Title: From John Quincy Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 7 March 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, Thomas Boylston

No. 28
7. March. 1801

I have promised in this letter to give you some account of the institutions in the province of Silesia, for the education of youth. The university at Breslau, and the academy of nobles at Liegnitz, I need not mention, having noticed them in my letters at the time when we visited those places. Besides these, there are what we call grammar schools, where latin is taught in almost every town in the province, & usually in connection with some church or convent. But the arrangments and regulations of the trivial schools, as they are here called, Schools destined for that elementary instruction, which ought to be diffused over the whole mass of the people particularly deserve your attention, because you may perhaps as a new Englander entertain the prejudice, that your own country is the only spot on earth, where this object is rightly understood, & where the arts of reading & writing are accomplishments almost universally possessed.
Probably no country in Europe could so strongly contest our superiority in this respect as Germany, & she for this honorable distinction is indebted principally to Frederic the second. To the zeal, with which he pursued the purpose of spreading useful knowledge among all classes of his subjects, & to the influence of his example & of his success, even beyond the limits of his own dominions. To enter upon this topic with the details of which it is susceptible might perhaps not amuse you, & would lead me too far from my subject. I shall therefore confine myself to the measures he adopted, & the system he introduced, in this regard in Silesia.
At the time of his conquest, education had seldom made an object of the concern of Governments, & Silesia, like the rest of Europe, was but wretchedly provided either with schools, or teachers. In the small towns & villages the schoolmasters were so poorly paid, that they could not subsist without practicing some other trade, besides their occupation as instructors, & they usually united the character of the village school master, that of the village fiddler. Even of these, there were so few, that the children of the peasants in general, throughout the province were left untaught. This was especially the case in Upper Silesia. Frederic issued an ordinance, that a school should be kept in every village, & that a competant subsistance should be provided for the school master, by the joint contribution of the Lord of the village, & of the tenants themselves. The superintendance of the schools was prescribed as the duty of the clergy. But in order, that this ordinance might have its due execution, it was necessary to form the teachers themselves, properly qualified to give useful instruction. This was effected by the persevering intelligence of a man by the name of Felbiger, an Augustine Monk, belonging to a convent at Sagan; a man, says a Silesian historian, whom a great part of Germany must thank for a revolution not less important, though of slower progress, & milder character, than that, which two centuries & a half earlier was accomplished by another monk of the same order—by Luther.
Felbiger after spending some years at Berlin, to obtain a perfect knowledge of the best method of instruction practised in the schools there, returned to Sagan, & made the convent, to which he belonged, a seminary for young ecclesiastics and candidates as schools masters to acquire the knowledge of the improved mode of teaching. Several other institutions of the same kind were in due time established at Breslau, Glatz, & other places, upon his principles, and conducted by persons, whom he had formed. To defray the expences necessary for the support of these seminaries, a fund is raised consisting of one quarter’s salary, which every catholic curate is obliged to pay upon being first settled in a parsonage.
With each of these seminaries are connected certain schools, where the young candidates for the clerical, or teaching office, are obliged to attend, & observe the practice of the method, the theory of which they learn at the seminaries themselves. The clergy are required no less than the teachers to go through this process, because the superintendence over the teachers is intrusted to them—No young man can be admitted to either of the offices, without an attestation of his qualities from one of the seminaries.
After all these preparatory measures had been carried into effect, an ordinance was published in the year 1765, prescribing the mode of teaching as adopted in the seminaries, & the manner, in which the clergy should superinted the efficacious establishment of the system. The regulations of this ordinance prove the earnestness with which the king of Prussia labored to spread the benefits of useful knowledge among all his subjects. The teachers are directed to give plain instruction, & upon objects applicable to the ordinary concerns of life. Not merely to load the memory of the scholars with words, but to make things intelligible to their understanding. To habituate them to the use of their own reason, by explaining every object, so that the children themselves may be able to explain it, upon examination. The candidates for school keeping, must give specimens of their ability, by teaching at one of the schools connected with the seminary, in presence of the professors of the seminary, that they may remark & correct any thing defective in the candidate’s method. If one school suffices for more than one village, neither of them must be more than half a german mile distant from it in the flat country, nor more than a quarter of a mile, in the mountanous parts. The school tax must be paid by the lord & tenants without distinction of religions—In the towns the schools must be kept, the whole year round—It is expected, that one month shall suffice to make a child know the letters of the alphabet—that in two it shall be able to join them, & in three to read—The boys must all be sent to school, from their 6th: to their 13th: year, whether their parents are able to pay the school tax, or not—For the poor, the school money must be raised by collections. Every parent, or guardian, who neglects to send his child, or pupil to school without sufficient cause, is obliged to pay a double school tax, for which the guardian shall have no allowance. Every curate must examine weekly the children of the school in his parish. A general examination must be had annually by the deans, of the districts within their respective precincts, & a report of the condition of the schools, the talents, & attention of the school masters, the state of the buildings, & of attendance by the children, made to the office of the vical general, who must transmit all these reports to the royal domain offices. From these, orders are issued to the respective Land raths, to correct the abuses, & supply the deficiences indicated in the reports. This system was at first prepared only for the Roman catholic schools, but it was afterwards adopted for the most part by the Lutheran consistories. Its truly respectable author Felbiger, was in the sequel, with the consent of Frederic, invited to Vienna by the Empress Maria Theresa, and her son Joseph the Second, who appointed him director of the Normal Schools, or seminaries in all the Austrian dominions. His regulations have introduced & practised upon, in almost all the catholic schools of Germany.
In Silesia, they had at first, many old prejudices to contend with—The indolence of the catholic clergy was averse to the new troublesome duty imposed on them. Their zeal was alarmed at the danger arising from this dispersion of light, to the stability of their church. They considered alike the spirit of innovation, & the spirit of enquiry as their natural enemies. Besides this, the system still meets resistance from the penurious parcimony, & stubborn love of darkness prevailing in some parts of the province. Many villages neglect the support of their schools; many individuals, upon false pretexts forbear sending their children to school, for the sake of saving the tax. The compulsive measures, and the penalties prescribed by the ordinance are used seldom, and with reluctance. The benevolent design has not been accomplished to the full extent of which it was capable; but as far as it has been accomplished, its operation has been a blessing. That its effects have been very extensive, is not to be doubted, when we compare the number of schools throughout the province in the year 1752, when they amounted only to 1552, with that in the year 1798, when they were more than 3500. The consequences of a more general diffusion of knowledge are attested by many other facts equally clear. Before the seven year’s war, there had scarcely even been more than one periodical journal, or gazettes published in the province at one time. There are now no less than seventeen newspapers, & magazines, that appear by the day, the week, the month, or the quarter many of them upon subjects generally useful, & containing valuable information and instruction for the people. At the former period there were but three booksellers, and these all at Breslau. There are now six in that capital, and seven dispersed about in the cities. The number of printing presses, & of book binders has increased in the same proportion.
Dr. Johnson in his life of Watts has bestowed a just and exalted encomium upon him for not disdaining to descend from the pride of genius & the dignity of science, to write for the wants & the capacities of children. “Every man, acquainted (says he) with the common principles of human actions, will look up with veneration on the writer, who is at one time combating Locke & at another time making a Catecism for children in their fourth year.”—But how much greater still, is the tribute of admiration irresistably drawn from us, when we behold an absolute monarch, the greatest general of his age, eminent as a writer in the highest departments of literature, descending in a manner to teach the alphabet to the children of his kingdom, bestowing his care, his persevering assiduity, his influence & his power, in diffusing plain and useful knowledge among his subjects, in opening to their minds the first & most important pages of the book of science, in filling the whole atmosphere they breathed with that intellectual fragrance, which had before been imprisoned in the vials of learning, or enclosed within the gardens of wealth. Immortal Frederic! When seated on the throne of Prussia with kneeling millions at thy feet, thou wert only a king. On the fields of Leuthen, of Zorndorf, of Rosback, of so many other scenes of human blood & anguish, thou wert only a hero. Even in thy rare & glorious converse with the Muses and with science, thou wert only a Philosopher, an Historian, a Poet—but in this generous ardor, this active and enlighthened zeal for the education of thy people, thou wert truly Great—the father of thy country—the benefactor of mankind.
There I shall perhaps close the series of my Silesian letters; though I may possibly send you an appendix of one letter more upon this subject. Since the date of my last I have received one piece of important news from America (at second hand, as usual) & one from England. The former that the Senate of the U. States has refused to ratify two articles of the Convention with France, & the latter, that the king of England is ill of a fever—and perhaps with a return of the melancholy disorder, which afflicted him once before.
The veneration I feel for the Senate of the Union, a body, whose proceedings have always been marked with patriotism and wisdom forbids me to doubt, but that they had strong & overpowering reasons for the measure they have adopted on this occasion. As I understand a further negotiation is to be attempted—as I really believe the temper of the french goverment is at this time not hostile to us, and as under our new administration France will perhaps feel yet more inclined to show us favour, I am less alarmed at this rejection of terms once agreed upon, than I should have been under other circumstances—Yet I do not indulge a hope that we shall ever obtain a settlement of our differences with France, upon terms more advantageous to us, than those of that Treaty. The terms were not such as in perfect justice we were entitled, but when negotiation cannot be supported by compulsion, the rigorous question of right, must in some sort yield to that practibility. The fair pller of estimation is not between what was, and what ought to be have been agreed to by the other contracting power; but between what was & what could be obtained from her; or between what she agreed to, and War—Now, indemnities for the property of our citizens plundered by french decrees and confiscated by french courts, I believe it impossible ever to obtain. Even if promised, they will never be realized, and as long as our claim was not abandoned, the mere unaccomplished promise in a Treaty would for us be worse than nothing. Objects of small importance, or of impossible attainment should not be suffered to defeat a conclusion of differences, which the longer they are kept open, may prove the harder to close.
The king of England’s illness happens at a most critical time indeed, and may lead to the most unhappy consequences for that country. But by the last accounts (of the 24th:) great hopes were entertained, that it was only the transient concomitant of a violent fever, & would be removed with it. In the mean time the settlement of the arrangments for the new ministry was not completed, and every thing for the time at a stand.


