Mr. Leigh said, that reference having been made to the Colonial Government, to disprove the statement of the gentleman from Norfolk, he would read an extract from the history of that Government, for the accuracy of which he would vouch, as he took great pains to ascertain facts. Mr. Leigh then read a note which is appended to the Revised Code, first volume, page 38.* It appeared, he said, that Bacon, a rebel, was the first who adopted the notion of Universal Suffrage in the country, and that he had it from the soldiers of Cromwell's army.

He stated, that the substance of the note which he had read, was confirmed in its accuracy by the late Judge Roane, and said a few words as to the manner of dividing the State into plantations, districts and hundreds, all founded on that principle of interest which the gentleman from Norfolk had alluded to. If that principle was not avowed, there could be no doubt that it was the principle.

Again, he stated that the College of William and Mary was allowed a representative until the commencement of the revolution. It was represented in the Convention of 1775. Why was this, but that the principle of the interests of different branches was acted on in the apportionment of representation? Here was a representation of the learning of this College, which had been until lately a most useful institution, and he hoped might become so again. He considered that the gentleman from Norfolk had been fully sustained in his statements and views.

Mr. Cooke said, that he had not learned the constitutional history of Virginia from the notes to the Revised Code, but from the documentary and legislative records set

As to the form of the Colonial Government, for which this Constitution was substituted, see 1 Chart. $7.8. 15. 1 Hen. st. at lar. p. 60, 1, 4. Royal instructions for the government of the Colony, Ibid. p. 67. 75. 2 Chart. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 23. Ibid. p. 89, 90, 1, 2, 5. 3 Chart. 6. 7. 8. Ibid. p. 102, 3.-By the 14th section of the second charter and the 8th of the third, the power of establishing a form of government and magistracy for the Colony, was vested in the council and general court of the Virginia company in England; which, on the 24th July, 1021, ordained a form of government accordingly; where by the powers of the Colonial government were vested in a governor and council of state, appointed by the company in England and holding during its pleasure, and a house of burgesses, two from every town, bundred and particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants; and this council of state and house of burgesses formed the Colonial legislature, called the General Assembly. The Colonial government was directed to conform, in legislation and jurisprudence, to the English government and Taws; and it was provided, that no law or ordinance made by the General Assembly, should be valid, unless ratified by the general court of the company in England, and returned so ratified under its seal. See this Constitution, and the commission and instructions to the first governor under it, 1 Hen, st. at lar. p. 110. 113. 114. In 1624, the crown suppressed the Virginia company by proclamation, and resumed the powers granted to the company; but the form of government it had given the Colony, remained in substance unchanged. It appears, that the constitution of the Colonial government was amended by George I. and instructions were given by George II. to the governor Lord Albemarle, for the regulation of the government according to the amended constitution: but these papers are not to be found. The King always retained the control over the Colonial laws, and even exercised the power of suspending and repealing them; powers, often exercised capriciously, always complained of as a grievance, sometimes disputed, and at length assigned as one of the causes of the revolution; see 5 Hen. st. at lar. 432. This royal prerogative had a inost important influence on the legislation of the Colonial government. Counties or shires were first established in 1634. 1 Hen. st. at lar. p. 224. It seems from our ancient records, that at first, in practice, neither the towns, hundreds and plantations, while they were represented, nor the counties, after the burgesses were elected from them, were restricted to two or any fixed number of burgesses. In 1645, the number was limited to four for each county, except James City, which was allowed five, Afterwards, particular besides one for Jamestown, the seat of government; 1 Hen. stat. at lar. p. 295.

