COLLECTIONS
OF THE
Virginia Historical Society.
New Series.
VOL. X.
WM. ELLIS JONES,
PRINTER,
RICHMOND, VA.
THE HISTORY
OF THE
Virginia Federal Convention
OF
1788,
WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF THE EMINENT VIRGINIANS OF
THAT ERA WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE BODY
HUGH BLAIR GRIGSBY, LL.D.
WITH A
Biographical Sketch of the Author
ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES
EDITED BY
R. A. BROCK,
Corresponding Secretary and Librarian of the Society.
VOL. II.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.
PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY.
MDCCCXCI.
f
330
THR HISTORY
OF THE
Virginia Federal Convention
OK 1788.
INTRODUCTION.
Before we proceed to detail the final scene of the Convention,
we should leave unperformed an office as useful and instructive
as any that devolves on the historian if we failed to glance at
the lives and services of some of those patriotic men who com-
posed the body, and whose history is in no unimportant respect
the history not only of that great event, which singles out the
year 1788 as one of the most important in our annals, but, in
some instances, of great epochs of an earlier as well as a later
day to which the lives of some of them were extended. It will
become our duty to record the names not only of those who
took part in debate, but of those who, though they spoke not a
word during the session, mainly by their influence and ability
effected the ratification of the Constitution. In forming our
opinions of the last-named class of individuals, we must be
careful to look at the circumstances and the impressions of the
time in which they lived. To take the measure of the mental
stature and of the political influence of such men from the face
of the journals, or from their silence in debate, would not only
b INTRODUCTION.
be unjust to them, but would betray no slight ignorance of the
views which prevailed at that conjuncture. Not only were the
rules and customs of the British Parliament closely observed in
the deliberative assemblies of the Colony, and of the Common-
wealth in its earlier days, but the mode of conducting a parlia-
mentary campaign was strictly observed. And in conducting a
parliamentary campaign no rule was more generally enforced
than that which confined the debate to certain leaders on each
side of the House.1
The habit of every member making a speech on every subject,
which has caused so much prolixity in our public proceedings,
had not become the fashion with our public men. Beside the
observance of the well-known customs of Parliament, there were
other considerations which tended to repress much speaking.
The sessions of the House of Burgesses were short, rarely
exceeding a month, and were usually held in May — a season
precious in the eyes of those who derived their sustenance from
agriculture. Political considerations also had their weight; for
it was in the power of the Royal Governor to prorogue the
House at pleasure, and it became important, as difficulties
between that officer and the Assembly might at any moment
arise, to transact the real business of the Colony with all prac-
ticable speed.2 It should also be observed that the greatest
prompter to modern loquacity did not then exist. There were
no reporters; and if there had been reporters, there were no
papers in which reports could be published. A small weekly
sheet afforded to the Colonists the only political nutriment
which they could obtain, and that sheet would not hold an entire
speech of the ordinary dimensions. Such, too, was the difficulty
of public conveyance — such was the infrequency and irregularity
of posts — that even that sheet reached very few of the home-
steads of the people. Such was, to a certain extent, the case in
the Commonwealth. Thus it happened that comparatively few
1We know from letters cited in the course of this work that the
friends of the Constitution had parcelled out their opponents, and
held themselves in reserve for them.
2 Patrick Henry's resolutions against the Stamp Act were adopted at
the heel of the session, and so with many other measures likely to
offend the Governor.
INTRODUCTION. 7
of the really able members engaged in formal debate in our
public bodies; and the remark may be hazarded, that if all those
who in the Convention of 1788 engaged in the discussion of the
Constitution had been absent, there were able and accomplished
men who, as their subsequent career would seem to prove,
would have displayed talents of a high order and achieved no
mean reputation for statesmanship and eloquence.
ARCHIBALD STUART.
First among the young men west of the Blue Ridge in those
qualifications which attract public attention, and which fit their
possessor for acting with effect in public assemblies, was Archi-
bald Stuart, of Augusta. He had not that large experience
in affairs, civil and military, which was possessed by Thomas
Lewis, or even by Andrew Moore, by Darke and Stephen, by
William Fleming and Stuart, of Greenbrier; nor had he yet
attained that standing at the bar which Gabriel Jones had long
held; but he had seen the smoke of battle, was a ready and
forcible speaker, was a graceful writer, and, though young, had
already served with distinction during several sessions of the
Assembly. He belonged to that remarkable portion of the
Anglo-Saxon family which had for more than a century cherished
on the Irish soil the principles and attachments of the land from
which they came, and which under a domestic discipline, partly
military and partly religious, were skilful in discerning their
rights, and prompt in defending them. The British colonization
of Ireland was essentially military. The settlers could be
counted by thousands, while the aboriginal population num-
bered more than a million. Another great element in this, the
greatest in English estimation of all the schemes of colonization
which England had there developed, was the element of religion.
The Colonists were Protestants ; the subject caste, ignorant and
semi-barbarous, were within the pale of the Church of Rome.
Hence the Colonists became in a degree unknown in the mother
country — Whigs in politics and Protestants in religion. The
history of Irish colonization is ircimately connected with the
history of our own Colony, and of that freedom which we now
enjoy. It was one of those wonderful processes in human
affairs, which, though seen even by acute politicians only in
their ordinary aspects, was destined in another age and in a dis-
tant land to bring about a memorable revolution. To the com-
mon eye there seems no connection between the butcheries
10 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
perpetrated by Cromwell* and the cruelties and confiscations
wrought by the misgovernment of James the Second, and the
passage of the resolutions of Virginia in 1765 against the Stamp
Act; yet, it is as certain as any event in history that, if the
British policy in Ireland had been other than it was, those reso-
lutions might indeed have been offered, but they would have
been rejected by a decisive vote. When it is remembered that
those resolutions were carried by the western vote, especially by
the vote of the Valley members, the connection is obvious and
indisputable. And it may well happen that in the measures of
our own day, designed to accomplish limited and definite objects,
the historian a century hence may detect the seminal principle
which is destined to effect radical changes in existing institutions,
and, perhaps, to overturn the present frame of society and to
substitute some new system in its stead.
The grandfather of Archibald Stuart emigrated from Ireland
in 1727, and settled for a time in Pennsylvania, where in 1735
Alexander, the father of Archibald, was born. In 1739 the
family removed to Augusta county in this State, where Alex-
ander, whose lofty stature and uncommon strength were noted
even among his neighbors in the Valley, married in due time
Mary Patterson. Of this marriage Archibald was the first of
many children. He was born at the homestead about nine miles
southwest of Staunton, on the igth day of March, 1757. His
boyhood was spent in Augusta; but his father having removed
to the neighborhood of Brownsburg, in Rockbridge, Archibald
became a resident of that county, and was entered a pupil in the
seminary then known as Liberty Hall, now as Washington Col-
lege. [Now as Washington and Lee University. — ED.] Like
his classmates, who derived their instruction from William
Graham, he became a devoted advocate of civil and religious
freedom, and, in imitation of his illustrious teacher, was ever
ready to defend it in battle or in debate.
In the fall of 1779 he attended William and Mary College,
and became an inmate of the family of the President, afterwards
Bishop Madison. It happened that the institution then con-
tained a large number of youths who were destined to act a
conspicuous part in public affairs. Of these Allen, Hartwell
Cocke, Eyre, Hardy, John Jones, and Stevens Thomson
Mason were his colleagues in the present Convention. Another
ARCHIBALD STUART. 11
associate, who, after a long career at the bar, has for more than a
third of a century been resting in his honored grave in the yard
of St. Paul's in Norfolk, and who was beloved and revered by
his countrymen for the incorruptible integrity and unblemished
purity of his life, was John Nivison. It is creditable to the
standing of Stuart that among such students he was conspicu-
ous. His personal appearance and his address, as well as that
accurate scholarship which was characteristic of the pupils of
Graham, contributed to his popularity. His erect and sinewy
form (which exceeded six feet in height), his placid face and
expressive black eyes, his long black hair falling about his neck,
the blended austerity and gentleness of his deportment, pre-
sented to his young associates one of the finest models of the
Western Virginian. There had been lately instituted in William
and Mary a literary association, which in its brief life communi-
cated its mystic symbols and its name to a similar association at
Harvard, which in its foreign home has flourished with such
unexampled vigor as to include on its roll the names of many of
the most eloquent and learned men of the whole country for
more than two entire generations, which was destined to sudden
extinction in the place of its origin, but which was then in its
early prime — the Society of the Phi Beta Kappa. Of this
association Stuart was elected president. On his return to
College, in 1780, he found the eastern part of the State infested
by the British. " The exercises of the College were suspended,
and the public affairs were in an almost desperate condition.
Stuart at once hastened to the scene of active war, joined the
army as a private soldier in the regiment from Rockbridge, of
which his father was the Major, and was promoted to an office
in the commissariat department. But when the advance of
Cornwallis rendered an engagement certain, he took his station
in the ranks, and fought gallantly at Guilford. It was in this
battle that he saw his father, who commanded the regiment on
that day, fall with his wounded horse, instantly stripped of his
clothing by the British Tories, and, suffering from his wounds,
conveyed a prisoner within the enemy's lines.3 During the
3 Dr. Foote, in his second volume of Virginia Collections, page 147,
states that Major Stuart was not wounded ; but authorities in my pos-
session, which are most authentic, show that he was wounded. Dr.
12 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
whole campaign young Stuart had in his possession the official
seal of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, of which he was the presi-
dent, which, as the Society went down, he retained till his death,
and which, many years after his death, was found in the secret
drawer of his escritoire, where it had remained more than half a
century, and which was transmitted by his son to the Society at
William and Mary, which had been recently revived, where it
now performs its original office.4
On the return of Stuart from Guilford he studied law with
Mr. Jefferson, and ever cherished for his preceptor the highest
admiration and esteem. Some of the law-books which he pro-
cured from Mr. Jefferson are in the library of his son.5 What
Wythe had been to Jefferson, Jefferson became to young Stuart;
the adviser, the friend, and the revered associate through life.
In the Stuart papers there is in the handwriting of Mr. Jefferson
a form of a Constitution for Virginia, drawn in 1791. Their
intimacy lasted during the life of Jefferson. When Stuart was
elected judge, his district included the county of Albemarle;
and, in attending the sessions of his court, he regularly spent a
night with his old preceptor. As a politician he sustained his
administration, and was a Republican elector until the series of
Virginia Presidents who had borne a part in the Revolution was
ended.
He began the practice of the law in Rockbridge, and in the
spring of 1783 was brought forward as a candidate for the
House of Delegates, but lost his election by thirteen votes. A
Foote describes the Major as riding on the field a beautiful mare. He
was of gigantic stature. His sword [now in the cabinet of the Vir-
ginia Historical Society, and not of unusual size — ED.], which men of
the ordinary size could hardly wield with effect, is in possession of his
grandson, the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart, to whom I am indebted for some
interesting details of his father's life. I would point out to the student
of history the diary of the Rev. Samuel Houston, who was in the
battle of Guilford. It may be found in Dr. Foote's second series,,
pages 142-145.
4 The original MS. proceedings of the Society are in the archives of
the Virginia Historical Society. — EDITOR.
5 A portion of his correspondence with Mr. Jefferson and others is
in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society, presented by his
son, Hon. A. H. H. Stuart. — EDITOR.
ARCHIBALD STUART. 13
few days after the election in Rockbridge he visited Botetourt
on some business with Colonel Skillern, and while he was the
guest of the Colonel he was invited to attend a public festival, at
which most of the leading- citizens of the county were present.
At the gathering he was called upon for a speech, which was so
well received by the company that he was requested to become
a candidate for a seat in the House of Delegates at the election
to be held on the following Monday.8 There was one obstacle
to his success, which seemed at first sight difficult to be over-
come. He did not possess a freehold in the county; but the
prompt generosity of Skillern removed that defect,7 and on the
following Monday he was duly returned. He was re-elected
from Botetourt in 1784 and in 1785, when he removed from
Rockbridge to Augusta, where he resided until his death.
From Augusta he was returned in 1786 and in 1787. But there
was no public question in which he seemed to take a greater
interest than the ratification of the Federal Constitution. He
had sustained in the House of Delegates the resolution con-
voking the meeting at Annapolis, and the resolution appointing
delegates to the Federal Convention that framed the Constitu-
tion, and he felt in a certain sense a paternal feeling toward that
instrument. In Augusta he put forth all his strength in its
support, and, having accidentally learned one day before the
election in Botetourt was to take place that the candidates for
the Convention were unwilling to pledge themselves to vote for
its ratification, he mounted his horse and rode day and night to
Fincastle, a distance of seventy-five miles, that he might make
-an appeal to his old constituents in favor of the Constitution.
He arrived at the court-house after the polls had been opened,
and requested their suspension until he could address the people.
He spoke with such effect that the people were induced to exact
explicit pledges from the candidates to sustain the Constitution,
which they finally gave, and which they faithfully redeemed.
6 Until 1830 the Virginia elections were held "in all the month of
April."
7 This deed remained on record, overlooked by both parties con-
cerned. Colonel Skillern, indeed, sold and conveyed it to another
party. It was imprdltvj by the erection of buildings upon it. It was
sold a few years ago, and, upon an examination of the title, the defect
as above was discovered, and a release was given by Hon. A. H. H.
Stuart, as the Editor has been informed by him.
14 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
His course in the present Convention, in which he sustained
the extreme views of those who upheld the Constitution, has
been pointed out already, and may be read in the ayes and noes.
In 1797, he was called once more into public life, took his seat
in the Senate of Virginia from the Augusta district, and bore a
part in the memorable contest which was then waging between
the Federalists, who approved the policy of the elder Adams, and
the Republicans, who approved the policy of which Jefferson
was the representative. Here he voted for the resolutions, which
though offered by John Taylor, of Caroline, were drawn by
Madison; but before the report of 1799 had reached the Senate
he was elected a judge of the General Court, and entered on the
duties of his office on the ist of January, 1800, which he dis-
charged with acknowledged ability and faithfulness until 1831,
when, having attained the age of seventy-three, he declined a
re-election under the Constitution which had been adopted the
preceding year. Though on the bench, he was chosen the Jef-
ferson elector in 1800 and in 1804, the Madison elector in 1808
and in 1812, the Monroe elector in 1816 and in 1820, and the
Crawford elector in 1824. Thus far he acted with his ancient
colleagues of the Republican party; but, preferring Mr. Adams
to General Jackson, he was placed by the friends of Adams on
their electoral ticket in 1828, which was defeated by the ticket of'
the opposite party. He died at Staunton on the nth day of
July, 1832, in the seventy-fifth year of his age.
He possessed an elegant taste in letters, which his contribu-
tions to the memoir of Henry, by Wirt, strikingly exhibit; and
we are told that he was one of that able cohort of writers who
made the Richmond Enquirer, then recently established by its
late venerable editor, the bulwark of the party to which it
belonged and the terror of its foes. Nor were his attainments
confined to literature. He was fond of the severe sciences; and
such was his reputation in mathematics that he was tendered the
professorship in .that department in William and Mary College,
and was appointed one of the commissioners to run the dividing
line between Virginia and Kentucky.8
In his latter years he presented to the young generations rising
8 See Revised Code of 1819, Vol. I, page 6r. His colleagues were
General Joseph Martin and Judge Creed Taylor. The Richmond
Enquirer came out in May, 1804.
ARCHIBALD STUART. 15
around him a venerable image of the fathers of the Republic.
His person to the last was erect; his frame, which was six feet
three inches in height, was broad and muscular; his hair, which
in youth was black, was white as snow, and was dressed in a
queue; but his dark hazel eyes were still bright, and the grave
and almost stern aspect of his face was such as one would look
for in a statesman who, nearly half a century before, in an hour
of trial and apprehension, had assisted in laying the foundation
of the government under which we now live, and who had, since
that time, been engaged in the honorable but arduous duties of
a legislator and a judge. When he visited the hall of the Con-
vention of 1 829-' 30, and took the seat allotted by the courtesy
of the House to the judges, he observed with interest the repre-
sentatives of a new generation about to frame a new system of
government for his beloved Commonwealth, but he could not
know the tender regard with which he was beheld as one of the
five survivors of that illustrious band which composed the Con-
vention of 1788.'
9 In 1829 the survivors of the Convention of 1788 were Mr. Madison,
Judge Marshall, and Colonel Monroe (who were members of the Con-
vention of 1829), Judge Stuart, and James Johnson, of Isle of Wight.
It was on this occasion I had the honor of forming an acquaintance with
Judge Stuart.
I annex portions of a letter received from an intelligent correspond-
ent, which describes the Judge in latter life: "Judge Stuart, in May,
1791, married Miss Eleanor Briscoe, a daughter of Colonel Gerard
Briscoe, of Frederick county, Virginia, but formerly of Montgomery
county, Maryland. Her two sisters married Dr. Cornelius Baldwin, the
father of the late Judge Briscoe G. Baldwin, and Judge Hugh Holmes.
In stature the Judge was tall and rawboned, his height was six feet
three inches, and he was perfectly erect. He was broad-shouldered,
large-boned, and muscular. His eyes were of a dark hazel color and
exceedingly expressive. His complexion was dark, but somewhat
florid; in manner he was rather stately and reserved. To strangers
and on the bench he sometimes appeared austere in his deportment,
but amongst his friends he exhibited the kindest and most genial dis-
position. In his dress he adhered very much to the fashions of the
Revolutionary period. His hair was worn combed back from his face
and with a long queue behind. Until a short time before his death, he
would wear nothing but short breeches with fair topped boots. In the
latter part of his life his hair was as white as snow, and I never
knew a man of more commanding and venerable appearance. In
16 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
GABRIEL JONES.
Another member of the bar, whom the Valley deputed to the
Convention, and who holds an important place in its early his-
tory, was Gabriel Jones. To this day some racy anecdotes,
everywhere current in the Valley, but too prurient for the public
eye, serve to show the peculiarities of this really able but most
singular man. He is said to have opened the first law office
west of the Blue Ridge. He was born in 1724, near Williams-
burg, of English parents, who had come over ten years before
and had settled in the vicinity of the metropolis.10 About 1734
the family returned to England, and in the city of London young
the general aspect of his features he bore a strong resemblance to Gen-
eral Jackson, hut was on a much larger scale. The most remarkable
characteristic of his mind was his sound judgment. I have often
heard Judge Baldwin say that he thought his judgment but little, if at
all, inferior to Judge Marshall's, and that, if he had been placed in a
position to require the constant exercise of all his faculties, he would
have been one of the most eminent judges in his time. He was a
generous patron of young men struggling against difficulties, and
among those who shared his kindness was the well-known John Allen,
the rival of Henry Clay, who was killed at the river Raisin. Another
peculiarity of the Judge was his almost intuitive perception of the
character of men. The only portrait of him in existence was painted
in 1824 by George Cooke, and is in the possession of his son, the Hon.
A. H. H. Stuart."
10 Governor Gilmer, of Georgia, describes Gabriel Jones as " a Welsh-
man well educated, a friend, kinsman, and executor of Lord Fairfax."
I have followed the authority of the grandson of Mr. Jones, Francis
B. Jones, Esq., as that most likely to be authentic. See Governor Gil-
mer's " Georgians," page 61. [Gabriel Jones, it is believed, possessed
a select, if not a large, library, for his period, in the Colony. Volumes
with his book-plate frequently occur in libraries sold at auction. The
arms used by him would indicate that he was of English descent, as
they are those given by Burk (General Armory), as "Jones, Chilton and
Shrewsbury, county, Salop; granted i6th June, 1607. Arms: A lion
rampant vert, vulned in the breast, gu. Crest : A sun in splendour,
or." Gabriel Jones's plate bore also the motto, " Pax ruris hospila"
and " Gabriel Jones, Attorney at Law."— EDITOR.]
GABRIEL JONES. 17
Jones received his early training. While yet a lad Gabriel
returned to Virginia, studied law, turned in due time his course
westward, and took up his abode in the Valley, attending the
courts of Winchester, Staunton, and Romney. In 1748 he
married Miss Margaret Strother, a daughter of William Strother,
who lived on the Rappahannock, and whose two other daughters
married Thomas Lewis and John Madison, the father of the
Bishop. After his marriage, Jones continued to reside in Fred-
erick, but subsequently purchasing a beautiful estate on the
Shenandoah in the present county of Rockingham, he removed
thither, and there he resided during the remainder of his life.
His estate lay directly opposite the estate of his brother-in-law
and colleague in the Convention, Thomas Lewis. He died in
1806, in the eighty-third year of his age. He was of small
stature and of a nervous temperament, and, having lost his right
eye in early life, he always wore a shade to conceal the defect
from public observation. He is represented in a portrait at
" Vaucluse," the seat of his late grandson, as dressed in the full
toilet of a gentleman of the old regime, the shade over his eye,
and as having a face shrewd and attenuated, and indicative of a
high temper. Indeed, with all the discipline of a long life, with
all his respect for those restraints which his position at the head
of the bar, as the head of a family in an orderly, moral and even
religious society, and as a gentleman punctilious in dress and
demeanor, he could never turn the cup of provocation from his
lips, nor restrain the outbursts of a temper terrible to the
last degree. Even in the presence of the court his passions
flamed wildly and fiercely. He was the first, and for a long
time the only, attorney who practiced in Augusta county, and
was generally known as The Lawyer. The road by which he
travelled to Staunton was called the Lawyer's Road. An inci-
dent which occurred in Augusta court will serve^to show the
peculiar temper of Jones, and, at the same time, the temper of
the court toward him. He was engaged in a case in which the
late Judge Holmes was the opposing counsel. Holmes was
mischievous and witty, and contrived to get Jones into a furious
passion, when he became very profane. After hearing Jones
for some time the court consulted together in order to determine
what steps should be taken to preserve its dignity. To think of
punishing Lawyer Jones was out of the question; so the pre-
18 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
siding judge gave it as the decision of the court, "that if Mr.
Holmes did not quit worrying Mr. Jones and making him curse
and swear so, he should be sent to jail."1 Withal he was a most
skilful and learned lawyer, indefatigable in maintaining the inter-
ests of his clients, and most successful in winning verdicts.
His politics were pitched to the same high key with his tem-
per. He had no fears of a strong government which was, at the
same time, a representative government. He thought that the
principal defect in popular institutions consisted in their weak-
ness, and that vigor in the administration was the true and the
only means of sustaining successfully a republican system. He
warmly supported the Federal Constitution, and was to his last
hour a thorough, open, and uncompromising Federalist. Look-
ing upon every honor to be conferred upon him as a mark of
disgrace if founded on an erroneous view of his opinions, he
expressed himself on public occasions with a freedom and a
harshness that gave great scandal even to men not ordinarily
squeamish. Thus, when he was a candidate with Thomas Lewis
for a seat in the present Convention, though his opinions were
everywhere known in the Valley, having heard that some of the
voters whom he disliked intended voting for him out of regard
for his brother-in-law, he declared from the hustings, on the
opening of the polls, "that he would not receive the votes of
such damned rascals."12 He had no concealments, in public or
in private. He was never worse than he appeared to be. In
the relations of private life he was punctual, liberal, and honor-
able. The man never lived who doubted his integrity. By
strict attention to the duties of his profession he accumulated a
large estate. In pecuniary matters he was stern, but just. He
exacted indiscriminately his own dues from others, but he ren-
dered the dues of others with equal exactness. In an age of
wild speculation, he would never buy a bond, under par, nor
receive more than six per cent, for the use of money. Hence,
by the aid of his large capital, his influence was extensive; and
that influence was invariably wielded in behalf of suffering
11 1 have given this nearly in the words of a writer in the Virginia
Historical Register, Vol. Ill, 17. I have received it from various
sources.
12 1 have heard this incident detailed in several ways, but all illustra-
tive of the fearlessness of Jones in the presence of the voters.
GABRIEL JONES. 19
virtue, of sound morals, and of public faith. He kept an
account of all his expenses; and when he engaged at his own
fireside, or at the firesides of his friends, as was the fashion of
the times, in a game of cards, he noted his losses and his gains;
and a regular account of his luck, kept through his whole life,
was found among his papers. When we regard his protracted
career, and the influence which his strict veracity, his incorrupti-
ble integrity, and his fearless assertion of the right, exerted on
the public opinion of a young and unsettled country, rapidly
filling up with the waifs of a various emigration, almost beyond
the reach of law, his peculiarities, though ever to be pitied and
deplored, are softened in the contemplation. He neither sought
nor would accept public office; but it is certain that he was
elected a member of Congress under the Confederation, and, it
is believed, a judge of the General Court.13
13 The election of Jones to Congress was made under flattering
circumstances. He was at the head of a delegation consisting of
Edmund Randolph, James Mercer, Patrick Henry, William Fitzhugh,
Meriwether Smith, and Cyrus Griffin. He was elected June 17, 1779.
(Journal of the House of Delegates of that date.) He ran against
Paul Carrington on the first election of the judges of the General
Court, and was defeated by sixteen votes. (Journal House of Dele-
gates, January 23, 1778.) I confess my obligation to Francis B. Jones,
Esq., for information concerning his ancestor. There was a portrait of
Gabriel Jones at the residence of the late General J. B. Harvie, of
Richmond, who was his grandson.
20 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
THOMAS LEWIS.
But Gabriel Jones was not the only man of influence and
talents whom Rockingham sent to the present Convention. No
two men could differ more from each other in physical and moral
qualities than Jones and his colleague, Thomas Lewis. Jones
was diminutive in stature; Lewis was one of a family of gallant
brothers whose height exceeded six feet; and he was large in
proportion to his height. Jones, to the extreme verge of a pro-
tracted and prosperous life, gave way to an uncontrollable tem-
per; Lewis, though sprung from a fiery race, governed his
passions with such deliberate judgment that few even of his
intimate friends had ever seen him under high excitement.
Jones, when he was furious — and he was apt to be furious on
slight provocation — swore with such vehemence as to shock even
men of the world; Lewis, though unconnected with any church,
was essentially a pious man, and gave instructions in his will
that the burial-service of the Episcopal Church should be read
by his friend Gilmer at his grave. In the science and practice
of law, to which he had devoted for more than half a century
the energies of a vigorous mind, Jones was superior not only to
Lewis, but to all his rivals west of the Ridge; but in a love of
order, in popularity derived from personal worth, and in integ-
rity, Lewis was his equal; and in profound and elegant scholar-
ship, and in a knowledge of political affairs, acquired in the pub-
lic councils during the earlier stages of those measures which
led to the Revolution, he was not only ahead of Jones, but of all
the able and patriotic men to whom the West had confided its
interests at this critical conjuncture, he was regarded at home
and throughout the State as confessedly the first. They were
brothers-in-law, lived in a style of liberal hospitality on their
princely estates lying on the opposite banks of the Shenandoah,
and were personal friends. Lewis was the elder by six years.
Both had probably studied at William and Mary, had emigrated
in early life to the Valley, with the interests of which they were
THOMAS LEWIS. 21
fully conversant, and advocated with equal zeal the ratification
of the Federal Constitution. They were descended from differ-
ent stocks — possibly from the same stock developed under differ-
ent circumstances. Jones was of English parentage, and though
born in Virginia, spent his youth in England.1* With the gov-
ernment of that country he was familiar, and he saw nothing in
it to excite remark or to demand reform. In common with the
most conspicuous statesmen of the Revolution, he would have
preferred a safe and honorable connection with England to a
state of independence. He was in favor of an energetic govern-
ment vigorously administered, and from habit, from policy, and
from principle would have chosen rather to await the full develop-
ment of bad measures than to assail in the beginning an abstract
principle from which bad measures were likely to follow. Lewis
was the descendant of a Scotch ancestor, who had become an
Irish colonist, and who imbibed the spirit, partly religious and
partly military, which a colonist of the dominant race in the cir-
cumstances of his condition could not fail to cherish. Hence
the readiness with which Lewis separated himself from the great
body of the eastern delegation in the House of Burgesses of
1765, and voted for the resolutions of Henry against the Stamp
Act. He well knew that the Colony could bear the weight of a
stamp tax as easily as we now bear the weight of the tax on
letters transmitted through the post ; but he saw in the principle
of laying taxes on the people without representation a source of
danger, the extent of which could only be measured by the
cupidity of those who had unjustly assumed the power. Jones,
in common with many eastern members, might have hesitated to
adopt means of resistance until the policy had become fixed;
but Lewis voted to resist the infraction at the outset, and to
incur present difficulty in the hope of forestalling future trouble.
Hence, while many of the eastern men in March, 1775, were
reluctant to proceed to extremities, and were disposed to rely on
the operation of the non-importation agreements as an appeal to
"Governor Gilmer, already cited, calls Jones a Welshman, and
assigns his reasons for believing that the Lewises were originally from
Wales. I lean to the belief that the Lewises were neither Huguenot
nor Welsh, but were Scotch, and emigrated to Ireland in the time of
James the First, or of Cromwell. [This question grows. — EDITOR.]
22 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the commercial sensibilities of England, Lewis approved the
resolutions of Henry for putting the Colony into military array;
and in the following year sustained the resolution instructing the
delegates of Virginia in Congress to propose independence, and
the resolution appointing a committee to report a Declaration of
Rights and an independent Constitution. But on this great
occasion Lewis and Jones united to attain a common object.
This change in the policy of Lewis did not fail to attract atten-
tion. It was from a close observation of his conduct in past
years that the opponents of the Federal Constitution counted
upon his vote. In the eyes of Henry and his compatriots, who
had steadily guarded the right of taxation, not only from the
encroachments of the mother country, but from the encroach-
ments of our own Confederation, it seemed monstrous to cede
that invaluable right without limitation to any authority what-
ever, whether that authority was seated on the other side of the
Atlantic or on this. The statesmen of whom Henry was the
chief were free to declare that the Northern States richly merited
their gratitude for their heroic conduct in resisting British
tyranny, and that they ardently desired a union with them; but
between an expression of gratitude and a love of union, and an
entire surrender of the right most precious to freemen, there
was an immense interval which it was madness to overleap.
Lewis doubtless felt the delicacy of his position. It was pain-
ful to part from friends with whom we had long held intimate
communion; but it was his deliberate conviction that the diffi-
culties of the crisis demanded a trial of the new system, and he
voted with his colleague, who from the first had no doubts on
the subject.
Nor was his vote confined to the ratification of the Consti-
tution. On the greatest of all the amendments which were
reported by the select committee, and which aimed to secure to
the States a modified control over the right of taxation, he again
parted from his ancient allies. It may be remarked, as an
instructive fact in the history of the Scotch-Irish race which
settled in the Valley, and made an impression upon its popula-
tion likely to last for years and ages to come, that those among
them who were attached to the Episcopal Church were eager
for the ratification of the Federal Constitution ; and that those
THOMAS LEWIS. 23
who had been dissenters before the Revolution, and were con-
nected with the Presbyterian Church, opposed the adoption of
that instrument in its unamended form with all their zeal.15
Of the early life of Lewis, of his birth in Ireland, and the
circumstances which led to the emigration of his family, of his
services as the first surveyor of Augusta, when Augusta extended
to the Ohio and to the Mississippi, and of his career in the
House of Burgesses, in the early conventions, and especially in
the Convention of 1776, when he voted in favor of the resolu-
tion instructing the delegates from Virginia in Congress to pro-
pose independence, and was a member of the committee which
reported the Declaration of Rights and the Constitution, we
have already treated in detail.16 His knowledge of mathematics
was held in high repute; and when the boundary line between
Virginia and Pennsylvania, an exciting question, which had
nearly involved the two States in civil war, was about to be run, he
was placed at the head of the commission to which Virginia
assigned that delicate duty ; but, as he was unable to be pres-
ent at the meeting of the commissioners of the two Slates in
Baltimore, and as the arrangement made by his colleagues was
not conclusive, he was again called upon by the Assembly to
examine the subject in dispute and to report his opinion at a
subsequent session.17 In the intervals of public employments he
devoted his time to the cultivation of his estate, and was ever
pleased when he could snatch an hour from business and from
society to engage in the pursuits of science, or to enjoy the
pleasures of literature. He imported the elder as well as the
more recent productions of British genius ; and the intelligent
visitor from the East, who had come into the Valley in search of
a patrimonial land-claim, and was welcomed as a guest at his
hearth, saw with unfeigned surprise, on shelves freshly made from
trees which had reared for centuries above the waters of the
15 Archibald Stuart and Thomas Lewis on the one side, and William
Graham, the Ajax Telamon of the Presbyterians of the Valley, are
instances illustrative of the fact stated in the text.
16 In the discourse on the Virginia Convention of 1776, page 112.
17 His colleagues in the first instance were the Rev. James Madison
and the Rev. Robert Andrews ; and in the second his brother, Andrew
Lewis, and Colonel Innes. (Journal of the House of Delegates, June
24, I779-)
24 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Shenandoah, the most elaborate treatises on the sciences and
the most instructive and most elegant performances in history, in
theology, and in general literature.18 His position in the Valley
was so prominent that all who sought information or advice on
any topic connected with the West either repaired to his house
or consulted him through the post. Washington, who had
served with him on many trying occasions in the House of Bur-
gessess and in the Conventions, and who had taken up vast
tracts of land on the Kanawha and the Ohio, earnestly asked his
aid in the management of his affairs, which Lewis, whose whole
time hardly sufficed to manage his own, was compelled to refuse.
He had long suffered from a cancer on the face, and on the 3131
day of January, 1790, within less than two years after the adjourn-
ment of the present Convention, in the midst of his children and
grandchildren, and in the seventy-third year of his age, he died
on his estate on the Shenandoah, and was buried on its banks.
[He accompanied the commission in 1746 to determine the
line of Lord Fairfax's — the Northern Neck grant — from the
head spring of the Rappahannock to the head spring of the
Potomac. A journal of the expedition, kept by him, is in
the possession of his descendant, the Hon. John F. Lewis. It
gives the only authentic narrative now extant of the planting of
the Fairfax stone. — EDITOR.]
18 In an account of the library of Colonel Lewis, see the discourse on
the Convention of 1776, as last cited.
JOHN STUART.
By the side of Thomas Lewis sat his son-in-law, a man of the
ordinary height, but of a stalwart frame, whose large head, low,
receding forehead, black, bushy eyebrows, small blue eyes,
aquiline nose, bronzed features, and stern aspect, presented the
beau-ideal of that hardy race, which in the outskirts of the Com-
monwealth cultivated the earth and worshipped God with a rifle
constantly by their side and with a ball-pouch flung across the
shoulder. He had learned from his father-in law to beguile the
cares and dangers of a frontier life with the pleasures of litera-
ture.
In his rock-built home near Lewisburg, in a cherry case as
bright as mahogany, he had collected some of the best authors
of the Augustan age of English literature. Nor were his literary
amusements unprofitable to his country. He has left to posterity
the most accurate and lifelike account of the greatest Indian
battle ever fought on the soil ol" Virginia; and in a neat and
truthful narrative has interwoven with charming effect the inci-
dents, of personal and general interest, developed during the
settlement of the country west of the Alleghany, of which he
was now the representative.
Such was John Stuart, of Greenbrier. He was the son of
David Stuart, who was born in Wales in 1710, who married, in
1750, Margaret Lynn, of Loch Lynn, Scotland, and who shortly
after his marriage emigrated to Virginia, settling himself in the
county of Augusta, where his brother-in-law, John Lewis, the
father of Andrew and Thomas Lewis, resided.19 David died
19 Governor Gilmer says that the name of Colonel John Stuart's
father was John; but my information is derived from the family records
in the possession of the accomplished granddaughter of Colonel Stuart,
Mrs. General Davis, of Fayette. Governor Gilmer states that the
father of Colonel Stuart was an intimate personal friend of Governor
Dinwiddie, and came over with him in 1752. If this be true, then David
Stuart must have come by way of the West Indies. ("Georgians,"
page 50.) ["The probability is that Stuart had no personal connection
26 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
early, leaving two daughters, whose reputable descendants live
in the East and in the West, and one son, whose services it is our
duty to record. Young Stuart had not the advantages of early
instruction; but he was a close observer, a diligent inquirer, and
was constant in his endeavors to improve his mind. He acquired
a knowledge of mathematics ample enough to qualify him to
perform with skill the duties of a surveyor, and was appointed by
his uncle, John Lewis, his agent in locating land-warrants in the
region now included in the county of Greenbrier. Thither he
removed, and there during fifty eventful years he continued to
reside. He settled himself on a tract of land four miles from
Camp Union, as the present site of Lewisburg was once called,
which was presented to him by his cousin, General Andrew
Lewis, which he improved and adorned with commodious build-
ings, and on which he lived until his death. In the Indian skir-
mishes of the times he was frequently engaged, and in the army
of General Andrew Lewis, which fought in October, 1771, the
memorable battle at the Point, he commanded one of the Bote-
tourt companies of Colonel Fleming's division, and acted with
distinguished gallantry. In 1780 he was returned to the House
of Delegates by the county of Greenbrier, which three years
before had been set apart from Botetourt and Montgomery, and
in November of the following year was appointed the clerk of
the court. For more than a quarter of a century he performed
the duties of clerk of all the courts of Greenbrier with scrupu-
lous fidelity, and, retiring in his old age from public business,
was succeeded by his son, Lewis. He became the County Lieu-
tenant at a time when that office was keenly coveted by our
fathers. Indeed, the County Lieutenant80 then held the same
honorable office which the Lord Lieutenant held in the parent
country, and presided in the court, commanded the militia, and
was in all public affairs the exponent of the county. His respon-
sible duties were marked out by special enactments. It was not
obligatory upon him to take the field; but if he took the field,
with Governor Dinwiddie. He certainly settled in the Valley long
before Dinwiddie became Governor of the Colony." — Waddelfs Annals
of Augusta County, page 463. — EDITOR.]
20 For the rank and position of the County Lieutenant, see pages
35-36 of the Journal of the Convention of July, 1775.
JOHN STUART. 27
the colonel of the regiment became lieutenant-colonel and the
lieutenant-colonel became major. It was the experience in civil
and military affairs thus acquired, and his long and intimate
acquaintance with the wants and interests of the West, that
impelled him to approve a vigorous government and to favor
the ratification of the Federal Constitution by the present Con-
vention. His sagacity led him to fear that the Indian, though
driven beyond the Ohio, might prove a dangerous foe to the
West; and he knew that it rested not with Virginia, but with Eng-
land in the North and with Spain in the West, whether there
should be peace or war within our borders; and that a coalition
between those two foreign forces might result in the extermina-
tion of the settlers west of the Blue Ridge. He viewed both
these nations with distrust; yet, if either of them should choose
to bring all the Indians within its control into the field, it would
require all the resources of the Union to repel the savages and
to punish them. With such impressions, he brought all his
influence to bear upon his countrymen, and succeeded in
securing the vote of Greenbrier in favor of the Constitution.
Nor did his affection for the Constitution cease with its adoption.
He gave a cordial support to those who were charged with its
administration, and upheld the policy of Washington and of
Adams with unwavering confidence. As he was earnest and
sincere in his political feelings, he maintained his opinions unal-
tered by the fluctuations of popular passion or by the lapse of
time, and died as he had lived — an honest, upright, and consist-
ent Federalist. He rarely spoke with* severity of his opponents;
but in his letters to confidential friends he handled the foibles of
the Democratic leaders without mercy, but without venom; and
he showed his antipathy to their doctrines rather by laughing at
what he deemed their inconsistencies and absurdities than in
fierce and vulgar denunciation.21 Indeed, the conspicuous trait
of his character was a decorous self-command. It was hard to
tell what impression a remark made upon him. In mixed com-
panies he was silent and reserved, and his grave deportment and
severe aspect were apt to repress the loquacity of others. He
"The letters of Colonel Stuart, addressed to the Rev. Benjamin
Grigsby during the Adams and Jefferson administrations, are in my col-
lections.
28 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
never lost his youthful love of the rifle, which to the last he
wielded with unerring skill ; and it was the delight of his old
age to wander through the forest ; and he has been seen to halt
and carve a date or a name on the bark of a beech, and to sit
upon a fallen tree with his rifle on his lap, as he was wont to do
in youth when he watched the Indian enemy. Yet, with one or
two old friends he would occasionally unbend, and on such occa-
sions it was pleasing to hear him recount the early incidents of
his life and his clear and admirable estimate of the Revolution-
ary statesmen with whom he had served in the public councils.
With all his seeming sternness, he was revered by the great
body of his fellow-citizens ; and his popularity was the more
honorable to him, as it arose from no concession to fashionable
follies, from no concealment of unpopular opinions, but from the
computation of solid worth in the calm judgments of the peo-
ple. His habit of self-command and the steadiness of his nerves
were remarkable even in his last hour. Like many of the early
settlers, he had insensibly caught some of the Indian traits. He
did not appear to suffer from any particular disease, but seemed,
like a soldier on duty, patiently to await the time of his final
discharge. On the evening of the 23d of August, 1823, he told
his son that his time had come; and, rising from his bed, shaved
and dressed himself with unusual care. When he had finished
his toilet he rested on the bed, and in five minutes breathed his
last. He had reached his seventy-fifth year. He was buried on
his estate, not far from the site of a fort which he had erected for
protection from the sudden forays of the Indians. A slab with
an appropriate epitaph marks the spot.
Taciturn and unbending as this worthy patriot appeared, there
was a romance in the courtship of his wife, which has become
one of the traditions of the West. About mid- day on the loth
of October, 1774, in the town of Staunton, a little girl, the
daughter of John and Agatha Frogge, and the granddaughter of
Thomas Lewis, who was sleeping in the room in which her
mother was attending to her domestic affairs, suddenly awoke,
screaming that the Indians were murdering her father. She was
quieted by her mother, and went to sleep again. Again she
awoke, screaming that the Indians were murdering her father.
She was quieted once more, and was waked up a third time by
the same horrid vision, and continued screaming in spite of all
JOHN STUART. 29
the efforts of her mother to soothe and pacify her. The mother
of the child was much alarmed at the first dream ; but when the
same dreadful vision was seen by the child a third time, her
imagination, quickened by that superstition which is almost uni-
versal among the Scotch, and which the highest cultivation
rather conceals than eradicates, presented before her the lifeless
form of her husband gashed by the tomahawk of the savage.
Her cries drew together her neighbors, who, when informed of
what had occurred, joined in her lamentations, until all Staunton
was in a state of commotion. It so happened that the bloody
battle of the Point was fought on the very day when Staunton was
thus agitated, and, what was still more wonderful, John Frogge,
the father of the child who had seen the vision, was killed during
the engagement.22 When Captain Stuart, at the close of the
Western campaign, visited the Valley, he saw the mother of the
affrighted child, who was his first cousin, and, as he had pro-
bably seen her husband fall and assisted in committing his body
to the grave, communicated to her the melancholy but interesting
details of his fate. The sequel is soon told. He was enter-
prising and brave; she was young and beautiful; and in due time
he conducted her as a bride to his mountain home. The off-
spring of this marriage were two sons and two daughters, who
survived their parents, but are now dead, leaving- numerous
descendants. Mrs. Stuart outlived her husband some years,
and saw her grandchildren attain to maturity.23
There is one reflection drawn from the life of John Stuart not
undeserving our attention. While most of the early politicians
east of the mountains, though beginning life with good estates,
died poor, or were able to leave but a pittance to their families,
which were scattered abroad, their Western colleagues bequeathed
to their descendants a princely inheritance. The fine estates on
the eastern rivers, the very names of which once imparted to
"This incident I have given in almost the identical words of Gov-
ernor Gilmer. (" Georgians," page 49.)
23 1 knew this venerable lady in my early youth and in her extreme
•old age. She was active and shrewd to the last. She was somewhat
deaf; and her son, Lewis, my early and dear friend, now too gone,
used laughingly to say that his mother could not hear ordinary conver-
sation very well, but that if you talked to her about money matters
her hearing was perfect.
30 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
their owners the dignity of a title, have long been alienated from
the blood of their original possessors. During the present century
four-fifths of the land on the banks of the James, and of other
rivers of the East, have been in the market. Such has not been
the case west of the mountains. We should err, however, in
ascribing the result to the superior thrift or to the superior skill of
our Western brethren. Its explanation will probably be found in
the peculiar circumstances of each great section of country. In
the East, if a man with ten children dies leaving an old planta-
tion worth fifty thousand dollars,24 as from obvious considera-
tions it was incapable of sustaining a division into ten equal
and habitable parts, it must be sold for a division. But fifty
thousand dollars' worth of landed property in the West, as the
West was at the beginning of the present century, could be
divided indefinitely into fine plantations abounding in wood and
water. Early purchases of land may be said to be the source of
Western wealth; and for such purchases the East afforded no
opportunity. But Stuart would, under almost any circum-
stances, have been a wealthy man. In his temperament were
combined in a profuse degree the elements of worldly success.
He was systematic, patient, and economical. Debt he held in
abhorrence. Whatever progress he made was sure. He did
much for himself; but he took care that time should do more.
Thus, watching the progress of events, and rising with a rising
country, he accumulated vast wealth. Of the quarter of million
of dollars at which his estate was assessed at his death, the
greater proportion yet remains in the hands of his descendants,
and will probably remain for a century to come.25
"Our great Eastern statesmen were as prolific as their Western
brethren. If Thomas Lewis brought up thirteen children, Patrick
Henry and George Mason nearly averaged a dozen.
"The Historical Memoir of Colonel Stuart was among the earliest
publications of the Historical Society of Virginia. A portion of it may
be found in Howe, in the article on Greenbrier, and in the Historical
Register, Vol. V, 181. I read it thirty years ago in the original manu-
script, which was taken from the desk on which it was written and
handed to me for perusal. I can recall many of the books of the
Colonel's library. They were, of course, all London editions, and in
calf binding. I acknowledge the kind assistance of Samuel Price,
Esq., and of other members of the family of Colonel Stuart.
ANDREW MOORE.
From the mountains of Greenbrier we pass again into the
Valley, and recall the name of a patriot who, by birth and race,
was one of its peculiar representatives, whose early life was
checkered by a various fortune, whose services as a soldier in
three arduous campaigns in the North, during which he saw
from the heights of Saratoga the surrender of the first .British
General with his army to the prowess of the American arms — a
glorious result, achieved in no small measure by the valor and
skill of the corps to which he belonged ; who was a member of
the Assembly in the latter years of the Revolution, and distin-
guished himself by his devotion to religious freedom; who was
a member of the House of Representatives during the entire
term of Washington's administration; who was a leader in the
Republican party from the date of the Federal Constitution to
the close of the presidency of Jefferson; who was the first native
of the Valley elected by Virginia to the office of a Senator of
the United States, and who, having lived to behold the second
contest of his country with Great Britain and to rejoice in the
success of her arms, and, reposing in the midst of his descend-
ants in the shadow of his own vine, went down quietly, in his
sixty-eighth year, to his honored grave.
But, great as were the services rendered throughout a long
life to his country, his course in the present Convention, which
had a controlling influence in effecting the ratification of the
Constitution, is not the least interesting incident in his career in
the estimation of his posterity. He had been instructed by a
majority of the voters of Rockbridge to oppose the ratification
of the Constitution; but, after due deliberation, he resolved to
disobey his instructions and to sustain that instrument. To
obey the instructions of his constituents is the most fearful
responsibility which a delegate can assume; and it is question-
able whether, in a case that is definitely settled by his vote
beyond the possibility of revision, it is susceptible of justifica-
tion. But the cognizance of the question lies altogether with the
32 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
constituents whose wishes have been thwarted, and to these
Andrew Moore appealed on his return from the Convention, and
was sustained by an overwhelming majority of their suffrages.
Andrew Moore was of the Scotch-Irish race, to which Thomas
Lewis and John Stuart belonged. His grandfather was one of a
family of brothers who emigrated from the North of Ireland and
settled in the Valley, and in some of the Southern States. His
father, David, took, up his abode on a farm in the lower part of
Rockbridge (then Augusta), now called " Cannicello." The most
remote ancestor of David whom he could remember was a lady
whose maiden name was Bante, who in her old age came over to
this country, and who used to relate that, when a girl, she had
been driven to take refuge under the walls of Londonderry, had
seen many Protestants lying dead from starvation with tufts of
grass in their mouths, and had herself barely escaped alive from
the havoc of that terrible scene.
In 1752, at the homestead of " Cannicello," Andrew was born,
and was there brought up, availing himself of the advantages of
instruction within his reach so effectually as, before manhood, to
become a teacher in a school of his own. He determined to
study law, and attended, about 1772, a course of lectures under
Wythe, at William and Mary. Fascinated by a love of adven-
ture, he embarked for the West Indies, was overtaken by a
tempest, and was cast away on a desert island. To sustain life
the shipwrecked party was compelled to live on reptiles, and
especially on a large species of lizard, the flavor of which, even
in old age, the venerable patriot could readily remember. From
this inhospitable abode he was at length rescued by a passing
vessel; and he went to sea no more.
The Revolution was now in progress, the Declaration of
Independence was promulgated, and Virginia had erected a
form of government of her own, and appealed to her citizens to
maintain it in the field. Andrew Moore hearkened to the call,
and accepted a lieutenantcy in the company of Captain John
Hays, of Morgan's Rifle Corps. As soon as he received his
commission he attended a log-rolling in his neighborhood, and
enlisted in one day nineteen men — being nearly the whole num-
ber present capable of bearing arms. Such was the spirit of
patriotism that animated the bosoms of his countrymen. He
continued in the army three years, and served most of that time
ANDREW MOORE. 33
in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. He participated
in all the engagements which terminated in the capture of the
British army under Burgoyne, and saw that accomplished Gene-
ral play a part in a drama of deeper interest than the one which
he wrote for the entertainment of a London audience. At the
expiration of three years' service in the army, having attained
the rank of captain, he resigned his commission, in consequence
of the number of supernumerary officers, and .returned to Rock-
bridge.
In April, 1780, he entered on his legislative career, which he
was destined to pursue for nearly the third of a century, and to
close with the highest honor which can be attained in that
department of the public service. As soon as he entered the
House of Delegates he was placed on the Committee of Reli-
gion, and it should be remembered forever to his praise that he
was from the first the earnest and consistent advocate of religious
freedom in all its largest sense. He was a member of the body
when Tarleton made his famous effort to capture it in full session
at Charlottesville. He acted with the party of which Henry was
the head; nor until he took his seat in the present Convention
did he depart from the policy marked out by the great tribune
of the people. On the ijth day of December, 1785, true to the
principles of the race from which he sprung, and, in unison with
the spirit of that remarkable era in which he lived, he voted for
the memorable act "establishing religious freedom."16 And
26 As several of the members of the Convention voted with Moore on
that occasion, I annex, for the sake of reference, the ayes and noes on
the passage of the bill in the House of Delegates :
AYES — Joshua Fry, Wilson Cary Nicholas, Joseph Eggleston, Sam' I
Jordan Cabell, Zachariah Johnston, Michael Bowyer, John Trigg,
Robert Clark, George Hancock, Archibald Stuart, William Anderson,
Hickerson Barksdale, John Clarke (of Campbell), Samuel Hawes,
Anthony New, John Daniel, Henry Southall, French Strother, Henry
Fry, William Gatewood, Meriwether Smith, Charles Simms, David
Stuart, William Pickett, Thomas Helm, C. Greenup, James Garrard,
George Thomson, Alexander White, Charles Thurston, Thomas Smith,
George Clendinen, John Lucas, Jeremiah Pate, Ralph Humphreys,
Isaac Vanmeter, George Jackson, Nathaniel Wilkinson, John Mayo, Jr.,
John Rentfro, William Norvell, John Roberts, William Dudley, Thomas
Moore, Carter Braxton, Benjamin Temple, Francis Peyton, Christopher
Robertson, Samuel Garland, Benjamin Logan, David Scott, William
3
34 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
when, on the i6th of January following, the bill came down from
the Senate with three amendments, two of which were critical
and explanatory, and the third of which proposed to strike out
the words, " that the religious opinions of men are not the object
of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction," he assented to
the two first, but voted against concurring with the last in a
minority of twenty-seven; thus affirming in the most positive
manner that the religious opinions of men are not within the
range of legislation.27 During the following session — which
began in October, 1786, and ended on the nth of January,
1787 — he voted for the appointment of commissioners to meet
at Annapolis, and afterwards voted to appoint delegates to the
Federal Convention, which should assemble in Philadelphia for
the purpose of proposing amendments to the Articles of Con-
federation.
In the present Convention, as before observed, he sustained
the Constitution proposed by the General Convention, and
opposed the adoption of the third amendment of the series
which "was reported by the select committee, and which reserved
Pettijohn, Robert Sayres, Daniel Trigg, William H. Macon, Griffin
Stith, David Bradford, James Madison, Charles Porter, William Harri-
son, Benjamin Lankford, John Clarke (of Prince Edward), Richard
Bibb, Cuthbert Bullitt, Daniel Carroll Brent, Williamson Ball, Andrew
Moore, John Hopkins, Gawin Hamilton, Isaac Zane, John Tayloe,
John W. Willis, Andrew Kincannon, and James fanes — 74.
