Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow to israel wilkes 2 - The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 9

Return to Title Page for The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 9

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

to israel wilkes 2 - Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 9 [1774]

Edition used:

The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 9.

Part of: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), 12 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


to israel wilkes2

November 8, 1785.

Sir:

The message which you sent me yesterday, and your letter today, were conceived in terms to which I am little accustomed. Where I to consult my feelings only upon the occasion, I should return an answer very different from that which I have, in justice to my own conduct, resolved upon. But in whatever ever light we are to view each other hereafter, and however harsh and indelicate I may think the method you have taken to obtain an explanation to be, I shall, for my own part, leave no room to suppose that I intentionally gave you any cause to complain. I shall, therefore, explicitly declare, that whatever inattention may have appeared towards you, was solely owing to the continual hurry in which my engagements, for a long time past, have kept me; and that, so far from its having been occasioned by any designed neglect, it was what, under the circumstances, might have happened to my best friend. Indeed, much of what you mention to have been done by you, I am a stranger to. The frequent callings, by yourself and by your servant, did not, that I recollect, come to my knowledge. It is possible some of them might have been mentioned to me, and, in the hurry of my mind, forgotten. Once, I remember, I saw your servant just as I was going out on some urgent business. I sent a verbal message, promising that I would see you; which I intended to do, as soon as I had made up my resolution on the business of the interview. When I received your note I was about sending you an answer in writing; but, upon inquiring for your servant, and finding him gone, I omitted it, with an intention to see you personally.

You say it is near six months since you first applied to me on the business in question. A great part of the time I gave you all the answer I could give you—to wit, that I had written to Mr. Macaulay, and only waited his answer. About two months since, I received it. I have been the greater part of the time out of town on indispensable business. In the intervals I have been occupied about objects of immediate and absolute necessity, which could not have been delayed without letting my business run into utter confusion. Mr. Macaulay’s concerns have been hanging upon my spirits. I have been promising myself, from day to day, to bring them to a conclusion, but more pressing objects have unavoidably postponed it. I thought the delay required some apology to Mr. Macaulay, but I never dreamt of having given occasion of offence to you.

I will not, however, deny, upon a review of what has passed, that there have been, through hurry and inadvertency on my part, appearances of neglect towards you; but between gentlemen and men of business, unfavorable conclusions ought not to be drawn before explanations are asked. Allowances ought to be made for the situations of parties; and the omissions of men, deeply involved in business, ought rather to be ascribed to that cause than to ill intentions.

Had you, in the first instance, expressed to me (in such a manner as respect for yourself and delicacy to me dictated) your sense of these appearances, I should have taken pains to satisfy you that nothing improper towards you was intended by me. But to make one of my clerks the instrument of communication, and the bearer to me of a harsh accusation, was ill-judged and ungenteel. To take it for granted that you had received an injury from me, without first giving me an opportunity of an explanation, and to couch your sense of it in terms so offensive as some of those used in your letter, is an additional instance of precipitation and rudeness. Inadvertencies susceptible of misapprehension, I may commit; but I am incapable of intending to wound or injure any man who has given me no cause for it; and I am incapable of doing any thing, sir, of which I need be ashamed. The intimation, on your part, is unmerited and unwarrantable. After thus having explained my own conduct to you, and given you my ideas of yours, it will depend on yourself how far I shall be indifferent, or not, to your future sentiments of my character. I shall only add, that tomorrow you shall receive from me my determination on the matter of business between us.

[2]This letter is given in the edition of 1850 as addressed to John Wilkes, but as he was never in this country, the first sentence, “the message which you sent me yesterday and your letter today,” shows that it could not have been written to John Wilkes, but must have been addressed to some one in New York. The following letter, now first printed from the Hamilton papers in the State Department, throws light on the subject:

to———.

New York, June 18, 1784.

Sir:



I have been duly honored with your letter of the 30th of March, and am much flattered by the confidence you have reposed in me. I should with pleasure have undertaken to execute your wishes had I been in a situation that left me at liberty to do it; but it has happened that Mr. Wilkes, some time since, applied to me on the same subject; and though I was not absolutely retained by him, yet as I have been consulted on the business, I should conceive it improper to act against him. In this dilemma, as you were at a great distance, and he might elude your pursuit before you could make a new choice of a person to manage the affair for you, I thought it my duty to transfer the trust to some person on the spot, to whose judgment and integrity your interests might be safely committed. I have fixed upon Mr. Samuel Jones 1 for this purpose, a gentleman as distinguished for his probity as for his professional knowledge, and have accordingly substituted him in my place.

He has had Mr. Wilkes arrested upon your demand, who, not being able to obtain bail, is of course, in prison. This has been done in pursuance of your intimation that Mr. Wilkes’ friends are able to do something for him; and it is to be hoped that, rather than suffer him to be in jail, they will either satisfy or become bound for at least a part of your demand. This seems to be your only resource; for he has no property in this country, and has been of late in no way of acquiring any.

