eastern base of the Ridge, then along the shore of the Atlantic. For while the two senatorial districta bordering on the ocean, contained, by the Census of 1-20, one of them bat 17,416, and the other but 1363, three of the districts along the eastern base of the Ridge contained, one of them 27,417, another 27,514, and the third 30,621. Thus you perceive, Sir, that the slave population is crowded up to the very foot of the mountain. But this is not all. The slave-holding population extends beyond the Ridge The district which I have the honor in part to represent, contains about 12,000 slaves. The four western counties of Berkeley, Jefferson, Frederick and Botetourt contain 17,070. They are therefore, fairly to be considered as slave-holding counties, to the practical intent of being interested in exempting slaves from undue taxation. These four counties are estimated to contain, at present, a white population of 47,013. Add this slave-holding population, west of the mountain, (to say nothing of other western counties which contain slaves to the amount of several thoumands more, to the slave-holding population east of the mountains, and you have an agreirste of 400,75%. The comparatively non-slave-holding population in all the remaining counties of Virginia, is but 272,503. There is, therefore, a majority of slave holding population, amounting to 137,255.

And yet, strange to tell, an apprehension is entertained, that if representation be equally apportioned among the white population, slave property will be burthened by unequal and oppressive taxes!-If the resolution of the Committee be adopted, the slave holding population will possess, in the House of Delegates, a majority of representatives in the proportion of 409,758 to 272,503; and yet a fear is entertained, that the representatives of the 272,503 non-slave-holders will overtax the property of the 409,7% slave-holders! And to avert this imminent peril and flagrant injustice, you are asked to in sest the 409,758 with factitious Constitutional power-to destroy the great landmarks of natural right, established at the era of the revolution-to repudiate all the principles of Government which have been, until now, held sacred and Inviolable Such, Sir, is the argument by which the proposed amendment is supported

Mr. GREEN said, it was with extreme diffidence that he rose to state his sentiments in support of the amendment. He was well convinced of his incapacity to do justice to the argument; but being urged by a sense of duty, he should make the effort, even though he might sink under it. The Committee were now apprised of what was to be urged as the foundation of the claim for a new basis of representation; they had been referred to the principles contained in the Bill of Rights. And according to the version of those declarations just given by the gentleman from Frederick, the declaration, that all men are by nature equally free, amounted to a declaration that every man in the community possesses, and ought to exercise, equal rights with every other man. And this was very true, if understood, as referring only to natural rights; but it was not true if applied, as the gentleman would wish to apply it, to rights of a political character. On the contrary, he hoped to shew that the Bill of Rights, so far from holding such a position, was explicitly opposed to it. The meaning of the declaration, as he understood, was this that all men are by nature, so far equally free as that none mught claim, in the social state, a natural right to govern others: this was the extent of the proposition unless, indeed, they claimed to govern by the jus majoris, founded, as the gentleman contended, in the possession of physical force. To him, (Mr. G.) however, it seemed that there could arise no right from mere force. The gentleman from Frederick had determined, that because the majority possessed the physical force, they have, of course, the right to govern: but he thought that this did not follow.

Again, the gentleman had reminded the Committee, that the Bill of Rights declares that all power resides in the people. This was perfectly true; but it did not follow that the possession of the power of government by the people, gave to each member of the body politic equil weight in its government. Once more; the gentleman had contended, that according to the same Bill of Rights, a majority must govern in all things, and were of richt entitled to supreme control. Such, no doubt, would have been the doctrine of the Bill of Rights, if the framers of that instrument had thought that its foundations were laid in the right of nature, or of conquest; and would have declared that to be the best Government which gives the most perfect effect to the will of the majority Yet they do, in effect, instead of affirming this, deuy it, by saying that Government being lastituted for the security of the people, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured assist the danger of mal-adamstration."