NOES — Thomas Claiborne, Miles King, Worlich Westwood, John Page,
Garland Anderson, Elias Wills, William Thornton, Francis Corbin,
Willis Riddick, Daniel Sandford, John Gordon, Edward Bland,
Anthony Walke, George L. Turberville, William Garrard, John F. Mer-
cer, Carter B. Harrison, Richard Gary, Jr., Wilson Gary, and Richard
Lee — 20.
The italics point out the members of the present Convention who
voted on the bill.
"As Madison, Harrison, and other prominent men of the popular
party voted in the majority of fifty-three, I am inclined to believe that
they did so lest, by sending the bill back again to the Senate when the
session had only two days to run, they might jeopard its passage. In
the negative were the names of Zachariah Johnston, John Tyler,
French Strother, Willis Riddick, Andrew Moore, Isaac Zane, and
Thomas Mathews, members of the present Convention, all of whom
(except Riddick) sustained the original bill. See Journal of the House
of Delegates, January 16, 1786.
ANDREW MOORE. 35
to the State the privilege of collecting the Federal quotas
through her own officers. He was elected to the first Congress
under the Constitution ; and it soon appeared that, eager as he
was to procure the ratification of that instrument by Virginia, he
was resolved to watch its workings with unceasing vigilance,
and to insist upon the strictest construction of its powers. On
Wednesday, the i8th of March, 1790, he took his seat in the
House of Representatives, then sitting in New York, and took
an active part in its proceedings. In the arrangement of the
new tariff he guarded the interests of the farmer, and contended
that, as hemp could be grown in the Southern States, it should
receive the same encouragement that was extended to the manu-
facturers by a tax on cordage. He opposed the heavy duty on
salt as being hard upon those who raised cattle, and argued with
spirit against the discrimination of pay in favor of the Senators
over the members of the House of Representatives as deroga-
tory and unjust. It was on the questions growing out of the
treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay with Great Britain that he spoke
more at length than he had yet done, and ably defended the rule
of the House of Representatives asserting its constitutional
rights in relation to treaties ; and exposed the unequal and
unjust stipulations of the treaty itself. When in 1793 the propo-
sition was brought forward to reduce the army, he went into a
minute history of Indian affairs, and proved what was after-
wards established by a severe sacrifice of human life, that regu-
lars, and not militia, were the proper troops for Indian wars.28 In
1797 he withdrew with Madison and Giles from the House of
Representatives, and determined by a vigorous course of mea-
sures in the Virginia Assembly to change the current of Federal
politics. He supported the resolutions passed by that body in
1798, and the celebrated report presented by Madison at the
succeeding session. In 1803 he returned to the House of Repre-
sentatives, and in the following year was elected for a full term
to the Senate of the United States. While he remained in the
Senate he upheld the policy of the Republican party, and gave
to the administration of Jefferson a cordial and most effective
support. On the conclusion of his senatorial term he declined
a re-election, and withdrew from public life. He was appointed
™jBenton's Debates, Vol. I, 36, 39, 124, 411, 727.
36 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
by Mr. Madison marshal of the district of Virginia, and when
subsequently the district was divided he remained the marshal of
the Eastern district, performing its duties until his death, on the
i4th of April, 1821. Some years before his death he was elected
by the Assembly a general of brigade, and afterwards major-
general. He was of the middle height, stoutly built, and even
in old age was capable of enduring fatigue and exposure. In
his visits to Norfolk, which he made in the discharge of the
duties of his office, he always rode on horseback. He died at
Lexington, and was buried there.29
29 It was on one of his visits to Norfolk that I saw General Moore
for the first and only time. He was then about sixty-six, but in his
step and conversation he appeared to my young eyes as a man about
the middle age. It was his elder brother William, and not Andrew, as
stated by Howe and Foote, who was at the battle of Point Pleasant.
When Colonel John Steele was shot during the fight by an Indian, who
was about to scalp him, William Moore shot the Indian, and knocking
another Indian down with his rifle shouldered Steele, who was a large
man, and taking his own rifle and Steele's in the other hand, carried
him a hundred yards back, and then returned to the fight. Steele,
who recovered from his wound, used to say that William Moore was
the only man in the army who could have carried him off if he would,
or that would have carried him off if he could. William was a lieu-
tenant in the militia at the siege of York. He was very strong, and
told a nephew that he never drank a pint of spirits in the whole course
of his life. He lived to the age of ninety-three. There is a miniature
of General Moore in the possession of his widow.
WILLIAM McKEE, MARTIN McFERRAN.
The colleague of Moore from Rockbridge was Colonel William
McKee, who was descended from the same Scotch-Irish race,
and evinced in a long career in the House of Delegates a firm
determination to overturn those institutions, which, however
well adapted to embellish and adorn an aristocratic state of
society, are out of place in a republic. Hence, he gave a hearty
support to the bills reported by the Committee of Revisers, and
though he was not one of that illustrious band which, amid the
rebukes of the selfish and the prejudices of even wise and hon-
orable men, recorded the act establishing religious freedom on
the statute-book of the Commonwealth, he warmly approved the
measure. He had been engaged in several encounters with the
Indians, had fought gallantly at Point Pleasant, and had acquired
a high reputation for integrity, energy, and ability. He was a
member of the House of Delegates at the winter session of 1786,
and voted to send commissioners to Annapolis, and subsequently
to the General Convention, which was summoned to revise the
Articles of Confederation. Like his colleague, Moore, he took
the responsibility of disobeying the instructions of his constitu-
ents, enjoining upon him to oppose the ratification of the Federal
Constitution, and received an honorable acquittal at their hands.
On the adjournment of the Convention he removed to Ken-
tucky, where he spent the remainder of his days.30
The representatives of Botetourt were two men who exerted
a great influence on public opinion in the West, and were among
the most patriotic and steadfast of their generation. Both Mar-
tin McFerran and William Fleming were of Scotch descent.
McFerran, who belonged to the great Scotch Irish family that
passed from Pennsylvania into the Valley, and who derived his
Christian name from a clergyman, who as early as 1759 went
forth as a missionary among the Indians, and was, it is believed,
30 For the religious aspects of his character, see Footers Sketches of
Virginia, first series, page 447.
38 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
slaughtered by them, was for several years before the meeting
of the Convention an active member of the House of Delegates,
and maintained a prominent place on the committees of that
body at a time when a few leading names only were found upon
them. He, in common with his more distinguished colleague,
was, in the first instance, opposed to the ratification of the Fed-
eral Constitution, and it is probable that but for the fervid elo-
quence of Archibald Stuart on the day of the election of the
members of the Convention, which persuaded the voters to
elicit pledges from the candidates, would, as in earlier days,
have ranged under the banner of Patrick Henry. But he
regarded the expressed will of his constituents as a rule of
action, and not only voted in favor of the adoption of the Con-
stitution, but opposed the scheme of previous amendments.
And when the celebrated memorial to Congress adopted by the
House of Delegates of which he was a member, on the i4th day
of November following the adjournment of the Convention,
which insisted " in the most earnest and solemn manner that a
Convention of deputies from the several States be immediately
called, with full power to take into their consideration the defects
of the Federal Constitution that have been suggested by the
State Conventions, and report such amendments thereto as they
shall find best suited to promote our common interests, and
secure to ourselves and the latest posterity the great and
unalienable rights of mankind,"81 he voted for the milder propo-
81 For the two memorials which strikingly exhibit the temper of the
times, see the Journal of the House of Delegates of November 14,
1788. The first memorial was probably from the pen of Henry, and
the substitute from the pen of Edmund Randolph. The substitute
was lost— ayes 50, noes 72 — and then the original memorial was carried
without a division. As it is interesting to trace the action of the mem-
bers of the Convention, some fifty odd of whom were members of the
House of Delegates when the memorials were offered, I annex their
votes for and against the substitute :
AYES — Mr. Speaker (General Mathews), Wilson C. Nicholas, Zacha-
riah Johnston, Martin McFerran, David Stuart, John Shearman Wood-
cock, Alexander White, Thomas Smith, George Clendenin, Daniel
Fisher, Robert Breckenridge (Kentucky), Levin Powell. William Over-
ton Callis, Francis Corbin, Ralph Wormeley, William Ronald, Walker
Tomlin, John Allen.
NOES — William Cabell, John Trigg, Henry Lee (Kentucky), Notlay
WILLIAM M'KEE, MARTIN M'FERRAN. 39
sition offered by the immediate friends of the Constitution, which
left it discretionary with Congress to act on the amendments
proposed by the States in the form prescribed by the Constitu-
tion itself, or to submit them to a Convention of the States.
Nor should it be omitted in this brief sketch of McFerran that
he voted against the schedule of amendments reported by the
select committee of the Convention, and adopted by that body.
Conn (Kentucky), Binns Jones, Benjamin Harrison, French Strother,
Joel Early, Miles King, John Early, John Guerrant, Thomas Cooper,
John Roane, Green Clay (Kentucky), Alexander Robertson, Richard
Kennon, Willis Riddick, Burwell Bassett, Patrick Henry, Theo. Bland,
Cuthbert Bullitt, William McKee, Thomas Carter, James Monroe,
Thomas Edmunds, Samuel Edmiston.
40 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
WILLIAM FLEMING.
Colonel William Fleming was not a member of the General
Assembly which held its sessions in 1788; but on the first vote
by ayes and noes in the Convention he separated from his col-
leagues and sustained the schedule of amendments proposed by
the select committee. The life of this remarkable man richly
merits a deliberate record. For forty years he was engaged in
the military and civil trusts of the Colony and of the Common-
wealth; and signalized himself by his valor, his incorruptible
integrity, and his ardent patriotism, all of which qualities were
combined with and exalted by a pure moral character, by great
domestic virtues, and by a deep sense of religion. He was born
on the i8th day of February, 1729, in the town of Jedburgh,
Scotland, a little village made familiar to the world by the genius
of Scott. He was the son of Leonard and Dorothea Fleming,
and was nearly allied to the Earl of Wigton and Lord Fleming.
When the title of the earldom of Wigton was in abeyance on
the death of the last earl without issue, which happened after
the Revolution, Fleming was urged to visit Scotland and claim
the succession; but, true to the principles of the memorable event
which he had helped to achieve, he preferred to remain in Vir-
ginia and bring up his large family in a new country, alleging
that he had no wish to make his eldest son, who was already
well provided for by his maternal grandfather, a rich man, and
his other children poor. When we recall what Scotland was at
that time, we are inclined to approve, on grounds disconnected
from politics, the wisdom of his choice. That he had no unkind
feelings toward his Scotch relations, and that he cherished the
memories of his distinguished lineage, is evident from the fact
that he called his beautiful estate in Botetourt (now in Roanoke)
by the name of " Bellmont," a seat of the Flemings, which he had
visited in his early days. That lineage had long been illustrious,
and was intimately connected with the unfortunate but beautiful
Queen of Scotland, whose character is one of the puzzles of
modern history. It will be remembered that, when Mary was
WILLIAM FLEMING. 41
prohibited from taking more than two female friends to share
with her the solitude of Lochleven, one of the most touching of
modern fictions represents one of them to have been a Fleming.
His parents were in moderate circumstances, but were able to
afford him the means of a liberal education. He attended the
school of a Mr. Totten in Dumfries, a good classical teacher ;
and, having to make his way in the world by his own exertions,
he chose the calling of a surgeon, and prosecuted his studies in
the University of Edinburgh. At the close of his terms he
entered the British navy as a surgeon's mate; and while engaged
in the service was taken prisoner in his vessel by the Spaniards,
who took him to Spain, where he was treated with great cruelty.
He was strictly confined to his prison, but when his health began
to fail he was allowed to walk in a small garden connected with
the jail. So scanty was his fare, and of such indifferent quality,
he would have perished with hunger but for the benevolence
and sympathy of a Spanish lady, whose residence overlooked
the garden, and who supplied him at intervals with nourishing
food. Her name he could never learn, but her kindness he never
forgot; and to the last day of his life he would not allow persons
in want, apparent or real, to be turned from his door, lest, as he
sometimes said with a smile, they might be descended from the
good Spanish lady, but, in truth, from the impulses of his o\^n
generous heart. Possibly, too, we may see in this incident an
explanation of his tender affection for the female sex which was
conspicuous in his character, and of that affectionate devotion to
his wife which shines so sweetly through all his letters.
When he was relieved from confinement he was resolved to
resign his appointment in the navy, which from the first was
uncongenial to his taste, and try his fortunes in the Colony of
Virginia. Governor Dinwiddie, a Scotchman, had then been
promoted from a berth in the customs of Barbadoes to the office
of Lieutenant Governor of Virginia; and it is probable that, as
an intimacy was soon formed between the Governor and young
Fleming, the latter had brought over very flattering letters from
Scotland.3'2 In August, 1755, he landed in Norfolk, and visiting
82 A number of clever Scotchmen came to the Colony in Dinwiddie's
time with letters from his relatives in Scotland ; and when the young
Virginians visited England he was ever ready to introduce them
42 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Williamsburg he determined to embrace the profession of arms.
A few days before his arrival, and while he was on his passage
to Virginia, the battle of Monongahela had been fought. Brad-
dock, Halket, and Shirley had fallen, and the general route of
the army had laid the whole West open to the incursions of the
French and the Indians. Under such circumstances it was not
difficult for an active and intelligent young man of six and
twenty to obtain a commission; and on the 25th of August he
was appointed ensign in the Virginia regiment commanded by
Colonel George Washington. It may seem strange that he did
not choose a plac^ in the medical staff; but he cherished a spirit
of adventure, and it is probable that he had already shown a
taste for war, as he bore on the bridge of his nose the mark of
a sabre cut which he may have received in the fight with the
Spaniards. His commission as ensign is printed on a folio
sheet, the names and dates filled up in a fine hand, and the ink
as bright as it was the day it was used; and bears the large,
straggling signature of Robert Dinwiddie, which reminds us of
the signature of Stephen Hopkins to the Declaration of Inde-
pendence.
After serving faithfully in the grades of ensign and lieutenant,
he received on the 22d of May, 1762, the commission of captain
in, the Virginia regiment commanded by Colonel Adam Stephen.
This commission, which is also before me, is printed on parch-
ment about the size of a half foolscap sheet, and is signed by
Governor Francis Fauquier. The term of the military service
of Fleming included one of the darkest periods in the annals of
the Colony. The letters of Washington faithfully portray the
exigencies of that epoch. Even the heart of Washington,
familiar as he was with the cruelties of the Indians, grew sick,
and he declared that, if by his death he could restore peace and
safety to the frontier, he would lay down his life without hesi-
tation. At this trying time Fleming performed his duty with
unfaltering devotion to his adopted country; and it was not
until the general pacification took place the following year that
he resigned his commission.
abroad. Samuel Davies, among others, received this courtesy at his
hands, and gracefully acknowledges the attentions he received from
Dinwiddie's relatives in Scotland.
WILLIAM FLEMING. 43
He was now to change his mode of life and to resume his old
profession. In selecting a new home he came to Staunton, in the
county of Augusta, where he settled and engaged in the prac-
tice of physic. Here he became acquainted with the family of
Isaac Christian, one of the early settlers of the town, who was
a prosperous merchant, and was rich in Western lands. The
name of Christian is honorably known in the records of the
West, and his blood flows in the veins of hundreds now living
in Kentucky and in other Southern States. It was William, the
eldest son of Isaac, whose name is intimately connected with
our early Indian history, and whose murder by the savages, per-
petrated with all the subtle refinements of Indian cruelty, has
nerved the white man in many a bloody contest with his tawny
foes, and will draw tears from generations yet unborn. To
Anne, the sister of William, who was then living, and one of the
most prominent men of the West, Fleming paid his addresses;
and on the gth of April, 1763, she became his wife.33
A few years after his marriage he withdrew from the practice
of medicine, and went to reside permanently on the estate in
Botetourt (now Roanoke), which he received from his father-in-
law, and which, as before stated, he called " Bellmont " ; and here
he lived, unless when absent in his various public employments,
until his death. At that time the Indians made frequent incur-
sions into the settlements, and his first office was to build a log
house or fort (the feudal castle of the West), and to this fortress
the people of the neighborhood flocked on the discovery of
Indian signs. On one occasion, when the neighbors had col-
lected in the building, one of the sisters of Mrs. Fleming, who
was slightly indisposed, had thrown herself on a bed beneath a
window ; and presently looking up, she beheld the face of an
33 As I write for Virginians and the descendants of Virginians, who
are curious in tracing the origin of the settlers of Kentucky and other
Southern States, it may be well enough to say that Isaac Christian had
one son. William, mentioned in the text, who married a sister of
Patrick Henry, and left several daughters, who married in Kentucky :
Anne, who married Colonel Fleming; Rose, who married Judge Caleb
Wallace, of Kentucky ; Mary, who married Colonel Stephen Trigg ;
Elizabeth, who married Colonel William Bowyer, of Botetourt ; and
Friscilla, who died early. Fleming, Trigg, and Christian counties in
Kentucky were called after the brothers-in-law.
44 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Indian warrior examining the room. She instantly gave the
alarm, and a strict search was made, but without success; and it
was generally believed, in spite of the earnest protestations of
the lady, that there was some illusion or mistake in the case.
Some years later, when a deputation of Indians, on their return
from Richmond, called at " Bellmont," one of the chiefs observed
that he had been there before, and had looked through the win-
dow, but finding the whites ready to repel an attack, had quietly
departed.
The first important trust that Fleming filled after his removal
to Botetourt was that of colonel of the regiment of militia which
marched to the Ohio and which performed so gallant a part in
the battle of Point Pleasant. Allusions have been frequently
made in this work to that battle, and we subjoin in a note the
best sources of information on the subject.34 Suffice it to say,
that Colonel Charles Lewis and Colonel Fleming, in the early
part of the fight, were ordered by General Lewis to detail a
portion of their forces under their oldest captains, and to
advance in the direction of the reported enemy. The two colo-
nels, hastening on as directed, sent forward scouts, and while
yet in sight of the camp guards heard the discharge of mus-
ketry and saw the scouts fall; and in a few moments received a
heavy fire along their entire line. Both the colonels fell badly
wounded, and were in due time borne into the fort. Lewis died
before the fate of the day was decided; but Fleming, though
believed to be mortally wounded, joined in the shout of victory.
He had received three balls — one in his right wrist, which
crushed the bones; another in the same arm, higher up; and the
third in his breast. Before reaching the fort the extravasated
blood had gathered in the cavity of the chest, which seemed to
protrude, and he was in such a state of intense suffering as to
preclude all hope of relief. In this emergency, while the sur-
geons were attending to those who appeared likely to recover,
Fleming called to his aid his negro servant, who had frequently
assisted him in surgical operations, and instructed him to follow
his prescriptions. This ball in the breast was never extracted;
34 Colonel John Stuart's Historical Memoir, Footers Sketches of Vir-
ginia, second series, 159-168, and Charles Campbell's History of Vir-
ginia, 179, first edition.
WILLIAM FLEMING. 45
and from this time to his death in 1795, a period of twenty-one
years, he was more or less an invalid. When he exerted his
strength — often when he rode on horseback — the ball made itself
felt. It would rise up for the distance of two inches, causing at
times much suffering, and then fall down again to its old bed.
That with such a drawback he persisted in making numerous
journeys to Richmond and Williamsburg, and to the extreme
West, at a time when the back of a horse was the only means
of travel, shows great perseverance and energy.
With great caution, united to medical skill, he was enabled to
render material service to his country. Soon after the organi-
zation of the State government he became a Senator from the
district composed of the counties of Montgomery, Botetourt,
and Kentucky, and a member of the Executive Council; and
when we reflect that then the Indians were almost as formidable
as the British, and were, in fact, subsidized by them, his know-
ledge of the Indian character, and his military talents which had
been trained in many a contest with that wary foe, were emi-
nently useful. His letters and papers show the active part
which he took, especially in Western affairs. From some of
those letters, written on coarse paper and somewhat mutilated,
an interesting picture of the cares and wants, the hopes and
fears of that day may be drawn. In a letter to his wife from
Williamsburg, dated October the 3Oth, 1778, and written before
the currency had greatly depreciated, he says: "I have sent
you half a pound of Hyson tea at forty shillings, half a pound
of green tea at twenty shillings, and half a pound of Bohea at
ten shillings. I have sent you a pound of pins at three pounds.
No coffee to be got. We have nothing new here, except the
high price of grain — corn five pounds a barrel, wheat four dol-
lars. I hope this will find you and all the little ones in health.
I trust God will preserve them and all the rest of the family. I
have much t(5 say, but no time, as Colonel Christian is waiting.
God bless and protect you."
Writing to his wife from Williamsburg, May 20, 1779, he
describes the taking of Portsmouth, and narrates some instances
of British cruelty not to be found elsewhere : " Four ships of
force and others (in all seventeen) came to anchor near Ports-
mouth the 9th instant, and next day landed and took possession
of the town; Major Mathews, who commanded a part of the
artillery battalion, retiring after spiking the cannon. A large
46 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
quantity of tobacco, provisions, and some military stores fell
into their hands. A party of the enemy marched to Suffolk,
and burned the town. On hearing that General Scott was
marching against them, they hastily retreated, doing all the
damage they could. Many of my old friends and acquaintances
have suffered greatly by having their houses burned, and their
negroes and stock taken, and the women made captives of and
exposed to the greatest insults they can be subjected to.
Another party of the British, meeting with some trading French-
men, butchered five of them in cold blood, and strangled three.
The captain of a French vessel informed me that they had taken
two vessels near Gwinn's Island, one of them his own; that a
snow fought them brav.ely. The other did not fire; and the
British murdered their crews with shocking barbarity, one man
having his eyes cut out, and his body mangled with worse than
Russian barbarity. They threaten to visit Hampton and York.
Thank God, we are prepared for them; every day men pouring
in, and a thousand came in to-day. By the next opportunity I
hope to send you a favorable account of the issue of this affair.
The strength of the enemy is known by deserters to be two
thousand five hundred. Old Guthridge,35 James Parker,88 and
85 A corruption of the name— John Goodrich, ship-owner and mer-
chant ; at first enjoyed the confidence of the Whigs, and was employed
to import gunpowder to the amount of .£5,000, with which sum he was
entrusted in advance. Under this engagement he incurred the dis-
pleasure of Lord Dunmore, who caused him to be seized and confined.
In January, 1776, he petitioned the Virginia Convention for an adjust-
ment of his accounts, which caused much debate in that body, and led
to the development of fraud by himself and sons. In March, 1776, the
father and his sons — John, William, Bartlett, Bridger, and another
(five) — had abandoned their houses, plantations, negroes, and stock,
and were serving the Crown under Lord Dunmore, who had five of
their vessels in his fleet, under orders to constantly run up the rivers
of Virginia and seize, burn, or destroy everything that was water-
borne. John Goodrich was captured by the authorities of Virginia,
and was for a time in prison and in chains. Finally, released, he went
to England, but returned and engaged in fitting out privateers. His
daughter, Agatha Wells, married Robert Shedden, a loyalist, whose
descendants in England are persons of consideration. (Sabine's Loyal-
ists of the American Revolution, page 480.) There are many descend-
ants of Goodrich in Virginia. — EDITOR.
88 Of Norfolk, Va., merchant ; appointed Captain. (Sabine.) — EDITOR.
WILLIAM FLEMING. 47
Parson Agnew37 are said to be active with them." After recount-
ing these outrages of the British, which were in the same
vicinity in 1812, with equal if not greater brutality, his thoughts
recur homeward: " I am anxious to hear from you and to know
how my dear children are. Is there danger from the small-pox
or from the enemy? If from either, let me know. There is
such a bustle about me I cannot say anything more. I must
suppress the emotions I feel rising, and only say what I have
constantly told you, and what I know you believe, that I am ever
yours."
In November, 1780, when the currency had become depre-
ciated, he writes to his wife from Richmond: "Robert Preston
took up the box, in which you will receive thirty-three pounds
of sugar, a pair of shoes, a pair of breeches and waistcoat; like-
wise two papers of pins, which cost one hundred and tnirty dol-
lars (if you think proper you may spare one of the papers, as I
shall get some pound pins), half a pound of allspice at thirty
dollars, and eight pounds of coffee at thirty dollars a pound, &c."
These items explain the scarcity of those days as well as the
currency. He adds : " Colonel Campbell has the thanks of the
House for his behavior at King's Mountain, and a present of a
fine horse equipped, and a sword." As he is about to close his
letter, recollections of his distant home burst upon him. " O,
my little ones ! let me hear how they are, and believe me ever
yours." In this letter he announces the appointment of General
Greene as the successor of General Gates in command of the
Southern army — an appointment of precious memory to this
hour from the Potomac to St. Mary's.
He had received the commission of County Lieutenant of
Botetourt as early as the ist of April, 1776. This office had
been established anew by the July Convention of 1775, and its
duties were prescribed by the ordinance. During the interval of
1775 and the establishment of the Constitution in July, 1776, the
commission was signed by the Committee of Safety. As the
ordinance contained no form of a commission, as it was careful
to prescribe in the case of the colonel commanding in chief the
37 Rev. John Agnew, rector of Suffolk parish ; became Chaplain of
the Queen's Rangers ; died near Fredericton, New Brunswick, in 1812,
aged eighty-five years. (Sabine.) — EDITOR.
48 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
forces of the Colony, and as it is probable that no copy of a
commission of County Lieutenant issued by the Committee of
Safety is in existence, with the exception of Colonel Fleming's,
now before me, I will recite its words: " The Committee of Safety
of the Colony of Virginia to William Fleming, Esq : By virtue
of the power and authority invested in us by the delegates and
representatives of the several counties and corporations, in
General Convention assembled, we, reposing especial trust and
confidence in your patriotism, fidelity, courage, and good conduct,
do by these presents constitute and appoint you to be Lieu-
tenant and Commander-in-Chief of the militia of the county of
Botetourt; and you are, therefore, carefully and diligently to
discharge the trust reposed in you by disciplining all officers
and soldiers under your command. And we do hereby require
them to obey you as their County Lieutenant; and you are to
observe and follow all such orders and directions as you shall
from time to time receive from the Convention, the Committee
of Safety for the time being, or any superior officers, according
to the rules and regulations established by the Convention.
Given under our hands, at Williamsburg, this 4th day of April,
1776." It is signed by Dudley Digges, Paul Carrington, James
Mercer, Thomas Ludwell Lee, William Cabell, and Thomas
Walker. An endorsement on the commission is in the following
words: "May, Botetourt County Committee, 1776. — I do hereby
certify that the within-named William Fleming, Esq., took the
oath required by the Convention. Teste: David May, Clerk."
The commission is printed lengthwise on a half foolscap sheet.
The signatures of the Committee of Safety are all distinct, legible
at a glance, and like ordinary writing, except Mercer's, which
has an elaborate flourish, strongly reminding us of the times
when the old feudal barons found it easier to deal in hiero-
glyphics than to write simple words, though those words made
up their own names.
In June, 1779, he was placed at the head of a commission
consisting of James Steptoe, Edward Lyne, and James Barbour,
for carrying into execution an act of Assembly entitled an act
for adjusting and settling the title of claimers to unpatented
lands under the present and former governments previous to the
establishment of the Commonwealth Land Office in Kentucky.
This office, which required a minute knowledge of the land
WILLIAM FLEMING. 49
laws, and stern personal courage to resist the passions peculiar
to squatters, he performed with great credit to himself and to
the entire satisfaction of the Executive and the General Assem-
bly. At that time, and long subsequently, the traveller to Ken-
tucky incurred no little personal risk; and on one occasion
his party was attacked by the Indians, who were fortunately
repulsed.
It was the custom of the patriots who' controlled the public
councils during the Revolution, when any important duty was
to be performed, to select the best man for the purpose, and to
throw the responsibility of a refusal upon him. Thus it was
that, notwithstanding the inconvenience arising from his wounds,
which rendered him susceptible of what he called rheumatic
attacks, Fleming was constantly called upon in Western affairs;
and his energy and patriotism always impelled him to respond
to the call of his country. Accordingly, on the 2Qth of January,
1782, he was placed at the head of a commission issued by
Governor Harrison, composed of Thomas Marshall, the father
of the Chief Justice, Samuel McDowell, the ancestor of the late
Governor McDowell, and Caleb Wallace, afterwards a judge of
the State of Kentucky, "to call to account all officers, agents,
commissaries, quartermasters, and contractors, who have been
or are in service in the Western country (then extending to the
Mississippi), belonging to this State, for all their proceedings,
and to liquidate the accounts of all such persons, as well as those
who may still have any claim or claims against the Common-
wealth, and make a special report thereof to the Executive."
The commission was invested with the power of choosing its
secretary, of calling and summoning before it all public officers
in the Western country, and of doing all things necessary to
accomplish its object; and in April of the following year he was
appointed by Governor Harrison commissary to the troops
that then were in Kentucky, and to the militia that may be sent
there, for the purpose of building and garrisoning a fort at the
mouth of Kentucky river.
As a member of the Senate from the district made up of
Botetourt, Washington, and Kentucky counties he was punctual
in his attendance upon its sessions, and gave efficient support in
conducting the war and in furthering those domestic reforms
which then engaged the attention of the" Assembly. It was by
50 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the aid of such men as William Fleming that the relics of feudal
policy, which disfigured the Colonial regime, were extirpated
from our new system.
Having thus during the third of a century passed through all
the grades of military service, from an ensign to a colonel, and
filled the most responsible trusts which his connection with the
Senate and the Council entailed upon him, and having seen the
humble Colony which he had entered thirty-three years before
assume her station as a sovereign member of a great Confedera-
tion, he fondly hoped that his public career was ended, and that
he would be called abroad no more. But a great question,
which shook the State to its centre, rose suddenly before him,
and he was called to the metropolis once more as a mem-
ber of the Convention called to consider a new Federal Con-
stitution.
His views of a Federal Union were those of a statesman; and
he correctly estimated its value in respect of the country at
large, but more especially of the distant and thinly-settled West.
He knew, as well as any man living, that so long as Spain held
Louisiana, and Great Britain held the Canadas, Indian troubles
would be frequent, and that all the resources of all the States
would be required to repress the hostilities of the Indian tribes
in the pay of those foreign powers. But he also knew the
innate dread of the tax gatherer by a people who had no outlet
for the products of their farms, and, of course, no money, and
he shrunk from a system of direct taxation by Federal authority.
Hence he would have preferred a strictly Federal Union, which
would bear upon the States rather than upon the people; and it
is probable that, but for the visit of the eloquent and enthusiastic
Stuart to the Botetourt election heretofore alluded to, which
resulted in instructions to the members of the Convention, he
would have sided with the opponents of the Federal Constitu-
tion. But, yielding to those instructions which the Rockbridge
delegates did not hesitate to disobey, he voted in favor of ratifi-
cation; but at the last call of the ayes and noes in Convention,
as has been already stated, he parted from his colleague and
sustained the schedule of amendments which were proposed by
the select committee, and which were adopted by a majority of
twenty.
He saw the intimate relation of knowledge and freedom, and
WILLIAM FLEMING. 51
became an active promoter of education in the Commonwealth.
Had it depended upon him, all Mr. Jefferson's schemes of
schools would have been in full operation before the close of the
war. He aided in providing funds for the benefit of Hampden-
Sidney;38 and he was one of the first Board of Trustees of
Washington College. But he knew that academies were quite as
useful as colleges; and at a time when elementary education was
little thought of in the West or in the East, he used his influence
with the General Assembly in the establishment of a literary
fund for the great western counties.39 He cultivated a taste for
letters throughout his varied and various career, and he was one
of the few residents of the West that had a good collection of
books. Beside the leading medical authors which he read pro-
fesssionally, he possessed some of the best English classics,
especially the historians and the theologians. His Tillotson,
bearing the signs of thorough reading and annotated by his
hand, is, I believe, still in existence. And it deserves to be
remarked that, of all his letters to his family, though written
hastily, as most of them were — sometimes in the bustle of a
tavern, at others in camp or in the wilderness — few there are that
do not contain some allusion to a Superintending Power, and a
commitment of his family to His care.
In the practical business of life he was, like most Scotchmen
who turn their backs upon Toryism and brandy, not only suc-
cessful, but highly prosperous. He invested largely in Kentucky
lands, and was able to provide well for his family. Had his
lands been judiciously managed after his decease, they would
have conferred great wealth upon all his descendants. His hos-
pitality was always on a liberal scale. The first eight years of
his life in Virginia, when he was not engaged in his compaigns,
were spent in Williamsburg and in its vicinity; and entering
into society with a zest made more keen by the hardships and.
dangers of a camp, and uniting in his person the qualities (then
rare) of a scholar and a soldier, who bore the prestige of noble
blood, he acquired a quiet dignity of address and a polished
courtesy which were conspicuous in his old age; and his intimate
^Judge Paul Carrington, Sr., to Fleming, in the Fleming papers.
39 A copy of the petition to the Assembly may be seen in the Fleming
papers.
52 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
acquaintance with all the distinguished actors of his time was
refreshed by visits from them whenever they came within reach
of his house. And the traveller from the East or from the
West looked forward with longing to the hospitable mansion at
" BeUmoot"
The last days of this estimable patriot were now at hand.
Writing to a niece in England the year before his death, he says:
"I have retired from all public business for several years; am
now old, my constitution broken, maimed by several wounds,
and am often attacked by violent pains in my limbs, brought on
by colds and by many years' severe duty in a military line. I am
just able to walk a little, after a month's confinement to my bed
and room. When well I am employed in my family affairs, and
in the support cf a pretty numerous family in a part of the
country where little business is carried on." He lingered to the
following year, when on the 5th day of August, 1795, in his
sixty-sixth year, he breathed his last. His remains were interred
in the burial ground at "Bellmont" by the side of his deceased
children. At a late day the body of his wife was placed by him.
A substantial stone wall protects the remains; but, in common
with most of our early patriots, no stone tells the passer-by who
rests beneath.40
40 Colonel Fleming had twelve or fourteen children, of whom seven
survived him. Of these Leonard, the eldest son, removed to Ken-
tucky before his father's death, and lived to the age of eighty-four ;
Eliza, who married first the Rev. Gary Allen, and afterwards the Rev.
Samuel Ramsey ; Dorothea, who married Mr. James Bratton ; Anne,
who married the Rev. George A. Baxter, D. D. ; Priscilla, who married
Mr. Samuel Wilson, and has resided more than thirty years in Ala-
bama; William, who has also lived in Alabama for many years ; and
John, the youngest son, who died at the age of eighteen, while a stu-
dent at Washington College. Of these Colonel William Fleming and
Mrs. Wilson are the only survivors. Mrs. Fleming long survived her
husband, and maintained the wonted hospitality of his house. Con-
sult Footers Sketches of Virginia, second series, page 268. Governor
Gilmer, in his l> Georgians,'1'' page 56, states .that Colonel Fleming
was Governor of Virginia; but he is mistaken. As a member of the
Council, he may have acted on some occasion as Lieutenant-Governor.
[As a member of the Council, for a time in June, 1781, during the
flight, before the enemy, of Governor Jefferson from the capital, Colo-
nel Fleming was the Executive of the State. His acts were legalized
by a resolution of the Assembly (Hening's Statutes, x, 567) :
WILLIAM FLEMING. 53
He is said to have been of medium height, his features strongly
marked, his eyes blue, his nose Roman, and his hair, until it
became grey, of a dark brown. His teeth were sound to the
last. There is no portrait of him extant; for in those days
painters never crossed the Blue Ridge, and came very rarely
east of it; but there is a small profile likeness of him, which
exhibits the outline of a striking head. His address was dig-
nified and engaging; and having received a classical training in
early life, and mingled freely in society, passing in a period of
more than forty years through all the varieties of public life, and
with fair powers of observation, he was always self possessed in
his demeanor, and displayed great facility in pleasing and inter-
esting all who came in contact with him. He wore the dress of
the Revolution to the end; and was not inattentive to his person
or to the customs of polished society. Even in his Indian cam-
paigns he sealed his letters to his wife with wax on which was
impressed the Fleming coat-of-arms. Such was William
Fleming, a patriot whose name had almost slipped from the
memory of that Commonwealth whose independence he aided
in achieving, and whose glory is a part of his work.
There is a strong similarity in the lives of Hugh Mercer and
William Fleming. Both were Scotchmen, who emigrated in
early manhood to the Colony of Virginia. Both studied medi-
cine in the University of Edinburgh, and exchanged the scalpel
for the sword, and were engaged in the Indian wars that ended
with the pacification of 1763. Both in high military command
and in the midst of battle fell covered with wounds. But here
<% It appearing to the General Assembly that Colonel William Flem-
ing, being the only acting member of the Council for some time before
the appointment of the Chief Magistrate, did give orders for the calling
out the militia, and also pursued such other measures as were essential
to good government, and it is just and reasonable that he should be
indemnified therein —
" Resolved, therefore, That the said William Fleming. Esq., be
indemnified for his conduct as before mentioned, and the Assembly do
approve the same.
"JOHN BECKLEY, C. H. D.
" 1781, June 23.
"Agreed to by the Senate.
"WILL. DREW, C. S."
— EDITOR.]
54 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the parallel ceases. Mercer died in a few days of his wounds;
Fleming, though disabled from active command, and at times
enduring excruciating pain from his injuries to the hour of his
death, which was caused by them, lived more than twenty years,
during which he rendered valuable services to his country, saw
that country's independence recognized by the proudest nations
of Europe, and succeeded in securing the adoption of the Fed-
eral Constitution under whjch we now live.*1
41 1 acknowledge with much pleasure my obligations to Miss Louisa
P. Baxter, a granddaughter of Colonel Fleming, for entrusting to my
care some valuable papers of her ancestor, and for an admirable letter
of her own. Sidney S. Baxter, Esq., formerly Attorney-General of
Virginia, is a grandson of Colonel Fleming. The reader of our early
journals must be careful not to confound William Fleming, of Cumber-
land, who was a member of the Convention of 1776, &c., and after-
wards a judge of the Court of Appeals, with Colonel William Fleming,
of Botetourt.
ISAAC VANMETER, EBENEZER ZANE.
It would be to present an unfaithful portrait of the useful and
able men who represented the West in the Convention if we
omitted to record the names of Isaac Vanmeter, of Hardy, and
of Ebenezer Zane, of Ohio. They were the peculiar repre-
sentatives of the region from which they came; but in their man-
ners, in their services rendered to their adopted State, and in
their eminent fitness for the perilous times in which they acted,
would compare favorably with their ablest associates in the body.
Vanmeter was the son of John Vanmeter, of New York, who
accompanied the Delawares on a war party against the Catawbas;
but the Catawbas, anticipating the attack, surprised and defeated
the Delawares in a battle fought near where the present court-
house of Pendleton county now stands. John Vanmeter
escaped, and returned to New York; but he was so impressed
with the fertility and beauty of the lands on the South Branch
bottom in Hardy county, particularly those immediately above
what was called the Trough, that he advised his sons to migrate
and settle upon them. Isaac, the subject of the present notice,
shortly set out for the happy valley, and in 1736 made a toma-
hawk improvement on the lands recently, if not now, owned by
his descendants of the same name, lying just above the Trough,
where Fort Pleasant was afterwards erected. He then returned
to New York, but in 1740 visited his improvement, on which he
found a squatter, whom he immediately bought out.*2
In the mean time emigrants from other quarters made their
appearance, and in the names of Hite, Mercer, White, Swear-
ingen, Stephen, Lucas, Vance, Rutherford, Jackson, Morgan,
and others, we find the representatives of that region who
opposed the measures of the British Ministry which led to the
Revolution, and who on the field and in the council sustained
411 1 derive my authority for these facts from Kerchevafs History of
the Valley of Virginia, page 72, and Footers Sketches of Virginia,
second series, page 15.
56 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
with unfaltering fidelity the fortunes of the young Common-
wealth through a long and perilous war. It was by the aid of
these and such like gallant sons of the West that Patrick Henry
maintained that majority in the House of Delegates, without
which, according to Jefferson, there must have been a stand-still
in the prosecution of the contest with Great Britain.
Isaac Vanmeter was frequently a member of the House of
Delegates, and in 1786 approved the expediency of amending
the Articles of Confederation, and gave a cordial support to the
resolutions appointing the Convention at Annapolis, and subse-
quently the General Federal Convention that met at Phila-
delphia.
During the October session of 1786 a measure of domestic
policy, which has a peculiar interest at the present time, was
brought before the House of Delegates, and from the introduc-
tion of the ayes and noes, which, however, were still rarely
called, we have the means of knowing the deliberate opinions of
Eastern and Western men upon it. It appears that Joseph
Mayo had in his will instructed his executors to give freedom to
his slaves, and on the 4th of November, 1786, an application
was made by them for permission to carry the will into effect.
The subject was referred to the Committee of Propositions and
Grievances, and reported reasonable. A motion to lie on the
table was made and failed. It was then moved to postpone the
subject until the next session of the Assembly, which the House
refused to do. A motion was now made to strike out the words
"is reasonable," and insert "be rejected," which also failed.
The main question was then put upon agreeing with the report
of the committee, and decided in the affirmative by a vote of
fifty-three to forty-eight — ascertained by ayes and noes.48 A
select committee, consisting of James Madison, Theoderick
Bland, Francis Corbin, John Page, Mann Page, Richard Bland
Lee, French Strother, and Thomas Underwood, all Eastern men,
were appointed by the Chair to draft a bill in pursuance of the
vote of the House. On the i3th of the month, Mr. Madison
reported a bill, which was made the order of the following day,
but which was not reached until the i8th of December, when,
after an animated discussion, it was passed by a vote of sixty-
43 House Journal, November 4, 1786.
ISAAC VANMETER, EBENEZER ZANE. 57
seven to forty — ascertained by ayes and noes.4* Vanmeter voted
for sustaining the report of the committee and for the passage
of the bill. This question receives additional interest from the
fact that few slaves were then owned west of the Blue Ridge.
On the various questions touching the finances of the State,
and particularly on those relating to the payment of taxes, he
voted with the popular majority which so long ruled the coun-
cils of the Commonwealth. When the act to amend an act
"As many of the members of the House of Delegates at this session
were also members of the present Convention, I annex the ayes and
noes, the names of the members of the present Convention being in
italics :
AYES— John Cropper, Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, John
Trigg, John Campbell, Thomas Rutherford, Martin McFerran, George
Hancock, Adam Clement, Paul Carrington, Jr., Henry Southall, Wil-
liam Christian, French Strother, Mernwether Smith, David Stuart,
Elias Edmunds, Joseph Crockett, John Fowler, Jr., George Thompson,
John Early, George Clendenin, Isaac Coles. Elias Poston, John Prunty,
George Jackson, Isaac Vanmeter, Willis Wilson, John Mann, William
Norvell, William Walker, Richard Terrill, Arthur Campbell, John
Lyne, Daniel Fitzhugh, James Gordon, Cyrus Griffon, Francis Peyton,
Richard Bland Lee, William White, James Dabney, Benjamin Logan,
John Jouett, Francis Corbin, Owen Davis, David Scott, Robert Sayres,
Andrew Hines, William McMahon, James Madison, Jr., Charles Porter,
Benjamin Lankford, Constant Perkins Wade Mosby, Theodorick
Bland, John Thoroughgood, Andrew Moore, William McKee, John
Hopkins, Isaac Zane, Abraham Bird, Mann Page, Jo/in Dawson, James
Campbell, Robert Craig, Daniel McCarty, David Lee, and Thomas
Matthews.
NOES — George Nicholas, John Pride, Thomas Claiborne, Binns
Jones, John Cabell, Anthony New, Thomas Scott, Matthew Cheatham,
Miles King, James Upshaw, John Rentfro, Samuel Richardson, Charles
Mynn Thurston, Thomas Smith, John Lucas, Edmund Wilkins, John
Coleman, Parke Goodall, John Garland, George 'Hairston, John Scar-
brook Wills. John Lawrence, William Thornton, Benjamin Temple,
Christopher Robertson, James Johnson, William Curtis, Willis Riddick,
Anthony Brown, Willis Wilson, Griffin Stith, Littleton Eyre. John
Gordon, Cuthbert Bullitt, George Lee Turberville, Thomas Ridley,
Andrew Buchanan, Lemuel Cocke, and John Allen.
Joseph Prentis was Speaker of the House ; but it appears that at this
time it was not usual for that officer to vote except in the case of a tie.
Those who wish to examine the geographical aspect of the vote so far
as the votes of the members of the Convention of 1788 are concerned,
may do so by turning to the list of the members in the Appendix.
58 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
entitled an act for the establishment of Courts of Assize, which
took up much of the time of the October session of 1786,
came before the House with sundry amendments from the Com-
mittee of the Whole, he voted to sustain the eleventh of the
series, which virtually enacted a stay-law for a given period in
certain cases, and it is a pregnant illustration of the public
opinion of that age that the amendment was carried by a majority
of one hundred and twelve against ten.45 When the engrossed
bill came up, however, there was an even vote on its passage,
and its passage was effected by the casting vote of the Speaker.46
Nor should we fail to add that when on the i7th day of Decem-
ber, 1785, the bill "establishing religious freedom" was on
its passage in the House of Delegates, Vanmeter, in common
with his colleagues of the West, gave it a cordial support.47
In the present Convention he opposed the policy of previous
amendments, and voted for the ratification of the Constitution.
And when the motion to strike from the schedule of amend-
ments the third article, which stipulated that Congress should
first apply to each State for its quota of taxes before proceeding
to lay any taxes at all, he seems to have been casually absent, as
his name does not appear on the roll of ayes and noes, though
there is no doubt of his opposition to the amendment.
The name of Zane is honorably known in the history of the
West. The' original emigrants who bore it- passed from Penn-
sylvania, it is believed, between 1735 and 1745, into what is now
the county of Hardy, and encountered all the difficulties and
45 See the ayes and noes in the House Journal of December 16, 1786.
48 House Journal, December 18, 1786. On the stay-law clause Madi-
son voted in the affirmative, and George Nicholas in the negative.
47 1 annex the vote of the House of Delegates on the bill, so far as the
names of the members of the present Convention are concerned :
AYES— Wilson Gary Nicholas, Samuel Jordan Cabell, Zachariah
Johnston, John Trigg, Archibald Stuart, French Strother, Meriwether
Smith, Charles Simms, David Stuart, Alexander White, Thomas Smith,
George Clendenin, Ralph Humphries, Isaac Vanmeter, George Jack-
son, Benjamin Temple, Christopher Robertson, James Madison, Cuth-
bert Bullitt, Andrew Moore, and James Innes.
NOES — Miles King, Worlich Westwood, William Thornton, Francis
Thorburn. Willis Riddick, Anthony Walke, and Richard Gary. (House
Journal, December 17, 1785.)
ISAAC VANMETER, EBENEZER ZANE. 59
dangers that beset a frontier life. As early as 1752 William
Zane and several members of his family were taken prisoners by
the Indians from their dwelling on the South Branch in Hardy,
but regained their liberty. Isaac, one of the sons of William,
who was captured in his ninth year, spent his whole life among
the Indians. He was seen in the town of Chilicothe, as late as
1797 by Kercheval, the historian of the Valley, and detailed to
him his early career. He had married a sister of the chief of
the Wyandots, and had eight children, of whom four were sons
and four were daughters. The sons adhered to the savage life,
but the daughters married white men, and are said by Kerche-
val "to have been remarkably fine women, considering the
chances they had for improvement." The father, who had
become identified with the Indian race, possessed great authority
among his redskin comrades, and exercised his influence in
behalf of the whites in so marked a manner that the Govern-
ment of the United States granted him a patent for ten thousand
acres of land.48
48 Kercheval' s History of the Valley of Virginia, page 113.
60 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ISAAC ZANE.
The first of the Zanes who appeared in the public councils
was the namesake and relative of the Indian refugee, General
Isaac Zane, of Frederick, as Frederick was at its creation. He
was probably born in Pennsylvania, and migrated in early life to
that part of Virginia then known as Frederick; was successful
in the pursuit of wealth, and displayed his enterprise by estab-
lishing the first iron-works in that region. As the site of his
foundry he selected Cedar creek, a full and bold stream, which
winds its way under high cliffs, and affords now and then
a stretch of bottom land. The remains of the forge are yet
visible, and attest the skill and thorough workmanship of the
original structure. The source from which he obtained his ore
was distant ten miles from the foundry. Surrounding his estab-
lishment he possessed a fine estate of three thousand acres of
land.49
From this scene of successful enterprise he was called to the
March Convention of 1775, which held its sessions in the wooden
church [St. John's] on Church Hill, in the town of Richmond.
This was the first step of a career which embraced ten years,
more remarkable for the number and dignity of the events that
transpired during their term than any other similar period in our
history. When Zane took his seat in the Convention he thought
that the troubles of the times would soon pass away, and that
49 " I rode over for my satisfaction and examined the site of General
Zane's old iron-works. I found still standing the remains of the old
stack of the furnace, which is still a huge pile of mortar, sandstone,
and brick. It was formerly encased with large timbers and walls of
limestone on the outer side, to resist the inward expansion of heat.
The large arches for the bellows and for the escape of the melted iron
are in good preservation. The works afforded employment for a num-
ber of persons. It was evident that the structure had suffered more
from the hand of man than from the progress of time." (Letter of
Francis B. Jones, Esq., March 12, 1857.)
ISAAC ZANE. 61
the old good humor between the mother and the daughter
would soon be restored. But events, which were soon to dispel
all hopes of a reconciliation, were at hand. Though Zane was
compelled to travel on horseback through the snows of the
mountains, he was early at his post in the Convention. What
memorable events in the annals of Virginia soon passed before
him ! He heard the eloquence of Henry in defence of his reso-
lutions putting the Colony into military array, and was one of
that majority which carried those resolutions triumphantly
through the house.
In the Convention of the following July he voted for the
raising of the two Virginia regiments, and for placing Henry at
their head. In the December Convention of the same year he,
with his compeers, assumed the direction of public affairs as
fully as if Virginia had been an independent State. Still, there
was no open talk of an entire separation from the mother
country. How impotent are the actors themselves to foretell
the progress of events in the tempest of a revolution ! Three
short months elapse, and the Convention of May, 1776, assem-
bles. Zane, living on the outskirts of our territory, was again
among the earliest in his seat. The first stages of the drama of
Independence now passed before his eyes. He voted to instruct
the delegates of Virginia in Congress to propose independence.
He voted for the appointment of a committee to draft a Declara-
tion of Rights and a plan of government for a free Common-
wealth; and when those papers were passed from the honest
hands of Archibald Gary — who, by the way, like Zane, was a
worker in iron — to the Clerk of the House, he gave them an
active and cordial support. He voted for Patrick Henry as the
first Governor of the new Commonwealth he had aided in estab-
lishing, as he had already voted to confer upon him the chief
command of the public forces. He now returned home to pro-
claim his work to the sturdy pioneers who would soon be called
upon to sustain it in the field. As he was returning to his
mountains he might almost have heard the sound of the simple
artillery of his Western compatriot, Andrew Lewis, as it played
upon the vessels of Lord Dunmore and drove that weak and
faithless man beyond the waters of the new State. And he had
just reached his home, when he read in the Virginia Gazette,
of the loth of July, a synopsis of that Declaration of Inde-
62 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
pendence which had been brought forward in Congress in
obedience to his own vote.
Three rapid months have flown, and he is again in the saddle
on his way to Williamsburg to attend the first session of the
General Assembly under the Constitution. He had already
borne a prominent part in bringing about events which, even at
this day, startle and thrill us as we trace their progress on the
cold pages of the old journals. But these events, grand and
august as they were, were but the first acts of a long and peril-
ous dr'ama which he was to behold to its close. It is known
that the Convention of May, 1776, having filled the measure of
its labors by the organization of the new government created by
its act, adjourned over to October, and became the first House
of Delegates under the Constitution which it had framed. Zane
was accordingly a member of the first House of Delegates, and
was one of that noble majority which, under the auspices of Mr.
Jefferson, abolished primogeniture and entails and the collection
of church levies; and, besides making active preparations for
maintaining the war, laid the foundations of a judiciary system.
The creation of the courts caused much discussion in our early
Assemblies, and it is worthy of record that it was on a motion
made on the 3d of March, 1778, to postpone indefinitely Mr.
Jefferson's bill "for establishing a General Court and Courts of
Assize," that the ayes and noes were first called in a Virginia
Assembly;50 and on that occasion the name of Isaac Zane
50 As it may interest the curious to see a list of the first ayes and noes
ever called in Virginia, I annex the vote on the indefinite postpone-
ment of the bill "for establishing a General Court and Courts of Assize."
I may add that the motion to postpone was negatived by a majority of
six votes, and that the bill passed the House by a majority of two
votes. Pendleton was Speaker, but voted in course as a member for
Caroline:
AVES — Munford, McDowell, Bowyer, Macklin, Tazewell, Patterson,
Harrison of Charles City, Edmondson, Smith of Essex, Woodson,
Underwood, Terry, Syme, Anderson, Wilkinson, Adams, Hairston,
Nicholas (Robert Carter), Norvell, Wills, Fulghatn, Callaway, Dabney,
Meriwether, Crockett, Montgomery, Allen, Godfrey, Porter, Thorough-
good, Robinson, Brown, Gee, and Judkins.
