other States, and drew off some of its native population. Ohio is now filled up, and the lands nearest to us in Indiana and Michigan, are very generally sold out. The remainnig land markets are removed farther west, and to countries less inviting. It is owing to these circumstances that the ratio of increase during the last nine years, has been greater than during the nine or nineteen years preceding. The proximity of those fand markets, have had an effect on all Virginia, but more especially beyond the Alleghany

With the present state of population in view, and contemplating the prospects before us, with the full belief that upwards of 490,60) white people are with us, and that we are the majority at the present moment, should we be weak enough to agree to your terms, and subunit ourselves to your Government, what would our indignant constituents say when a Constitution founded on your claims of superiority should be presented to them? They would scorn to accept it, and displace us from their confidence for

ever.

The Committee will be good enough to indulge me while I submit to their consideration a few reflections. We have often heard that wealth gives power, or that wealth itself, is power. By this axiom I suppose, is meant nothing more than the natural and moral influence which wealth gives to the possessor, by increasing his means of doing good or evil. Whenever power is directly conferred on wealth by Government, the additional power thus conferred, is a corrupt one. It is a privilege conferred contrary to the Bill of Rights, because not conferred for merit or public services. It is too, an exclusive privilege in its very nature. It is an immoral distinction that is conferred, because it makes no discrimination between the possessors of estates honestly acquired, and those of ill-gotten stores.

Perhaps no blessing of this life is so transitory as riches. To-day you are rich and powerful; to-morrow poor and despised. This thing property, while possessed, makes you a Sovereign, and the loss of it a slave.

We have long been in the habit of considering this Ancient Commonwealth, as the freest and happiest in the world; our Constitution as the best on earth, and ourselves the most fortuna'e of men. What would the citizen of another State think, or how would he feel, at the sight of an hundred wretches exposed to sale, singly or in families, with their master's lands, if in aduition to the usual commendations of the auctioneer to encourage bidders, he should hear him tell them, that if they should purchase his goods, they would instantly become Sovereigns in this free land, and the present posessor would become their slave? Do I misrepresent or exaggerate when I say your doctrine makes me a slave ? ay still live in the west; may pursue my own business and obey my own inclinations, but so long as you hold political dominion over me, I am live. We are a majority of individual units in the State, and your equal in intelligence and virtue, moral and political. Yet you say we must obey you. You decre that the role of the minority has never oppressed us, nor visited us with practical evil; but of this, we are the best judges. We have felt your weight and have suffered under misrule. We never expected you to acknowledge this. You are not competent jud ges. It was not expected that you would make this acknowledg ment, or part with power willingly. To do either, would be to furnish a precedent of the first impression.

We do not Laow to a certainty, what districts may vote with us, Lut if the results of the publie polls fürməli ang SHE incheations, our strength in the community is to the minority as 452,000 to 20,600 souls. And if this be so, the heroic resistance made to our claimas, proves a degree of moral firmness, equaled on by the moral worth of those who make it.

Among the proportions of the gentleman from Northampton, there was one which I wish to notice moze particularly; that a majority in society, means not a majority of men, but of men and interest

[Judge Upchur explained. He did not intend to say, this was, of necessity, the He had said, that in fixing the apportionment of lepresentation, there must be a majority of interests, and it did not necessarily follow, that it must be a majority of any particular character. It might be a majority of the units of society ]

Mr. Doddridge-I d'i not misunderstand the gentlem in. I understood him to say, that a majority combined of men and interests, did not necesseri y mean a minosity of men, but nagat possibly contain but a minority.

