American Revolution, so that I am almost afraid to refer to it-yet I will-there is an Essay of Swift on the dissentions of Athens and Rome, in which the downfall of those Republics, is clearly traced to the same fatal error of placing power over property in different hands from those that held the property. The manner of doing the mischief there, was the vesting of all the powers of judicature in the people; but no matter how the manner may be varied, the principle is the same. There has been no change in the natural feelings, passions and appetites of men, any more than in their outward form, from the days of Solon to those of George Washington. Like political or moral causes put in action, have ever produced, and must forever produce, every where, like effects -in Athens, in Rome, in France, in America.

The resolution of the Legislative Committee, proposes to give to those who have comparatively little property, power over those who have a great deal to give to those who contribute the least, the power of taxation over those who contribute the most, to the public treasury-and (what seems most strange and incongruous) to give the power over property to numbers alone, in that branch of the Legislature which should be the especial guardian of property-in the revenue-giving branch. To my mind, Sir, the scheme is irreconcilable with the fundamental principle of representative Government, and militates against its peculiar mode of operation, in producing liberty at first, and then nurturing, fostering, defending and preserving it, for a thousand years. My friend from Hanover. (Mr. Morris) has already explained to the Committee, how the institution of the House of Commons in England, grew out of the necessities of the Crown to ask aids from the people. The free spirit of the Saxon laws, mingling with the sterner spirit of the feudal systein, had decreed that property was sacred. The lawful prerogative of the Crown at no time extended to taxation; and if violence was sometimes resorted to, the supplies it collected were scant and temporary. Originally, the whole function of the House of Commons, was to give money; but the money being theirs, it belonged to them to say, when, how much, for what purpose, they would give it. From the first, and invariably to this day, the Commons have been the sole representative of property-the Lords never have been regarded in that light. And from this power of the Commons to give or withhold money, have sprung all the liberties of England-all that has distinguished that nation from the other nations of Europe. They used their power over the purse, to extort freedom from the necessities of the King-and then to secure and defend it-they made his ambition, his waste, his very vices, work in favor of liberty. Every spark of English liberty was kindled at that golden lamp. "I ask money"-said the Crown money to resist or to conquer your enemies and mine"-" give us privileges then" (was the constant answer,) "acknowledge and secure our rights; and in order to secure them, put them into our own keeping."-Sir, I know it is the fashion to decry every thing that is English, or supposed to be so; I know that in the opinion of many, it is enough to condemn any proposition, in morals, or in politics, to denounce it as English doctrine; but that is neither my opinion nor my feeling. I know well enough that the sentiment is unpopular-but I laid it down as a law to myself when I entered this Convention, to conceal no feeling and no thought I entertain, and never to vary in the least from an exact exhibition of my opinions, so far as it is in the power of words to paint the mind-and I have no hesitation in saying, in the face of the whole world, that the English Government, is a free Government, and the English people a free people. I pray gentlemen to cast their eyes over the habitable globe, survey every form of civil Government, examine the condition of every society-and point me out one, if they can, who has even so much as a conception, and much more the enjoyment, of civil liberty, in our sense of it, save only the British nation and their descendants. England was the inventor, the founder of that representative Government we so justly and so highly prize. I shall, therefore, still study her institutions; exercise my judgment in ascertaining what is vitious, or rotten, or unsuitable to our condition; and rejecting that, hold fast to all that is sound and wise and good, and proved by experience to be fit and capable to secure liberty and property; property, without which liberty can never exist, or if it could, would be valueless. Give me liberty in the English sense-liberty founded on law, and protected by law-no liberty held at the will of demagogue or tyrant (for I have no choice between them) -no liberty for me to prey on others-no liberty for others to prey on me. I want no French liberty-none; a liberty which first attacked property, then the lives of its foes, then those of its friends; which prostrated all religion and morals; set up nature and reason, as Goddesses to be worshipped; afterwards condescended to decree, that there is a God; and, at last, embraced iron despotism as its heaven-destined spouse. Sir, the true, the peculiar advantage of the principle of representative Government, is, that it holds Government absolutely dependent on individual property-that it gives the owner of property an interest to watch the Government-that it puts the pursestrings in the hands of its owners. Leave those who are to contribute money, to determine the measure and the object of contribution, and none will ever knowingly give their money to destroy their own liberty. Give to those who are not to contribute,

the power to determine the measure and object of the contribution of others, and they may give it to destroy those from whom it is thus unjustly taken. From this false principle, the scheme of representation in question, is variant only in degree-it only proposes to give one portion of the people, power to take three dollars from another, for every dollar they contribute of their own. I say, therefore, that the plan is at war with the first principle of representative Government-and if it prevail, must destroy it-how soon, depends not on the wretched finite wisdom of man, but on the providence of God.

