ple, and rests upon it. Cut it down, by the act of this Convention, and how will the south sustain itself in our National Councils? Mr. Chairman, we have more motives than our fathers had on this subject. We have given up to the Federal Government, the entire power of laying duties upon imposts. We have surrendered all our most valuable sources of revenue into their hands, and now we have few resources left but direct taxation upon our lands and slaves. At the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the wise men, who framed that instrument, knew that all the resources of foreign commerce were to be in the hands of the Federal Government, and that the necessity of resorting to direct taxation, would seldom arise. If, then, our ancestors thought it necessary, at that day, to insist on the principle; if they rejected a representation based on numbers, and insisted on a guarantee for the protection of property, can our motives be less for a similar policy? Surely not. They are magnified ten-fold. Those who framed the General Government, were well aware of the vast resources which must be derived to it, from foreign commerce: but, we know, by sad experience, that a State Government can have no resources for wealth, but what she derives from direct taxation. If our fathers insisted on a guarantee against the mere contingency, that the General Government night, sometimes be obliged to resort to direct taxation, how much more ought we to be on our guard, whose direct taxes are annually and daily recurring?

But, Sir, we have given other evidence, that, in our judgment, the interpretation which the gentlemen would put upon the Bill of Rights, is not the true one. Not only did the very men, who drew up our Bill of Rights, themselves insist upon a compound basis of numbers and property; but look, Sir, how we ourselves have disposed of power, in the structure of the Senate of the United States. I know the case is not, in all points, parallel; but I refer to it, as going to shew, that, in the judgment of Virginia, mere numbers never do constitute a fit basis for representation, (unless, indeed, where the peculiar nature of the case is such, that they are, in themselves, an all-sufficient guarantee;) but, wherever great interests, either political or pecuniary, are about to be placed in jeopardy, a different principle is instantly resorted to. I say, then, that in the construction of the less numerous branch of the Federal Legislature, so far from admitting the principle of a mere majority of numbers having the right to rule, we agreed, that that principle should be, in a still greater degree, disregarded, than is proposed now by the amendment before us. We stipulated expressly, that all the States should enjoy, in that body, a strictly equal representation. The little States of Delaware, Rhode Island, and New-Jersey, are precisely on a footing with Virginia, New-York, and Pennsylvania. Sir, is there any thing here like an equality of numbers? The inequality is vast; it is infinite: far, far beyond any thing that is asked or thought of between us and our transmontaine brethren.

Why was such an article as this, inserted in the Federal Constitution? It was for the purpose of preserving the political sovereignty of the small States; and it was necessary to that end. Numbers did not, and could not prevail. If they had, the small States would have been in jeopardy every hour. We deliberately agreed to the arrangement. We ourselves said, that in point of representation in the Senate, Rhode Island and Delaware should be on the saine footing with Virginia or New-York.

I know it may be urged, that this was not a compromise among individuals, but among sovereign States. Granted. But, are we not making a compromise, similar in character and principle? A compromise to preserve the rights of individuals, as dear to them, and as important to them, as political sovereignty can be to a State. Is it not for the preservation of that on which their families are to subsist? For the preservation of their property?

It is a compromise, on the same principle and for the same end; with this only dif ference, that property is in the place of political power.

Numbers then, were not in 76 or in '7, the principle by which the people of Virginia, were regulated, in conferring power either on her own State authorities, or those of the Federal Government.

Is there no great interest concerned in this question? Shall we be told that it is not a great interest which is to be protected? Aye, but it is said that interest is not in jeopardy. Sir, what is the present actual condition of this State? In what position do we stand? In this position: The slave population on this side the Blue Ridge, amounts to 390,000; the slave population beyond the Blue Ridge, amounts to 50,000. On this side the Ridge is raised more than three-fourths of the entire amount of taxes paid in the State. Beyond that Ridge is raised less than one-fourth of those taxes. Beyond that Ridge, lie 40 counties. Some of these of rich and fertile land, and one of the most beautiful limestone valleys on which the sun shines. And yet, Sir, this whole region of country, from the Blue Ridge to the Ohio river, is drawing every year from the public chest, for the administration of justice, and the purposes of representative Government, a sum greater than it brings into the general fisc. And now, Sir, what are we asked to do? While we pay three-fourths of the taxes, and they one-fourth, and while they draw from the treasury, more than they pay into it,