[Judve Upshur-He had supposed the Government in operation, and he had never contended, that in the Senate and House of Delegates, a majority was not the proper rule. But we are engaged in the formation of a Government, and it is for us to say out of what 'ements that in gority is to be formed You may get che out of num bers alone, or out of numbers and property. In a state of Garment a majority is the rule; but we are here assembled to fix the original law est. the materials cut of which the majority shall spring, and we may determine what it shall Le composed of one element or of both]

Mr. D. I am sure I understand the gentleman. The doubt is as to that majority which the Bill of Rights declares have the power to alter or amend the Constitution: whether the majority there spoken of, is composed of men, or of men and wealth. Surely the Declaration of Rights means numbers alone: that is the plain English of the text, which might be safely left to the decision of any man or woman, having a common knowledge of our mother tongue. Local interests, and slave property, existed in 1776, as well as now. These interests and localities bore the same relations and ratios to each other as now, yet they are neither alluded to nor provided for by the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Had it been intended to take property into the scale of representation, this silence could not have been observed. This brings me to the conclusion, that slaves were not regarded in 1776 as an element of society," but merely as property. The Convention of that day, left representation where they found it; based on the freehold qualification, just as it had been based in the Colony, when there was scarcely a slave in it. It results, that while gentlemen are demanding representation for this species of property, they are demanding a new thing, and are proceeding on a principle never before recognized in the Colony or State; while we are only endeavoring to assert those personal rights which spring up in every so ciety, and can be absent from no Government or creature on earth. I therefore repeat, that when we demand equal political rights for ourselves, our constituents and posterity, we demand no new thing. It was never known before, that constituent powers were to be created out of a compound of this character. They certainly demand a new thing, who thus would exalt a minority into rule, and require a majority of free citizens to submit their persons and properties to their dictation.

I will now call the attention of the Committee to the state of our representation in this body. We have been elected here by a ratio marked by injustice. The Senatorial apportionment of 1816 was founded on the Census of 1810, which was unequal, to be sure; but that was then the last enumeration to which we could refer. In this body, we are apportioned by the same Census of 1816, although that of 1820 was in being, and could have been resorted to. For this injustice, no reason was, or ever will be assigned, except that those who practiced it, had the power to do so. measure was a poor expedient for appeasing a discontented people. By it, the west were deprived of more than four members on this floor. By the Census of 1820, we were entitled to 40 293-603 members, instead of 36, and by the present population to 42 229-682. Yet, notwithstanding this injustice, I hope the cause of the people will triumph. The majority here may be small indeed, but I hope they will represent at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the whole State.

This

One word more respecting the slave property, the increase of which is the subject of some uneasiness. To allay this uneasiness in some degree, I will state what I rather anticipate and fear than hope, because I have no desire to see the slave population of my country increased. This property will hereafter find a market, to some extent, in western Virginia. It has heretofore been of but little value near the Ohio river, because runaways received aid and protection from the people in the new territories and States. The State of Ohio, at an early day, passed a law requiring all people of colour migrating thither, to give bond and security to save them from becoming a public charge, and I believe to be of good behaviour. A general belief had prevailed, that this law was unconstitutional, and it went unexecuted, until lately. The Supreme Judges of that State have decided in favor of that law, and as their blacks cannot comply with it, they must remove. It is supposed their only retreat will be in Canada, as the people of Indiana and Illinois must follow the example of Ohio, in self-defence. In western Pennsylvania, public feeling is so far changed, that instead of the facilities heretofore afforded to fugitives, the master meets with no obstructions, but is even aided. Matters in Canada must soon take a turn. I have no doubt that there are many western citizens who will purchase slaves again, when the causes before mentioned, shall render the property secure. These considerations, with the acquisition of Texas, will greatly enhance the value of the property in question.

Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge my gratitude to the Chair and the Committee, for the attention with which they have listened to my remarks, desultory as they have been. Having been hurried into the discussion, without proper arrangement of materials, they require your indulgence..

Mr. Green rose, for the purpose of correcting a misapprehension into which the gentleman from Brooke (Mr. Doddridge) had falien.

He had not, as that gentleman seemed to suppose, proposed, or supported, his amendment, merely as a security to slave property from excessive taxation: property of every other kind, was liable to the same sort of injustice: and he should have proposed the amendment, if there had not been such a thing as a slave in Virginia. The gentleman must remember, that two-thirds of all the taxable property in the State, was owned east of the Blue Ridge.