The affirmation is not that the majo sty shall rule by absolute power, but that they may establish such a Governirent, as shall produce the greatest amount of happiness, and arshall boot be guarded against the dangers of mal-adiinistration. I admit, said Mr G that in a comida aty, at re ali toe in nibers are in circumstances of equality as to fortune, animo sit match, to at ud de part of the society can injure the residue, without, at the sa, se tune, Latih or Despiadi obory upon themselves, the rule that the numerm al mag city »hall govern, is the best, and the foundation of all our institutions, is

the assumption, that the people know, and will always pursue their own true interest; and, therefore, that a majority is likely to decide rightly. But, it is equally the principle of those institutions, that the majority have an interest in doing what is right. Unless this is taken for granted, the abstract proposition is of little value. Now, I ask of gentlemen, whether, in the peculiar situation of Virginia, circumstances will not present a strong inducement to the majority to oppress the minority for their own benefit?

My first proposition in support of the amendment is this: that it is perfectly certain that in a very short tune. possibly within ten years, the majority of the free white inhabitants of this State will be found to the west of the Blue Ridge. A reference to the several enumerations of our population since 1790, will shew the grounds of this conclusion; a conclusion which is farther fortified by the report just received from the Auditor, and now in the ha..ds of every member. In 1820, the difference of population between the eastern and western side of the Blue Ridge was near 100,000 in favor of the eastern side; now it is only 43,000. Thus, the western counties have experienced an increase in eight years, of more than 50,000 inhabitants: if such has been the ratio of gain in these eight years, it is not too much to believe that in ten years more, they will have a majority of the whole State.

The report of the Auditor makes the population of the Valley 10,000 more than I supposed: allowing for that difference (which is, as far as it goes, in favour of my ar gument.) The population west of the Alleghany mountains has increased in the same ume 48,000; or about at the rate of thirty-six per ce it. on its former population; while the Valley has increased 15,000; and putting both those divisions of the State together, their aggregate increase has been at the rate of twenty-five per cent. But what has been the rate of increase in the country cast of the Blue Ridge? It has increased but by a ratio of four per cent!

Let us look, now, at the results of the system of taxation. The average amount of a capitation tax in the region west of the mountains was twenty-five cents per head: in the Valley, forty-eight cents: putting these two divisions of the State together, the average will be thirty-two cents. And what was it in the country cast of the Blue Ridge? eighty-eight cents per head.

Look now at the land tax in these two grand divisions of Virginia; set slaves on one side. On the other side of the Ridge lands were taxed one dollar, while on this side they were taxed about two and a half: more than double.

From aggregate results go down to details: the same general result meets you still. During last war there was a tax on cattle in Virginia, (one of the articles which the gentleman has alluded to in his argument as more peculiarly pertaining to the western inhabitants) and even on cattle, more was paid on this side the mountain than on the other side. From all these facts, I am led to conclude that the existing inequality is likely to continue. If not, the amendment can do no harin. When there is no unequal taxation, it can do no harm to say that representation shall be regulated by taxation and population; for then it will result in the very thing the gentleman wants; he will have representation based upon the white population exclusively or if it shall happen that the people of the west pay more taxes, then the effect will be to throw the weight of legislative power into that part of the State which now complains for the want of it.

The gentleman asks us, what motives the people of the west can have to misuse their power? I will state one inducement. They have one great object of desire, and the whole history of our State Legislature will prove it, and that is the construction of roads and canals. The desire of roads and canals has of late years grown into an enthusiastic passion among them. The whole of the country beyond the Ridge has passed those improvements by an unanimous vote, when they were proposed." The improvements on Jar. s River, in their extended form, were assented to solely for the benefit of the people of the west: a much more limited work would have answered all the ends and wishes of the people in the east of the State. A proposition was once before our House of Delegates to borrow three millions and about seven hundred thousand dollars for objects of this description, and every western man supported and voted for the scheme; nay, it was but last year that a loan of a million was brought forward, and, I believe, every western vote was given in the affirmative. Here, then, is an inducement, and here are actual efforts, to tax the lowlands for the benefit of western interests.

But it has been said that property has, and always will, protect itself. Sir, I admit that when property is unequally held by persons, all residing in one district together, and, therefore, having all one common interest, there may be truth in the position. But where it is dispersed in different and distant positions of the State, there is no such motive to restrain the attempts of those who have little common feeling with its

possessors.

It has been farther said, that the restraints of conscience furnish an ample security; but, I believe, all political institutions, as well in this as in every other country, go on

the assumption that all men, when acting, especially in large bodies, are governed by a feeling of interest, and do with little or no scruple, whatever they suppose their interest to dictate. I consider it as a self-evident proposition.

