purse. There is not, as some advocates of the amendment seem to suppose, any pe culiar relation between taxation on the one hand, and representation on the other, as is evident from the principles which govern their respective application. All are bound to contribute to the support of Government according to their means; all are entitled to the right of suffrage who have sufficient evidence of permanent common interest in, and attachment to, the community.

I am at a loss to perceive, Sir, how this subject can be elucidated, by the reference which gentlemen have made to the controversy with Great Britain, which resulted in our Independence. The British Parliament asserted the right of taxing us without our consent, although we were in no wise represented in that body; our representatives being here in our Colonial Legislatures. We resisted that despotic enterprize of a foreign Government, as we would have resisted any other invasion of our civil liberties, and engaged in the perilous and unequal conflict, not to obtain representation in Parliament, which we would not have been willing to accept, whether according to taxation or numbers, but because we would not submit to laws affecting our rights, to which we had not consented, either by ourselves or our repre

sentatives.

As this amendment is justified, in the opinion of its advocates, by the conflicting sectional interests supposed to exist in Virginia, in consequence of which the greater wealth of the minority might, without some such security, fall a sacrifice to the rapacity of the majority, I would ask gentlemen to reflect whether there is in point of fact, any permanent contrariety of interests of that alarming character. We are forming a Constitution which is to last for ages, and we should be careful not to mistake temporary and fluctuating varieties of interests, for those of a permanent and irreconcileable nature; and the changes in the relative wealth and population of different parts of the State, which have already occurred, and are still in progress, ought to be sufficient to remove all fears on this subject.

The only effect of the proposed amendment would be, to give permanency to any hostile sectional feelings which may now exist in this Commonwealth, and by exasperating those feelings, perhaps bring about that very insecurity of property which it is the object of its advocates to guard against. Representation in any degree, according to taxation, would not prevent schemes of internal improvement; by which, portions of the State may be made to aid in defraying the expenses of improvements in which they might not consider themselves immediately interested. If enlarged views of justice and sound policy should not satisfy the dominant party, however constituted, that the interests of the whole State will be promoted by useful internal improvements, wherever required, you may rest assured that the same result will be produced by combinations of various sectional interests. And we are not to expect that the east and the west will be always arrayed against each other upon such questions. The improvement of James River may, for example, be united with a project to connect it with the western waters; and in like manner a concert may be brought about between those interested in the navigation of the Potomac, and that of the Shenandoah.

All the arguments which have been urged to prove that Virginia is divided by hostile and irreconcileable sectional interests, only tend to establish that she ought not to continue united under the same Government, a conclusion abhorrent to the feelings of every patriot, and however ingenious and eloquent gentlemen may speculate upon the subject, not justified by any facts which have occurred in the whole course of our history. And after all that has been said to destroy our confidence in the justice of the majority, it is the only rational security which we can have for the peace, and happiness, and prosperity of the community. Our Republican Institutions rest for their support upon the virtue and intelligence of the people; and if they should not be sufficient to ensure a faithful and wise administration of the Government, the best hopes of human liberty and happiness which we have cherished must be disappointed, and we shall be compelled to abandon the scheme of self-government, and yield up the many to the protection of the few.

Mr. Baldwin concluded, by apologizing for the imperfect manner in which he feared he had discharged the duty he had undertaken, and for the omission of several views of the subject, which he had intended submitting to the consideration of the Committee.

Mr. Cooke of Frederick, availed himself of the pause which ensued, after the close of the above speech, to correct a misapprehension into which Mr. Upshur had fallen, in supposing him to have admitted, that in the whole period, during which the exist ing Constitution had been in operation, no instances of misrule had ever occurred in any department of the Government: he had gone no farther than to admit, that while the Gentlemen in the eastern part of the State, having the majority in the Legislature, had it thereby in their power to lay oppressive taxes on the cattle of the west, they had never exercised their power in that respect. As to instances of misrule, he had not said any thing, as he would gladly avow such a question. He went into a farther

correction of the same gentleman, in relation to what Mr. Cooke had said, as to the balance between the population on the two sides of the Blue Ridge, and the relative number of slaves in the lower country, and in the Valley, and he made a statistical calculation to shew, that the fears entertained by the slave-holding part of the State were groundless.