we are asked to adopt into our Constitution an article by which the whole political authority and tax-laying power of the State, shall be transferred beyond the Ridge! Sir, I do not say, nor do I believe, that the people west of the Ridge, are any less moral, or in any respect, worse than those to the east of it: but I would ask them, with all frankness, whether they would feel safe in the like circumstances? Whether such a state of things could be called Republican? Or, whether it would not interfere with the very first principles of Republican Government? I ask, what is the money raised by taxation in a free Government? Is it a contribution extorted by the power of a despot? By the King or his Nobles? Has any power, existing in a Republic, a right to take away from ine, 10, 20, 50 per cent. of my property, without any consultation with me or my representative? No, Sir. It is of the very essence of Republican Government, that all money raised for public purposes, shall be the voluntary donation of the people, by themselves or their agents. But what sort of a donation is that, where another lays the tax and makes the donation out of my property? Is that the donation of the holder? Sir, I was surprised when the gentleman from Norfolk said, the other day, that taxation and representation, sprang from different fountains, and flowed into different and distant oceans.

Would not

My little reading had led me to believe, that the representative principle in modern times, and as it now exists upon the American Continent, owed its birth to the British House of Commons; where representation, according to our notion of it, first existed. That was the model from which all the various forms of representative Government, in North and South America, have been taken. In some instances we have improved upon it: in others we have fallen below it; but varied as our forms are, the House of Commons was our original model. Now, that House had no authority in the beginning, but from the fact that its members were the tax-layers. They were called for the purpose of affording aids to the King, out of their property. Sir, it was this searching power of taxation, which gradually elevated the House of Commons, until they were enabled to say to the proudest of their Monarchs, we will not grant you the money for which you ask us, unless we know and approve the purpose to which it is to be applied. From this fountain have proceeded all the Republican Governments on the American Continent. The gentleman is much mistaken in supposing that these two powers are so little together. But let us now recur to the principle that the grantors have a right to be first consulted before their money is disposed of. We are told, Mr. Chairman, that we must rely on the morality, on the integrity and virtue of the majority as a sufficient guarantee. I know the people who live beyond the Ridge; I am acquainted with their character; and I most cheerfully admit that there are none on whose virtue and honor I would more readily rely. But the gentleman from Orange very truly said, that the principle on which all free Governments rest, is not confidence, but jealousy and watchfulness. the good sense of gentlemen feel shocked, if any one here should propose that the Legislature of Ohio should be empowered to tax Virginia? Is there a man on this floor, who, on hearing such a thing mentioned, would not cry out that it was too monstrous a proposition to be tolerated? Now, Sir, I believe that the gentlemen who constitute the Legislature of Ohio, have a general feeling towards Virginia of kindness and good will; and that their integrity is as great as our own. But why revolt, then, at the very idea of their having power to tax us? Cannot we rely upon their morality, their integrity and virtue? Sir, it is not because we deny, or even suspect their morals, that we shrink from such a proposition; but because the Legislature of Ohio cannot know as accurately as we do, the situation of this part of the country, with which they have, comparatively, little connection, and no fellow-feeling; and because men vote taxes with much less caution and care when they do not expect themselves to pay any part of the tax, than when they are personally interested in its effects and responsible to those who must pay. It is one thing to give your assent to a requisition which falls upon those you never saw, and quite another to vote for it when you must go back and bear your own share in the contribution, and face those who are to bear the burden with you. If this principle, viz: that those alone should have power to lay a tax who will be required to pay it, be not a fundamental principle of a representative Government, why is it that the tax-laying power is, by the Federal Constitution, confided to the House of Representatives alone? Why, in a great majority of the States, is the same provision engrafted, that money-bills shall originate in the popular branch of their Legislatures? And if it be, on what ground does the principle rest? Obviously on the fact, that in that branch there will always be found more of the men who are to pay the tax, and who feel intimately with the people, the weight of their financial burdens. Sir, these principles are the very corner-stones of a free Government, and they constitute very striking features in all our State Constitutions. Grant now to the gentlemen, what they are asking by the resolution of the Legislative Committee; and will any one of these principles be brought to bear upon the property of the people who live in the south eastern portion of Virginia? People who hold about 400,000 slaves, and who furnish nearly all the revenue