He did not (as you had been informed) accompany Mrs. Hayley 2 to this country; but it is reported that she has lately arrived at Boston.

I am requested by Mr. Jones to mention to you that it will be necessary you should furnish him with the account of sales rendered by Mr. Wilkes, and, at the same time, with the bills of exchange which he accepted. He wishes to be possessed of these as evidence in case of a controverted suit. You mention that the bills of exchange were sent to New York, but you do not say to whom. On tracing the matter, we have reason to conclude they were sent to Mr. McAdam; but as he is now in England, we cannot have recourse to him to obtain them. Circumstanced as I am, I must now take leave of this business, without acting hereafter on either side.

But as a just representation of facts is always most conducive to the settlement of disputes, and may enable you the better to judge what course it will be proper for you to pursue, I think it incumbent upon me, from the confidence you have been pleased to repose in me, to inform you that I have taken pains to ascertain the quality and condition of the wines of both cargoes on their arrival in this country; and the result of my inquiries of gentlemen who could not be mistaken in the matter, and on whose veracity I can depend, has been that the wine of the second, as well as the first, cargo was in general either damaged or of indifferent quality, and necessarily sold at very low rates.

I am inclined to suspect that Mr. Wilkes’ intention will be to endeavor to procure an act of insolvency in his favor at the next meeting of the Legislature (continuing in the meantime in confinement), and that he will in this expectation rather discourage his friends from becoming sureties for him.

I think, with proper management on the part of those concerned for you, it will be very difficult for him to succeed in this scheme; but moderation in your behalf will be best calculated to frustrate the experiment, and lay him under a necessity of calling in the aid of his friends.

I persuade myself you will do justice to the motives of these intimations, and, though I have it not in my power to serve you upon the present occasion, will permit me to make you an offer of my best services upon every other, and to assure you that I am, with much consideration and esteem, etc. 1

wilkes to hamilton

November 9, 1785.

Sir:

The moment I received yours, I perceived the precipitancy of my own conduct, and was very sorry I had so far mistaken both our characters as to act in the manner I have done. I flatter myself that the same candor which has dictated yours will be exerted towards mine, and that you will only view it as the act of a man who conceived himself injured. As you have never experienced the cruel reverses of fortune, you can scarcely judge how the least insinuations to their prejudice will affect those persons who have; or how much more suspicious they are of the behavior of mankind towards them.

The morning I left the message for you I had been called upon by one of the creditors of Mr. Heart, who thought it very strange no dividend was made; and he insinuated some party must be interested in the delay. It is the first money transaction I have engaged in since my release. I felt the insinuation as alluding to me, and with a force which, perhaps, I should not. However, that moment I went to your office.

The next morning, when I saw your note to Mr. Atkinson, and found myself totally set aside in a business where I had, most undoubtedly, been originally neglected, I felt myself very much agitated, and in that frame of mind I wrote my last to you.

So much I thought it necessary to add in explanation.

I am convinced now I have been too hasty, and I am sorry for it. It will put me on my guard in future, and, I make no doubt, prove beneficial to me, provided it has not been the means of hurting me in your estimation, which I am now more desirous than ever of obtaining.

I am, sir, etc.

john wilkes.1

[2]This letter is given in the edition of 1850 as addressed to John Wilkes, but as he was never in this country, the first sentence, “the message which you sent me yesterday and your letter today,” shows that it could not have been written to John Wilkes, but must have been addressed to some one in New York. The following letter, now first printed from the Hamilton papers in the State Department, throws light on the subject:

to———.

New York, June 18, 1784.

Sir:



I have been duly honored with your letter of the 30th of March, and am much flattered by the confidence you have reposed in me. I should with pleasure have undertaken to execute your wishes had I been in a situation that left me at liberty to do it; but it has happened that Mr. Wilkes, some time since, applied to me on the same subject; and though I was not absolutely retained by him, yet as I have been consulted on the business, I should conceive it improper to act against him. In this dilemma, as you were at a great distance, and he might elude your pursuit before you could make a new choice of a person to manage the affair for you, I thought it my duty to transfer the trust to some person on the spot, to whose judgment and integrity your interests might be safely committed. I have fixed upon Mr. Samuel Jones 1 for this purpose, a gentleman as distinguished for his probity as for his professional knowledge, and have accordingly substituted him in my place.

He has had Mr. Wilkes arrested upon your demand, who, not being able to obtain bail, is of course, in prison. This has been done in pursuance of your intimation that Mr. Wilkes’ friends are able to do something for him; and it is to be hoped that, rather than suffer him to be in jail, they will either satisfy or become bound for at least a part of your demand. This seems to be your only resource; for he has no property in this country, and has been of late in no way of acquiring any.

He did not (as you had been informed) accompany Mrs. Hayley 2 to this country; but it is reported that she has lately arrived at Boston.

