management of their affairs, I am influenced by neither personal nor family interests, and especially, that the field of public office will not be perverted by me into a family property.  On this subject, I had the benefit of useful lessons from my predecessors, had I needed them, marking what was to be imitated and what avoided.  But, in truth, the nature of our government is lesson enough.  Its energy depending mainly on the confidence of the people, in their Chief Magistrate, makes it his duty to spare nothing which can strengthen him with that confidence.

*****

Accept assurances of my constant friendship and respect.

Th:  Jefferson.

LETTER XLVIII.—­TO JOHN NORVELL, June 11, 1807

TO JOHN NORVELL.

Washington, June 11, 1807.

Sir,

Your letter of May the 9th has been duly received.  The subjects it proposes would require time and space for even moderate developement.  My occupations limit me to a very short notice of them.  I think there does not exist a good elementary work on the organization of society into civil government:  I mean a work which presents in one full and comprehensive view the system of principles on which such an organization should be founded, according to the rights of nature.  For want of a single work of that character, I should recommend Locke on Government, Sidney, Priestley’s Essay on the First Principles of Government, Chipman’s Principles of Government, and the Federalist.  Adding, perhaps, Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments, because of the demonstrative manner in which he has treated that branch of the subject.  If your views of political inquiry go further, to the subjects of money and commerce, Smith’s Wealth of Nations is the best book to be read, unless Say’s Political Economy can be had, which treats the same subjects on the same principles, but in a shorter compass, and more lucid manner.  But I believe this work has not been translated into our language.

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.  But as we have employed some of the best materials of the British constitution in the construction of our own government, a knowledge of British history becomes useful to the American politician.  There is, however, no general history of that country which can be recommended.  The elegant one of Hume seems intended to disguise and discredit the good principles of the government, and is so plausible and pleasing in its style and manner, as to instil its errors and heresies insensibly into the minds of unwary readers.  Baxter has performed a good operation on it.  He has taken the text of Hume as his ground-work, abridging it by the omission of some details of little interest, and wherever he has found him endeavoring to mislead, by either the suppression of a truth, or by giving it a false coloring, he has changed the text to what it should be, so that we may properly call it Hume’s