Mr. Upshur replied, and regretted that the gentleman had thought it necessary to withdraw any part of a compliment, which, as coming from him, was highly appreciated by gentlemen from the east of the State. Still the argument remained the same; for, if when they had the power, they had not oppressed the west by taxation, he was at a loss to conceive, in what other way they were under any temptation to oppress them. Mr. Upshur still insisted on the ground he had before taken, as to the balance of slave population; and denied that any counties were to be reckoned to the slaveholding interest, but those in which that sort of population formed the preponderating interest.

Mr. Leigh of Chesterfield, asked whether it would be trespassing too far on the gentleman from Frederick (Mr. Cooke) if he asked him to state some of the prominent acts of misrule, which had taken place in the Legislature of Virginia, during the time the power of the majority in that body, had been in the hands of gentlemen residing in the eastern portion of the State? It had been a part of the fortune of his own very laborious life, to examine almost every act of that Legislature, since the Revolution. On the subject of misrule, he confessed himself a beggar for information, hungry and destitute. He did not ask the gentleman to go into particulars, but merely to state some of the prominent cases. Mr. Leigh would not say, that during that time no impolitic measures had been adopted, nor would he say the Government had always pursued the wisest and the best course; but, he wished to have pointed out to him any very impolitic measure, justly chargeable upon the structure of the existing Constitution, and to which the people of the west had not been as much parties as the people of the east; any wrong done either to individuals, or to classes of the community, springing out of the principles of the Constitution.

Mr. Cooke replied, that he had not asserted the existence of misrule, and, therefore, he was not called upon to prove what he had not asserted. Yet he would not admit, that he might not truly have made such an assertion. To make his meaning more distinct, he would now say that he did assert the existence of such misrule. Yet he should-reserve to himself the right of taking what course he chose upon that floor; nor could he consent to have such course chalked out, and dictated to him by the member from Chesterfield. He said he might, perhaps, give at some other time the reasons on which his assertion rested; but at present there were many gentlemen who wished to speak to the question; and he did not choose to have the time of the Convention taken up by a discussion thus forced upon him by the gentleman from Chesterfield.

Mr. Leigh rejoined: he thought there had been nothing either unparliamentary or indecent in the request he had preferred to the gentleman from Frederick. The gentleman would certainly wait his own good time. But, in the mean while, he begged leave to join issue with him, and to pledge himself to meet the charge, come it on what ground it might: the history of the Legislature of the State would repel it. On motion of Mr. Powell of Frederick, the Committee then rose, and thereupon the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1829.

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

The Convention resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Stanard in the Chair.

Mr. PowELL rose to address the Commmittee, in opposition to Mr. Green's amendment, and spoke in nearly the following terms:

Mr. Chairman: At no period, upon no occasion of my life, have I felt so much embarrassment as I do at this moment. I fear I have neither physical nor moral strength to sustain the weight. It is not wonderful that I should be embarrassed, when I look through this assembly, containing the assembled wisdom of the State; when I see before me, men grown grey in the pursuit of political service, and who have spent their lives in the application of their science, to promote the happiness and prosperity of their fellow men: men, who will hereafter be consecrated for their profound wisdom and tried patriotism. It would ill become so humble an individual to be otherwise than embarrassed. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to offer to this Committee, but a plain, unvarnished statement of the grounds and arguments, which have brought

me to my conclusions. I cannot invoke the rich stores of fancy or call the decorations of eloquence to my aid.