parishes, and then all parishes, were allowed to send one or two burgesses; Ibid. 250. 277. 421. In 1660, the number of burgesses was limited to two for each county and one for Jamestown in James City coun ty, with like privilege to every county, that would lay out 100 acres of land, and people it with 100 titheable persons; 2 Ibid. p. 20. 106. The 7th article of the present constitution, provides that the right of suffrage for members of both houses of Assembly, shall remain as exercised at present. By the constitution of July 1621, above cited, the right of suffrage was given to the inhabitants; afterwards, it seems, only freemen were allowed to vote; I Ibid. p. 333, 4. then only housekeepers; Ibid. p. 412. then all freemen again, Ibid. p. 403. 475. then "freeholders and housekeepers, who only are answerable for lo vies;" 2 Ibid. 280, then, by Racon's laws, all freemen again ; Ibid. 356. But in 1677, the King instructed the Governor, that the members of Assembly should be elected by freeholders only; Ibid. p. 425. In 1684, it was resolved, that all tenants for life had an undoubted right of suffrage; 3 Ibid. 26. In 1890, the right of suffrage was confined to freeholders (excluding women, infants and recusants convict) resi dent in the respective counties and towns; Ibid. p. 238. In 1736, the right of suffrage was confined to frecholders of an hundred acres of unsettled land or twenty-five acres of improved land, and all freehol ders in towns, but with a right to vote, only in the county where the land or the greater part of it lay; 4 Ibid. 475, 6. The city of Williamsburg and the borough of Norfolk were allowed a representative, by their charters, by which the right of suffrage of the citizens and burghers was regulated, but afterwards somewhat narrowed by law; Edi. 1769, p. 122. 287. It seems, that till 1723, free negroes, indians and mulattoes, might vote at elections; but by the acts of that year, c. 4. 23. Edi. 1733. p. 344, they were disqualified; and that particular section of the act was not repealed, though the rest of it was by royal proclamation in 1724. Edi. 1769. p. 15. note (a.) Edi. 1762. p. 103. By the act of 1769. c. 1, the quantity of unimproved land, necessary to qualify a freeholder to vote, was reduced to fifty acres; but this act was suspended until the royal approbation should be signified, and such approbation was never signified. The ordinance of the convention of 1775, providing for the election of delegates to the convention of 1776, extended the right of suffrage to free white men, inhabitants of Fincastle and West Augusta, in possession of the requisite quantity of land, and claiming freeholds therein, though they should have obtained no patents or legal titles to their lands.-Thus stood the right of suffrage when the constitution was adopted. By the act of 1785, c. 55. 2. the qualification of the freeholder in respect to the quantity of unimproved land was reduced from 100 to 50 acres; the legislature either regarding the act of 1769, as effectual, notwithstanding the want of the royal assent; or, perhaps, considering that while the principle of freehold qualification was preserved, a change as to the quantity of land was consistent with the constitution.

forth at length in "Hening's Statutes at Large." I am, nevertheless, thankful, said he, to the gentleman from Chesterfield, (Mr. Leigh,) for reading the long and elaborate note from the Revised Code, which has refreshed my recollection of sundry particulars which I pretermitted in the sketch that I gave of the history of representation in Virginia, because I did not consider them precisely "germane to the matter" under consideration. I am yet to learn, however, in what point or particular I have misstated the historical facts which I undertook to state. I said, and I repeat, that the ordinance of 1621 recognized the free "inhabitants" of the Colony as the basis of representation, and I have heard nothing inconsistent with that statement in the history that has been read by the gentleman from Chesterfield.

I thank him, however, for calling the attention of the Committee to the history of Suffrage in Virginia, as I think that history replete with valuable and interesting facts. The learned gentleman, Sir, has ventured to say to this Committee, that the idea of Universal Suffrage was never heard in Virginia, till it was started in England by those crazy enthusiasts, the "agitators," in the time of Cromwell; and that it was through them introduced into the Colony. I confess that I heard this statement made with no small surprise.

