1.  He never gave an opinion in the cabinet against the rights of the people (page 97); yet he advised the denunciation of the popular societies (page 67).

2.  He would not neglect the overtures of a commercial treaty with France (page 79); yet he always opposed it while Attorney General, and never seems to have proposed it while Secretary of State.

3.  He concurs in resorting to the militia to quell the pretended insurrections in the west (page 81), and proposes an augmentation from twelve thousand five hundred to fifteen thousand, to march against men at their ploughs (page 80); yet on the 5th of August he is against their marching (pages 83, 101), and on the 25th of August he is for it (page 84).

4.  He concurs in the measure of a mission extraordinary to London (as is inferred from page 58), but objects to the men, to wit, Hamilton and Jay (page 50).

5.  He was against granting commercial powers to Mr. Jay (page 58); yet he besieged the doors of the Senate to procure their advice to ratify.

6.  He advises the President to a ratification on the merits of the treaty (page 97), but to a suspension till the provision order is repealed (page 98).  The fact is, that he has generally given his principles to the one party, and his practice to the other; the oyster to one, the shell to the other.  Unfortunately, the shell was generally the lot of his friends, the French and republicans, and the oyster of their antagonists.  Had he been firm to the principles he professes in the year 1793, the President would have been kept from an habitual concert with the British and anti-republican party.  But at that time, I do not know which R. feared most, a British fleet, or French disorganizers.  Whether his conduct is to be ascribed to a superior view of things, and adherence to right without regard to party, as he pretends, or to an anxiety to trim between both, those who know his character and capacity will decide.  Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office, as in England, to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man.  But where the principle of difference is as substantial, and as strongly pronounced, as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part, and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.

A copy of the pamphlet came by this post to Charlottesville.  I suppose we shall be able to judge soon what kind of impression it is likely to make.  It has been a great treat to me, as it is a continuation of that cabinet history, with the former part of which I was intimate.  I remark, in the reply of the President, a small travestie of the sentiment contained in the answer of the Representatives.  They acknowledge that he has contributed a great share to the national happiness by his services.  He thanks them for ascribing to his agency a great share of those benefits.  The former keeps in view the co-operation of others towards the public good.  The latter presents to view his sole agency.  At a time when there would have been less anxiety to publish to the people a strong approbation from your House, this strengthening of your expression would not have been noticed.