Title: From John Quincy Adams to Abigail Smith Adams, 10 March 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, Abigail Smith

My dear Mother.
Berlin 10. March 1801.

I am almost asham’d to acknowledge how long it has been since I wrote you last, and can only hope you will consider my numerous letters to my brother, most of which I intended as much for you as for him, to be a sufficient apology—I have not received a line from you or from my father since last June, though I think it impossible but that you should have written more than once—My last letter to my father was of November 25.
My mind has deeply shared in all the anxieties, the disappointments and afflictions both of a public and private nature, which have befallen you, crowded into so small a space of time—The loss of my brother Charles—The illness of my father—and the manner in which his country rewarded a life of labours devoted to their service, were all events which I knew must call forth the fortitude and energy of his soul and of your’s.—The death of my brother affected me greatly—I first learnt it by a letter from my kind friend Mr: Murray, who had seen it mentioned in a newspaper—Two days after it was confirmed in a letter I received from my brother Thomas—The illness of my father and the result of the election I was informed of at the same time, by the English and German newspapers—Five weeks have since elapsed during which I have not had a single line from America.—Mr: Murray my constant and valuable correspondent has informed me very lately that he had seen in a New-York paper a paragraph stating my father’s having recovered from his fever, which it was a great consolation to me to hear from any quarter, and which I hope will soon be made certain to me by more direct intelligence—The issue of the election I could not suppose would be an object of indifference to him; but I know he had always been impressed fully with the sentiment, that every man who serves the public, must look upon the injustice of men, so far as it concerns himself, in the same light, as upon the ills of nature; the shocks that flesh is heir to,—a fever, or a clap of thunder—which are neither to be denied for real evils, nor to be complained of as avoidable—Political disappointment is perhaps one of the occasions in human life which requires the greatest portion of philosophy; and although philosophy has very little power to asswage the keenness of our feelings, she has at least the power to silence the voice of complaint—To be relieved from the labours and responsibility of such a station as that of an American President, is a great consolation for all the pain of being removed from it, and will I hope have its full weight as such.
What the influence of the change in our Administration, upon the reputation and fortunes, of our Country may be, I do not think it necessary to enquire, and am altogether unable to foresee. For the past alone my father has any thing on this score to answer—For the future, the whole responsibility rests upon the people themselves—If they find themselves after an experience of their new system  more prosperous than they have been under the old, the pure and generous spirit of patriotism, will rejoyce in their prosperity, and forget their injustice—But if the principle’s, to which they have thought proper to transfer their trust, should prove delusive, and bring upon them, the miseries of broken public faith, of disunion, or of War, deeply will their sufferings be lamented by the pure and virtuous friend of his Country, but he will find comfort in the reflection that he had done all in his power to ward off those calamities; and that the people could not have exposed themselves to their effects, but by first abandoning him.
I have hitherto for the last four years written seldom to my father, because I knew that all my public correspondence would be laid before him—For the future however (while I remain in Europe) I shall write oftener, to inform him of the principal political events which may occur. I say while I remain in Europe, because I am in expectation of my recall, immediately upon the new President’s coming into office—He will doubtless have nothing personal against me; but my mission here has been one of the most powerful objections made against the policy of his predecessor, and I presume therefore will be one of the first objects that he will think it expedient to reform.—The use and advantage of having some public character in the North of Europe, is indeed at this time more immediate, and nearer the surface of evidence than it has been at any former period since I have resided here; but those who deem’d the mission inexpedient at first, will probably find motives, if not reasons, equally strong for thinking it so still.
The North of Europe, and the views, interests, and relations of the several states it contains, are indeed becoming an object of no small concern to our commerce—Russia, Sweden, Denmark and Prussia, while I write this are upon the brink of War with Great-Britain, upon one common point of issue, but each separately guided by purposes of its own, and each pledging to the contest a different stake. If this quarrel should really break out, The United-States will be the only maritime nation remaining neutral, and their navigation will be needed by all the hostile parties to carry a trade alike necessary for all, but which none will be allowed to transport in their own vessels—Our navigation to and from the Baltic therefore must acquire a great and rapid extension; and as the carrying trade of Sweden and Denmark must in the nature of things be suspended, our vessels will be no less in demand for the commerce of the mediterranean.—It is possible that this state of things, and the events resulting from it, will convince some of our keen-eyed and large-soul’d politicians, that Treaties of commerce with Russia and the Sublime Porte, made two years ago, would not have been such a useless waste of public money, nor such a proof of absurd policy, as their comprehensive minds represented it—A most profound and ingenious statesman, I remember, has urged in a printed pamphlet, the recommendation of these measures by the late President, as a proof of his incapacity.
That the War will kindle into a blaze, is not however certain—Great-Britain, who would make but little account of the resentments of Sweden and Denmark, cannot look with so much indifference upon those of Prussia and of Russia—She has talk’d very loud and bluster’d very much about her rights, and her essential interests, and her determination to resist any combination against them, but I suspect when it comes to the putting of the match to the powder-barrel, she will flinch; or, that she will bribe off the great parties to the league; at the expence of the small ones, if she can; but that she will at any rate bribe them off—Unless it should already be too late.
Of English news I need not tell you—That part of Europe, and its occurrences are tolerably well known in our country, and you must hear from it more accurately and sooner by direct communication than I could inform you, thus distant from it—The change of Ministry, and the king’s illness, are the two most important late events, of which the consequences are yet covered by the veil of Time
In France the career of the first Consul’s prosperity continues, and Fortune is as profuse of her favours to him as ever—That he is an extraordinary man, there can at this day be no doubt; but whether his niche in the temple of Fame, will be in a line with Alexander, Caesar, and Charlemagne, or with Hannibal, Pompey and Charles the twelfth of Sweden, no mortal I believe can foretell—It is only certain that he will not stand in that of Alfred, Gustavus-Wasa and Washington—He has not yet entirely kicked away the ladder of Jacobinism, which so well served his Ambition, because he is not yet perfectly secure of his footing, at the pernicious height where he has ascended; but he is no longer as after the Peace of Campo Formio, the common-place declaimer against Emperors and kings—In the name of the french people, he takes the sceptred despots by the hand, and as he looks at the gold and jewels of their crowns, feels a mysterious sympathetic itching play around his own temples—Yet if the crown were offered him to-morrow, he would refuse it as Caesar and Cromwell did before.
I am just at the bottom of my paper, and have yet said nothing to you about ourselves—My own health, since the beginning of the Winter has been good—Louisa’s better upon the whole than any former winter since she came to Berlin, but still very feeble and delicate—She desires her dutiful remembrance to you and to my father—The season, since the middle of December has been unusually gay and splendid in the courtly circles, owing to the presence of a Russian Grand-Duchess upon a visit—But I have been a great measure exempted from attendance at the house of feasting, by the call to one which we are told by the highest wisdom, is better.
I am in all duty and affection, your Son
A.


Title: From Hannah Quincy Lincoln Storer to Abigail Smith Adams, 14 March 1801
From: Storer, Hannah Quincy Lincoln
To: Adams, Abigail Smith

Boston March 14 1801—

Permit Me, dear Madam, to offer My thanks for your care of letters, from Our dear Children—and to congratulate you on your return to peace feild. I feel assured that You and Yours, will injoy a tranquility, that is Not in the power of the World to give, Or take away—I reflect with triumph that Mr Adams can adopt those pleaseing lines of Our favourite Poet—
“True Conscious honour, is to feel No Sin
He’s arm’d without, that innocent within.”
May I confess? that I feel My indignation rise against, such as have been Accessary to the displaceing, of the Man, who for such a Number of Years has Made Sacrifices beyound calculation for the promotion of his Country’s good.
I mourn that any have deni’d him, the only recompence they could bestow,–but rejoice that a Number is yet left, (And Not the least respectable)—that will even do honour to that Character they So much esteem.—And for whom their every wish, is to see Supported by the powers above. And long continu’d as a blessing to his Connections, And the delight of his friends. Among whom Suffer Me to place My first friend—and dear Madam / Your Affectionate
H Storer
PS. My Daughters join me in offers of love to Miss Smith—


Title: From Abigail Smith Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 22 March 1801
From: Adams, Abigail Smith
To: Adams, Thomas Boylston