NOES — Jefferson, Talbot, Thomas Hite, Lockhart, Pendleton, Upshaw,
Strother, Randolph, Carrington (Paul), Bird, George Mason, Pickett,
Hugh Nelson, Zane (Isaac), Smith of Frederick, Burzvell, Abraham
ISAAC ZANE. 63
appears in the negative, and in favor of the immediate establish-
ment of the judiciary under the new government. Until the end
of the war he united with Henry and his associates in carrying
those measures into effect which were then deemed indispensable
to the public welfare.
In common with all the Western members he cherished a
devoted love of religious liberty, and in 1785 voted for the act
establishing religious freedom, and thus invested his name with
a glory that will only kindle the brighter for years. A friend to
the Union of the States, he approved the scheme of a Conven-
tion at Annapolis and of the General Federal Convention at
Philadelphia. With the session of 1787 his public career ended.
He had grown old, and he determined to retire from public life.
He never married, but a relative bearing his name succeeded
him in the public councils. We may add that he lived to hail
the adoption of the Federal Constitution, which he greatly
admired, and to vote for the re-election of his friend Washing-
ton, with whom he had voted in the March Convention of 1775
in favor of Henry's warlike resolutions. In 1795 this venerable
patriot was gathered to his fathers.
Hite, Neaville, Braxton, Griffin, Gordon, Clapham, Daniel, Duval,
Muse, Moore, Fleming, Ruffin, Harrison of Prince George, Bullitt,
Thornton, Carter, Fitzhugh, Richard Lee, Bledsoe, Cocke of Washing-
ton, Wright, Prentis, Jett, and Harwood.
It is probable that the ayes and noes were introduced by Mr. Jeffer-
son, with a view of holding up to public responsibility the men who
were reluctant to put the courts in motion under the new regime. See
Journal of the House of Delegates, January 3, 1778. The name of
Moore in the above list is that of William Moore of Orange, and that
of Fleming is Judge Fleming.
64 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
EBENEZER ZANE.
The namesake and relative of Zane who succeeded him in the
public councils, and now held a seat in the present Convention,
hailed not from Frederick, as Isaac Zane had hailed when he
represented that immense principality in the early Conventions,
but from the county of Ohio, which had been cut off ten or
twelve years from the district of West Augusta.
Colonel Ebenezer Zane was now past middle life, and had long
been known as one of the most intelligent, brave, and enter-
prising settlers of the extreme Northwest. As early as 1760,
we are told by Withers, Colonel Zane and two of his brothers,
with some friends from the South Branch of the Potomac, visited
the Ohio for the purpose of making improvements and of
selecting positions for their future residence. They finally deter-
mined upon the site of the present city of Wheeling, and,
having made the requisite preparations, returned to their former
homes, and brought out their families the ensuing year. It was
characteristic of the Zanes that they possessed enterprise, tem-
pered with prudence, and directed by sound judgment. To the
bravery and good conduct of the three brothers the Wheeling
settlement, according to Withers, was mainly indebted for its
security and preservation during the war of the Revolution.51
The defence of Fort Henry, which was built at the mouth of
Wheeling creek, was one of the most brilliant exploits of our
Indian warfare. One of the handful of men who on that occa-
sion defied and defeated a host of Indians commanded by the
notorious Girty, was Ebenezer Zane; and it is delightful to
record that, while Zane was firing on the foe, his wife and sister,
who were in the fort, were cutting patches and running bullets
for those engaged in the fight. Nor should we pass over in
silence the heroic courage of this sister of Zane's, who, though
51 Withers' s Chronicles of Border Warfare and Chronicles of Western
Virginia. Clarksburg: 1831.
EBEBEZER ZANE. 65
just returned from a boarding-school at Philadelphia, volun-
teered during the heat of the action to sally from the fort
and fetch from a neighboring house a keg of powder — an achieve-
ment she succeeded in accomplishing amid a shower of rifle
balls from the Indians who suspected the object of the mission.
She escaped without a wound, and lived many years to enjoy
the reputation of having performed a deed of daring unsur-
passed by man or woman in ancient or modern times.52
It is probable that Colonel Zane's intimate knowledge of the
Indian character, and of the numbers which the savage war-
riors could bring into the field, and his conviction of the neces-
sity of the union of all the States in any effort to oppose them
with ultimate success, rather than the positive provisions of the
Federal Constitution, insensibly led him to sustain that instru-
ment before the people, and to vote for its ratification in Conven-
tion. He accordingly opposed the policy of previous amend-
ments, and had he been present when the question was taken
(just before adjournment) on striking out the third article of the
schedule of amendments proposed by the select committee, which
recommended to Congress a resort to requisitions upon the
States before that body proceeded to lay direct taxes, he would
have followed the example of his colleague and voted in the
affirmative.53
52 Withers states that she married twice, her last husband being a
Mr. Clark, and that she was living at the time of the publication of his
work. For an animated account of the battle of Fort Henry (so called
after Patrick Henry), see an article which originally appeared in the
American Pioneer, from the pen of George S. M. Kiernan, and is
partly copied in Howe's Virginia, page 409.
53 Journal Virginia Federal Convention, page 37. Colonel Zane some
years after the date of the Convention moved to Ohio, and settled the
town of Zanesville, in that State. The substance of the article of Mr.
Kiernan on the battle of Fort Henry may be found in Lossing's Pic-
torial Field-Book of the Revolution, Vol. II, 292. He entered the House
of Delegates in 1784.
60 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
GEORGE JACKSON.
Among those adventurous and fearless men to whom Virginia
is indebted for the settlement of her northwestern territory, and
whose names deserve to be held in lasting remembrance, was
George Jackson, who was one of the representatives in Conven-
tion of the county of Harrison, which had been created four
years before, and had been called in honor of Benjamin Har-
rison, of "Berkeley." He was the son of John Jackson, who, in
1768, accompanied by his sons, George and Edward,5* set out
from their settlement on the South Branch of the Potomac, and
under the guidance of Samuel Pringle, a British deserter, who,
as early as 1761, had made a lodgment in the new territory,
made an improvement at the mouth of Turkey Run, where his
daughter resided as late as the year 1831. 55 An active and
intelligent member of the new settlement, he gained the confi-
dence of his associates, and having been returned at the first
election of members for the county of Harrison, he took his seat
with his present colleague, John Prunty, in the House of Dele-
gates in the October session of 1785.
64 It is an interesting conjecture if the distinguished Confederate
chieftain, General Thomas Jonathan Jackson (born in Harrison county,
and whose great-grandfather was Edward Jackson,) was of the blood
of George Jackson. — EDITOR.
55 The Pringles, John and Samuel, had deserted from Fort Pitt in
1761, and keeping up the course of the Valley river, observed a large
right-hand fork (now Buckhannon), which they ascended some miles,
and at the mouth of a small branch, now called Turkey Run, they took
up their abode in a large hollow sycamore tree, the remains of which
were not long since visible. Fearful of being apprehended and sent
back prisoners to Fort Pitt, as was the fate of two companions who
had deserted with them, they avoided the settlements for several years ;
nor until their powder was reduced to two loads did Samuel Pringle
venture into the society of white men ; and on his return he was
attended by John Jackson and his sons, and by other residents of the
South Branch. See Withers^ Border Warfare, quoted in Howe, 188.
GEORGE JACKSON. *
The first important question which he was called to vote upon
was one that from the beginning of the Revolution to the adop-
tion of the Federal Constitution more than any other perplexed
our councils and laid the foundation of our early parties.
Money was wanted to defray the ordinary expenses of
government, to meet our own obligations, which were pressing
heavily upon the Commonwealth, and to pay the Federal
requisitions; and money could not be collected from the
people. There was substantially no circulating medium ;
tobacco had fallen to a nominal price ; the old channels of trade
had been closed by the Revolution, and no new ones had been
as yet effectually opened. Hence the various measures of relief
which were brought forward and discussed from time to time.
On the I4th of November, 1785, General Matthews reported from
the Committee of the Whole a long amendment to the act " to
postpone the collection of the tax for 1785," which struck out
the whole of the act, declared that from various considerations
"it is found impracticible, without involving the people in too
great and deep distress, to collect from them one-half tax
levied for 1785 by an act entitled ' an act to discharge the peo-
ple of this Commonwealth from the payment of one-half of the
revenue tax for the year 1785,' and that there is reason to believe
that by the remitting of the said tax the people will be here-
after enabled to pay the revenue taxes with more ease and
punctuality," and concluded with enacting the repeal of the act.
On this amendment the ayes and noes were called, and Jackson
and his colleague (Prunty) voted in the affirmative. It was agreed
to by a vote of fifty-two to forty-two, and the bill as amended
was ordered to be engrossed.56 The following day when the
56 As this was one of the test questions of the October session of
1785, I annex the votes of those who became members of the present
Convention :
AYES — Benjamin Harrison (Speaker), John Trigg, Joseph Jones,
Thomas Smith, George Clendenin, Ralph Humphries, Isaac Vanmeter,
Parke Goodal], George Jackson, John Prunty, William White, Christo-
pher Robertson, Andrew Moore, Richard Gary.
NOES — Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, John Tyler, David
Patteson, Miles King, Charles Simms, David Stuart, Alexander White,
Isaac Coles, William Thornton, Francis Corbin, Wills Kiddick, James
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ill came up on its passage with a rider, "authorizing the Solici-
tor-General to move for and obtain judgment for the penalty of
a bond given by any sheriff or collector who should fail to
render when required an account of the taxes by him already
collected," the vote was again taken by ayes and noes, and
resulted in the defeat of the bill by a majority of two votes;
Jackson and Prunty voting in the affirmative.
On the i3th of November of the same year another great
question was presented to the House, which foreshadowed the
amendment of the Articles of Confederation to such an extent
at least as to invest Congress with a limited control over the
commerce of the several States. Alexander White reported from
the Committee of the Whole a resolution which it had agreed to,
in substance, "that the delegates of Virginia in Congress be
instructed to propose in that body a recommendation to the
States in Union to authorize that assembly to regulate their
trade under certain stipulations." One of these required " that
no act of Congress that may be authorized as here proposed
shall be entered into by less than two-thirds of the confederated
States, nor be in force longer than thirteen years.' A motion
was made to add to these words: "unless continued by a like
proportion of votes within one year immediately preceding the
expiration of the said period, or be revived in like manner at
the expiration thereof." On this amendment the ayes and noes
were called; and it was rejected by a vote of seventy-nine noes
to twenty-eight ayes; Jackson and Prunty voting in the negative.
The original resolution as reported was then agreed to without
a division, and White was requested to carry it to the Senate
and request its concurrence therein.57 But the meditation of
Madison, William Ronald, Edmund Ruffin. Cuthbert Bullitt, Anthony
Walke, John Howell Briggs, James Innes, Thomas Matthews.
This is a most significant record to those who read it rightly.
57 The votes of those who became members of the present Conven-
tion were as follows :
AYES— Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, John Tyler, French
Strother, Charles Simms, David Stuart, Thomas Smith, George Clen-
denin, Isaac Coles, William Thornton, James Madison, and James
Innes.
NOES — Benjamin Harrison, Samuel Jordan Cabell, John Trigg, Wil-
liam Watkins, Joseph Jones, Miles King, Worlich Westwood, Alex-
GEORGE JACKSON.
a single night seems to have materially changed the views
the members, for on the following morning, as soon as th>
House was called to order, a motion was made to rescind the
order of the House transmitting the resolution to the Senate,
and to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to recon-
sider it. This motion prevailed by a majority of sixty to thirty-
three — ascertained by ayes and noes; and several amendments
were made in committee which were reported to the House; and
the resolution and amendments were ordered to lie on the table.
We believe the resolution slept during the session; at all events,
the ayes and noes were not again called upon it.58
On the iyth day of December, at the same session of the
Assembly, there was brought up in the House of Delegates a
not less important question, and the vote of Jackson on that
occasion has connected his name honorably with one of the
most liberal and most glorious enactments recorded in our
statutes. On that day the engrossed bill " for establishing reli-
gious freedom" came up on its final passage, and was triumph-
antly carried by a vote of seventy-four to twenty — ascertained
by ayes and noes. The name of George Jackson, enrolled
among the friends of that measure, is the richest legacy which
he could have bequeathed to his posterity.59 From this period
to the close of the session Jackson was absent from his seat.
During the October session of 1786, Jackson voted to sustain
the report of the select committee, of which Madison was the
chairman, which recommended the manumission of the slaves of
Joseph Mayo, deceased, in pursuance of the provisions of his
will, with certain restrictions — a subject which attracted much
attention at the time; and on the i6th of December he voted for
the amendment to the bill establishing Courts of Assize and
allowing a limited stay in collecting debts under certain circum-
ander White, Ralph Humphries, Isaac Vanmeter, George Jackson,
John Prunty, Benjamin Temple, Christopher Robertson, Francis Cor-
bin, Willis Riddick, Edmund Ruffin, Cuthbert Bu litt, Andrew Moore,
Thomas Edmunds (of Sussex), John Howell Briggs, Richard Gary.
This vote represents pretty fairly the relative strength of parties on
Federal questions before the advent of the Federal Constitution.
58 House Journal, November 30 and December i, 1785.
59 House Journal, December 17, 1785. See ayes and noes, ante.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Dances — another test question of the times. He also voted on
,ts final passage for the bill emancipating the slaves of Mayo,
with certain restrictions, and in favor of the passage of the bill
establishing Courts of Assize. He sustained the bill to amend
and reduce into one act the several acts concerning naval col-
lectors— a bill which involved in its discussion the litigated
question of taxation by imposts, and which caused so much heat
at the time that the House of Delegates ordered it to be pub-
lished for three weeks in the Virginia Gazelle, with a list of the
ayes and noes appended to it! We will only say further that
Jackson approved the resolutions convoking the meeting at
Annapolis and the General Convention at Philadelphia, both of
which passed the House without a division.
Allusion has been made more than once to the great revolu-
tion which was effected in the State of parties respecting Federal
affairs by the appearance of the new Constitution, and by the
able and prolonged discussions which it produced. This change
was most sensibly apparent among the public men west of the
Blue Ridge, who usually maintained the decided majority of the
Assembly for eight or ten years previously on Federal as well as
purely domestic questions. This change was to a certain extent,
and to a certain extent only, perceptible in Jackson. He
opposed, indeed, the policy of previous amendments, and voted
for the ratification of the Federal Constitution; but he mani-
fested his adherence to the leading principle of the old Con-
federation by sustaining the third article of the schedule of
amendments, which aimed at the restoration of the ancient
systems of requisitions instead of an immediate resort to direct
taxation as prescribed by the new scheme; and he was one of the
celebrated majority of twenty who retained that distinctive
article among the amendments proposed by Virginia.
ALEXANDER WHITE.
Perhaps no member of the able and patriotic delegation which
the West contributed to our early councils exerted a greater
influence in moulding public opinion, especially during the
period embraced by the treaty of peace with Great Britain and
by the adoption of the Federal Constitution, than Alexander
White, of Frederick. He was the son of Robert White, a sur-
geon in the British navy, who, having visited, about the year
1730, his relative, William Hoge, then residing in Delaware, fell
in love with his daughter, whom he married, and with whom,
accompanied by her father, he emigrated to Virginia, and made
his home near the North Mountain, on a creek which still bears
the name of White. Robert White died in the year 1752, in
the sixty-fourth year of his age, and was buried in the eastern
corner of the old Opecquon church-yard, in the county of
Frederick, distant three miles from Winchester, where a tree
marks his grave. He left three sons, of whom the youngest
was the statesman whose services it is our duty to record.60
In June, 1783, he took his seat for the first time in the House
of Delegates, when the body had 'been in session more than a
month; and we find him immediately placed on a select com-
mittee, consisting of Joseph Carrington and Cabell (of " Union
Hill"), appointed to bring in a bill " to confirm certain proceed-
ings of the court of Cumberland county." At that day great
vigilance was manifested by the House of Delegates in scruti-
80 1 am indebted for these particulars respecting the Whites to Footers
Sketches of Virginia, second series, page 23. The father of Robert
Carter Nicholas and the father of William Cabell of (" Union Hill ") were
also surgeons in the British navy. The late eminent Judge Robert
White was the nephew of Alexander. [From the following extract
there is reason to believe that Alexander White had the advantages of
education in England and of legal training: "Alexander White, son
of Robert White of Virginia, Esq., matriculated January 22, 1763 ;
admitted to the Inner Temple January 15, 1762." (Gray's Inn Admis-
sion Register, 1521-1889, by Joseph Foster, page 383.)— EDITOR.]
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the claims of a member to his seat — a vigilance the more
t remarkable from the fact that the qualifications were prescribed
by law in addition to those required by the Constitution. As
White had been an assistant to the county attorney in certain
prosecutions, probably about the time of his election, a member
moved that his case be referred to the Committee of Privileges
and Elections, which made a favorable report. On the yth of
June, 1783, a bill came up for engrossment concerning one Peter
Heron, a subject of His Most Christian Majesty, and master of
the brigantine Lark, who, being ignorant of the language and
misled by his interpreter, had, contrary to law, broken bulk
before he had entered his vessel. This would seem to be a plain
question at this time; but from peculiar circumstances it elicited
warm debates, and the ayes and noes, which up to this date were
rarely called during the session, were demanded by Mann Page
and seconded by George Nicholas. The proposed amendment
was adopted and the bill ordered to be engrossed by a vote of
sixty to twenty-five, George Nicholas, William Cabell, Adam
Stephen, French Strother, Thomas Smith, Patrick Henry, Joseph
Jones, Stevens Thomson Mason, and James Gordon voting in
the affirmative ; and John Tyler (Speaker), Archibald Stuart,
Alexander White, William Ronald, Andrew Moore, and Gabriel
Jones in the negative.61 The bill alternately passed both houses
and became a law.
On the gth of June a selecf committee was appointed to bring
in a bill to amend an act entitled an act declaring tenants of lands,
or slaves in tail, to hold the same in fee simple; and White was
placed at its head, with Thomson Mason as his associate. At
this day we can hardly form an adequate opinion of the intense
excitement raised in the early stages of the Republic by every
measure relating to sheriffs. There was no coin in the country,
the circulating medium had only a nominal value, and nothing
could be more arbitrary than the prices affixed in the interior to
61 These gentlemen were all members of the present Convention, and
in reporting their votes on the test questions of the session I give the
most authentic account of their public conduct. I must caution those
who consult our early journals against the remarkable errors in the
names of the members. Adam Stephen is always confounded with
Edward Stevens, who was also a general, and a gallant fellow. Stevens
Thomson Mason's name is never printed correctly, nor Willis Riddick's.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 73
tobacco, hemp, flour, deerskins, and other commodities receiva-
ble in kind in the payment of taxes. An astute and unscrupu-
lous sheriff or deputy sheriff, aided by an unprincipled petti-
fogger, and availing himself of the authority of law, could render
the rich uncomfortable and reduce men of moderate means to
beggary. Hence the enormous fortunes made by the sheriffs,
some of which have descended to our times; and hence the ter-
rible malediction upon the sheriffs which was uttered by Patrick
Henry in the present Convention, and which was the fiercest that
ever fell from his lips. The orator had doubtless felt the sting
of the viper on his own person; and he had seen hundreds of
poor and virtuous citizens driven from their homes by the
rapacity of the legal bloodsuckers, to take refuge in the haunts
of the savage. The present bill was evidently designed to
modify the existing laws in relation to the collection of taxes,
and was sustained by White, Henry, George Nicholas, William
Cabell, Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, Thomas Smith,
Isaac Coles, Joseph Jones, Andrew Moore, and Gabriel Jones;
Adam Stephen, French Strother, and James Gordon voting in
the negative. The measure was carried by a vote of seventy-
seven to seventeen.62
On the loth of June an engrossed bill for the relief of the
sheriffs was read the third time, and the ayes and noes were
called upon its passage.
It was often difficult to procure money for the wages of the
members of the General Assembly. At one time, such was the
depreciation of the currency, a member would have been com-
pelled to pay fifty dollars for a night's lodging and feeding for
himself and horse, and probably feed and dress himself and
his horse with his own hands. The difficulty of paying the
wages of the members had become less since the termination of
the war, but it was still annoying, and had to be encountered at
the present session of the body. On the nth of June a motion
was made to appropriate eighteen hundred pounds out of the
fund heretofore appropriated for the defence of the Chesapeake,
and twelve hundred pounds out of the fund arising from
recruiting duties, for the payment of the wages of the members.
This proposition involved the important considerations affecting
62 1 do not cite the paging of the Journals of Assembly, because the
dates are the surest means of reference.
74 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the payment of the debt of the Commonwealth, to which these
funds were pledged, and the public defence. These funds were
composed of duties collected mainly in the East, which were
mainly paid by Eastern men. The debate was long and warm.
The motion was carried by a vote of forty-three to forty; White,
Stephen, Smith, Coles, Henry, Joseph Jones, Stevens Thomson
Mason, Robert Lawson, and Andrew Moore voting in the
affirmative, and George Nicholas, Cabell (of "Union Hill"),
Strother, and William Ronald, in the negative.
On the i yth of June leave was given to bring in a bill to
amend the act concerning the appointment of sheriffs, and
White was placed at its head; and on the 226. he was appointed
chairman of a select committee, which was instructed to bring
in a bill to suspend the operation of so much of any act or acts
of Assembly as prohibits intercourse with British subjects, and
to legalize such intercourse in certain cases.
A glimmering of a more wholesome public opinion on the sub-
ject of debts was seen on the 2oth of June. The House postponed
indefinitely a bill for the relief of debtors, by the decided vote of
sixty-six to twenty-three; White, George Nicholas, Johnston,
Stephen, and William Watkins voting in the affirmative, and
Archibald Stuart and Strother in the negative.63 The last topic
of general interest during the May session of 1783 was one
which at a later day produced much excitement in the public
councils — the removal of the seat of government from Richmond.
A committee of the House had been appointed to hold a con-
ference with the directors of the public buildings in Richmond,64
63 Patrick Henry and Stevens T. Mason were absent when the ayes
and noes were called. I wish Henry's name had been forthcoming,-
but we may judge by White's vote what his would have been, as they
rarely separated. That such a cool, clear-headed man as White always
upheld Henry, is greatly to the honor of Henry.
84 On the 24th of June, 1779, when the Assembly determined to
remove the seat of government from Wilhamsburg, they appointed a
board of directors of the public buildings to make arrangements for
the accommodation of the members of Assembly and the public
officers in Richmond. The board was composed of Turner Southall,
Archibald Gary, William Watkins, Robert Goode, James Buchanan,
and Robert Carter Nicholas. They had accordingly purchased certain
lots and tenements, which are specified in the report of the committee
of the House of Delegates, and may be learned from the Journal.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 75
and made a report of what had occurred between them, con-
cluding with a recommendation that it was most expedient for
the progress of the settlements on Shockoe Hill that the House
declare its determination to adhere to the site already chosen on
that hill in preference to any other place within the limits of
Richmond. When the question of concurring in the resolution
of the committee came up, it was moved to amend it by striking
out all after the word " Resolved," and by inserting the words
" that the seat of government ought to be removed from the city
of Richmond to the city of Williamsburg." After an animated
discussion the vote was taken by ayes and noes, and resulted in
the rejection of the proposed amendment by a majority of six-
teen; Stephen, Thomas Smith, Joseph Jones, Stevens Thomson
Mason, Robert Lawson, and Edmund Ruffin voting in the
affirmative, and George Nicholas, Cabell (of "Union Hill"),
Archibald Stuart, French Strother, William Watkins, Alexander
White, William Ronald, and Andrew Moore in the negative.
The vote was mainly founded on geographical views, but not in
strict relation to East and West. This was the last effort made
to return to Williamsburg. The large appropriations for public
buildings, which soon followed, put an end to the contest between
the ancient and the new metropolis.
There was a vote of the House on a subject connected with
the church establishment, which, though not final, shows the
views of the members on that topic, and claims a passing notice.
The House, on the ?4th of June, resolved itself into Com-
mittee of the Whole on the bill to amend the several acts
concerning vestries, and the bill was reported without amend-
ment. A motion was then made to postpone the further con-
sideration of the bill to the second Monday in October next,
and was carried by a vote of fifty-two to twenty-eight; John
Tyler (Speaker), Zachariah Johnston, Adam Stephen, William
Watkins, Alexander White, Isaac Coles, Joseph Jones, Stevens
Thomson Mason, and Edmund Ruffin voting in the affirmative,
and George Nicholas, Cabell (of Union Hill), Archibald Stuart,
French Strother, Robert Lawson, and Andrew Moore in the
negative.65
65 This was not equivalent to a vote for the indefinite postponement
of the bill, as the House was really in session in October.
76 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
At the October session of 1783 White was late in his attend-
ance. Indeed, from the necessity of travelling on horseback,
and in the absence of those helps for protection in bad weather
which we now possess, the members of Assembly frequently
failed to make a quorum on the first days of the session. Those
who were punctual met and adjourned from day to day, and on
the organization of the House held the absentees to a strict
accountability. The roll was called, the names of the absent
were noted, and the sergeant-at arms was ordered to take them
into custody. Nor was this a mere farce. No absent member
was then allowed to take his seat without the payment of the
fees, unless he could render a substantial excuse for his delin-
quency. On one occasion the sergeant-at-arms dispatched a
messenger to a distant member, who grumbled when called
upon to pay fifteen pounds for the adventure. The calling of
the roll of absentees had an effect which neither the House nor the
absentees dreamed of at the time. It has preserved to posterity
the full names of some individuals whose connection with the
Assembly could not otherwise have been proved from the Jour-
nals. In ordinary times the only appearance of the name of a
member was on a regular committee appointed at the beginning of
a session, when the Christian name was almost always omitted,
or on the list of ayes and noes, where a similar omission fre-
quently occurs. Indeed, the ayes and noes were rarely called
from the Declaration of Independence to the peace with Great
Britain ; and when they were called the members were often
absent. To ascertain who were members of our early Assem-
blies is one of the most laborious offices of the annalist. In
many cases it is impracticable. In the case of the House of
Burgesses it is impossible.*8
68 It is impossible to ascertain who were members of the House of
Burgesses from the Journals; but the fact can be learned from the
clerks' offices, and from the old almanacs. From the absence of a
list of the names of members, from the constant omission of Christian
names, and from the number of persons of the same surname, it
requires great caution in perusing our early records not to confound
individuals and even generations. Thus there are Burwells, Carters,
Cabells, Bassetts, Harrisons, Carys, Diggeses, Mayos, Carringtons,
Masons, Moores, Randolphs. Lees, Taylors, without number. At the
present session, and at several previous ones, there was a Benjamin Har-
ALEXANDER WHITE. 77
The first vote which White gave at the October session of
1783 was on one of the most perplexing topics of those days.
We have heretofore said that, as there was no coin in the Com-
monwealth, and hardly a circulating medium of any kind apart
from the public securities, the taxes, if paid at all, must be paid
in kind. To fix upon the articles which might be taken in pay-
ment of taxes was often difficult; but it was also difficult to
determine the sections of country to which the act should apply.
A man living on tide- water would have a fairer chance of getting
money than a man living in the interior at a time when, from
many parts of the State to the seat of government, there was no
public road at all, when wagons were unknown, and when a man
was deemed fortunate who had succeeded in rolling a hogshead
of tobacco undamaged to tide. But at the session of 1783 there
was the dawn of a new policy, which, at all times admitted to be
theoretically sound, might with proper caution be gradually
introduced into. practice; and that was the payment of taxes in
money. Consequently, when on the igth of November an
engrossed bill " to amend the laws of revenue, and declaring
tobacco, hemp, flour, and deerskins a payment of certain taxes,"
there was a most animated discussion in the House of Dele-
gates. It was necessary to determine what taxes should be
payable in either of the articles, and the sections of country to
which the provisions of the bill should extend. It should seem
that all were agreed that the bill should include the country west
of the Blue Ridge, but should it also include the counties of the
East? Should an Eastern nabob be allowed to pay his taxes in
skins ? Accordingly, when the bill was on its passage, a rider
was offered " to admit payments of hemp in counties on the
eastern side of the Blue Ridge in certain cases," which was duly
read three times and adopted by the House. The question then
rison from Rockingham, while another of the same name was either
Speaker of the House, member of Congress, or Governor, and yet
another who was a member of the Council or of the House The
indispensable necessity of tracing the history of each member of the
one hundred and seventy of the present Convention for twenty or
thirty years through volumes of Journals that have no regular list of
names or indices of subjects, has cost me as much labor as would have
sufficed to acquire any European language. Hence I may have made
some mistakes, but I trust they are few and unimportant.
78 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
recurred on the passage of the bill with the rider, and was
decided in the affirmative by a vote of sixty-one to twenty-three
(ascertained by ayes and noes). Some of the ablest statesmen of
the East were opposed to the mode of paying taxes in kind,
now that the war was over; and it appears that nearly every
negative vote was given by the members from that section of
country. The names of those of the present Convention who
then voted in the affirmative were Zachariah Johnston, Archibald
Stuart, Thomas Smith, George Clendenin, Patrick Henry, Joseph
Jones, and William Ronald; and of those who voted in the
negative were George Nicholas, Alexander White, Isaac Coles,
and Edmund Ruffin. The vote of White, which was almost the
only one from the West, bespeaks his courage in opposing a
policy which, in one shape or other, had always prevailed in
Virginia, and which, however inconsistent with correct notions
of political economy, seemed peculiarly applicable to the condi-
tion of the people of the West.67
Few questions excited keener debates and roused to a higher
pitch the passions of the members who composed the General
Assemblies immediately after the peace with Great Britain than
those relating to citizenship. At the beginning of the Revolu-
tion many persons went abroad and continued to be loyal sub-
jects of England. Such persons on their return to Virginia
were plainly not entitled to any other privileges than those
which the laws offered to the subjects of any other foreign
potentate. There were, however, numerous individuals who
remained at home and took no open interest in public affairs,
but whose secret wishes, it was well known, were in favor of the
success of the British arms. There was a strong desire mani-
fested by others, who were nominally on the side of the Com-
monwealth, to save their lives and estates in the event of the
subjection of the States by Great Britain. These sent a son, a
brother, or an aged relative to some British port or colony as an
earnest of their own good will towards the mother country, and
as a means of procuring immunity from future punishment;
87 In the minority was Henry Tazewell, who was particularly distin-
guished by his efforts to inaugurate the new system of taxation, until
he withdrew from the Assembly on his election to the bench of the
General Court.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 79
while they remained themselves at home, showing just so much
fidelity to the State as was necessary to exempt them from the
penalty of treason, or, entering the public councils, they sought to
embarrass by the tricks of Parliament or by specious maneuver-
ing the measures of the patriots.68 As for those emigrants
who were not subjects of Great Britain, and who came with the
honest intention of taking up their abode in the Commonwealth,
there was a very slight difference of opinion respecting them.
But the element of British influence entered very generally into
all the discussions on the subject of citizenship, and in no debate
more than the one which occurred on the bill which we shall
now proceed to notice.
On the 2d day of December, 1783, an engrossed bill "for
repealing a former law, and declaring who shall be deemed citi-
zens of this Commonwealth," was read the third time, and after
a protracted discussion, which consumed nearly the whole day,
was rejected by a vote of fifty-five to thirty one — ascertained by
ayes and noes. The vote on the bill affords a curious study to
the political anatomist. East and West were blended together
in beautiful confusion. Some Eastern men had constituents of
great influence at home, who were eager for the return of
friends, and these they were unwilling to disoblige; while other
Eastern men, remembering the trouble which the Tories had
caused during the Revolution, were not indisposed to hold the
rod of terror over the heads of the returning recreants. Opposing
sentiments were also visible in the Western vote. There had
been few or no Tories in the West; but Western men had seen
with the deepest indignation in the public councils the policy of
those whom they regarded as the friends of the Tories, and were
not inclined to hold out to emigrants from Great Britain a too
68 1 have all needful respect for those Virginians who. at the outbreak
of the Revolution, elected to remain subjects of Great Britain and
withdrew from our territory. Such a determination was altogether
legitimate. But for those miscreants who pretended to adhere to the
cause of Virginia, and sought by private letters or advices to entice
the enemy to visit our borders, or who perplexed our early councils
with their treacherous wiles, I have no respect, but rather an unutter-
able abhorrence. The private papers of Cornwallis, of Tarleton, ot
Arnold, and of Matthews ought to be examined for evidences of the
guilt of such wretches.
80 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
welcome hand, even on the return of peace; while Western men
generally, and especially the holders of vast tracts of land, were
eager for the prompt settlement of the country, which could
hardly be effected in a single generation without the aid of emi-
grants from abroad. Hence these were inclined, for the most
part, to favor a liberal policy in respect of citizenship. Those
who voted for the rejection of the bill were George Nicholas,
Zachariah Johnston, French Strother, Alexander White, Isaac
Coles, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Wilson, and William Ronald,
and those who voted against the rejection were John Tyler
(Speaker), Cabell (of "Union Hill"), Archibald Stuart, Thomas
Smith, George Clendenin, Joseph Jones, and Stevens Thomson
Mason. A few days after leave was given to bring in a new bill
on the subject, and George Nicholas, Patrick Henry, Alexander
White, and Joseph Jones were placed on the committee to pre-
pare it.
From the position and wants of Virginia, as well as from the
variety of her products, a trade with the West Indies on princi-
ples of reciprocity has been for nearly two centuries and a half a
favorite object. While the States were colonies of Great Britain
the commerce between the different settlements of the same
empire was comparatively unrestricted. The most friendly rela-
tions existed between the West Indies and our ancestors; visits
were interchanged, which resulted in marriages; and some names
most honorably distinguished during the Revolution, and con-
tinuously to this day, were borne either by the original emigrants
from the West Indies or by their immediate descendants.69 Nor
69 General Matthews, who bore arms during the Revolution, was long
Speaker of the House of Delegates, a member of the present Conven-
tion, and from whom the county of Mathews has been named, was a
native of St. Kitts. Howe states that the county was named after
Governor Mathews, of Georgia, which is a mistake, as I, who am a
townsman of Matthews, have always heard to the contrary; and I find
in the chart of the Commonwealth of Virginia, compiled in the year
1790 by William Marshall, clerk of the district of Virginia, the very
year of the birth of the county, that it was called after " Mr. Speaker
Matthews." I take pleasure in vindicating the just fame of my towns-
man from the misrepresentations of careless compilers. The Mayos
and the Carringtons came from Barbadoes. Farley, a West Indian,
visited Colonel Byrd at Westover, and bought from him the vast area
of the Saura Town-lands at a nominal price. Byrd had previously sold
ALEXANDER WHITE. 81
when peace was secured with England, reverted eagerly to their
old trade, but found it crippled with limitations and restrictions.
The subject was immediately brought before the Assembly. It
should seem that a British order in Council, passed on the 2d
of July previous, prohibited American ships from carrying the
products of this country to any of the West India islands belong-
ing to England, and the Virginia merchant was compelled to
ship his merchandise in British bottoms, or to give up the trade
altogether. The House of Delegates, on the 4th of December,
took the matter in hand, and having discussed it at length
in Committee of the Whole, came to a resolution which was
reported by White as chairman of the committee. This resolu-
tion recommended "that Congress be empowered to prohibit
British vessels from being the carriers of the growth or produce
of the British West India islands to these United States as long
as the restriction aforesaid shall be continued on the part of
Great Britain, or to concert any other mode to be adopted by the
States which shall be thought effectual to counteract the designs
of Great Britain with respect to American commerce." It was
unanimously adopted, and a select committee, consisting of
White, Jones, Henry, Cabell, Ronald, and Tazewell, was appointed
to bring in a bill in pursuance of the same. It is creditable to
the standing of White — a Western man as he was — that, in a
matter referring to the seabord and to the interests of commerce,
he should hold such a prominent place on a committee composed
of the ablest men of the East. He reported the bill on the 5th,
and on the 6th it was discussed and referred back to the com-
mittee, and was again reported, when it passed unanimously both
houses of the Assembly.
On the 5th of December White reported a bill "to regulate
elections, and to enforce the attendance of the members of
the lands to a Mr. Maxwell, who visited them during a pest, and was
so dispirited that he begged to be excused from his bargain. Some
time after the sale to Farley, Byrd's eyes were opened to their great
value, and it is said that he grew sick from vexation and took to his
bed. In the course of time Farley sent his son from the West Indies
to inspect his lands, and the young man, calling at Colonel Byrd's, fell
in love with his daughter, married her, and brought the lands, for a third
time, into the family. See Smith's Tour in America, Volume I, printed
in London about 1780.
82 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Assembly," and was placed on a select committee, of which
George Nicholas was chairman and Patrick Henry a member,
for granting pardons, with certain exceptions. On the 8th he
was appointed a member of the select committee to bring in a
bill " instructing the delegates of Virginia in Congress to convey,
by proper instrument in writing, on the part of Virginia, to the
Congress of the United States, all right, title, and claim which
the said Commonwealth hath to the lands northward of the
river Ohio, and upon the terms contained in the act of Congress
of the 1 3th of September last, with certain restrictions." On
the 1 3th a bill prohibiting the migration of certain persons to the
Commonwealth, and for other purposes, was read a third time,
and passed the House by a vote of sixty-nine to eleven; Alex-
ander White, Cabell (of "Union Hill"), Adam Stephen, Strother,
William Watkins, Thomas Smith, Patrick Henry, Joseph Jones,
Benjamin Wilson, William Ronald, and Andrew Moore voting
in the affirmative, and Johnston, Archibald Stuart, and George
Clendenin in the negative.
At the May session of 1784, White again appeared in the
House of Delegates as a member from Frederick. He was
required on the 7th of June to vote on a question, which, how-
ever simple it may now appear, involved considerations, public
and private, of so grave a caste as might well account for the
reception it then met with from the Assembly. We allude to
the definitive treaty with Great Britain. A motion was made in
the House of Delegates " that so much of all and every act or
acts of Assembly, now in force in this Commonwealth, as pre-
vents a due compliance with the stipulations contained in the
definitive treaty entered into between Great Britain and America,
ought to be repealed." This motion appeared in a questionable
shape, and probably came from a questionable source. It had
not passed through the hands of a committee. It was absolute.
It made no exceptions or reservations whatsoever. If it passed
the House in its present shape, and a bill in pursuance of its
spirit became a law, the entire financial system of the Common-
wealth for the past ten years would be involved in inextricable
confusion. Great trouble would fall upon the people. Every
man who had paid a British debt into the treasury in obedience
to the enactments of good and constitutional laws would be
compelled to pay the same debt a second time, and to pay it in
ALEXANDER WHITE. 83
coin. To make suitable arrangements for encountering such an
extraordinary stipulation of the treaty would require great
deliberation and consummate judgment, and delay was abso-
lutely indispensable for the purpose. Nor did the British Gov-
ernment show any haste in carrying into effect those parts of
the treaty which depended upon itself. There was hardly a
member present from the country west of the Blue Ridge who
had not seen some individual of his own household, some friend
or neighbor, slain by the Indians, who had been supplied with
arms and ammunition by the British forts on the frontier, and
who were paid by British officers for the scalps of Virginia men,
women, and children. Yet, though a year and more had elapsed
since the date of the treaty, there was no movement made
towards withdrawing from those forts their garrisons and their
arms. On the contrary, they were kept in the highest state of
preparation for immediate action. It was plain that England
regarded the treaty as a mere truce that would separate us from
our European allies, and that she held the Western forts in
reserve as a part of her insiduous scheme. So long as those
forts were retained by Great Britain, the Indians would annoy
our frontiers and deluge the cabins of the settlers in blood.
Did the treaty absolutely require that the British debts should
be paid a second time ? And if it did, had not Congress clearly
exceeded its powers in acceding to such a provision? To confis-
cate a debt was as perfect a belligerent right as to burn a house
or a ship, to take a negro from his owner, or to pocket the
ancient silver flagon of a host who was dispensing to his foes
the hospitalities of his house; and yet, there was no mention
made of the rebuilding of our homesteads, or a restitution of our
negroes, one-fifth of whom had been enticed or forced away, or
of that flagon which found its way into the pocket of Corn-
wallis. Even the negroes on board the British ships at York,
who were carried off in the face of the articles of capitulation,
were not to be restored or paid for.70 There was no reciprocity
70 Mr. Jefferson, in his correspondence with Hammond, held that
Congress had performed its duty when it recommended to the States
the payment of the British debts. That Cornwallis took a piece of plate
from the table of Mr. Bates may be seen in Randall's Life of Jefferson,
Vol. I, 344. As the ayes and noes on the subject of complying with the
84 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
in such a provision; and until it was evident that Great Britain
was disposed to withdraw her garrisons from a position which
threatened our Northwestern frontier, it was the dictate of com-
mon sense, as well as of patriotism, to deliberate well while
deliberation was possible. The result was that the motion to
repeal the acts of Assembly in conflict with the definitive treaty
prevailed by a majority of twenty — ascertained by ayes and noes;
White voting with the minority.71
On the loth of June the House of Delegates went into Com-
mittee of the Whole on the subject of the public lands, White
in the chair; and two resolutions were reported and agreed to,
one of which ordered all the public lands, except such as were
British treaty have never been published from the Journals, I annex
the full vote, the names of the members of the present Convention
being in italics :
AYES — Wilson Cary Nicholas, Archibald Stuart, John Marshall
(Chief Justice), Alexander White, James Wood. Moses Hunter,
Thomas Edmunds (of Brunswick), Edward Carrington, George Wray,
Bartlett Anderson, William Norvell, Philip Barbour, Larkin Smith,
William Thornton, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Corbin, John Brecken-
ridge, William Armistead, John Watkins, Littleton Eyre, Bennet
Tompkins, James Madison, William Mayo, Jr., William Ronald,
Thomas Walke, John Taylor (of Southampton), Bailey Washington,
William Brent, John Allen, John Howell Briggs, Wilson Miles Cary,
John Langhorne, Richard Henry Lee, Joseph Prentis, Nathaniel Nelson,
and Henry Tazewell.
NOES — John Cropper, Jr., Thomas Parramore, Samuel Sherwin, John
Booker, Jr., William Meredith, Michael Bowyer, John Trigg, Robert
Clarke, George Hancock, Thomas Claiborne, Samuel Ha^'es, Jr..
Thomas Collier, Matthew Cheatham, Carter Henry Harrison, French
Strother, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Spencer Roane, William Gate-
wood, Alexander Henderson, John Mosby, Thomas Smith, Batte Peter-
son, Isaac Vanmeter, Garland Anderson, Turner Southall, Nathaniel
Wilkinson, Patrick Henry, Peter Saunders, William Walker, John S.
Wills, Edmund Byne, John Heath, John Berryman, William White,
Anthony Street, John Glenn, John Logan, William Randolph, Benja-
min Wilson, Francis Worman, Willis Riddick, Kinchen Godwin, John
Kearnes, Ebenezer Zane, Charles Porter, Benjamin Lankford, William
Dire, Richard Bibb, Edmund Ruffin, Edward Bland, John Ackiss, John
Bowyer, Gawin Hamilton, Thomas Edmunds (of Sussex), William
Russell, James Montgomery, and Thomas Matthews.
11 For repeated instances of the gross violation of the treaty by Gene-
ral Carleton, see House Journal, June 14, 1784.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 85
necessary for the use of government, and except also the lands
and houses in and adjacent to the city of Williamsburg, which
ought to be given to the masters and professors of William and
Mary University for the use of that seminary forever, ought to
be sold for money or military certificates ; and the other recom-
mended that the lands known by the name of Gosport ought to
be laid off into lots and annexed to the town of Portsmouth.
A select committee was appointed to draft the bills in pursuance
of the resolutions, of which White was chairman and Patrick
Henry and William Grayson were members.
The public mind had not yet become reconciled to the removal
of the seat of government from Williamsburg to the town of
Richmond. The associations connected with the ancient
metropolis, with the old House of Burgesses, and with the vene-
rable college, and the delightful society and pleasant accommo-
dations, which did not exist in such a rude settlement as the
Richmond of that day was, long exerted an influence on the
members of Assembly generally, while a sense of interest
impelled the immediate representatives of Williamsburg and of
the adjacent counties to make every effort to revoke the pre-
cipitate action of the Assembly of 1779. The attention of the
House of Delegates had already been drawn to the public lands,
as just stated, and a select committee had been appointed to
bring in a bill on the subject. But on the nth of June the
House went into committee on the public lands, and a resolution
was reported requiring all the public lands in and near Rich-
mond, not necessary for the purposes of the government, to be
sold, and the proceeds of the sales applied to the erection of the
public buildings in Richmond, in pursuance of the act for the
removal of the seat of government. As soon as the resolution
was read in the House, a motion was made to strike out all after
the word "Resolved," and insert "that proper measures ought
to be adopted to obtain the opinion of the citizens of the Com-
monwealth as to the place that ought to be fixed on for the seat
of government." An animated discussion arose; but the ancient
city, though sustained by a strong party, was destined to suc-
cumb once more. The amendment was lost, and the bill passed
by a majority of six votes only in a full House ; Wilson C.
Nicholas, Trigg, Archibald Stuart, Strother, Joseph Jones (of
Dinwiddie), John Marshall, Richardson, Isaac Coles, Vanmeter,
Patrick Henry, William White, Wilson, James Madison, Ronald,
86 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
William Grayson, and Briggs voting in the affirmative, and
Miles King, Alexander White, Thomas Smith, Clendenin,
Thornton, Temple, Francis Corbin, Riddick, Littleton Eyre,
Gaskins, Ebenezer Zane, Edmund Ruffin, Thomas Walke, Allen,
Edmunds (of Sussex), and Thomas Matthews voting in the
negative.
A remarkable incident occurred on the I4th of June, which
stands alone in our annals, and, as it has been most grossly
though facetiously mistated, it may be proper to state the facts
of the case as they appear on the Journals of the House of Dele-
gates. It was reported to the House that Mr. John Warden
had spoken most disrespectfully of the members who had voted
against the repeal of the laws in conflict with the definitive treaty
with Great Britain, and the matter was referred to the Committee
on Privileges and Elections. The committee reported that
Warden had appeared before them, and, waiving the necessity
of examining any witnesses as to the charge against him, deliv-
ered in the following written acknowledgment signed with his
name: "I do acknowledge that, in a mistaken opinion that the
House of Delegates had voted against the payment of British
debts, agreeable to the treaty of peace between America and
Great Britain, I said that, if it had done so, some of them had
voted against paying for the coats on their backs. A committee
of the House judging this expression derogatory to the honor
and justice of the House, I am sorry for the offence I have given,
and assure the committee that it never was my intention to
affront the dignity of the House or insult any member of it."
The House immediately resolved that the acknowledgment was
satisfactory, and that John Warden be discharged out of the
custody of the sergeant-at-arms. This was the end of the
whole affair. He was not personally before the House at all,
and could have made no remark about the dust on his knees as
he rose from the floor; and the blessed mother of us all has
been for more than seventy years laughing herself, and making
her children laugh, at a joke as utterly destitute of a solid foun-
dation as the currency she supplied us with during the Revo-
lution."
"Warden was a Scotchman, a prominent lawyer, a good classical
scholar, and had some generous qualities as an individual, but was
classed among " the tainted " during the Revolution. As some of my
ALEXANDER WHITE. 87
Among the difficulties that beset the path of the young Com-
monwealth was the proper regulation of commerce. To lay
uniform duties upon our own and foreign vessels and their car-
goes was a simple office — on paper; but there were territorial
obstacles which tended greatly to diminish the amount of reve-
nue derived from the customs, and to prevent this easy and
effectual mode of taxation from being as profitable to the State
as it ought to be. In one aspect the numerous rivers of Vir-
ginia, trending from the Northwest and West to the Chesapeake,
should seem to afford extraordinary facilities for agricultural
success. Most of the products of our soil are bulky, and are
difficult to be conveyed by land carriage to market; and the
accessibility to water must exert a wonderful influence on the
productive capacities of the State. In a purely agricultural
view, then, nothing can well exceed the advantages of our posi-
tion in this respect, and such a natural arrangement unquestion-
ably develops the resources of the State in a greater degree than
any improvement that could be contrived by the wit of man.
Unfortunately each large stream has its distinctive interests, and
its inhabitants are not only anxious to retain their own trade, but
seek the trade of the other rivers of the Commonwealth. Hence
a rivalry is excited which is fatal to the concentration of com-
merce in a single mart, and prevents a cheap and speedy collec-
tion of the revenue for customs. When we regard Virginia as
an independent Commonwealth, such as she then was (1784), it
is obvious that she could not derive that profit from the trade
which was indispensably necessary for her prosperity and her
safety. Commerce, to produce its full effect upon a country,
must be concentrated in a single mart. For the sake of economy
young readers may not have heard the joke in question, and as I am
inclined to indulge them with a spice of the fun that tickled their
fathers, I may as well put it down. The story goes that Warden was
summoned before the House in full session, and was required to beg
its pardon on his knees, which he is said to have done. As soon, how-
ever, as he rose from his knees, pretending to brush the dust from his
knees, though really pointing his hands toward the House, he uttered
audibly in broad Scotch, and evidently with a double meaning : " Upon
my word, a dammed DIRTY House it is indeed." For a humorous pas-
sage between Warden and William Wirt, see Virginia Historical Reg-
ister, Vol. II, 58.
88 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
alone, such a concentration was expedient. If the State was
compelled to follow the ancient custom, and establish ports of
entry and custom houses at every plantation on the banks of our
numerous rivers, the expenses of collecting the revenue from
customs might exceed the amount of the revenue itself and
involve the public in loss. Moreover, by the multiplicity of
offices, the chances of smuggling would be too numerous to be
controlled by any police which the State could maintain; and
those merchants who were too honest to cheat the revenue, and
who deserved the aid of the State, would suffer a loss of their
legitimate profits and be involved in ruin. Thus one of the
most difficult problems which our early statesmen were com-
pelled to solve was, how they could most effectually concentrate
the commerce of the State with the least inconvenience to the
people. Unless commercial capital could be fixed in a single
mart, the State would not only fail to derive a fair revenue from
the customs, but she could form no seamen; and as Virginia
then was, a navy was necessary to protect her ships in peace as
well as in war. It was also seen that, with the concentration of
capital, the arts would prosper, and that we might be able ere
long to manufacture common articles for ourselves.
To accomplish such desirable objects, a bill was presented in
the House of Delegates which " restricted foreign vessels to cer-
tain ports within this Commonwealth." On the iyth of June it
came up on its final passage, and was discussed with all the zeal
that public and private interests could inspire by the ablest men
in the body. Its provisions were closely scrutinized, and it is
evident that they must have interfered sensibly with the profit
and convenience of many members. Its preamble declared that
our foreign commerce would be placed upon a more equal
foundation; that expedition and dispatch would be better pro-
moted if foreign vessels in loading and unloading were restricted
to certain ports, and that the revenue arising from commerce
would also thereby be more certainly collected. The bill then
enacted that all foreign vessels shall enter, clear out, load, and
unload at Norfolk, Portsmouth, Tappahannock, Yorktown, or
Alexandria; and it further enacted that, as the navigating small
county craft by slaves tended to discourage free white seamen,
and to increase the number of free white seamen would produce
public good, not more than one-third part of the persons
ALEXANDER WHITE. 89
employed in the navigation of any bay or river craft shall con-
sist of slaves; and if the owner of slaves shall put a greater
proportion on board of such craft, he shall forfeit and pay one
hundred pounds for each offence. The act was not to take effect
until the loth of June, 1786. The principle on which it was
based was sound, and it was a step in advance to reduce the
number of ports of entry to five; but even this reduction could
not suffice to attain what was practicable. The trade of that
day could easily have been managed at a single office, but,
divided among five, would enrich neither, and many of the
advantages flowing from a concentration of trade would be lost.
We should have no controlling mart of trade and money; there
would be but a small gathering of people around either of the
five commercial centres; the domestic arts and manufactures
could not be sustained, and a sickly languor would still pervade
our commercial system.
The bill passed in a full House by a majority of six; Patrick
Henry, James Madison, Archibald Stuart, Patteson, Strother,
King, Thomas Smith, Clendenin, Isaac Coles, Thornton, Temple,
John Logan, Francis Corbin, Riddick, Eyre, Gaskins, Ebenezer
Zane, Ronald, Thomas Walke, Allen, Edmunds (of Sussex), and
Matthews voting in the affirmative, and John Marshall, Alexander
White, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Trigg, Watkins, Joseph Jones
(of Dinwiddie), Richardson, William White, Wilson, Edmund
Ruffin, William Grayson, and Briggs in the negative.
As an illustration of the importance attached to the bill, it was
ordered to be inserted at full length on the Journal, and, together
with a copy of the Journal of the proceedings of the House
thereupon, printed in handbills, and four copies thereof delivered
to each member. We have already recorded a solitary instance
of the publication of the ayes and noes in the public prints by
order of the House of Delegates; but, so far as our researches
have extended, we cannot recall an instance in which the bill
itself was printed entire, by a vote of the body on the face of the
Journal."
It is not an uninstructive office to trace the early stages of
73 1 have heard old men who had served in the Assembly about the
period of the passage of this bill speak of it as " Madison's bill," and
"Madison's scheme of building up towns."