of the State? Taxation is the grant of a people holding property for the purpose of supporting the Government of their choice. But how is it to be a donation? If it is made by the Legislature of Ohio out of the funds of the people of Virginia, all men see at once that it can be no such thing. But if it be done by those who pay less than one-fourth, where we pay more than three-fourths, how is it more our donation than if it was given away by the Legislature of Ohio? Sir, all our property will be swept from us by the plan we are gravely asked to adopt as fair and equal. The people of the west, for example, want to make some Appian, or some Flaminian way, or some Roman aqueduct, or some other such splendid work of Internal Improvement: (It is not my purpose to ridicule works of Internal Improvement. There are some of those works, in support of which, under proper circumstances, I would go as far as they ;) but they wish, perhaps, to unite the waters of the Ohio and Potomac, and so they must tunnel the Alleghany. Well, Sir; what will be done? Will they lay taxes to effect these great projects? No, Sir, not all: not at first: they will begin not with taxes, but with debt, and debt is always taxation at last: pay-day must come : and when it has come, then comes the tax; and how is the tax collected? Why, Sir, one-fourth part of it, and less than that, is collected to the west of the Blue Ridge, (i. e. where the great project is carried on) and the remaining three-fourths of it is collected; where, Sir? in the country south-east of that Ridge. When you come to the vote for laying the tax, every member from the south-eastern country is dissatisfied; every one of them is convinced the scheme is totally impracticable and a mere waste of the public money, and he speaks and votes against it. And what is the effect of their votes? just what it would have been had they all voted the 'other way. The donation is made; and it is made out of their property; but it is made by others: it is made by men who embrace entirely different views, and have entirely different interests; men who act most honestly in the matter, being sincerely and strongly of opinion that the project is of great importance; very practicable, and very desirable. Sir, is this a donation? I ask, are the three-fourths of this tax a donation of ours? No, Sir, the money is taken: it is taken from us: not by Legislative "rapine;" not by the perpetration of wickedness; not at all; but taken from us against our consent, because they are of a different opinion from us; and that with respect to matters on which there is confessed to be room for a wide, yet honest difference of opinion. Mr. Chairman, I fear to entrust my brethren with such a power: I fear it because they are not accountable to those whose money they take and have no common interest with them: that is the reason, the republican reason, on which I ground a refusal of their claims.

If I am right, then the highest degree of moral virtue, the most pure and unblemished integrity, and I had almost said, the most sublime intelligence, afford us no adequate protection: for men always have differed, and always will differ, in questions involving great and expensive objects of national enterprize. When the time comes at which the taxes must be levied (though they will not, as I said, begin by direct taxation; nay, it is probable there will be some diminution of taxes for a time, because they will resort to debt, which the people cannot feel, but come they must,) they will fall on those who were never consulted or who were voted down.

Sir, my friend did say that the great principle which lay at the foundation of our revolution, was involved in the amendment now before you; and I am, I confess, of the same opinion. Are not the cases parallel? do they not rest upon the same principle? viz: that the money of the people is not to be taken but by the consent of themselves or their authorised agents? Sir, what was the American Revolution? was it not the resistance of a claim set up by the British Parliament to tax the Colonies without their consent?

We have been told by the gentleman from Brooke (Mr. Doddridge) that America resisted the demand, because, though England and America were under the same Crown, they were different nations; just as Scotland and Ireland were before the union; and so the Legislature of the one could not tax the other. But, Sir, the Colonies came under the British Crown in a way very different from Scotland or Ireland. The question 'etween America and the mother country could never have arisen if she had been situated toward the Crown as was either of those kingdoms. The Charter which fixed the boundaries of Virginia was granted by the King of England to English subjects; to subjects who resided in London; and for a long time, the whole Government of Virginia was conducted in London, subject, however, to the control of Parliament; and it was only after the Colony had become too populous to be thus managed any longer, that the grant was made to it of having a Provincial Assembly. Our situation was more analagous to that of British India, than it was to Ireland or Scotland. But, Mr. Chairman, it was not because Parliament undertook to tax us while we were not represented in that body, that America drew the sword: it was because our Colonial Charters had declared that the Colonists should enjoy all the rights of native-born British subjects; and one of these rights was, that you should not touch their property but by their own consent. That was the ground, and the

