is a correction or emendation of Washington's original or preparatory draught, and no more; and in plan, and con

end of the amendments and of the paper itself in the same manner, closing with these words: "The nation which indulges against another habitual hatred, or for another "habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is," &c. Immediately below which is this direction: "To the end, as in the former." At the top of the left hand column of this last page (13), and opposite to the concluding paragraph, of which I have given the closing lines, are these words: "Varied from the first I sent, and I think for the "better. If the first be preserved (? preferred), 'tis easy to incorporate this.”

By recurring to Hamilton's original draught, in his Works, vol. vii, page 589, it will readily be perceived, that the direction "to the end, as in the former," refers to the middle of the second paragraph on that page, where these words occur: "That nation "which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some cr degree a slave. . . It is a slave to its animosity," &c. Hamilton's direction, therefore, is to go on to the end of that paragraph, in the copy of his original and amended draught, sent on the 30th July; perhaps, also, to the end of Washington's Conclusion.

There is no further clause or direction on my copy of the paper, nor was there, I presume, on the original. We may suppose, therefore, perhaps, that the corrections, having supplied the place of Mr. Sparks's "Hints, or Heads of Topics," Washington's Conclusion, as I have called it, was to be followed to the end, after the paragraph referred to in his own draught first sent.

This character of the paper I possess, which I think is here accurately described, though it substantially accords with Mr. Jay's account of it, makes it difficult to believe that at least parts of the "President's draught" were not read at that interview from the very paper itself; for in the copy there are but two words written of Mr. Madison's draught, nor yet any part of Washington's Conclusion. There is not even an express direction at the end, to include that Conclusion. But as the subjects contained in the "Hints, or Heads of Topics" had been corrected and amended by Hamilton, as far as he intended, and as his own correcting paper did not supply any conclusion at all, the former direction to go on "to the end, as in the former," may have comprehended the Conclusion of Washington's paper, as well as the remainder of the paragraph in his draught first sent.

It would seem to follow, that the lapse of time had in some degree impaired Mr. Jay's recollections of the interview. Parts of Washington's draught must have been read from the paper. Neither Madison's draught nor Washington's Conclusion appears in my copy. The paper, moreover, is not a transcript, as Mr. Sparks calls it, but Washington's paper "corrected upon the general plan of it," as Hamilton's letter of 25th June said it would be, with marks and references to show how the corrections or amendments should be incorporated.

spicuously in extent or volume, is a totally different paper from the Farewell Address, from Hamilton's original draught, and from Washington's autograph copy, in either stage of it, with or without the cancelled passages. But it is certain, at the same time, that Hamilton's corrections, in several particulars, followed the sentiments and language of his original draught, with or without such variations as he introduced into his amended copy, which he sent to Washington on the 30th July, 1796,-the corrections of Washington's draught having been begun and being under way before he sent his amended copy to Washington.

It follows necessarily, from these premises, that the autograph copy was not sent to Hamilton and Jay, and that they had no interview to correct it, and that they did not correct it; and, if we may imply a negative from the full affirmative evidence we possess, that neither Jay nor Hamilton ever saw it. The paper which was read and approved in that interview, and sent back, was Washington's original draught, and not Hamilton's original draught, nor Hamilton's revision of that draught, nor Washington's autograph copy of the Farewell Address, nor anything else but Washington's original or preparatory draught amended, the same which was sent to Washington on the 10th of August. The paper thus sent to Washington was not the subject of a single remark by him afterwards, except in his letter of 25th August, when he inclosed to Hamilton, at his own request, the amended copy of Hamilton's original draught, and said, "I have given the paper herewith inclosed several serious "and attentive readings, and prefer it greatly to the other "draughts," which other draughts were two only, Washington's original or preparatory draught, "left fair," as Mr.