90 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
great measures which engaged the attention of our fathers, and
which, discussed at long subsequent periods, were finally deter-
mined in our own time. One such measure is that which has
been familiar to the present generation as the Convention ques-
tion. The first Constitution of the State was formed simultane-
ously with the adoption of the resolution instructing the delegates
of Virginia in Congress to propose independence. It was indeed
formed at a perilous time; but it was unquestionably formed with
all the deliberation which so grave a subject demanded. The
Federal Constitution, which effected the most thorough change
in our Government that ever was made in the institutions of a
free people, was summarily settled during a discussion of twenty-
five days; while the Constitution of the State was deliberately
examined and discussed for nearly two months by the ablest
and wisest men whom Virginia had then or, perhaps, has since
produced. Of the practical workings of the Constitution there
was no foundation for just complaint, at least on the part of the
West. Severe complaints had been made by the residents of the
extreme Eastern counties that the rapid creation of new coun-
ties before the Declaration of Independence would subject the
property of the State to the control of those who owned but a
small proportion of it ; n and the statutes show that after the
adoption of the Constitution in 1776 the multiplication of new
counties continued with accelerated rapidity. Still there was a
dissatisfaction with the existing form of government in the
Assembly, both among the Eastern and Western members; and
a serious design was entertained at the close of the war of form-
ing a new scheme of government by the authority of the ordi-
nary Legislature.75 The reasons of this extraordinary movement
74 Letter of Carter to Washington, dated August or September, 1775,
in the American archives. I have mislaid the exact reference.
75 George Mason, in a letter to Cabell (of " Union Hill " ), dated May 6,
1783, thus writes : " We are told here that the present Assembly intend
to dissolve themselves to make way for a General Convention to new-
model the Constitution. Will such a measure be proper without a
requisition from a majority of the people? If it can be done without
such a requisition, may not the caprice of future Assemblies repeat it
from time to time until the Constitution shall have totally lost all sta-
bility, and anarchy introduced in its stead ? " And on the subject of
the definitive treaty with Great Britain, he writes in the same letter :
ALEXANDER WHITE. 91
were mainly theoretical, and may be seen in the Notes on Vir-
ginia.™ It was promptly opposed by George Mason, who was
not then a member of Assembly, in letters to the leading men
in public life, and by others, and finally defeated. The contest
was renewed at the present session by a petition from the county
of Augusta praying that further time be allowed for paying hemp
in discharge of taxes, and that the government of the Common-
wealth be reformed.
On the i3th of June, 1784, Mr. Carter Henry Harrison, from
the Committee of Propositions and Grievances, reported that so
much of the Augusta petition as prayed farther time for paying
hemp in discharge of taxes ought to be rejected; but "that the
prayer for the reformation of the government was reasonable;
that the ordinance of government, commonly called the Consti-
tution, does not rest upon an authentic basis, and was no more
than a temporary organization of government for preventing
anarchy, and pointing our efforts to the two important objects of
war against our then invaders, and peace and happiness among
ourselves; that this, like all other acts of legislation, being sub-
ject to change by subsequent legislatures possessing equal power
with themselves, should now receive those amendments which
time and trial have suggested, and be rendered permanent by a
power superior to that of an ordinary legislature." The report
concluded with a resolution that "an ordinance pass, recom-
mending to the good people of this Commonwealth the choice
of delegates to meet in General Convention, with powers to form
a Constitution of government to which all laws, present and
future, should be subordinate," and providing that the existing
Constitution remain in force until duly superseded by the new
system. The House rejected the prayer for farther delay in
paying hemp in discharge of taxes; but it referred the subject
of the Convention to a Committee of the Whole.
"We are very much alarmed in this part of the country lest the
Assembly should pass some laws infringing the articles of the peace,
and thereby involve us in a fresh quarrel with Great Britain, who might
make reprisals on our shipping or coasts, without much danger of
offending the late belligerent Powers in Europe, or even the other
American States; but I trust more prudent and dispassionate counsels
will prevail."
16 Query XIII, page 128, et seq. (Randolph's edition.)
92 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
On the 2ist of June the House resolved itself into committee
to consider the subject — Henry Tazewell in the chair — and a reso-
lution was reported "that so much of the petition from Augusta
county as relates to an alteration of the Constitution or form of
government ought to be rejected, such a measure not being
within the province of the House of Delegates to assume; but,
on the contrary, it is the express duty of the representatives of
the people, at all times and on all occasions, to preserve the same
inviolate until a majority of all the free people shall direct a
reform thereof"™ A motion was made to strike out the words
in italics, and, after an animated discussion, passed in the
negative by a majority of fifteen votes; Wilson C. Nicholas,
John Marshall, Archibald Stuart, Patteson, Watkins, Clendenin,
Thornton, Temple, William White, Logan, Gaskins, Madison,
Ronald, and Edmunds (of Sussex) voting in the affirmative, and
Patrick Henry, Alexander White, Trigg, Strother, Joseph Jones,
Richardson, Thomas Smith, King, Wilson, Eyre, Ruffin, Thomas
Walke, Allen, and Matthews in the negative. A motion was
then made to strike out the words " a majority of all the free
people shall direct a reform thereof," and insert "it shall be
constitutionally reformed," which was rejected by six votes.
The main resolution was then agreed to without a division.
The next most prominent movement on the subject of calling a
Convention was in 1816, when the measure would have suc-
ceeded but for a compromise, which resulted in the re arrange-
ment of the representation in the Senate on the basis of white
population, according to the census of 1810; and it was finally
determined, in 1827, to take the votes of the freeholders on the
"As the vote on striking out the words in italics was a test vote,
and some of my young readers may he curious to know how certain
prominent men voted who were not members of the present Conven-
tion, I may as well state that among the ayes were John Taylor (of
Caroline), Henry Tazewell, Larkin Smith, Jones (of King George),
John Breckenridge, and Joseph Prentis, and among the noes were
Spencer Roane, Edmunds (of Brunswick), Turner Southall, Edward
Bland, William G. Munford, John Bowyer, and William Russell. The
ayes were forty-two, the noes fifty-seven; and this was a full vote, the
members being very lax in their attendance thoughout the session,
and a bill was accordingly passed at the present session to force their
attendance.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 93
question, a majority of which was cast in favor of calling a Con-
vention. That Convention was called by an act passed during
the session of 1828-' 29, and on the first Monday in October,
1829, assembled in the city of Richmond.
There was one act of this session which posterity will ever
appreciate, and which was passed with entire unanimity. It was
the just and beautiful tribute paid to Washington, in acknow-
ledgment of his services during the Revolution, in the form of
an address from both houses of Assembly, and by the adoption
•of a resolution "requesting the Executive to take measures for
procuring a statue of General Washington, to be of the finest
marble and of the best workmanship," with the inscription from
the pen of Madison upon it, which is now so familiar to us all,
and which, we fondly hope and believe, will be as familiar to
posterity for generations and ages to come. Thirteen years
before, in sadness and in sorrow, Virginia had voted a statue in
commemoration of the patriotism of a noble 'Briton, who had
fallen suddenly in our midst while honestly seeking to avert that
storm which seemed to threaten the Colony with ruin; and now,
when that storm had spent its force, with joy and gladness again
she voted a statue in honor of her own son, whose valor and
wisdom had defended her from peril and had given her a place
among the nations of the earth.78
78 The statue to Lord Botetourt was voted by the Assembly July 20,
1771, and, when completed, occupied a position in the old Capitol at
Williamsburg very similar to that now held by the statue of Washing-
ton— between the two houses. On the removal of the seat of govern-
ment the statue of Botetourt was presented to William and Mary, and
was then unfortunately placed in the open air, which in our climate will
soon destroy the finest work of the chisel. Exposure more than
violence has marred the beauty of this admirable statue. We need
not add that the address and the statue to Washington passed unani-
mously, though we wish the ayes had been recorded as a memorial for
posterity. The committee appointed by the House of Delegates to
present the address were Joseph Jones (of King George), William
Grayson, Brent, Henderson, and West. From the geographical caste
of the committee it is probable that the address was presented to
Washington at Mount Vernon. We may add that the Executive was
unrestricted in its discretion as to money in procuring the statue ; and
a resolution was passed on the 3oth of June instructing the Treasurer
to pay to the order of the Executive, out of the first money that shall
94 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
We have alluded already to the report of the committee
appointed to inquire into the infraction on the part of Great
Britain of the seventh article of the definitive treaty of peace
with that Power — a report that shows conclusively that General
Carleton had repeatedly refused to deliver to citizens of Virginia
and Maryland their slaves and other property under his control
in the city of New York, though the application was made by
our citizens in persons. On the 23d of June the report, which
had been referred to the Committee of the Whole, was debated
at length, and three resolutions were reported, the first of which
instructed the delegates of Virginia in Congress to lay before
that body the subject-matter of the preceding report and resolu-
tion, and to request from them a remonstrance to the British
Court, complaining of the aforesaid infraction of the treaty of
peace, and desiring a proper reparation for the injuries conse-
quent thereupon; that the said delegates be instructed to inform
Congress that the General Assembly have no intention to inter-
fere with the power of making treaties with foreign nations,
which the Confederation has wisely vested in Congress; but it is
conceived that a just regard to the national honor and interests
of the citizens of this Commonwealth obliges the Assembly to
withhold their co-operation in the complete fulfilment of the said
treaty until the success of the aforesaid remonstrance is known,
or Congress shall signify their sentiments touching the premises.
The second resolution declares that so soon as reparation is
made for the aforesaid infraction, or Congress shall judge it indis-
pensably necessary, such acts of the Legislature passed during
the late war as inhibit the recovery of British debts ought to be
repealed, and payment made thereof in such time and manner
as shall consist with the exhausted situation of this Common-
wealth. And the third resolution declares, in a spirit of peace,
that the further operation of all and every act or acts of Assem-
bly concerning escheats and forfeitures from British subjects
ought to be prevented. The first resolution having been read a
second time, an amendment was offered to strike out from the
word "thereupon" to the end of the resolution, and insert "and
arise under the law "for recruiting this State's quota of men to serve
in the Continental army," any sum they may direct for the purpose of
procuring a statue of General Washington.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 95
that in case of refusal or unreasonable delay of due reparation
the said delegates be instructed to urge that the sanction of
Congress be given to the just policy of retaining so much of the
debts due from the citizens of this Commonwealth to British
subjects as will fully repair the losses sustained by the infraction
of the treaty aforesaid." A motion was then made to a/nend
the amendment by adding to the end thereof: "and in order to
enable the said delegates to proceed therein with greater preci-
sion and effect, the Executive be requested to take immediate
measures for obtaining and transmitting to them all just claims
of the citizens of this Commonwealth under the treaty aforesaid."
The question was put on the amendment to the amendment, and
reasonable as it appears to us, and merely executive as it was,
it was lost by a majority of twenty-two — Madison for the first
time in his life calling out for the ayes and noes. Those who
voted to sustain the amendment were Alexander White, Madi-
son, Marshall, Wilson C. Nicholas, Archibald Stuart, Watkins,
Thornton, Francis Corbin, Gaskins, Thomas Walke, Allen, and
Matthews, and those who voted in the negative were Patrick
Henry, Strother, Joseph Jones, Richardson, Thomas Smith,
Isaac Coles, and Edmund Ruffin. The rejection of this amend-
ment, which purported on its face to procure the materials neces-
sary for conclusive action in the premises, can only be explained
on the supposition that it came from a suspicious quarter, and
that the delay consequent upon making inquiries would result
in the defeat of the scheme for obtaining reparation from the
British Government.
The question was then put upon the amendment, and was lost
by seventeen votes; Alexander White, Madison, Marshall, Nicho-
las, Strother, Watkins, King, Thornton, Corbin, Gaskins, Ronald,
Walke, Allen, and Matthews in the affirmative, and Patrick
Henry, Joseph Jones, Thomas Smith, Coles, Riddick, and Ruffin
in the negative. The rejection of this amendment by the
so called opponents of the treaty, who would be anxious to arm
Congress with full power on the subject, seems to be susceptible
of but one explanation, and that is, that it proceeded from a
hostile source, and was designed to convey a menace that would
disgust some of the friends of the original resolution.
All the resolutions were then severally agreed to, and a com-
mittee, consisting of General Matthews, Judge Tazewell, Judge
96 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Stuart, and Jones (of King George), were appointed to prepare a
bill in pursuance of the third resolution relating to escheats and
forfeitures by British subjects. When we regard the wanton
destruction of our property during the war by the British,
and by the Tories in their ranks, in violation of all the rules of
warfare observed among civilized nations, and our utter inability
to retaliate upon them, the abduction of our slaves in open
defiance of the articles of capitulation at York, and the positive
refusal of General Carleton to deliver up to our own citizens
their slaves and other property in his possession when claimed
by them in person and with full proofs in the city of New York,
according to the express provisions of the definitive treaty, and
the retention of the forts by the British, who might at any
moment involve Virginia in a bloody and expensive war with all
the Indians of the Northwest and West, we may safely pro-
nounce the conduct of our fathers in relation to the treaty to
have been not only temperate and legitimate, but in the highest
degree gallant and honorable.19
An engrossed bill on the 25th of June came up on its passage,
directing the. sales of the public lands in and near the city of
Richmond, and was decided by ayes and noes (recorded in the
Journal). The question which excited debate had not so much a
reference to the intrinsic merits of the bill as to the mode and
time of sale. A rider was offered directing that all lands sold
for certificates should be sold at private sale and before the ist
of October next. The object of the rider was to make a good
bargain for the Commonwealth by enabling her to affix a round
price for lands when paid in certificates, and if the lands should
not be sold for certificates, then to obtain ready money at the
public sale. As certificates abounded, and there was but little
cash in the treasury, such artifices were not then deemed dis-
79 The case of Thomas Walke, who was a member of the present
Assembly, and also of the present Convention, was singularly hard.
Carleton not only refused to give up his negroes, who were then in the
city of New York, but sent them off before his face to a British colony,
not for the purpose of manumitting them, but of selling them for the
benefit of British officers. Yet Walke might not only have been called
upon, as probably was to pay a British debt which he had already paid
in pursuance of law, but to pay it in coin. See the report of the com-
mittee, House Journal, June 14, 1784.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 97
honorable, as Patrick Henry, Madison, Grayson, Stuart, Strother,
Joseph Jones, Richardson, Coles, William White, Watkins,
Wilson, Ronald, and Matthews voted with the majority; while
Alexander White, Nicholas, Thomas Smith, Thornton, Temple,
Corbin, Eyre, Gaskins, Ruffin, and Allen opposed the bill.
The last topic of the session which required a deliberate
record of the opinions of the members on the Journal was the
amendment of the several laws concerning marriage. In the
Colony no marriage ceremony performed by any other than a
minister of the Established Church was valid in law; and as the
dissenters had increased to such an extent at the period of the
Revolution as to compose, in the opinion of a competent judge,
a moiety of the population, it was plain that an amendment
of the law was demanded, not only on the faith of the doctrine
laid down in the sixteenth article of the Declaration of Rights,
but on the still stronger ground of public necessity. Of the
ministers of the Episcopal Church who held the livings at the
beginning of the war, a large majority had disappeared before
its close. One of tnem entered the military service and attained
to the rank of major-general. Another also entered the service
and became a colonel.80 Some of the ministers had taken to
secular pursuits; and there were large districts of territory
where no minister of the Established Church had ever been
seen. To limit the performance of the ceremony of marriage
to such men was virtually to interdict it altogether, and to
work not only great temporary inconvenience in a new
country, but the most permanent and most disastrous results to
society; and hence, even before the modification of the old law,
some of the patriot chiefs recommended the policy of having
the ceremony performed by a clergyman of any religious per-
suasion, and of trusting to the Assembly to make it valid.81 On
80 Bishop Meade says that at the beginning of the war the Episcopal
Church had ninety-one clergymen officiating in one hundred and sixty-
four churches and chapels; at its close only twenty-eight ministers
were found laboring in the less desolate parishes of the State. (Old
Churches, Ministers, &c., Vol. I, 17.) Muhlenburg and Charles Mynn
Thurston were the military priests. Muhlenburg was a member of the
December Convention of 1775, and Thurston was a member of all the
Conventions except that of May, 1776.
81 Patrick Henry gave this advice.
7
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the 28th of June the engrossed bill to amend the several acts of
Assembly concerning marriage came up on its passage, and,
though far from being what it ought to be, made some necessary
and important alterations of the existing laws. It passed the
House of Delegates by a vote of fifty to thirty — ascertained by
ayes and noes. White, who stood on the frontier of religious
freedom, opposed the bill, and, demanding the ayes and noes,
was sustained by Ronald, who voted for the bill, but who believed
that it had gone too far on the road of reform. Those who
voted in the affirmative were W. C. Nicholas, John Trigg, Archi-
bald Stuart, Strother, Watkins, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie),
Richardson, Thomas Smith, William White, Logan, Benjamin
Wilson, Ronald, Edmunds (of Sussex), and Briggs, and those
who voted in the negative were Alexander White, William Gray-
son, Coles, Corbin, Ruffin, Allen, and Matthews. Two days
later the House adjourned.
The second session of the present General Assembly, which
was held on the igth day of October, 1784, was as remarkable
for its deliberations on questions connected with religion as on
those which were purely political. John Tyler, who had been
nominated by Patrick Henry for the Chair in the spring of 1783,
and had been elected by a large majority over Richard Henry
Lee, and had been nominated by Richard Lee, and unanimously
elected, at the first session of the present Assembly, held over as
Speaker of the House of Delegates, and John Beckley, who had
succeeded Edmund Randolph as Clerk of the House, still held
that position.82 As was usual, when the same Assembly held
two sessions in a single year, there was much difficulty in
obtaining a quorum, and it was not until the 3Oth that the House
of Delegates could proceed to business. On that day the stand-
ing committees were appointed; and it is instructive to read the
81 The majority of Tyler over R. H. Lee was forty-one. The rule of
the House of Delegates in the sessions of the same Assembly was that
the Speaker and the Clerk held over, but the term of the other officers
ended with an adjournment. If the Speaker at the second session was
not forthcoming, a substitute was elected to serve until he made his
appearance. Thus, at the October session of 1783, on the declination
of George Carrington and Charles Carter, of Stafford, Mann Page, of
Spotsylvania, was elected to fill the chair until the arrival of Tyler, who
was detained by indisposition.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 99
names of the eminent men who were placed at their head. Nor-
vell, the colleague of Robert Carter Nicholas in the Convention
of 1776, and long known in the councils both of the Colony and
the Commonwealth, presided in the Committee of Religion;
Patrick Henry, another member of the Convention of 1776,
presided in the Committee of Privileges and Elections; Henry
Tazewell, another member of the Convention of 1776, presided
in the Committee of Propositions and Grievances ; Madison,
another member of the same body, presided in the Committee
of Courts of Justice; Richard Lee, another member of the same
body, presided in the Committee of Claims; and Matthews, who
was a gallant officer of the Revolution, who was subsequently
long Speaker of the House, and whose name, conferred on one
of our counties, is fresh in our times, presided in the Committee
of Commerce.
It would not be uninteresting to record at length the legisla-
tion of the State concerning the Episcopal Church since the
Revolution, and to present the exact position which it held in
respect of other denominations at the beginning of the present
session; but we must perform this office in a summary manner.
At the first session of the Assembly in October, 1776, an act
was passed which declared "that all such laws which rendered
criminal the maintaining any opinions on matters of religion,
forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of
worship whatsoever, or which prescribes punishments for the
same, shall henceforth be of no force or validity in this Com-
monwealth," and "that all dissenters, of whatever denomina-
tion, from the said Church shall be totally free from all levies,
taxes, and impositions whatever toward supporting and main-
taining the said Church, as it now is or may hereafter be estab-
lished, or its ministers." The act further provides that the ves-
tries of the different parishes shall levy and assess upon the titha-
ables, including dissenters, as before, all the salaries and arrearages
due the ministers up to the ist of the ensuing January. These
assessments are also directed where the vestries, counting upon
them, have made engagements, and former provisions for the
poor are directed to be continued, conformist and dissenting
tithables contributing. The fourth section reserves to the Epis-
copal Church her glebe lands held at the time, her churches and
chapels built or then contracted for, and all books, ornaments,
100 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
and decorations used in worship; also all arrearages of money
or tobacco then due, and the perpetual benefit and enjoyment
of all private donations. The act closes with directions for
taking a list of tithables, and enacts that the old law of Twenty-
second of George the Second, for the payment and support of
the clergy, should be "suspended" until the termination of the
next General Assembly. That body continued, by successive
acts, to supend the old law until the session commencing Octo-
ber, 1779, when it repealed it entirely, declaring that this and
"all and every act or acts providing salaries for the ministers,
and authorizing vestries to levy the same, shall be and the same
are hereby repealed." The former provisions, however, are
made for arrearages of salary, the performance of engagements,
and the support of the poor. And thus the case mainly stood
until the first session of ijS^.83
On the 25th of June, of the year last mentioned, the House
of Delegates, just before its adjournment, postponed the con-
sideration of a bill to incorporate the Episcopal Church until
the second Monday of November following, when the House
would again resolve itself into committee on the subject. This
interval afforded an opportunity to those who were opposed to the
measure of presenting their views to the House. Accordingly
several petitions were offered on the subject of a connection ot"
the Church with the State, and of grievances which then existed
on the score of religion. On the nth of November a memorial
from sundry Baptist associations held at Dover was presented,
complaining of several acts in force which they believed to be
repugnant to religious liberty, especially the marriage and vestry
act. The following day a memorial from the Presbyterian
Church was presented, setting forth that they felt much uneasi-
ness at the continuance of their grievances, which they com-
plained of in a memorial presented at the last session of Assem-
bly, increased by a prospect of addition to them by certain
exceptionable measures said to be proposed to the Legislature;
83 A succinct and accurate abstract of the laws concerning the Church
to this date, by John Esten Cooke, Esq., may be seen in Bishop
Meade's Old Churches, &c., Vol. II, 437, and in Footers Sketches
of Virginia (first series), 319, et seq. Those who wish to consult the
acts in full will refer to Hening 's Statutes at Large. The parliamen-
tary record of the acts will be found in the Journals.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 101
that they disapproved of all acts incorporating the clergy of any
society independent of their own, or any interference of the
Legislature in the spiritual concerns of religion, and that a
general assessment for its support ought, they think, to be
extended to those who profess the public worship of the Deity
and are comprised within the Declaration of Rights. On the
i6th the memorial of the Presbyterians, presented at the last
session, was referred to the Committee of the Whole.8* On the
2Oth the petition of certain citizens of Lunenburg, Mecklen-
burg, and Amelia was presented, praying that a general assess-
ment for the support of religion be laid, and that an act should
pass incorporating the Episcopal Church. On the ist of Decem-
ber a petition was presented of certain citizens of Rockbridge
expressive of their hostility to assessments for the support of
religion, and declaring that such legislation was impolitic,
unequal, and beyond the rightful sphere of the Assembly, and
that religion ought to be left to its own superior and successful
influence over the minds of men. These were the only expres-
sions of the public will which were recorded on the Journal of
the House; but it is probable that, as the subject had long
engaged the attention of the people, especially during the past
summer, each member considered himself fully instructed upon
it without the formality of a petition.
On the nth of November the House resolved itself into com-
mittee to take the whole subject into consideration, and General
Matthews reported, as the opinion of the committee, that the
people of this Commonwealth, according to their respective
abilities, ought to pay a moderate tax or contribution annually
for the support of the Christian religion, or of some Christian
Church, denomination, or connection of Christians, or of some
form of Christian worship. The question upon agreeing with
the report of the committee was then taken, and it was agreed
with by a vote of forty-seven to thirty-two. As usual, we
record the names and votes of the members who were also mem-
bers of the present Convention: In the affirmative were Patrick
Henry, Jones (of Dinwiddie), King, Thomas Smith, Coles,
84 This and the other memorials of the Presbytery of Hanover,
which are written with great ability, may be found in Foote, Vol. I,
319, et seq.
102 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Thornton, William White, Corbin, Wills Riddick, Eyre, Gas-
kins, Thomas Walke, Allen, and Edmunds (of Sussex), and in
the negative were James Madison, Wilson C. Nicholas, Zacha-
riah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, Strother, Richardson, Clen-
denin, Humphreys, and Matthews.85 A committee was ordered
to prepare and bring in a bill in pursuance of the resolution, and
Patrick Henry, Corbin, Jones (of King George), Coles, Norvelli
Wray, Jones (of Dinwiddie), Carter H. Harrison, Henry Taze-
well, and Prentis were placed upon it.
It has happened unfortunately for Virginia that, while her
religious history has been recorded in minute detail by skilful
and zealous sectarians, her political history, from the Declaration
of Independence to the present day, has remained wholly uncer-
tain.86 Hence, her policy in religious matters at an important
epoch has been imperfectly understood ; and the patriotic and
enlightened men who controlled her early councils have been
blamed by one class of sectarians for not having gone far enough
in reforming our religious institutions, and by another class as
having gone too far. And it is mainly in a political aspect that
all her enactments on the subject of religion ought to be viewed.
Of these perplexing religious questions the observance of a
plain maxim will lead us safely through the maze. On the sub-
ject of religion, as on every other, the will of the constituent is
the rule of the representative. What was the will of the people
85 Among the ayes were Henry Tazewell, Edmunds (of Brunswick),
Nicholas Cabell, Carter H. Harrison, Edward Carrington, Jones (of
King George), Richard Lee, and Joseph Prentis, and among the noes
were Spencer Roane, Jacob Morton, John Breckenridge, William Rus-
sell, and Richard Bland Lee.
^Burk and his successors stop at the siege of York, as does Charles
Campbell. Howison alone embraces the period of which I am now
writing, and he candidly tells us that a very general outline only is
within the scope of his work. His authorities for this date are Footers
Sketches, The Literary and Evangelical Magazine of the Late Dr.
John H. Rice, and VVirt's Life of Henry — all excellent in their proper
place ; but it seems to me that the true history of our religious measures
cannot be fully known without a perpetual reference to the Journals.
I do not pretend to supply the omissions of preceding writers farther
than is necessary to put the conduct of the members of the Assembly
of 1784, who were also members of the present Convention, in its
proper light.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 103
on the subject of assessments? The proposition to lay an
assessment had been for several years before them, and it was
well known that the question would probably be decided by the
present Assembly. Memorials expressive of that will were laid
before the House of Delegates. Of all these there were two
only that opposed the policy of assessments — the memorial of
certain citizens of Rockbridge, which only in part related to the
subject of religion,87 and the memorial from the Baptist asso-
ciations at Dover.
Even the Baptist memorial did not expressly object to an
assessment, but laid the burden of its prayer on the marriage
and vestry acts;88 while the citizens of Lunenburg, Mecklen-
burg, and Amelia, the Episcopal, the Methodist Episcopal, and
the Presbyterian Churches favored the measure.89 There was
then a preponderating majority of the people, as well as of the
intelligence and wealth of the State, inclined to such a policy.
The proposed scheme was also in entire unison with the six-
teenth section of the Declaration of Rights, as that section
simply declares that all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and
the bill enacted, at a time when there was neither a Jew nor an
infidel in the State, that each individual called upon to pay the
assessment might, if he pleased, apply it to a Christian Church,
or to the public schools in his own county. The question, then,
arises whether the statesmen of 1784 manifested any lack of
liberality or good sense in allowing the people, at their own
87 House Journal, December i, 1784. The other topic of the petition
was the calling of a convention.
88 House Journal, November n, 1784.
89 The Presbyterian memorial did not object to the principle of an
assessment, but prayed that it should be extended to the Jew and the
Mohammedan as well as the Christian, or (in its own words) on the
•most liberal plan. See the memorial at length in Footers Sketches,
Vol. I, 337. In the following year a very different view was taken in
the memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover, which was drawn with
extraordinary ability by Graham, who doubtless drafted the petition
of the Rockbridge people, presented at the present session of the
Assembly.
104 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
solicitation, to tax themselves for the purpose of religious or
general instruction, as they might at the time of giving in their
lists deem proper.
But it is a great mistake to suppose that the assessment was a
religious question at all. It was strictly meant as a matter of
police. It had no religious obligation whatever. So far as it
may be supposed to have any religious bearing, it was merely
permissive. It instructed the tax-gatherer to receive a certain
sum of money from a given individual and pay it to any
religious society that individual might choose to name, or to
appropriate it to the education fund of his county. It was
substantially a tax in favor of education, with an alternative that
allowed a different application of the money if the tax payer so
pleased. It was this option alone which imparted to the measure
a religious aspect, and it was in the power of the tax-payer to
deprive it of that aspect at his own will and pleasure. It had no
more connection with Church and State than the law has which
punishes the infraction of Sunday, which prevents a congrega-
tion from being disturbed in time of public worship, or which
hangs a man who slays a parson.
There was yet another view of this question that presented
itself most favorably to the far-seeing friends of religious free-
dom, which has been wholly overlooked by those who have con-
demned assessments with such extreme severity. By requiring
every person to pay a certain sum towards the religious or
literary instruction of his neighbors, the act might indirectly
tend, so far as it exerted any religious influence at all, to
strengthen, and even to multiply, the various sects in the com-
munity, and thus, by dividing the people into schisms, establish
a more powerful barrier than law against the ascendancy of any
one denomination. Even at this day it is the opinion of our
most philosophic statesmen that the greatest obstacle to the
establishment of a single church in the State is to be found, not
so much in positive law — constitutional or statute — as in the
infinite multiplicity of sects. Should a sect include a majority
of the people, it may repeal the law and even amend the Consti-
tution; and it is more probable that such a sect might obtain a
share in the government than that all the various sects should
unite in stripping themselves of their equal privileges and posi-
ALEXANDER WHITE. 105
tion in the eye of the law and subject themselves to the authori-
tative and arbitrary rule of a rival denomination.90
On the 1 7th of November the House of Delegates resolved
itself into committee on the subject of religion, and when the
committee rose General Matthews reported two resolutions, one
of which declared that so much of the memorial of the Hanover
Presbytery and of the Baptist associations as prays that the
laws regulating the celebration of marriages and relative to the
construction of vestries was reasonable; and the second, that
acts ought to pass for the incorporation of all religious societies
which may apply for the same. The first resolution, having
been read a second time, was agreed to by the House without a
division. On the second resolution there was a difference of
opinion, and a vote was taken upon it by ayes and noes, which
resulted in its passage by the large majority of thirty-nine.
Alexander White demanded that the names of the members be
recorded in the Journal, and was seconded by Carter Henry
Harrison. Those who voted in the affirmative were Patrick
Henry, Archibald Stuart, Watkins, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie),
King, Richardson, Thomas Smith, Coles, Humphreys, Temple,
Wills Riddick, Corbin, Littleton Eyre, Gaskins, Ruffin, Allen,
Briggs, and Matthews,91 and those who voted in the negative
90 1 have no means at hand of ascertaining the number of the persons
in full communion with the various sects in Virginia, but my general
recollection of the numbers would give to the Baptist Church (including
the Campbellite and other branches) 100,000; the Methodist Episcopal
and the Methodist Protestant, together, 100,000 ; the Presbyterian (old
and new school), about 40,000; the Protestant Episcopal, about 8,000;
the Catholics and Jews, united, not more than 5,000. It is thus evident
that if the Methodists and Baptists were to sink their distinctive tenets,
and unite on a common platform as a single sect, they could call a con-
vention and create a church establishment whenever they pleased. I
am aware that the Baptist and Methodist Churches include a greater
proportion of our slaves than the Presbyterian and the Episcopal, but
any reasonable deduction on this account would still make them all-
powerful as a united body. Hence, our protection from a religious
establishment is founded more in the multiplicity of sects than in the
law or the Constitution.
91 Among those not members of the present Convention who voted
in the affirmative were Spencer Roane, Cropper, N. Cabell, Edmunds
(of Brunswick), VVray, Jones (of King George), Richard Bland Lee,
106 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
were James Madison, Alexander White, Zachariah Johnston,
W. C. Nicholas, Trigg, Strother, and Clendenin. Committees
were appointed to prepare and report bills for each of the two
resolutions; those composing the committee to report a billl
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church were Carter
Henry Harrison, Patrick Henry, Thomas Smith, William An-
derson, and Henry Tazewell. On the nth of December Mr.
Harrison reported the bill to incorporate the Episcopal Church,
which was read a first time and ordered to be read a second
time. It was before the Committee of the Whole on the i8th
and the 2Oth, and on the 22d it passed the House by a vote of
forty-seven to thirty eight — ascertained by ayes and noes; James
Madison,92 John Marshall, William Grayson, Benjamin Harrison
(of Berkeley), Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Miles King, Joseph
Jones (of King George), Thornton, Corbin, Willis Riddick,
Eyre, Ronald, Ruffin, Edmunds (of Sussex), and Briggs voting
in the affirmative, and W. C. Nicholas, Zachariah Johnston,
Archibald Stuart, John Trigg, Strother, Clendenin, Humphreys,
and Isaac Vanmeter in the negative.93
The incorporation of the clergy of the Protestant Episcopal
Church was an important incident in the religious controversy
which began with the first Assembly in October, 1776, and was
terminated, in its legislative aspect, by the passage of the act of
1802, which ordered a general sale of the glebe lands. It tended
to infuse a bitterness in the subsequent discussions not before
known, and was upheld by one party with all its zeal, and
and Richard Lee, and in the negative were John Taylor (of Caroline),
Nathaniel Wilkerson, John Breckenridge, and William Russell. Many
members were absent.
"Madison had recently voted against the resolution which offered
the privileges of incorporation to all sects. The reason of his present
vote may be inferred presently.
93 Among those not members of the present Convention who voted
for the bill were Cropper, N. Cabell, Edward Carrington, C. H. Harri-
son, Richard Lee, and Henry Tazewell, and those who voted against it
were Spencer Roane, John Nicholas, Jacob Morton, Henderson, R. B.
Lee, and Michael Bowyer. John Taylor (of Caroline) was absent.
Alexander White had asked and obtained leave of absence on the 2oth
of November, but was present on the 29th, and voted on that day, as
will be seen hereafter.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 107
denounced by all not included in its scope with unusual severity.
At this day we may safely regard the question on its own merits,
and form a correct opinion of the conduct of our fathers on a
trying occasion.
The first question that arises is, whether any act of incorpora-
tion ought to be passed by the General Assembly; the second,
whether, if an act of incorporation ought to pass, ought an act
incorporating a religions society receive the sanction of that
body ; and the third, whether the special provisions of the act in
question were just and proper. There have always been a few
of our earlier, as well as later, politicians who were opposed to
the granting of acts of incorporation for any purpose whatever.
As late as the Convention of 1829 Mr. Giles presented a propo-
sition on the subject, and intended to have put forth all his
strength in demonstrating their dangerous effects;9* but the
measure was not sanctioned by that body. In the opinion of
such politicians no association of citizens for any public purpose
should be allowed to sue or be sued, or to have a common seal,
but must be compelled to conduct their affairs through the cum-
brous and perilous machinery of trustees. But no such doc-
trine was advanced in any petition from the people, or was coun-
tenanced by the Assembly. On the contrary, acts of incorpora-
tion were as freely sought and as freely granted for any useful
enterprise of a public nature, conducted by the joint capital of
several individuals, then as now. Perhaps, from obvious reasons,
grants of exclusive privileges were then made more readily than
at present. During the present session the exclusive privilege
of running stage-coaches between Williamsburg and Hampton
had been granted to John Hoomes for a term of years, and the
exclusive right of constructing and managing certain boats for
the term of ten years was conferred upon James Rumsey.95 So
94 He was prevented by indisposition from a constant attendance
during the session, and happened to be absent when his proposition
was called up and rejected. But the body was so much opposed to the
proposition that it rather ungraciously refused to reconsider their vote
on the subject with a view of allowing Mr. Giles to present his views
at length.
95 House Journal, November 15, 1784. The State, however, could at
any time take possession of his boats and determine the charter by
paying him ten thousand pounds, Virginia currency, in gold or silver.
108 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
far, then, as the opinions of the people and of the Assembly were
concerned, there was no serious ground for hostility to the bill
arising from theoretical views of the nature and effect of incor-
porations.
The second question is, whether there was anything in the
character of religious associations which should exclude them
from the privileges which were freely accorded to all others.
Without entering into the minute discussion of the question
whether the proprietors of a church should not have the privi-
lege of holding their property in the same manner in which a
college building or a manufacturing mill is held, and " be relieved
from the precarious fidelity of trustees,"93 it is sufficient to say
that, although there had been a period of several months
allowed by the postponement of the bill for the ascertainment of
public opinion on the subject, none of the memorials or petitions
from societies or individuals recorded in the Journals objected to-
the expediency of incorporating religious associations.
It is true that the Presbytery of Hanover of October, 1784,
objected to the incorporation of the clergy as a class distinct
from the people; but it is obvious that this objection extended
to the form of incorporation only, and not to the expediency of
incorporating the Church as an association. And this view is
sustained by the explicit declaration of the same Presbytery, in
its memorial of the igth of May, 1785 — drawn by the skilful
and unconquerable Graham after the passage of the Episcopal
Church bill — that " we (the Presbytery of Hanover) do not desire
to oppose the incorporation of that Church for the better man-
agement of its temporalities."^ There was then not a single
memorial before the Assembly, which specifically objected to the<
^corporation of a religious society, not excepting the Rock-
bridge petition, which objected to assessments only,98 and which,
96 1 quote these words from the memorial of the Presbytery of Han-
over of May 19, 1784, in Foole, Vol. I, 334.
97 Foote, Vol. I, 343. The italics are in the printed memorial.
98 As the Rockbridge petition was evidently drawn by the same hand
that drafted the Hanover memorial of 1785, which favored acts of
incorporation, had it spoken at all. it would have been in favor of
incorporating religious associations. It may be observed that the
objection of Hanover Presbytery in their memorial of October, 1784^
ALEXANDER WHITE. 109
had it been opposed to incorporations, would have been out-
weighed by the petition from Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, and
Amelia, either of which counties equalled Rockbridge in intelli-
gence, and exceeded it in population and resources. When we
regard the time that elapsed between the committal of the Epis-
copal Church bill on the 25th of June, and its third reading on
the 22d of December following, the unparalleled excitement pro-
duced by the religious disputes in the interval, and the absence
of all objections from the people to the policy of incorporating
religious associations, it is hard to see on what ground the
Assembly could refuse to grant a mere act of incorporation,
which was freely offered to all religious sects by a formal resolu-
tion, to any one religious body which might apply for the same.
"So far, then, the conduct of the Assembly was not only free
from serious objection, but was in the highest degree liberal, and
in perfect consonance with the express and implied wishes of
the people.
The third, and most popular, objection to the bill was the
nature of its provisions. The bill declared that every minister
of the Protestant Episcopal Church, now holding a parish in
this Commonwealth, either by appointment from the vestry or
induction from a governor, and all the vestrymen in the differ-
ent parishes now instituted, or which may hereafter be instituted,
within this Commonwealth — that is to say, the minister and
vestry of each parish, respectively, or, in case of a vacancy, the
vestry of each parish, and their successors forever — are hereby
made a body corporate and politic, by the name of " The
Minister and Vestry of the Protestant Episcopal Church," in
the parish in which they respectively reside. Each vestry could
hold- property not exceeding in income eight hundred pounds
per annum, could sue and be sued, and perform all necessary
acts of a vestry or corporation, and hold the glebe lands and the
churches. A Convention of the Church was to be called, and
the government of the Church to be vested in the Convention,
both as to its forms and doctrines. Such were the principal
enactments of the bill; and so far as the forms are concerned, as
against the bill as incorporating the clergy as a class, was removed by
including the vestry, as well as the minister, in the name of the corpo-
ration.
110 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the same privilege of prescribing forms for themselves was con-
ceded to all churches which would apply for a charter, there was
no favoritism in the provisions. But the Episcopal Church was
entitled by this bill to hold all the churches and glebes which it
was entitled to hold under the act of the October session of
1776. And the question arises here whether the churches and
glebes held by the Episcopal Church belonged to that Church,
as such, or to the people.
Looking at this question with the convictions and feelings of
this day, and regarding it as an original question presenting
itself for the first time, few would hesitate to say that the people
who paid for the building of the churches, and for the purchase
of the glebes, were their rightful proprietors. The Episcopal
Church was originally chosen as an efficient instrumentality in
conveying moral and religious instruction to the people, and was
as essentially an integral part of the Government as a judiciary
constructed for the dispensation of justice, or a treasury depart-
ment for the receipt and disbursement of the public revenue;
and it was fair to suppose that the clergy and vestry had no
more right to the houses in which they preached and wor-
shipped than a judge possesses to the hall in which he performs
his duty, or the treasurer to the room in the capitol in which he
keeps his office. The right of property in the churches and
glebes should seem to be in the Commonwealth, and it should
appear that to confer upon a single sect the property belonging
to all the people would be manifestly unwise and unjust, and, as
the Assembly did not propose to confer an equal amount of
property upon all the sects, it would be in violation of the fourth
article of the Declaration of Rights, which enacts that no man,
or set of men, are entitled to exclusive privileges from the com-
munity. Such is the view which persons of the present day
are apt to take of the subject when presented as an original
question.
But for more than eight years it had ceased to be an original
question. There cannot be a greater mistake than that into
which some theoretical writers have fallen, which supposes that
when our fathers sundered the tie that bound the Colony to the
King we were resolved into a state of nature. The only change
effected in our condition by the deposition of the King was a
change of a foreign executive for one of our own making. The
ALEXANDER WHITE. Ill
body of our jurisprudence remained just as it had been before.
Property in possession of its lawful owners was deemed as sacred
as it ever was, and was so declared to be in the Declaration of
Rights, and WAS held by the same tenures. If any property
may appear to have been invaded by the Declaration of Rights
it was property in slaves; yet, though there were few or no
slaves at that time in that vast territory beyond the Blue Ridge,
none deemed its tenure less secure after the adoption of the
Declaration of Rights than before. All the provisions of that
artificial polity, the growth of a thousand years, and the
emblem of a high civilization, which were binding before the
Declaration of Rights was adopted, were equally sacred after its
adoption. Hence, when, after the Declaration of Independence,
the rights of individuals or associations were concerned, the
question was not what the law of nature said upon the subject,
but what were the laws of the land.
There were grave objections to the division of the church
property at this time (1784) in the mode just alluded to, which
had great weight with the eminent jurists who were to vote upon
the bill.99 Indeed, the question of the disposition of the churches
and glebes was far from being an original question. Setting
aside all right and title held by the Episcopal Church to its
houses and lands prior to 1776, the members of the House
knew that the Convention of that year which framed the Con-
stitution not only did not repeal the corporate character of the
Church, but sought to make it more efficient by amending its
liturgy. At the close of the session of the Convention that
declared independence, the Episcopal Church was as much an
establishment as she had been from the passage of the act of the
*The House of Delegates then held as able men as ever appeared
in our councils. Among them were James Madison, who was always
placed at the head of the Committee on the Judiciary ; Henry Taze-
well, who was soon after the present date elected a judge of the
General Court and then a judge of the Court of Appeals ; John Mar-
shall, afterwards Chief Justice of the United States ; William Grayson,
one of the ablest lawyers as well as statesmen of his age; Jones of
King George, and Jones of Dinwiddie, and other distinguished men,
who voted for the bill ; while the only able lawyer who opposed it was
Spencer Roane, then a young man, and Archibald Stuart, then also
very young. John Taylor (of Caroline) was absent.
112 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
twenty-second year of George the Second. Great changes had
been made in her authority and revenues at the October session
of 1776; but, shorn as she was, she was still an establishment;
and the act of that session distinctly reserved to her her churches
and her glebes. How far it was just and proper to confirm the
Church in her title to property under existing laws we shall not
discuss here; but it was a grave question with eminent lawyers
whether the act of 1776 did not settle the question of property
forever. Supposing the Church had not a perfect title, the
right of the Assembly to make donations was unrestricted by
the Constitution ; and, although a donation or confirmation of
title may appear to trench upon the Declaration of Rights, that
instrument was then believed by prominent members of the
Convention that framed it to be no part of the Constitution; nor
had any decision settling its relation to the Constitution then
been made.100
In the eye of the law the Assembly was competent to bestow
public property upon literary or religious associations according
to its discretion ; and the act of 1776 confirming the right of the
Church to the property held in possession, was, in its nature
and extent, insignificant when compared with the act of the
same session converting all the lands in the Commonwealth held
by tenants in tail into fee simple. The members of the Assem-
bly well knew that if they made any new enactment touching
the property of the Church, the subject would immediately be
brought before the courts, and what would be the decision of the
court of the last resort was hardly a matter of doubt. Indeed,
nine years later, when the Assembly had passed the act of 1802
ordering the glebes to be sold, that court would, but for the sud-
den death of its chief, have pronounced that act unconstitutional,
and restored the glebes to the Episcopal Church.101 With these
facts before them, the members of the House, in a spirit of pru-
dence and peace, made no new provision in the present bill
100 Edmund Randolph denied its authority as a part of the Constitu-
tion as late as the year 1788, and that denial was made in the presence
of the present Convention.
101 The Court of Appeals had heard the argument in the case, and
Pendleton had prepared an opinion in favor of the Church, which he
was to have delivered the day on which he died.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 113
respecting the property of the Church, but simply remitted it to
the rights and titles which it enjoyed under the act of 1776 — an
act made by the identical men who composed the Convention of
1776, and were sitting as the House of Delegates under the
Constitution which they had formed. That act was either con-
stitutional, or it was not. If it was constitutional, then the
present bill did not confer any right or title to property which
the Church did not already possess under the sanction of law;
and if it was unconstitutional, then it was the province of the
judiciary to decide the question, and the provisions of the present
bill in respect to property were of no avail. It will thus appear,
from a full view of the case, that the majority which carried the
bill incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church acted with
that wise foresight that became a deliberate body, and in the full
spirit of religious freedom.
In a historical as well as in a moral view, it is much to be
regretted that the religious controversy, which was soon to wage
more fiercely than ever, had not ended in our legislative halls
with the passage of this bill, or if it was destined to continue,
had not been transferred to the cooler arena of the courts.
Before the close of the session religious freedom was established
as substantially as it was in the following year ; and the speedy
and successful adjustment of this vexed question might have
saved from decay many of those venerable structures in which
our fathers worshipped, and which ultimately became the prey
of the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and the still
more brutal spoliation of man; and might have rescued from
desecration those noble monuments which the piety of the
people had reared to protect and honor the abodes of the dead.
It might have prevented the almost entire extinction of an illus-
trious branch of the Church of Christ, which had achieved great
and glorious things in the common cause, and the literature of
which is still the pride of the Anglo-Saxon race ; 1M and it might
1MThe memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover estimated the value
of church property at "several hundred thousand pounds"; but the
sales contributed the merest pittance to the public funds. The down-
fall of the Episcopal Church was owing partly to the prejudice arising
from its former connection with the British Crown, and the hostility
which an establishment, as such, must necessarily excite in any country
in proportion that it is free; partly from the large emigration from
114 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
have filled the pulpit with learned and faithful ministers through-
out a populous region of our country at a time when none other
existed to take their places, and might thus in some measure
have tended to avert that torrent of infidelity which was soon to
sweep over fhe land and scatter destruction in its train.
We now advert to the action of the committee appointed to
bring in a bill providing for an assessment in pursuance of the
resolution adopted by the House on the nth of November.
Patrick Henry had been placed at its head, but he had in the
mean time been elected Governor, and Francis Corbin, on the
2d of December, reported a bill "establishing a provision
for teachers of the Christian religion," which was immediately
read a first time and ordered to be read a second time. On
Friday, the 3d, it was read a second time and referred to a com-
mittee of the whole House for the following Thursday. Finally,
on the 24th the engrossed bill came up on its passage, and a
motion was made that its further consideration be postponed
until the fourth Thursday in November next; James Madison,
Wilson C. Nicholas, Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, John
Eastern Virginia to the upper and western counties and to Kentucky,
but mainly from the irreligious demeanor of its clergy, both before and
after the Revolution. There was no hostility to the Episcopal Church
as a Church of Christ. If any man felt that hostility, Samuel Davies
might have been expected to feel it. That illustrious man was the
father of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia, and was as fearless in
the expression of his opinions as he was able in defending them.
But he candidly declares that, " had the doctrines of the Gospel been
solemnly and faithfully preached, I am persuaded that there would
have been few dissenters in these parts of Virginia, for their first objec-
tions were not against the rites and ceremonies of that Church, much
less against her excellent articles, but against the general strain of the
doctrines delivered from the pulpit; so that at first they were not
properly dissenters from the original Constitution of the Church of
England, but the most strict adherents to it, and only dissented from
those who had forsaken it." One thing our fathers owed to the old
clergy of the Church, who, though they were sometimes tempted to
hunt foxes, fight duels, and to drink hard, were capital scholars, and
and taught Latin and Greek and mathematics quite as thoroughly as
they have been taught since. It is to this source mainly that we are
indebted for that admirable literary preparation which made the
State papers of our public men worthy of the cause in which they were
engaged.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 115
Trigg, Strother, Clendenin, Humphreys, Isaac Vanmeter,
Ronald, Edmunds (of Sussex), Briggs, and Matthews voting in
the affirmative, and John Marshall, Benjamin Harrison (of
Berkeley), Watkins, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Miles King,
Thomas Smith, Thornton, Corbin, Wills Riddick, Littleton
Eyre, Edmund Ruffin, Thomas Walke, and John Allen voting
in the negative. The motion prevailed by a vote of forty-five
to thirty -eight.103
The postponement was expressly designed to submit the
question of assessment to the people. Accordingly, the House
ordered " that the bill with the ayes and noes on the question of
postponement be published in handbills, and twelve copies
thereof to be delivered to each member of the General Assem-
bly, to be distributed in their respective counties; and the peo-
ple thereof be requested to signify their opinion respecting the
adoption of such a bill to the next session of Assembly." We
have already shown that the question of assessments had no con-
nection with the notion of an establishment, but arose from a
conviction that some certain means of support might be afforded
to religious teachers of all sects, who might thus be induced to
settle in the Commonwealth. The preamble of the bill declares
"that the general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a
natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their
vices, and preserve the peace of society, which cannot be effected
without a competent provision for learned teachers who may be
thereby enabled to devote their time and attention to the duty of
instructing such citizens as from their circumstances and want of
education cannot otherwise attain such knowledge; and it is
judged that such provision may be made by the Legislature with-
out counteracting the liberal principle heretofore adopted and
intended to be preserved, by abolishing all distinctions of pre-
eminence amongst the different societies or communities of
103 Among those not members of the present Convention who voted
for the postponement were Spencer Roane, Nicholas Cabell, Jacob
Morton, M. Bowyer, Moses Hunter, John Nicholas, John Breckenridge,
Charles Porter, John Bowyer, Gawin Hamilton, Isaac Zane, John
Hopkins, Mann Page, and William Brent, and against it were Henry
Tazewell, Carter H. Harrison, Philip Barbour, Joseph Jones (of King
George), R. B. Lee, Richard Lee, and Nathaniel Nelson. The vote
shows a very thin House.
116 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Christians." The obvious tendency of the bill was to create
and sustain a variety of sects, and thus most effectually provide
against the predominance of any one of them in particular.
Nor should we overlook, in forming an opinion of the policy of
the bill, the utter destitution of religious services at that day
throughout entire districts of country. The old system of
church supply had gone down, and the new had not taken its
place. A single fact will show the absence of intelligent preach-
ing in some populous parts of the State. More than four years
later two young Presbyterian missionaries from the Valley visited
Petersburg, and there preached the first sermon ever delivered
by a clergyman of their sect in that town.10*
The only other topic connected with the clergy that was acted
upon during the present session was the amendment of the law
passed at the preceding sessions concerning marriages. It was
now enacted " that it shall and may be lawful for any ordained
minister of the Gospel, in regular communion with any society
of Christians, and every such minister is hereby authorized, to
celebrate the rites of matrimony according to the forms of the
church to which he belongs," and thus placed the law of the
land on that just and equal footing which it now holds.