The resolution of the Legislative Committee, proposes to give the west power of taxation over the east, though it be apparent, that, in some respects, concerning as well the objects of taxes as the subjects of appropriation, the west has not only no common interest with the east, but a contrary or different interest. The interest of the west is contrary to ours, in regard to slaves considered as a subject of taxation, certainly and obviously. The unavoidable inequality of taxation upon all subjects, and the unavoidable equality of benefit from the revenue, give the west an interest to augment, and the east an interest to reduce, the amount of taxes. And, as to those internal improvements, those roads and canals, which seem, in the opinions of many, to be the only objects of Government, let any man survey the face of the country, and deny, if he can, that different, more extensive, and more expensive, works of the kind, are wanted, and even projected, in the west and in the north, than are wanted or have ever entered into the imagination of the east and the south. They would expend thousands where we would expend hundreds; that is, of our money; for if the expenditure was to be of their own, I cannot doubt they would grudge it as much as we do, or more. But this has been already fully explained by the gentleman from Fauquier. We are asked, gravely and importunately asked, and in a tone as if they thought the request the most reasonable in the world, to give them power to tax us three times as much as themselves, when their great object can only be, to apply the revenue (after providing for, perhaps stinting, the civil list) to those internal improvements they have so much at heart. Let it be always remembered, that as the east has never hitherto imposed any burdens, which have not borne more heavily on ourselves than on our western brethren, so neither will it ever be possible for the east, if the taxes be uniform, as uniform they must be, to levy any exactions on the west, which will not be more grievous to ourselves, so long as we hold a so much larger mass of taxable property: whereas the west may, by a uniform taxation, impose oppressive burdens on the east, which its own population will hardly feel the weight of. should be sorry to say any thing offensive to gentlemen from any quarter-but I must follow the lights of my own mind, and declare it as my opinion, that the cunning of man, or of the devil, cannot devise a more vexatious and grinding tyranny for any people, than to subject them to taxation by those, who have not the same interest with them, much more who have interests contrary to or different from theirs.

The resolution of the Legislative Committee, proposes to give full representation to the labour of the west, with an exemption from taxation, while the labour of the east will be subjected to taxation deprived of representation.

The complaint seems to shock gentlemen-I shall repeat my words. (He repeated I them)-In every civilized country under the sun, some there must be who labour for their daily bread, either by contract with, or subjection to others, or for themselves. Slaves, in the eastern part of this State, fill the place of the peasantry of Europeof the peasantry or day-labourers in the non-slave-holding States of this Union. The denser the population, the more numerous will this class be. Even in the present state of the population beyond the Alleghany, there must be some peasantry, and as the country fills up, they will scarcely have more-that is, men who tend the herds and dig the soil, who have neither real nor personal capital of their own, and who earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. These, by this scheme, are all to be represented-but none of our slaves. And yet, in political economy, the latter fill exactly the same place. Slaves, indeed, are not and never will be comparable with the hardy peasantry of the mountains, in intellectual power, in moral worth, in all that determines man's degree in the moral scale, and raises him above the brute-I beg pardon, his Maker placed him above the brute-above the savage-above that wretched state, of which the only comfort is the natural rights of man. I have as sincere feelings of regard for that people, as any man who lives among them. But I ask gentlemen to say, whether they believe, that those who are obliged to depend on their daily labour for daily subsistence, can, or do ever enter into political affairs? They never do-never will-never can. Educated myself to a profession, which in this country has been supposed to fit the mind for the duties of the Statesman, I have yet never had occasion to turn my mind to any general question of politics, without feeling the effect of professional habits to narrow and contract the mind. If others are more fortunate, I congratulate them. Now, what real share, so far as mind is concerned, does any man suppose the peasantry of the west-that peasantry, which it must have when the country is as completely filled up with day-labourers as ours is of

