Papers of John Adams, volume 19

66 To John Adams from John Jay, 12 May 1787 Jay, John Adams, John
From John Jay
Dr Sir Office for foreign Affairs 12th. May 1787

I had the Pleasure of writing you a few Lines on the 2d. of last Month, since which I have received and communicated to Congress your Letters of 9th. 24th. and 27th. January1 and 3d. & 24th. February last.—

My Health continues much deranged, and I purpose in a few Days to make an Excursion into the Country for about a fortnight.—

A Motion has lately been made in Congress to remove to Philadelphia, and the Party who support it persevere in pushing it from Day to Day— They are not joined by a single Member from either of the eastern States, and yet there is Reason to apprehend that they will carry their Point. No other Motive for this strange Measure is publicly assigned by them except that Philadelphia is more central than New York.2

Several important Affairs which ought to have been dispatched have given place to this unfortunate Contest, so that I can by this Conveyance send you little of Importance.—

Accept my Thanks for the Book you was so kind as to send me— I have read it with Pleasure and with Profit. I do not however altogether concur with you in Sentiment respecting the Efficiency of our great Council, for national Purposes, whatever Powers more or less maybe given them.3 In my Opinion a Council so constituted will forever prove inadequate to the Objects of its Institution.

With great and sincere Esteem I have the Honor to be / Dr. Sir / Your most obt. & very hble: Servt.

John Jay—4

P.S. A new Edition of your Book is printing in this City & will be published next Week.—5 You will herewith receive the late Newspapers—

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “The Hoñble John Adams Esqr:.”

1.

Vol. 18:535–538, 553–556, 567–568.

2.

See Thomas McKean’s 30 April letter, and note 6, above.

3.

Jay alluded here to JA’s statement in his Defence of the Const. that “a single council has been found to answer the purposes of confederacies very well,” which touched on the relation between state sovereignty and congressional power (1:362–364). Jay explored this theme in his contributions to The Federalist, a series of essays written with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to rebut criticism of the U.S. Constitution, printed in 1787 (Jay, Selected Papers , 4:572–582).

4.

Two days later, Jay wrote to JA ( Dipl. Corr., 1783–1789 , 2:738), enclosing a copy of a 2 April letter from Daniel Huger (1742–1799), then a South Carolina member of Congress, outlining a constituent’s legal troubles with the Admiralty ( Biog. Dir. Cong. ). Both letters introduced the bearer, a shipowner named Leigh Masters, whose schooner Minerva 67 carried a large quantity of flour, bread, and wine. Masters was aboard when the Minerva sprang a leak in May 1786 and sought refuge at New Providence, Bahamas. British Navy officials stated that since the Minerva had been repaired and ordered to depart, the subsequent sale of her cargo violated the Navigation Act. The Admiralty condemned the ship in July, and Masters apparently traveled to London to challenge the ruling. There is no indication that JA intervened in Masters’ case. A Tr of selected trial records appears in DNA:RG 40, Reel 3, f. 164–205. However, this particular copy is in the hand of HA, probably made while he was doing research at the Library of Congress in the 1870s and 1880s for his History of the United States.

5.

Printer Hugh Gaine advertised the publication and sale of the first volume of JA’s Defence in the New York Independent Journal, 2 June 1787. For the American sale and reception of the first volume, see vol. 18:544–550.

From John Adams to John Jay, 14 May 1787 Adams, John Jay, John
To John Jay
Dear Sir London May 14. 1787

Last Thursday, according to your Advice, I communicated to Lord Carmarthen, not officially but as private, tho authentic Intelligence, the Resolutions of Congress of the twenty first of March.1

His Lordship appeared to be Sincerely and highly pleased: And Said that those Resolutions did the highest honour to Congress, and he wished I had Authority to communicate them formally. The Reason was explained to his Lordship, that there had not been time for the Secretary of State to prepare Instructions but that they might be expected, to arrive in a few Weeks. The Measure is as well founded in good Policy as it is in Justice and Honour and must produce a good Effect. With great Respect / I have the Honour to be sir, your most obedient / and most humble servant

John Adams.

RC (PCC, No. 84, VI, f. 477); internal address: “His Excellency John Jay / Secretary of State for / foreign Affairs.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 112.

1.