:

We have, Mr. Chairman, been deputed here, and clothed with ample powers by the people of Virginia, to form for them a compact of Government for the protection of their lives, their liberty, and for the security of their property. In the discharge of this duty, know of but one moral or divine law which we are bound to respect and obey this is, that we shall observe the immutable principles of justice in framing the instrument. There are certain political maxims, hallowed by time and sanctioned by the wisdom of the sages and patriots of former days, and embodied in our Bill of Rights, to which I shall have occasion to refer hereafter, that certainly have no binding or obligatory force upon us, either natural or divine, but which certainly are entitled to great respect and influence, where they are applicable. Our duty, as I have said, is to form a compact of Government; in doing this, certainly, every member has an unquestioned right to offer his propositions, and insist on their admission into the compact. In doing so, the member is the only proper judge of the justice and expediency of his proposition, and is not bound to yield his own opinion to the influence of any political maxim; except where such maxim has intrinsic worth to recommend it. We have, then, a moral rule to govern us, which, we are not at liberty to violate, and we have political maxims to guide us, so far as we regard these maxims as applicable to existing circumstances. There are also motives and rules of action, personal to ourselves, that ought tobe adverted to. We were not sent here, to gain in this compact, to seek to obtain advantages for those we represent, local or sectional advanta ges; for myself, I would have indignantly rejected the honorable trust conferred upon me, if it had been expected of me to struggle for local interests, at the sacrifices of the interests of the whole community. I regard myself here, as the representative, as much of the one as of the other sections of the Commonwealth. I regard it as my duty to look to the interests of the whole community, and to provide fundamental laws for the community at large.

With these preliminary views, I shall proceed to the consideration of the questions now before the Committee. It will be conceded, I presume, by every member of the Committee, that in the formation of a compact of Government, the great and leading object ought to be, to conform the Government to the character of the people over whom it is to operate. It will also be conceded, that a Representative Republic, founded upon elementary principles, essentially belonging to such a form of Government, is the best and happiest system for obtaining the end of all Government that can be devised, when the people have the essential qualities to suit them to such a form of Government. Those essential qualities are virtue and intelligence in the people. If they have those qualities, justice demands that they should receive this highest and best gift of Divine Providence, at the hands of those to whom is confided the power of framing their Government. If, on the contrary, they are deficient in those great essentials, such a Government would be to them a curse instead of a blessing. All history and experience prove the truth of this proposition. No wise politician would for a moment contend, that Turkey or Russia could live under such a form of Government. Visionary and dreaming politicians made the experiment in France : the result was a scene of carnage and horror, at which the mind revolts. But, in the same ratio as it would be unjust and impolitic in these countries, to attempt to establish a Republican Government, it would be unjust to refuse a Government of that description, to those who have those essential pillars, on which alone it can rest.

Our first duty, therefore, is to look to the character of the people of Virginia, for whom it is our duty to form a Constitution. If we find them virtuous and intelligent, it would be unpardonable in us, not to frame for them a Constitution, founded upon the pure and essential elements of Republicanism. It would be without excuse, if, in departing from those principles, we infused into the instrument, oligarchical, aristocratical, and monarchical principles, abridging, in any degree, their power of selfgovernment. What, then, is the character of the people of Virginia? Have they virtue; have they intelligence, fitting them for such a system of Government? If they have not, it may be safely affirmed, that there is not, upon the face of the globe, a people of whom we have knowledge, that possesses these requisites; and we have only to deplore the verification of the predictions of all the enemies of civil liberty, who denounce the Republics in this country, as an idle and visionary experiment; and the friends of liberal principles, may sit down and lament over the prostration of their best and fairest hopes. But I confidently maintain, that the people of Virginia, is a community, who love virtue and intelligence. To sustain this proposition, I appeal to every member of this Convention, and ask him to look at the people with whom he lives in the district he himself represents, and to say whether they are not a virtuous, an honest, and an intelligent people? For myself, I could say, that the people of the district with whom I live, possess this character. No one will deny that the people of Virginia, were a virtuous and magnanimous people in 1776; that they gave the most striking and conclusive evidence of the most sterling virtue.