I am requested by Mr. Jones to mention to you that it will be necessary you should furnish him with the account of sales rendered by Mr. Wilkes, and, at the same time, with the bills of exchange which he accepted. He wishes to be possessed of these as evidence in case of a controverted suit. You mention that the bills of exchange were sent to New York, but you do not say to whom. On tracing the matter, we have reason to conclude they were sent to Mr. McAdam; but as he is now in England, we cannot have recourse to him to obtain them. Circumstanced as I am, I must now take leave of this business, without acting hereafter on either side.

But as a just representation of facts is always most conducive to the settlement of disputes, and may enable you the better to judge what course it will be proper for you to pursue, I think it incumbent upon me, from the confidence you have been pleased to repose in me, to inform you that I have taken pains to ascertain the quality and condition of the wines of both cargoes on their arrival in this country; and the result of my inquiries of gentlemen who could not be mistaken in the matter, and on whose veracity I can depend, has been that the wine of the second, as well as the first, cargo was in general either damaged or of indifferent quality, and necessarily sold at very low rates.

I am inclined to suspect that Mr. Wilkes’ intention will be to endeavor to procure an act of insolvency in his favor at the next meeting of the Legislature (continuing in the meantime in confinement), and that he will in this expectation rather discourage his friends from becoming sureties for him.

I think, with proper management on the part of those concerned for you, it will be very difficult for him to succeed in this scheme; but moderation in your behalf will be best calculated to frustrate the experiment, and lay him under a necessity of calling in the aid of his friends.

I persuade myself you will do justice to the motives of these intimations, and, though I have it not in my power to serve you upon the present occasion, will permit me to make you an offer of my best services upon every other, and to assure you that I am, with much consideration and esteem, etc. 1

wilkes to hamilton

November 9, 1785.

Sir:

The moment I received yours, I perceived the precipitancy of my own conduct, and was very sorry I had so far mistaken both our characters as to act in the manner I have done. I flatter myself that the same candor which has dictated yours will be exerted towards mine, and that you will only view it as the act of a man who conceived himself injured. As you have never experienced the cruel reverses of fortune, you can scarcely judge how the least insinuations to their prejudice will affect those persons who have; or how much more suspicious they are of the behavior of mankind towards them.

The morning I left the message for you I had been called upon by one of the creditors of Mr. Heart, who thought it very strange no dividend was made; and he insinuated some party must be interested in the delay. It is the first money transaction I have engaged in since my release. I felt the insinuation as alluding to me, and with a force which, perhaps, I should not. However, that moment I went to your office.

The next morning, when I saw your note to Mr. Atkinson, and found myself totally set aside in a business where I had, most undoubtedly, been originally neglected, I felt myself very much agitated, and in that frame of mind I wrote my last to you.

So much I thought it necessary to add in explanation.

I am convinced now I have been too hasty, and I am sorry for it. It will put me on my guard in future, and, I make no doubt, prove beneficial to me, provided it has not been the means of hurting me in your estimation, which I am now more desirous than ever of obtaining.

I am, sir, etc.

john wilkes.1

[1]Afterwards Chief Justice of New York, called “the father of the New York Bar,” and a very eminent lawyer.

[2]Mary Wilkes, youngest sister of the famous agitator, maried, first, Samuel Stork, merchant, of London; second, George Hayley, alderman. After the death of Mr. Hayley she came to this country, and remained for some time, chiefly in Boston, where she married her third husband, Mr. Jefreys, with whom she returned to London in 1803.

[1]This letter has no address, but is evidently written to some one in England who wished to retain Hamilton as counsel. The allusion to Mrs. Hayley makes it clear that the Mr. Wilkes to whom the letter in the text was addressed was of the agitator’s family, while the letter just given shows that it could not have been John Wilkes, as Mr. J. C. Hamilton has it, because an eminent New York lawyer could not have arrested and put in prison in New York a man who was never in this country. It is plain, therefore, that the Mr. Wilkes intended was the eldest brother of the agitator, Israel Wilkes, who came to New York at quite an early age and, with the exception of occasional visits to England, remained there until his death in his eighty-first year. It is impossible now to unravel the details of the affair, and as it was purely a matter of business the letters might have been omitted had not Mr. J. C. Hamilton seen fit to print one of them with what must be a wrong address. I have not been able to determine, or even guess at, Hamilton’s would-be client. It may be that he was the Mr. Macaulay mentioned in the letter in the text, but that helps us but little. Mrs. Macaulay, the historian, was in intimate relation with the Wilkes family, and is constantly mentioned in the letters of John Wilkes and his daughter, but her husband was not Mr. but Dr. Macaulay. The most curious thing is that Mr. J. C. Hamilton prints an answer from “John Wilkes,” written in reply to Hamilton’s of the day before, given above.

[1]I have shown that the Wilkes in question must have been one of the family of the English agitator, and could not have been the agitator himself, but could, and indeed must have been, his brother Israel. Why Mr. J. C. Hamilton should have printed the letter as from John Wilkes cannot be determined. That the original should have been signed” John Wilkes” seems most unlikely.