other States of the Union, I consider them as citizens of Virginia, and so identified with us, that they may be relied on in that character. But our country is an asylum for the oppressed of all countries; they fly to us from all regions of the globe, particularly from Great Britain; and more especially from Ireland-they fly to us from poverty and oppression. I am willing to receive them; but I consider those people as very different from ours; and as they are not fit to be at once admitted to equal political rights among us, they should not be permitted to participate in the sovereignty, nor get hold upon the Government till they have been rendered fit for it by the acquirement of different feelings and principles.

Ours is a Government of the people: it may properly be called self-government. I wish it may be preserved forever in the hands of the people. Our revolution was prosecuted on those principles, and all the Constitutions which have been adopted in this country are founded on the same basis. But the whole system is as yet an experiment; it remains to be seen whether such a Government can be maintained; and that it may, in our Union, I have no doubt. But wise provisions, as to the exercise of the Right of Suffrage, and the powers of Government, are indispensable for its preservation. We ought to profit by the examples of every other nation; we ought to look at the history of other Republics, and see the causes which led to their overthrow. When we find that the most important and democratical among them have been soon overthrown, we ought to guard against the causes which led to their downfall. We have come here that we may prepare a form of Government for our native State. The experience of all the other States and our own experience are before us. But the experiment is still in operation, and nothing can be considered as conclusive, especially in the new States, which are of such recent establishment. Of the effect produced by the original organization, in the other States, and by the changes they have severally made in it, different reports are given in this House, on the representation of different parties in each State, which proves, that the experiment is still depending and its result unknown. I have the utmost confidence in the integrity of gentlemen on both sides of the question in this House. I can see great cause for a difference of opinion between them. It is very natural that those on the one side should feel a strong inclination to give the greatest possible extent to the rights of every citizen, whatever may be his circumstances. It is equally natural that doubts should be felt on the other side, when the experience of other Governments has admonished them of danger.

There are three great epochs in the history of the human race in regard to Government! The first commenced with the origin of the ancient Republics and terminated with them. The second commenced at the overthrow of the Roman Empire; with the Governments that were established on its ruins, and comprises their career to the present time. The third and last, commenced with the discovery of this hemisphere, the emigration of our ancestors, to this section, with their colonial state, the revolu tion which followed, and the Governments founded on its principles. Each of these epochs, is marked by characters, peculiar to itself. The Governments of the two first, warn us of dangers which we should always have in view. Athens and Lacedæmon are the best specimens among the Greeks-Carthage and Rome are the only others worth considering. And first let us look at the state of Athens. There we find the people en masse in one great assembly, possessed of the power of the Government under certain modifications. The Government and sovereignty were united in them; but the people could originate nothing. A Senate must propose all that was done-and that Senate consisted of the wealthy. The Government had commenced with nobility and a Prince, and so it continued till Solon formed the Government and instituted a Senate. This State consisted, therefore, of two classes, the rich and the poor. And as was truly observed by the gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Nicholas,) it lasted but ten years, when it was overthrown by Pisistratus, who deceived the people.

Lacedæmon was under two Kings and a Senate who held their places for life. This Government lasted longer. And why? The lands were divided equally; the people fed together, Kings, Senators and people at the same tables. This had a tendency to connect them together; at the same time all intercourse with foreign nations was prohibited. The bonds were close; and the Government was never overthrown until these bonds were first broken. Commerce introduced war and acquired plunder, whereby the manners of the people were changed. But would any body think of introducing such a Government here?

The same remarks apply, in substance, to Carthage and to Rome. My idea is, that the causes which overthrew all these Governments are so many warnings for us to profit by. Of the peculiar characteristics of the second epoch, and of the differences between ours and both, by which we were placed on more advantageous ground than either, I cannot now enter into.