Among the political questions of the session was one which
has, in some of its forms, maintained an interest to the present
time, and which related to the extradition of fugitives from
justice. The position of the United States between the terri-
tories of Great Britain on the north and northwest, and those of
Spain on the west and south, rendered it important that a good
understanding should exist respecting the delivery of persons
who, having committed a crime within the dominions of one of
the Powers, might flee into those of another. On the 26th
of November John Breckenridge, from the Committee of the
Whole, reported certain amendments made therein to a bill "for
104 For the religious condition of the people of that day, even in the
thickly-settled parts of the country, consult the narrative of the two
missionaries mentioned above in the Life of Dr. A. Alexander of
Princeton^ by his son. Alexander was one of the young preachers,
and the other was Benjamin Porter Grigsby, who afterwards became
the pastor of the first Presbyterian church ever gathered in Norfolk,
who died in the prime of manhood from yellow-fever, and whose
remains now repose in the yard of Trinity church, Portsmouth.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 117
punishing certain offences injurious to the tranquility of this
Commonwealth"; and a motion was made to strike out the first
amendment and insert in its place an amendment which declared
the desire of Virginia, in all cases, to manifest her reverence for
the laws of nations, to cultivate amity and peace between the
United States and foreign Powers, and to support the dignity
and energy of the Federal Constitution; and enacted "that if
any citizen of Virginia should go beyond the limits of the
United States within the acknowledged jurisdiction of any civil-
ized nation, and should within the same commit any crime for
which, in the judgment of the United States, in Congress assem-
bled, the law of nations, or any treaty between the United States
and a foreign nation, requires him to be surrendered to the
offended nation, and shall thereafter flee within the limits of this
Commonwealth, and the sovereign of the offended nation shall
exhibit to the United States, in Congress assembled, due and
satisfactory evidence of the same, with a demand for the offender,
and the United States, in Congress assembled, shall thereupon
notify each demand to the Executive of this State, and call for
the surrender of such offender, the Governor, with the advice
of the Council of State, is hereby authorized to cause him to be
apprehended, and conveyed and delivered to such person or
persons as the United States, in Congress assembled, may pre-
scribe." This limited law of extradition, which applied to our
own citizens, but not to those of any other nation, was discussed
at great length. Suspicions of England were rife among our
wisest statesmen; and it was also feared by some that Spain
might seek to entrap individuals living on our frontiers, and by
the instrumentality of such a provision get them into her power.
The motion prevailed by a majority of four votes only; James
Madison, John Marshall, Johnston, Archibald Stuart, Watkins,
Isaac Coles, Humphreys, Littleton Eyre, Ruffin, Thomas Walke,
and Matthews voting in the affirmative, and John Tyler (Speaker),
Alexander White, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Trigg, Strother,
Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Thomas Smith, Clendenin, Isaac
Vanmeter, Cor bin, Gaskins, Ronald, and Briggs in the nega-
tive.105 Most of the votes on such questions had a geographical
105 Among those not members of the present Convention who sus-
tained the amendment were Henry Tazewell, John Taylor (of Caro-
line), Jacob Morton, C. H. Harrison, W. Walker, Philip Barbour, Jones
118 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
tinge, which the curious eye may detect; and it will occur to the
reader that a great man, whose name is second on the roll of
ayes, was, a few years later, to make one of the most extraordi-
nary displays of his intellect on a question somewhat similar to
the present.106
The subject of the British debts was again considered; and a
series of resolutions was reported from the Committee of the
Whole, the purport of which was a repeal of all acts of Assem-
bly in conflict with the fourth article of the definitive treaty of
peace; the recommendation that interest should not be stated
between the igth day of April, 1775, and the 3d of March, 1783;
the balance due British creditors should be paid in seven annual
instalments, the first of which should become due on the ist of
April, 1786; the suggestion of providing for a more ready collec-
tion of the British debts than was practicable under existing
laws; and a repeal of the law concerning forfeitures and escheats
from British subjects. All of the series were agreed to without
a division, and Edward Carrington, Jones (of King George),
Madison, Grayson, Carter H. Harrison, and Matthews were
ordered to bring in the corresponding bills.
The House soon passed a bill entitled an "act for the enabling
of British merchants to recover their debts from the citizens of
this Commonwealth." The bill was sent to the Senate, and was
returned with many verbal alterations, to which the House would
not consent. A conference was granted — Tazewell, Madison,
Breckenridge, Stuart, and Henderson acting on the part of the
House — and Tazewell reported the result of the conference in
(of King George), R. B. Lee, William Russell, and Charles Porter; and
those who opposed it were John Cropper, Hunter, Wray, West, Thomas
Edmunds (of Surry), Richard Lee, and Joseph Prentis. Charles Por-
ter, last named in the ayes, was the colleague of Madison, and was the
person who defeated the great statesman at the spring election of 1777.
Mr. Madison told Governor Coles, who told me, that he lost his elec-
tion because he would not treat; and I am afraid that Mr. Porter, who
was a near kinsman of mine, gained his by pursuing a different policy.
A venerable friend assured me that Mr. Porter, who ominously hailed
from the "Raccoon Ford " of the Rapid Ann, was unsurpassed in the
tact of electioneering.
106 1 allude to Judge Marshall's speech, in the case of Jonathan Rob-
bins, delivered in the House of Representatives on the 7th of March
1800. See a pretty full report in Benton's Debates, Vol. I, 457, et seq.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 119
the shape of an amendment, which was amended by the House.
At this stage of the contest, before the action of the Senate was
received, the House was compelled, by the absence of a quorum,
to adjourn sine die.101
As an illustration of the pecuniary condition of the State at
this time, we may notice an engrossed bill, which came up on its
passage on the 3oth of December, "discharging the people of
this Commonwealth from the payment of the revenue tax for
the year 1785." It was debated with much warmth, partly on
considerations affecting the true theory of taxation, and partly
on those drawn from the necessities of the people. It was car-
ried by a vote of fifty-one to twenty-nine; Madison, Grayson,
Marshall, W. C. Nicholas, Archibald Stuart, Benjamin Harrison,
Strother, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), King, Clendenin, Hum-
phreys, Eyre, Ronald, Edmunds (of Sussex), Briggs, and Mat-
thews sustaining the* bill, and Johnston, Trigg, Thomas Smith,
Thornton, Temple, Corbin, Wills Riddick, Ruffin, and Thomas
Walke opposing it.108 The vote was so thin that the House
determined to adopt a new method of exposing the negligence of
its members. The names of the absent members were recorded
on the Journal, and it was ordered that the names of all who
were absent without leave should be published in the Virginia
Gazette. On the following day, however, the House rescinded
the order of publication. On the yth of January, 1785, the
House finally adjourned.
It is due to the members who composed the Assembly of 1784
to say that they have not been surpassed in ability and in a
liberal patriotism by any who have since occupied their places.
They discussed the exciting and complicated questions which
arose during their sessions with great skill and learning, and
effected, where it was possible, a wise and satisfactory adjust-
ment of them. The subject of religious freedom was managed
107 For the report from the Committee of the Whole on British debts,
see House Journal, December t, 1784; and for the amendments of the
Senate and the report of the conference, January 5, 1785, pages 106
and 107.
108Judge Roane voted in the affirmative and Judge Tazewell in the
negative. It is much to be regretted that John Taylor (of Caroline)
was absent when nearly all the best questions of the House were
decided.
120 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
with as much liberality as at any subsequent session. All Chris-
tian societies were placed upon the same footing, and were enti-
tled to the same privileges; and if the Episcopal Church received
a charter, it received it under a resolution of the House, which
tendered the same privilege to every sect. The marriage ques-
tion was arranged in a manner agreeable to all denominations;
and the bill concerning religious teachers, though called for by
petitions and memorials, and its principle determined by a vote
of the House, was, nevertheless, in a spirit of deliberation and
compromise, submitted to the people for a distinct expression of
their opinion upon it.109 In a purely political view, the action
of the Assembly was high-toned and unanimous. It went as
far, in relation to the British treaty, as courtesy demanded; for
Great Britain had made (and did not make ten years later) no
reparation for those infractions of the treaty which bore with
peculiar severity upon our own citizens, and still retained, and
did retain for ten years to come, the western forts that threat-
ened the safety of our frontier. And, to pass over many impor-
tant acts which required the utmost deliberation and wisdom in
maturing them, but which it would exceed our province to
record, the Assembly not only voted an address and a statue to
Washington, but bestowed upon him " a certain interest in the
companies established for opening and extending the navigation
of Potomac and James rivers." Thus, in every respect, the
numerous descendants of the members may contemplate the
conduct of their ancestors with a just pride and pleasure.
We now proceed to give a brief outline of some of the pro-
ceedings of the House of Delegates during one of the most
laborious and responsible sessions in its history. It began its
session on the ijth day of October, 1785, but did not form a
quorum until the 24th. Benjamin Harrison (of " Berkeley "), who
had been defeated in Charles City as a candidate for the House, and
going over into Surry had been returned one of the members
108 We omitted to mention the petition of Isle of Wight in favor of
assessments. It was presented on the 4th of November.
110 The bill was evidently drawn by Mr. Madison, and was reported
by him just as the House was about to rise on the 4th of January, 1785,
and was passed unanimously the following day. Mr. Madison was
requested to carry the bill to the Senate.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 121
of that county, was elected Speaker by a majority of six votes
over John Tyler, one of his successful opponents in Charles
City, and the occupant ot the chair at the last session. There
were some few changes in the members. Tazewell having been
appointed by the Executive, before taking his seat in the House,
a judge of the General Court, and Joseph Jones (of King
George) and John Marshall had withdrawn,111 but their places
were filled by several able men, among whom were Arthur Lee,
Meriwether Smith, and James Innes.
The chairmeli of the standing committees were selected with
evident regard to the nature of the duties which they would be
111 The Executive appointment of Tazewell was confirmed by the
Assembly. I cannot tell whether John Taylor, of Caroline, was a mem-
ber. He was on no standing or other committee during the session ;
but the name of John Taylor occurs in a collocation on the list of ayes
and noes that could not apply to his namesake of Southampton. He
certainly did not attend the session more than a day or two. Arthur
Lee lost his seat in a few days (November ist), in consequence of his
having accepted the appointment of Commissioner of the Board of
Treasury of the United States, since his election to the House, and
still held the office. The vote declaring his seat vacant was ayes
eighty, noes nineteen. Among the noes was Madison, also Archibald
Stuart, who was to lose his own seat as a member from Botetourt
before the close of the session on the ground of non-residence, but
not until he had borne the burden of the day (December igth). Har-
rison ought to have lost his seat on the same ground. After he was
defeated in Charles City on the 6th of August, he '' carried his bed and
some furniture to Surry, where he engaged his rooms and board for a
twelvemonth; also a servant and horses, leaving his family in Charles
City" (House Journal, November 2, 1785, and was returned on the
fourth Tuesday of the same month as a member from Surry. It was
palpable that he was not a bona fide resident of Surry at the time of
his election. If the same justice had been dealt to him that was
dealt to Lee and Stuart, he must have lost his seat. But parties had
formed in relation to Harrison and Tyler, and it was foreseen that, if
Harrison was sent home, Tyler would have been restored to the Chair.
Had Harrison been sent home, as he ought to have been, and Tyler
chosen Speaker in his place, as he would have been, we should have
had another chapter in this amusing rivalry between two old neighbors
and esteemed patriots There is a harsh representation of the facts
about the defeat of Harrison in the sketch of his life in the work
called the Biographies of the Signers of Independence, first edition,
which is softened in the second. I have the letter of General W. H.
Harrison, the son of Benjamin, making the correction.
122 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
required to perform. Zachariah Johnston, the unflinching friend
of religious freedom, presided in the Committee of Religion;
John Tyler, in the Committee of Privileges and Elections; Car-
ter Henry Harrison, in the Committee of Propositions and
Grievances; James Madison, in the Committee of Courts of
Justice; Richard Lee, in the Committee of Claims; and Carter
Braxton, in the Committee of Commerce.11*
Some able members of the present Convention held seats in
the House. Beside Harrison, Tyler, Johnston, Madison, and
Innes were Alexander White, Archibald Stuart, French Strother,
Christopher Robertson, Miles King, William Watkins, William
Thornton, John Howell Briggs, Willis Riddick, Joseph Jones (of
Dinwiddie), Wilson Gary Nicholas, Richard Cary, Benjamin
Temple, Samuel Jordan Cabell, John Trigg, Meriwether Smith,
Andrew Moore, George Clendenin, Isaac Coles, Cuthbert Bul-
litt, Henry Lee (of the Legion), Worlich Westwood, Edmund
Ruffin, Parke Goodall, Isaac Vanmeter, Anthony Walke, Thomas
Edmunds (of Sussex), William Ronald, and Thomas Matthews.
It will be remembered that the House had at its last session
distributed among the people copies of the engrossed bill,
establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian religion,
and had invited an expression of their opinions upon its merits.
The bill had been freely discussed since the adjournment, and
numerous petitions were presented throughout the present
session, either approving or condemning it. On the score of
the number of petitions and of petitioners, the majority was
clearly against the bill.113 It was plainly seen, however, that few
112 General Matthews was absent, and could not, consistently with the
rules of the House, be placed on the standing committees.
113 1 annex a list of the counties from which the petitions came.
Where the name of a county appears on both sides, or twice on the
same side, it is owing to several petitions coming from the same
county. The counties are given in the order of the presentation of
their petitions :
IN FAVOR qr THE BILL — Westmoreland, Essex, Richmond county,
Pittsylvania, Lunenburg, Amelia, Halifax.
AGAINST THE BILL— Caroline, Buckingham, Henry, Pittsylvania,
Nansemond, Bedford, Richmond county, Campbell, Charlotte, Acco-
mack, Isle of Wight, Albetnarle, Amherst, Louisa, Goochland, Essex,
Westmoreland, Culpeper, Prince Edward, Fairfax, King and Queen,
Pittsylvania, Mecklenburg, Amelia, Brunswick, Middlesex, Amelia,
ALEXANDER WHITE. 123
or no petitions came from the friends of the Episcopal and
Methodist Churches; while the Presbyterians and Baptists, both
as societies and individuals, took evident pains to put forth all
their strength on the occasion. The memorial of Hanover Pres-
bytery of the loth of August, 1785, discussed at length, and
with great power, the subject of religious freedom, protested
against the passage of the bill, and urged a revision of the act to
incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Church; with an express
declaration, however, that its authors did not object to the incor-
poration of that Church for the better management of its tempo-
ralities, but to its possession of the churches and the glebes.
The remonstrance of the Baptist associations, holding their
sessions in Orange, went still farther, and objected not only to
the bill providing for the payment of religious teachers, and to
certain provisions of the act incorporating the Episcopal Church,
but to the act granting certain exclusions to the Quakers and
Menonists, whose principles would not allow them to bear arms,
and who were excused from the muster-field; all which acts the
remonstrants deemed "repugnant to sound policy, equal liberty,
and the best interests of religion."114 They do not object to the
act incorporating the Episcopal Church on the ground of the
Middlesex, Montgomery, Hanover, Princess Anne, Amelia, Henrico,
Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Northumberland, Prince George, Powhatan,
Richmond county, Spotsylvania, Botetourt, Fauquier, Southampton,
Lunenburg, Loudoun, Stafford, Henrico, Chesterfield, James City,
Washington, "Frederick, Chesterfield, Hanover Presbytery, Baptist
Associations, Otter Peak Presbyterian Church, Sundry Presbyterian
Societies, Frederick Presbyterian Church, Baptist Associations in
Orange.
luSee House Journal, November 17, 1785. This was doubtless the
famous paper drawn by Mr. Madison, which presents on the face of
the Journal the meagre outline only which is given above. It is proba-
ble that many of the petitions contained the paper of Mr. Madison, as
the abstract of most of them is in the same words. As Mr. Madison
voted for the bill to incorporate the Episcopal Church, he could not
consistently include in his paper the subject of religious incorporations
as a grievance. Professor Tucker says (Life of Jefferson, Vol. I, 99)
that George Mason, George Nicholas, and others of their party, pro-
posed to Mr. Madison to prepare a remonstrance to the next Assem-
bly against the assessment, to be circulated throughout the State for
signatures.
124 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
impolicy of religious incorporations, but of certain provisions of
the act.
This strong expression of public opinion seems to have set-
tled the fate of the bill providing for the payment of religious
teachers, without the formality of a vote. The Journal of the
present session contains no mention of the bill whatever. It
was not called up at the appointed time, nor was it reported at
all. It is stated by Howison that the bill was rejected by a small
majority; but in his reference to Wirt, who referred to what he
believed had been the fate of the bill at the preceding session,
misses the date by an entire year.115 Foote says that the bill
was lost in the Committee of the Whole, and the bill concerning
religious freedom was reported to the House. He assigns no
authority for his statement; but if it had been rejected in com-
mittee as an independent bill, it would have been reported to
the House, and the question would have been put on agreeing
with the report of the committee. But the Journal makes no
allusion to the bill. It is possible that the bill might have been,
offered in committee as an amendment to the bill concerning
religious freedom, and rejected; and it would not then have been
reported to the House. If this supposition be correct, the fate
of the bill was decided, not upon its own merits, but as a sub-
stitute for the bill concerning religious freedom; and under the
pressure of such an alternative, many who opposed the prin-
l™ Howison, Vol. II, 298, refers to Wirt, who says "the first bill"
(meaning the act incorporating the Episcopal Church) "passed into a
law; the last" (providing for religious teachers) "was rejected by a
small majority"; but he distinctly refers to the session of 1784, when
Henry was a member of the House. But he errs in stating that even
then the bill was rejected. It was not rejected at all, Wirt mistaking
the definite postponement of the bill to a certain day of the ensuing
session, with a view of submitting it to the people, for a rejection of
the bill. Professor Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, Vol. I, 99, is dis-
posed to view the postponement as a hostile movement; but it is plain
that, as there was a majority of the House on the test question, some
of that majority must have favored the postponement. The statements
of Professor Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, in relation to this part of
our history, deserves respect, not only from the source from which
they come, but incidentally as having passed under the eye of Mr.
Madison, who perused the proof-sheets of much of the first volume of
that work.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 125
ciple of assessments might have been constrained to vote
against it.116
In reviewing this period of our history, which is interesting
alike in its religious and in its political bearing, it will be the
province of the philosophic observer to inquire whether the bill
providing for the support of religious teachers was decided on
its intrinsic merits, or by the policy of religious sects, or from
the financial condition of the country. That the measure of
assessments was- well received in the first instance is proved by
the vote of the House of Delegates — ascertained by ayes and
noes. The bill brought forward in pursuance of the vote on
assessments passed its early stages without opposition, and was
postponed for obvious reasons to the following session. When
that session came round, no vote was ever taken directly upon it
in the House. If the House of Delegates leaned either way on
the bill, it was inclined in its favor. As to the policy of religious
sects, as such, it was sustained to the last by the Episcopalians,
and almost to the last by the Presbyterians. It was only in the
last memorial from Hanover Presbytery that serious objections
were taken against the expediency of assessments. The Bap-
tists alone from the first opposed all legislative action in religious
matters. The temporal interest of each sect, though it may not
have been the result of deliberate design, was in unison with its
abstract opinions on the subject. The Episcopalian, who had
heretofore received public support, and who knew that the
majority of wealth, and probably of numbers, was on his side,
could not think hard of a policy which allowed him the privi-
116 The Rev. John B. Smith is said to have spoken three days in the
Committee of the Whole. He must have received permission from
the committee. If he had received it from the House, some notice of
it would have appeared on the Journal. The Rev. Reuben Ford was
deputed by the Baptist associations to present their remonstrance to
the House. He, too, may have addressed the committee; but the
memorial was presented by a member of the House. The authority
for the statement concerning the Rev. Mr. Smith is the Literary and
Evangelical Intelligencer, of which I do not possess a complete set,
and especially of the period in question ; but Dr. Rice, its editor,
though too young to have known Smith personally at the time, lived
in his old neighborhood, was intimate with his personal friends, and
was eager and cautious in gathering the materials of a history of the
Presbyterian Church.
126 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
lege of paying his tax in support of his own Church. The Pres-
byterians, who in intelligence were equal to the Episcopalians,
but were surpassed by them in wealth, justly thought that, as all
the churches and glebes had been retained by the Episcopalians,
a pro-rata assessment might tend to strengthen their most
formidable rivals, and in the same ratio to weaken themselves.
The Baptists, though numerous, were poor, and it was evidently
their policy rather to leave the religious contributions of their
rivals to private impulse than to enforce them by law.117
There was, however, an obstacle to the success of the bill not
less difficult to be surmounted than any abstract notion of the
nature of assessments. The State was overwhelmed with an
unsettled debt. Taxation was severe; and it was manifest, by
petitions and other proofs, that it could hardly be borne. The
Journal of the present session contains numerous memorials from
whole counties, and from counties united in districts, praying
for relief. One county prayed that its taxes should be appropri-
ated to the making of a road towards the seat of government —
or, in other words, that money should be commuted for labor.
Another county prayed that the sheriffs should not distrain for
taxes for a certain period, and that facilities for the payment
thereof should be granted; and a bill for the purpose passed the
117 The Methodists were as yet regarded as connected with the Epis-
copal Church. No memorial from them as a body was presented
during the session. The relative numbers of the different sects at this
time (1785) I suppose to have been in favor of the Episcopalians, next
of the Presbyterians, then of the Baptists. Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes
on Virginia, estimates the number of dissenters to have been two-
thirds, and, in his Memoir, as a majority of the people at the beginning
of the Revolution. But when we remember that all the offices and
honors of the Colony, that a seat in the Council, a commission in the
militia, or a constable's post could only be held by a member of the
Church of England, the amount of wealth owned by its members,
and the social caste of the day, it is hardly to be presumed that a
majority of the people were in open opposition to the Established
Church. Mr. Madison evidently thought Mr. Jefferson's estimate alto-
gether beyond the mark. It may be stated here that Washington, R.
H. Lee, Patrick Henry, and some other leading men warmly approved
the policy of assessments, while George Mason, Madison, George
Nicholas, and others opposed it. Writings of Washington, Vol. XII, 404 ;
Life of R. H. Lee, Vol. II, 51; Tucker's Jefferson, Vol. I, 99.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 127
Assembly, was printed in handbill form, and dispatched by a
special messenger to the counties to which it applied. A bill
" to postpone the collection of the tax for 1785," was brought
forward, and was lost by two votes only. Three.counties applied
at the same time to be exempted from all taxes for a limited
period. Then the unsettled state of the public mind in relation
to the payment of British debts, many of which had been paid,
and were now to be paid a second time, and in coin, rendered
the suggestion of a new pro-rata tax highly distasteful. To
add to the gloom which hung so heavily at this time above a
people thinly scattered over a vast extent of country, and just
emerging from an eight years' war, was the loss of the West
India trade, by a British order in council. Petersburg, Norfolk,
and other ports complained loudly of their loss of business, and
called for relief or retaliation.118 It is nearly certain that no
additional tax for any purpose, religious or political, would have
been approved at that time by a direct vote of the people.
As several of the remonstrances against the bill, providing for
the payment of teachers of the Christian religion, called for
a revision of the act^ incorporating the Protestant Episcopal
Church, it may be proper to state in this connection that, on the
29th of December, leave was given to bring in a bill "to amend
the act for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church," and
Wilson C. Nicholas, Meriwether Smith, Alexander White,
Zachariah Johnston, Francis Corbin, and Carter Braxton were
appointed to prepare and bring it in. It was accordingly brought
in, and on the i6th of January, 1786, was read a second time
and committed to the whole House; but in the press of business
it was postponed from day to day, and was not reached before
the final adjournment.
The ever- memorable act of this session was the passage, on
the i7th of December, by the House of Delegates, of the bill
for establishing religious freedom. As we have heretofore
alluded to the bill in detail, we will only add here that it was
118 This order in council was met by the passage of a bill to impose
additional-tonnage duties on British vessels. The bill was brought in
on the last day of the session, and read three times and passed by the
House, and the same by the Senate, and enrolled — all in one day.
128 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
passed in the House of Delegates by a majority of fifty- four
votes — ascertained by ayes and noes. Of the members of the
present Convention who voted in the affirmative were Alexander
White, James Madison, Wilson Gary Nicholas, Samuel Jordan
Cabell, Zachariah Johnston, John Trigg, Archibald Stuart,119
French Strother, Meriwether Smith, Charles Simms, David
Stuart, Thomas Smith, George Clendenin, Ralph Humphreys,
Isaac Vanmeter, George Jackson, Benjamin Temple, Christo-
pher Robertson, Cuthbert Bullitt, Andrew Moore, and James
Innes, and in the negative were Miles King, Worlich West-
wood, William Thornton, Francis Corbin, Wills Riddick,
Anthony Walke, and Richard Cary.120 As soon as the vote was
announced Alexander White was ordered to carry the bill to
the Senate and request the concurrence of that body. On the
2gth the Senate returned the bill with an amendment, which
struck out the whole of the preamble, and inserted in its stead
the sixteenth article of the Declaration of Rights. The House
refused to agree to the amendment by a vote of fifty-six to
thirty-six. As the preamble of the bill was much admired in
Europe, and is justly regarded with great favor here, the reader
will be inclined to inquire how the members of the present Con-
vention, who were then members of the House, voted upon the
subject. In the affirmative — that is, for striking out the pre-
amble— were John Tyler, Alexander White, David Patteson,
Thomas Smith, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Miles King, Wor-
lich Westwood, Parke Goodall, George Jackson, John Prunty,
William Thornton, Benjamin Temple, Francis Corbin, Willis
Riddick, and Richard Cary; and in the negative — that is, for
retaining the preamble — were James Madison, Wilson C. Nicho-
las, Samuel J. Cabell, Zachariah Johnston, John Trigg, French
Strother, Meriwether Smith, Charles Simms, David Stuart,
119 It was not until the igth— two days later — that the seat of Judge
Stuart was vacated, as before mentioned.
170 King,. Thornton, Corbin, and Riddick voted, on the nth of Novem-
ber, 1784, for the resolution declaring the expediency of assessments,
on which the bill providing for teachers of the Christian religion was
founded. Westwood was absent when the vote was taken, and
Richard Cary was not then a member of the House.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 129
William White, Cuthbert Bullitt, Andrew Moore, and Thomas
Matthews.121
The bill was returned to the Senate, which held it under
advisement until the gth of January, 1786, when it returned it
to the House of \Delegates, with the message that that body
adhered to its amendment, and desired a free conference with
the House on the subject. On the same day the House agreed
to a free conference with the Senate, and Madison, Johnston,
and Innes were appointed to manage the conference on the part
of the House; and Madison was ordered to acquaint the Senate
therewith. On the I2th a message from the Senate announced
that that body had appointed managers to meet the managers
on the part of the House in free conference on the subject-matter
of the amendment of the Senate to the bill for establishing reli-
gious freedom, and they were attending in the conference cham-
ber. The House immediately ordered its managers to attend,
and in due time they reported that they had met the managers
of the Senate in free conference, and fully discussed the subject.
On the 1 3th the House considered the report, receded from their
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and do agree to
the said amendment, with amendments. What these amend-
ments were is not stated in the Journal. On the i6th the Senate
informed the House that it had agreed to the amendments pro-
posed by the House to the amendments of the Senate, with
several amendments, to which that body desires the concurrence
of the House. The House, in the course of the day, took the
amendments into consideration, and agreed to them by a
majority of twenty-six votes — ascertained by ayes and noes.
The amendments to the preamble, which the House was com-
pelled to agree to in order to save the bill,1" may be seen by
121 There were three clergymen of the Episcopal Church, or had
been, who voted on the bill establishing religious freedom at some one
of its stages — Charles Mynn Thruston, Thomas Smith, and Anthony
Walke. The two first were in favor of the bill as it passed on the I7th
of December, and the last voted against it. Smith and Walke voted,
as above, against the preamble, and Thruston in favor of it.
122 The original bill, and the bill as amended, may be seen in a single
view in the first volume of Randall's Life of Jefferson, 219-220, and
make an interesting study.
9
•130 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
comparing the act of religious freedom as reported by the
revisers and the act as it now appears in the Code.
The votes in opposition to the preamble of the bill may
be explained on the ground of literary taste, of the supposed
unsoundness of its doctrines in a religious view, and of the
apparent appropriateness of the sixteenth article of the Declara-
tion of Rights as a preamble to the subject-matter of the bill.
Nor does the final vote against the bill necessarily imply any
hostility to religious freedom. There prevailed as great a degree
of religious freedom in the State before its passage as after, and
if at any future time the disposition to connect a Church with
the State should exist, the act of religious freedom could as
readily be repealed as any other. It is probable that all who
voted against the bill approved the policy of assessments, which,
though not inconsistent with its provisions, would be indefinitely
defeated by its passage.123 Fortunately an overwhelming majority
of the House sustained the bill, not only for the truthfulness and
beauty of its reasoning, but as a distinctive and definitive
measure in relation to the connection of the State with religion.124
The subject of slavery was discussed during the session, and that
the descendants may form some opinion of the public sentiment
of their fathers at that epoch, we will trace the course of a peti-
tion in favor of a general emancipation of the negroes.- It was
presented on the 8th of November by one of the members, pur-
ported to be from sundry persons without place, set forth "that
the petitioners are firmly persuaded that it is contrary to the
fundamental principles of the Christian religion to keep such a
considerable number of our fellow creatures (the negroes) in this
123 The reasoning of the act establishing religious freedom applies
only to the impolicy of compelling individuals to sustain a plan of
religion. The assessment bill made the support of any plan optional,
and was only operative in a religious view by the deliberate consent of
each tax-payer.
124 Howison, Vol. II, 299, says that "a careful analysis of these docu-
ments (the memorials of the Hanover Presbytery) will draw from them
every material argument and principle that will be found embodied in
the act for establishing religious freedom." This is, in one sense, true
and proper praise ; but it may be well enough to recall the fact that the
act of religious freedom was published far and wide seven years before
the Hanover memorials were written.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 131
State in slavery; that it is also an express violation of the
principles on which our government is founded; and that a gen-
eral emancipation of them, under certain restrictions, would
greatly contribute to strengthen it, by attaching them by the ties
of interest and gratitude to its support ; and prayed that an act
might pass to that effect." It was the obvious scope of the
petitioners not only that the negroes should be emancipated,
but that they should be made citizens, and reside within the
Commonwealth. As a counter petition was presented at the
same time from Mecklenburg, it is probable that the original
petition came from that county. The counter petition not only
opposed the abolition of slavery, but prayed that the act empow-
ering the owners of slaves to emancipate them be repealed.
Both petitions were ordered to be laid upon the table. On the
loth counter petitions were also presented from Amelia, Bruns-
wick, Pittsylvania, and Halifax. All the petitions were referred
to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Common-
wealth. In the course of the day, however, the House, waiving
the form of going into committee, called up the petition in favor
of abolition, and a motion was made to reject it, which passed
unanimously. On the i4th of December Carter H. Harrison,
from the Committee of Propositions and Grievances, reported
that the petition from Halifax, praying that the act to authorize
the manumission of slaves be repealed, was reasonable. The
question presented by the report of the committee on the Hali-
fax petition was very different from the one just decided. At
that day it was evident that public opinion was disposed to allow
every man to act on the subject of manumission as he pleased,
the law leaning to the side of liberty ; and, as at particular sea-
sons in many parts of the State there was a great demand of
labor, which could be supplied to a certain extent by free
negroes, it does not appear that there was that prejudice against
that class of our population which, now, for obvious reasons,
exists in a greater or less degree throughout the Commonwealth.
As soon as the report of the committee was read a motion was
made to strike out the words "is reasonable," and insert "be
rejected." After a long discussion the vote was taken by ayes
and noes, and it was ascertained there was a tie, when the
Speaker gave his casting vote in the negative. Those who
were members of the present Convention and voted in the
132 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
affirmative were Alexander White, James Madison, John Tyler,
Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, John Trigg, David Patte-
son, French Strother, William Watkins, Worlich Westwood,
Meriwether Smith, Charles Simms, David Stuart, George Clen-
denin, Isaac Vanmeter, William Thornton, William White,
Francis Corbin, Edmund Ruffin, Cuthbert Bullitt, Andrew Moore,
Thomas Edmunds (of Sussex), John Norvell Briggs, and James
Innes, and in the negative were Benjamin Harrison (Speaker),
Wilson C. Nicholas, Samuel Jordan Cabell, Joseph Jones (of
Dinwiddie), Miles King, Thomas Smith, Ralph Humphreys,
Parke Goodall, Christopher Robertson, Anthony Walke, and
Richard Cary.
The amendment was lost, and the question recurred on agree-
ing to the report of the committee, which declared the repeal
of the act to authorize the manumission of slaves to be reason-
able. On this question another contest took place, the ayes
and noes were again called, and the repeal of the act was
ordered by a majority of a single vote. Among the ayes were
W. C. Nicholas, Cabell, Jones, King, Thomas Smith, Hum-
phreys, Goodall, Robertson, Walke, and Cary, and among the
noes were Madison, Tyler, Alexander White, Johnston, Archi-
bald Stuart, Patteson, Strother, Watkins, Westwood, Simms,
Meriwether Smith, David Stuart, Clendenin, Vanmeter, Jack-
son, Thornton, Corbin, Ruffin, Bullitt, Andrew Moore, Edmunds
(of Sussex), Briggs, Innes, and Matthews. The Committee of
Propositions and Grievances was ordered to report a bill to
repeal the act to authorize the manumission of slaves. On the
24th of December the bill was brought in and was read a first
time, and, the question being put that it be read a second time,
it passed in the negative by a majority of seventeen; Nicholas,
King, Thomas Smith, Goodall, Temple, and Cary in the affirma-
tive, and Madison, Tyler, Alexander White, Trigg, Patteson,
Strother, Watkins, Westwood, Simms, David Stuart, Clendenin,
Vanmeter, Prunty, Thornton, William White, Corbin, Bullitt,
Andrew Moore, Briggs, and Matthews in the negative. As
soon as the vote was announced a motion was made to bring in
a bill to amend the act entitled an act to authorize the manu-
mission of slaves, and Carter Braxton, Richard Bland Lee,
Thomson, Tyler, David Stuart, Isaac Zane, Simms, and Nicholas
were ordered to prepare and bring it in. On the ijth of Janu-
ALEXANDER WHITE. 133
ary, 1786, within three days of the close of the session, Braxton
reported the bill to amend the act in question, and it was read a
first time; but on the motion that it be read a second time, the
House rejected it without a count, leaving the law of 1782 as it
originally stood. ^
The manumission of slaves was never popular in the Colony.
When Jefferson, in 1769, for the first time took his seat in the
House of Burgesses, one of the earliest schemes that engaged
his attention was the melioration of the laws respecting slavery .m
He prevailed on Colonel Richard Bland to make the motion in
the House ; but the scheme was scouted, the learned and patri-
otic Bland was denounced as an enemy of his county, and Jeffer-
son owed it to his youth that he was not treated with the same
severity. But, with the establishment of the Commonwealth, a
new spirit began to be diffused among the people, and not only
were obstacles to manumission removed, but the policy of the
relation of slavery was called in question. The Committee of
Revisors unanimously agreed upon the propriety of offering an
amendment to one of the bills, declaring that all slaves born
after a certain day should be free at a certain age, and then to be
deported from the Commonwealth. And though the state of
public sentiment did not justify the offering of such an amend-
ment when the revised bills were discussed, there was an evident
inclination among the leaders of the Revolution to oppose no
obstacle in the way of voluntary manumission. Hence, before
the close of the war (1782),' the bill to authorize the manumis-
sion of slaves was passed, and hence the refusal of the present
Assemby to repeal it.
125 What the precise measure proposed by Mr. Jefferson was is rather
uncertain. In his letter to Governor Coles, dated August 25, 1814, he
says k'he undertook to move for certain moderate extensions of the
protection of the laws to these people." Professor Tucker, in his
Life of Jefferson, Vol. I, 46, states that his object was "merely to
remove the restrictions which the laws had previously imposed on
voluntary manumission, and even this was rejected." The letter to
Governor Coles strongly details the views of its author on the present
subject, and may be found in print in Randall's Life of Jefferson, Vol.
III. 643. It is not in either Randolph's or the Congress edition of his
writings. Its genuineness is beyond question, as I have seen the origi-
nal, and have a copy in manuscript, which I owe to the kindness of the
venerable gentleman to whom it was addressed.
134 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
An interesting event occurred on the 3131 of October in rela-
tion to the Revised Code. Up to this period no nation in
modern times had ever devolved upon a committee the office
of deliberately revising its entire jurisprudence, and, embracing
the work of the revision in the shape of bills, had proceeded to
examine them in detail. It will be remembered that, during the
session of the Assembly in 1776, a Committee of Revisers had
been appointed, consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Pen-
dleton, George Wythe, George Mason, and Thomas Ludwell
Lee. These gentlemen met in Fredericksburg on the i3th of
January, 1777, and divided the task among themselves.126 In
February, 1779, they reassembled in Williamsburg, read and
commented on the parts of each, ordered a fair copy to be made
of the whole, and deputed two of their number to present their
joint work to the Assembly. It was accordingly presented in
the shape of one hundred and twenty-six bills. Thus was
accomplished the most laborious, the most responsible, and the
most delicate undertaking which had then been assigned to three
men, and which, if it stood apart from the great deeds of an
extraordinary epoch, would make an epoch of its own.1"
126 At this meeting all the revisers attended, when George Mason and
Lee resigned, but not until some most important principles were set-
tled, and the parts were assigned to Jefferson, Pendleton, and Wythe.
Professor Tucker says (Life of Jefferson, Vol. I, 104, note) that he
learned from Mr. Madison that Lee and Pendleton were in favor of
codification, Wythe and Jefferson against it, and that Mason gave the
casting vote. I use the word revisor because it is the word of the bill.
In modern times it is written with an e. It is from the mint of Jeffer-
son, and is nearer the original. I may add that the pay of the revisors,
as proposed in the House of Delegates in 1785, was three hundred
pounds apiece, or one thousand dollars of our present currency. What
a theme for the artist, that gathering of the revisors in an attic in
Fredericksburg !
m It is due to Jefferson and Wythe to say that Mr. Pendleton, not
having embraced exactly the views of his colleagues, " copied the
British acts verbatim, merely omitting what was disapproved ; and some
family occurrence calling him home, he desired Mr. Wythe and myself
(Jefferson) to make it what we thought it ought to be, and authorized
us (Wythe and Jefferson) to report him as concurring in the work.
We accordingly divided the work, and re-execttted it entirely, so as to
assimilate its plan and execution to the other parts." (Jefferson to
Skelton Jones, July 28, 1809.) This explicit statement destroys the
ALEXANDER WHITE. 135
The difficulties and dangers of the Revolution now began to
engross the minds of men, and the time and attention of the
Assembly was, for years to come, devoted exclusively to the
complicated topics of the war, and at the commencement of the
present session (1785) nine of the bills only had been enacted
into laws.
And we are now to record the next step in this noble work.
On the 3ist of October Mr. Madison rose in his place in the
House of Delegates, and presented from the Committee of
Courts of Justice, according to order, one hundred and seven-
teen of the printed bills contained in the Revised Code, and not
of a temporary nature. The titles of the bills alone fill two
closely-printed quarto pages of the Journal. The bills were
received, read severally a first time, and ordered to be read a
second time; and on motion they were read severally a second
time and ordered to be committed to the whole House the follow-
ing day. The order was postponed daily until the yth of Novem-
ber, when the House, fully appreciating the nature and urgency
of revising so many fundamental laws, and the importance of
setting apart a specified time for the purpose, resolved "that,
during the continuance of the present session, it be a standing
order of the House that Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday
in each week be set apart and appropriated to the consideration
of the Revised Code in such manner that no business be intro-
duced, taken up, or considered after twelve o'clock of the day
other than the bills contained in the said Revised Code, or such
other as respects the interests of the Commonwealth at large, or
messages from the Executive or the Senate." The House pro-
force of the compliment said by Henry Lee, the son of General Henry
Lee, to have been paid by John Wickham to Pendleton on the superior
precision of his (Pendleton's) part of the revision; and as we may sup-
pose that Jefferson, being the younger and more ready man, recast
much more of Pendleton's part than Wythe, it may be that the very
precision praised by Wickham was the merit of Jefferson. Still,
eminent credit is due to each of the revisors, and it deserves to be
noticed that although the admirable accomplishment of this great
work was sufficient of itself to fill the measure of the fame of each,
yet such were the numerous and valuable services rendered by each
of the revisors to his country that the revision of the laws appears
only as one act of the series. See Randall's Jefferson, Vol. I, 217.
136 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ceeded in good earnest to perform its duty, and made consider-
able progress, when, on the i4th of December, it was resolved
that the further consideration of the several bills in the Revised
Code, from No. 63 to the end, except the bill (No. 68) for the
employment, government, and support of malefactors con-
demned to labor for the Commonwealth; the bill (No. 82) for
establishing religious freedom; the bill (No. 105) reforming the
proceedings in writs of right; and the bill (No. 123) concerning"
executors, be postponed till the next session of the General
Assembly. And on the 2ist the House went into committee
"on the residue of the printed bills in the Revised Code of laws
enumerated in the order of the I4th instant," and, on rising, it
was resolved " that the House would again resolve itself into
committee on the 3ist of March next on the vsaid bills." When
we recall the fact that from 1779 to 1785 nine bills only had been
acted on, and that during the present session the number of
sixty-eight had been reached in regular progression, we may
form an opinion of the dispatch of public business in the days
of our fathers.128
But, engrossing as were the labors expended in the revision
of the laws, the current business of the State would have suf-
ficed to occupy the full time of an ordinary session. Before we
relate the memorable proceedings of the House on Federal
affairs, we will glance at a few acts which exhibit the courtesy
and taste, as well as the sense of justice, of the House. A bill
Wds reported in the early part of the session for the naturaliza-
tion of the Marquis de Lafayette, which passed rapidly through
its several stages, and was passed unanimously into a law. A
bill securing to authors of literary works an exclusive property
128 Those who wish to refer to the acts passed at this session will find
them in Hening's Statutes at Large, Anno 1785 Probably one of the
greatest theatres of usefulness, as well as for the display of his great
powers of management and reasoning, which was presented in Madi-
son's whole career, was his masterly and triumphant generalship of the
revised bills. No man then living but himself — if we except Mr. Jtffer-
son, who always seemed to carry his point by casting a spell over his
political associates — could have achieved the work. And the members
of the House, who were also members of the present Convention, and
who aided him on the occasion, deserve, and should receive, their just
and patriotic praise.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 137
therein for a limited term of years was introduced by Mr. Madi-
son, and received the sanction of both houses. The House
received with due sensibility, on the 3oth of December, the
intelligence of the death of the Honorable Samuel Hardy, a
delegate from Virginia in Congress, who had died in Philadel-
phia, paid cheerfully the expenses which his colleague (Grayson)
had incurred in conducting the funeral, and entered on their
Journal, as a perpetual record, that "the faithful and important
services of Samuel Hardy demand this token of his country's
gratitude."129
129 The bill of funeral expenses was ^"114 gd. Samuel Hardy died in
Philadelphia on the ijth of October, 1785, while attending Congress
as one of the delegates from Virginia. His death was announced the
same day to Congress, which resolved that the members, as a body,
would attend his funeral the following day, with a crape around the
left arm, and will continue in mourning for the space of one month.
They appointed Mr Grayson, Mr. Read, and Mr. Kean a committee to
superintend the funeral and the chaplains were notified to attend, and
one of them to officiate on the occasion ; and the committee was
ordered " to invite the Governor of the State, the ministers of foreign
Powers, the mayor of the city, and other persons of distinction in town
to attend the funeral." (Journals of the Old Congress, October 17,
I78b, Vol. X, 251, edition of 1801.) Hardy was one of the most popu-
lar and beloved of our early statesmen. He entered the House of
Delegates about the close of the war, and remained an active member
until he was sent to Congress in 1783. The Assembly, during the pres-
ent year [1858], called a county by his name. Monroe and Hardy were
about the same age, were in the Assembly together, were on terms of
the strictest intimacy, and boarded with Mrs. Ege, in Richmond. When
Monroe made his Southern tour as President, he called to see his old
landlady, who presently appeared, and, though thirty-odd years had
passed since the death of Hardy, as she threw her arms about the neck
of Monroe, she sobbed forth, "'Poor Hardy!" [There is a tradition,
which has been regarded as somewhat apocryphal, that the small
one-story-and attic building of rubble-stone on the north side of Main,
between Nineteenth and Twentieth streets, known as the " Old Stone
House," has accommodated as guests Washington, Monroe, and
other distinguished men. It is now the oldest house in Richmond,
and was probably built soon after the town was laid off in 1737. In the
original plan Jacob Ege appears as an owner of a town lot. His
descendants occupied the house until a few decades past. The house
is too small, and the rooms two few in number, for it to have been
used for the entertainment and lodging of guests. Mrs. Ege, the land-
lady of Monroe and Hardy, was more likely some other than the
138 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
The session of the House of Delegates of 1785. in connection
with Federal affairs, will always be conspicuous in our annals.
It may be said, in a certain sense, to have given birth to the
present Federal Constitution. During the century and a half
of her colonial existence the commerce of Virginia, except in
the interval of the Protectorate, was regulated by Great Britain,
either in the form of direct legislation or by the supervisory
power which was exercised over the acts of Assembly.130 After
the Declaration of Independence the Commonwealth passed
laws for the regulation of her trade; but, owing to the prepon-
derance of the naval power of the enemy throughout the war,
our regulations were merely nominal. At the peace of 1783 all
obstacles to trade were removed, and Virginia, for the first time
since the death of Cromwell, regulated her trade with foreign
Powers. It was soon apparent that her geographical position in
respect to several neighboring States rendered a commercial
compact with them highly expedient, if not indispensably neces-
sary to the prosperity of each. An adroit legislative movement
of Maryland, in abolishing a duty on certain articles highly taxed
by Virginia, might divert the entire foreign trade of a season
from Norfolk to Baltimore or Annapolis. Hence the early indi-
cations of a wish in our councils to form an agreement with
Maryland; and the object was promoted by the residence on the
Potomac of some of the ablest statesmen of that era, who felt
sensibly the inconvenience perpetually arising from a conflict of
jurisdiction over their immediate waters. But, anxious as Mary-
land might be to form an agreement with Virginia, she must be
controlled, to a greater or less extent, by the policy of Pennsyl-
vania, whose waters mingled with her own, and whose territory,
running the whole length of the northern boundary of Mary-
land, afforded opportunities for smuggling, which nothing short
mistress of the " Old Stone House." — EDITOR.] His remains still rest
in Philadelphia, where those of Henry Tazewell, James Innes, Stevens
Thomson Mason, Isaac Read, and of other gallant and patriotic Vir-
ginians also repose. Should we not gather all the honored dead of the
Revolution in a cemetery of our own ?
130 1 have before me the Sessions Acts of 1766, [ ? ] in which the acts
vetoed by Great Britian are marked by a member of the House of
Burgesses. The royal veto was exercised very freely on the acts of
that session.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 139
of a strict military police always on the field could fully check.
At the present session two years and a half had elapsed since
the peace; yet, with every disposition on the part of Virginia to
form an equal and amicable commercial league with neighboring
States, she had been foiled in her purposes — each State looking
to her local interests only, and unrestrained by any feeling of a
personal or patriotic nature.131 Hence a conviction, which had
long been felt by our members of Congress, became general
among the people at large that the regulation of commerce,
under certain restrictions, should be entrusted to the Federal
Government.
The nature and extent of those restrictions involved long and
angry debates. Those argue falsely who contend that the
acknowledgment of our independence bound the several States
to each other, so far as local interests were concerned, more
intimately than before. The main conviction drawn from the
struggle with England was that the union of the States was
necessary to enable them to resist a foreign foe; but that any
one State should subject its business or its trade to the control
of another, or of all the States, was a sentiment that was slow to
make its impression on the public mind. The interests of the
States were diverse; there was but little communication between
them; their institutions were unlike; and few of those considera-
tions that soften national prejudice could act upon the people.
It is probable that there was a more intense individuality of
feeling and of character among the several States after the peace
than before it. This temper was heightened in Virginia by her
weight in the confederacy, produced by her numbers, the extent
of her territory, and her wealth, and partly, perhaps, from the
fact that some of her most eminent statesmen, who had for thirty
years directed the State councils, had never gone abroad, nor
had come directly in contact and in friendly association with
men of the same class in other States.132 The success of the
Revolution tended rather to confirm the sense of individuality in
131 John Randolph, of Roanoke, used to say that the exemption by
Maryland of certain articles which were taxed high in Virginia gave
the first impulse to the trade of Baltimore.
132 Patrick Henry, George Mason, Joseph Prentis, John Tyler, Henry
Tazewell, and many other able men had never been abroad or held
seats in Congress — except Henry, for a few weeks — and they opposed
the adoption of the Federal Constitution with all their might; while
140 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the States, for it added a moral element to the less exalted ones
of interest and power. Still, a commercial arrangement with a
neighboring State, whose waters were identical with our own,
was necessary, and its negotiation on fair terms seemed imprac-
ticable. And, as the finances of the States required the success-
ful development of all her resources, it was determined to bring
the whole subject before the Assembly. Accordingly, on the
7th of November the House of Delegates went into Committee
on the State of the Commonwealth; and, when it rose, Prentis
reported a resolution, which was twice read and agreed to by the
House, declaring that an act ought to pass to authorize the dele-
gates of Virginia in Congress to give the assent of the State to
a general regulation of the commerce of the United States under
certain qualifications. A select committee, consisting of Joseph
Prentis, James Madison, Henry Lee, Meriwether Smith, Carter
Braxton, William Ronald, James Innes, and Cuthbert Bullitt,
were ordered to bring in a bill in pursuance of the resolution.18*
Madison, Randolph, Henry Lee, and Pendleton (who occupied a seat
on two occasions in Congress) were friendly to its adoption. This
distinction was obvious in the Assembly from as early as 1777 to 1778,
and exercised a serious influence upon public measures.
33 This committee, which was appointed by Speaker Harrison, who
had been a member of Congress and knew the parties of the House,
was composed of four members who had not been members of Con-
gress, and four who had. Prentis, one of the best of men, the substi-
tute of Wythe in the Convention of 1775, an old member of the House,
and afterwards a judge of the General Court; Bullitt, a member of all
the early Conventions, an old member of the House, of which he was
Speaker, and afterwards a judge of the General Court; John Tyler,
who had been more than once Speaker of the House, afterwards a
judge of the Court of Admiralty, and a district judge under the Federal
Constitution ; Innes, who succeeded Edmund Randolph as Attorney-
General of Virginia, was a commissioner under Jay's treaty, and
declined the appointment of Attorney-General of the United States
tendered by Washington; and Ronald, an old and able lawyer, and a
member of the present Convention. These four members of the com-
mittee had never been abroad; while Meriwether Smith, one of our
oldest statesmen, who has claims to the authorship of the first Consti-
tution of Virginia (of which hereafter), Madison, Carter Braxton, who
signed the Declaration of Independence, and Henry Lee, who was
soon to become a member of Congress, had been much abroad in a
public capacity. All the members of the committee except Prentis
and Braxton were members of the present Convention.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 141
Meantime, the House reconsidered the plan of giving its assent
to regulations of commerce by a bill, and resolved to discharge
the committee from the office of preparing one, and, constituting
the same gentlemen members of a new committee, ordered them
to draft and report instructions to the delegates of the State in
Congress according to the resolution adopted by the House.
On the I4th Prentis reported a preamble and resolution, the
preamble setting forth that "Whereas the relative situation of
the United States has been found on trial to require uniformity
in their commercial regulations, as the only effectual policy for
obtaining in the ports of foreign nations a stipulation of privi-
leges reciprocal to those enjoyed by the subjects of such nations
in the ports of the United States, for preventing animosities,
which cannot fail to arise among the several States from the
interference of partial and separate regulations, and for deriving
from commerce such aids to the public revenue as it ought to
contribute, and whereas such uniformity can be best carried into
effect by the Federal councils, which, having been instituted for
the purpose of managing the interests of the States in cases that
cannot be so well provided for by measures individually pursued,
ought to be invested with authority in this case as being within
the reason and policy of their institution"; and the resolution
declaring "that the delegates in Congress be instructed to pro-
pose in Congress a recommendation to the States in union to
authorize that Assembly to regulate their trade on the following
principles and under the following qualifications: (i) That the
United States, in Congress assembled, be authorized to prohibit
vessels belonging to any nation which has no commercial treaty
with the United States from entering any of the ports thereof, or
to impose any duties on such vessels and their cargoes which
may be judged necessary ; all such prohibitions and duties to be
uniform throughout the United States, and the proceeds of the
latter to be carried into the treasury of the State within which
they shall accrue. (2) That over and above the duties which
may be so laid the United States, in Congress assembled, be
authorized to collect in manner prescribed by an act 'to provide
certain and adequate funds for the payment of this State's quota
of the debt contracted by the United States,' an impost not
exceeding five per centum, ad valorem, on all goods, wares, and
merchandises whatsoever imported into the United States from
142 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
any foreign ports; such impost to be uniform as aforesaid, and
to be carried to the treasury of the United States. (3) That no
State be at liberty to impose duties on any goods, wares, or
merchandises imported by land or by water from any other State,
but may altogether prohibit the importation from any other
State of any particular species or description of goods, wares, or
merchandise of which the importation is at the same time pro-
hibited from all other places whatsoever. (4) That no act of
Congress as may be authorized, as hereby proposed, shall be
entered into by less than two-thirds of the confederated States,
nor be in force longer than — years, unless continued by a like
proportion of votes within one year immediately preceding the
expiration of the said period, or be revived in like manner after
the expiration thereof, nor shall any impost whatsoever be col-
lected by virtue of the authority proposed in the second article
after the year 17 — ,"134 The instructions were read a second
time and were ordered to be committed to a Committee of the
Whole on Friday sennight.