slaves-can or will take in affairs of State? Gentlemen may say, their labourers are the most intelligent on earth-which I hope is true-that they will rise to political intelligence. But, when any rise, others must supply the place they rise from. What then, is the practical effect of the scheme of representation in question? Simply, that the men of property of the west, shall be allowed a representation for all their daylabourers, without contributing an additional cent of revenue, and that the men of property of the east, shall contribute in proportion to all the slave-labour they employ, without any additional representation. Sir, I am against all this-I am for a representation of every interest in society-for poising and balancing all interests--for saving each and all, from the sin of oppressing, and from the curse of being oppressed. Sir, the amendment offered by my honorable friend from Culpeper, is a scheme for balancing the various interests of the Commonwealth with exact and equal justice— not depriving numbers of their due weight, for it allows them full representation-yet allowing property also that fair, due and just share of representation, which is essential to its protection and security. It proposes to build up Government on the interests of society, with due regard to the rights both of persons and property; and to confide power to those whose self-love will forever prevent them from abusing it. If gentlemen prefer the federal number as the basis of representation, I shall be content. If they prefer a county representation, founded on any fair principle, respecting peculiar interests, and balancing the powers of Government accordingly-though I am sensible that this will be a more difficult operation-1 shall be content. But I must forever contend, that a principle, which, in a Government professedly instituted for the protection and security of property as well as mere personal rights, disclaims all regard to the interests of property, and allows representation to numbers only, is dangerous and vitious, contrary to all the dictates of prudence and justice, and incompatible with the nature of representative Government, its wholesome operation and all its ends. To reconcile us to a scheme so revolting, gentlemen tell us, in the first place, that the question has been settled by precedent-that it is res adjudicata. I said, that to found Government (meaning the chole Government,) on numbers alone, without regard whether the numbers quadrated with the interests of society or not, was a new principle in Virginia, and perhaps unknown in any other Government. I did not say, that no part or single branch of a Government had ever been laid on that foundation -I did not say, that no individual had ever maintained the principle-I learned at school, (from Tully, I think,) that there is nothing so absurd which some philosophers have not maintained for truth; and it might have been added, that there is nothing so unjust, which some politicians have not supported as right. The precedents which are supposed to have settled this question, are the vote of the Staunton Convention in 1815, forsooth, insisting that representation in the Legislature ought to be equalized on the basis of white population, and the act of 1816, equalizing and arranging the representation in the Senate, upon that principle, after full deliberation. But the principle was then applied to only one branch of the Legislature, and that not the taxgiving branch-and I, for one, shall be content with that principle of representation in the Senate now--I voted for it yesterday, and will abide by the vote, if gentlemen, on their part, will pay a just regard to the interests of property, in the tax-giving branch, the House of Delegates. Is not the difference wide as the poles asunder, between the two questions, whether there shall be a representation for the interests of property in the House of Delegates, the tax-giving House? and, whether property shall be represented in the Senate, which is not the tax-giving House? But I do not refer to the act of 1816, to repel its influence as a precedent, on the present question -I know to whom I am talking-there is not a man here who will pay the least regard to any such precedent. In another view, that transaction gave me a lesson, of which I hope I shall never cease to profit-I remember well every fact connected with its history, its origin, progress, and final consummation-and shall remember it all, to the last day of my life. They demanded the call of a Convention, of those, who, admitting that there were some defects in the Constitution which time had developed, (since no work of imperfect man can be perfect,) and especially the then inequality of representation in the Senate, yet thought that veneration for ancient and tried institutions, and loyalty founded in the heart rather than in the speculations of reason, were the best supports of Republican Government, and worthy to be preserved at any expense. The demand was addressed to such men as my friend from Norfolk (Mr. Tazewell) who had, like me, fallen into that fatuity of judgment, which deems virtuous prejudices virtuous principles. To avoid the call of a Convention, the bill for equalizing the representation in the Senate, on the basis of the white population, was, in an evil hour, passed-I had no share in it--I thank Heaven for all its mercies, none. They told us, they would be content-that that measure would satisfy all their wishes -that they too, loved the Government which the wisdom of our fathers gave, and with such a representation in the Senate, they would never seek to disturb it more. And the gentleman from Culpeper (Mr. Green) gave warning, that if the claim to