I think if the Right of Suffrage should be so extended as I have suggested, I can see in that event no remaining cause of variance. All who wish to enjoy it can pro

cure it by a few months' labour, and if public virtue and the general abhorrence of corruption shall prevail, as I hope and believe they will, we shall have those who enjoy the right, so nearly on a level with those who do not, that their influence will operate to tranquillize the whole mass of society, and induce the poor man to use exertions which will soon obtain for him the right of voting.

I thought it my duty to shew to the Committee how far I wished the right should be extended, and where we ought to stop: I think we are not in a situation to go

farther.

Mr. Randolph said, he believed he was not singular in the opinion he was about to express, (though he might be the only member of the Convention, by whom it was uttered,) of sincere gratification, on finding that the gentleman who had just taken his seat, was in favour of what he (Mr. R.) conceived to be the only safe ground, in this Commonwealth, for the Right of Suffrage-he meant terra firma: literally firma: The land. The moment, said he, you quit the land, (I mean no pun,) that moment you will find yourselves at sea: and without compass-without land-mark or polar star. I said that I considered it the only safe foundation IN THIS COMMONWEALTH. For whom are we to make a Constitution? For Holland? For Venice, (where there is no land?) For a country, where the land is monopolized by a few? where it is locked up not only by entails, (I do not mean such as the English law would laugh at,) but by marriage settlements, so that a large part of the people, are necessarily excluded from the possession of it: but for a people emphatically agricultural; where land is in plenty, and where it is accessible to every exertion of honest industry. I will venture to say, that if one-half the time had been spent in honest labour, which has been spent in murmuring and getting up petitions, that the signers might be invested with that right, all-important at muster-rolls, at cross-roads, and in this Convention, yet not worth three months' labour, the right would have been possessed and exercised long ago.

I will not go into the discussion; I rose merely to express my extreme satisfaction, that the gentleman who has just taken his seat, is of opinion, that we ought to abide in the land.

The amendment of the gentleman from Chesterfield, as proposed to be modified by the gentleman from Spottsylvania, is one which I do not exactly understand. So far as it depends on a landed qualification, (which is the great principle of our present Government,) the proposition of the gentleman from Chesterfield, appears to be only an equitable modification of it, and to retain the great stable, solid qualification of land, which I view as the only sufficient evidence of permanent, common interest in, and attachment to, the Commonwealth.

I had thought, that the experience of this Commonwealth, and of the United States, had read us such lessons on the subject of personal security, that we never should think of leaving real. As I am not sufficiently acquainted with the measure proposed by the gentleman from Spottsylvania, I respectfully move that the Committee do now rise.

The Committee rose accordingly, and the House adjourned.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1829.

The Convention met at 11 o'clock, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Armstrong of the Presbyterian Church.

The President laid before the Convention the following letter from Mr. Taliaferro:

RICHMOND, 23d November, 1829. SIR,-A domestic occurrence, which threatens the most serious family affliction, demands my immediate presence at home. In obeying this call, my first object is to provide, in the most effectual manner, for the future execution of the important trust with which I am now charged; and as I do not, under existing circumstances, consider it safe and proper, that the District, in whose delegation I am associated, should be left by me without its entire representation, my design is to resign. I therefore, beg leave, through you, to announce to the Convention, that my right to a seat in that Assembly is hereby vacated: My colleagues will proceed at once to execute the function which the Act of Assembly, in such a case, devolves on them. May I be allowed to say, that very many considerations combine to excite in me feelings of deep regret at the necessity I am under to withdraw myself from the Convention-and to add, that no considerations, certainly none personal to myself, could prevail on me to do so, unless the power existed to supply place without possible embarrassment to my constituents, from my resignation. cannot, in justice to my feelings, close this communication, and not express the cordial hope, that the result of the work in

which you are engaged, may unite, in harmonious accord, the affections and interests of all the citizens of this Commonwealth; and that, with sentiments, Sir, of the most profound respect for you, and for the body in which you preside, I am your friend and fellow-citizen,

The honorable JAMES MONROE,

President of the Convention.

The letter was laid upon the table.