When we consider the temper of the times, these stipulations
must be regarded as going far beyond the true mark. The
uniformity of duties was desirable, and some sacrifice of interest
might fairly be claimed for the arrangement. Still it was a con-
cession that went beyond any proposition offered by the States
to the Federal authority, and was rendered yet more influential
from the source from which it came. The payment of the cus-
toms into the treasury of the State in whose waters they were
collected was right and proper. But the grant to the Federal
Government of the right to laying five per centum on imposts at
a time when the average rate of the Virginia tariff was greatly
below that figure, and which savored of an entire cession of the
customs to the United States, might well create alarm and rouse
the suspicions of those who were inclined to view the Federal
authority with distrust. If it be alleged that the measures
184 House Journal, November 14, 1785, page 36. Mr. Gilpin, in his
note (169) to the "Introduction" of Mr. Madison, refers to the pro-
ceedings of the Assembly of the 3oth November and ist of December,
J785, but has overlooked the resolution of the i4th of November,
which is the foundation of the whole. I cannot refrain from bearing
my tribute to the modesty, accuracy, and unbounded research which
characterizes the editing of the Madison Papers by Mr. Gilpin.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 143
recommended by the committee excluded those States that did
not possess seaports from all benefits arising from the customs,
it also relieved them from all expense in their collection; and it
was competent to J\ny State, with the consent of Congress, to
make any agreement with any seaport State in relation to the
customs which might be deemed beneficial. It should be
remembered that each State was then responsible for its own
debt, foreign and domestic, contracted during the war. The
duration of the grant for a term of years, which could not be
recalled until they expired, but could be abridged at the pleasure
of Congress, was also a concession to the Federal Government.
In the interval an urgent petition was forwarded to the House
by the merchants of Petersburg, the business of which town
then greatly exceeded that of Richmond, setting forth that they
considered the commerce of the State in a ruinous situation
from the restrictions and impositions which have been laid upon
it by the commercial Powers of Europe, and praying that such
measures may be adopted as may tend to re-establish it upon a
proper basis; and that due encouragement be given to the build-
ing of ships in this State, and to the trade carried on in Ameri-
can bottoms, and owned by American merchants only.185
When Friday came the House, as if reluctant to grapple with
Federal affairs, ordered that the Committee of the Whole, to
which had been referred the instructions to the delegates in
Congress, be discharged from further proceedings thereon, and
that the instructions be referred to the Committee of the Whole
on the State of the Commonwealth. On the 28th the House
went into committee to consider the instructions, and, when it
rose, Alexander White reported that the committee had come to
certain resolutions on the subject, which it had instructed him
to present whenever the House should think proper to receive
them. On the 3Oth White reported the original preamble with-
out amendment, and the first and third stipulations of the origi-
nal resolution, omitting the second, which set apart five per
135 House Journal, November 24, 1785. Norfolk had presented an
equally urgent memorial at the last session, referring mainly to the
West India trade. I have often conversed with old merchants in the
interior who bought their foreign goods at this date in Petersburg,
which they paid for in specie or tobacco. The merchants of Peters-
burg were mostly foreign, as were those at Norfolk.
144 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
centum of the imposts for the Federal treasury, and declaring,
as a third stipulation, that no act of Congress that may be
authorized as hereby proposed shall be entered into by less than
two-thirds of the confederated States, nor be in force longer than
thirteen years. The Federal party proper had evidently sus-
tained an overwhelming defeat in committee; for no member of
that party proposed in the House to amend the report by insert-
ing their favorite stipulation, which had been lost, but merely
sought a comparatively immaterial issue by moving to add after
the words " thirteen years," in the third stipulation, the words
"unless continued by a like proportion of votes within one year
immediately preceding the expiration of the said period, or be
revived in like manner after the expiration thereof." This
amendment was, at best, but a matter of minor detail since the
rejection of the grant of five per centum, and could add but
little to the power already granted by the stipulation; but, such
as it was, the Federal party determined in its support to venture
a battle, which resulted in their second entire defeat — the ayes
being only twenty-eight and the noes seventy-nine. The mem-
bers of the present Convention who voted in the affirmative were
Madison, Johnston, Archibald Stuart, John Tyler, Strother,
Simms, -David Stuart, Thomas Smith, Clendenin, Isaac Coles,
Thornton, Innes, and Matthews, and in the negative were Ben-
jamin Harrison (Speaker), Alexander White, Cabell, John Trigg,
Watkins, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Miles King, Westwood,
Humphreys, Isaac Vanmeter, George Jackson, Prunty, Temple,
Robertson, Corbin, Willis Riddick, Ruffin, Bullitt, Andrew
Moore, Edmunds (of Sussex), Briggs, and Gary. The third
stipulation was then read and agreed to, and Alexander White
was ordered to carry the instructions to the Senate.
The following day (December ist), as soon as the House pro-
ceeded to business, a motion was made that, as the resolution
including the stipulations respecting commerce, which had been
agreed to the day before and sent to the Senate, did not, from a
mistake, contain the sense of a majority of the House that voted
for the resolution, the direction to send the resolution to the
Senate be rescinded, and the House immediately resolve itself
into a committee to reconsider the same. This motion was car-
ried by a vote of sixty to thirty-three — ascertained by ayes and
noes; Madison, Trigg, Cabell, Watkins, Jones, Westwood,
ALEXANDER WHITE. 145
Simms, David Stuart, Thomas Smith, Humphreys, Vanmeter,
Prunty, Temple, Willis Riddick, Ruffin, Bullitt, Andrew Moore,
Edmunds (of Sussex), Briggs, Gary, and Innes voting in the
affirmative, and Alexander White, Johnston, Archibald Stuart,
John Tyler, Patteson, Strother, King, Jackson, Thornton, and
Matthews in the negative. The House at once resolved itself
into committee on the instructions; and, when it rose, Matthews
reported that the committee had taken the resolution into con-
sideration and had made several amendments thereto, which he
was directed to present when the House should think proper to
receive them. The report was then ordered to be laid upon
the table.
The real cause of the recall of the resolution from the Senate
can only be inferred; but it is probable that the Federal party
proper, having felt the pulse of their opponents since the adjourn-
ment of the previous day, were inclined to make another effort
to secure the grant of five per centum for the Federal treasury;
while their astute opponents, on the other hand, thinking, per-
haps, that they might have gone too far, were not unwilling that
the resolution should be placed once more within their reach.138
Its further history may be given at once. The House went into
committee on the 4th of December, and, when it rose, Alexander
White reported two resolutions on the subject of commerce, one
of which declared that no vessel trading to this State, other than
such as are wholly owned by American citizens, or the subjects
of Kingdoms or States having commercial treaties with the
American States, shall be permitted to bring in any goods not
the produce or manufacture of the State to which she belongs;
and the other allowing a certain drawback on the duMes imposed
on goods imported into the Commonwealth by her citizens, or
by citizens of the United States, in Virginia-built vessels, which
136 It was a clear breach of the privileges of the Senate for the House
of Delegates to recall from that body, without its consent, a resolution
which had been duly passed by the House and was beyond its power,
and which was doubtless referred by the Senate to a committee. The
Senate Journal of the 3oth of November does not notice the receipt of
the resolution, but it notices the receipt of other resolutions or bills
which White had been commanded, during the day. by the House to
present to the Senate. The Journal was, no doubt, corrected when the
turn of the House became known.
10
146 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
shall be wholly owned by such citizens. These resolutions were
agreed to, and the Committee of Commerce was ordered to
bring in a bill pursuant with their tenor, and at the same time
to bring in a bill in pursuance with the resolution instructing the
delegates of Virginia in Congress to propose a grant of power
over commerce, with certain stipulations, to that body. This
was the last action of the House on this famous resolution,
which, we are told by Mr. Madison, its peculiar friends cared
no longer to sustain; but not until they had presented a resolu-
tion, still more famous, which was adopted at a later stage, recom-
mending a meeting of the States to consider their commercial
regulations, but which was now voted down.137
The brilliant success of the Federal Constitution has cast a
halo around those who were active in preparing the public mind
for its advent, and has left in shadow the illustrious men, who,
devoted to the independence and glory of Virginia, hesitated to
strip her of the prerogatives of sovereignty, and bind her up in
one homogeneous mass with all the States. And the reputation
of the members of the present House of Delegates has been
arraigned at the bar of posterity by a venerable statesman, who
usually displayed great magnanimity in judging the conduct of
his associates, and whose censure, uttered from the verge of the
grave, falls with the greater force upon those against whom it
137 Mr. Madison's words are: "The resolution [of the 2ist January, of
which presently] had been brought forward several weeks before on
the failure of a proposed grant of power to Congress to collect a reve-
nue from commerce, which had been abandoned by its friends in con-
sequence of material alterations made in the grant by a committee
of the whole." (" Introduction to the Debates in the Federal Conven-
tion," Madison Papers. Vol. II, 695.) In the same paper (694) Mr. Madi-
son calls the proceedings of the House "wayward," but it is hard to
see wherein that waywardness consists. A committee reports to the
House a resolution embracing certain stipulations, which the House,
after full debate, alters and amends. Surely there is nothing " way-
ward " in such action. If there was anything openly " wayward," it
was the recall of the resolution from the Senate ; but Mr. Madison
could hardly allude to that subject, as he was one of the majority
which sustained that questionable measure. Perhaps it is not going
too far to say that Mr. Madison, in writing, so many years later, his
" Introduction," could not forget the terrible defeats which he sustained,
both in the committee and in the House.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 147
is aimed. What we have already said will show that the majority
acted with a degree of prudence as well as of public spirit,
which seem to have been wanting to the minority. That
majority conceded nearly all that was asked by the Federal party
proper, except the grant of five per centum on imports. The
members of the majority voted to grant to Congress the
right to lay uniform duties,' which, when we regard the relative
importance of Virginia in the confederation, was evidently a
liberal concession. The duties were to be paid into the treasury
of the State within which they were collected; for even the par-
tial friends of the Federal Government did not propose to take
directly from a State, almost overwhelmed with the embarrass-
ments of a long war, all income from the customs. But it was
evident that, if the system of uniform duties worked well in
practice, it would supply the State with the means of honoring
promptly the Federal requisitions already made or to be made
thereafter. The majority did refuse to grant the five per centum
duty to the Federal Government; but it was refused because the
grant, judging from past experience, seemed nearly equivalent
to a total surrender of all revenue from imports, while the
expense of collection was borne by the State, and at a time
when the State was not only burdened with debt, but when
entire regions of country were praying to be relieved from the
payment of taxes. On the other hand, the conduct of the small
Federal minority was not only "wayward," but it verged to
faction. This party received nearly all that it asked, with a
single prominent exception. They had obtained the consent of
the House of Delegates to cede to Congress the unlimited privi-
lege of laying uniform duties upon imports. If the system of
uniform duties had been carried into effect, then, for the first
time, would Virginia be able to derive the full benefit from cus-
toms; and it is not improbable that the forward impulse immedi-
ately given to trade by the tariff laws of the Federal Govern-
ment under the present Constitution would have been felt under
the confederation. But the small Federal minority was stub-
born, and, we had almost said, factious; and instead of availing
themselves of the advantages proposed by a uniform rate of
duties, they rejected the scheme in disgust, and, because they
could not mould the majority to all their purposes, determined to
do nothing at all. Had it not been for the lucky turn of events
148 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
in the following two years, the conduct of the Federal party
proper, in folding their arms when really substantial advantages
were placed within their reach, would have received the severe
condemnation of posterity. Upon a fair view of the case it is
just to conclude that, while the conduct of the minority was
deficient in judgment and in energy, the disposition of the
majority of the House on this as on other occasions was emi-
nently liberal and patriotic.138
iss jf ever a body of men deserved to be held in grateful remem-
brance by the friends of civil and religious freedom, it was the majority
which guided the legislative councils of Virginia from 1765 to 1776, and
from 1776 to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. That majority
was formed in the Colony when Virginia had no more legal connection
with any other American Colony than she had with England, Ireland,
or Scotland ; or, in other words, when her relation to all was the same.
We are indebted to that majority for the preparation of the public
mind for independence, which it finally achieved. With independence
some of the elder members passed from the scene, and their places
were filled by a set of young and brilliant men who were more forward
in the field and in the cabinet during the war. But as these young
men came upon the stage when the Colony had become independent,
and was bound Fn a union of offence and defence with the other States,
there was an evident change from the old feeling in their mode of
viewing public affairs, and they were inclined to view Virginia rather
as in connection with the other States than as an independent sove-
reignty standing on her own bottom. But the feeling of the old
majority still predominated in the Assembly, and especially in the
House of Delegates ; and though they were sometimes pressed by
extraordinary emergencies to do some questionable things (of which
hereafter), yet to their spirit and wisdom we mainly owe the blessings
we now enjoy. Lest it might be supposed that we except Mr. Madison
from that majority, it is due to the memory of that illustrious man to
say that he was from his entrance into public life on many occasions
one of the leading members. His services in the House of Delegates
in respect of the revised bills, to omit allusion to his important ser-
vices in the same theatre in other things, are worthy of all praise. But
he belonged to the later type of that majority. He began his career
in the Convention of 1776 at the age of twenty-five, passed in a year or
two into the Privy Council, which was perpetually engaged with Fede-
ral topics, and had served a term of three years in Congress at the
close of the war. He had gradually learned to embrace all the States
in his political periscope ; and he was more apt to decide upon a
domestic measure from general than from local considerations. And
though in no human bosom was ever ambition the minister of a purer
ALEXANDER WHITE. 149
Another subject, which ultimately led to important changes
in our Federal relations, engaged the attention of the House.
On the 28th of June, 1784, the General Assembly appointed four
commissioners to meet such as should be appointed by Mary-
land, and, in concert with them, to frame such liberal and equita-
ble regulations, respecting the jurisdiction and navigation of the
river Potomac, as may be mutually advantageous to the two
States, and to report the same to the General Assembly.139 On
the 28th of December, of the same year, the House of Delegates
resolved that the commissioners appointed on the 28ih of June
last be further authorized to unite with the Maryland commis-
sioners in representing to the State of Pennsylvania that it is in
contemplation of the said two States to promote the clearing
and extending the navigation of the Potomac, from tidewater
upwards, as far as the same may be found practicable, to open a
convenient road from the head of such navigation to the waters
running into the Ohio, and to obtain from Pennsylvania certain
immunities in her waters and territory.140 On the 3131 of
December, of the same year (1784), the commissioners made a
report, in part, respecting the opening and navigation of the
Potomac, which was read, and referred to Grayson, Madison,
and Page, who duly reported a bill for the purpose, which was
read a second time, on the ist of January, 1785, and committed
to the gentlemen who brought it in. On the 3d of January the
committee reported the bill without amendment, and it was
ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. On the follow-
ing day it passed the House, and on the 4th received the assent
of the Senate. On the I3th of December, 1785, George Mason,
as chairman of the committee appointed under the resolution of
the 28th of June, of the preceding year, and charged with fresh
instructions by a resolution of the House, passed on the 28th of
patriotism, yet he could not be unconscious of his ample endowments,
nor feel indisposed to exert them in accomplishing an object which he
thought indispensable to the ultimate safety of all the States, and even
of liberty itself.
139The commissioners were George Mason, Edmund Randolph,
James Madison, and Alexander Harrison.
140 House Journal, December 28, 1784. The resolution was carried to
the Senate by Mr. Madison.
150 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
December, of the same year, addressed a letter to the Speaker
of the House, "enclosing the proceedings of the commissioners
on the compact between the States of Virginia and Maryland
respecting the jurisdiction and the navigation of the rivers Poto-
mac and Pocomoke," which were read and ordered to be com-
mitted to the Committee of Commerce. On the 26th of the
same month Mr. Braxton, from the Committee of Commerce,
reported a bill "to approve, confirm, and ratify the compact
made by the commissioners appointed by this State to regulate
and settle the jurisdiction and navigation of Potomac and Poco-
moke rivers, and that part of Chesapeake bay which lieth within
the territory of this State"; and the same was received, read the
first time, and ordered to be read a second time. On the 2jih
the bill was read a second time, and committed to Madison, Tyler,
Isaac Zane, Corbin, Braxton, and Simms. On the 29th Madison
reported the bill, with amendments, which were agreed to by
the House, and it was ordered, with the amendments, to be
engrossed and read a third time. A few moments after the
second reading of the bill a letter from the Governor of New
Hampshire was communicated by the Executive to the Speaker
of the House, enclosing an act of the Legislature of that State
respecting navigation and commerce, which was referred to the
whole House, on the bill "for imposing certain rates and duties
upon goods, wares, and merchandise imported into this Com-
monwealth." On the 3Oth the bill ratifying the Maryland com-
pact was read a third time, and passed without a division ; and
Madison was requested to carry the bill to the Senate and desire
their concurrence, which was given on the 4th of January, 1785,
and the bill became a law.
This was a fresh instance of the sincere disposition of the
General Assembly of Virginia to adopt the regulations of trade
proposed by the Federal party proper, which were not incon-
sistent with her position as an independent Commonwealth, and,
by prudent management of her resources, to maintain her own
credit, and incidentally the credit of the Union. The House
had already ordered a bill to be brought in conferring on Con-
gress the right to regulate duties for the term of thirteen years;
and if from the perverseness of the Federal minority that whole-
some and efficient measure was suffered to fall in their pursuit of
their more extended schemes, it was no fault of the majority.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 151
A striking illustration of the hostility with which the majority
of the House was regarded by the minority may be seen in the
statement of Mr. Madison, who seems to charge that the com-
pact between Maryland and Virginia was not communicated to
Congress for its sanction in compliance with the Articles of Con-
federation.141 The second section of the sixth Article of Confede-
ration certainly requires the assent of Congress before any State
can "enter into a treaty" with another State; but a distinction
is clear between entering into a treaty — that is, making a treaty —
and entering into negotiations which may result in a treaty. If
the latter were in violation of the Articles of Confederation, Mr.
Madison and his colleagues, who made the compact with the
Maryland commissioners, and who, under the excitement of the
conversations at Mount Vernon, were inclined to go farther in
their negotiations than were warranted by their instructions,
were knowingly guilty of a grave error. But it is clear that the
second section of the sixth article merely forbids the ultimate
execution of a compact between two or more States without the
consent of Congress. Now, as the assent of Virginia to the com-
pact formed by Mr. Madison and his colleagues did not make
it final until the assent of Maryland was obtained, it is obvious
that the refusal of the House of Delegates to communicate the
compact to Congress in its incomplete state was fairly justified
both by the letter and the spirit of the Articles of Confederation.
It was also prudent, as Maryland did not give her full assent to
the compact. Thus, if the Assembly erred in entertaining a
negotiation, Mr. Madison was blameable for acting as their
minister in the premises; but, if the Assembly were right in
entering upon the preliminaries, as it takes two to make a bar-
gain, they incurred no blame in declining to transmit to Con-
gress a treaty that, as it turned out, was not " entered into" at
all.1"
HI •« Introduction to the Debates in the Federal Convention" (Madi-
son Papers, Vol. II, 713). From the position of the charge it appears
plainly to refer to the action of Virginia on the Maryland compact.
142 Mr. Madison's words are: "From the legislative Journals of Vir-
ginia it appears that a vote refusing to apply for a sanction of Congress
was followed by a vote against the communication of the compact to
Congress." (Madison Papers, Vol. II, 712.) This charge is vague. It
arraigns Virginia before the Union and before posterity as guilty of a
152 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
But the majority were now to afford still further proof of their
urgent wish to promote harmony among the States, to provide
for the full and early discharge of the public debt, and to place
the United States on an equal footing with foreign Powers in
respect to commercial regulations. On the last day of the ses
sion (January 21, 1786,) a resolution was offered in the House
most deliberate violation of the letter and spirit of the Articles of Con-
federation, while it affords no clew by which we may ascertain its date
and soften its heinousness or remove it altogether. But its date can be
reduced to a narrow compass. It must have happened since 1781, as
the Articles of Confederation did not take effect until that year.
From that date until 1783, Mr. Madison was in Congress, and his gene-
ral argument excludes what occurred so early as the war. Indeed,
the gist of his argument was that the Articles of Confederation in their
last days were not duly respected by the States; and as he was in the
Assembly in 1784 and 1785, it is certain that his charge, which must
have been founded on what he saw, as the Journals (as we will pres-
ently show) contain nothing of the kind, attaches to one of those two
years. Now, I affirm, from a minute inspection of the Journals, that I
cannot find the slightest foundation of such a charge. On the contrary,
I perceive on every page an earnest effort to vest Congress with fresh
and larger powers than it already possessed. But as the great compact
of those years was the treaty with Maryland, I have traced most criti-
cally the progress of the whole affair, and affirm positively that no such
record can be found in the Journals of the House and of the Senate,
where, if anywhere, it should appear. Still, I am ready to concede, on
the authority 6f Mr. Madison, that the motions in question were made
and rejected; but, if they were made, as they only could have been
made, respecting the Maryland compact, I think I have shown that
they were very properly put aside until it was known whether the com-
pact should be acceded to by the parties to it. So far on the negative
side of the proof. But there is positive proof that the Assembly did
recognize to the last the binding force of the second section of the
sixth article of the Confederation. On the I3th of January, 1786, a
series of resolutions was reported from the Committee of Commerce,
one of which was in these words: "That this State should concur with
the State of Maryland in making a joint application to Congress for
their consent to form a compact for the purpose of affording in due
time, and in just proportion between the two States, naval protection
to such part of Chesapeake bay and Potomac river which may at
any time hereafter be left unprovided for by Congress," &c., &c., and
" that the delegates from this State to Congress ought to be author-
ized and requested to make such application in behalf of this State, in
conjunction with the delegates from the State of Maryland in Congress."
ALEXANDER WHITE. 153
of Delegates, which, if we consider its ultimate results, was one
of the most memorable in human history. It was resolved
"that Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Jr.,143 Walter Jones,
Saint George Tucker, and Meriwether Smith, Esqs., be
appointed commissioners,144 who, or any three of whom, shall
This resolution was doubtless drawn by Madison, as it recognizes the
propriety of obtaining the assent of Congress in the initiatory stages
of a compact. Now, what was the action of the House on this reso-
lution ? It was immediately read a second time, and was unanimously
agreed to ; and, with others of the series, was taken to the Senate by
Mr. Braxton, and passed that body, without amendment, on the iyth of
January So that, if, in some moment of excitement, the motions
alluded to by Mr. Madison were rejected, the Assembly nobly redeemed
their character in the adoption of this resolution The series of reso-
lutions, of which this was the first, consisted of seven, two of which
were rejected ; and it is possible that Mr. Madison, after a long lapse
of years, relying only on his memory (for there is no record on the
Journals in the case that I can find), may have believed that the reso-
lution asking the consent of Congress to a compact with Maryland was
one of those that were rejected. (House Journal, January 13, 1786,
page 140.) What induces me to believe that the resolution in question
was written by Mr. Madison, who had been three years in Congress
and entertained the esprit de corps, was the use of the word "requested"
instead of "instructed," which was invariably used in resolutions
addressed by the Assembly to the delegates in Congress. Perhaps it
may as well be stated here that Curtis, in his History of the Federal
Constitution (Vol. I, 341), following Marshall, dates the appointment of
the Virginia commissioners "in the spring of 1785." As such appoint-
ments were only made by the Assembly, which up to this period never
sat early in the spring (for the Virginia commissioners met in Alex-
andria in March), I was led to search the Journals with some care to
ascertain the facts of the case, which are as already narrated in the
text.
143 1 have invariably omitted the affix of "Jr." to Mr. Madison's
name, because, however convenient it was in Orange, it had no signifi-
cancy in our public bodies.
144 As all the commissioners, except Saint George Tucker, were
members of the present Convention, it is proper to say that the time
and place agreed upon was the first Monday in Septe/nber, 1786, and
at Annapolis; that Randolph, Madison, and Tucker alone attended;
that five States only— Virginia. Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey,
and New York— were represented, and that the commissioners from
all the States present addressed a letter, written by Alexander Hamil-
ton, to the States collectively, setting forth the facts of the case, and
154 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
meet such commissioners as may be appointed by other States
in the Union, at a time and place to be agreed on, to take into
consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the
relative situations and trade of the said States; to consider how
far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be
necessary to their common interest and their permanent har-
mony, and to report to the several States such an act relative to
this great object, as, when unanimously ratified by them, will
enable the United States, in Congress, effectually to provide for
the same"; and it was also resolved "that the said commission-
ers shall immediately transmit to the several States copies of the
preceding resolution, with a circular-letter requesting their con-
currence therein, and proposing a time and place for the
meeting aforesaid." The resolution was offered by John Tyler,
one of the majority of the House, and sustained by him. It
was twice read, and agreed to by the House without a division.
But it was the last day of the session, and there was no time to
lose. General Matthews was immediately ordered to carry the
resolution to the Senate and desire their concurrence. This
remarkable resolution was drawn by Madison, and had been
offered in Committee of the Whole, when the resolution grant-
ing five per centum of the customs had been summarily rejected;
but "it was," says Mr. Madison, " so little acceptable that it was
not persisted in," but "it now obtained a general vote."
A message was soon delivered from the Senate, by Mr. Jones,
that the resolution was agreed to, with certain amendments, in
which that body desired the concurrence of the House. The
House proceeded to consider the amendments of the Senate,
some of which were agreed to, and others disagreed to. Gene-
ral Matthews was ordered to acquaint the Senate therewith.
That body instantly receded from the amendments which had
been disagreed to by the House, and the resolution became a
law. This remarkable resolution was drawn by Madison, and
had been offered in Committee of the Whole by Tyler, when
recommending an appointment of commissioners from all the States to
assemble in Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, 1787;
that Virginia, in a law drawn by Madison (Madison Papers, Vol. II,
704, and Hening, 1786), was the first to appoint commissioners to the
Convention (of which hereafter).
ALEXANDER WHITE. 155
the stipulation granting five per centum of the customs to the
Federal Government had been summarily rejected. " It was,
however," says Mr. Madison, "so little acceptable that it was
not persisted in, but.it now obtained a general vote." "5
145 The resolution, as altered by the Senate, contains the names of
David Ross, William. Ronald, and George Mason, and requires five
commissioners, instead of three, to be present. Professor Tucker
informed me that Madison told him that he wrote the resolution. The
Journal does not mention the name of the mover, nor the fact that it had
been previously presented. We learn these facts from the ''Introduc-
tion" of Mr. Madison to the "Debates in the General Convention"
{Madison Papers, Vol. II, 696). Some months ago John C. Hamilton,
of New York, wrote to ex President Tyler with the view of ascertain-
ing from him the precise relation which his father (Judge Tyler) bore
to the resolution The ex-President did me the honor of consulting
me on the subject, and I wrote to him in detail the facts of the case,
and the reasons which induced the selection of his father as the mover.
In the course of the investigation the original resolution, in the
archives of the House of Delegates, was examined, and it was ascer-
tained, as I was told by Mr. Tyler, to be in the handwriting neither of
Mr. Madison nor Judge Tyler, but of Mr. Beckley, the Clerk of the
House. Mr. Madison assigns as the reason for its passage " that it was
the alternative of adjourning without any effort for the crisis in the
affairs of the Union." Such was, naturally enough, the conclusion of
Mr. Madison as the representative of the Federal party proper, who
was disposed to consider nothing done unless in correspondence with
his wishes ; but the acts of the majority present a very different case.
The majority had, indeed, rejected the five per centum feature of the
Federal project; but they cheerfully conceded to the Federal Govern-
ment the power to establish uniform duties throughout the Union for
the term of thirteen years; and when they found it vain to satisfy the
Federal minority without what they deemed the virtual subjection of
the State at the feet of Congress, they threw the whole responsibility
of a general regulation of the customs upon those who, claiming to
be the' special iriends of the Federal Government, had given up the
subject in disgust. They accordingly ratified with promptness the
compact already made wfth Maryland, and on the i3th of January,
1786— eight days only before the adjournment — determined to enter
into a negotiation with Maryland for the regulation of the commerce
of the two States, and adopted the following resolution: "That it is
important to the commerce and revenue of the State of Maryland and
this State that duties, imports, or exports, if laid, should be the same
on both States; and that it is proper for the Legislatures of the t>aid
States, at their annual meeting in the autumn, to appoint commission-
156 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Of the course of Alexander White throughout the session, his
recorded votes already reported afford incontestible evidence.
He was appointed a member of nearly all the select committees
to which general topics were referred; and he presided, perhaps,
more frequently than any other member in Committee of the
ers to meet and communicate the regulations of commerce and duties
proposed by each State, and to confer on such subjects as may concern
the commercial interests of both States, and within the power of the
respective States; and that the number of the said commissioners
should be equal — not less than three nor more than five — from each
State; and they should annually meet in the third week in September,
if required, by the Legislature of each State, or, the commissioners
thereof, at such place as they should appoint." And, to show still
further the truly federal spirit of the majority, they ordered the reso-
lution to be sent by the Governor to the Legislatures of all the States
in the Union, who were requested to appoint commissioners for the
purposes therein expressed. This was a great and definite measure —
looking to a general regulation of commerce by all the States — and
was altogether in advance of any legislative measure which had then
appeared, with the exception of the resolution of Massachusetts
adopted during the preceding summer (Curtis, Vol. I, 336); and it was
referred for the consent of the States. In the mean time the Assembly
revised their custom-house regulations, and passed a stringent law for
the prompt and economical collection of the customs. They also
resolved to resent the hostile regulations of Great Britain by laying an
additional tonnage on British vessels. If intentions are to be gathered
from acts, we may conclude that the men who adopted this vigorous
and catholic policy never dreamed of the "alternative" in question,
but thought that they had marked out for the future a most decided
and energetic course of action. And this policy received the sanction
of the Senate four days only before the final adjournment. With this
view of the facts, I am strongly inclined to think that the resolution of
the 2ist of January, which called the meeting at Annapolis, was adopted
after many members had left for their homes, and when, in fact, there
was hardly a quorum of the House. At the end of the previous ses-
sion the House adjourned over one or two days to get a quorum, and
was finally compelled to adjourn sine die without one. The present
House consisted of one hundred and fifty or sixty members, and we
have seen from the ayes and noes on important questions during the
session that barely a quorum was present; and, as the resolution was
offered by Tyler, who was one of the majority, it is not improbable
that the members of the majority present may have regarded it as
designed to carry out the scheme which had been deliberately agreed
on, and which would require, in due time, the appointment of commis-
ALEXANDER WHITE. 157
Whole. And it may be recalled as a pleasing reminiscence by
his descendents, that, as chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, he reported to the House the bill constituting the State
of Kentucky, and the bill for establishing religious freedom.
The General Assembly of 1786-' 87 began it sessions on the
1 6th of October, but the House of Delegates did not form a
quorum until the 23d, when John Beckley was appointed Clerk,
and Joseph Prentis elected Speaker by a majority of twelve over
Theodoric Bland. Bland was placed at the head of the Com-
mittee of Religion, Thomas Matthews of Privileges and Elec-
tions, George Nicholas of Propositions and Grievances, Richard
Lee of Claims, Thomas Matthews of Commerce, and James
Innes of Courts of Justice.146
The members of the House who were members of the present
Convention, besides Matthews, Nicholas, and Innes, were James
Madison, Zachariah Johnston, French Strother, Parke Goodall,
Thomas Smith, John Pride, William White, Francis Corbin,
Edmund Ruffin, Miles King, Archibald Stuart, David Stuart,
Holt Richeson, Richard Cary, John Early, John Prunty, George
Jackson, Thomas Turpin, John Marr, Christopher Robertson,
James Johnson, Willis Riddick, John Allen, John Howell Briggs,
Martin McFerran, Littleton Eyre, John Dawson, Andrew Moore,
Samuel Jordan Cabell, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Samuel
siuners. On the other hand, it should be remembered that Harrison,
who was one of the majority, and who had more parliamentary expe-
rience than any other member of the House, was in the chair, and not
being on very amicable terms with Tyler, who had defeated him in
Charles City and driven him to take refuge in Surry, would have been
inclined to have scrutinized closely any independent measure coming
from such a source. At all events, the "alternative " mentioned by
Mr. Madison, however it may have appeared to him with his peculiar
views of Federal policy, does not seem very apparent from the facts
as they are recorded in the Journal.
146 Madison had not arrived, and could not consistently with the rules
of the House be placed on any committee; but Innes in the early part
of the session was elected Attorney-General in place of Edmund Ran-
dolph, who was elected Governor, and withdrew to attend the courts;
and Madison acted as chairman of the committee on many occasions.
That Madison, who was not a lawyer, was placed at the head of a com-
mittee consisting of the ablest lawyers in the House, is a fresh proof
of the universality and accuracy of his acquirements.
158 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Richardson, Isaac Vanmeter, William Thornton, Binns Jones,
William McKee, George Clendenin, Meriwether Smith, Cuthbert
Bullitt, John Trigg, Isaac Coles, Benjamin Temple, and James
Gordon.147
The financial condition of the Commonwealth was the first
important measure that engaged the attention of the House.
A motion was made and carried that the Governor be requested
to lay before the House an exact statement of all the taxable
property of the State, of duties payable on exports and imports,
together with the product of said taxes and duties from the ist
day of January, 1783, to the ist of October, 1786, specifying the
amount of specie received in each year, and the amount of the
different species of the public securities, the averages of taxes
now due, and the sums of money advanced to the several officers
of government between the ist day of January, 1782, and the
present time.148 This motion was immediately followed by
another to appoint a select committee to take into consideration
the whole system of finance established by the laws of the Com-
monwealth, and to report such regulations therein, and such
amendments to the laws thereto, as may to them seem best cal-
culated to alleviate the present distresses of the people, and at
the same time to preserve inviolate the national faith and honor
of the Commonwealth. This motion was unanimously adopted,
and Bland, Corbin, George Nicholas, Innes, Lyne, Griffin,
Eggleston, Matthews, King, Zachariah Johnston, Thompson,
Richard Bland Lee, Turberville, Strother, Archibald Stuart,
Campbell, Webb, David Stuart, and Wills composed the com-
mittee. The number and ability of the members, who were
selected from the great divisions of the State, show the sense
entertained by the House of the momentous subject entrusted
to their charge. On the 2d day of December, 1786, their
147 Alexander White, a member of the House, did not attend. I
have, however, continued my review of the sessions of the Assembly
immediately preceding the Convention as necessary to the under-
standing of the facts of the times and of the history of many members
of the Convention.
148This interesting report was made on the 25th of November, 1786,
and is doubtless on file in the office of the Clerk of the House of Dele-
gates. It ought to be published in the Historical Reporter, and in the
Southern Literary Messenger. (House Journal i786-'87, page 61.)
ALEXANDER WHITE. 159
report was presented to the House by Colonel Bland, and was,
perhaps, the most elaborate paper on our financial affairs that
had yet appeared.149 On the I2th General Matthews, from the
Committee of the Whole, reported a series of resolutions founded
upon the report, recommending an increase of taxes and mani-
festing a firm determination to maintain the credit of the State.
An additional tax of five dollars a wheel was recommended to
be laid on all coaches and chariots, three dollars a wheel addi-
tional on all other four-wheel vehicles, and two dollars a wheel
additional on all riding -carriages with two wheels. Clerks of
courts were ordered to account with the treasurer for one- third
of receipts from their fees. Every practicing attorney was to
pay down to the clerks of the respective courts one-tenth of all
the fees allowed by law for the services performed by attorneys.
Physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries were required to pay an
annual tax of five pounds each. A tax of twenty pounds was
imposed on all imported riding- carriages with four wheels, and
of ten pounds with two. Houses in towns were taxed five per
centum on the amount of annual rent. Merchants, traders, and
factors — native and foreign — were required to take out a license
to do business, and foreign merchants belonging to a nation in
treaty with the Union were required to pay less than those who
did not. These recommendations were adopted, with the excep-
tion of the tax on imported vehicles; and Matthews, Meriwether
Smith, George Nicholas, and others were ordered to bring in
bills to carry the scheme into effect. The House had previously
ordered a bill to be brought in allowing taxes to be paid in
tobacco;150 but a new issue of paper money, called for by some
counties remote from market, was voted down. Bills were
brought in and passed to amend and reduce into one act the
several acts for the appointment of naval officers, and ascertaining
their fees; to place the naval officers on the civil list; to regulate
the public offices and the mode of keeping the books therein; to
reduce into one act the several revenue laws of the State, and for
149 It fills ten or twelve pages of the quarto Journal .of the House.
(House Journal of i786-'87, page 71, el seq.)
159 November 13, 1786, House Journal, page 36. On the 23d the
House rejected the bill on its passage by a vote of seventy-two to
thirty-three.
160 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
more effectually preventing fraud and abuses in collecting the
revenue arising from customs; to call in and fund the paper
money of the State; to explain, amend, and reduce into one act
the several acts for the admission of emigrants to the right of
citizenship, and prohibiting the migration of certain persons to
the Commonwealth. A bill was passed for the construction of a
marine hospital, and for preserving the privileges of embassa-
dors. Kentucky, which had failed from unavoidable causes to
comply with the requisitions of the act passed at the last session,
was authorized to become an independent State.
A bill was also passed to encourage navigation and ship-build-
ing, and to regulate and discipline the militia. An export duty
of six shillings was laid on every hogshead of tobacco, and a
bill passed imposing an additional duty of two per centum, ad
valorem, on all goods imported into the State. A bill to supply
the United States, in Congress assembled, with a certain sum of
money was promptly passed. These measures convey but a
faint idea of the number and importance of the subjects that
employed the time of the House. The revised bills, continued
from the last session, were still under discussion; but, after many
had been disposed of, it was determined to appoint a second
committee of revisers to complete an entire revision of the laws;
for in the interval of the first appointment of the revisors ten
years had elapsed, and the legislation of that period required to
be drafted into the Code; and Edmund Pendleton and George
Wythe, two of the former revisors, and John Blair were
appointed to perform the work. If no other record of the
worth, the ability, and the sterling faith of the present Assembly
existed than the Journal of the House of Delegates, the careful
historian would pronounce with confidence on their just claims
to the gratitude and veneration of posterity.
The leading topics of the session, however, which have sin-
gled it out for a place in general history, were those pertaining
to the Protestant Episcopal Church, and to the initiatory measures
that led to the formation of the present Federal Constitution.
And first of the Church: At an early day petitions were pre-
sented from various places complaining of the disposition of the
churches and glebes, and praying for a repeal of the act to
incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Church. Those in favor
of a repeal and a redistribution of the property of the Church,
ALEXANDER WHITE. 161
whether we regard the number of the petitions or of those who
signed them, greatly preponderated.151 The petitions, as they
were presented, were referred to the Committee of the Whole.
On the 2d of November the House went into committee on the
subject, and, when the committee rose, a resolution was reported,
and agreed to, that the committee be discharged from the fur-
ther consideration of the petitions; which were ordered to lie on
the table. On the 4th of December the petitions were called up
and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the
Commonwealth. The subject was discussed in Committee of
the Whole on the 5th, when Colonel Thruston, who had been,
at the beginning of the Revolution, a minister of the Episcopal
Church, reported three resolutions, the first of which recom-
mended that a law ought to pass to empower all societies formed
for the purposes of religion to hold such property as they are
now possessed of, to acquire property of any kind, and to dis-
pose thereof in any manner that may be agreeable to the said
societies. The second recommended that so much of all acts
of Parliament or acts of Assembly as prohibits religious socie-
151 As a majority of the churches and glebes, in number and value,
were in Eastern Virginia, the subject of repeal and redistribution, in
its geographical bearing, will be seen by referring to the places from
which the petitions came : For a repeal, &c., were Louisa, Henrico,
Westmoreland, Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Dinwiddie, New Kent, Glou-
cester, Albemarle, Lancaster, Nansemond, King and Queen, Orange,
Goochland, Pittsylvania, Hanover, Amelia, Halifax, King and Queen,
Lunenburg, Augusta, Caroline, Essex, Westmoreland, Cumberland,
Gloucester, King and Queen, Cumberland, Buckingham, Hanover,
Gloucester, Powhatan, and Chesterfield. Against a repeal, &c., were
Richmond county, York, Hanover, Louisa, Northampton, Southamp-
ton, Stafford, King George, York, Elizabeth City, Hanover, Albemarle,
and Louisa. The Baptist associations presented a memorial in favor
of a repeal, and the Convention of the clerical and lay members of the
Protestant Episcopal Church presented a memorial against it, which
was followed by another from the standing committee of the last-
named Church. When the name of a county appears more than once
an additional petition was presented by it. I have given the names of
the counties in the order -in which they sent in their petitions. The
latest was presented on the 5th of December. On the 3oth of October
the Presbyterian Church of Alexandria applied for an act of incorpo-
ration, as the Otter Peak Presbyrerian Church had done at the pre-
vious session, but their petitions were rejected,
n
162 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ties from forming regulations for their own government, in any
cases whatsoever, ought to be repealed, and that it ought to
be declared that all such societies have full power to form regu-
lations for their own government. The third recommended a
repeal of the act to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Church.
These resolutions passed without a division, and a committee,
consisting of Thruston, George Nicholas,152 John Page, Corbin,
Johnston, Archibald Stuart, Isaac Zane, Madison, Briggs, and
Eggleston, was ordered to bring in bills in pursuance with the
resolutions. The bill to repeal the act to incorporate the Church
was duly presented, was read three several times on different
days, and passed the House without a division. On the gth it
was returned from the Senate, with amendments, in which the
House refused to concur, and from which, on the return of the
bill, it receded. What those amendments were the Journal of
neither House affords any means of determining.153 It is singu-
lar that, while the ayes and noes were frequently called during
the session on comparatively trivial questions, none demanded
them on such a question as this.
The first two resolutions reported by the Committee of the
Whole were just and proper. They served to carry out and
enforce the doctrines of the act for establishing religious free-
dom, and to extend to religious associations the protection and
aid of legislation. But the passage of the bill to repeal the act
incorporating the Episcopal Church was of doubtful right.
This extraordinary act can only be accounted for on the ground
of a compromise, or of a panic terror which seized upon the House.
It might have been contended in debate that, at the same time
the resolution recommending a repeal of the charter of the
Church was adopted, another resolution authorizing the passage
of all laws necessary to enable a religious society to hold and
sell its property received the sanction of the House; and that the
Episcopal Church, in losing its charter, which it held alone of all
the religious sects, would lose nothing, while the repeal would
not affect its title to property which it lawfully held. This
152 George Nicholas had reported the bill of the last session to repeal
the charter of the Church.
153 The original engrossed bill, in the office of the Clerk of the House
of Delegates, will settle the question.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 163
ground is not tenable unless it can be shown that the Church
had approved it; but the memorials of its Convention and of its
standing committee (which last was presented just before the
resolution recommending the repeal was adopted), so far from
approving such a policy, warmly protested against any action in
the premises. If, then, there was a compromise in the House,
as there probably was, it was a compromise to which the Church
did not assent; and without that assent the act of repeal was
manifestly unjust and unconstitutional.15* It has never been
alleged that the Episcopal Church had by any unlawful practice
forfeited its charter; but even if it had, the mode of redress was
not through the Legislature, but through the courts. On the
other hand, some allowance should be made for the peculiar
views in respect of the extent of the powers of the Legislature
then prevalent. On the subject of charters the public jealousy
in England and in the Colony for a century and a half then past
was directed to the King, and not towards Parliament. The
reckless mode of dealing with charters pursued by James the
Second did more to weaken his hold upon the intelligent and
religious people of England, and especially upon the Church of
England, than any other course, which, under the guidance of
evil councillors, and in pursuit of his mad scheme of converting
England into a Catholic country, he was driven to adopt. The
sanctity of charters became one of the slogans of the Revolution
of 1688. It was specially dwelt upon in the memorial from The
Hague, which prepared the British mind to accept of a new
dynasty. But it was the annulment of charters by the King,
and not by Parliament, that roused the fears of the English peo-
ple. The King was the grantor of all charters, but he could not
take them away. The authority of Parliament, however, was
unrestricted. It could declare the throne vacant, and fill it at
its discretion; and it would certainly have appeared to the states-
men of 1688 the height of absurdity to deny to that body the
right of amending or annulling a vicious charter which James
154 The fact that the ayes and noes were not called in any of the
stages of the bill would seem to indicate some agreement between its
friends and the friends of the Church, or that the friends of the Church
seeing all contest hopeless, did not care to put their names on record
for future animadversion.
164 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
may have bestowed upon his minions. It was in this spirit that
the General Assembly passed the bill to repeal the charter of the
Episcopal Church, more especially as on the subject of charters
the Constitution did not expressly prohibit their repeal. The
customs and the laws of England from the time of King Wil-
liam had justly great weight with our fathers. In their early
troubles they had looked to the Convention Parliament of 1688
as a guide, and, in imitation of that body, had adjourned over
from a convention to an ordinary Legislature.155 It is true the
Convention Parliament repealed no charters; but it is equally
true that, if King James before his abdication had not, by
recalling his new charters and by the restoration of the old, done
the work for them, they would have done it for themselves.
But, with all the allowances due from the habits and customs of
Parliament, the repeal of the Church bill, even on the ground of
compromise, when the Church proper was not a party, was
indefensible.
Nor is the repeal more defensible on the ground of popular
clamor. The voice of the people is truly the voice of God;
but it must be uttered in that deliberate and constitutional way
which the people themselves have prescribed. No statesman
who consents at the bidding of the popular voice to violate
vested rights should escape the serious animadversion of pos-
terity. And this censure attaches with equal severity to the
opponents as well as to the friends of repeal. No act of legisla-
tion during the session appears more unanimous on the face of
the Journal than the act repealing the charter of the Church.
From first to last — from the day when the resolution recom-
mending its repeal was reported from the Committee of the
Whole to the passage of the bill through its several stages —
there was not a single division in the House, either on its prin-
ciple or on its details. All the members are equally responsible
for its passage; while the conduct of the minority, if controlled
by fear, is still more to be condemned and deplored. Failing to
afford posterity the means of knowing, by the ordinary parlia-
mentary signs, who were the supporters of the bill, its oppo-
156 1 have already mentioned the fact that the Convention of May,
1776, which formed our first Constitution, became the first House of
Delegates under that Constitution, without an appeal to the people.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 165
nents, if such there were, must share the blame with its friends.
Moreover, the repeal of the act was a blunder. In the eye of
the law it was a nullity. The great aim of those who desired
the repeal was the confiscation of the churches and the glebes.
Yet it was plain that, if the Church held its possessions lawfully,
no act of Assembly, which merely deprived it of its corporate
capacity, could rightfully take them away. The course which
the Legislature ought to have pursued seems to be simple and
obvious. The whole question of property belonged to the
judiciary, and the Assembly might have performed its duty by
referring the petitioners to the courts, or by instructing the
Attorney- General or the solicitor to prepare for the courts a
case which should determine the right of the Church to hold
the property in question. On the other hand, the course of the
Church on the repeal of its charter was equally obvious. Its
friends ought to have pressed the bills carrying into effect the
two first resolutions of the committee through the House, and
thus placed the Church on a platform on which it could sustain
itself in a court of justice; but so far from following up the
recommendations of the committee, which were adopted by the
House, they allowed them to sleep on the table. The Church
should, then, have appealed to the courts, and we know, from
what occurred when an appeal was ultimately made, what would
have been the result. It would have protected itself from the
worriment [sic], vexation, and spoliation of the ten or fifteen years
that followed the repeal, and retained its property, if held law-
fully, under the laws existing prior to the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, or under the act of the October session of 1776, or
under the act of its recent incorporation. And posterity would
have had the satisfaction of knowing that the act of repeal was
as inoperative as it was ill-timed and unjust.
The subject of Federal affairs will now claim our attention.
On the 3oth of October, 1786, the Speaker laid before the House
of Delegates a letter from the commissioners appointed by the
General Assembly at the last session to meet such commissioners
as might be appointed by the other States in the Union, to take
into consideration the commerce of the United States, with a
copy of the proceedings of the meeting.156 The letter and its
156 The meeting at Annapolis.
166 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
enclosures were read, and committed to the whole House on the
state of the Commonwealth. On the 3d of November the House
went into committee on the subject, and, when it rose, Matthews
reported a resolution declaring " that an act ought to pass in
conformity to the report of the commissioners assembled at
Annapolis on the 4th of September last, for appointing commis-
sioners on the part of this State to meet commissioners on the
part of the other States in convention, at Philadelphia, on the
second Monday in May next, with powers to devise such further
provision as shall appear to them necessary to render the Con-
stitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies
of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose to the
United States, in Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by
them, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every
State, will effectually provide for the same." It was unani-
mously agreed to by the House, and Matthews, George Nicholas,
Madison, Nelson, Mann Page, Bland, and Corbin were ordered
to bring in a bill in pursuance with its tenor. The object of the
resolution was evidently to amend the Articles of Confederation
in the form prescribed by them.
On the 6th of November Matthews157 reported a bill "for
appointing delegates from this Commonwealth to a convention
proposed to be held in the city of Philadelphia in May next, for
the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution"; which was
received and read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time. On the 7th it was read a second time, and committed to
the whole House on the following day. But on the following
day something more than a phantom appeared to the eyes of the
Federal party. It will be remembered that on the I3th of Janu-
ary, 1786 — a few days before the House of Delegates adjourned
at the last session — a resolution had been deliberately adopted
which required not less than three nor more than five commis-
sioners to meet a similar number on the part of Maryland and
adjust the commercial relations of the two States; but that, at
157 Alexander Hamilton, who drafted the circular of the Annapolis
meeting to the States, was a West Indian; and Thomas Matthews, who
reported the resolution declaring the expediency of appointing com-
missioners on the part of Virginia to the Convention at Philadelphia,
and the bill above mentioned appointing the deputies, was also a West
Indian.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 167
the last day of the session, when it is probable a quorum was
hardly present, the Federal party had introduced the Annapolis
resolution, and appointed delegates to carry its purposes into
effect. It was now determined by the majority that, in the face
of the preliminaries for calling a General Federal Convention,
the commissioners, under the resolution of the i3th of January,
should be appointed, and should, without delay, effect the con-
templated meeting. It was also determined to seek the concur-
rence of Pennsylvania, and to obtain the consent of Congress.
This fearful resolution passed without a division, was immedi-
ately transmitted to the Senate by Corbin, and received the
sanction of that body on the 22d. The House then resolved
itself into a committee on the bill to call the General Convention;
and, when it rose, Matthews reported the bill with amendments,
which were concurred in, and the bill, with the amendments, was
ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. And on the
following day it passed the House without a division, was carried
to the Senate by Matthews, and was concurred in by that body,
and communicated to the House on the 23d.158 On the 25th the
commissioners, under the resolution of the i3th of January, were
elected by joint ballot, the choice falling on Saint George Tucker,
William Ronald, Robert Townsend Hooe, Thomas Pleasants,
and Francis Corbin. And on the 4th of December George
Washington, Patrick Henry, Edmund Randolph, John Blair,
James Madison, George Mason, and George Wythe were elected,
by joint ballot of both houses, deputies to the General Con-
vention.
At the first glance the appointment of two sets of commis-
sioners at the same time for what should seem one and the same
object may appear inconsistent, and the game of two opposing
parties. That there was deep management on the side of the
Federalists proper (headed by Madison) is probably true; but it
was not observed by the majority; or, if observed, it was disre-
158 There is another illustration of the respect manifested by the
Assembly to Congress, and shows that the case of disrespect alluded
to by Mr. Madison must have been isolated, and the result of some
casual impulse; if (as we have before intimated) Mr. Madison had not
confounded, after a lapse of years, the nature of the votes on a par-
ticular occasion. See the proceedings in full in the House Journal,
November 23, 1786, page 55.
168 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
garded, as the Federal scheme merely pointed to an amendment
of the Articles of Confederation in the form prescribed by that
instrument, and any proposed amendment would be required to
pass the ordeal of the Assembly. But the truth is, that the
majority were eminently patriotic. They loved the Union, and
were willing to make it as efficient as was consistent with the
independence of Virginia. They well knew that some time
would elapse before the meeting of the Convention, and still
more before its work was ended, and yet still more before that
work could be received and approved by every State in the Con-
federation. They remembered the delay in ratifying the Arti-
cles of Confederation, to which Virginia had promptly assented
as early as 1777, but which did not take effect till 1781. Mean-
time, the commercial relations of Virginia with Maryland and
Pennsylvania required immediate attention. The interests of
those States would be materially advanced by a uniform tariff,
and those of Virginia most of all.