representation in the Senate on the basis of white population was conceded, the concession would only be the motive to new demands. He has lived to be acknowledged for a prophet even in his own country. So, now, give them their favourite principle of representation in the House of Delegates-and guard property from taxation for any favourite purpose by any effectual guarantee, if such a thing be possible-or attempt to secure property, by giving it full representation in the Senate-the moment the new power of the State shall feel any check upon its action, and can no otherwise overcome it, it will raise another clamor for Convention, to cut the knot that cannot be untied. It is as true of the love of power as it is of the love of gold, Quo plus habet, eo plus cupit. Talk of power resting content while any power remains to be acquired-talk of it to any green, very green person-but for the love of mercy, mock us no more, by reminding us of the history of that Senatorial bill. As to the bill of the last session for organizing this body on the basis of the Congressional districts, it is not worth while to explain the way in which it was lost-the gentleman from Albe

marle is best able to do it.

The next argument for the basis of white population exclusively, is deduced from the natural rights of man. I think the genius of the gentleman from Northampton (Mr. Upshur) has laid a spell on that doctrine, as one fit for any practical use. (We are employed in forming a Government for civilized man, not for a horde of savages just emerging from an imaginary state of nature.) If the latter was our purpose, I doubt whether we or they would think at all about their natural rights. Their political destiny would be determined by circumstances, which political philosophy would be little fitted to control. I cannot conceive any natural right of man contra-distinguished from social Conventional right-The very word right is a word of relation, and implies some society. While Robinson Crusoe was alone in his Island, what were his rights? To catch the goats and tame them-to kill their kids and eat them. When Friday came, how did they regulate their natural rights? He saved Friday's life-he gave him bread-and Friday became his servant. And that, I believe, was about as republican a Government as any men thus fortuitously brought together, would ever form-the stronger would be master. By the way, I think Defoe's a better book on the science of Government, than Cocker's Arithmetic or Pike's either, But gentlemen may have just what system of natural rights they like best-provided they will only grant me, that, either by natural law, or Conventional law, or municipal law, or the jus gentium-aut quocunque alio nomine vocatur-every man is entitled to the property he has earned by his own labor and to that which his parents earned and transmitted to him by inheritance-and that what is his property is his to give, and his to dispose of. These, I hope, are reasonable postulates: and I am much mistaken if they do not lead, by fair induction, to the utter overthrow of the resolution of the Legislative Committee, and to the establishment of the proposed amendment on irrefragable grounds.

Then gentlemen urge our own Bill of Rights upon us, as perfectly conclusiveand to the amazement of some and the amusement of others of this Committee, gentlemen, founding their whole argument on the Bill of Rights, deny the competency of the Convention of '76-and, by consequence, one would think, the authority of the Bill of Rights. Mr. Jefferson was the first person that brought this charge of usurpation against that Convention-and (so important are great men's errors) tho' with him it seemed rather matter of curious speculation only, yet ever since, when our old Constitution has been assailed for its supposed defects, this opinion of Mr. Jefferson has been referred to as conclusive authority. I had implicit faith in the opinion myself when I was at College-how long after I cannot say, not being able to fix the date when my mind came to maturity. At what period Mr. Jefferson discovered the incompetency of the Convention of 76, it were vain to conjecture-but I apprehend, it was not during the session of that body-for I know that Mr. J. himself prepared a Constitution for Virginia, and sent it to Williamsburg that it might be proposed to the Convention, during the session, from which the preamble and nothing more, was taken and prefixed to the present Constitution. Any one may see, at a glance, that that preamble was written by the author of the Declaration of Independence. I have seen the projet of the Constitution, which Mr. J. offered, in the couneil chamber, in his own hand writing, tho' it cannot now be found-and I have since cursed my folly that I neglected to take a copy of it, in order to compare Mr. J's democracy of that day, with George Mason's practical republicanism. But, Sir, the validity of the Constitution, as such, has been maintained by Pendleton, Wythe, Roane, by the whole Commonwealth for fifty-four years. If the Convention of 76 was incompetent to that act, it was incompetent also to abolish the Colonial Government, and that yet remains in force, in like manner as the Colonial form of Government of Connecticut was retained for years; and all the objections to the authority of our Convention of 76, might be urged with equal force, against all the Constitutions established in our sister States during the revolution. It is said the existing Constitution is not a lawful Government, because it was ordained by the representatives of the