My dear Thomas
Quincy monday morg 22 March 1801

I have not written you a line since my return to Quincy. I have found full employ to get my House in order, and my Family arranged, against your Fathers return which was on Wednesday last; we have all once more assembled at the old Habitation in Safety, without any accident, except to myself. I unfortunatly, got my foot in a hole in one of the carriages as I was getting out, and fell through, by which misfortune one of my Legs was terribly bruized; and I renderd incapable of walking. Some Straw was laid over the bottom of the carriage so that the hole was hiden; and I broke through, wounding me sadly; it was the day before I reachd home, so that I have been enabled to Nurse, and take care of it; it was a fortunate circumstance that I did not break my Leg, and came off, with only bruizing me to pumice.
I am now in 12 days able to walk about without much inconvenience. I paid the money you sent by me to dr Tufts, and inclose his receit, as the Equinox is now past, and a terrible one it has been; raining and blewing, for ten days, so that I have seen but one Sun Shine day, since my return to Quincy, now 12 day’s—I would have you get Fowler to Send the Carriage on board the first good Vessel bound to Boston. I must request your care also to take a Bill of lading and agree for the freight, any expence attending, you shall be paid upon notice—
as to news—We have not any. all seem to be luled to quiet rest, by the Song of the Syren—B Russel puffing up the Composition as a model of correct writing and eloquence I however conceive it to have, more of duplicity than sincerity. Since I read a coppy of a Letter, which W Shaw is possessd of, I believe the writer to have given countanance to the most unfounded assertions respecting his predecessor. if he believed what he wrote; it is but one proof, amongst many others, that he knew not the Character, he thus abused, and that his knowledge of Men, is Superficial as I believe his administration will show.
Your Father was as much moved as I was, respecting the franking; the Jacobins overshot their mark by publishing the nature of the Bill; the same Error was committed respecting Gen’ll Washington. mr. Otis coppied the resolution as it stood, but did not attend to its being afterwards alterd. When your Father saw the comment in the paper, he told mr Secretary Otis, that he would never sign the Bill. this led to an examination, and to an alteration. the thing was not designd—so that my Family Children may in the course of a Year, be benifited by means of their Fathers having been President of the United States to the prodigious sum, and amount of Ten or twelve dollars—!!!—Tell it not in Gath—whilst they have been the loosers, I doubt not of thousands.
give us, my dear Thomas the pleasure of hearing from you often as you can. Striped of all of you and William must soon leave us; I know not how your Father or I shall feel; We will go to Farming and Gardning.
What a Jewel of a Letter has your Brother written to your Father; how accurately, yet how candidly has he judged of Men and Measures? What comforting argument does he use to reconcile us to the ingratitude of the world—
God preserve his Life and health and continue him a blessing to his Family and an honour to his Country; which however is unworthy of him—
My dear Thomas adieu—I must go below and make my pudding—
most affectionatly / Your Mother
A A


Title: From John Adams to William Stephens Smith, 24 March 1801
From: Adams, John
To: Smith, William Stephens

Dear Sir
Stony field Quincy March 24th 1801

I have received your favor of the 12th. & your bill, in favor of Mr Nathan Prime for 300 dollars, shall be paid whenever it shall be presented.—We all arrived safe & are one more domesticated at Stony field. We hope you are all in good health. A very long storm has confined us at home. I have scarcely known such an equinoctial, since we returned from Europe. Nature I hope is returning to her ancient course & that instead of moral and political tempests & intellectual revolutions from wisdom & virtue to folly & vice, we shall only have those of the elements
We are all well and very affectionately yours


Title: To John Adams from John Quincy Adams, 24 March 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, John

My dear Sir.
Berlin 24 March 1801.

My last letter to you, was of November 25. since which I have not enjoyed the pleasure of receiving a line either from my mother or from you—To her I have in the interval written once; and now enclose a press copy of the letter, in case the original should fail in the conveyance. My numerous letters to the Secretary of State, and to my brother will I hope apologize for my silence during so long a term, to yourself.
By our latest intelligence from America, I find that my anticipations relative to the ratification of the Convention with France have not been realized, and that even a conditional ratification could not obtain the necessary majority of votes in the Senate—The situation of the United States therefore, in their foreign concerns is far from being so advantageous and safe as I had flattered myself it would be, upon your quitting the public administration—This circumstance I deeply lament, not on your account but on that of my Country—The means of peace and safety were in her own hands, and had in spite of innumerable obstacles and difficulties been procured by your resolution and perseverance—That they were rejected it was impossible for you to prevent; and for all the consequences good or bad which may ensue from the system pursued in preference to yours, the praise or the blame must rest elsewhere—Of any good that will ultimately result from this refusal of compromise, I have no hope—Of great evils that may arise from it there is strong ground for apprehension—My principal reliance for preservation from those evils is upon the bounties of Providence, which are so often an effectual shield, when all the wisdom and all the virtue of man prove impotent—
From the time when it was certain that a decided division had taken place among the friends of the American Government, I was convinced that its consequence would be to throw the country into the hands of their antagonists—The most unexpected thing therefore in the issue of the late election, was to my mind, that the anti federal majority was not larger. So long as the power was held by the federalists, their principles were better calculated to promote the national prosperity than those of their opponents—But if they had adopted for a maxim that a foreign war must be fostered for the sake of maintaining an army, and increasing the public debt, it was time that they should be removed from the management of affairs.
With respect to you as these events affect you personally, it is not for me to tell you, that the leaders (as they are called) of the federal party, or at least many of them, are the persons who at heart will feel the sincerest pleasure at the loss of your election—After the first moment of secret exultation at the issue, your successor will find that the contested place is not a bed of roses, and his enjoyments in it, if any such he find, will often be dashed by the consciousness that in justice it was not his proper place—His friends and partizans who put him in it, will many of them feel the same unacknowledged rankling in the breast, at his elevation, as those of the other party did at your’s, and amid the general pleasure of a party triumph, every single heart will yearn with some individual mortification—But the federal great men—The men of profound genius and all comprehensive talents who are alone qualified for the government of Empires, the lynx-eyed statesmen and the Lion hearted warriors who look down with eyes of pity upon your services, while for party purposes they extol them, and think you might do for President, since there was no hope of their getting the station for themselves—These are the people who in the general ruin of federalism will find the soothing consolation that in the misfortunes of our best friends there is always something not displeasing. How many of these characters there are I am not near enough to observe—It is a breed common to all ages of the world and to every civilized nation—I trust you will not feel distress’d at their comforts, any more than at the more loud-mouth’d triumphs of your avowed opponents.
Divisions of parties and changes of administrations are not confined to our Country at the present day—All Europe seems to have adopted them like other–cast–off french fashions—Total changes of ministry, proceeding from an important change of political systems have very lately taken place in Austria and Russia, as well as in Spain and Portugal—But none of them are of so great moment to the affairs of Europe, or indeed of the world, as the dissolution of the strong phalanx which had for many years composed the British ministry.—The public are told that this is not to produce a change of system and that the only cause which occasioned it was a difference of opinion between the king and those of his ministers who have retired, upon the question of catholic emancipation in Ireland—But after the wind has blown long and steadily from one quarter it seldom starts half round the compass at once. When it has changed a single point, the seaman were indeed a fresh-water sailor who should expect it to remain as fix’d to its new station as it had been to the last—The new English Ministers enter upon their offices at a moment of unexampled embarrassment and danger, without possessing the resources of talents or of reputation which their predecessors enjoyed—There is no probability that they will long stand their ground, and as the opposition will henceforth constantly be gaining strength, they must eventually force their way into the royal Councils all prepared for a peace of disgrace and submission—This will however in some measure depend upon the result of external events.—Upon the success of the war, which they are obliged to sustain against all Europe—As it is not likely they can long resist the pressure of so many enemies at once, we must look forward to that as the probable issue—On the other hand there is only one thing to be said—which is, that the most important turns in the affairs of Nations arise from unforeseen and uncalculated circumstances—In the war for the Spanish Succession, after ten years of continual defeats, France obtained her object, at the very moment of her deepest distress, by the death of the Emperor Joseph—At the close of the seven years war when every circumstance that human reason could foresee and combine, threatened the ruin of the king of Prussia, and the politicians of the time accordingly prophesied it with as much confidence as if it had already happened, the death of the Russian Empress Elizabeth, baffled all the anticipations of human foresight, and secured to Frederic 2 a triumph over all his enemies—At this moment, the death of Paul or of Bonaparte, both of whom are doom’d constantly to dwell in the crater of a volcano, might lead to a change no less unexpected and extraordinary than those—But in speaking of present probabilities, as no account can be taken of such incidents, they must always be considered as possibilities which if realized can only prove the mutability of human concerns.
The removal of Count Panin from the office of Vice-chancellor in Russia, followed by banishment to his country-seat, happened about three months ago—Mr: Kalütchew was made Vice-Chancellor, and at the same time sent as Ambassador to Paris—This was probably done by Count Rastopsin, then Minister of foreign affairs, who having long been the emperor’s favourite, considered Panin as a rival for influence, and thought that by having a mere titular Vice-chancellor and keeping him at a distance, he should alone possess the keys of imperial favour—But the most formidable rival was not a Vice-Chancellor or an Ambassador—It was a french opera-singer—the woman I mentioned in my letter of Novr: 25—She in her turn has overthrown Rastopsin, who has just been disgraced and exiled—Kalütchew remains Ambassador at Paris, but is no longer Vice-chancellor—That office has been transferred to a Prince Kurakin, and a General von der Pohlen is minister of foreign affairs—At the same time the banishment of Count Panin is removed, and he has permission to reside at St: Petersburg or Moscow at his own option—
In Switzerland and Holland there is much talk of changes in the Constitutions; all under the auspices of France—But these perpetual discussions about written forms of Government in Countries such as the Helvetic and Batavian republics, are only sources of internal disquiet and agitation to them, while they shed indelible ridicule upon the debates themselves in the eyes of other nations—These universally look upon them as the deliberations of prisoners in a house of correction, to regulate the management of the institution.
I am, Dear Sir, ever faithfully your’s,
A.
P.S. I have directed a small chest of books which I have in Holland, to be shipped for Boston to the care of Mr: Smith—Of which I beg you to give him notice, and when they arrive to receive them with my other library.