The principal occasion on which the two parties came into
direct collision, and which resulted in the total defeat of the
Federal party proper, occurred on the 2d of January, 1787, on
a motion to amend the bill to amend and reduce into one the
several laws concerning naval officers, by adding a clause in the
following words: "That the before- mentioned duties shall not
be demanded or paid until the commissioners appointed on
behalf of this State to negotiate with commissioners on behalf
of the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania, for the establishment
of similar commercial duties and regulations within this and the
said States, shall have reported to the Executive that the State
of Maryland has imposed duties similar and equal to those
before imposed by this act; in which case, the Executive is
hereby authorized and required to direct, by proclamation, the
said duties to be paid; and in the mean time the present duties
shall continue to be collected in pursuance of the laws now in
force and of this act." 15fl The ayes and noes were called, and the
amendment failed 'by a vote of seventy-one to thirty-seven ;
159 House Journal, January 2, 1787, page 135. The ayes and noes in
full on this amendment well deserve to be studied, if the historical
student has a wish to note the somersaults which some of the voters
were to turn in less than eighteen months.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 169
Madison, David Stuart, Richardson, Marr, Thornton, Temple,
Gordon, Corbin, Turpin, Bland, Bullitt, and Dawson in the
minority, and George Nicholas, Pride, Samuel J. Cabell, Johns-
ton, Trigg, McFerrUn, Strother, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie),
King, Meriwether Smith, Thomas Smith, Clendenin, Isaac
Coles, Goodall, Prunty, George Jackson, Isaac Vanmeter,
Robertson, Willis Riddick, McKee, Allen, Briggs, Gary, and
Matthews in the majority. On the 4th the bill came up on its
passage, when the Federalists ventured another battle, and were
again defeated by a vote of seventy-nine to thirty-two. The
bill was sent to the Senate by Madison, who was one of the
minority of thirty-two, and received the assent of that body on
the Qth.
The design of the Federalists proposing the amendment was
to postpone any permanent agreement between Maryland and
Virginia, which, by facilitating the collection of customs, might
render the adoption of any general system less urgent upon this
State. The success of the amendment would have laid Virginia
at the mercy of Maryland, who might impose what duties she
pleased upon imports, while Virginia might remain helpless and
without a revenue to meet her ordinary expenses. Moreover, a
state of commercial embarrassment was more favorable to the
views of the Federalists than a prosperous system of domestic
revenue, as it might serve to demonstrate the absence of any
stringent necessity for an entire change in our Federal policy.
This vote may be taken as a fair exhibition of the policy of both
parties and their relative strength.
The question of the navigation of the Mississippi was one of
the great topics of the present session. That river once held to
Virginia a relation as intimate as the Chesapeake and the James
hold at the present time. The account of the Mississippi
debate in the Convention, which has been already reported,
explains the state of public opinion on the subject. Let it suf-
fice for the present to say that at a moment when the fate of the
Commonwealth was believed to hang by a single hair, Virginia
had given a reluctant consent to allow the surrender of the navi-
gation of that river to become a subject of negotiation with
Spain; but as soon as the imminent jeopardy was removed she
returned to her true feelings, and opposed-all negotiation on such
170 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
a question.160 It had been recently discussed in Congress, and
there was an evident design on the part of that body, or of its
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to cede the exclusive navigation of
the river to Spain for a term of years, embracing an entire gene-
ration. At this crisis the House of Delegates determined to
mark out in unequivocal terms the policy which Virginia would
maintain; and on the 29th day of November, 1786, discussed
the subject in full in Committee of the Whole. When the com-
mittee rose, General Matthews reported to the House three reso-
lutions, the first of which set forth that the common right of
navigating the Mississippi, and of communicating with other
nations through that channel, ought to be considered as the
bountiful gift of nature to the United States, as the proprietors
of the territories watered by that river and its eastern branches,
and as morover secured to them by the late Revolution. The
second declared that the confederacy, having been formed on the
broad basis of equal rights in every part thereof to the protec-
tion and guardianship of the whole, a sacrifice of the rights of
any part to the supposed real interest of another part would be
a flagrant violation of justice, a direct contravention of the end
for which the Federal Government was instituted, and an alarm-
ing innovation in the system of the Union. The third recom-
mended that the delegates of Virginia in Congress 161 ought to be
instructed in the most decided terms to oppose any attempt that
may be made in Congress to barter or surrender to any nation
whatever the right of the United States to the free and common
160 See letter of Madison to H. Niles (Madison Papers, Vol. I, Appen-
dix, No. IV).
161 The delegates in Congress elected at the present session were
William Grayson, James Madison, Richard Henry Lee, Joseph Jones,
and Edward Carrington. Jones having declined, Henry Lee, Jr.
(Legion Harry) was chosen in his place. It has been seen in the debates
what an important part some of these gentlemen had to perform. By
the way, the members of Congress were elected at each session of
Assembly by the process of bringing in a fresh bill at every election
appointing delegates to Congress. Leave was asked to bring in the
bill, and when the bill was reported it passed through the stages of an
ordinary bill in both houses. When the bill became a law the election
was held by joint ballot of the houses.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 171
use of the river Mississippi, and to protest against the same as
a dishonorable departure from the comprehensive and benevo-
lent policy which constitutes the vital principle of the confede-
racy; as provoking the just resentments and reproaches of our
Western brethren, whose essential rights and interests would be
thereby sacrificed and sold; as destroying that confidence in
the wisdom, justice, and liberality of the Federal councils,
which is so necessary at this crisis to a proper enlargement of
their authority; and, finally, as tending to undermine our repose,
our prosperity, and our Union itself; and that the said delegates
ought to be instructed to urge the proper negotiations with
Spain for obtaining her concurrence in such regulations touching
the mutual and common use of the said river as may secure the
permanent harmony and affection of the two nations, and such
as the wise and generous policy of His Catholic Majesty will per-
ceive to be no less due to the interests of his own subjects than
to the just and friendly views of the United States. These reso-
lutions were unanimously adopted by the House, and Matthews
was ordered to take them to the Senate, which body concurred
in them on the 8th, without amendment.
These resolutions record an era in human affairs. It may be
truly affirmed that, if Virginia had cast her weight in the oppo-
site scale, no American boat, not a bale of American cotton,
would have rested on the waters of Mississippi for a generation
to come. The West, all hope of profitable agriculture being
blasted, would have remained unpeopled; and those strong
incentives which, in better days and under the auspices of a new
system controlled by Southern statesmen, led to the purchase of
Louisiana and the free and perpetual ownership and use of that
mighty river, would not have existed, nor that public opinion
which was necessary to sustain that magnificent acquisition.
Honor to the men who laid the foundation of that great work,
and whose names, almost forgotten in the land of their birth, it
is our present purpose and ardent desire to make familiar to
those who inherit the results of their splendid statesmanship and
heroic courage.
A graceful act of the present session was the purchase and
manumission of the slave James, the property of William Armi-
stead, of New Kent. The subject was brought before the House
172 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
of Delegates by a petition from the slave himself, setting forth,
among other things, a certificate from the Marquis de Lafayette,
that James had done him essential services while he commanded
in Virginia, and that the intelligence which the negro had
received from the enemy's camp was industriously collected
and most faithfully delivered as a spy; and that he properly
acquitted himself in some important commissions which the
Marquis had given him. The bill of purchase and manumis-
sion passed both houses unanimously. This is the only instance,
which at present occurs to us, in which a petition from a slave
was presented to the House of Delegates.
On the I5th day of October, 1787, the General Assembly
again came together, and a quorum of both houses appeared on
the first day of the session. The modest and estimable Prentis,
who was soon to be called to the bench of the District Court,
was re-elected Speaker of the House of Delegates without oppo-
sition— an honor the more valuable as he was nominated by
General Matthews, who was eminent as a parliamentarian, and
who, at a subsequent date, filled the Speaker's chair for several
years, and was sustained by Governor Harrison, who had more
than once presided in the House, had been Governor, and had
filled the leading posts abroad.
The members of the House, who were members of the present
Convention, were William Cabell, Patrick Henry, Benjamin.
Harrison, William Watkins, Parke Goodall, French Strothert
Thomas Smith, Andrew Moore, George Nicholas, Thomas Mat-
thews, Theodoric Bland, Nathaniel Burwell, William Ronald,
Francis Corbin, James Monroe, Edmund Custis, John Trigg,
Joseph Jones, Meriwether Smith, Samuel Richardson, John
Guerrant, Isaac Coles, John Marr, Green Clay, Samuel Hop-
kins, Willis Riddick, Thomas Turpin, Cuthbert Bullitt, Robert
Lawson.John Dawson.John Howell Briggs, Thomas Edmunds,
Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, Martin McFerran, George
Mason, David Stuart, John Early, John S. Woodcock, Daniel
Fisher, Ralph Humphreys, George Jackson, John Prunty, John
Marshall, William Norvell, Benjamin Temple, Levin Powell,
Littleton Eyre, James Webb, Archibald Woods, Anthony Walke,
Walker Tomlin, William McKee, John Allen, Richard Cary,
Samuel Edmison, Bushrod Washington, Miles King, Samuel
ALEXANDER WHITE. 173
Jordan Cabell, David Patteson, William Thornton, Joseph Jones,
David Stuart, James Gordon, Edmund Ruffin, and Alexander
White.
Madison was in- Congress, which was then sitting in New
York, as his published letters show; but probably at no period
of our history was the House of Delegates composed of an
abler body of men. As a characteristic of the times, it may be
mentioned that Daniel Boone was a member from one of the
counties of Kentucky.
Norvell, whose grave demeanor and weight of public service
well fitted him for the post, was placed at the head of the Com-
mittee of Religion; Harrison, at the head of the Committee of
Privileges and Elections; George Nicholas, at the head of the
Committee of Propositions and Grievances; Patrick Henry, at
the head of the Committee of Courts of Justice; and Matthews,
at the head of the Committee of Commerce.
The Senate was also successful in getting a quorum on the
first day of the session, and elected John Jones their Speaker
by a majority of one vote over General Edward Stevens.162
Stevens Thomson Mason, John Pride, Walter Jones, and Bur-
well Bassett, members of the present Convention, were also
members of the Senate.163
The first general business was the re-election of Edmund Ran-
dolph as Governor, and the choice of James Madison, Edward
Carrington, Henry Lee, John Brown, and Cyrus Griffin as mem-
bers of Congress for the following year. The new Federal
162 General Edward Stevens and General Adam Stephen were fre-
quently confounded in their own day, and still more frequently in later
times. General Adam Stephen was a member of the present Conven-
tion, and is noticed elsewhere. General Edward Stevens was almost
our contemporary, as he died as late as 1820. He was an excellent man
and a gallant soldier. He is buried near Culpeper Courthouse, in this
State.
163 There were two gentlemen by the name of Burwell Bassett in the
Assembly at the present session. The one in the Senate, and not the
one in the House, was a member of the present Convention. Great
care is necessary in deciding on individuals of the same name. Thus
there were Cabells and Joneses in both houses, a Paul Carrington on
the bench, and another in the House. This care is more imperative, as
the Journals have no index.
174 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Constitution, which had been promulgated some days before,16*
was now in the hands of most of the members for the first time,
but did not seem to produce any sensible effect on legislation.
Several years had elapsed after the ratification of the Articles of
Confederation by Virginia before they went into operation; and
it is probable that the members thought that a similar lapse of
time might occur in the case of the new Constitution.
The House of Delegates soon adopted three resolutions — the
first of which instructed the Executive to procure several thou-
sand stand of arms and accoutrements for the use of the militia
of the State, and to distribute them in the several counties in
proportion to the number of militia; the second provided that a
corps of cavalry should be raised out of the militia of each
county by voluntary enlistment; and the third repealed the laws
obliging the militia to furnish themselves with arms. These
resolutions were referred to a committee consisting of Matthews,
Nicholas, Henry, Ronald, Harrison, Monroe, Archibald Stuart,
and Marshall — nearly all of whom had taken an active part in
military service during the late war. Leave was given to bring
in a bill declaring tobacco receivable in payment of certain taxes
for the year 1787; and Nicholas, Gordon, and Cabell were
ordered to bring it in. Leave was also given to bring in a bill
to reduce into one the acts imposing duties on imported articles,
and another to amend the laws of revenue and provide for the
support of civil government, and the regular payment of all the
debts due by the Commonwealth; all of which ultimately became
laws.
The subject of the new Federal Constitution came up on the
25th in the House of Delegates. The House went into com-
mittee, and, after debate, Prentis resumed the chair, and Mat-
thews reported a series of resolutions providing that the pro-
ceedings of the Federal Convention, as transmitted to the General
Assembly through the medium of Congress, ought to be sub-
mitted to a convention of the people for their free and full inves-
tigation and discussion; that every citizen, being a freeholder of
this Commonwealth, ought to be eligible to a seat in the Con-
vention, and that the people thereof ought not to be restrained
164 The General Convention had adjourned on the i7th day of Sep-
tember.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 175
in their choice of Delegates by any of those legal or constitu-
tional restrictions which confine them in the choice of delegates
to the Legislature; that it be recommended to each county to
elect two delegates, and to each city, town, or corporation enti-
tled by law to representation in the Legislature to elect one
delegate to the said Convention; that the qualifications of the
electors be the same as those established by law; that the elec-
tion for delegates aforesaid be held at the several places appointed
by law for holding the elections for delegates to the General
Assembly, and that the same be conducted by the officers who
conducted the elections for delegates, and conformably to the
rules and regulations thereof; that the election of delegates shall
be held in the month of March next, on the first day of the court
to be held for each county, city, or corporation, respectively,
and that the persons so chosen shall assemble in the State House,
in the city of Richmond, on the fourth Monday of May next;
that two thousand copies of these resolutions be forthwith printed
and dispersed by the members of the General Assembly among
their constituents; and that the Executive transmit a copy of
them to Congress and to the Legislature and Executive of the
respective States. These resolutions were read a second time,
and the vote was taken upon them. The first, which required
the Constitution to be submitted to an independent convention,
was adopted unanimously; the remaining ones were adopted,
though not unanimously; but no division was called for. Mat-
thews was ordered to take them to the Senate, which body sent
them back by Stevens Thomson Mason on the 3ist with amend-
ments, which were concurred in by the House. A bill contain-
ing the substance of the resolves was duly reported in the House,
passed that body and the Senate, and on the I2th of December
became a law.165 This act was ordered to be sent to the several
States in like manner with the resolves. Thus was Virginia not
only the first to call the General Convention and to appoint
delegates to attend it, but was the first to provide by law for the
submission of the work of its hands to the people of a State.
165 What the amendments of the Senate to the resolves were does
not appear in the Journal of either house. It is probable that the
change of the time of meeting to the first Monday in June was the
most important.
176 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
A great blunder was committed by the opponents of the Con-
stitution in allowing the first resolution of the series to be
adopted. If they ever designed to assail that instrument as
exceeding the powers of the body which framed it, as was pal-
pable on its face, then was the time to act. The submission of
it to the people at once removed all such objections, and estab-
lished its legitimacy. Motives of delicacy may have operated
in producing unanimity on the subject; and it is not improbable
that its opponents relied upon their strength in the proposed
convention — which was substantially the General Assembly under
another name — in which body they had long been ascendant;
and it may have been that parties, at this early stage, had not
been distinctly organized.
This session was distinguished by the number and variety of
the topics of legislation which were discussed and settled. No
opinion seemed to have been entertained that a great change
was impending. On the contrary, the acts embraced the whole
subject of customs, the construction of a fort,166 the building of a
marine hospital for sick and disabled seamen, and other mea-
sures of a commercial character. One of the leading measures,
which passed and repassed between the houses more than once,
was the establishment of district courts. Under its provisions
Joseph Prentis, Gabriel Jones, Saint George Tucker, and Rich-
ard Parker were elected judges. An act passed to amend the
county courts. Appropriations were made to the lunatic hos-
pital, and one-sixth of the surveyors' fees in the Kentucky dis-
trict were devoted to the support of the Transylvania Seminary.
A company was chartered to connect the waters of the Elizabeth
river with those of the Pasquotank; and the Dismal Swamp
canal, which has long contributed to the wealth and prosperity
of Virginia and North Carolina, has been the result. A safety
fund was provided for the gradual extinction of the public debt.
All acts which prevented the speedy collection of British debts
were repealed; and this was done when our negroes, who were
carried off at York and from the city of New York, were unpaid
for, and when the Western posts, from which the Indians on our
borders were supplied with arms, were still retained, in spite of
166 This fort was built by a man named Richard Chin with. [A cor
ruption, probably, of Chenowith. — EDITOR.]
ALEXANDER WHITE. 177
the definitive treaty by Great Britain. Certain persons were
invested with the exclusive right of running stage-coaches on
particular routes; and Fitch was allowed the exclusive privilege
of navigating the waters of the State, by steam, for fourteen
years. Acts for regulating the customs and the duties of naval
officers, carefully prepared, were passed, and for the payment of
all arrearages into the treasury. Tobacco was made receivable
in payment of certain taxes; and, either by the enactment of new
laws or by the amendment of the old, the State was never before
so invigorated in her military, financial, and judicial departments.
The adjournment of both houses took place on the 8th of Janu-
ary, 1788.
A glance at the Treasurer's account of his receipts during the
year, extending from the i2th of December, 1786, to November
the 3Oth, 1787, will afford a safe means of comparison with the
revenues accruing to the Commonwealth under the new Consti-
tution. The sum total of receipts from all sources was not far
from one million and a half pounds — Virginia currency.167 This
sum was made up of arrears of taxes of previous years, amount-
ing to over thirty-three thousand pounds; the revenue taxes of
1786 were one hundred and forty-one thousand five hundred
and twelve pounds; the amount of revenue from the customs,
including the export duties on tobacco, was near eighty-seven
thousand pounds. Of course, there was a large amount of cer-
tificates of the public debt received in payment of taxes; but in
a few years this source would have been exhausted. There were
also payments for public lands sold at Gosport, for public prop-
erty, and for public lands generally. When we recall the fact that
the duties were almost nominal — rarely exceeding five per cent.,
and oftener under, owing to the position of Virginia in respect
of the custom-houses of Maryland and Pennsylvania just beyond
her lines — it is evident that the revenue from customs, which was
not far from three hundred thousand dollars, must have repre-
sented a vast commerce for those days.
Between the adjournment of the General Assembly, in Janu-
ary, 1788, and its meeting on the 23d of June following, the
187 $3- 33 */3 to the pound. The Treasurer's account may be seen in
the Senate Journal of January 2, 1788, and in the House Journal of
December 13, 1787.
178 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Federal Convention held its sittings. The bodies came together,
for the Convention did not adjourn until the 27th of June, and
the Assembly met on the 23d. It was, by the proclamation of
the Governor, made on the I4th of May last, that the Assembly
was called together. On the first day (23d) neither house formed
a quorum. The members generally were doubtless attracted
by the proceedings of the Convention; and the members of the
Assembly, who were members of the Convention, were unable
to leave their seats in the latter body. A single vote might
settle important questions; and it was not until the 26th that the
final vote on the ratification of the Constitution was taken. On
the 25th the Senate obtained a quorum, and Humphrey Brooke,
a member of the Convention, was appointed Clerk; and John
Jones, a member of the Convention, was, on motion of Stevens
Thomson Mason, a member of the Convention, unanimously
re-elected Speaker. The members of the Senate, who were also
members of the Convention, were, besides Mason and John
Jones, Burwell Bassett and John Pride and Joseph Jones. Joseph
Jones had long been a member of the House of Delegates, had
been a member of Congress, and held a front rank among the
statesmen of his day.
The House of Delegates failed to get a quorum on the first
day, but on the second a number sufficient to organize the House
assembled, when Colonel Monroe nominated the accomplished
Grayson as Speaker. This nomination, which at this day we
should suppose would have been received by acclamation, was
by no means satisfactory; probably, at first sight, because both
Monroe and Grayson had warmly opposed in debate the adop-
tion of the Constitution, the fate of which was not yet settled,
but rather, I am inclined to think, because both gentlemen had
been mainly prominent in military and civil stations abroad, and
were not in the direct line of succession to honorary posts at
home, especially in the Assembly. Meriwether Smith nomi-
nated General Thomas Matthews, whose entire public life had
been spent within the Commonwealth, and who had been long
deemed one of the best parliamentarians in the House. But it
seems there was to be be another formidable nomination. Cabell
of ("Union Hill"), who had long known Benjamin Harrison,
and had served with him in public bodies for almost thirty years,
determined to bring him forward for the chair. The House
ALEXANDER WHITE. 179
determined to vote by ballot, and, upon a count, it was ascertained
Matthews had received a majority of the whole House, and was
declared Speaker. It should seem that our worthy fathers did
not make party politics an exclusive test in filling the office of
Speaker, as Smith, who was a decided opponent of the Consti-
tution, nominated Matthews, who, coming from a commercial
town, was one of its warmest friends, and voted the day after
his election by the House of Delegates — a majority of which
opposed the Constitution — for the ratification of that instrument.
There was also perceptible at all times in the House an esprit
de corps which prompted its members to confer its honors on
those whose terms of public service were spent on its floor.
Hence it was that Richard Henry Lee, who was the imperson-
ator of patriotism, eloquence, and honor, though brought forward
for the chair repeatedly in the range of thirty years, was always
defeated by large majorities.
The members of the Convention who were members of the
House were — besides Monroe, Grayson, Smith, Matthews,
Cabell, and Harrison — Patrick Henry, Zachariah Johnston,
Theodoric Bland, William Ronald, Cuthbert Bullitt, Miles King,
French Strother, Francis Corbin, John H. Briggs, Wilson C.
Nicholas, William Thornton, Levin Powell, Thomas Smith,
John Dawson, David Stuart, Daniel Fisher, Ralph Wormley,
William O. Callis, Alexander White, John Early, John S. Wood-
cock, George Clendenin, John Allen, Samuel J. Cabell, Bushrod
Washington, Andrew Moore,168 Walker Tomlin, John Trigg,
Henry Lee (of Bourbon), Binns Jones, John Guerrant, William
McKee, Robert Breckenridge, Green Clay, C. Robertson, John
H. Cocke, Richard Kennon, Thomas Cooper, John Roane,
Thomas Carter, and Samuel Edmiston.
One of the first questions that arose in the House was whether
the members of the Convention, who were members of Assem-
bly, should receive double mileage and double per diem. This
matter, which was quite important in a financial view from the
numbers of those who held seats in both bodies, and from the
lean state of the treasury, was gravely discussed; and a reso-
lution was passed by both houses prohibiting the payment of
double mileage and double pay. So the double members were
168 Who was elected during the session a member of the Council.
180 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
no better off than their single brethren. Forty years later this
question was again started in relation to those who were members
of the Convention of 1829, and who were at the same time mem-
bers of the Assembly. The Convention of that year ran for a
month and a half into the session of the Assembly, and both bodies
were hard at work at the same time. But the question, though
propounded in private, never reached the ear of either house,
each member deciding it for himself.169 The fact is, that the law
passed by the Assembly of 1788 was ex post facto, and a nullity.
Every member of the Assembly and of the Convention was
entitled under existing laws to his mileage and per diem, andj
having rendered the service, was entitled to receive the wages
prescribed by law. How far the Assembly would have been
justifiable in increasing the pay is another question; but it is
plain they could no more reduce or abolish the pay of a member
for services actually rendered than they could reduce or abolish
the pay of any other officer under similar circumstances. But
the double members were numerous, the treasury was scant
of coin, and a law as clearly as unconstitutional as was ever
enacted passed both houses with apparent unanimity.
A file of the Richmond papers for the year 1788 is not in
existence; and, as the Journals of neither house contain a copy
169 The double members of the Convention and Assembly of 1829
were some twelve or fifteen. I was one of them; but we needed no
law to prevent us from receiving double pay. It was a question of
equity and honor, and but one member asked and received his double
pay, and he has long since passed to a realm where, it is to be hoped,
constructive journeys are unknown. That we were not compelled to
do right by a special law passed in the very teeth of the Constitution
and Declaration of Rights, at a time when there was quite a plethora
in the treasury, shows that we were at least as patriotic as our worthy
predecessors were forced to be. I remember the state of the treasury
in 1829 from a little incident that happened on the day of the publica-
tion of the Treasurer's report in the papers. I met with the late Judge
Philip P. Barbour, the President of the Convention, at our breakfast-
table at the Eagle, and seeing him tickled at something in the morning's
paper, inquired about the cause of his mirth He said that he was
amused at the felicitations of the Treasurer over a surplus of fifty or sixty
thousand dollars; that in Congress they made nothing of voting a hun-
dred thousand, or even half a million, at a single breath; and that when
he thought what would be the effect of such a vote on the keeper
of the Virginia fisc, he could not resist a smile.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 181
of the Governor's proclamation calling them together, I am
unable to state positively the reason of the call. It was certainly
not on account of the Convention, as the previous Assembly
had passed all the necessary laws upon the subject, and the
houses would meet in course in October, and the action of the
houses had no reference, during their session, to the Conven-
tion.170 I am inclined to believe that the call grew out of the
remonstrance of the judges of the Court of Appeals to some
details of the new District Court law; for both houses imme-
diately passed the bill to suspend the operation of the law for
the present. They, however, kept its bench full; for on being
informed of the declinature of his seat by Gabriel Jones,171 one
of the new judges, they supplied the vacancy by the election of
Edmund Winston.172
On the 3oth of June, after a session of six days, the Assembly
adjourned. Although the Convention had adjourned three days
before, and so many of its leading members were members of
the Assembly, it does not appear that any allusion was made to
its proceedings. Certainly no action was had on the subject.
Both houses reassembled on the 2oth of October, 1788; but,
as was usual, when two sessions of the Assembly were held in
the same year, no quorum appeared in either house on the first
day. The Senate did not succeed in obtaining one until the
28th, but the House of Delegates was able to proceed to busi-
ness on the second day. The Speaker held over. Johnston
was put at the head of the Committee of Religion; Harrison,
of Privileges and Elections; Cabell (of "Union Hill"), of Propo-
sitions and Grievances; Patrick Henry, of Courts of Justice;
Richard Lee, of Claims; and John Page (taking the post of
Matthews, who was Speaker), of the Committee of Commerce.
An incident occurred on the third day of the session (24th)
which showed the feelings of the House on Federal affairs.
170 They made a slight alteration in the fund, from which the expenses
of the Convention were to be paid; but this was purely accidental.
171 Gabriel Jones twice declined a judicial office and once a seat in
Congress.
172 As Governor Randolph had doubtless made up his mind before
the date of the proclamation to quit the anti-Federalists, it is not
likely that he would have convoked an anti-Federal Legislature with-
out some paramount consideration.
182 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Colonel Edward Carrington, who had been elected a member of
Congress the preceding November, and had taken his seat in
that body, was returned to the present House at the April fol-
lowing from the county of Powhatan. It was proved that he
did not hear of his election as a member of the House until the
last of June, during which month a session of the House was
held, and that he had resigned his seat in Congress some days
before. The Committee of Elections reported in favor of his
holding the seat, but the House reversed the report, and declared
his seat vacant.173 This distrust of servants who were called to
serve two masters was manifested at an early period, and was
altogether wise and proper. Our early legislation on this sub-
ject merits a passing review. As early as 1777 an act was passed
declaring members of Congress ineligible to either house of
Assembly; but in 1779, evidently for some temporary purpose,
it was enacted that, should any person holding an executive,
legislative, or judicial office in the Commonwealth be appointed
a delegate to Congress, his office shall not thereby be vacated.
In 1783 an act passed declaring it improper that a delegate to
Congress should at the same time be a member of Assembly,
and that if a member of Assembly should accept a seat in Con-
gress his seat in the Assembly should be vacated. Before the
passage of the act of 1777 members of Congress were almost
invariably members of Assembly, and, when Congress was not
sitting, took their seats in the houses — an arrangement which
was at that early day extremely convenient and beneficial to the
public service. No newspapers worthy of the name were then
published in the States; and if there had been, the proceedings
of Congress, which were secret, could not have been found in
them. The presence of a member of Congress in the Assembly
might have a good effect upon legislation; for, although he could
not directly reveal the proceedings of Congress, unless required
by a direct vote of the houses, his advice and suggestions were
valuable and welcome. This policy, however, was put an end
178 He was sent back immediately by the people of Powhatan, and
voted throughout the session with the Federal minority. This distin-
guished patriot, after serving faithfully during the Revolution, particu-
larly as the quartermaster-general of Greene, and filling many civil
offices, and declining more (especially a seat in the Cabinet of Wash-
ington), died in Richmond, October 28, 1810; aged sixty-one.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 183
to by the jealousy with which a majority of both houses regarded
Richard Henry Lee, and which led to the momentary ostracism
of that illustrious patriot.
On the 27th of October, 1788, both houses for the first time
held their sessions "in the new Capitol on Shockoe Hill," and
have continued to hold them there, with the exception of a single
session, ever since.
The name of Robert Carter Nicholas, the old Treasurer of
the Colony, and the first Treasurer of the Commonwealth, was
brought up on the 3Oth to the consideration of the House.
It appeared that he had been appointed by one of the Con-
ventions in 1775 one of a committee to procure gunpowder
for the use of the Colony; and for this purpose borrowed of
Messrs. Norton & Sons, of London, the sum of five thou-
sand six hundred pounds sterling, for which he gave — at a time
when the Colony, not having declared independence, had no
name of her own — his private bond, with a number of gentlemen
as his securities. The collection of the bond was now pressed
upon his executor, who was his oldest son, George, a member
of the House, and relief was asked of the Assembly. It is credi-
ble to all parties that the bond was instantly ordered to be paid,
with six per cent, interest until it was paid.
The absorbing topic which was likely to employ the time of
the Assembly, and which filled the public mind with doubt and
apprehension, and even with serious alarm, was the Federal
Constitution. Both parties were not indisposed to propose
amendments to that instrument; but the stress was on the mode
of making those amendments. The Federal party proper con-
tended that the true mode of amending the Constitution should
be in accordance with its fifth article; while the opponents of
that paper urged that the most efficient and thorough means of
attaining an end deemed desirable by all was the call of a new
Convention of the States for the purpose. On the 3oth the
House of Delegates went into Committee of the Whole on the
State of the Commonwealth, and, when the Speaker resumed the
chair, reported the following preamble and resolutions:
" Whereas the Convention of delegates of the people of this
Commonwealth did ratify a Constitution, or form of government,
for the United States, referred to them for their consideration, and
did also declare that sundry amendments to exceptionable parts of
184 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the same ought to be adopted; and whereas the subject-matter
of the amendments agreed to by the said Convention invokes
all the great essential and unalienable rights, liberties, and privi-
leges of freemen, many of which, if not cancelled, are rendered
insecure under the said Constitution till the same shall be altered
and amended —
" Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that, for
quieting the minds of the good citizens of this Commonwealth,
and securing their rights and liberties, and preventing those dis-
orders which must arise under a government not founded in the
confidence of the people, application be made to the Congress
of the United States, so soon as they shall assemble under the
said Constitution, to call a convention for proposing amendments
to the same, according to the mode therein directed.
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that a
committee ought to be appointed to draw up and report to this
House a proper instrument of writing expressing the sense of
the General Assembly, and pointing out the reasons which induce
them to urge their application thus early for the calling the afore-
said Convention of the States.
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that the
said committee should be instructed to prepare the draft of a
letter in answer to one received from his Excellency George
Clinton, Esq., president of the Convention of New York, and a
circular-letter on the aforesaid subject of the other States in the
Union, expressive of the wish of the General Assembly of this
Commonwealth that they may join in the application to the new
Congress to appoint a Convention of the States as soon as the
Congress shall assemble under the new Constitution."
When the resolutions were read a motion was made to amend
the same by striking out from the word " whereas" in the first
line to the end, and inserting the following words:
"Whereas the delegates appointed to represent the good
people of this Commonwealth in the late Convention held in the
month of June last, did, by their act of the 25th of the said
month, assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on
the I7th day of September, 1787, by the Federal Convention
for the government of the United States, declaring themselves,
with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of
their intentions, under the conviction ' that whatsoever imperfec-
ALEXANDER WHITE. 185
tions might exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined
in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into dan-
ger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to
the ratification'; and whereas, in pursuance of the said declaration,
the same Convention did, by their subsequent act of the 2jih of
June aforesaid, agree to such amendments to the said Constitu-
tion of government for the United States as were by them
deemed necessary to be recommended to the consideration of
the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitu-
tion, to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the
fifth article thereof, at the same time enjoining it upon their
representatives in Congress to exert all their influence and use
all legal and reasonable methods to obtain a ratification of the
foregoing alterations and provisions in the manner provided by
the fifth article of the said Constitution, and in all congressional
laws to be passed in the mean time to conform to the spirit of
those amendments as far as the said Constitution would admit:
" Resolved, therefore, That it is the opinion of this committee
that an application ought to be made in the name and on the
behalf of the Legislature of this Commonwealth to the Congress
of the United States, so soon as they shall assemble under the
said Constitution, to pass an act recommending to the Legisla-
tures of the several States the ratification of a bill of rights,
and of certain articles of amendment proposed by the Conven-
tion of this State for the adoption of the United States, and that,
until the said act shall be ratified in pursuance of the fifth article
of the said Constitution of government for the United States,
Congress do conform their ordinances to the true spirit of the
said bill of rights and articles of amendment."
A second resolution instructed the Executive to transmit a
copy of the foregoing resolution to the Congress and to the
Legislatures and Executives of the States.
By these resolutions the issue was fairly made up between the
two great parties, and they were probably debated with unusual
warmth and ability on the floor; but we can know nothing cer-
tain on the subject. The question on the amendment was taken
at once, and it was lost by a vote of thirty nine to eighty-five;
showing a majority in favor of the opponents of the Constitu-
tion of more than two to one. The members of the House
who had been members of the Convention, and who voted for
186 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
striking out, were Johnston, McFerran, David Stuart, Wood-
cock, Thomas Smith, Clendenin, Fisher, Thornton, Powell,
Callis, Corbin, Wormeley, and Allen; and those who voted
with the majority against striking out were Custis, William
Cabell, S. J. Cabell, John Trigg, Henry Lee (of Bourbon),
Conn, Binns Jones, Harrison, Strother, John Early, Joel Early,
Guerrant, Cooper, Roane, Clay (of Madison, Ky.), A. Robert-
son, Kennon, Patrick Henry, Bland, Bullitt, Grayson, McKee,
Carter, Monroe, Dawson, Briggs, Edmunds, and Edmiston.
The main question was then put of agreeing to the preamble
and resolutions as reported by the committee, and was agreed to
without a division. Briggs, Henry, Harrison, Grayson, Bullitt,
William Cabell, Monroe, Bland, Dawsor., Strother, and Roane,
all of whom were members of the Convention, were appointed a
committee to prepare the instrument called for by the report.
On the i4th of November the House again went into Com-
mittee on Federal Affairs, and, when the Speaker resumed the
chair, Bullitt reported a resolution, which, as a deliberate reflec-
tion of the purposes of the majority of that day, should be read
by the student of history. Here it is:
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that an
application ought to be made in the name and on behalf of the
Legislature of this Commonwealth, to the Congress of the
United States in the words following — to-wit:
"The good people of this Commonwealth, in Convention
assembled, having ratified the Constitution submitted to their
consideration, this 'Legislature has, in conformity to that act
and the resolutions of the United States, in Congress assembled,
to them transmitted, thought proper to make the arrangements
that were necessary for carrying it into effect. Having thus
shown themselves obedient to the voice of their constituents, all
America will find that, so far as it depends on them, the plan of
government will be carried into immediate operation.
" But the sense of the people of Virginia would be but in part
complied with, and but little regarded, if we went no further. In
the very moment of adoption, and coeval with the ratification of
the new plan of government, the general voice of the Conven-
tion of this State pointed to objects no less interesting to the
people we represent, and equally entitled to your attention. At
the same time that, from motives of affection for our sister States,
ALEXANDER WHITE. 187
the Convention yielded their consent to the ratification, they
gave the most unequivocal proofs that they dreaded its operation
under the present form.
" In acceding to a government under this impression, painful
must have been the prospect had they not derived consolation
from a full expectation of its imperfections being speedily
amended. In this resource, therefore, they placed their confi-
dence— a confidence that will continue to support them, whilst
they have reason to believe they have not calculated upon it in
vain.
" In making known to you the objections of the people of this
Commonwealth to the new plan of government, we deem it
unnecessary to enter into a particular detail of its defects, which
they consider as involving all the great and unalienable rights of
freemen. For their sense on this subject we refer you to the
proceedings of their late Convention, and the sense of this
General Assembly as expressed in their resolutions of the [soth]
of [October] last."*
" We think proper, however, to declare that, in our opinion,
as those objections were not founded in speculative theory, but
deduced from principles which have been established by the
melancholy example of other nations in different ages, so they
will never be removed until the cause itself shall cease to exist.
The sooner, therefore, the public apprehensions are quieted and
the Government is possessed of the confidence of the people the
more salutary will be its operations, and the longer its duration.
" The cause of amendments we consider as a common cause;
and since concessions have been made from political motives,
which we conceive may endanger the republic, we trust that a
commendable zeal will be shown for obtaining those provisions
which experience has taught us are necessary to secure from
danger the unalienable rights of human nature.
"The anxiety with which our countrymen press for the accom-
plishment of this important end will ill admit of delay. The
slow forms of congressional discussion and recommendation, if,
indeed, they should ever agree to any change, would, we fear, be
less certain of success. Happily for their wishes, the Constitu-
m These two blanks for the date were omitted to be filled by an over-
sight.
188 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
tion hath presented an alternative by admitting the submission
to a Convention of the States. To this, therefore, we resort as
the source from whence they are to derive relief from their present
apprehensions. We do, therefore, in behalf of our constituents,
in the most earnest and solemn manner, make this application to
Congress, that a convention be immediately called of deputies
from the several States, with full power to take into their conside-
ration the defects of this Constitution that have been suggested
by the State Conventions, and report such amendments thereto
as they shall find best suited to promote our common interests,
and secure to ourselves and our latest posterity the great and
unalienable rights of mankind."
A draft of a letter to Governor George Clinton, of New York,
the President of the Federal Convention of that State, was pre-
sented and read, as follows:
"Sir, — The letter from the Convention of the State of New
York hath been laid before us since our present session. The
subject which it contemplated had been taken up, and we have
the pleasure to inform you of the entire concurrence in senti-
ment between that honorable body and the representatives in
Senate and Assembly of the freemen of this Commonwealth.
The propriety of immediately calling a Convention of the States
to take into consideration the defects of the Constitution was
admitted, and, in consequence thereof, an application agreed to,
to be presented to the Congress as soon as it shall be convened,
for the accomplishment of that important end. We herewith
transmit to your Excellency a copy of this application, which we
request may be laid before your Assembly at their next meeting.
We take occasion to express our most earnest wishes that it
may obtain the approbation of New York, and of all other sister
States."
A draft of another letter, which was addressed to the States,
requesting their concurrence with Virginia in calling the Con-
vention, was also reported.
As soon as the resolution and the drafts of letters were read,
a motion was made to amend the same by substituting in lieu
thereof the following form of an application and draft of letters —
to-wit:
"The Legislature of Virginia to the Congress of the United
States, sends greeting: The Convention of the representatives of
ALEXANDER WHITE. 189
the good people of this Commonwealth, having on the 25th day of
June last ratified the Constitution, or form of government, pro-
posed by the Federal Convention on the iyth of September,
1787, and having declared, in their act of ratification, that any
imperfections that might exist in the said Constitution ought
rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein for obtain-
ing amendments than by a delay, with a hope of obtaining pre-
vious amendments to bring the Union into danger; and, in order
to relieve the apprehensions of those who might be solicitous
for amendments, having resolved that whatever amendments
might be deemed necessary ought to be recommended to the
consideration of Congress, which should first assemble under
the said Constitution, to be acted upon according to the mode
prescribed in the fifth article thereof; and, on the 27th day of
the same month of June, agreed to certain amendments to the
said Constitution, which were transmitted, together with the rati-
fication of the Federal Constitution, to the United States, in
Congress assembled, which amendments the said Convention
did, in the name and behalf of the people of this Commonwealth,
enjoin it upon their representatives in Congress to exert all their
influence, and use all legal and reasonable methods, to obtain a
ratification of in the manner provided by the said Constitution;
and, in all congressional laws to be passed in the mean time, to
conform to the spirit of the said amendments as far as the said
Constitution would admit:
"This Legislature, fully concurring in sentiment with the said
Convention, and solicitous to promote the salutary measures by
them recommended, do, in consideration of the unanimity with
which said amendments were agreed to, and a just sense of their
utility, earnestly call upon the Congress of the United States to
take the said amendments under their immediate consideration,
and also those which may have been submitted by the Conven-
tions of other States, and to act thereupon in the manner pre-
scribed by the fifth article of the Federal Constitution, either by
proposing the necessary alterations to the consideration of the
States, or by calling a convention to deliberate on the subject,
as to them shall seem most likely to promote the peace and
general good of the Union. We pray that Almighty God in
His goodness and wisdom will direct your councils to such
measures as will establish our lasting peace and welfare, and
190 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
secure to our latest posterity the blessings of freedom; and that
He will always have you in His holy keeping."
The draft of a letter to the States on the subject was in these
words:
" We beg leave to submit to your consideration a copy of our
answer to the circular-letter from the Convention of our sister
State of New York, and also a copy of an address, which we
think it our duty to make to the Congress at their first meeting.
We flatter ourselves that you will not hesitate in making a simi-
lar application, the object being to establish our rights and liber-
ties on the most immutable basis. May God have you in His
holy keeping."
This amendment was drawn with greater tact than that which
was offered on the 3oth of October, and which was rejected by
such an overwhelming vote. It proposed to make the mode of
obtaining amendments discretionary with the Congress; while,
with the view of enlisting the sympathies of some pious mem-
bers from the West, who, like McKee, had shown a strong
inclination to side with the anti-Federalists, and who might con-
sider a reference to a Superintending Power on such an occasion
altogether wise and becoming, a religious tinge was given to the
whole. The anti-Federal majority of two to one of the 3Oth of
November fell to twenty-two, which, though a fair majority in a
house of one hundred and twenty-two members, was a consider-
able falling off. The vote on the amendment, which was to
strike out the report of the Committee of the Whole, and insert
the Federal programme in its stead, was ayes fifty, noes seventy-
two. So the amendment failed; and the question recurring on
the adoption of the original report, was decided in the affirma-
tive, without a division.
As the names of the members who had been members of the
Convention may explain the character of the vote, we will state
that those who voted for striking out the report of the committee
and inserting the amendment in its place were the Speaker
(General Matthews), Wilson Gary Nicholas, Johnston, McFerran,
David Stuart, Woodcock, Alexander White, Thomas Smith,
Clendenin, Fisher, Breckenridge, Powell, Callis, Corbin, Worme-
ley, Ronald, John Stringer, Tomlin, and Allen, and those who
voted against striking out and in favor of the report of the com-
mittee were William Cabell, John Trigg, Henry Lee (of Bour-
ALEXANDER WHITE. 191
bon), Conn, Binns Jones, Harrison, Strother, Joel Early, King,
John Early, Cooper, Guerrant, Roane, Green Clay, A. Robertson,
Kennon, Riddick, Patrick Henry, Bland, Bullitt, McKee, Carter,
Monroe, Edmunds and Edmiston. As soon as the vote was
declared Bullitt was ordered to carry the instrument to the
Senate, and request its concurrence.
There was no difficulty in passing all the laws necessary for
setting the Constitution in operation. The bill for appointing
electors to choose a President passed unanimously. The bill for
electing representatives pursuant to the Constitution of govern-
ment of the United States passed unanimously, after a smart
skirmish in the House before its engrossment, on a motion to
strikeout the words: "being a freeholder, and who shall have
been a bona-fide resident for twelve months within such dis-
trict," which was rejected by thirty-two ayes to eighty noes;
the members of the House who had been members of the Con-
vention voting as follows:
AYES — Johnston, McFerran, David Stuart, Woodcock, Fisher,
Powell, Callis, Wormeley, Ronald, Tomlin, and Allen.
NOES — William Cabell, John Trigg, Binns Jones, Harrison,
Strother, Joel Early, King, Alexander White, John Early,
Thomas Smith, Guerrant, Cooper, Breckenridge, Roane, Green
Clay, A. Robertson, Kennon, Corbin, Riddick, Patrick Henry,
Bland, Bullitt, McKee, Carter, Monroe, Briggs, and Edmiston.
The striking out the word "freeholder" had no reference to
the right of suffrage, which has been discussed so freely within
the last third of a century, but that word, with the qualification
of residence, was introduced into the bill to prevent prominent
men from being chosen elsewhere than in the district of their
domicile. The opponents of the Constitution had been defeated
by the policy of choosing delegates at large, and were deter-
mined to put a stop to it; while many of the members present,
who might aspire to a seat in Congress, probably thought that
there would be, as there was, plenty of candidates at home, with-
out inviting others from abroad. A similar motion was made in
the Senate, and failed by a vote of three to twelve — Burwell
Bassett in the minority, and Pride and Joseph Jones in the
majority. Stevens T. Mason happened to be out of his seat at
the calling of the names.
The election of the senators of the United States in Congress
192 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
was held on the 8th of November. Richard Henry Lee, Wil-
liam Grayson, and James Madison were nominated, and, on
counting the ballots, the first two gentlemen named were declared
to be chosen. The election of Lee, whose letter opposing the
adoption of the Constitution was one of the charts of the times,
and of Grayson, whose exertions in resisting its ratification on
the floor of the Convention were exceeded by those of none
other, shows the temper of the Assembly. The result, only of a
vote by ballot, is to be found in the Journals; but it is stated by
Wirt, who evidently obtained his information from some of the
members, that these gentlemen were nominated together by
Patrick Henry, and received a large majority of the votes. But,
while the Assembly preferred Lee and Grayson to Madison, it
was from no feeling of pique against the last named. The
decision was made on just parliamentary grounds. To show
that Madison was still held in high esteem by the majority which
declined to send him to the Senate, when the election of mem-
bers to the old Congress >\as held a few days before he was
chosen one of a delegation, consisting of Cyrus Griffin, John
Brown, John Dawson, and Mann Page, for the term beginning
the following November and ending the following March, which
constituted the congressional year.
A resolution was adopted requesting the Executive to make
known, by proclamation, the times and places for appointing
electors to choose a President of the United States; and an act
was passed concerning the credentials of the senators in Con-
gress. All the courts of the State were passed in review. An
act was passed reconstructing the High Court of Appeals; and
Edmund Pendleton, John Blair, Peter Lyons, Paul Carrington,
and William Fleming, the former judges, were put through the
forms of a re election. The right of the Assembly to determine
the judicial tenure, by repealing the act establishing a court,
seems to have been taken for granted by both houses, and, in
the absence of all protests by the judges, we may infer that they
were of the same opinion. The same men were re-elected the
judges of the new court; but the wrong, if wrong there was,
was as flagrant whether the judges were re-elected or not. That
there could not have been a secret understanding with the
judges, we may safely conclude from their fearlessness in resist-
ing unconstitutional legislation, and especially on a memorable
ALEXANDER WHITE, 193
occasion when a law interfering with the Court of Appeals was
pronounced unconstitutional. They would have deserved to be
cashiered if, believing the judicial tenure could not be determined
by a repeal of the act creating the court in which the judge held
his seat, they had quietly allowed themselves to be set aside,
though assured of a re-election to a seat in a new court. But
no such assurance could be given, or was given, in the present
case; for, in the Senate alone, Henry Tazewell, James Henry,
James Mercer, and Edmund Winston, able and trustworthy men,
all of whom at one time or other held seats on the bench, and
two of whom were elected judges of the Court of Appeals not
long after, were duly nominated in opposition to the old judges,
and, as their names were not withdrawn, were doubtless voted
for. What imparts an interest to this election of judges is the
fact that Stevens Thomson Mason, who was a few years later to
- play such an important part in the Senate of the United States in
repealing the judiciary act of i8oo,175 was at present a member
of the Senate of Virginia, was at the head of its Judiciary Com-
mittee, and voted for the new Court of Appeals; and that Wil-
son Cary Nicholas, who was to be the colleague of Mason in the
Senate of the United States when the Federal judiciary law was
repealed, was a member of the House of Delegates, and voted
for the reconstruction of the Court of Appeals. The District
Court bill, which had not yet gone into effect, was amended;
and Richard Cary, James Henry, and John Tyler were elected
judges of the General Court. An act concerning the Court of
Admiralty, and the judges thereof, was also passed. As a proof
of the unanimity with which these necessary changes in the
courts and judges was received by all parties, it may be men-
tioned that, while such acts as the act disabling certain officers
under the Continental Government frpm holding offices under
175 General Mason, in his speech on the bill to repeal the judiciary act
of 1800 in the Senate of the United States, in February, 1802, alluded
to the present action of the Assembly in respect of the judges, and
said : " Our judges, who are especially tenacious of their rights, did
not complain. They thought, as I think, that they should not be
removed from their offices that others might be placed in them, and
that while they did continue in office their salaries should be continued
to them.* (Report of the Senate Debates, Bronson publisher, Phila-
delphia, 1802, page 83.)
13
194 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the authority of this Commonwealth, and an act for the relief of
certain citizens, were subjected, on their passage, to the stringent
curb of the ayes and noes, the judiciary bills passed without
even a division.
One subject bearing upon Federal politics was taken up in
good earnest by the Assembly. The resolutions which had
been made in the late Convention on the subject of the surren-
der of the right of navigating the Mississippi had alarmed the
people of the West; and, that Congress might be duly impressed
with a proper sense of the importance of that interest to the
Southern States, and to Virginia and Kentucky in particular, the
Assembly unanimously and solemnly resolved that the citizens
of the United States have an absolute right to the navigation of
the Mississippi river; that by the principles of the Federal com-
pact those States more immediately interested in it have a just
claim upon the National Government for every effort in their
power for the accomplishment of that important object; and that,
to merit the confidence and preserve the harmony of the con-
federacy, the most early measures should be taken by the said
Government, after it shall be organized, to obtain an acknow-
ledgment of the said right on the part of Spain, or otherwise
remove the obstructions that may prevent the free use of it. It
was also ordered that a copy of the resolution, together with the
resolutions of the General Assembly of the years 1786 and 1787,
in support of the said right, be transmitted to the representatives
of this State in the said Government, and that they be instructed
to use their unceasing efforts until the free use of the said river
shall be obtained. This was the first instance in which the
Assembly undertook to instruct the representatives of Virginia
in "Congress under the present Federal Constitution. If any
member of the House had risen in his place and denied the
right of the Assembly to instruct all the representatives of Vir-
ginia in Congress, he would have been hooted out of the House.
The right to instruct under the confederation was perfect, and
the members could be recalled at pleasure; but the Assembly did
not foresee that a distinction would soon be taken between the
senators and the representatives in Congress — a distinction, it
is palpable, that can only be sustained on the ground that the
present is no longer a federal union. •
Cash was scarce in the days of our fathers; and Virginia, like
ALEXANDER WHITE. 195
a tender mother, as she ever was, about to send a child from
home, looked into the pockets of her sons, who, as senators
and representatives, were deputed to inaugurate the new gov-
ernment in the city of New York, and finding them empty, or
at least large enough to hold a little more than was in them,
advanced to each one hundred pounds, and took his bond for
the same. This movement must have been made by the Federal
party, which might have been sought to keep their opponents
in good humor at least until the government was set up, or
while the money lasted.176
The House adopted a resolution, without a division, requiring
the Executive, the chancellors, and the judges to report at each
session the defects they may discover in the laws when reduced
to practice. An honest and cordial co-operation of the Execu-
tive and the judges in the amendment of the law would prove a
great blessing to the people; but the Senate, probably thinking
that conflicts in high party times might occur between the judges
and the Assembly, and, as the right of a mere majority of the
Assembly to repeal the judiciary system and to set the judges
adrift was conceded and acted on, rejected the resolution.
An instance was given af a previous session of the liberation
of a slave by the Assembly as a mark of meritorious conduct
during the war. A similar instance occurred at the present ses-
sion. It appears that a slave named Timothy had rendered
valuable service during the Revolution, and it was resolved
unanimously by both houses that the Executive be instructed to
purchase his freedom at any reasonable price, and to grant him
an instrument of emancipation.
The House of Delegates was refreshed by the introduction of
a new member toward the latter part of the present session.
Edmund Randolph, having retired from the Executive, was
returned to the House, evidently with a view to counteract any
intemperate legislation in respect of the Federal Government.
He was placed on leading committees, and performed his part
with his usual ability; but the Federal test questions had been
decided before he took his seat. The act concerning the cre-
dentials of the senators, and the act concerning incestuous mar-
176 House Journal, December 23, 1788, and Senate Journal, Decem-
ber 24th.
196 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
riages, were reported by him, and are evidently from his pen.
General Andrew Moore received from the House a cordial
recognition of his services lately rendered in the Cherokee
country, and the Executive was instructed to award him an ade-
quate compensation. The Senate gave its assent to the measure.
Besides the acts remodelling the courts, and others already
noticed, there were some of general interest. Richmond was,
for the first time, empowered to send a delegate to the Assembly.
The militia laws were amended. Acts to punish bigamy and to
prevent bribery and corruption, and to incorporate academies,
were passed. The act authorizing Kentucky to become an inde-
pendent State, which was enacted at a preceding session, but
which, from some informality could not be carried into effect,
was amended, and that young Commonwealth soon assumed an
independent position as one of the United States.