What is the meaning, Sir, of the phrase "Universal Suffrage," as commonly used and understood by intelligent men? Does it mean a Right of Suffrage belonging to, and exercised by, all the men, all the women, and all the children of the community? Such an absurdity never entered into the head, even of "a reformer," however "hardened his heart might have become by experimenting on the rights of man, to ascertain how large a dose of French principles might be administered without causing their destruction." It means a Right of Suffrage exercised by all the free men of a commu nity. And precisely to this extent was the right exercised in the Colony of Virginia from the year 1621 till the year 1655. The ordinance of 1621 secured the Right of Suffrage to all the free "inhabitants" of the Colony. And I defy the gentleman from Chesterfield, with all his constitutional lore, to show, by a reference to the legislative history of the Colony, that it was taken away, or even assailed, before the passage of the act of 1655. In that year an act was passed declaring," that all house-keepers, whether freeholders, leaseholders, or otherwise tenants, should only be capable to elect Burgesses: Provided, that this word house-keepers, repeated in this act, extended no further than to one person in a family." (1)

And here, Sir, we have presented to us, the curious discrepancy between the statement made by the gentleman from Chesterfield and the real facts of the case: and not discrepancy only, but absolute contrariety. His statement is, that Universal Suffrage originated in England, with the military "agitators" in the time of Cromwell, and was thence, and at that period, transplanted into Virginia, where it was before unknown. The fact is, that it had existed in the Colony from the earliest period of its legislative history, and was first assailed in the time of the "agitators" of Cromwell, who, in 1655, was at the height of his power and the sovereign of Virginia. Thus, Sir, these crazy "agitators," these English republican enthusiasts, destroyed, instead of introducing Universal Suffrage. They were the first to introduce rationality into the theretofore irrational regulation of the Right of Suffrage. I say rationality, Sir, because I am no advocate for Universal Suffrage. God forbid that lever should be.

The act of 1655 was repealed, however, in the following year. The repealing act declares, in the quaint language of the age, that it is conceived to "be something hard and unagreeable to reason, that any persons shall pay equal taxes, and yet have no votes in elections; and that so much of the act for choosing Burgesses be repealed, as excludes freemen from votes." (2)

With the exception of this interval of a year, Universal Suffrage prevailed in Virginia, from 1621 till 1670. In the year last mentioned, an act was passed declaring that "none but freeholders and house-keepers, who only are answerable to the public for their levies, should thereafter have any voice in the election of any Burgesses."(3) This limitation of the Right of Suffrage was unpalatable to the colonists, and was set forth as one of the grievances by which the popular insurrection of 1676 was justified. I call it a popular insurrection, because the phrase is more agreeable to my republican notions than the word "rebellion," used by the gentleman from Chesterfield. Rebellion, Sir! then what were the men of 1776, but rebels against the royal authority! Nathaniel Bacon was a rebel, who, perhaps, wanted only a wider theatre of action and a more protracted span of existence, to be the Washington of his age. He rose in arms against oppression, and a democratic Legislature, or one under his control, while it redressed many real grievances, repealed the limitation of Suffrage,

(1) See Hening's Statutes at Large, vol. 1, page 412
(2) See Hening's Statutes at Large, vol. 1, page 403.

The repealing act precedes the act repealed in

the paging of "Hening's Statutes at Large," in consequence of a mistake in the MS. "not discovered in time."

(3) See Hening's Statutes at Large, vol. 2, page 280.

