of the fundamental axioms of our governmentowes its origin to the clear head, varied experience, and broad and enlightened statesmanship of Algernon Sidney.

The counsels of England were then swayed by the gold of France, and the king, as well as his ministers, regularly retained in the pay of Louis. Charles wished to defeat the Country Party by the help of these dishonorable contributions; while the French king to maintain the balance of power, foment discord, and thereby divert attention from his favorite designs upon Flanders, bribed also the leaders of the opposition. It was plain that the vital interest of the nation demanded an alliance with the United Provinces, as a check to the enormous increase of territory, and influence aimed at by Louis. All the energy of Sidney was exerted in favor of France, and against the confederacy with Holland. His zeal in this cause was the more remarkable, when it was remembered he had tried to obtain the support of DeWitt in the formation of a British commonwealth, and that his public life had been one continued struggle against the abuses and injustice of royalty. His former partisans might well wonder at this radical change of tactics, and that from being the advocate of extreme republicanism; he had stooped to assist the cause of the most despotic sovereign in Europe, against the established government of his country. The explanation of this otherwise mysterious fact is to be found in the accounts of Barillon, the French Ambassador at London, and the agent of Louis in all his schemes of corruption. The name of Algernon Sidney appears upon his books as the recipient of five hundred guineas, on two different occasions; and his intimacy at Versailles during his residence in France, only tends to substantiate the foul and humiliating charge; that the professed imitator of Brutus, the pattern of republican virtue and the uncompromising friend of liberty, was the hireling of an arbitrary monarch, and had been induced to dishonor the record of a lifetime by the glitter of foreign gold.

The connection of Sidney with the Rye House Plot, has never been satisfactorily explained. While countenancing insurrection, it does not appear that he was in favor of the assassination of the Stuarts, or was even privy to the design; but it can hardly be denied that his presence in the Council of Six encouraged the more daring of the

conspirators; or that a man who had applauded the taking off of one monarch by illegal mears, would condemn the death of another by any a of violence however criminal. The fortunes the great Whig leaders were now becoming des perate. Shaftesbury had escaped to Holland. Monmouth, though still the idol of the populat. felt that with the decline of the Country Parts, and the defeat of the Exclusion Bill, his chances for the succession had vanished beyond recovery. The mob, tired of numerous executions, were beginning to question the truth of the Popish Pix. A reaction had taken place in favor of the throne. and Oates and his fellow perjurors, having entere the service of the court, were swearing away the lives of their late supporters with the utmos complacency. By a bold stroke of policy, and the proceeding of quo warranto, Charles had seized

the charters of the cities, and obtained control of the great corporations of the kingdom. Thwarted in all their projects, the discontented Whigs hatched the clumsy conspiracy which owed its detection and punishment to the double treachery of Lord Howard. Russell was beheaded in spite of the efforts of his illustrious family to secure a commutation of his sentence. Then the cause of Sidney came on in the King's Bench. In all the annals of English jurisprudence, since the days of Magna Charta, there does not appear a single instance in which the customs of the realm were so flagrantly abused, the principles of justice so disregarded, and the rules of law and evidence so tortured and falsified to convict an innocent man, as during this celebrated trial. Sir George Jeffries

the obsequious tool of the court-whose vices and outrageous behavior have secured for him an immortality of infamy-was made Chief Justice for the sole purpose of destroying Sidney, and burning with hatred toward the Whigs, who had forced him to resign the recordership of London, he determined to pay for his official position, and at the same time gratify his revenge by the ruin of the most distinguished leader of the Popular Party.

Upon being arraigned, Sidney confused by the incoherent language of the indictment, requested a copy, which was refused by the court; nor was the statute upon which the prosecution was based permitted to be read. The indictment contained seven charges of distinct offences, ranging all the way from libel to treason, each of which was alleged to have been committed on the 30th of June, 1683, at which date the accused was a close prisoner in the Tower. Sidney objected to this extraordinary document, but the court required. him to demur or plead, furnishing at the same time the false information, that if the demurrer was overruled he could not plead to the merits, the facts having been admitted; but would be subjected to judgment without further delay. In impanelling the jury, the privileges of the citywhich gave the mayor the right to name one of the sheriffs, who in his turn assisted in making out the list of jurors-were openly violated. The court appointed both sheriffs, who proceeded to pack a jury favorable to the crown, or in the language of Burnet, "men's pulses were tried beforehand to see how tractable they would be." Sidney challenged the array as not being composed of his peers, but the challenge was not allowed. By an act of Henry IV., no person could sit on a jury in a capital case who was not a freeholder to the amount of forty shillings, and by this statute more than half of the jurors ought to have been excluded, but Jeffries refused to listen to this objection. A jockey, a cheesemonger, a tailor, a lacky, three carpenters and five petty tradesmen, were enrolled to judge the son of the Earl of Leicester, the relative of some of England' sproudest nobility, who could trace back the line of his illustrious ancestry for more than five hundred years! Three witnesses, unpardoned criminals, and therefore incompetent, were introduced for no other reason than to prejudice the jury against the prisoner; for their testimony had no bearing