true ground, of our revolutionary struggle. It was not that we had no representation in Parliament: for as to that, it was even pretended that as by our Charters, our lands were to be held as of the Manor of East Greenwich in the kingdom of England by the tenure of free and common soccage, we constituted a part of the diocese of one of the English Bishops, and were, therefore, virtually represented in the person of his lordship in the Upper House, and by the members from Kent in the other. But our ancestors well knew that representation in Parliament would be no security against oppression. Suppose, to quiet our discontents, Great Britain had offered to allow us to be represented, to how many delegates should we have been entitled? Let me see; there were the two Adamses, and Hancock, and Franklin, and Lee, and Henry, and the Rutledges. Why, Sir, upon the principle contended for by gentlemen, we could not have been authorised to have more than twenty or twenty-five of them; thirty perhaps. (Here a shrill and very peculiar voice was heard to say "less than the county of Wilts.") Less than the county of Wilts, I hear suggested. Well, Sir; sup

pose them seated in the House of Commons. A tea tax is proposed. They get up and resist it: they tell the Parliament, in our own American phrase, that America "can't stand it.' Suppose them to declare that she ought not to stand it, till at length, icaxing warmer as they proceed, they tell the House, America will not stand it; she will resist the tax. Sir, would it answer any purpose to say this to the Minister in a body containing five hundred members? Some gentleman would immediate ly get up and say, "Why gentlemen, you are in a minority: you may vote against this tax, if you please; but we, who are more capable of judging what is best for America and for the whole empire, say the tax must be raised." quence? These old revolutionary men come back; they are asked in some townWhat is the consemeeting, or other assemblage of their fellow-citizens, tax upon tea to be laid?" And they would say (according to gentlemen's doctrine) flow can ou to suffer this we did not consent to the tax; we resisted it to the utmost of our power; we were fully heard; but, the majority was against us; we could not help it; and you must pay the tax; that's all. The money was wanted: It was necessary to aid Frederick to confirm his conquest of Silesia: it was indispensable to prevent a French Prince from mounting the throne of Poland: it must be had to enable the German troops to cross the Rhine." The citizens very likely would reply, "why, what are all these things to us? We care nothing about Frederick, or Silesia either: is our money to go for such projects?" The old men would shrug their shoulders, and reply, e'en pay the tax." Would the men of the revolution, have suffered the powers of this great nation to be crushed in the cradle by miserable sophistications like these? Sir, I ask you, if they were not made of sterner stuff? Would they not have said to the people of the United States, (what they did say.) "unless you resist this, the resources of your country will never be unfolded: you can never reach the period of manhood: you must resist, or be ruined."

you must

Sir, I bring no charge or accusation against gentlemen on the other side: I have no doubt whatever of the purity of their motives: but, for myself, I cannot imagine a more frightful despotism than to enable one great division of the country to set itself in opposition to another great division of it, and by a majority of one single vote, to take from them whatever they please.

We are told that when we have given them supreme power, they intend to exereise it with great mildness and moderation; that they will not avail themselves of it to do the least injustice, but will manage our affairs with great forbearance and liberality.

But might not the same language be held to the subjects of the most absolute despot on earth? Despotism does not consist in the actual exercise of arbitrary power. The greatest despot in the world may be constitutionally mild, and may rule his people with great clemency. But it is the authority to oppress, which constitutes despotism. And if we are to be so situated, as to be left absolutely dependent upon the will of others, and nothing we can do or say is to have the least effect in resisting it if we are to rely for our security upon the mere sic rolo of another man, what will they be but despots? and what shall we be but slaves? Sir, do we ask any thing which may enable us to be thus despotic over them? No, Sir, we are but asking what we have obtained already, in the Federal compact. We ask only that that

shall be done in Virginia, which has been done in the Carolinas, and has produced nothing but perfect concord: and which has been done by our sister Georgia, and produced there the most entire domestic tranquillity. If you yield to our proposal, of a mixed basis of representation, it will not throw the people of the west at our feet, as the adoption of the other plan must infallibly throw us at theirs. Let us set off to lay what taxes we please, to operate beyond the mountain, and their operation must be precisely equal upon ourselves. With the exception of slaves only, the articles of taxation are the same on both sides of that boundary; so that we must either tax ourselves with them, or be guilty of the open barefaced villainy of saying in our law, that the tax shall operate on A, but it shall not in like circumstances, operate on B.