On the subject of slaves, it is true that one purpose of the amendment, is to secure then from undue taxation. The gentleman tells us that those living on this side the mountain, have a majority of the slaves, and a majority in the Legislature, and will continue to have both. But it will be found that if any question shall arise in the Valley on that subject, almost all the voters there are destitute of slaves. In those four counties the one class is to the other as nearly three to one.

Let us, in the next place, look at the relative effect upon the general state of our affairs from the adoption of the resolution as it stands, and with the amendment. If the white basis shall be adopted, the people in the lowlands will never feel secure; jealousies and an interminable hostility will be generated, and perpetuate feuds and heart-burnings between different sections of the State. But if you adopt the compound basis, although, possibly, the people of the west inay, for a time, be very angry, as considering themselves deprived of political weight and privileges, they never can feel themselves insecure as to their property; for no law can be passed in the Legislature affecting property at all, that will not be felt to a much greater extent on this side the mountains.

I have heard in various forms, (though not as yet in this Committee,) of adequate guarantees. For myself, I believe that we can have no adequate guarantee but in representation. A majority in the Senate alone, I consider as wholly insufficient; the larger number of delegates in the other House will always, in the course of two or three years, prevail in carrying any object they have at heart: they always overwhelm the Senate in the end. I shall not advert to the other guarantees that have been proposed: for I am unwilling longer to detain the Committee. I feel regret at having already been compelled to trespass on their time. Important facts were what I wished principally to present to them, and those I have stated are in my judgment entitled to great weight in the mind of every reflecting man.

Mr. Campbell of Brooke, said, that he did not rise for the purpose of making a speech; nor of attempting a reply to the speech he had just heard: but to offer a remark or two in relation to the order of the Committee's proceedings. Order he considered as the first law of heaven: but if he were to judge of its importance by what he saw here, he should conclude that this body were departing from it entirely; and, by a constant law of nature, they were incurring the penalty of such a course, for confusion and darkness were likely to accompany their proceedings. Yesterday the Committee had been occupied in the development of the grand principles which lay at the bottom of the science of government, and it seemed to be the understanding, that this Convention would have for its object to settle those fundamental principles, the sub-basis, as they might be termed, of the fundamental law of the community. Some very interesting remarks had, in that connexion, been submitted to the Committee. But the positions taken were treated as mere abstractions, and it was held that the proper course was to lay these aside, until the Committee should first have gone down to the practical details of Government. (Now, for himself, Mr. C. said, he knew of nothing that could rightly be called a principle, that was not an abstract idea. Justice, goodness, truth, might be so called, and they were all abstract ideas. All the principles in science were abstract ideas.) But in reviewing the course adopted, he perceived that it had been taken on this ground, that it was said to be inexpedient to settle principles first, for they were mere abstractions, and gentlemen must try their practical effect first, before they could espouse them. They must go to the practical part of Government, irrespective of principles. This doctrine had thrown the Committee into complete confusion. It had been then proposed to take up the first resolution reported by the Committee on the Legislative Department, and thereupon came in the amendment now under consideration. The amendment certainly threw the onus probandi on the gentleman who proposed it; but as the mover yesterday asked delay, the amendment had been laid over, and was now pending. The expectation of the Committee had been that some proof should have been adduced in its support; but the gentleman from Culpeper (Mr. Green) had opened the debate by declining to offer any, and both he, and the gentleman from Chesterfield (Mr. Leigh) called on the advocates of the resolution for arguments in its support. Certainly the burden of proof lay upon the gentlemen themselves. Onus probandi incumbit affirmanti. The gentleman from Culpeper had offered an amendment, which he affirmed ought to be added to the resolution in place of a word which he proposed to strike out. To call on the friends of the resolution for arguments, when the obligation to argue lay on the opposite party, was as great an aberration from the correct principles of order as that which had taken place yesterday. Either adopt the principles in the Bill of Rights as canonical, and base all your subsequent proceedings upon them; or, if those principles are considered as unsound, let them be modified or amended; or else let gentlemen propose other principles as a substitute for them. Let them give

us their principles distinctly and in numerical order, first, second, third, and so on: then, said Mr. C. we shall know where we are. In a word, I consider the order yesterday to have been no principles;" that to-day seems to be " no proof."