Title: From Thomas Boylston Adams to Joseph Pitcairn, 27 March 1801
From: Adams, Thomas Boylston
To: Pitcairn, Joseph

Dear Sir.
Philadelphia 27th: March 1801.

A ship called the Cleopatra sailed from this port a few weeks since without bearing any thing for you from me, which I desire may be attributed to my want of notice, that she was about to depart—I now enclose you the sequel of the Port Folio, and at the same time have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 8th: December, which came to hand on the 5th: instt:.
In return for your European intelligence, I can only announce to you the commencement of a new era in our political history; one which my letters to you, more than a twelvemonth ago anticipated, and to which my mind has been familiarized by the frequency of my contemplations respecting it. A change of men has yet produced no visible change of measures, nor would it be fair or reasonable to predict as to the future conduct of administration, evil consequences, as the result of error or design. The depravity of heart, which exists among what is called the Democratic Republicans, is indicative of little respect for moral obligations, nor have we good reason to expect that their craving appetites for place, power & profit, will be satisfied with occasional vacancies being supplied, or a few obnoxious officers removed for the sake of filling them from their number—
One real benefit is already felt as a consequence of the new order of men. The clamors of the vulgar herd, which without ceasing have disturbed the peace & quiet of the Country for a series of years, are now no more. They have been so swallowed up in the enjoyment of the fancied triumph of Democracy or Republicanism over their opposites, that it has to them operated like a reality—The streams, whence the vilest slanders used to flow, in such abundance, threatening to inundate & overwhelm the brightest fame of our most estimable people—are become fountains of fulsome flattery to the rulers of the day—The gall of Jacobinism is become sweet as honey, and an aspiring, giddy & depraved faction, (to whom might rightly have been applied two lines of a great poet—
“Ne’er didst thou hear, more sweet than sweetest song,
Charming the soul, thou ne’er didst hear thy praise.)
is now rioting & reveling & wallowing in the luxury of “soft music, warbling voice, & melting lay’s:”
You will not learn first from me, the distribution which has been made of public honors & offices, since the new men came in—Chancellor Livingston of New York, is Commissioned, as Minister, to the french Nation, and he will probably sail in May or June—meantime, Beau Dawson has just embarked as messenger, with the Convention.
Mr: Madison is Secretary of State; Genl: Dearborne of War—the other Departments are yet vacant—Sundry inferior officers have been removed & creatures put in their places—This I expected—it could not be otherwise—and the federalists, who expect, that the President will be able, if disposed to persevere in a system of moderation & forbearance with respect to appointments, will be disapointed—It begins to be well understood by both or all parties  us, that success in obtaining a Candidate of their own, at the head of government, is sufficient to authorize a system of proscription with regard to  opponents—This is Republicanism—
Dear Sir, I am very sincerely / Your’s
T B Adams


Title: To John Adams from John Quincy Adams, 28 March 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, John

Dear Sir,
28. March. 1801—

I send you by this opportunity a french pamphlet entitled “Bacon, as he is; or denunciation of a french translation of his works, published at Dijon by Mr Ant. La Selle—by J. A. De Luc—Reader to the Queen of G. Britain, Fellow of the royal Societies of London & Dublin, member of the Society of naturalists at Berlin, of that of mineralogy at Jena & of several others—Professor of Philosophy and Geology at Gottingen.”
The title of this little work will perhaps strike you as curious, & upon reading it you will find its contents still more so. It has been sufficiently proved to the world, that the authors of the french Encyclopedia, were the founders of a political & anti-religious sect, the object of which has been to overthrow the Christian faith, & all the antient establishments of Government in Europe. This undertaking it is well known they accomplished in France, where they seated themselves at least for a time, upon the ruins of the throne & altar they had destroyed. Their design of spreading by the united influence of the sword & pen their doctrines & their practices over all the world, has according to the various changes in their prospects of success, been proclaimed & denied, with a voice equally loud, & in terms equally positive. This pamphlet of Mr De Luc not only furnishes abundant proof, that such was very recently, if it be not still the design of the french government, but unfolds the artifices, which they were not ashamed to use in the pursuit of their object.
The Authors of the Encyclopedia, Mr De Luc observes, though very far from intending to follow the footsteps of Lord Bacon, professed to be his disciples, & exalted him to the skies, but their object really was to withdraw the eyes of the public from him, & fix them upon themselves for the purpose of establishing principles in diametrical opposition to his.
But this artifice having been discovered, & made known to the public, the sect of Encyclopaedians encouraged by the success of the system, flattered by their founders, enlarged their views, & adopted a much bolder plan of operations. Conceiving it necessary still to retain Bacon, as their apparent leader, they hoped to escape the reproach, which their predecessors had incurred, of misrepresenting to persons, unable to consult his original works, by publishing a french translation of his works—This is the translation, of which several volumes have already appeared, & which Mr De Luc denounces.
There is an appearance of frankness & candour in this measure, behind which one would not suspect to find lurking, forgery & imposture. Under colour of a translation, to palm upon the public in the name of a national government, principles of philosophy, of theology, of morals & of politics absolutely contrary to those of the author translated, is a strategem, which honest minds would be ashamed to imagine as possible—That it has been done, Mr De Luc not only furnishes decisive proof, but he opens to the most careless observer, the manner, in which it has been done.
That the pretended translation was published with the sanction, & in some sort made by order of the french government is asserted by the editor himself. But as the object was to interpret the works of the great Bacon, for those french citizens, who had not means to study him, it became our duty, adds the translator, to begin by identifying ourselves with him, in order to be the more fully penetrated with his spirit.
Under the mask of this identification the translator had likewise assumed the voice of Bacon, & spreads over fifty four pages a general preface, a fictitious soliloqy of that great philosopher in which he makes him give an account of the views & designs, with which he composed his works. By the means of this theatrical machine, you will not be surprized to find Lord Chancellor Bacon talking the language of a determined french jacobin; to hear him rant in terms like these.
“Before it will be expedient to denounce tyrants, & offer liberty to mankind, or force them by a holy violence to accept it, we must explain to them with clearness & precision, what that liberty offered to them with the sword, or the book in the hand, is; lest they should confound it, with licentiousness, which is directly opposite, I will enable them to say for themselves what I dare not publickly tell them, for their attention will first turn itself towards that, which most interests them; that is, their rights—when once rendered capable of seeking these themselves, they will seek & course find them—they will one day find & the next learn to defend them.”
Thus without attacking directly either the throne, or the altar, which at this day stand upon each other, & resting upon the threefold basis of long ignorance, long terror, & long habits seem not to beI will show respect to both in words, while at the same time I will undermineFor the surest way to kill at one stroke royalty & priesthood, without butchering a single individual, is to endeavour by enlightening mankind to render kings & priests the flatterers and accomplices, when they despair of becoming the masters of kings, forever useless.
But in order to convert Bacon into a professor of atheism & anarchy, it was not sufficient to take his& then make an avowal of cowardice and hypocrisy. It is evident from all his writings that he never made the comparative merit of the usual political forms of government a subject of his meditation. His deep & sincere conviction of the truth of the Christian religion is manifested not only in frequent passages scattered over all his works, but in several distinct & entire treatises. Mr De Luc, shows us, that the pretended translator has got over these difficulties. The treatises by suppression & the single passages by imputing them to simulation, or by ridiculing them in a comment. The translation professes to be a complete collection, but in the specific list afterwards given several works upon religious subjects mentioned by Mr De Luc & among the rest a formal methodical, & detailed confession of faith are omitted.
The numerous passages where the translator disfigures the meaning of the author by misconstruction, or attacks it with ridicule I need not particularly mention, but there is one more material than all the because it discovers the translator’s real creed, & at the same time discovers the mode of reasoning employed by a man, who boasts of having identified himself with Bacon.
One of the chancellor’s fundamental principles continually recurring, says Mr De Luc, in various forms, through all his works, is that the studies of natural philosophy & religion should be distinctly pursued & never blended with each other; that the book of nature is the source of all physical, as the book of revelation is that of all theological knowledge; that it is absurd to look into the one, for proofs of what is only to be found in the other, and that to attempt for instance to raise a system of natural philosophy upon the book of Genesis, or that of Job, is to seek for the dead among the living. The neglect of this maxim, he complains, has been productive of much evil, & is chargeable upon many of the Greek philosophers among others. At a passage where he particularly censures Plato, for blending theology with his natural philosophy, the translator has annexed a note to this effect.
“If it be true, that the main spring of this world be God; the theory of springs being a part of Mechanics, & Mechanics a part of Physics, we are forced to mingle theology with philosophy. “It is because the natural philosophers always consider the motion of this world as produced & not to be produced; that they are not sufficiently sensible of this truth. It is therefore because their theory of motive powers is incomplete that in their general systems of physics, they say nothing of God or his equivalents.”
Here Mr De Luc very justly remarks, plain, downright, brazen faced, & marble hearted atheism is introduced in formal terms. But observe the manner of introducing it. First by a hypothetical assertion, that God is the main spring of this world, an idea to which many a reader might assent as understanding the word main spring in a metaphorical sense. Then by a second assertion, that the theory of springs is a part of mechanicks, where the word spring could only be taken literally. And finally by a conclusion drawn from this logical quibble; that God is a mechanical power. It is exactly the same fallacy of reasoning, which Dr Johnson once ridiculed as a fallacy of it, in these ludicrous lines,
If the man, who turnips cries,
Cry not when his father dies,
Tis a sign that he had rather
Have a turnip than his father.
Mr De Luc in this & various other parts of the pamphlet shews not only the real opposition between the principles of Lord Bacon, & those of his translator, but likewise the inconsistency of the translator, but likewise the inconsistency of the translator with himself; at the same time he gives us from the translator’s own words, the means of judging him, & of reconciling all his apparent inconsistencies, not with each other, but with the views, which led to this metamorphosis of Lord Bacon, & with the spirit, which presided at its accomplishment.
Thus throughout the whole soliloqy put into the mouth of Bacon, the translator appears desirous to be thought a friend & supporter of deism in religion, & of the Christian system of morality. How far the first part of these opinions is consistent with this profession of atheism, we have seen—The same self contradiction appears in different passages upon moral topics. Thus in one place he extols the “true christian religion, as a pure & sublime, a kind & precise law, consisting solely in the love of God, & our neighbour, & in actions conformable to this injunction—”—This true Christianity (he adds) as exhibited in the developement of the Sermon from the Mount will last as “long as Man, since the Nature of the human heart is the soil in which it is planted”—After reading the atheistical note, I have quoted above, what would one imagine the translator means by his pure & sublime love of God—the love of a mechanical power! the love of a main spring! This love of our neighbour, irradicably planted in the human heart may from another passage be inferred to bear equal marks of purity & sublimity. Bacon argues that the love of justice is innate in the human heart, upon which his translator remarks, that if this be true, “it is not that every individual loves to observe it to others, but that he wishes others to observe it towards himself, & if he insists that others should observe it among themselves, it is that they may likewise be just towards himself.” Thus as the translator’s deism is simple atheism, so his Christian benevolence is exclusive selfishness.
The key to all these seeming inconsistences may be found in the following sentiments, which the translator imputes to his author—“It is, says he, only by yielding a little to established prejudices, that the truths destined to destroy them can be insinuated: in order to undeceive mankind, it is necessary to win their confidence, which can only be done, by appearing at first to think like them”—Such are the real moral maxims of the translator, who under the pretence of identifying himself with Bacon, does precisely the reverse, & identifies Bacon with himself.
I need not further pursue this analysis of Mr De Luc’s pamphlet, which I am persuaded you will read with attention & interest. Nor will it escape your observation that the same system of falsification, which he has thus detected & exposed with regard to the works of Bacon, is at the same time pursued by a sect of theologians with regard to the holy scriptures. This he affirms, & undertakes to prove in a work not yet published—The writings of Bacon may be considered, as the sources of our natural, as the bible is the great source of our divine learning; if it is a melancholy prospect to observe the indefatigable industry, the fanatic enthusiasm, & the profound address with which both the great fountains of human science have been poisoned, it is at least a consolitary reflection, that equal zeal & perseverance combined with still greater ability are occupied to furnish us, with antidotes, which may neutralize the infectious venom, and enable us still to drink of the uncorrupted waters of life.
I am with unalterable affection, faithfully your’s.