imposed in 1670. His democratic code was repealed in its turn, in 1677, and two regiments of British soldiers were sent by his most gracious Majesty, King Charles II. whose Government the gentleman from Chesterfield calls, by way of distinction," the lawful Government," to disseminate in the Colony more correct notions concerning civil and political liberty. This worthless tyrant-the most worthless that ever filled the throne of England-did not condescend to ask of the trembling Burgesses, whom he assembled at the very mouths of his cannon, and at the very point of his bayonets, a legislative act establishing the freehold limitation of the Right of Suffrage in Virginia. He ordered his Governor, in his private letter of instructions, under his royal hand, "to take care that the members of the Assembly should thereafter be elected by freeholders only." (4) And thus, Sir, the freehold limitation of the Right of Suffrage became the law of Virginia; and so it has remained to the present day: Modified, to be sure, from time to time, by subservient Colonial Assemblies, in regard to the quantity of land necessary to confer the right, but still the freehold limitation. And with these slight modifications, it remains the law and the Constitution of Virginia to the present day. It was, in 1677, then, and not in 1776, that this boasted regulation, the acme of political wisdom, became a part of the Constitution of Virginia. It was dictated by a tyrant, and thrust down the throats of the people of Virginia at the point of the bayonet. And this is the principle of our Constitution which we are called on to venerate-to bow down and worship, as the wisest and best of all the institutions formed in 1776 by the sages and patriots of the revolution. This is the institution which is the great safeguard of property, and the palladium of our liberties. Sir, I have said that the Constitution of Virginia, as it regards this great and vital provision, was matured and completed in 1677. The Convention of 1776 found it established and matured, and they left it untouched. And wHY did they leave it untouched? Were they in love with the memory of its author? Or were they true republicans, as they unquestionably were partial to aristocratic distinctions and priviledged orders? No, Sir; they left it untouched, because they dared not touch it. It had taken deep root, and could not be torn up with safety, while so many elements of discord were already at work, and threatened to add the horrors of a civil to the dangers of a foreign war.

Moreover, the poisonous plant, aristocracy, had grown up and flourished under the shadow of the tree of royalty. A privileged class had been created, not only by the establishment of exclusive political privileges, but by extensive grants of land to the favorites of the Crown. There was, therefore, a landed, as well as a political aristocracy. It was, like all privileged classes, tenacious of its exclusive privileges, and like all wealthy aristocracies, proud of its wealth. To a class like this, the authors of the Bill of Rights, genuine and bold republicans as they were, did not dare to say, in the heat of a war which put in requisition all the wealth and all the resources of the country, "Your reign shall cease your power and influence are at an end."

They said, with a mournful and sententious brevity, "The Right of Suffrage shall remain as at present exercised."

This, Sir, is a true history of the rise and progress, and unhappily, of the present state of the Right of Suffrage in Virginia.

Mr. Leigh said, that the gentleman from Frederick needed not to inform him that he had not learned the history of Virginia from the note to the Revised Code. His object had been merely to put the Committee in possession of the facts which were there stated. The gentleman had not only studied out of a different system of law, but also out of a different system of general history, or he would not have said that Bacon's insurrection, which grew out of a private feud, was a stand in defence of the rights of man.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. Leigh, to amend the resolution, which motion was decided in the negative-Ayes 47, Noes 49.

Some difficulty occurring in the count, the names of members were called over; but as the vote was taken in Committee of the Whole, the rule of order does not permit the yeas and nays to be recorded on the Journal. We have obtained, however, the following list, which we submit to satisfy the curiosity of readers.

Ayes-Messrs. Jones, Leigh of Chesterfield, Taylor of Chesterfield, Giles, Brodnax, Dromgoole, Alexander, Goode, Marshall, Tyler, Nicholas, Clopton, Mason, Trezvant, Claiborne, Urquhart, Randolph, Leigh of Halifax, Logan, Venable, Madison, Barbour of Orange, Stanard, Holliday, Roane, Taylor of Caroline, Morris, Garnett, Barbour of Culpeper, Scott, Macrae, Green, Tazewell, Loyall, Prentis, Grigsby, Mennis, Taliaferro, Bates, Neale, Rose, Joynes, Bayly, Upshur, and Perrin.-47. Noes-Messrs. Anderson, Coffman, Harrison, Williamson, Baldwin, Johnson, M'Coy, Moore, Beirne, Smith, Miller, Baxter, Monroe, Mercer, Fitzhugh, Henderson, Cooke, Powell, Opie, Griggs, Naylor, Donalson, Boyd, Pendleton, George, M'Millan, Campbell of Washington, Byars, Cloyd, Chapman, Mathews, Oglesby, Duncan, (4) See Honing's Statutos at Largo, vol. 2, page 425.

