“ sence) when making up the last Package, omitted the 2 ^nd. vol. of the Statutes at Large--it is now forwarded. I hope in the course of the ensuing fall to publish the 4 ^th. vol. of this work, which shall be forwarded without delay . . .”

The history of Jefferson’s connection with the publication of the statutes of Virginia, beginning from the original proposition after the passing of the act in the session of 1795, is given by Hening in the Preface.

As the publication would depend largely for its material on Jefferson’s collection of manuscripts as described above, the latter was approached in that year by George Wythe. Jefferson’s answer to Wythe, dated January 16, 1796, in which he gave an account of what such a publication would entail, is quoted in full by Hening who however omitted Jefferson’s list appended to this letter of his collection of manuscript and printed laws.

Throughout the volumes the several manuscripts from the Jefferson collection are so acknowledged by Hening, and collated with other manuscripts, the various readings being duly noted.

The correspondence between Jefferson and Hening on the subject of the publication of the Statutes at Large, and on the Jefferson collection of manuscript and printed laws is as follows:

On December 26, 1806, Hening wrote from Richmond to Jefferson: “Encouraged by several friends members of the General Assembly and others, I have it in contemplation to undertake the publication of the Statutes at Large, from the first settlement of the colony of Virginia to the present time. But knowing that whoever undertakes a work of that kind must be, in a great measure, dependent upon you for materials, I am unwilling to commit myself until I know how far I may rely upon your assistance.

"The collection which you have made, is undoubtedly the best extant, of the fugitive sessions acts. These, with such as I could procure from Judge Tucker, would, perhaps, make the collection as complete as could now be expected. But I am very apprehensive that the state of some of your M. S. acts would not permit a removal to this place; and my public duties would hardly allow me to transcribe them myself.--if this objection could be obviated, in any manner, I should not hesitate to undertake the work.-- Many of the acts, in your collection, I have myself and could procure here, but there are several others of which you have a single copy.--In no instance would I request the use of your copies, where they could be obtained elsewhere.--You will particularly oblige me in stating how far I might rely upon the use of your collection of acts printed & M.S. and I shall govern myself accordingly, in my engagements with the public.”

Jefferson replied from Washington on January 14, 1807: “ Your letter of Dec. 26. was recieved in due time. the only object I had in making my collection of the laws of Virginia, was to save all those for the public which were not then already lost, in the hope that at some future day they might be republished. whether this be by public or private enterprize, my end will be equally answered. the work divides itself into two very distinct parts, to wit, the printed & the unprinted laws. the former begin in 1682. (Pervis’s collection). my collection of these is in strong volumes, well bound, and therefore may safely be transported any where. any of these volumes which you do not possess, are at your service for the purpose of republication. but the unprinted laws, are dispersed through many MS. volumes, several of them so decayed, that the leaf can never be opened but once without falling into powder. these can never bear removal further than from their shelf to a table. they are, as well as I recollect, from 1622. downwards. I formerly made such a digest of their order, and the volumes where they are to be found, that, under my own superintendance they could be copied with once handling. more they would not bear. hence the impracticability of their being copied but at Monticello. but independant of them the printed laws, beginning in 1682. with all our former printed collections, will be a most valuable publication, & sufficiently distinct. I shall have no doubt of the exactness of your part of the work but I hope you will take measures for having the typography & paper worthy of the work. I am led to this caution by the scandalous volume of our laws printed by Pleasants in 1803. & those by Davis in ”