The question was now propounded from the Chair: when, after an extended pause, the Chairman rose to take the vote; whereupon, Mr. Leigh of Chesterfield, moved that the Committee now rise: the motion prevailing, the Committee rose accordingly, and thereupon, the Convention adjourned, to meet to-morrow, at eleven o'clock.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1829.

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

The standing order being read by the Clerk, Mr. Doddridge moved that the Convention proceed to execute the Order of the Day, which was accordingly agreed to, and the President called Mr. Stanard, of Spottsylvania, to the Chair.

The Chair having again stated the question before the Committee,

Mr P. P. BARBOUR of Orange, rose and said, that as the gentleman from Chesterfield (Mr. Leigh,) was entitled to the floor this morning, according to Parliamentary usage, I think it proper to state to the Committee, that I am about to occupy it with his consent. I am afraid, indeed, that I shall offer a very poor equivalent, for the rich repast which that gentleman would have spread before the Convention; but I have this consolation, that though it will be delayed, it will not be ultimately lost. But, Sir, I consider it a duty, which I owe to myself, to my constituents, and to the respect which I entertain for the opinions of my fellow-citizens of the Commonwealth at large, to state some of the views which I have taken of the subject under discussion, and to vindicate the course, which I feel it to be my duty to pursue. In doing this, I promise to be as brief as I can, consistently with rendering myself intelligible. I would do so, at all times and under all circumstances; but on the present occasion, I have the additional reason, that the able argument of the gentleman from Northamp ton, has relieved me from much of the labor, which would otherwise have devolved upon me; and I shall be much gratified, if it shall be in my power, to strengthen some of the strong points which were so ably occupied by him. I do not remember in my life, to have felt so deep a sense of responsibility, as on the present occasion; nor is this at all the language of affectation: I speak it in the sincerity of my heart. On former occasions, as a member of a deliberative assembly, I have been engaged in giving execution to the provisions of an existing Constitution; under such circumstances, if I should have chanced to fall into error, it would have been such, as would have found a speedy remedy in the ordinary process of legislation; but now, I stand on different ground. I am called upon, to aid, not in executing an existing Constitution, but in The creation of a new one; a situation, in which error, though not wholly irremediable, must continue for a considerable time; and if corrected at all, can only be corrected by the original power of the people, in their primary capacity, or in such other mode as may be adopted for the amendment of their organic law.

The task imposed upon us, is one of the grandest and most solemn import. We meet together as the representatives of a great community, to mingle our counsels for the common weal; to lay the foundation of a Constitution, which shall secure the permanent happiness and prosperity of a great Commonwealth. It has been the fate of most of the nations of the earth, to have a Government imposed upon them, without the least participation of their own will; it is our good fortune, on the contrary, both in our character of an individual State, and as constituting an unit in our great confederacy of States, to have a Government of our own choice. We meet, free as the air which we breathe, not only unawed, but uncontrolled by any earthly power, save only, the power of the people, who gave us our political existence; and before whom, as the ultimate arbiters of their own destiny, the work of our hands, must pass for their approval. I feel, Mr. Chairman, not only the importance and solemnity of the trust, but a more than usual deference towards the body which I am addressing. It is composed of individuals, all of whom have participated in the councils either of their native State, or of the United States; and some of whom, assisted, more than half a century ago, in laying the corner stone of the Constitution of this ancient Commonwealth, the first Representative Republic in the world, which we are now about to remove; and who as chiefs, either of the Executive or Judicial Departments of the Federal Government, have, for a series of years presided over the interests of our common country. If under these circumstances, I shall be somewhat embarrassed, in presenting my vie vs to the Committee, they will perceive in my situation, an ample apology.