With a vindictive and ruthless enemy at their very doors; with every thing to appal and to alarm; in truth, with halters round their necks; the alternative was presented to them, of abandoning their virtue, their principles, and their country, and thereby securing their own safety, or nobly traversing the dangers that encompass them: are the people of Virginia the degenerate sons of such fathers? I think not. A similar occasion would produce similar evidences of virtue at the present day. The demora lizing principle, has not here had the inviting channels which have been opened to it in some other States of the Union. We have no large cities in Virginia, to present an inviting refuge for the vicious, the profligate, and the convicts of foreign countries, and in that way, to introduce them into the heart of the community, spreading their baneful influence in all directions.

But a conclusive evidence of the virtue of the people of Virginia is to be found in the body here assembled. I look around me, and of what materials do I find it composed? Does it not include men most distinguished for their wisdom and for their virtue, their patriotism, and public services? Were not these the qualifications which recommended them to the people of Virginia? Would the people, if themselves vicious, or demoralized, have selected them for such recommendations? What, I ask, is this? Does the report of the Legislative Committee, which we are now considering, recommend an essential, elementary principle, as the basis of a pure Republican Government. suited to a virtuous and enlightened people? If it does, and the principles which I have attempted to maintain, be correct; justice, wisdom, and policy demand that that report should receive our sanction. The principle there recommen-ded, is, that representation in the Legislative Department of Government, should be based upon white population, exclusively. I have said, that there were great political maxims emanating from the wisest and most patriotic statesmen, and sanctioned by all the elementary writers upon the subject of Government; acted upon too, and approved by the people of this Commonwealth for fifty-four years, and embodied in our Bill of Rights; and that we ought to regard them, not as binding authority, but as lights to guide us to correct conclusions. One of these maxims is found in the second section of that instrument, which, among others, is declared, in the preamble of that section, to pertain to the people of this Commonwealth and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of Governinent. That maxim is, "that all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them." To see the application of this maxim, we must first ascertain in what sense the word "people" is there used. It is unquestionably intended to embrace all those within the pale of the community; in other words, all those who are participants in the enjoyment of political power. It follows, therefore, when the community is ascertained, that all political power is vested in that community. By the third article in the Bill of Rights it is provided that a majority hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter or abolish the fundamental laws as shall be judged, &c.

Thus it is perceived that, by the Bill of Rights, and without the Bill of Rights it would be equally true and undeniable, two great principles of Government are established.

1st. That all power is vested in the people.

2nd. That a majority of the people must control the minority, and regulate the exercise of that power.

Apply these two principles to the resolution of the Committee, and they sustain the proposition therein contained.

The truth of these two propositions must be denied, or the resolution must be sanctioned: does this require argument to prove it? The argument is brief. If all power is "vested in the people, and a majority is" to govern, in the exercise of that power, it follows of course, that such majority can only be ascertained by a general vote of the people, or by their agents representing equal portions of the people. I have thus, according to my intention, endeavored to shew:

1. That Government must be conformed to the characters of the people.

2: That Republican Government is the happiest form of Government, that human wisdom can divine, for a virtuous and intelligent people.

3. That the people of Virginia, have the necessary virtue and intelligence. 4. That the resolution of the Legislative Committee, recommends a principle essentially and necessarily forming an element, of a pure Republican Government.

I will now, Mr. Chairman, proceed to the consideration of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Culpeper. He proposes to strike out the basis of white population exclusively, as recommended by the Committee, and to insert a totally different basis; a basis to be composed of population and taxation combined :—As to the object of this proposition of amendment, there can be but one opinion; it is intended, distinctly, to give representation (to a certain extent) to wealth, and not to numbers. What is the avowed operation and effect of the amendment, as admitted by its friends and advocates? It will be to give representation to slaves, and political power to their masters in the Legislative Department of the Government; and this, not because they