The Chair having stated the question to be on the amendment of the gentleman from Culpeper, (Judge Green,) and the question being called for by several members, Judge Upshur of Northampton, said, that it seemed to have been concluded by tacit agreement, that the debate was to be conducted by a member on each side alternately, and he considered that a convenient mode of proceeding. He felt disinclined to submit his own views at this time; and from the backwardness manifested by gentlemen on the opposite side of the question, (if, indeed, the Convention was to be considered as thus divided into sides,) he presumed they were taken somewhat by surprise, and were not now ready to submit their ideas. Instead, therefore, of carrying on the argument at present, with a view to give gentlemen time and opportunity for farther reflection, as well as that the order of discussion might be preserved, he thought it most fair and most expedient, that the Committee now rise; and he made that motion; but withdrew it at the request of

Mr. Mercer, who said, that he could not undertake to speak for other gentlemen; but he certainly could say, very confidently, as it respected himself, that the presump tion just expressed by the gentleman from Northampton, was totally without foundation, viz: that the friends of the resolution reported by the Legislative Committee; in other words, the friends of the white basis, as it was technically and familiarly called, were not ready to reply: he hoped he might be permitted to say, that he was entirely prepared to reply, but was perfectly willing to rest the vote on the amendment upon the argument they had already heard.

Judge Upshur replied, that the gentleman from Loudoun mistook him if he supposed him to insinuate for a moment, that that gentleman, or his friends, were unprepared, in the sense he seemed to have supposed. He took it for granted, that gentlemen on that side of the question were all fully prepared to address the Convention, so far as familiarity with the facts and arguments pert uning to the subject was concerned: all he had meant to say was, that they did not seem desirous to proceed with the discussion on this day. He had rested his motion for the rising of the Committee, on the plan which seemed to have been agreed upon, of speaking alternately. He thought such a plan very fair, and on the whole the best course. If, therefore, it was not the intention of some of the gentlemen on that side to submit his views to the Committee, he hoped the Committee would rise: and he thereupon renewed his motion to that effect.

Mr. Mercer rejoined. If the gentleman from Northampton and his friends were not ready to speak farther in support of the amendment which they had brought forward, perhaps it would be better to pass it over for the present, and take up some other part of the report; but he hoped the House would not adjourn at so early an hour, and thus waste the residue of the day. For himself and those who acted with him, they were ready at any time to proceed.

The question being put on the motion for the rising of the Committee, it was nega tived.

And the question then recurring on the amendment of Mr. Green, (viz. in adding the words "and taxation combined" to the first resolution of the Committee proposing the white basis of representation,)

Judge UPSHUR rose and addressed the Committee, nearly as follows:

I cannot say, Mr. Chairman, that I have been driven into this discussion without some degree of preparation. Yet I may be permitted to declare, that I did not anticipate that I should thus early be called on to submit my views to the Committee. It is true, Sir, that the few simple ideas which it is my purpose to subinit, do not require a laboured preparation of any sort; but I should at least, have entered into the debate with more pleasant feelings, had not circumstances deprived me of the power of choosing my own time.

There seems to be some difference of opinion among us, as to the proper order of debate. A question has arisen whether the friends or the foes of the immediate measure before us, are bound to open the discussion. For my own part, I do not attach the slightest importance to that inquiry: to me it seems of no consequence whatever, whether the advocates of a compound basis of representation, or those of the popular basis, begin this discussion. I could have wished, so far as I feel any wish upon the matter, that the two parties should have addressed the Committee in alternate order; for this, it seems to me, would be at once, equitable and respectful, at the same time that it would best conduce to the elucidation of the subject. It was my wish that each party should be heard in turn; but it is still more my wish, that each should be heard with patience and candour, and answered in a spirit of kindness and respect. For myself, Mr. Chairman, I trust that I have entered this body, without any feelings of local partiality or local prejudice. I entertain a deep conviction, that in the discharge of the solemn trust reposed in me, it is my duty to consider myself the re