freeholders only, and never submitted to the great body of the people. To whom is it intended, that our amended or new Constitution shall be submitted? To those, I presume, to whom we shall allow the right of suffrage-that is, if gentlemen succeed according to their wishes in that particular, to lease-holders, house-keepers and taxpayers, as well as freeholders. It is a remarkable truth, in the natural history of man in this country, that the sons are invariably wiser than their fathers, such is the march of mind! Our sons may allege, hereafter, that our acts never had the sanction of the people-why did we exclude women and children? Why minors, tho' enrolled in the militia, and bound to bear arms? Why paupers, whose only sin is poverty? Nay, why the felons in the Penitentiary? All are part of the great body of the people. Sir, if we shall acknowledge, that we are at this moment in a state of nature; that men have resumed their natural rights, and are entitled to insist on them to the uttermost; we may live to see the day, when it will be claimed as matter of right, that the keeper of the Penitentiary shall bring his prisoners to the polls.

Now, as to the Bill of Rights-The first article declares, that "all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."-The article enumerates property as equally dear and sacred with life and liberty, and as the principal means of happiness and safety-and with good reason-for, in order to live free and happy it is necessary that we live, and property is necessary to sustain lite, and just as necessary to maintain liberty. Yet property is to be wholly disregarded in our fundamental institutions -But, not to repeat what has been better said by others, I shall desire the committee to remember, that this article is expressed in the language of Locke's theory of government, then familiarly known; and that Locke, no more than the Convention of '76, understood the proposition in the broad sense now ascribed to it. Locke has had a singular fate. He was a zealous advocate of mixed monarchy-his Essay on Government was written to maintain the throne of William and Mary-his notions of practical Government, are exhibited in the Constitution he made for North Carolina, with its caciques and land-graves: yet, from his book, have been deduced the wildest democracy, and demented French jacobinism. He exploded the right divine of Kings-he showed that all Government is of human institution; yet he is supposed to have established the divine right of democracy. So, he was a pious Christian of the Church of England-of the low Church, however—yet, from his chapter on innate ideas, in his Essay on the Human Understanding, infidels have deduced the doctrines of materialism, infidelity and atheism. The truth is, that there is no proposition in ethics or politics, however true when duly measured and applied, which, if pushed to extremes, will not lead to absurdity or vice. It does not follow, that, because all men are born equal, and have equal rights to life, liberty, and the property they can acquire by honest industry, therefore, all men may rightly claim, in an established society, equal political powers-especially, equal "power to dispose of the property of others.

It is very remarkable, Sir, that both the gentlemen from Frederick, (Mr. Cooke and Mr. Powell,) in founding the argument, they endeavoured to deduce from the third article of the Bill of Rights, read to the Committee, only the first and third sentences of it, which seem to suit their purposes, and omitted the intermediate sentence, so material to the just understanding of the doctrine the article inculcates, and so opposite to the conclusions at which they were aiming. I acquit them of all wilful unfairness-the respect I bear them, would not endure any suspicion of the kind—but the omission is a striking instance, how prone are the minds of men, studiously bent on maintaining a favorite point, to overlook, rather than to meet, difficulties, however obvious. The whole article reads, "That Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community.Of all the various modes and forms of Government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the dangers of mal-administration-and when any Government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the Commonwealth hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."-From the first sentence, the gentlemen deduced the perfect equality of men in a social state-not as to civil rights only, but political powers; and from the last, the absolute despotic right of a bare majority, to change the fundamental laws, and to assume to themselves under a new form of polity, the sovereign power to govern without limitation or check. Read the whole article, and it will be seen, that it means to declare, that when the existing Government fails to produce happiness and safety; fails to protect property as well as liberty, which in the first article are recognized, as the means of happiness and safety; and appears not to be effectually secured against the dangers of mal-administration: then, and not till then, the majority has the right to reform, alter or