I

are rational beings, having free will, and the power of exercising such free will, but as property exclusively in the hands of their owners, by reason whereof, they are to have and exercise political power. To illustrate: If an individual has one hundred slaves, upon which he pays taxes, he is to have political power in proportion to his number of slaves. This doctrine is new in the political institutions of this State : it is moreover, not only a departure from what has hitherto been regarded as republican, but is in direct conflict with the political maxims, by which the statesmen and patriots of Virginia have heretofore been guided and governed. Let us look, for a moment, to some of the most leading and fundamental of these maxims: In the Bill of Rights it is asserted, that all power is derived from the people, and of right belongs to them. The proposed amendinent affirms, that all power is not derived from the people, and vested in them, but that a portion of political power belongs to, and is vested in, property, and that not property in general, according to the argument, but in a particular species of property. There is another political maxim found in the same instru'ment, which asserts, that the majority of the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter or abolish their fundamental laws. The amendment affirms, that this right does not belong to a majority, but that this great and absorbing right, belongs to a minority of the people and majority of wealth: both these propositions cannot be true. The one or the other must be false. Are gentlemen prepared to pronounce these maxins false? They certainly have high, and I would almost venture to say, controlling sanction, when applied to people capable of self-government: they emanated from the wisest and purest statesmen, in the best of times. They are hallowed by time, and experience, and are interwoven with the habits and affections of the people of Virginia. Wille Committee at this stage of my argu ment, indulge me in a simple and practical illustration of the truth of these political maxims. I beg leave to use my illustration, not only to shew, to some extent, the reasons upon which these truths are founded; but also, as an answer to an argument of the gentleman from Orange, in which he insists upon the quid pro quo, in the compact we are engaged in making.

The

I will suppose that a community of fifty individuals have assembled together for the purpose of forming for themselves a system of Government. Of these individuals, forty are worth 100 dollars each: the residue ten, worth 2000 dollars each. They agree as to the object of the compact. It is to protect their lives, and their liberty, and to secure their property. The next object is the details of this compact. I will take the joint-stock principle of the gentleman from Northampton. Ten wealthy individuals bring into contribution, their lives, their liberties, and their two thousand dollars each. The poorer and most numerous class bring also their lives, their liberties, and their one hundred dollars each, which constitutes their all, into the joint-stock. rich say, "we have two thousand dollars each you have but one hundred dollars each. We have, consequently, twenty times as much property to protect by the provisions of this compact as you have. We, therefore, insist upon having, in all matters about which we are to legislate, ten votes for your one. This provision is necessary for the protection of our property, against your cupidity. Otherwise, having the majority of numbers, you might legislate our two thousand dollars out of our pockets into yours." What would be the obvious answer to such a demand? "It is true you have the most property; but our lives and our liberties are as dear to us, as your lives and your liberties can be to you. As to property, we bring into common-stock our all, you do no more. Our all is as dear to us, though not so great, as yours can possibly be to you. The compact can be only durable, as founded upon the mutual confidence of the contracting parties. Besides, if you shall have, by virtue of your property, the political power which you claim, you may exercise that power upon our lives and liberties, as well as upon our property. If, by virtue of our numbers, we are to be feared, as to matters of property, why may we not equally fear for our liberties, if we give to you, who are the minority, the power to govern us; especially as you have the wealth, which is power in itself?" At this moment, when the Convention is about to be broken up upon this matter, as to the distribution of power, a neighboring horde of marauders and plunderers are seen hovering round our supposed community, with the evident intent of conquering and plundering them. What would the wealthy minority think and say? "We have not strength to defend ourselves without your aid. Not only our property, but our lives and liberties will fall a prey to our enemies. It is our wealth especially which has allured them; we shall be the peculiar objects of their vengeance. We close with your terms: with your aid, our defence and protection is certain." The invading foe is repelled, at the risk, perhaps at the expense, of the blood of the majority. I would ask the gentleman from Orange, whether there would not be here a quid pro quo. Sir, I hope the day is far distant, when this Commonwealth will be exposed to war or invasion; but it is certainly wise to look forward and to make provision for such an event. When that day shall arrive, depend upon it, the wealthy few will find their remuneration for the loss of political power, which they now deprecate, in the dauntless bravery and ardent patriotism of