For the congressional resolutions that JA presented to the Marquis of Carmarthen, see Jay’s 2 April letter, and note 3, above.

To John Adams from Thomas Brand Hollis, 15 May 1787 Hollis, Thomas Brand Adams, John
From Thomas Brand Hollis
Dear Sir Chesterfeild Street May 15. 1787.

It has been long matter of Surprise to me that the States of America when investigating the various forms of republicks should never have thought of the mode of government practised in the city of London.

it is an Epitome of the constitution of England, that constitution which is so beautifull in theory & of which you are so fond tho the balance no longer exists, and perhaps in some respects superior, as it is well guarded against the Usurpation of power by frequent 68 rotation & preserves the balance by gradual election to offices even the highest, from the people.

uncorrupted independent conduct only intitle to honors as the elections depend on the suffrages of their fellow citizens who have the power of rejection. The supreme magistrate, called in the time of the saxons Portgerafo,1 that is custos or guardian now mayor, is elected annually by 26 Aldermen. His state is magnificent & great priviledges and he bears the title of Lord.

The 26 Aldermen who are for life preside over as many wards of the city. when any of these die the wardmate returns two and the Lord mayor & aldermen choose one out of the most substantial men of the city. if any one refuse he is fined 500£. “Here then is the different orders of men with various & opposite powers perogatives & priviledges to watch over one another & to balance each other & to compel each other at all times to be real guardians of the laws”

all the Aldermen who have been Lord mayors & the three eldest aldermen are justices of the peace of the city. The traders of London are divided into twelve companies & are so many bodies politick and He that is choosen Lord mayor must be free of one of these companies.2

thus you observe a gradual rise to distinction and power & only obtained by the free suffrages of fellow citizens.

The election of members of parliament is also conducted with great decency & propriety. a week being the time fixed for taking the poll & then finished, a scrutiny may be demanded & often is. The police is also admirable. an Alderman always setting to render justice & punish criminals. that most of the outrages are committed out of the city villains dreading expeditious justice. was this pursued in westminster & elsewhere there would be no occasion for military power or pensioned trading justices depending on the crown!

That the frame of government of the city of London should have escaped your diligent & able researches astonishes me, as it certainly has many preventives of the abuse of power—office being temporary and in the hands of the members of the community to bestow or refuse for these

“Dominion does not lurk from hand to hand undignified by publick choice. and each man guides the sword he wears”3

will you permit me to suspect that the Republick of London is too democratical? yet surely when the Balance is secured the nearer to 69 a well regulated democracy the father from Tyranny? I have often wished some new state in America had taken up this Idea of the commonwealth of London and put it in execution on a larger plan, that is to a larger object of which it is capable to any extent; having no doubt of it success and had my powers been equal to my inclination I had long since sent an Idea of this sort for their consideration; but from an anonymous no attention would have been paid and I could not have appeared in publick, tho with the best intentions, in so arduous a task.

Having reminded you of the state of London possibly by means of your writing & representation some New rising Republick may act upon this plan “and form to this the system of their state” which would be another experiment for publick good & probably an addition to the happiness of mankind beyond which in this world I have not a wish.

excuse Dear Sir the liberty I take in writing thus freely on a Subject which you have so much attended too & your labors have been crowned with that success which astonishes the old world. it is incumbent on the rising generations to answer fully to the expectations of their fathers who have showed them the way to honor truth & Liberty. Vanity does not prompts me to imagine I can suggest any thing new to you on these matters but to gain information & to correct my own Ideas where wrong I should esteem of consequence.

I am, Dear Sir, / with the greatest regard / Your sincere & faithful friend.

T Brand Hollis.

RC (Adams Papers); endorsed: “T. Brand Hollis Esq. / ansd. Same day.”; docketed by CFA: “May 15th 1787.”

1.

The portgerefa, or portreeve, was a Saxon forerunner of the modern mayor ( OED ).

2.

Here, Hollis paraphrased portions of text sketching London’s city government as it is described in John Chamberlayne’s Magnæ Britanniæ Notitia; or, the Present State of Great Britain; with Diverse Remarks upon the Ancient State Thereof, 2 vols., London, 1741, 1:207–210.

3.

Mark Akenside, “On Leaving Holland,” Ode VIII, lines 24–25. Hollis’ source for the third line is unknown.