Title: From Elizabeth Smith Shaw Peabody to Abigail Smith Adams, 29 March 1801
From: Peabody, Elizabeth Smith Shaw
To: Adams, Abigail Smith

My Dear Sister
Atkinson March 29th 1801—

A mind agitated by the Vicissitudes attendant upon the present juncture of publick affairs, & oppressed by a large portion of domestic concerns, cannot often be disposed, nor find leisure to delineate its feelings upon paper—To the almost impossibility of portraying the various sentiments, passions, & exercises of the heart which have been roused in the past winter, I attribute yours, & my Sons silence. For I have received but one letter from each in the course of the last Session of Congress. And for those I am thankful. I have seen, & read the Papers with grief, to find the People so determined upon what we fear will prove their destruction, & really felt my mind relieved, when I found the minority had acceeded—If heaven had been the Object in Contest, they would not have shown half the Zeal, ardor & perseverance. They will find perhaps in this instance, as in others, that “their very Wishes, give them not their Wish”—I could not help thinking that Mr Adams when he left Washington, might like the good Camillus when he quitted Rome wounded at the Ingratitude of those, for whom he had devoted his life, look back, & with uplifted hand wish, that they might not be made sensible of their folly, & Ingratitude, by the Want of his council, & Services—History informs us, that his benevolence had its full revenge—For very soon the exegences of his Country, obliged him to head a numerous Army to extirpate foreign Invaders.
March 31st.
My Son came last night, & brought me your kind letter—I rejoice with you my Sister, that you have all gotten safe to the pleasant fields of Quincy once more—I almost envy my Sister Cranch in living so near that she can visit you immediately, and at all times—
I am glad to hear your Children & Grandsons were well. They promised to write to me. I wish that they loved writing better, & that it was not a task—I hope they will return, I feel attached to them—
I have had many serious melancholly thoughts lately about my Son. I supposed he wished to go into the study of Law—But how he could obtain the knowledge, was what I could not tell—nor where—And the generous offer of Mr Otis was very unexpected—I feel myself greatly obligated for his kindness—Board in Town will be vastly higher than in the Country—perhaps his advantages may be greater in proportion—I would have him consult his best friends—Can I ever press the gratitude I feel for the Patronage & parental care my Son has experienced under your roof—That he has given satisfaction, & conducted with propriety is a Comfort to me—& I feel heartily disposed to do every thing that is in my power for a good Son—I am not personally acquainted with Mr Otis, but with pleasure have read his speeches in publick & presume it is an excellent Situation for William—I am pleased that he thinks to board at Mr Fosters, I hope my Neice will prove a Sister to him in many respects—
I wish I could come in, & see to his things & save you the trouble, find out what he wants, for I question if he knows himself—If there is anything I can get him I will—Does he not want Drawers? if he does, I can make some for him—if you will please to let me know—
I am sorry to hear you are lame, I hope it is not entailed upon our family—for I fear I shall never be quite well again—
Mr Peabody presents his best regards to the President, & begs the favour of a visit accompanied by my Sister—With wishes for your health & happiness under every change of life, I am / Your affectionate Sister
E Peabody
PS. My love to Cousin Louisa, with my Abbys Duty to her Uncle & Aunt—


Title: From John Quincy Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 29 March 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, Thomas Boylston

My dear Brother
Berlin 29. March 1801.

I received last evening your letter of 31. January, enclosing your annual account and a copy of Dr: Tufts’s. With this punctuality, as well as with your management of my affairs in general I am very well satisfied. With regard to that portion of my property which had become desperate or precarious before it came into your hands, I only wish you not to remit your attention, though I am far from being sanguine in the expectation that it will be of much avail—To  as you observe is not an agreeable employment, but it is often a necessary and a useful one—Upon this point however I can safely depend upon your discretion.
There are in your account charges on both sides which I think erroneous, and several particulars, concerning which I wish for further explanation. Perhaps the mistake is on my side, in which you will easily clear it up.  If it be on your’s I am sure you will be equally ready to rectify it.
There is one uniform principle upon which every article of your account with me must be formed, which is this. Every sum of money great or small which you pay out, as representing me, you ought to charge on the debit side of the account—And every sum, which you receive, in like manner, belongs to the credit side.
Now, under the date of Decbr 31. 1800—You have charged 216 dollars 66 cents, to the debit side, for a “Balance of Cash in bank passed to my credit.” This I do not understand. A balance passed to my credit, cannot stand to my debit—If it is a balance  you should receive it, and charge it in my account as received, upon the credit side. In that case the charge ought to be transferred from one half of the account to the other, and  increases the balance in my favour by 438 dollars and 32 cents.
But I confess I know not from what source a balance in bank can be due to me, different from the balance which must be composed of the monies accruing from interest &c, which are already allowed in your credit charges—It appears to me, that I have nothing to do with the account which in my name you keep with the bank—That is an affair between the bank and you. A balance in bank is of itself neither a receipt nor a payment. It must arise from sums accruing in interest &c, which being already charged in your account to my credit, cannot again be charged to my debit. Under this point of view, this charge ought then to be deducted from the debit side, but not transferred to the other. The balance in my favour would thus be increased by 216 dollars 66 cents.
On the credit side under the date of Octr 27. you have charged 10 dollars 65 cents, for “Broker’s commissions,” upon the bills of exchange which at that time you drew.—But if the broker’s commissions ought to be charged at all, it should be, not on the credit, but on the debit side. They are not a receipt but a payment.
I say if they ought to be charged at all, because it seems to me that in justice and equity, the broker’s commissions ought to be considered as included in the commission of  pr cent allowed you for transacting my business. Negotiating the bills is an essential part of the agency, quite as much as drawing or figureing them—If you employ therefore a broker to do it for you, he is for that purpose a subordinate agent, and his fees ought to be, not a distinct charge against me, but to come out of your commission.—If this idea be just the charge with to be deducted from the credit side but not transferred to the other.——and the balance in my favour will thus be reduced by 10 dollars 65 cents.
On the same credit side, under the date of 14  and  jany you have charged 27 dollars 11 cents for amount of Dr: Tufts’s commissions for 1799 and 1800—This charge is on the right side of the account, but it is too large Dr: Tufts’s commission, charged in his two accounts amount only to 23 dollars 86 cents—This mistake appears to have arisen from your having added the balance, of Dr: Tufts’s account for 1799 to his commissions in that for 1800. The amount of commissions charged in his account of 1799, is 9 dollars 50 cents. If I am right in this, the balance in my favour will be reduced by
The balance in my favour, stated in your account, is 542 dollars  cents—But you have added under it as said in bank to my credit 587 Dollars. How can it happen that the cash in bank to my credit should be larger than the balance of your account?
Your charge of 206 Dollars 60 cents, as Commission 5 per Ct including all charges, is hardly  commission of 5 per cent should be charged singly and  and every other charge  judge of this propriety. The charge of  your account you I think  dollars  cents.  the amount of the  with the deduction of the charges for balance of old account, for broker’s and Dr: Tufts’s commission  Upon these by virtue of our agreement, no commission is chargeable. Upon all the rest it is. But, what charges constitute the difference between the 271 dollars 3 cents and the 286 dollars 60 cents, I know not.
Since writing the above it has occurred to me, that perhaps the brokers who sold your bills, deducted their commissions from the proceeds of the bills themselves, and if that was the case, this charge in your account stands right and needs no further explanation.You sir! immediately perceive that the only object of any  upon which I need further explanation is that of 215 Dollars 66 cents on the debit you will judge and minute attenion in me to have  much about it—But  of accounts between minute attention and carelessness I know of no medium. And  by my nature I have too much remembrance
I have therefore to request that you would give a full and patient application of mind, first to understand the force of the above observations and then to solve my difficulties, or rectify my mistakes.
Your charges for the proceeds of the bills of exchange have not yet explain’d to me, what the medium of exchange between Philadelphia and London is—Your 66 2/3 and 72 1/2 per cet: is still perfect Arabic to me. But I find by the proceeds of the bills, that the first £500 sold for 4 dollars 53 cents to the pound sterling and the second for 4 dollars 53 cents to the pound sterling and the second for 4 dollars 60 cents—The difference between them therefore is not of 2 1/2, but of about 1 1/3 .—The merchants and brokers in all countries, endeavour to make this matter of exchange an inexplicable jargon—a mystery of the trade, but every person who has any thing to do with it, ought to understand it thoroughly.
I hope you will ere long receive one of my letters of Feby: 7, 14, or 24 and draw my monies from England—I wish to have no property dependent upon what may happen in that country.
To keep my letters upon private business entirely distinct from all others, I shall mingle no other subject with it in this—I therefore only enclose a little item for your friend Oldschool.
Yours affectionately,
John Q. Adams