presentative of the whole State, and not of any peculiar part of it. I came here with an earnest, and an honest desire, to fix the foundations of Government with reference to the common welfare; and not upon the narrow basis of local interest. I brought with me also, another feeling; a feeling which is the result of long and mature reflection, and which I had hoped to make the guide of my conduct here. It appears to me impossible, that in a body like this, representing many differing, if not conflicting interests, any party can reasonably hope to carry all its measures. Nay, Sir, even if this were practicable, it adinits of great doubt indeed, whether it would be in its results, either safe or wise. In a community like our own, no Government can gain the undivided affection, nor secure the undivided support of the people, unless it spring from a fair and equitable compromise of interests. It was therefore my earnest hope, that there would be no necessity for a formal array of parties upon this point. I have foreseen that we could not be much divided upon any other subject within the range of our duties; and it was therefore, peculiarly desirable, that on this subject, we should agree to meet on some middle ground. I was, and still am ready, to advance quite, nay, more than half way; for I feel entirely assured, that the great interests committed to our charge, require this temper in every one of us. Unfortunately, however, I have not found a single individual on the other side, who would agree with me in opinion. I am therefore, driven to the necessity of relying on the strength of my own principles; and I shall attest the sincerity with which I entertain them, by the vote I am about to give.

It is contended by our opponents, that the proper basis of representation in the General Assembly, is white population alone, because this principle results necessarily from the right which the majority possess, to rule the minority. I have been forcibly struck with the fact, that in all the arguments upon this subject here and elsewhere, this right in a majority is assumed as a postulate. It has not yet been proved, nor have I even heard an attempt to prove it. It is for this proof that I was desirous to wait. Assuming this right as conceded, the whole scope of the argument has been to prove, that in the application of the right to the practical Government, we must of necessity, graduate political power according to white population alone. It may not perhaps, be more curious than profitable, to examine somewhat in detail, the grounds upon which this pretension rests.

There are two kinds of majority. There is a majority in interest, as well as a majority in number. If the first be within the contemplation of gentlemen, there is an end of all discussion. It is precisely the principle for which we contend, and we shall be happy to unite with them in so regulating this matter, that those who have the greatest stake in the Government, shall have the greatest share of power in the adfinistration of it. But this is not what gentlemen mean. They mean, for they distinetly say so, that a majority in number only, without regard to property, shall give the rule. It is the propriety of this rule, which I now propose to examine.

If there be, as our opponents assume, an original, a priori, inherent and indestructible right in a majority to control a minority, from what source permit me to inquire, is that right derived? If it exist at all, it must I apprehend, be found either in some positive compact or agreement conferring it, or else in some order of our nature, independent of all compact, and consequently prior to all Government. If gentlemen claim the right here as springing from positive compact, from what compact does it spring Not certainly from that Constitution of Government which we are now revising; for the chief purpose for which we have been brought together, is to correct a supposed defect in the Constitution, in this very particular. Not certainly from any other Constitution or form of Government, for to none other are we at liberty to look, for any grant of power, or any principle which can bind us. The right then, is not conventional. Its source must be found beyond all civil society, prior to all social compart, and independent of its sanctions. We must look for it in the law of nature; we have indeed been distinctly told, that it exists in "necessity and nature;” and upon that ground only, has it hitherto been claimed. I propose now to inquire whether the law of nature does indeed, confer this right or not.

Let me not be misunderstood. Sir. I am not now inquiring whether, according to the form and nature of our institutions, a majority ought or ought not to rule. That quiry will be made hereafter. At present, I propose only to prove that there is no original a prior, principle in the law of nature, which gives to a majority a right to control a minority; and of course, that we are not bound by any obligation prior to society, to adopt that principle in our civil institutions.

If there be any thing in the law of nature which confers the right now contended for, in wint part of her code, I would ask, is it to be found? For my own part, I incline strongly to think, that, closely examined, the law of nature will be found to con

• Judge Upshur takes great pleasure iu acknowledging that he has learned, since the above remik was made, that there are some gentlemen on the other side, who have always been willing to meet any proposition of fair compromise. Their number however, is not large enough to authorise a hope that the measure could be caur ed, even with their assistance.