The most important of all our duties, is the organization of the Legislative Department of the Government; it is in that Department, that the public will is concentrated; since from it must issue in the form of laws, those rules of action, which control the

lives, liberty and property of the people. Not only is this the most important Department of the Government, but the immediate question now under discussion, is the most important one, which the organization of that Department involves. It lies at the very foundation of our civil edifice; and it becomes us to examine, with the most guarded caution, how we lay it. The report of the Committee on this Department,' has recommended, that in the apportionment of representation in the House of Delegates, regard should be had to the white population exclusively. An amendment has been offered by my friend from Culpeper (Mr. Green) which proposes the "doption of a compound ratio, consisting of the number of white population, and taxation combined. The precise question now to be decided, therefore, is between these two propositions. It will be my part, to endeavor to show, why the proposition of the gentleman from Culpeper, ought to be adopted.

With this view, let us first examine the arguments adduced in support of the other plan. At the threshold, we are met with a principle laid down in the Bill of Rights, that all men are by nature, equally free. And here, I cannot forbear to remark, whilst I am not controverting the position, that it appeared to me, to be singular, that the gentleman from Brooke, who relied so much upon this principle, denied the authority of the Constitution of the State, at the very moment when he was calling to his aid, that of the Bill of Rights, though confessedly, they both rested upon the same foundation, and consequently are of equal obligation. But let that pass. I shall not stop to enquire, whether this principle is, or is not abstract in its nature. But this I will say: That this, as well as every other principle in the Bill of Rights, is to be modified, by reference to the time when, and the circumstances under which, they were declared, and by reference also, to the people on whom they were intended to operate: otherwise, if you give to the language, all the force which the words literally import, (and they are, I believe, but an echo of those in the Declaration of Independence,) what will they amount to, but a declaration of universal emancipation, to a class of our population, not far short of a moiety of our entire number, now in a state of slavery? And if you were to give to such a declaration, its full operation, without the modifications which I have stated, you might as a natural consequence, soon expect to see realized here, the frightful and appalling scenes of horror and desolation, which were produced in St. Domingo by a declaration of much the same tenor, issued by the fa

believe, Sit, 1.

of those gentlemen who rely upon this principle, in support of their proposition; I only meant to show, that if we would come to a right conclusion, in interpreting the meaning of this declaration, we must look at it, according to the condition and circumstances of the people, to whom it was intended to apply, and on whom it was expected to operate.

The principle taken from the Bill of Rights, is, that all men are by nature, equally T free; and the conclusion which gentlemen draw from that principle, is, that therefore all men are entitled to an equal share of political power. With due submission, this conclusion is, in my estimation, wholly inconsequent. Suppose that all men are, by nature equally free: what sort of connexion has that proposition, with the civil and political rights growing out of the nature of Government?

Need I remind the Committee, that it is the very nature of the social compact, that all who enter into it, surrender a portion of their natural rights, in exchange for which, they acquire other rights derived from that compact, and dependent upon it, both in character and extent? Is it not a solecism, to say, that rights which have their very being only as a consequence of Government, are to be controlled by principles, ap. plying exclusively to a state of things, when there was no Government? The question is, what are the political rights of the citizens? These political rights never existed, till Government was instituted. The same charter which created that institution, can alone create and define them; and yet in deciding this question, we are gravely asked, to refer, not to the charter itself, but to those original principles of Natural law, which not only existed, when the rights, whose extent is to be measured by them did not exist, but which in their very character, are in direct contradistinction, from those which govern the social state. Thus to exemplify the present question is, what shall be the basis of representation? This term, by an irresistible association, conducts the mind to the idea of election; election necessarily involves the relation between the constituent and representative; and this relation derives its whole existence from Government: it did not, and could not exist before. Surely, then, it is only necessary to state the position, to show that it is utterly inapplicable to the case before us. No laws, no rights, can possibly bear on relations, which have subsequently come into being relations, which belong to an entirely new state of things, and which state, has principles of its own, derived from the instrument which created it.

But, suppose it to be conceded, that the rights pertaining to a state of nature, and a system of rules deduced from the circumstances of that state, had relation to the subject; I ask, is the argument of gentlemen consistent with itself? They are themselves at the very outset, constrained to admit, that there are whole classes of persons,