Laidley, Summers, See, Doddridge, Morgan, Campbell of Brooke, Wilson, Campbell of Bedford, Claytor, Saunders, Cabell, Stuart, Pleasants, Gordon, Thompa, and Massie.-49.

So the Committee of the Whole rejected the proposition to base the representation in the House of Delegates, on what is called the Federal number, consisting of the free whites, together with three-fifths of the slaves.

The Committee then rose, and the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1829.

The Convention met at eleven o'clock, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Taylor of the Baptist Church.

Mr. Mercer moved that when the Convention adjourn, it adjourn to meet to-morrow at ten o'clock, (instead of eleven.) The motion was opposed by Mr. Stanard, and advocated by the mover and Mr. Doddridge: and the question being taken, the House appeared equally divided-Ayes 40, Noes 40. The President giving his casting vote in the affirmative, the motion was carried.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Powell in the Chair. Mr. Scott, professing his earnest desire to see the Convention come to some compromise of the opposing parties, and believing that object would be promoted by passing over this subject until something should have been determined on the limits of the Right of Suffrage, made a motion to take up the next resolution reported by the Legislative Committee.

Mr. Mercer opposed the motion, and desired that the amendment to the first resolution should first be finally disposed of in the Committee. He referred to other important questions which had been decided by small majorities, and disclaimed on the part of the majority any thing like an uncompromising spirit.

Mr. Doddridge rose to notice a remark of Mr. Scott, on what had fallen from Mr. Johnson. He understood Mr. J. to have stated it as his understanding of the first proposition, in the report of the Legislative Committee, that representation was to be apportioned on the basis of qualified voters; and he had added that he supposed this to have been the intention of the mover of that resolution in the Legislative Committee. Now Mr. D. said, that he had himself been the mover of it, and such an interpretation was certainly very far from his purpose. He had never intended any such thing; nor, so far as he knew, had such an interpretation entered into the mind of the Legislative Committee. His doctrine, and his desire was, that representation should be apportioned according to the entire white population. If this was settled, the next question would be, to whom should the elective franchise be extended? and then a third would present itself, viz: to whom should the Constitution be finally submitted for adoption or rejection? The gentleman had added a word of caution, to so small a majority as to their undertaking to control a minority so numerous. He admitted that the majority here was numerically but little larger than the minority; but if the population which the two portions of the House represented was to be taken into view, it would be found that the difference was far greater. The gentle man had said, that a majority so small ought not to expect to carry all the points it might have in view; but surely, if this was a good argument to a majority, the argument applied with still greater force to those who represented a comparatively small minority of the free citizens of this Commonwealth.

Mr. Scott said, that the gentleman from Loudoun seemed averse to any thing like compromise. The gentleman said, that he did not possess the spirit of divination, and therefore could not tell that the measure which they were pressing would finally succeed.

Mr. Mercer explained. The gentleman from Fauquier had inferred, from his unwillingness to postpone the subject of the basis of representation, that the majority were actuated by an uncompromising spirit.

Mr. Scott said, that he had brought no such charge against the majority. Mr. Mercer then said, that he must have misunderstood him.

Mr. Scott resumed. The gentleman says, that he has not the spirit of divination, and that therefore he cannot know that his measure will succeed; but on that principle, no compromise can ever be effected, because no one can tell whether it will succeed until it is first proposed; and so unless its friends have the spirit of divination, they are not to make the experiment.