JOHN TALIAFERRO.

Mr. Neale then rose and signified to the Convention that the remaining Delegates from the District to which Mr. Taliaferro belonged, had selected as a suitable person to fill his place, John Coalter, Esq. of Stafford county, (one of the Judges of the Court of Appeals.)

The Convention then went into Committee of the Whole, on the Constitution, Mr. Powell in the Chair, and the question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Stanard to Mr. Leigh's amendment of the third resolution of the Legislative Committee. [See Saturday's proceedings.]

MR. MONROE then addressed the Committee in nearly the following terms:

Mr. Chairman,-On Saturday, I engaged the attention of the Committee for a few moments in explaining my views with regard to the extension of the Right of Suffrage, but as it was near the hour of adjournment, I was unwilling to prolong my remarks. There are some ideas which I did not then state, and which I beg leave now to explain. I stated it to be my view, that the Right of Suffrage should be confined so as in some form to be connected with the soil-it was my idea that those who enjoyed it ought to possess some interest in society, and to have a home: at the same time I wished to see the interest limited as much as possible, and made as moderate as prudence would allow. My reasons for desiring that the elective franchise should be connected with the soil, were then stated, and need not now be repeated. My reasons for wishing to make that interest as moderate as practicable, I wish now more fully to explain.

I observed, that in fixing a Constitution for the State, either by the amendment of the old one or the adoption of a new, we ought to profit by the examples of other Governments, and particularly of the ancient Republics, as furnishing us with a warning of the dangers to which free Governments are exposed, but that none of them could present to us such an example as we ought to follow: but as a warning, it may be very profitable that we should keep them in view. Here the sovereignty resides in the people: ours may truly be called a system of self-government: and my object is, to preserve it in their hands forever. It is with that view, I would look at the dangers to which it is exposed.

I remarked that there were three great epochs in history, as it respected Government. The first of them commenced with the ancient Republics, and ended with their overthrow. The second, with the overthrow of the Roman Empire, and the establishment of those Governments which were erected on its ruins. The third and last cominenced with the discovery of this hemisphere: the emigration to it by our ancestors, the Governments which were formed in our colonial state, and after our revolutionary struggle, with the Governments which were formed on the principles of the revolution. I gave an illustration of this remark, so far as relates to the first period, viz: during the continuance of the ancient Republics.

What are the characteristic features of those Governments, and what the warning they hold out to us? The people who settled on the ruins of the Roman Empire were rude in their condition and character: their Governments were monarchical, accompanied with an order of nobility. In all the great powers, with the exception of England, the Government was despotic; and in England herself, liberty had, through a iong space, no solid basis on which to rest. The effort there was to avoid despotism; and the most that the friends of liberty aspired to, and contended for, was to rescue the people from slavery, and acquire for them some hold in the system. A representation in one branch of the Legislature was all that they sought, and all that they obtained. I will not go into further details. From such a Government, what example is afforded, which we ought to imitate? It was during this struggle that our ancestors fled from persecution-and settled on this Continent, under charters from the Crown, which charters formed the connecting link between the Colonies and the parent country. In all these Colonial Governments, the power was in the people: the Governor was the agent of the King. His powers were limited. Every proposition originated with the people there was a negative in the Crown. This was the only check upon their authority. There was no nobility or prince. The revolution transferred the whole power to the people. There were no privileged orders; nor was the Government hereditary. It consisted of a House of Burgesses, a Council, and a Governor. Every proposition originated with the people, under our Colonial Government; and, therefore, liberal and free principles were inculcated, which were made

perfect by our revolution. The whole Government, in all its branches, is now that of the people: every proposition may be said to originate from them; for, when checks on the most popular branch are provided, as by the Senate, for example, on the House of Delegates, they are formed by representatives of the people, and intended to give greater stability and permanence to their Government. Such a condition, therefore, as the rich and poor, and such a struggle between them, as overthrew the Government of Athens, and prostrated the power of the people, did not and does not exist here in the slightest degree. In the ancient Republics, and especially in that of Athens, the people possessed the whole power: the sovereignty and the Government were united in them: with us it is different. The sovereignty is in the people, but the exercise of Government is in their representatives. Every voter partakes a share of the sovereignty; and thus the Right of Suffrage is the basis of our system of Government. And hence the necessity for caution how we extend the right to such as have no permanent interest in the community. When we see that the representatives are so numerous, and that the voters constitute so great a mass, we have the certainty that they never can pass laws in favor of one class of society to the injury of another class.