Title: From Thomas Boylston Adams to William Smith Shaw, 30 March 1801
From: Adams, Thomas Boylston
To: Shaw, William Smith

Dear William
Philadelphia 30th: March 1801

I had not time to write before the departure of the post to day, to both you & my mother, and having received a letter from her she was best entitled to my earliest regards, though, if I rightly remember, you favor written at Suffield has not yet been acknowledged—
Watsons Bill is enclosed as you desire—Dickins is not your debtor. But you are his to the amount of four or five dollars, as I wrote you before. How shall I pay you for the Book you brought me?
I exhibited the order for the three remaining vols’ of the journals of Congress, to Hyde, who says only the 11th: is yet printed and that the others will not be ready these two months—
What interest is making for a new Governor in your State? Will Gerry run again for the seat? We hope to create a diversion in favor of Genl: Muhlenberg here—the Republicans are divided as to him, & if he would consent to run, the Germans would nearly all vote for him; the federalists, I fear, will let slip this only chance of getting rid of the old rascally tyrant, who goads & vexes them without mercy—I would vote for any united Irishman, as soon as I would for McKean—Hear a fact of recent date—Col: John Shee who held the office of Inspector of flour, under the Governor was appointed to supercede the Marshall—He declined the honor intended him, prefering less honor & more profit in the place he held—The Governor signified to him his pleasure, that he should accept the proffered appointment, since he could no longer continue as inspector of flour, the office having been bestowed on his son Mr: Robert McKean. We must say of Mr: McKean, that he acts independently, for in spite of all that his party can do, he will provide snug birth’s for his family—
I enclose you a paper, which I wish you to exhibit to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and to ascertain whether the costs in any of the enumerated cases, have been received—If so—whether he is disposed to pay them over to you, when you shall be authorized to receive them?
When do you begin your studies? With whom & where?
I am, Dear Shaw, / Your friend
T B Adams


Title: To John Adams from John Quincy Adams, 4 April 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, John

Dear Sir
4. April. 1801.

I have already sent you, one, or two specimens of translations from the German fabulist Gellert. I shall perhaps occasionally send you a few more, with the intention of giving you some idea of his character and merit, as a writer of fables. This cannot indeed be done in any other than a very imperfect manner, to those, who do not understand his own language. There is a mixture of archness & simplicity in his narrative, of keen satire & honest good nature  in his reflections, which might be rendered in another tongue. But there are colloquial forms of speech, & peculiar modes of expression, which it is hardly possible to transfer from one language to another language to another; & much of the excellence of fable writing proceeds from the choice & use of these appropriate idioms. Of the defects therefore, which you will discover in the versions from Gellert, which you receive from me, impute some to the essential infirmities of translation, & some to those of the translator, and I think you will then readily conceive, that Gellert is considered as one of the first German classics, as one of the great reformers of his language, & refiners of the taste of his nation—In short, as a fabulist, second only to La Fontaine.
He was born at Hänichen in Saxony, July, 4. 1715, & died at Leipzig, where he had for many years been a professor at the University. Decr: 18—1769.—Exactly nine years before that event, the scene & dialogue took place, of which as described by himself, I shall now give you an account.
You very well know the aversion, which Frederic the Second, affected through the whole course of his life, against the German language, its literature and its literary men. You likewise know, that during the principal part of the Seven years war, he was in possession of the city of Leipzig, and of almost all the electorate of Saxony. At the close of the year 1760, being at winter quarters there, he sent his adjutant Guischard, the celebrated Quintus Scilius to professor Gellert with an invitation to come to him—Gellert accordingly went, and the following dialogue took place between them. I shall only leave out those parts of it, which relating merely to Gellert’s state of health, or to the politics of the time contain nothing of amusement, or of information—The scene is in the king’s chamber, where he was alone, when Gellert entered, and was introduced to him by Quintus Scilius.
King—Are you professor Gellert?
Gellert—Yes, may it please your Majesty.
King. The English minister has spoken highly of you to me, Where were you born?
Gellert—At Hänechen near Freyberg
King—Have you not a brother at Freyberg.
Gellert—Yes, Sir—
King—Pray tell me, what is the reason why we have no good German writers?
(This question addressed to a German writer did not abound with the politeness, for which Frederic was famed, & so thought Quintus, who put in a word here, and said—“Your Majesty has one now in your presence, whom the french themselves have translated, & call the German Fontaine.”
King—This is saying a great deal—Have you read La Fontaine?
Gellert—Yes, Sir, but without imitating him. My manner of writing is my own.
King—Vary well, that is one, but why have we not more good authors?
Gellert Your Majesty has taken a prepossession against the Germans?
King—No, I cannot say that.
Gellert—At least, against the German writers.
King—That is true—Why have we no good historians?
Gellert—They are not wanting—We have a Massow, & a Cramer, the continuator of Bossuet.
King—How is it possible, that a German should have continued Bossuet?
Gellert—Yes, and with success— One of your Majesty’s most learned professors has said, that the continuation is equal in eloquence, & superior in historical accuracy to Bossuet himself.
King—Did that man understand him?
Gellert—The world think so.
King—But why does nobody try upon Tacitus? They should make a good translation of him?
Gellert—Tacitus is hard to translate. We have had bad french translations too, of him!
King—That is very true.
Gellert—And in general several reasons may be alledged why the Germans have not yet distinguished themselves in all the varieties of good writing, while the arts & sciences flourished among the Greeks, the Romans were engaged in war—Perhaps this is the warlike age of the Germans. Perhaps too they have wanted an Augustus, & a Louis 14—
King—Why Saxony has had two Augustus’s—
Gellert And we have made too in Saxony a good beginning.
King—How! would you have one Augustus for all Germany?
Gellert—Not exactly that; I only wish that every prince in his own territory would encourage genius.
King—Were you ever out of Saxony?
Gellert—I was once at Berlin—
King.—You should travel.
Gellert—Sir, I have neither the health, nor the means necessary for that.
King—Which do you think the best epic poet, Homer, or Virgil?
Gellert—Homer seems to deserve the preference, as being the original.
King—But Virgil is much more polished.
Gellert—We are too far removed from Homer to judge accurately of his manners & language, but I trust in this to Quintilian, who gives Homer the preference.
King.—But we must not servilely adopt the judgments of the ancients neither.
Gellert—Certainly not—I only follow them, when owing to the great distance, I cannot myself judge.
Quintus—The professor has likewise published a collection of German letters.
King—So! and pray have you written against the law stile?
Gellert—Oh! yes; may it please your Majesty.
King—But why don’t they alter it. Tis devilish strange—They bring me whole sheets, of which I cannot understand a word.
Gellert—If your Majesty cannot alter it, I can still less effect the change. I can only adivce where you command.
King—Cannot you repeat any of your fables by heart?
Gellert—I am not sure. My memory is very treacherous.
King—Recollect yourself—I will walk about mean while—Well, have you got one?
Gellert—Yes. Sir,
A painter of ingenuous heart,
Who rather work’d for fame, than gold,
At Athens once in days of old
Show’d to a critic in his art
A Mars, that he had just design’d
Of which he begged him speak his mind.
The critic candidly confessed
He thought it not from failings free,
In too much art, the God was dressed
Not fierce and rough as Mars should be.
While each objection, that he made
On spacious principles was fgrounded
The artist equal skill display’d
To prove the censure not well founded,
And after having argued long
Still could not think his labour wrong.
A foolish coxcomb now comes in,
Upon the picture casts his eyes
And gazing with sagacious grinn,
Gods! what a masterpiece! he cries,
Behold this foot! what nails are here!
You see the God himself appear.
How rich his garb! his arms, how fine!
Look! how the shield, and helmet shine!
The painter now o’erwhelm’d with shame
Turn’d to his friend with visage sad.
You’re right, quoth he, & I to blame,
I now confess my picture bad—
Then ere the coxcomb could retire
He threw his war-God in the fire.
King—Well, the moral.
Gellert—Directly Sir.
When critics disapprove your lays
Tis a bad omen for your lyre
But when the fools begin to praise
Throw, throw your verses in the fire!
King—That’s pretty, very pretty—very neatly turned—I understand all that—But Gotshed brought and read me a translation of the Iphegenia (of Racine). I had the french original in my hands, & yet I could not understand a word of what I read—They brought me here another fool too—one Pretsch—I threw him away.
Gellert—May it please your Majesty, I throw him away too.
King—Well. If I stay here, you must come & see me often, & bring your fables with you, & read me some of them.
Gellert—I believe I am not a very good reader—I have some thing of the mountanous chanting tone.
King—Ay! like the Silesians—No matter, you must read me your fables yourself. Else they will loose some of their merit—So, mind, and come soon again.
Thus the conversation ended—But the king did not send for him again, & without an express call Gellert did not chuse to return—After he was gone Frederic said, he was quite a different man from Gotshed. This was another professor at the University; a voluminous & once a fashionable writer, but now only remembered to be despiced. Gellert, the King afterwards said was the most rational of all the German literati.
The writings upon which Gellert’s highest reputation is founded are his fables, which are collected in three books; & are about as many as Gay’s, in number. Besides this he published a small novel—several plays—religious hyms, & other poems. Moral & critical disquisitions & discourses. After his death a collection of his correspondence was published. His works form ten duodecimo volumes—His style is remarkable for a certain causticity, contrasting with an apparent unimpassioned mildness & moderation. The english classic author, to whose genius, that of Gellert bears the most resemblance is Addison.
Your’s affectionately—