The gentleman from Brooke says, that though their majority in this House is small, it represents a large majority of the people of the State. However this may be, I am very sure of one thing: and that is, that the minority in this House represents a large majority of the freeholders of Virginia. There are at least four freeholders East of

the Blue Ridge, to three on the West of it. The proportion of tax-payers, even of the smallest tax, down to a single cent, is nearly the same. There are four thoumad two hundred tax-payers East of the Ridge, to three thousand six hundred West of it. So that the minority represented a large majority of those who owned the soil, and bore all the burdens of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Mercer replied. He had certainly understood the gentleman to say, that the experience of the Committee manifested the fact, that the majority was actuated by an uncompromising spirit: and to such a remark, it was certainly pertinent to reply, that he did not know, when he voted for his own proposition, whether it would be accepted or not. The gentleman from Fauquier possessed very different facts, or else proceeded on a very different system of arithmetic from himself; and he averred that the gentleman was totally mistaken in the statement he had made. If the gen tleman confined the majority to those beyond the Ridge, he might perhaps be right; but if he added those in the large counties immediately below the Ridge, it would be found, that a large majority of the tax-payers of the State, were represented by a majority on this floor. In support of this statement, Mr. M. referred to two tables exhibiting the number of tax-payers in the counties, and insisted that from those tables, it would appear that the white population West of the Blue Ridge, bore to the white population East of the Ridge, the same proportion, as the tax-payers West, did to the tax-payers East; and that the freeholders of twenty-five acres West of the Ridge, were to those East of the Ridge, in the like prope on. The persons charged with land-tax in the whole State, were 93,000; of the 39,000 were West of the Ridge, and 53 East. The persons who paid tax on moveable property in the whole State, were 95,000; of whom, 40,000 resided West of the Ridge, and 55,000 East of it. Of the white population, the total number was 600,000; of whom, 250,000 were West of the Ridge, and 350,000 East of it. Here, then, there was little difference between the three ratios. The gentleman from Fauquier had argued on the illusory idea, that the distribution of property was different on the two sides of the Ridge. Such a notion was entirely unfounded, and inconsistent with the actual state of the fact. If the gentleman would add those in favour of a new Constitution, who live below the Ridge, to those who live beyond it, he would find that there was a large majority.

Mr. Stanard said, that if it was regular to receive the statements of the gentlemen on the other side of the House, as going to support one view of a subject, it must be regular to receive statements from the same side, when bearing in an opposite direction. Now, the statements just given by the gentleman from Loudoun, were in hostility with those of his coadjutor from Augusta. The gentleman insisted, that the ratio of freeholders and of tax-payers on the two sides of the Ridge, did not differ from that of the white population. He should confront this assertion, by the statements made by the gentleman from Augusta. According to the gentleman from Augusta, the freeholders from the West, were to those in the East, as thirty-six to fiftysix. According to the gentleman from Loudoun, they were as forty to fifty-three. The gentleman asserted this, in total disregard to a consideration which all knew ought to have great influence on the calculation: that a large proportion of persons charged with land-tax in the West, are non-residents there, and live either in Eastern Virginia, or without the bounds of the State. If due allowance were made for this circumstance, the proportion would not be thirty-six to fifty-six, but thirty-three to fifty-six; or rather thirty-three to fifty-nine, if the three taken from the West were to be added to the East. In Richmond alone, there were more than one hundred persons who owned freeholds to the West of the Ridge. He would now proceed to confront the statement of the gentleman from Loudoun, with that of the gentleman from Augusta.

Mr. Doddridge enquired whether this discussion was in order.

Mr. Stanard contended that it was, as he should not go one word beyond correcting the mistake, the great and extravagant mistake, of the gentleman from Loudoun : and in doing so, he should employ the statements of the gentleman from Augusta, only as a means of giving more force and effect to the correction. The gentleman from Loudoun had affirmed, that the ratio of the white population on the two sides of the Ridge, was nearly the same with that of the tax-payers and land-holders. But what said the tables of the gentleman from Augusta?

Mr. S. after quoting them at large, stated the result to be as follows:

The ratio of white population was fifty-six on the West, to sixty-three on the East of land-holders, forty-six West to seventy-three East: and of tax-payers, fifty on the West to seventy on the East.

With these statements staring him in the face, the gentleman had told the Committee, without reserve, and without qualification, that the ratios were nearly the same. He had felt it due to the Committee, and to the public, that the assertion should not go unconfronted with the document.