whatever upon the case. The evidence of Lord Howard, who was next called, was mainly heresay, and contained nothing clear or pointing to any matured design either of the defendant or his confederates. According to the statute of Edward III., two witnesses to each overt-act of treason were necessary to secure conviction. To supply the place of a second witness, a treatise written many years before in refutation of the "Patriarcha" of Filmer, and found among the papers of Sidney, was produced in evidence by the crown. Filmer was a champion of the divine right of kings, and his book was a puerile argument in favor of the holy origin of despotic government, and of the abject submission of the people. In Sidney's answer, which effectually demolished this absurd doctrine, abstract principles alone were stated, and no reference whatever was made to

the evils of any particular administration of modern times, least of all to that of England. Garbled portions of this work were read, false constructions were applied to them, the date was not established, the handwriting was not identified, nor was publication even attempted to be proved. Unaided by counsel, and destitute of all knowledge of law, Sidney made a gallant defence, though well aware of his hopeless and desperate position. Twelve witnesses, men of the highest probity and respectability, contradicted the evidence of Lord Howard and impeached his character, but all to no purpose. Denied justice, Sidney was unable to obtain even the benefit of that courtesy which should ever be extended to greatness in misfortune. The ferocious insolence

frank and candid behavior. Calm, severe, energetic, sagacious in council, brave even to rashness in the field, a profound thinker, a clear and logical writer, a wary diplomatist, an enlightened legislator, a skillful commander, the adherent of no sect, and the pronounced enemy of religious persecution, he stands forth conspicuously among the remarkable men by whom he was surrounded. When we think of him we recall the days when canting hypocrisy was so strangely allied with those privileges and that freedom so endeared to all mankind; when the soldier groaned and whimpered in the camp, and went forth to battle armed with the invincible power of fanaticism; when Vane saw angels in the air, and heard the voice of demons summoning him to eternal perdion; when Cromwell, concealing his lofty aspirations under that plausible deceit which he condered the greatest triumph of political wisdom, romped with his guards, and smutted the faces of his coadjutors, and then, in an instant, laying aside his folly, assumed the terrors and pomp of royalty, and sent forth edicts which awed his despotic neighbors and shook the remotest thrones of Europe.

The morose disposition of Sidney, and his broad views on religious subjects, permitted him little sympathy with either the buffoonery or superstition of his Puritan associates. In many of

his opinions far in advance of his age, he endeavored to sustain in the seventeenth century theories of government which it took the people two hundred years more to recognize and adopt; and the controlling maxims of his creed, which he died to establish, may be best given in his own concise and forcible language: "The laws of every nation are the measure of magisterial power. That which is not just is not law, and that which is not law ought not to be obeyed. It is reasonable and proper to resist to the utmost vicious and tyrannical kings."

A martyr to principle, convicted by proceedings which under color of justice were illegal and void from the beginning, and wherein were equally manifested the cowardly vengeance of a degraded court and the unblushing exercise of judicial tyranny, we see much that is noble and illustrious in his career; and while censuring his faults and deploring his untimely fate, we are reminded that

"They never fail who die

In a great cause; the block may soak their gore;
Their heads may sodden in the sun; their limbs
Be strung to city gates and castle walls-
But still their spirit walks abroad. Though years
Elapse, and others share as dark a doom,
They but augment the deep and sweeping thoughts
Which overpower all others, and conduct
The world at last to freedom."