Many reasons urge us in looking to self-government, to cause this Right of Suffrage to draw as near as possible every class in society together. But it should be connected with an interest in the soil. I wish to see no distinction, order, nor any thing like rank introduced amongst us. Let all be in the hands of the people. Let a majority rule. The laws of primogeniture and of entail are gone, and what is the tendency of such a state of things? The father brings up his sons, in his own principles and habits, and when he dies he divides his estate among them; or if he dies intestate, the law of descents comes in and divides it for him. His sons live without labour, and thus in two or three generations the largest estates become subdivided until the owners become reduced into one mass; and the whole aspect of society becomes nearly the same. Does not this present a reason why the Right of Suffrage should be connected in some degree with the soil? But let the test be made as moderate as it can be. Here we see none of those causes which overthrew the ancient Republics. The bases of our society are different from theirs. Our interests are more combined. The mass of the people are more connected with each other. Here are no great divisions of rich and poor existing distinct from each other, and engaged in perpetual conflicts. For these reasons, I should like to see the Right of Suffrage connected with the soil, but to an extent as moderate as circumstances will admit. The question was then taken on Mr. Stanard's amendment, and decided in the negative-Ayes 41, Noes 44.

(Messrs. Madison, Monroe, and Marshall, voted in the affirmative.)

The question was then taken on Mr. Leigh's amendment, and decided in the negative-Ayes 37, Noes 51.

Aye Mr. Monroe. Noes-Messrs. Madison and Marshall.

Mr. Cooke then offered the following amendment:

Strike out from the resolution of the Legislative Committee, all after the words "Resolved, that" and insert: "the election of all Executive, Legislative, or other functionaries, in this Commonwealth, whose election shall be submitted directly to the people, by the provisions of any new Constitution, or amendment of the old, to be framed by the Convention now assembled, shall be:

"All white male citizens of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years, or upwards, and resident in the county, city, borough or other electoral district, where they shall respectively offer to vote, at the time of any election; except

"That citizens of the United States, born in the United States, but without the limits of the Commonwealth, shall not enjoy the Right of Suffrage, unless they shall have resided therein for years inmediately preceding the election at which they shall respectively offer to vote; and immediately preceding such election in the county, city, borough or other electoral district, where they shall respectively offer to vote: the mode of proving such residence to be prescribed by law: "That naturalized citizens of the United States, shall not enjoy the right until, in addition to the qualification of residence required by the next preceding clause, they shall have respectively acquired by marriage, by descent or purchase, a freehold estate in land of the assessed value of dollars, situated within the Commonwealth, (the title to which shall have been evidenced by a recorded deed, or will, and shall have been in possession of the same for the space of before any election at which they shall respectively offer to vote; the mode of proving the previous residence required by this clause to be prescribed by law.)

"That no person shall exercise the Right of Suffrage at any election unless he shall have paid a State, county, or corporation tax, imposed on hiin by law, and legally demanded of him, during the two years immediately preceding such election: the mode of proving or disproving such payment, if disputed, to be prescribed by law.

"That no person convicted of any infamous offence, shall, at any election thereafter, enjoy or exercise the Right of Suffrage; the enumeration such offences to be made by law.

