Members of the Convention, Mr. McHenry told me that a very considerable Number of them were in favour of a Monarchical Government (under certain limitations and restrictions as I concluded) and shewed me a list of the then attending Members from each State marked with the words for and against, to distinguish such as were for or against such a Government; this list was written on a blank page of his printed report of the Committee of detail, and I copied it on a blank page of mine with the same distinctive marks—more than twenty were noted in the list as being in favour of a Monarchy, among those was your name.

I observ'd to Mr. McHenry that as to many of them I perfectly concurd in opinion, but as to some, I thought he was mistaken-he replied I might depend upon it, he was better informd on the Subject, and better knew their sentiments than I did, and that every one who was there distinguisd [sic] in favor of a King was so in reality; Mr. McHenry did not mention to me particularly whom [sic] he drew the inference or how he had obtaind the Knowledge or the belief which he express'd, but I naturally concluded that it proceeded from the Sentiments he had heard them express, from information which had been given to him by others or from their Conduct in Convention, or from all these Sources combin'd. I have no possible recollection that Col Mercers name mentiond to me on that or any other occasion by Mr. McHenry as having given him any information on the Subject, on the contrary, I well remember that I was surprizd when I heard Col Mercers name lately mentiond on the occasion, as being totally unacquainted with his sentiments on that Subject, and as being ignorant that he had ever expressd such Sentiments. And I am well convinc'd from the fullest recollection and reflection that Mr. McHenry did not mention to me any person in particular from whom he had receiv'd the information or who had impressd on his mind the opinion he at that time entertaind.

At the time we were before the Assembly to give information' Mr. McHenry's report of the Committee with other papers were laying on the Table, at that time the list I have mention'd was upon it; And as Mr. McHenry endeavour'd to impress an Idea that there cou'd be no foundation for my Sentiment, that tho’ but few members openly avowed their being for a Monarchical Government, yet there were a much greater number who secretly favord that System, I with dificulty restraind myself from laying my hands upon it, and producing it to the Assembly as a proof that he had himself once entertaind Similar Sentiments, altho' he might since be convincd of his error.

The foregoing is a just State of what passd between Mr. McHenry and myself on the Subject concerning which you expressd a desire that I wou'd give you information, and you have my full permission to make any use of it which you may think proper.

I am sr. yr. Obt Sert.


See Martin's Genuine Information.


The following is from a Scrip of paper sent me' by my Brother? from Mr. McHenry

I mentiond to Mr. Mercer, at the Governors that Mr. Dani. Carroll had been made very uneasy by Mr. Martins having reported, that when in Convention he had been for a Kingly Government, and related the Substance of what I had written to Mr. Carroll on that Subject. Mr. Mercer replied that he had put down no such thing opposite the names, and that he only meant that those which had for annex'd to them were for a national Government. I said I did not know what he meant, but that he told me in Convention when I copied the names from his paper that those mark'd for were for a King. He spoke of Mr. Martins having acted improperly on this occasion and some others.


June 11th. 1788.
Dear Brother,

The inclosd® is for Mr. McHenry. During a long course of Public Service, I have never before heard of any imputation being cast on my conduct. This is of a nature which woud deservedly deprive me of the confidence of the Public, at least. My character I hold dear, and will maintain it against attempts to injure it. Where the blame is, I will not undertake to determine. I did not conceive it probable, that such a paper as is mentiond in Mr. McHenrys Letter of the 9th of Jany. coud have been circulated among some of the deputies from Maryland without my privity, much less, that Mr. McHenry woud furnish Mr. Martin with one with my name to it. Untill lately I woud not believe that my name was on that list.

Dear Brother

Yrs etca

DANL CARROLL. [Address :) The Revd. Mr. John Carroll.


BALTIMORE 16 June 1788. I have read Mr. Martins and Mr. Mercers information to Mr. D. Carroll. With respect to their statements, I can only subjoin, to what I have already written to Mr. Carroll, that I copied the list in question with Mr. Mercers permission, without adding any thing of my own or altering any thing of his, which may be ascertained by comparing the two together; and that on Mr. Merc[e]rs changing his seat to another part of the house, Mr. Martin asked me, what I had been copying, and without waiting for an answer took up my report and read over the list. I told him, I had copied it from a list made out by Mr. Mercer, and that the names having for annexed to them, Mr. Mercer said, were for a king. Mr. Martin asked me to let him take a copy, and I permitted it, and this was all the conversation I held then or at any other time with Mr. Martin on that subject.

1 Daniel Carroll.
? Father John Carroll, afterward bishop and archbishop of Baltimore.

3 Apparently the matter printed above as I., IV., V., and vi., all four of which are found transcribed on one sheet among the papers.