Title: From John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 6 April 1801
From: Adams, John
To: Adams, Thomas Boylston

My dear Son
Stony Field April 6. 1801

I know not how it has happened that I have not found time to write you Since my return to my long home. The angry North East Wind, which has prevailed with little Interruption has pinched my faculties, I believe. We have been all, pretty well.
This is the Day of our Election of Governor, Lt Govr. & Senators. The Democrats are very Sanguine and the others are not So. The former Say that Mr Strong is a good man, as good as Mr Gerry but that he does not come in at the right gate. The Result may be of Some importance, but I have not Sufficient Information to form a probable Conjecture. There is So much malice among a certain Sett in every State, and Such a bitter Zeal to turn out and run down every Man, who was conspicuous in the revolution that I Should find derive Some consolation in their humiliation, from the Election of Mr Gerry: though I could not give him my Vote in opposition to Mr Strong.
Your Federalists in Pennsylvania are playing the Same artfull Game, by Setting up Peter Muhlenburg as their Governor. Cunning Sometimes Succeeds and Sometimes fails. In the long run it will do no good to either Party.
Mr Shaw left Us, last night and is Settled in Mr Otis’s office as a student at Law. Write me as often as you can and always rely upon me as your Affectionate / Father

J. Adams


Title: From John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 6 April 1801
From: Adams, John
To: Adams, Thomas Boylston

My dear Son
Stony Field April 6. 1801

I know not how it has happened that I have not found time to write you, Since my return to my long home. The angry North East Wind, which has prevailed, with little Interruption, has pinched by faculties I believe. We have been all pretty well.
This is the day of our Election of Governor Lt Governor & Senators. The Democrats are very Sanguine and the others are not So. The former Say that Mr Strong is a good Man, as good as Mr Gerry, but that he does not come in at the right gate. The Result may be of Some importance, but I have not sufficient Information to from a probable Conjecture. There is So much malice among a certain Sett in every State, and Such a bitter Zeal to turn out and run down, any man, who was conspicuous in the revolution, that I should derive some consolation in their humiliation, from the Election of Mr Gerry: though I could not give him my vote in opposition to Mr Strong.
Your Federalists in Pennsylvania are playing the Same artfull Game by Setting up Peter Muhlenburg as their Governor. Cunning Sometimes Succeeds and Sometimes fails. In the long run, it will do no good to either Party. Mr Shaw left us, last night and is settled in Mr Otis’s Office as a Student at Law. Write me as often as you can and always rely upon me as /  your affectionate Father.
J. Adams


Title: To John Adams from William Smith Shaw, 6 April 1801
From: Shaw, William Smith
To: Adams, John

Honored Sir
Sunday Morning 6 April 1801

After living uninteruptedly in your family, for almost three years, and uniformly receiving, both from you and my Aunt, all the affection and tenderness of the most indulgent parents, I should do injustice to all the honorable feelings of a grateful heart, were I to omit this opportunity and leave you, Sir, without expressing to you my warmest acknowledgments, for the innumerable favors I have received from your goodness, the happiness I have enjoyed in your family, for the indulgence with which you have always pardoned my errors and the advantages, I flatter myself to have derived, from the wisdom of your councils. These circumstances have made a forcible impression on my mind, they are entwined with the fibres of my heart, with the threads of my existence, which neither time nor absence nor the vicissitudes of life will ever obliterate, while I have pulse to beat or soul to feel.
The principles, I have imbibed under your fostering hand, have added fresh vigor to my pursuits after knowledge. While you, Sir, shielded by conscious integrity, are returned to the peaceful fields of Quincy, and enjoy “the souls calm sunshine”, permit me to request a continuance of your parental council and favorable regard, while it shall be my study and delight, to deserve so rich and invaluable a blessing.
That you, my dear Sir and my much loved Aunt, may long continue to live together in social love and domestic peace, till at some far distant period, you are translated from jarring elements and a warring world, to realms of uninterrupted peace and ceaseless joy, is the ardent prayer of one who has the honor to subscribe himself /   with affectionate attachment and respectful esteem /  your grateful nephew & obedient humble servant

Wm S Shaw.


Title: To John Adams from John Quincy Adams, 7 April 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, John

My dear Sir,
7. April. 1801—

The gazette, of which you will find the first number enclosed, is intended to give you a concise & comprehensive view of the principal occurences in every part of Europe—My project is during the remainder of my stay here, to send you twice a month a similar sheet, comprizing a period of the same length of time. It will perhaps seldom give you news, but it will concentrate information, which you might not so readily collect from the desultory & interrupted notices dispersed in a variety of newspapers.
In the next number I shall mention, the death of the Emperor of Russia, which happened suddenly on the 24th: of last month—The news reached this place by a courier three days ago. It is very doubtful whether at this moment, it will prevent the war between G. Britain & the North; for the new Emperor will have strong reasons for holding himself pledg’d to the alliances so recently formed by his father, & cannot in honor abandon the powers, who would never have acceeded to the league, but at his urgent instigation.
I have received my dear mother’s letter, dated 21. Jany: & shall answer it immediately.


Title: To John Adams from Thomas Boylston Adams, 10 April 1801
From: Adams, Thomas Boylston
To: Adams, John

Dear Sir.
Philadelphia 10th: April 1801.

I enclose for your perusal two of the latest letters received by me, from my Brother; although the last contains a conditional injunction, against the communication of it, to you, I am Sure it will gratify your feelings, to discover the Spirit, which dictated So much solicitude, on your account. That he should have felt all the anxiety, which he describes, both as it concerned the public & yourself, was very natural, but it is to me a Source of pride and comfort, that the rods of power, has passed from your hands, without a murmur, & I confidently believe, without a pang. The conduct, which Plutarch ascribes to Demosthenes, & which he makes a theme of commendation, has been practised by you, from early life; “he made it his business to do that, which he thought most profitable for the Commonwealth;” and (say’s Plutarch) “I think, that he who would be accounted a man of fortitude & fit for Government, Should attend always to the common good and neglect his own private calamities & affairs, when they come into competition with the public.” “You shall arrive at the Summit of glory,” Said the Delphic Oracle to Cicero, “by making your own genius and not the opinion of the people, the guide of your life.” It were vain to expect, devotion like this, in our general intercourse with the world, but that examples of it have existed, the annals of our own times, will, one day or other, testify to posterity.
I beg the favor, that these letters may be Seasonably returned to me, & with best love & duty to my mother & all friends, I am Dear Sir / Your Son
T B Adams—


Title: To John Adams from John Quincy Adams, 11 April 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, John

