he was Vice-President, and published in the Philadelphia newspapers. These were applications of his political principles to the actual affairs of America. In all these the style is poor, inelegant, and yet artificial. He is often inaccurate in his statement of facts, and sometimes hasty in his generalizations. His first address as President contains a sentence which I think was then the longest in what is known of the English language. It since has been but once surpassed, and that by another citizen of Massachusetts who is yet more distinguished than Mr. Adams for literary culture. 20

His letters are the most pleasing part of his works, the only part now readable. Here the best are found in the beautiful correspondence with Jefferson, full of wit and wisdom, and above all, enriched with a gentleness and affection that you vainly seek in so many other works of the great man. But the most charming of all his many writings are the letters to his wife. I think more than three hundred of them have been

printed, and I know not where in the English language to find so delightful a collection. He had but one confidant, his wife; but one intimate friend, the mother of his children. To her he told all his loves and his hates, his anger and his gratitude, his hopes and his fears. She was able to comprehend his great mind, to sympathize in all his excellence. Her judgment seems to have been as sound as his own. If not original like his, like Washington's it was cool, critical, and accurate. She poured oil on the troubled waters of his life, and called him to behold the heavenly bow of beauty and of hope in the cloud which brooded over them. The cloud dropped down, and the sunshine followed in the footsteps of the storm.

He was not what is now called an eloquent man. He had no oratorical tricks, no stops for applause, no poetic images, nothing of what the editors and reporters and half-educated ministers name "fine writing," and what school-girls call "perfectly splendid." But everywhere strong sense, mastery of his matter, philosophic knowledge of causes, vehemence of emotion, and condensed richness of thought. The form is often faulty and misshapen, but the substance strong and sound. He moved other persons, for he was moved himself, and the great natural force which stirred him he brought to bear on other men. So he was always powerful as a speaker and writer. Yet, July 2, 1776, I think men did not say, "What a fine speech John Adams made!" but only, "Down with the kingly government." He abounded in évépyea, which Demosthenes said was the first, second, and third requisite in oratory. Scarce any specimens of his speeches are left; only the fame of their power survives. You often find profound thought in his writings. No

American writer upon politics more abounds in it.

He had not much confidence in the people, no instinct of democracy. He leaned to aristocratic forms of government. So, in the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts, he would give the Governor an absolute negative to all acts of the Legislature, and empower him to appoint all the officers in the militia, the generals, colonels, majors, captains, and so on down to the sergeants and corporals.

He insisted on four things in his plan of government. (1.) A separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive powers. (2.) The legislature must have two bodies, a house and a senate. (3.) The judiciary must be appointed during good behavior. (4.) The executive must be single; one man, not a council of men. It was a wise man who devised such a scheme in 1776. He was often accused of favoring monarchy, and wishing to establish in America a king and a house of lords. The charge is utterly false. I think Jefferson is not blameless for his representation of Adams's opinions. He foresaw the greatness of America, and in 1786 said, “We are now employed in making establishments which will affect the happiness of a hundred millions of inhabitants at a time, in a period not very distant." He wrote a book on all the liberal governments of the world, to show their virtues and their vices. He dared tell the faults of our own institutions. Who ventures on that now? Even then he was, for doing so, much abused.

66

In 1780 Dr. Franklin wrote from France home to his Government, that " Adams means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise one, sometimes, and in some things, is absolutely out of his senses;" and adds also, "I know that by telling it I

hazard a mortal enmity." The criticism was just, and also the forecast of its consequence. But weigh the man in an even balance. His faults were chiefly of ill-temper and haste; his virtues - patriotism, truthfulness, moral courage, integrity-have seldom been surpassed, nay, rarely equaled, in public men. He had no prejudice against any section of the country. Here he was superior to both Jefferson and Washington, who ever denied justice to New England. He was an intense patriot, and did not hestitate to sacrifice his dearest personal wishes for the good of his country. In his later days some distinguished foreigners came to visit him at Quincy. He met them by appointment, and sat in a great chair in the shade close by his house. "In the beginning of the fight did you think you should succeed?" asked one of the visitors. "Yes," said the old man; "I never doubted that the country would succeed, but I expected nothing but certain ruin for myself."

The hate against him has not died away. Still, for old Federalist and for old Democratic families, detraction is busy at its work. But after all just deduction is made from his conduct, it must be confessed that no man has had so wide, so deep, and so lasting an influence on the great constructive work of framing the best institutions of America. And the judgment of posterity will be, that he was a brave man, deepsighted, conscientious, patriotic, and possessed of integrity which nothing ever shook, but which stood firm as the granite of his Quincy hills. While American institutions continue, the people will honor brave, honest old John Adams, who never failed his country in her hour of need, and who, in his life of more than ninety years, though both passionate and ambitious, wronged no man nor any woman!

IV

THOMAS JEFFERSON

New England was settled by real colonists; men full of ideas which were far in advance of their times. These ideas could not be carried out in England, and therefore they emigrated to what was afterwards called the "New England." Here democratic institutions at once sprung up among them. Their antecedents and their principles could not have produced any different growth. The distinction between rich and poor, educated and ignorant soon became the chief differences in their social scale. There was but one sort of men, though many conditions. The government was by the people, and it favored the distribution of wealth, not its accumulation in special families. Education was open to all, at public cost. The form of religion was Congregational. The Congregational Church had more individual members than any Christian sect. The theology was Calvinistic, and that always stimulates men to metaphysical speculation and to liberal study.

In Virginia it was quite different. Religion had nothing to do with its settlement. Partly, the emigrants were younger sons of younger brothers, descendants from wealthy houses, who either had some moderate property, or had got manorial grants of land from the crown; partly, they were the servants and vassals of these nominal lords of manors; and partly, they were the scourings of the British jails. They