"That the Right of Suffrage shall not be enjoyed or exercised, by any pauper-(the definition of the term pauper to be made by law :)

64

By any person who shall have been declared, by a lawful tribunal, to be of unsound mind, during the continuance of such disability; or,

By any non-commissioned officer, or private soldier, seaman or marine, in the regular service of the United States, or of this Commonwealth.'

(The preceding is the shape which Mr. Cooke's proposition assumed, after being modified by subsequent amendments.)

MR. COOKE said, that the Convention was now in the eighth week of its session, and had decided almost nothing. He added, that notwithstanding the ability with which the various subjects had been discussed, it was quite apparent that the Committee was absolutely surfeited with discussion and debate. It would ill become him, under such circumstances, to trespass on the time and patience of the Committee, by what was commonly called a "set speech." Nothing was farther from his purpose. Indeed, if the views comprehended in the amendment he had just offered on the subject of Suffrage, had been presented by any other member, he should have contented himself, after a discussion so protracted, with giving a silent vote in their support.

Under existing circumstances, he deemed it his duty to explain and support those views, but would endeavor to do it with as much brevity as possible. He hoped it would not be considered a departure from this plan of brevity, to make a few remarks on the two amendments yesterday proposed by the gentleman from Spottsylvania, (Mr. Stanard,) as he should in explaining the reasons which induced him to vote against both of the amendinents alluded to, present at the same time the grounds of his preference for those which he had had the honour himself to subinit.

The gentleman from Spottsylvania had proposed to extend the Right of Suffrage to 1st. Every such citizen as shall be a lessee of a tenement of the yearly value of or more years, by a deed duly recorded

dollars, for a term of

three months before the time he may offer to vote, and of which lease at least years shall be unexpired at the time he offers to vote.' And

2d. Every such citizen as shall, within one year before he may offer to vote, have a tux or taxes to the amount of assessed on property, whether real or personal, owned by him, and shall have actually paid such tax or taxes at least three months before he shall so offer to vote."

Now, Sir, said Mr. C., I am opposed to both of these modifications of the Right of Suffrage, because of the fluctuating and mutable character of the qualification they prescribe. I am opposed to the first, because it confers the right on a lessee in 1829, and deprives him of it in 1830. In 1829, his lease has two years to run, and he is a voter: he enjoys a share in the sovereignty of the country: in 1830, it has but one year to run, and he is disfranchised, and yet he is the same man-possesses the same nioral and intellectual qualities—the same love of country-the same stake in the community-the same "evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community"-in short, the same fitness to exercise the Right of Suffrage as in the preceding year. He has done no act to change his relation to the community in any respect, and yet he finds himself degraded from the rank of one of the sovereigns of the country, and a member of a disfranchised class. Sir, it ought to be borne in mind, that in forming a Constitution for the people of Virginia, we are not dealing with mere machines-with those "men of wood and brass and iron," to which the gentleman from Brooke (Mr. Campbell) the other day so forcibly alluded; but with sentient beings, whose feelings must be consulted and respected. And in this view I would ask, whether the free and high-spirited people of Virginia would submit, with patience, to a regulation sɔ arbitrary and capricious in its character! Would not its enforcement produce disaffection, if not turmoil and confusion, in the class of persons subjected to its operation? I apprehend that such consequences would inevitably flow from the enforcement of a rule not only fluctuating, but in itself unjust and arbitrary.

The same principle of mutability pervades and vitiates the other qualification proposed by the gentleman from Spottsylvania. He proposes that the qualification shall consist in the payment of a certain sum of money to the Government, in the shape of an assessed tax on property, real or personal, owned by the voter, and that the right to vote shall cease when the tax shall be either abolished or reduced in amount below

that certain and specificil sum. There are, incident to this qualification, two principles of mutability or destruction, one extrinsic, the other essential and inherent. Although recommended as a part of the fundamental law of the country, which of course should not be changeable by ordinary legislation, it is liable to be destroyed, at any moment, by the whim, or caprice, or settled policy, if you please, of the Legislative bodies. And this too, on the colourable and popular pretext of diminishing the burthens of