My dear Sir
11. April. 1801

You will remember, that in the year 1793, while the government of the french republic was in the hands of Robertspiere, a collection of papers, found among those of Louis the sixteenth was published under the title of Politics of all the cabinets of Europe. The most important of these papers, and that from which the title was given to the whole collection, was a work written by Mr. Favier, a person employed in Louis the 15th’s secret ministry for foreign affairs, and the great object of this work was to prove from a consideration of the political situation and views of all the European powers, that a great, a total, an essential change in the military, the federal and the fiscal system of France was indispensably necessary to restore her preponderance in the scale of nations. It was written in the year 1773, and had been presented to Louis. 15, a short time before his death; but the editor of the collection justly objserves in the preface to it, that in these conjectures of Favier is to be found the germ of every thing, that had since happened in France, without excepting the revolution.
In the course of the last autumn was published at Paris a volume, upon the state of France at the close of the 8th: republican year, written by citizen Hautrive, first clerk in the present french office of foreign affairs. It is a work of considerable ability, written with much elegance of style, and much appearance of argument. As I propose to give you an account of it at some length, with my own reflections upon its contents, it was proper to precede the mention of it, by that of Favier’ conjectures, because the object of Mr. Hauterive’s pamphlet, are evidently the result and the complement of Favier’s system, and without the previous knowledge of this, it is impossible to form an accurate estimate of that. The identity of object for which they were both calculated, is apparent even from the seeming opposition of their views; for as the great purpose of Favier was to prove from the politics of all the cabinets of Europe, the necessity of a revolution in the state of France, that of Hauterive is to show from the state of France after that revolution has happened, the necessity of a revolution equally complete in the politics of all the Cabinets of Europe. The principal difference between them is that Favier, writing solely and exclusively, (as he supposed) for the king of France’s perusal, avows and professes the final purpose of the change, which he recommends, to be the establishment of a perfect and unrivalled preponderance of France in the affairs of Europe, whereas Hauterive, addressing himself to sovereigns, who know too well what the consequences to themselves of a french supremacy would be, always denies, endeavours to conceal, and only betrays the same ultimate design.
His work is divided into six chapters, each of which I propose to examine separately, though as briefly as possible, with the intention of stating its arguments, and of distinguishing its real motive from its apparent object, and of noticing the errors in point of fact and of reasoning, into which an unqualified assent to the assertions and opinions of the author, might lead.
The first chapter treats of the political situation of Europe before the war. Its real and avowed object is to prove, that “immediately before the commencement of the french revolution the public Law of Europe existed only in appearance; that the revolution only made its destruction more strikingly evident, and that it is at once the highest duty, and the most important interest of the European governments immediately to concert the means of creating it anew.” The argument is indeed chiefly limited to the demonstration of the fact, and the inference from it, is extended into the next chapter.
“At the middle of the last century, says Mr. Hauterive, a treaty containing the fundamental rights, and duties of the greatest part of the continental powers, assigned the place, which belonged to each of them in the great political scale of Europe. This classic and elementary treaty, for so it may be called, might have perhaps founded for a long series of ages the public law of the world, had not three events, originating nearly at the same period, come to complicate the general system, with unexpected combinations, which though at first imperceptible, and slow, gradually attached all the relations, consecrated, or prepared by the treaty of Westphalia, and have finally in our days, have scandalously burst all the ties, which united those relations, and destroyed the foundations of interest, of concord, and of counterpoise, upon which they were established.”
“These three events are, 1. The formation of a new empire at the north of Europe. 2. The elevation of Prussia to the rank of a first rate power, and, 3. The prodigious growth of the colonial and maritime system in the four quarters of the globe.”
The deduction of consequences presented by the author, as having resulted from the introduction of these new materials into the political system of Europe, is ingenius, in many respects just, and highly deserving of the profound meditation of every statesman. But before I proceed to mention the objections to which some of its details are liable, it may be proper here to observe two things. First. That the peace of Westphalia, cannot and ought not to be considered as the great charter of Europe, containing all the rights and duties of its several nations, and secondly, that the enumeration of events, which have contributed to render the principles and arrangements of that  obsolete and inapplicable, is imperfect. To give a full and fair view of the subject, the author should have taken into his calculation, not merely the rise and progress of the new powers, but likewise the declension and decay of those, who were then at their most flourishing period, the house of Austria, Sweden, and above all the spiritual power, including the despotism and habit of contending and treating, of making war and peace, upon religious questions.
The peace of Westphalia was primarily and essentially no more, than the termination of a religious war in Germany. But in the course of that war, the political constitution of Germany had intimately connected with it, the worldly interests of the states, which go to its composition and hence the religious pacification became complicated with the establishment of a balance of power between the German states, France, and Sweden had taken part in the war as allies of the protestant party, and were therefore principal parties to the peace, on one side. The conduct of France was certainly not dictated by her attachment to the religious principles of her allies. Her motive was opposition against the house of Austria, and the policy of weakening Germany by establishing a perpetual principle of division in its powers, as a source of continual dissensions for her to stiffle and determine. The peace of Westphalia can be considered therefore only as having established a balance of power in Europe, against the house of Austria. It established none against France. The danger of France’s ambition to the liberties of Europe had not manifested itself, perhaps had not existed before that period; but from that day to this, it has been the most immenent danger to which the liberties of Europe have been exposed. Its offensive designs, and the defensive measures employed to defeat them, have been the source of almost all the wars and negotiations in Europe, during the century and a half elapsed since the treaty of Westphalia.
The reason why a secretary in the french department of foreign affairs should hold out the Treaty of Westphalia, as the fundamental law, the sole sourse of right, and measure of strength for all the powers of Europe, it is not difficult to discern. He gives us himself the reason, when he says, that it placed the whole body of the German empire, under the indispensable tutelege of France. It placed in the hands of France a counterpoise more than sufficient against the house of Austria, without providing for the security of Europe against France herself.
It is therefore true, that before the period of the french revolution, the elements of the system, upon which the peace of Westphalia was founded and supported, were all, or nearly all, dissolved, but not owing entirely, or even principally the causes alledged by him. The two great bases of that system, were a religious peace in Germany, and a barrier against Austria. The first has crumbled to dust, because religion is no longer an object of controversy among nations, and the second has dropped into fragments with the gradual decay of Austrian power.
It was important to notice both these circumstances; the exaggerated importance imputed to the treaty of Westphalia, and the inaccuracy in the statement of causes, which distroyed its efficacy, because they serve as the foundation of Mr. Hauterive’s subsequent theory, and reasoning. He argues for instance, that the combination of all Europe against France at the commencement of her revolution, was the necessary consequence and most certain proof of previous annihilation of the public law of Europe founded upon the peace of Westphalia; thus throwing out of the account, all the causes of the coalition, which arose not only from the ambition of France, but all those, which sprang from her revolution. Thus after having maintained to the world for seven years together that this was a war for civil liberty and equality; a war of democracy against monarchy; of all nations against all kings, France now comes and tells us, that all that was only springes to catch woodcocks, and the real cause of the war was to restore the balance of power in Europe.
In ascribing to the rise and progress of the Russian, British and Prussian powers, the destruction of the public law of Europe, Mr. Hauterive undoubtedly thought he was promoting the political views of France, the other causes, which contributed to produce the result of disarranging the system, were no less important, than those assigned, but they did not suit the author’s purpose, and would have furnished material proofs against his argument. It was natural that he should omit them.
He sought only those causes, which it entered into his plan to represent in an unfavorable and odious light. He affirms, and with some appearance of solicitude, repeats the declaration, that resentment or animosity, has no part in the representation, which he makes of the mischiefs, that have occurred to Europe from the formation, and prosperity of those powers; he acknowledges that neither England, Russia, nor Prussia, were bound to the support of a system, which they had no hand in forming, and that they are not to be blamed for following the natural propensity of nations, as well as individuals, to better their condition. But the whole drift of his discourse is to prove, that the principal parties to the peace of Westphalia, ought to have united in concert for the purpose of preventing the intrusion of Russia into the political system of Europe, of smothering the growth of Prussia, and of ruining the maritime and commercial prosperity of England. This purpose indeed he is careful not openly to avow, and he employs no inconsiderable address to conceal it. “The source of the disorder (says he) is not in the events, and the springs, which prepared them, but in the improvidence, the inattention, or the carelessness of the powers, who did nothing to adopt to their position, the new circumstances, which those events could not but produce; the source of the disorder is in the undiscerning statesmen, who did not see, that in a pre-existing public law, the elements of concert, of federation, and of concurrence, it contains, always supply the states, who have common interests to defend, and discernment to perceive them, means enough seasonably to prevent all growth of power, which might untune the harmony of their relations, or to make that growth concur in the maintenance of that harmony, without needing to recur to the violent means of uncertain and ruinous wars.”
Here is an alternative apparently presented against which no objection can be made, but when the author comes to specify the means, which he thinks adviseable, they are all such as apply to the first part of the proposition, calculated to crush the growth of all other powers, not to seek means of concert and combination with it.
In my next letter I hope to conclude the examination of the first Chapter, and in the mean time, I remain, ever yours,


Title: From John Quincy Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 11 April 1801
From: Adams, John Quincy
To: Adams, Thomas Boylston

No: 5.
11. April. 1801—

You have here a triplicate of my letter respecting your account—a duplicate of the conversation between Frederic 2. & Gellert. And the first number of a series, in which I purpose to review an important late french work, which I shall send to your father.
It seems to me as if the frequency of writing shortened the distance between us. But you will not complain if it likewise sometimes shortens my letters. Or at least these their external covers.
I have undertaken to send your father twice a month a summary of the most important political eventts throughout Europe comprized in a single sheet at a time. The first number I have already fowarded. Perhaps I shall generally send the press copies to you.
You will probably be of the same opinion with most people here & in Russia, that the Emperor’s death on the 24th: ult.—was not owing altogether to a natural apoplexy. But we have hitherto nothing explanatory out of it, & perhaps shall not have, for a long time.
The issue of Nelson’s first attack upon the Danes on the second of this month putts my prophecy to the blush—But remember I spoke of it dubiously. I never doubted but that whenever the contest should be purely naval, the English would prove victorious. Such was the case on that occasion. It was an assault only upon the first three lines of defence, & itts success is by no means decisive of the final event—The armistice was for three days, & we are told the hostilities were renewed on the 5th: But to write you mere reports would be idle. Next week I will tell you more.
Your’s—