Jay says, and the emendations of it by Hamilton, which had been read by Hamilton to Jay. The supposition, therefore, that Hamilton and Jay, or Hamilton with Jay's assistance, made, by amendment or otherwise, a third draught, after Washington had sent forward his autograph copy, or a prepared copy, of the Farewell Address, for correction, confounds both dates and facts, and puts all the letters of Washington and Hamilton, and Mr. Jay's letter to Judge Peters, just as much as the others, completely out of joint. Of course, a hasty or current perusal of Hamilton's letters and original draught might have led to the same impression in anybody, which the Preface to the copy of the autograph in Mr. Irving's work expresses; but the possession of those letters for the requisite time in my hands, has enabled me to look with great care into the whole series, and to get, I think, the true bearing of all.

It may be very safely predicted that such a third draught as the Preface in Mr. Irving's Appendix postulates, will never be found, since no one of the letters I have referred to, recognizes it as having existed, and, on the contrary, the very connected story they tell implies, necessarily, that it never did exist. That Hamilton's revision, from which I have supposed that Washington copied his autograph in extenso in the first instance, before he altered any part of it,— the same which the Preface in Mr. Irving's Appendix calls Hamilton's second draught,—will never be found, is another matter. There can be no doubt that Washington, according to his uniform habit, of which the traces are strong in regard to the papers concerning the Farewell Address, did preserve it up to the time of his death. In all probability, it will not be found, if there has been anything illicit in its disap

134 HAMILTON'S REVISION, THE EXEMPLAR OF AUTOGraph.

pearance. If it shall be found, it will supersede this conjecture as to the immediate exemplar of the autograph copy; but there is quite enough in the original draught of Hamilton, compared with the autograph copy, to convert all the conjectures, which the recovery of that revision would supersede, into most reasonable certainty at the present time.

I assume, therefore, as reasonably well proved, that Washington wrote that autograph copy from the revision by Hamilton of his original draught, amended or corrected, which was sent to Washington on the 6th of September; and that Washington copied the whole of that revision in extenso, as it was obviously his intention to do, when he wrote his letter to Hamilton of the 25th of August; and that afterwards he cancelled and altered, as the cancelled passages and altered words, now restored by Mr. Lenox, or by his direction, will show. This, I repeat, is mere hypothesis; but the appearances will be found to sustain it strongly; and if they do not, the main question will stand as it did before the suggestion was made.

There are one or two facts or appearances noticed by the proprietor of the autograph copy, which seem to cross this theory of a complete transfer of the revision into that copy in the first instance, before parts were cancelled. But, perhaps, for want of access to the original of the printed copy, they do not appear to me to be decisive; and there are also several facts or appearances which seem to be irreconcilable with any other hypothesis, or with the actual condition of the autograph copy, as the printed copy from it shows it to be. I will consider the appearances or facts of each description.

There is nothing decisive in the fact which is noticed by the proprietor of the autograph copy, that some of " the altera"tions were evidently made during the writing of the paper," as "in these instances, a part and even the whole of a “sentence is struck out, which afterwards occurs in the body "of the Address."

These changes are certainly few and partial, and they may have been made in the course of the writing, without conducing materially to the proof that this was generally the case with the other alterations.

The only instances of this nature which I have discovered, though there may be others, are two, one on page 359 in Mr. Irving's Appendix, and the other on page 360. The last will be noticed in another place. On page 359, two lines are transferred from an earlier part of a sentence to the end of a paragraph, which is the end of the same sentence. It would probably require close inspection of the autograph to determine that this change had been made "during the "writing of the paper," and not afterwards. I do not mean to question the fact, for I have not examined the autograph in reference to this point; but little if any more space would have been necessary for the insertion of the two lines cancelled, than is commonly left between paragraphs.

But supposing that in this, and in the other instance to be noticed presently, Washington did transpose parts of a paragraph" in the course of writing," and even cancel a short paragraph, and write another leaving out a line or two of the first, there is strong countervailing evidence against this as being the general course.

There are ten clauses in small type at the foot of the pages in Mr. Irving's Appendix which, by the Preface, are indi