The best paper perhaps ever written in connec

of the Declaration of Independence which has elicited more interesting discussion than that of where it was written. The question has ever been one of no little importance in the estimation of American antiquarians and exact historic scholars, but just at this jubilee time, when the heart of every true American beats with accelerated ardor and glows with patriotic enthusiasm in the contemplation of each memorial of the events of one hundred years ago, and when the mind of every true American is specially intent on the ascertain ing of facts connected with his country's earlier history, at this time the question assumes importance in the estimation even of those hitherto indifferent to such questions.

graceful pen of Miss Agnes Y. McAllister, and appeared in the AMERICAN MONTHLY for March, 1875, at page 223. The writer clearly demonstrated that the house wherein Thomas Jefferson "rented the second floor, consisting of parlor and bed-room, ready furnished," was "the house of a Mr. Graaf, a new brick house, three stories high" -so much beyond question, from written proofs in Mr. Jefferson's possession; and that, according to his recollection, "Graaff was a young man, son of a German, and then newly married;" that "he was a bricklayer, and that his house was on the south side of Market street, probably between Seventh and Eighth." From Jefferson's "idea

that it was a corner-house," Nicholas Biddle, in April, 1827, declared "That house is now a warehouse in the centre of Philadelphia, standing at the Southwest corner of Market and Seventh streets;" twenty-eight years later, John McAllister, Jr., reaffirmed Mr. Biddle's opinion; and his daughter, in the admirable article referred to, naturally accepts the same, declaring "The Declaration was written in the house, still standing, at the southwest corner of Seventh and Market streets." And this declaration has been received by critics generally as a final determination of the question; and, so far as we are aware, no one has disputed that conclusion until, a few days since, Mr. G. S. S. Richards called upon us and submitted for our examination some memoranda of a search among the tomes of the Recorder of Deeds' office, which he thought afforded indisputable proofs that "the house, still standing, at the southwest corner of Seventh and Market streets" could not have been the one in which the Declaration was written. We have since carefully tested Mr. Richards's proofs, thoroughly examining the official records and critically analyzing the several Deeds on record in connection with the cornerhouse and lot and the adjoining house and lot on Market street, and have no hesitation in emphatically asserting that the Declaration of Independence was not written in the house on the southwest corner of Seventh and Market streetsthat the said house was not erected until some time after the 24th of July, 1777, and after the property had been sold by Mr. Graff.

We are free to acknowledge that we had hith erto accepted the corner-house theory, partly in deference to the acknowledged judgment and intelligence of its advocates, but chiefly because we knew no better theory to advance which so nearly corresponded with the peculiar phraseology of Mr. Jefferson's letter, as quoted by Nicholas Biddle, and from him by Miss McAllister, though we have never been quite convinced-indeed, we have felt that the edifice could not have been a corner-house, and this feeling has arisen mainly from the plain significance of some clauses in the letter alluded to. But now we are happy to be able positively to indicate a house, also "still standing," which was built and occupied by Mr. Graff (Graaf), and which is unquestionably entitled to our regard and veneration as the house hallowed by the writing therein of the Certificate

of our Nation's Birth-the only house which “. * and in every particular corresponds with M: Jefferson's description.

Before citing the records, let us glance bety at the letter and consider the probabilities, in. light of that letter, recollecting Mr. Jeffers. characteristic habits and mental peculiarities.

"Monticello, Sept. 15, 1825.

"DEAR SIR:-It is not for me to estimate t importance of the circumstances concerning wh your letter of the 8th makes inquiry. They prove even in their minuteness, the sacred attachmen of our fellow-citizens to the event of which te paper of July 4, 1776, was but the Declaratis, the genuine effusion of the soul of our country t that time. Small things may, perhaps, like Drelics of saints, help to nourish our devotion, to this holy bond of our union, and keep it longr alive and warm in our affections. This effect m. give importance to circumstances, however sta At the time of writing that instrument, I logi in the house of a Mr. Graaf, a new brick hort. three stories high, of which I rented the sex of floor, consisting of a parlor and bed-room, rea furnished. In that parlor I wrote habitually, and in it wrote this paper, particularly.

"So far, I state from written proofs in my pos session. The proprietor, Graaf, was a young m.“ son of a German, and then newly married. I think he was a bricklayer, and that his house was on the south side of Market street, probably be tween Seventh and Eighth streets, and if not t only house on that part of the street, I am sur there were few others near it. I have some d that it was a corner house, but no other recolle tions throwing any light on the question, or wor communication. I will, therefore, only add asstor ance of my great respect and esteem.

TH. JEFFERSON.

"DR. JAMES MEASE, Philadelphia."

Observe: "I think that his hom was on the south side of Market street, probab between Seventh and Eighth streets. I have some idea that it was a corner house, but r other recollections throwing any light on the ure tion, or worth communication."

Mr. Jefferson was habitually an early riser. boasting that the sun had not caught him in tel for half a century. Had the two rooms rented