But, surely, Sir, there can exist no danger that either we or they will thus use the taxing power. Among honorable men, it is surely not necessary to say that taxes shall be made to operate equally on all in like circumstances. But, Sir, while we are thus restricted, so that we cannot tax our brethren unless we also tax ourselves, we have a species of property which they have not; and on which they may lay what tax they please, without themselves paying under that law, a single dollar. And this too, a sort of property, the most easy to be taxed of all others, and the most certain of raising the money. Payment is inevitable. But, suppose us to lay a tax upon cattle: when we go to look for the cattle of our brethren of the west, where are they to be found? Their's, Sir, are the cattle on a thousand hills: they raise enough for their own use, and ours: and have a large surplus besides, wherewith, to supply a foreign market; while we have so few, that we can hardly make our own butter; and yet, strange to tell, when we did once make the experiment, of laying such a tax, we had ourselves to pay the greater part of it. Sir, it depends, altogether, at what season the tax-gatherer happens to visit our brethren, whether they shall pay the tax or wre. I don't believe, Sir, that the number of their cattle is known even to themselves; and I dare say, there are gentlemen here present, who would not know their own herds, if they should meet them on a mountain twenty miles from home. But, lay your tax upon slaves, Sir, and they are not fattened this week, and gone the next, before the tax-gatherer can come for his dues. They are here; I had almost said they are fixed here firmly; but I know there are some gentlemen, who tell us, that we shall, at some future day, get rid of them all. Sir, give all credit to the integrity of the west; but, really, if this plan of their's shall succeed, the prophecy may possibly be fulfilled; for, then, I think, we shall be obliged to give them up. Not that I have any fear, that when these gentlemen get the power, they will pass a general emancipation law; but, if they raise the tax on slaves, much higher than it is, one of two things must happen: either the master must run away from the slave, or the slave from the master. The more fertile districts of the State; the rich low grounds of James River, for instance, may be able to bear a greater burthen; but upon the increase of the slave tax, much of it must be paid by that portion of the lower country which consists of sterile ridges. Slave-labour upon them cannot stand it, and if they go on to raise the taxes, our slaves must go somewhere else, because we cannot keep them.

Perhaps some gentlemen may consider it a very desirable thing, that we should be reduced to such a necessity; but, Sir, let it once be known, that this separation of the master and his slave is not a voluntary thing on either side, but a matter of compulsion, produced by the agency of the Government: I care not, whether this agency be manifested by the passage of a law of emancipation, or a tax-law depriving the master of the power of holding his slave: and soon a sword will be unsheathed, that will be red with the best blood of this country, before it finds the scabbard. This thing between master and slave, is one which cannot be left to be regulated by the Government. Compensation for 400,000 slaves, can not be made. The matter must be left to the silent operation of natural causes. Sir, I impute no evil purpose to our brethren of the west; but I never can, nor will consent that it shall be left for them to say what tax thall be paid on the slaves of Virginia, while their owners have no voice in the matter.

Sir, let us choose a middle ground: a ground which so many of the Republics of America have already taken: let us agree upon a compound basis of representation, and remain a united and harmonious people.

After Mr. Morris had closed, the Committee rose, and the Convention immediately adjourned.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1829.

The Convention assembled at eleven o'clock, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Skidmore, of the Methodist Church.

On motion of Mr. John S. Barbour, the Convention resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Stanard in the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL (of Brooke,) then addressed the Chair, in nearly the following terms: Mr. Chairman-I have never been in the habit of making apologies; I never liked them. When I hear apologies from gentlemen, who, either have acquitted themselves well, or expect to acquit themselves well, I am reminded of the lady in the play ;

Who, in hopes of contradiction, oft would say,
Methinks, I look so wretchedly to-day.