* Nos. vii. and ix. are rough drafts of two letters of James McHenry, written in his handwriting, on one sheet, folded and addressed.

This relation is copied in substance from my note book of the transactions of the convention, which I wrote down daily,' and is besides fresh in my memory so that there can be no mistake upon my part. I did not shew the list to Mr. Carroll or Mr. Jenifer or any other person (except Martin who got it by surprise), because I took it only with a view to relate the circumstances attending its origin in case it should ever be brought forward to answer improper purposes; nor have I at any time since mentioned any thing respecting either the list or its object,' to any person whatever but Mr. D. Carroll and his brother.

Mr. D. Carroll has my consent to make what use he may think proper of the above.

James McHENRY.


BALTIMORE 16 June 1788.
Dr. Sir.

You have been so kind as to put your brothers letter into my hand. I have read it attentively and cannot help thinking that he has looked for an illustration where his own experience might have taught him it could not possibly be found. He doubts where the blame lays. When did Mr. Martin and Mr. Mercer become authorities? He suggests also that I should have made him acquainted with the list. If I had shewn it to him, I must have shewn it to others who were equally affected by it, with some of whom I have been for these thirteen years past in the closest habits of intimacy and friendship. Such a step, he must be aware, would have brought on immediate personal altercations (at a most critical time) with a man prone to anger, and excessively captious. I did what I thought much safer and more decisive. I reserved myself to expose it publicly in case a public use had been made of it. This has never been done tho' the fairest opportunity in the world was offred for doing it. Can any one who witnessed that occasion, who heard me charge Mr. Martin with uttering falsehoods, entertain a belief that his representation to Mr. Carroll is true, or that he would have remained silent and condemned before the general assembly if he could have given me as an evidence of what he there asserts ? As to Mr. Mercer, I wish your brother had mentioned what he has recently done or said that has induced him to think more favorably of his veracity.

i The words “ which I wrote down daily” are an insertion in the text of the draft. By reference to p. 604, supra, it will be seen that McHenry's account of the episode in the Convention which caused this imbroglio is an insertion in his diary.

2 The words “its object " are crossed out, probably by mistake.

I have only to regret in this affair that my anxiety for the public good and your brothers quiet, for whom I have the most sincere friendship, should have occasioned him a moments uneasiness, and am only surprised that he has not treated this as he has the other fictions which have been gravely reported to the world for truths.

I am very respectfully
Sir Your obt. and hble st.

JAMES MCHENRY [Address :) Revd. John Carroll Esqr.



A History of All Nations from the Earliest Times. General Editor,

John HẸNRY WRIGHT, LL.D., Professor in Harvard University. Volumes III., Ancient Greece, IV., Republican Rome, and V., Imperial Rome. (Philadelphia : Lea Brothers and Company. 1905. Pp. 431, 331, 326.)

The first two volumes of this series, which is to consist of twentyfour, were reviewed by Professor Toy in the number of this Review for October, 1905 (XI. 117–118). The general description of the whole series given there need not be repeated here. The three volumes noted here are meant to be, like all the first nineteen volumes of the series, “a carefully edited translation, slightly condensed, with additions ", of the corresponding volumes in Flathe's Allgemeine Weltgeschichte. These were written by Professor G. F. Hertzberg of Halle, and were practically nothing more than condensations of his Hellas und Rom, in two volumes, and his Geschichte des römischen Kaiserreiches, published in 1879 and 1880 as parts of Oncken's Allgemeine Geschichte.

The original volumes, when published, constituted the best popular history of classical antiquity in German. They were prepared by a scholar who, if not an independent authority in the field, was thoroughly acquainted with the latest and best original work there, and who had a notable experience and power in popularizing scientific researches. They were unencumbered with learned apparatus, and yet reflected the latest investigations, and were presented “in a form to excite the interest of all intelligent readers”. By means of brief foot-notes the Flathe edition of 1885-1886 corrected here and there the Oncken edition of 1879-1880, but otherwise was the same, except for being much condensed.

The task of putting these volumes into fitting English, and at the same time of bringing them up to date after twenty years of research and discovery, was a serious one. In many ways it would have been easier to rewrite the whole story. The new material might then have been incorporated into the work, instead of for the most part taking the form of appendixes, added paragraphs, and additional foot-notes. But, assuming the wisdom of the task, it has been well performed. We still need, however, a popular history of antiquity on the general plan of Eduard Meyer's Geschichte des Alterthums, where the history of the ancient world, and especially that of the Balkan and Apennine peninsulas, is treated in parallel chronological layers, after the manner of the more recent excavations.

( 625 )

« ForrigeFortsett »