A sketch of the proceedings of the General Assembly at this
important epoch may fitly conclude with a glance at the finances
of the past year. The sum total of receipts into the treasury
from all sources, from the ist day of December, 1787, to the
24th of November, 1788, was four hundred and seventeen thou-
sand four hundred and ninety-eight pounds nine shillings and
eight pence halfpenny, -and the disbursements were three hun-
dred and seventy-three thousand nine hundred and twenty-one
pounds three shillings and three pence — leaving a balance of
forty-three thousand five hundred and seventy-seven pounds.
The arrearages of taxes for past years reached one hundred and
forty three thousand pounds. The receipts from the customs
were seventy-four thousand and twenty-nine pounds.1"
Too much honor cannot be accorded to the worthy patriots
who composed the present Assembly. It commenced its ses-
sions on the 2Oth of October, 1788, and adjourned on the 3oth
of December; and the whole time was incessantly devoted to
public business. Its general legislation was judicious, firm, and
thorough, and embraced many interesting topics. The ability
and the judgment with which the entire judicial system was
remodelled were conspicuous. But it was in the conduct of
Federal affairs that it merits more particularly the grateful praise
of succeeding times. Although there was an overwhelming
177 House Journal, December 20, 1788.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 197
majority of the members who had been opposed to the adoption
of the Constitution, and who honestly and truly believed that
its ratification was in violation of the wishes of a large majority
of the people, yet they united most cordially with the friends of
that instrument in passing the necessary laws for carrying it into
effect. Their hostility to that instrument was not at all abated,
and they were anxious to secure the call of another Convention
of the States for its revision; but their schemes were open, can-
did, and honorable. Had such men as Henry, Grayson, and
Monroe been factiously disposed, the necessary laws for organ-
izing the new government would not have been enacted, and the
new scheme, so far as Virginia was concerned, would have fallen
still-born. A blast of war from Henry, sustained by the plausi-
ble and comprehensive reasoning of Grayson and by the sterling
sense of Monroe, would have swept away all opposition, and
would have rung and been responsively re-echoed from the
Atlantic to the Mississippi. But the patriotism and wisdom of
our great orator were equal to his more splendid qualities; and
he sought to attain his ends rather by the forms of a law which
his opponents could not censure, and of which they might
approve, than by any questionable and precipitate procedure.
Such, too, were his illustrious colleagues. They were as far-
seeing as they were able in debate, and for the mode in which,
at a time of intense excitement, they sought to secure for pos-
terity those blessing of peace and freedom which they regarded
as in jeopardy, they deserve the gratitude of their country.
The year 1789 has not only a peculiar significancy in our own
history, but relatively in that of the world. The Government
under the new Federal Constitution had been organized in the
city of New York in the spring of that year, the President had
been duly inaugurated, and the Congress had held its first and
most important session. That session began nominally on the
4th of March, and ended on the I2th of August; and during its
continuance laws were enacted which materially changed the
domestic legislation of the States. The subject of the customs,
which was the theme of innumerable State laws, and formed one
of the most perplexing topics of the period intervening between
the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the
new Government, was no longer within their reach. The sub-
ject of foreign affairs was also transferred beyond the direct
198 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
action of the States; and our relations with the Indian tribes,
then a subject of a hundredfold greater interest than at present,
had been assigned by the Constitution to the Congress. Here-
tofore the members of Congress had been elected annually by
the General Assembly, but henceforth they were to be elected
by the people; and the only remnant of the plenary power
wielded by the Assembly over Congress was in the election of
two senators at the interval of six years.
In this altered aspect of affairs the General Assembly began
its session on the igth day of October, 1789. The Senate
obtained a quorum the second day, and John Pride, a member
of the present Convention, was nominated for Speaker by
Stevens Thomson Mason, a member of the present Convention,
and was elected by a majority of five votes over Charles Carter,
who was nominated by Burwell Bassett, a member of the Con-
vention. The majority was large, when the numbers of the
body are remembered, for the vote of Pride was nine and that
of Carter was four. Humphrey Brooke, a member of the Con-
vention, was appointed Clerk. The member of the Senate who
had been a member of the Convention — beside Mason, Pride,
and Bassett — was Joseph Jones.
The House of Delegates had a quorum the first day, when
George Hay — then a young man, whose name during the third
of a century following was connected with Federal affairs as
district attorney and judge of the Federal Court — was appointed
Clerk, and General Thomas Matthews, a member of the Conven-
tion, was re-elected Speaker without opposition; Richard Lee
presenting his name to the House, and Francis Corbin, a mem-
ber of the Convention, seconding the nomination.178
Norvell was made chairman of the Committee of Religion;
Benjamin Harrison, of Privileges and Elections; Edmund Ran-
dolph, of Propositions and Grievances; Patrick Henry, of Courts
of Justice; and Richard Lee, of the Committee of Claims. One
eloquent change was apparent: The Committee of Commerce,
which had for thirteen years guarded with zealous care an
1T8So many members of the Convention were still members of the
Assembly that, in order to avoid repeating in the memoir of each the
same facts and votes, I shall continue to present them in one view as
they appeared in the Assembly.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 199
interesting department of our affairs, was no longer called into
existence.
The members of the House who had been members of the
Convention— beside Matthews, Corbin, Harrison, Randolph, and
•Henry — were Miles King, Tomlin, McKee, Jackson, Robertson,
Edmiston, Carter, John Marshall, Wilson Cary Nicholas, Briggs,
Henry Lee (Legion Harry), Hopkins, Allen, Samuel Jordan
Cabell, Temple, Riddick, Wormeley, Thomas Smith, Kennon,
Crockett, Edmunds, Guerrant, Conn, Binns Jones, Logan, Woods,
Richardson, Gaskins, McClerry, Bell, Green Clay, Prunty, Stro-
ther, Stringer, Custis, John Trigg, Cooper, John Roane, A.
Robertson, Walton, and Vanmeter.
Formal messages from the Governor to both houses had not
yet come into fashion; but that officer usually transmitted a let-
ter to the Speaker of the House of Delegates, informing him of
any circumstance which might be deemed worthy of public atten-
tion. When the House was organized the Speaker announced
that he had received a letter from -the Governor, stating various
matters for the consideration of the houses; and another letter
from that officer, enclosing one from Richard Henry Lee and
William Grayson, senators from the Commonwealth in Congress;
and it was ordered that they lie on the table. On the following
day the letters were referred to a Committee of the Whole on
the State of the Commonwealth.
A graceful act marked the session of the second day in the
House. A resolution was unanimously adopted appointing a
committee to prepare an address to the President of the United
States, "declaring our high sense of his eminent merits, con-
gratulating him on his exaltation to the first office among free-
men, assuring him of our unceasing attachment, and supplicating
the Divine benediction on his person and administration." Henry
Lee, Turberville, Harrison, Edmund Randolph, Corbin, Edward
Carrington, Dawson, and Nicholas were appointed by the Chair
to prepare the address on the part of the House. The Senate
promptly approved the resolution, and appointed Carter, Bassett,
Hugh Nelson, and Southall to unite with the committee of the
House. The address was reported by Henry Lee on the ayth,
was recommitted, and reported on the following day without
amendment, and was unanimously adopted. It is short; its
topics are judicious and well-timed; but the last clause is not
200 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
wholly free from objection. Old men do not care to be told that
they are soon to die, and still less do they like to be told that the
people are already laying in a stock of consolation for the event
when it occurs.179
On the aist the House went into committee on the letters from
the Governor; and, when the Speaker resumed the chair, Miles
King reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. The fol-
lowing day the House again resolved itself into committee; and,
when the Speaker resumed the chair, Turberville reported several
resolutions, which were twice read and agreed to. One of them
recommended that an address be prepared to the President of
the United States, expressing the confidence of the House in the
measures taken by him for the defence of the Western frontiers
of this State, and containing the information given by the repre-
sentatives of those frontiers on the subject of Indian hostility;
and, to demonstrate the anxiety of the Assembly to co-operate
with the Federal Government in the most vigorous exertions
against the savages, declaring their readiness to share in those
expenses which may be incurred in prosecuting the same. And
a committee was appointed, consisting of Turberville, Patrick
Henry, McClerry, Edmund Randolph, Corbin, Scott, Briggs,
Jackson, Robert Randolph, Larkin Smith, Dawson, and Worme-
ley. The tenor of this resolution will strike those acquainted
with the present mode of transacting Federal affairs. It is
addressed to the President, and not to our senators in Congress;
it proposes to furnish the President with information on Indian
matters, and it pledges the co-operation of Virginia in the
efforts to repress Indian incursions, and her readiness to bear a
part of the expense. The address was duly reported and adopted
by both houses. Other resolutions were reported with the above
mentioned by the Committee of the Whole; but, with the excep-
tion of one requiring a bill to be brought in conformity to a reso-
lution of Congress for the safe-keeping of the prisoners of the
United States in the jails of the Commonwealth, are not within
the range of this review.180
"'House Journal, October 27, 1789.
180 Committees were appointed to draft the bills called for by the
resolutions, and Turberville was placed at the head of them all. When
we recall the fact that Patrick Henry, Edmund Randolph, John Mar-
ALEXANDER WHITE. 201
The first question which involved a very decided difference of
opinion in the House was the propriety of furnishing the Chicka-
saw Indians with two thousand pounds of powder, and lead in
proportion, to enable them to repel the attacks of the Creeks.
It seems that a warm friendship existed between the Chickasaws
and the Virginians; that the former had been wantonly attacked
by the Creeks, who menaced them with further hostilities; and
that, as the distance to the seat of the Federal Government
was too great for them to travel at that advanced season, they
applied to Virginia for assistance. The vote was taken on the
resolution by ayes and noes, and carried — eighty- one to thirty-
four. Those who had been members of the Convention and
who voted in the affirmative were Patrick Henry, Edmund Ran-
dolph, Custis, John Trigg, Conn, Binns Jones, Bell, Strother,
King, Richardson, Guerrant, Cooper, Roane, Green Clay, Hop-
kins, Kennon, A. Robertson, Wormeley, Walton, Gaskins,
Woods, Tomlin, Carter, Dawson, Edmunds, and Henry Lee;
and those who voted in the negative were Samuel J. Cabell,
Harrison, Prunty, Jackson, Corbin, McClerry, Stringer, and
Allen. A second resolution was adopted, instructing the com-
mittee appointed to address the President on Indian affairs to
represent to him that the Assembly had interposed under the
circumstances with a full conviction that their course would be
acceptable to the Federal Government, and that the Federal
Government would not be averse to make restitution for the
advances on the occasion. Patrick Henry, who probably advo-
cated the resolution on the floor, was ordered to carry it to the
Senate and request its concurrence, which was duly granted.
The change effected in our institutions by the establishment of
the Federal Constitution rendered many acts of Assembly of no
avail; and the opportunity was embraced of including all our
laws in a general revision. On the 24th of October the subject
was discussed in Committee of the Whole; and, when the Speaker
resumed the chair, Edward Carrington reported a resolution
which set forth that many penal as well as other statutes of the
shall, Corbin, Wormeley, and such men were on the committees,
it is a striking proof of the wealth of our early councils in able men
that Turberville was placed in such a position ; and yet, of those who
read this paragraph, such is the oblivion into which the names of our
early statesmen have fallen, how few has ever heard of the name of
George Lee Turberville.
202 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
English Parliament, though in force in the Commonwealth, have
never been published in any collection of the laws thereof; and
some of them, having been improved by other statutes subse-
quent to the fourth year of James the First, remain, with respect
to Virginia, as they stood before that era; that the acts of the
General Assembly contained in the revisal of 1768 are difficult
to be procured, and a large majority of those acts do not exist
at all, or have been partially repealed, or are of a private and
local nature; that a considerable proportion of the ordinances
and acts in the revisal of the year 1783, and of those acts which
have been passed since, either do not exist at all, or have been
partially repealed, or are of a private and local nature; that the
bills of the Revised Code having been drawn without special
repealing clauses, from an expectation that a general repealing
law would be passed, and a part only of those bills been adopted,
there was great danger of misconstruction; that many entire
laws are, from the present circumstances of the Commonwealth,
unfit to be continued; that the rolls and printed copies of those
laws which were private, local, temporary, or occasional have
been lost or destroyed by the accidents of war, or other causes;
and that a great variety of laws upon the same subject, which
ought to be reduced to one, are dispersed in different books;
that the rule which prescribes that the repeal of one law which
repeals another, revives that other without express words, may
revive obsolete laws not in the meaning of the Legislature; that
laws passed during the same session are often found to clash;
that resolutions of a public nature have been seldom published
with the laws, &c. This preamble ended with a resolution to
appoint a committee to make special inquiry on the subjects
mentioned, and to report the same to the House. The labor
enjoined by such a resolution was enormous, and might well
employ the time of many men for many days. It was referred
to Edward Carrington, Edmund Randolph, Henry Lee, Turber-
ville, Hopkins, Dawson, Wormeley, Stringer, Riddick, John
Marshall, Burnley, Ludwell Lee, Page, Buchanan, Preston, Briggs,
and Thruston.181
On the 3ist Carrington made an elaborate report, of which
181 As a proof of the fact that the history of the members of the Con-
vention may be best traced in the Assembly, it will be seen that nine
members of this grand committee were members of the Convention.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 203
our limits will only afford room for a very general review. The
committee say that they have attentively examined the British
statutes, which are either penal in their nature or relate to penal
proceedings, and are in force in the Commonwealth; and they
furnish a catalogue of fifty-one acts of Parliament anterior to
the fourth year of James the First, and running back to the
times of the Richards, the Henrys, 'and the Edwards — under the
operation of which the citizens of this Commonwealth are in
danger of capital executions, attainders, corruption of blood,
escheats and forfeitures of estates, imprisonment, pecuniary
mulcts, and other punishments, without scarcely a possibility of
access to those immense folios, in which their fate is concealed
from the eyes of all but professional men. The committee then
consider the different heads of the subjects entrusted to them at
great length and with extraordinary research, and conclude by
recommending the appointment of a committee to take the sub-
ject in hand, and report to a subsequent Assembly.
The report and resolutions were referred to the Committee of
the Whole House on the 2d of November; and, when the com-
mittee rose, Booker reported that no amendment had been made
to them, and they were adopted without a division. Those parts
of the report which were recommended to be carried into
effect immediately were referred to Booker, Edmund Randolph,
Briggs, Henry Lee, Johnston, Lawson, Hopkins, Preston, Walker,
Breckenridge, Philip Pendleton, Turberville, Buchanan, Brent,
Holmes, and Bassett; and during the session bills were accord-
ingly reported and became laws.18*
The authorship of the report, reflecting as it does abilities of a
high order and a fullness of research which, if not made at second-
hand, must have consumed many days of severe toil, may be
fairly attributed to the brilliant and accomplished Edmund Ran-
dolph. Carrington, who was more of a soldier than a civilian,
was placed, from courtesy, at the head of the select committee;183
182 House Journal, October 31 and November 2, 1789, where the
report and resolutions may be seen in full. It was stated in the repot
that certain gentlemen were willing to arrange and revfse the laws free
of expense to the State, but the House seemed to have thought it inex-
pedient at that time to refer the subject to them.
183 It was customary to make the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole the chairman of the committee to draft bills called for by the
report.
204 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
and the name of Marshall, who was five years younger than
Randolph, would have been prominent, had he been the author
of the report, on the committee which was charged with the
office of drawing the bills. It is evident that Randolph, in the
spirit of true patriotism, and under the impulse of a generous
ambition, had prepared his work long before the beginning of
the session.
The circulating medium was the source of constantly concur-
ring difficulties in our early legislation. Gold and silver were
hardly to be seen, and, when offered in payment of the public
taxes, were received by weight into the treasury. Certain certifi-
cates of the public debt were also received in payment to the
Commonwealth, but with the people at large taxes in kind were
most heartily approved. On these last the annual loss to the
State, from accidents and depreciation, was always large, and
they afforded the means of most profitable speculation to the
collectors of the revenue. During the war, when there was no
outlet by sea, and when there was no specie in the Common-
wealth, it was a matter of necessity that the taxes should be paid
in the products of the labor of the people. Patrick Henry had
the credit of being the author of a scheme, which was evidently
the dictate of necessity rather than the result of invention; and
he certainly was its foremost champion. At the expiration of
the war, however, there was a small party which sought to bring
about gradually the payment of taxes in specie, and which had
increased in numbers with the development of the resources of
the State. Now that a new Federal Government was established,
the duties under which must be paid in coin or its equivalent, it
was believed by the friends of a sound currency that Virginia
should make a serious effort to require specie or its equivalent
in payment of. taxes. The subject was discussed in Committee
of the Whole, and Briggs reported, as the opinion of the com-
mittee, that the taxes of the present year ought to be paid in
specie only, or in warrants equivalent thereto, and that the taxes
on lands, slaves, and other property, and the taxes imposed by
an act entitled "an act imposing new taxes," ought to be reduced
in the proportion of one-fourth less than the last year. A
motion was made to strike out the specie clause and insert that
"hemp,and tobacco ought to be made comrnutable in the pay-
ment of the public taxes for the year 1789," and was lost by a
decisive vote — the ayes being fifty-one and the noes eighty-eight.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 205
As this was a strict party question for many years, I annex the
votes of the members of the House who had been members of
the Convention:
AYES— Patrick Henry, Binns Jones, Bell, Strother, King,
Richardson, Temple, Pawling, Green Clay, Wormeley, Gaskins,
Briggs, Henry Lee (Legion Harry), and Dawson.
NOES — Edmund Randolph, John Marshall, Johnston, John
Trigg, Benjamin Harrison, Guerrant, Prunty, Jackson, Vanme-
ter, Smith (of Gloucester), Hopkins, Kennon, Corbin, McClerry,
Crockett, Riddick, Stringer, McKee, Carter, Allen, Edmunds,
and Edmiston.18*
The resolution was then adopted without a division. The
vote deserves to be studied as showing that geographical con-
siderations did not wholly control the members. The truth was
thai the State was in such a condition that she could not be
relieved from it without the adoption of a measure which must
necessarily press with greater or less severity upon all the people.
The only question was a question of time; and we are bound to
believe that a majority of both houses decided wisely. Still we
hazard little in saying that the exaction of the taxes in specie
gave an additional impulse to that fearful emigration of our peo-
ple, which took place at this time, to Kentucky and other West-
ern territories. What would be the effect of the exaction of
taxes in specie in distant counties may be inferred from the fact
that the rich counties of Cumberland and Buckingham presented
18*As many of the members of the House, though not members of
the Convention, afterwards became distinguished, I will give the votes
of some of them for future reference :
AYES — Peter Randolph, Sterling Edmunds, Robert Boiling, Jr., George
Booker, Richard Banks, Robert Randolph, William Payne, Jr., Mordecai
Cooke, Henry E. Coleman, William Terry, Miles Selden, Abner Field,
William Roane, John Taliaferro, Sterling Niblett. Samuel Taylor, Bur-
well Bassett, Jr., John Macon, George Lee Turberville, John W. Willis,
and Robert Shield.
NOES — Hugh Caperton, Clement Carrington, Francis Walker, Wil-
liam Cabell, Jr., Philip Pendleton, James Breckenridge, John Clarke,
Robert White, Samuel Hairston, Isaac Miller, William Heath, Francis
Boykin, Francis Preston, John Giles, Willis Wilson, John Hodges,
Edward Carrington, Henry Washington, Alexander Henderson, Dennis
Dawley, Thomas Lawson, John Bowyer, George Baxter, Andrew
Cowan, George Brent, Thomas West, and William Tate.
206 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
petitions setting forth that, in consequence of the great scarcity
of specie, the low price of produce, and the unfortunate destruc-
tion of the crops of tobacco and corn in the fall, they believe
that it will be impossible for them to pay their present taxes.185
It is not an unprofitable task to record the action of our fathers
on religious questions, which, at intervals, are still discussed in
the South, and in the South only. Congress had requested the
President of the United States "to issue a proclamation to the
people to set apart a day of thanksgiving and prayer for the
many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording
them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government
for their safety and happiness" — and the 26th day of November
was specified for the purpose. The House acceded to the propo-
sition without a division, and resolved that its chaplain be
requested to perform divine service and to preach a sermon in
the Capitol before the General Assembly, suitable to the impor-
tance and solemnity of the occasion, on the appointed day.18*
The public and formal recognition of an over-ruling Providence
was frequently made by our fathers during the Revolution; and
if the measure (as we know it was in one instance at least) was
proposed by politicians for effect, it plainly showed their convic-
tion of the religious sensibilities of the people.
It was resolved at the last session to build a marine hospital
at Norfolk, and certain funds accruing from the customs were set
apart for that purpose.187 But the regulation of commerce had
been committed to the new Government, and neither the antici-
pated revenues for the construction of the building were forth-
coming, nor had the State any further need for such a structure.
A sum of five hundred pounds had already been appropriated
185 House Journal, November 16, 1789, pages 64, 65. The crops had
been destroyed by a terrible gust in September.
186 This probably was the first instance of a religious meeting being
held in the Capitol, and was a very proper inauguration of the new
building. It afterwards became a regular place for preaching before
churches were built in Richmond.
187 This hospital, beautifully situated at the head of the harbor of
Norfolk, was forthwith constructed. During the period when my
friend, Dr. E. O. Balfour, was its surgeon, it was greatly improved by
his energy and taste — trees were set out, and the grounds were
enriched and adorned.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 207
on the subject, and the senators from this State were requested
to communicate the facts to Congress.
The amendments of the Federal Constitution, which had been
recommended by Congress to the adoption of the States, were
discussed in Committee of the Whole on the i3th of November,
when it was agreed to ratify the first twelve of them as being in
accordance with those recommended by the Convention; and it
was also resolved that the procceedings of the House upon
them should be published and distributed throughout the Com-
monwealth. The resolutions of the House were sent to the
Senate. That body immediately read them the first time and
referred them to the Committee of the Whole, in which they
were discussed daily .until the 8th of December, when the com-
mittee rose and reported an amendment, which was in substance
that the third, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth amendments be post-
poned till the next session of the Assembly for the consideration
of the people. A warm debate had evidently been held in com-
mittee on each vote striking out a specific amendment, and the
votes were repeated in the House by ayes and noes. Those in
favor of striking out the third amendment were John Pride,
Turner Southall, John S. Wills, Mathew .Anderson, Stevens
Thomson Mason, Joseph Jones, William Russell, and John
Pope, and those in the negative Alexander St. Clair, John P.
Duval, Nicholas Cabell, John Kearnes, Levin Joynes, James
Taylor, and Hugh Nelson. Five times in quick succession the
roll was called; and when the questions were carried, the
majority made a request which, as far as my researches have
extended, stands alone in our records. The request was that
they might be allowed to record in the Journal the reasons
which induced them to postpone the amendments in question,
and their opinion of those amendments. This request was
granted by a majority of one — ascertained by a call of the roll;
the ayes seven, the noes six. On the i2th the majority recorded
their opinions at length upon the Journal, signed with their
names. This step was immediately followed by a protest from
the minority against the right and policy of the majority to put
their opinions on record, which was signed by the members
composing it. The House of Delegates refused to concur in the
amendments of the Senate, and the Senate refused to recede;
and a committee of both bodies met in the conference chamber.
208 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Mason, Pope, and Anderson represented the Senate, and
Edmund Randolph, Henry Lee, Corbin, John Marshall, Johns-
ton, Edward Carrington, Zane, and Wilson Gary Nicholas
appeared on the part of the House of Delegates.188 The discus-
sion was doubtless animated and eloquent; but the conference
could not agree, and the Senate resolutely adhered to their
amendments by a majority of one — the vote being seven to six.
Against this decision the minority of the Senate protested on the
technical ground that the bill and amendments had not been
returned from the House of Delegates, were presumed to be
under the consideration of the House, and were not open to a
vote by the Senate.
On the 5th of December the House of Delegates again went
into committee on the subject of the amendments proposed by
Congress to the Federal Constitution; and, when the Speaker
resumed the chair, two resolutions were reported, the first of
which set forth "that the General Assembly, in obedience to the
will of the people, as expressed by the Convention by which
certain alterations in the Constitution of the United States were
recommended, ought to urge to Congress the reconsideration of
such as are not included in the amendments already adopted by
this Commonwealth"; and the second, which declared that a
representation ought to be made to Congress in pursuance of
the foregoing resolution. As soon as the first resolution was
read a motion was made to strike out from the word " resolved "
to the end of the resolution, and insert in lieu thereof the follow-
ing words: "That a communication from the Legislature of this
State to the Congress of the United States ought to be made,
expressing their ardent desire that such of the amendments of
188 Randolph and Mason, as the representatives of their respective
houses, must have made a brilliant display. The reader is reminded
of the famous committee of conference of the British Parliament on
the resolution of 1788 declaring the throne vacant, in which Notting-
ham on the part of the Lords, and Somers and Maynard on the part of
the Commons, put forth their strength. Had the manuscript history of
Virginia, written by Edmund Randolph (which was destroyed by fire
in New Orleans some years ago), been in existence, we might have
learned the details of the conference meeting. [This MS., the property
of the Virginia Historical Society, has been committed by it to the
well-known writer, Moncure D. Con way, for publication. — EDITOR.]
ALEXANDER WHITE. 209
the Virginia Convention as have not been proposed by the Con-
gress 19 the several States, to be established as a part of the
Constitution of the United States, be reconsidered and complied
with." The motion to strike out was lost by a tie vote, the
Speaker declaring himself with the noes. The members of the
Convention who voted in the affirmative were John Trigg, Binns
Jones, Benjamin Harrison, Strother, A. Robertson, Riddick,
Richardson, Guerrant, Temple, Pawling, Hopkins, Carter,
Briggs, Edmunds, and Edmiston. Those who voted in the nega-
tive were Wilson Cary Nicholas, Johnston, King, Prunty, Van-
meter, Corbin, McClerry, Tomlin, McKee, Allen, Henry Lee,
Edmund Randolph, and John Marshall. The distinction
between the reported resolution and the proposed amendment
is apparently slight, the latter being somewhat more peremptory
in its tone; but the majority of the House, hitherto easily tri-
umphant, sustained a defeat.189 The second resolution prevailed
without a division.
The legislation of the Assembly on domestic topics was judi-
cious and extensive, and apparently unanimous. Many of the
irregularities and deficiencies in the laws, which had been
pointed out in the able report already described, were corrected
by special acts. Among these were acts concerning the benefit
of clergy; against fogery; repealing a part of an ordinance by
which certain British statutes were allowed to be in force in Vir-
ginia; concerning jeofails and certain proceedings in civil cases;
to provide against an appropriation of money by a resolution
of the two houses; concerning perjury; directing the mode of
proceeding in impeachments; for the manumission of certain
slaves for good conduct during the war, and to amend the act
preventing the further importation of slaves. The act offering
to Congress a territory for the seat of government passed with-
out a division, as well as an act ceding to the United States the
site of a light-house. The resolution instructing the senators in
Congress to vote for admitting the people to hear the debates in
189 The vote was sixty-two to sixty-two, making a House of one hun-
dred and twenty-four members, when the full number was about two
hundred. In the absence of Patrick Henry the eloquence of Randolph
and Marshall prevailed.
210 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
their body was also unanimous.190 Kentucky, which had for
several sessions received an act authorizing the formation of an
independent State, was again empowered to carry that object
into effect. Liberal appropriations were made for the comple-
tion of the Capitol in Richmond.
On his return from France, Mr. Jefferson had reached the city
of Richmond. Both houses passed a resolution congratulating
him on his return and expressive of their high sense of the ser-
vices which he had rendered to his country, and appointed a
committee to wait upon him. He received the deputation most
graciously, and made a handsome acknowledgment, which was
reported to the House.191
A memorial from the Baptist associations was presented to the
House, praying that a law might pass to authorize the free
use of the Episcopal churches by all denominations; but, after
the subject had been fully discussed, it was determined on the
9th of December, by a vote of sixty-nine to fifty-eight, to post-
pone the further consideration of the memorial to the 3ist of
March next.192
A remarkable resolution on the subject of a call of a Conven-
tion to revise the Constitution of the State was presented by a
member to the House.193 It was offered by a friend of the Fede-
ral Constitution. The recent action of the Assembly on Federal
affairs was attributed by the minority to the basis of representa-
tion on which that body rested; and the conduct of the Senate,
190 The Assembly had received the Journals of Congress, and ordered
five hundred copies to be printed for distribution in the State. Among
the elections made during the session were that of James Mercer to
the Court of Appeals, in place of John Blair, who had been appointed
a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States; Beverley Randolph
was re-elected Governor, and Jaquelin Ambler, Treasurer; and Cyrus
Griffin, John Howell Briggs, Thomas Madison, and Charles Carter as
members of the Council.
191 House and Senate Journals, December 8 and 9, 1789.
192 Consult the House Journal of November 27, 1789, where an argu-
ment, in the shape of an amendment to the report of the Committee
of the Whole, in defence of the right of the Episcopal Church to its
houses of worship, will be seen.
193 House Journal, December 8, 1789.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 211
which had postponed the adoption of several of the amendments
to the Federal Constitution that had been adopted by the House,
excited, the wrath of some of the prominent upholders of that
instrument. The resolution was elaborated with uncommon
skill; it analyzed the departments of the government, as estab-
lished by the Constitution of the State, with stern severity; and
concluded with a recommendation that the people take the sub-
ject into consideration, and instruct their delegates to act upon
it at a subsequent session. When the resolution was read, a
motion was made to strike out all after the word " resolved " and
insert the words "that the foregoing statement contains state-
ments repugnant to republican government and dangerous to
the freedom of this country, and therefore ought not to meet
with the approbation of this House, or be recommended to the
consideration of the people." While this amendment was pend-
ing a motion was made to postpone the subject to the 3ist of
March next, and was carried without a division.194
A glance at the proceedings of the General Assembly which
met on the i8th day of October, 1790, will show the gradual
development of parties in the Commonwealth, not so much in
respect of the true nature of the Federal Constitution as of the
legislative measures adopted by the new government. The
Senate again chose John Pride as their Speaker. Beside Pride
and Humphrey Brooke (the Clerk of the House), the members
of the Senate who had been members of the Convention were
Stevens Thomson Mason, Burwell Bassett, and Thomas Gaskins.
The House of Delegates re-elected General Matthews Speaker
without opposition; and Norvell, Harrison (of Charles City),
Henry Lee (of the Legion),195 John Marshall, and Richard Lee
19*This resolution presents an analysis of the Constitution, which fills
more than two of the quarto pages of the Journal, and is done in a
masterly manner. Its obnoxious feature, as denounced in the amend-
ment, was probably its protest against annual elections of members of
the Assembly, which it enforces by the same arguments that brought
about our present biennial sessions. From the views expressed
respecting the clashing of the Declaration of Rights and the Consti-
tution, as well as from internal evidence, it is evidently the production
of Edmund Randolph.
195 As there were two Henry Lees in the Convention, and as few
readers would identify them by the names of the counties from which
212 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
were placed at the heads of the standing committees. Some of
the members of the last House, who had been members of the
Convention, had withdrawn from the scene. Edmund Randolph
had been appointed the first Attorney- General of the United
States (as he had been the first Attorney- General of the Com-
monwealth); but, beside Matthews, Harrison, Henry Lee, and
John Marshall, already named, were Patrick Henry, Johnston,
McFerran, Westwood, Prunty, Logan, McClerry, Ronald, Tom-
lin, McKee, Carter, John Trigg, Conn, Binns Jones, John Jones,
Bell, Strother, John Early, Thomas Smith, Jackson, Cooper,
Roane, Kennon, Walton, Edmunds, and Andrews.
The assumption of the debts of the States by the Federal
Government was the first act of legislation which called forth a
distinct expression of political opinion from the people of Vir-
ginia. The senators of the State in Congress had transmitted
a copy of the assumption act to the Governor, who enclosed it
in a letter to the Assembly. It was immediately referred to the
Committee of the Whole, and on the 3d of November, 1790, the
House of Delegates took it into consideration. When the com-
mittee rose, Selden reported a resolution declaring "that so
much of the act of Congress, entitled ' an act making provision
for the debt of the United States,' as assumes the payment of
the State debts, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States, as it goes to the exercise of a power not expressly
granted to the Federal Government."
As soon as the resolution from the committee was read, a
motion was made to strike it out and insert in its stead an amend-
ment which contained an ingenious and elaborate exposition of
the injustice and impolicy of the assumption act, but which
adroitly avoided the constitutional question. This amendment
was rejected by a vote of eighty-eight to forty-seven — ascertained
by ayes and noes. The members of the House, who had been
members of the Convention, voted on the question to strike out
and insert as follows:
AYES — John Marshall, Johnston, McFerran, Westwood, Prunty,
Logan, McClerry, Ronald, Tomlin, and McKee.
NOES — Thomas Matthews (Speaker), Patrick Henry, John
they came, I have thought it best to give Henry Lee (of Westmore-
land) his Revolutionary cognomen.
ALEXANDER WHITE. 213
Trigg, Conn, Binns Jones, John Jones, Bell, Strother, John Early,
Thomas Smith, Jackson, Cooper, Roane, Ke,nnon, Corbin, Wal-
ton, Edmunds, and Andrews.
The main question was then put, and was decided in the
affirmative by a vote of seventy-five to fifty-two — ascertained
by ayes and noes. As the vote to strike out merely tested the
sense of the House on the constitutional question, and might
have been given on parliamentary grounds by some who
approved the policy of assumption, I annex the result of the
call of the roll :
AYES — Mr. Speaker (Matthews), Patrick Henry, John Trigg,
Conn, Binns Jones, John Jones, Bell, Strother, John Early,
Jackson, Cooper, John Roane, Kennon, Corbin, Walton,
Edmunds, and Henry Lee.
NOES — John Marshall, Johnston, McFerran, Westwood,
Thomas Smith, Prunty, Logan, McClerry, Ronald, Tomlin,
McKee, Carter, and Andrews.
The resolution was carried to the Senate, and was in due
time adopted by that body; but, as the roll was not called, the
ayes and noes cannot be given.196
196 As this was the most memorable party vote in our early annals,
and was frequently referred to in party contests, I annex some of the
names of the members that were afterwards prominent :
AYES — John Cropper, James Upshaw (of Caroline), Peterson Good-
wyn, Robert Boiling, Jr., George Booker, Pickett, Cooke, Henry E.
Coleman, Miles Selden, Joseph Martin, Francis Boykin, John Camp-
bell, John Taliaferro, Sr., George William Smith (afterwards Governor,
and burned in the theatre), John Clopton, Richard Evers Lee, Travers
Daniel, Jr., Richard Lee, Charles Scott, John Craig, and Robert Shield.
NOES— Francis Walker, William Boyer, C. H. Clark, James Brecken-
ridge, John Clark, Mathew Page, W. Norvell, John Miller, A. Crockett,
John Jouett, Benjamin Johnson (of Orange),* William Patton, Matthew
Clay, John Macon, Richard S. Blackburn, George Baxter, Benjamin
Blunt, Francis Thornton, Jr., William Digges, William Nelson, and
David Talbot.
For the memorial to Congress, drawn in pursuance to the resolution
(which was from the pen of Corbin, and presented by him), see House
Journal, December 16, 1790. It is well done, and has a peculiar flavor
as coming from Corbin, who was a trenchant friend of the Federal
Constitution.
* Subsequently represented by his accomplished grandson, Benjamin Johnson Barbour,
of Orange.
214 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
The death of the lamented William Grayson made a vacancy
in the Senate of the. United States, which was to afford another
test of the State strength of parties, and which the Assembly,
on the Qth of November, proceeded to fill. James Monroe and
John Walker were the only candidates, and, upon counting the
ballots, Monroe was declared to be duly elected to fill the unex-
pired term of Grayson in the Senate of the United States. He
was afterwards elected for the full term.197
I now conclude my review of the members of the Convention
as they appeared in a group in the legislative councils imme-
diately subsequent to the adjournment of that body, and will
proceed to treat in detail the life and services of a statesman,
who, in war and in peace, achieved a reputation which during
his life was^ the pride of Virginia, but which, sharing the fatality
that has befallen the memory of nearly all his contemporaries,
has been allowed to fade almost insensibly away. Descending
the Blue Ridge eastwardly, and almost in its shadow, we approach
the home which he inherited from his father, in which he spent
most of his days, and from which he went forth at the call of his
country.198
197 Some of my readers, who have numbered their three-score years
and ten (and I hope I may have many such), may recall the ballad
which was written on the occasion of the election of Monroe over
Walker. I remember the chorus, but it is rather too pungent for
modern ears. As I now close my review of the sessions of the Assem-
bly, I state the fact, lest I might lead astray, that Kentucky was still
represented at the present session when several acts were passed
respecting her, and George Nicholas was elected her attorney-general
in place of Harry Innes, declined. But I must leave this matter to
others.
198 Near Leesburg.
THOMSON MASON.
Stevens Thomson Mason was the senior representative of
Loudoun in the Convention. His ancestor, George Mason, the
first of the name, had held a seat in the British Parliament; had
commanded a troop of horse in the army of Charles at the battle
of Worcester, which sealed the fate of the Stuart dynasty during
the life of Cromwell; had emigrated with a younger brother to
Virginia, and landed, in 1651, in Norfolk, then even a flourishing
town, which had been honored not long before with a royal
charter, and which, with its domestic and foreign shipping, pre-
sented a cheering appearance to the eyes of an industrious and
enterprising emigrant. In the vicinity of the town his younger
brother, William, selected a home, and lived and died and was
buried on the banks of a creek, which still bears his name.199
George, however, removed to Accohick creek, which flows into
the Potomac near Pasbitaney, where, with the remains of his
once ample estate in Staffordshire,200 he purchased a farm, settled
it, and, with his family that shortly came over to Virginia, spent-
the remainder of his life upon it. In 1676, the year of. Bacon's
Rebellion, he commanded a volunteer force against the Indians,
and held a seat in the House of Burgesses.'01 It is to him that
199 He intermarried with the Thoroughgoods, a respectable family
for more than a hundred years in Norfolk and Princess Anne counties,
though the name is now almost extinct. A son of his removed to
Boston, where, or in other parts of New England, some of his descend-
ants are still living.
200 The family was originally from Worcestershire, not Warwick-
shire, as the Old Churches, <Sfc., have it. So say the Mason manu-
scripts. [There is a grant of land, of record in the State Land Registry,
of 1,250 acres, in Elizabeth City county, to Francis Mason, dated August
31, 1642. Captain George Mason was granted 900 acres in Northum-
berland county March 25, 1656. — EDITOR.]
201 See the account of "T. M." in the Virginia Historical Register,
Vol. Ill, 61; Rice's Magazine, Vol. Ill, 128. I first saw this valuable
tract in the Richmond Enquirer of 1804, September i, 5, 8. It is also
published in Forceps Tracts, Vol. I.
216 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Stafford county owes its name. He had a son called George,
who married Mary, a daughter of Gerard Fowke, of " Gunston
Hall" in Staffordshire, England. The eldest son of this mar-
riage was also called George, the third of the name, and lived
and died, and, with his grandfather and father, was buried on
Accohick creek. He had a son called George, who married a
daughter202 of Stevens Thomson, of the Middle Temple, Attor-
ney-General of the Colony of Virginia in the reign of Queen
Anne. He was drowned in the Potomac by the upsetting of a
boat, but his body was found and buried at Doeg's Neck. He
left two sons and a daughter — George Mason, the author of the
Declaration of Rights and of the first Constitution of Virginia
(of whom I have already spoken, and shall speak at length here-
after), and Thomson Mason, the father of Stevens Thomson
Mason of the present Convention.
Before we speak of the son, the patriotism and worth of the
father, now almost forgotten, should not pass wholly unrecorded.
Thomson Mason was born at Doeg's Neck, on the Potomac, in
1730, was taught at home by the rector of the parish or by a
private tutor; entered the College of William and Mary, and
thence passed to London, where he studied law at the Temple.
His abode in England gave a decided impulse to his character,
for his associates in the Temple, and the illustrious men then on
the stage of active life, were well calculated to inspire a clever
young man with a love of eloquence and learning. He probably
heard the brilliant but fated Yorke in his first efforts at the bar.
Lord Hardwicke was then on the woolsack, and was expounding
daily, in the marble chair, that code of equity which has made
his name immortal.203 The Earl of Mansfield and the Earl of
Chatham — then plain William Murray and William Pitt — were
waging their life-long struggle in the House of Commons; and
Pratt (afterwards Lord Camden), Yorke, Thurlow, Wedderburne,
202 She was a niece of Sir William Temple.
203 It may have been through the influence of Mason that the Earl of
Hardwicke was elected Chancellor of William and Mary College.
Unfortunately the appointment did not reach England until after the
death of the Earl. It is noticed by one of his biographers, but has
escaped Lord Campbell. Before this period it was common to elect
the Bishop of London the Chancellor of William and Mary, evidently
from the influence of Commissary Blair.
THOMSON MASON. 217
and Dunning were leaders at the bar. He attended, beyond
doubt, sedulously the courts and the Parliament; and, if we may
judge from subsequent developments, he rather sided with Pitt,
Pratt, and Dunning than with Murray, Wedderburne, and
Thurlow.
Returning to Virginia, he began the practice of his profession,
both in the county courts and at the bar of the General Court.
In February, 1766, he signed the stringent and strenuous reso-
lutions of the Westmoreland Association, and in the following
May took his seat for the first time in the House of Burgesses,
and was one of that majority which separated the office of Trea-
surer from that of the Speaker. He rose gradually in reputa-
tion and in position, and in 1769 he was placed on nearly all the
standing committees of the House. During this session he voted
for those four memorable resolutions 'm which embraced the great
questions of the times, and which caused a dissolution of the
Assembly by the Governor; and when the members adjourned
to the Apollo and adopted the non-importation agreement,
which had been drawn by his brother (George), and brought to
Williamsburg by Colonel Washington. In 1774 he was again a
member of the House of Burgesses; but he must have retired
at the close of that session, as he was not a member of the Con-
vention of 1775, or of that of 1776, which were but another
name for the House of Burgesses, and which were illumined by
the genius of his illustrious brother.
Before I proceed further, I ought not to omit a more distinct
allusion to the services of Thomson Mason, in the year 1774. in
opposition to the policy of taxing America. Allusion has already
been made to the Westmoreland memorial,'205 which was drawn
by Richard Henry Lee, and signed by the most respectable
204 For a copy of the four resolves, see Burk, Vol. Ill, 343; and for a
copy of the Articles of Association, which were signed by every mem-
ber, and the names of the signers, see page 345.
205 It may be seen in the Virginia Historical Register, Vol. II, 15,
and in Bishop Meacte's Old Churches, &c. As Mason was a member
of the House in 1769, and as we are told all the members of that House
were returned at the following election, he must have been a member
in 1770, and, it is probable, continuously until 1774, where we again
begin to trace him. My set of the Journals of the House do not include
the period from 1769 to 1774.
218 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
citizens of the Northern Neck and of the neighboring country.
There, in company with the names of William Grayson, Meri-
wether Smith, the Washingtons, the Lees, the Monroes, the
Carters, the Roanes, Parker, Turberville, Woodcock, and others,
then and still respectable for the patriotism of those who bore
them, stands the name of Thomson Mason. But Mason was
determined to do something more than pledging his name to the
sound doctrines contained in that paper, and he wrote a series of
letters at a time when the issue was drawing near (1774), which
defended the right and duty of resistance to Great Britain, upon
principles of law as well as of right, and which denounced, with
all the force of argument and with great vigor of expression,
the injustice and the impolicy of taxing the Colonies by the
legislation of the mother country. These articles were published
under the signature of "A British American," and attracted
great attention from their intrinsic value; but, willing to assume
all the responsibility of their authorship at a time when England
was placing her mark upon the froward men of the Colony, and
to give to the letters the sanction of his name (which then stood
in legal matters second to none other), he concludes the last
number with this honorable avowal :
"And now, my friends, fellow-citizens, and countrymen, to
convince you that I am in earnest in the advice I have given
you — notwithstanding the personal danger I expose myself to in
so doing; notwithstanding the threats thrown out by British
aristocracy of punishing in England those who shall dare to
oppose them in America; yet, because I do not wish to survive
the liberty of my country one single moment; because I am
determined to risk my all in supporting that liberty, and because
I think it in some measure dishonorable to skulk under a bor-
rowed name upon such an occasion as this — I am neither afraid
nor ashamed to avow that the letters signed by ' A British
American ' were written by the hand and flowed from the heart
of Thomson Mason."206
He did not hold a seat in the first General Assembly under
the Constitution which met in Williamsburg in October, 1776, as
that body — or rather the House of Delegates — was, in fact, the
m The letters may be seen in the American Archives (fourth series^
Vol. I, 418, 495, 519, 541, 620, 654.
THOMSON MASON. 219
Convention of 1776 held over by adjournment; but, in 1777, he
was a member of the House of Delegates. As he did not take
his seat until the i7th of November, when the House had been
nearly a month in session, and had been absent at a call of the
roll, he appeared, as was usual under such circumstances, in the
custody of the sergeant-at-arms; but, upon showing that he had
been engaged in the interval in the service of the House, he was
excused without the payment of fees.'207 As soon as he took his
seat he was placed on a committee to examine and report the
state, progress, and expense of the salt-works belonging to the
State, and he was assigned (with his brother George) to the
committee for preparing a bill to establish a Court of Appeals.
The Articles of Confederation had just been framed by Con-
gress and submitted to the States; and on the gth of December
those articles were received by the House and spread in lull on
the Journal. After a deliberate investigation of the articles they
were unanimously approved by the House, and the delegates of
the State in Congress were instructed to ratify them in the name
and in behalf the Commonwealth.208 On such an occasion,
which was so congenial to his character and talents, he probably
bore a conspicuous part in debate; but there is no notice of the
scene that is extant. One of the great topics of the session was
the establishment of the General Court and the Court of Appeals;
and Thomson Mason, Joseph Jones, John Blair, Thomas Lud-
well Lee, and Paul Carrington were appointed judges of the
General Court. At the session of the House in October he
appeared in his seat, and engaged with great zeal in furthering
the measures for defence and for local purposes. It is believed
that he drafted the bill establishing the county of Illinois — now
the State of that name— and on the passage of the bill he was
207 The expense incurred by the sergeant-at-arms in sending for
George and Thomson Mason was sixteen shillings and ten pence each.
Cuthbert Bullitt, Edmund Ruffin, and Willis Riddick were not so for-
tunate as to have a good excuse for absence, and had to pay their
fines.
1108 The Journal of the House states that the articles were agreed to
netnine contra dicente ; but Patrick Henry says, in a letter addressed
to R. H. Lee, dated December 18, 1777: "The Confederation is passed
nem. con., though opposed by those who opposed independency.''
The Senate were also unanimous.
220 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
requested by the Speaker to carry it to the Senate and request
their concurrence.
He seems now to have changed the place of his residence and
become an inhabitant for a short time of Elizabeth City county.
He was through life at intervals a martyr to the gout, and it is
not improbable that he chose his new place of abode from its
proximity to the sea, as a salt atmosphere and salt bathing have
been frequently found beneficial to the health of invalids suffer-
ing from that disease. At all events, his great reputation had
preceded him, and he was immediately returned to the House of
Delegates from Elizabeth City. He took his seat in May, 1779;
but having since his election again removed to another county,
he addressed a letter to the Chair, in which he stated the fact of
his removal from Elizabeth City since his election, and that the
House had decided in the case of Peter Poythress that a mem-
ber under such circumstances could not hold his seat, he ten-
dered his resignation; which, however, the House, in courtesy to
his extraordinary abilities, declined to accept, and he remained a
member during the session.*09 At the October session he found
himself unable to attend; and, to make his resignation certain, he
accepted the office of coroner, which, ipso facto, vacated his seat
in the House. As he was appointed a judge of the General
Court at a previous session, he must either have delayed to
qualify or resigned the appointment.
At the session of May, 1783, he was returned to the House of
Delegates from Stafford, and was placed at the head of the Com-
mittee of Courts of Justice, on which was also placed his son,
Stevens Thomson Mason, the present session being the last but
one of the father and the first of the son. A smart debate arose
on a motion to strike out from the tax bill the word "Novem-
ber," and insert the word "October" as the time to which dis-
tress to be made for the public taxes was proposed to be limited;
and the question was taken by ayes and noes, and decided in the
negative — the father in the negative and the son in the affirmative.
His skill in the law was often called into requisition, and when it
was determined to bring in a bill to amend an act declaring
tenants in lands or slaves in tail to hold the same in fee simple,
209 House Journal, June 9, 1779, where the letter is spread upon the
Journal.
THOMSON MASON. 221
he and Alexander White were appointed to draft it. The bill
was reported, and became a law. A test question was made on
the passage of a bill for the relief of sheriffs, and he voted in a
minority of seventeen — the ayes and noes having been asked by
himself. Another test question of ^he session was a motion to
postpone to October the bill declaring who shall be deemed
citizens of the Commonwealth, when father and son voted in
rather a meagre minority — the House deciding to postpone by a
vote of fifty-six to twenty-seven. On a motion to strike out
that part of a resolution concerning the public buildings, which
fixed their site permanently on Shockoe Hill, and to insert "that
the seat of government ought to be removed to Williamsburg,"
father and son voted with the majority against striking out.110
When the vote was called on several occasions he was not in the
House; but the frequent recurrence of his name in presenting
reports and bills from the Committee of Courts of Justice and on
select committees leads us to believe that, though temporarily
absent, he was closely engaged in his duties as a member of the
House.
At the opening of the October session of 1783 he was placed
second on the Committee of Elections and at the head of Courts
of Justice, of which last his son (Stevens) was also a member.
On the nth of November a bill was reported, and read the first
time, to explain and declare the privileges of members of the
General Assembly. This has ever been a mooted question in
the history of parliaments; and the present Lord Chancellor of
Great Britian211 has expressed the opinion that such a bill in
respect of the British Parliament is an impossibility. The pres-
ent bill, however, was sustained by Henry Taze-vell, John Taylor
(of Caroline), and others, was opposed by Thomson Mason,
Patrick Henry, and Archibald Stuart, and was defeated by a
majority of two to one. When the engrossed bill to repeal the
act declaring who shall be citizens of the Commonwealth was
read a third time, Mason, whose policy was to invite emigration,
and to bury the local feuds kindled by the past war in families
210 There is an error in the House Journal in recording this vote, the
words "affirmative " and "negative " being transposed, and leading to
error without a close inspection.
711 1859-
222 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
and neighborhoods, voted in its favor along with his son, with
John Tyler, with Joseph Jones, and with the Speaker; but the
measure was at that moment unpopular. Some of our patriots
thought it too soon to allow those who had quitted their country
in the hour of trial to come in and enjoy the fruits of the labors
of a brave and devoted people, and enter at once upon all the
rights and privileges of citizenship; and of this opinion was
Henry, and Tazewell, and Alexander White, and Isaac Coles,
and George Nicholas, and the fearless French Strother. The
bill was lost by a majority of nineteen. At this day the decision
would be pronounced wrong; for, as the treaty of peace had
established a political amnesty between Great Britain and the
United States, it was unwise to cherish a domestic feud in direct
contravention of its spirit, and to turn away an intelligent and
wealthy set of people, connected with us by blood and associa-
tion, which, though deluded in the past, was now deeply repent-
ant, and ready to come and aid us in clearing our woods and
in paying our taxes. The same subject was discussed on the
1 3th of December, on the passage of a bill to prohibit the
migration of certain persons to this Commonwealth, which was
passed by an overwhelming majority.
The health of Mason, which was affected by the same disease
which, at intervals, worried his brother George, who led an
active life (and which we may fairly presume to have been
inherited), was becoming seriously impaired, and at the close of
the present session he withdrew finally from public life.
We wish it was in our power to record many acts of useful-
ness performed by this worthy man, and a life of learned repose
enjoyed by him in his retirement; but the curtain was soon sud-
denly to fall. He died in 1785 at " Chippawamsic," his seat in
Stafford, near Dumfries, at the early age of fifty-five. He
inherited nothing from his father beyond the means of obtaining
the best education then within his reach; but this was enough
for Mason. Had such a man been blessed with health, he would
at that day have made a splendid fortune. But he was not
entirely deprived of an inheritance, as he and his sister received
from his mother large tracts of land in Loudoun,812 which,
212 A part of this land is still owned by the Hon. Thomas Swann, of
Baltimore, a direct descendant of the only sister of Mason, and by Mr.
THOMSON MASON. 223
though bought originally for a small sum, became valuable; and
he added to his possessions by his own industry and skill. He
was rather above than below the ordinary size, with blueish-grey
eyes and dark hair, and an embrowned complexion. He was a
ready and exact speaker, eschewing embellishment, and relying
on the force of logic for effect. His great excellence was his
skill in the law, and he stood somewhat in the same relation to
his contemporaries as that held by Theophilus Parsons toward
his associates at the bar of New England. Laudari a laudato,
especially when the praise comes from a competent and unpre-
judiced judge, and is uttered long after its object has been con-
signed to the tomb, is no unfair measure of worth; and we are
told by Saint George Tucker, the eldest of the name, who had a
near observation of all the great lawyers of the Revolutionary
epoch, and who held a seat on the bench of the Court of Appeals
near the time of the death of Mason, that " Thomson Mason was
esteemed the first lawyer at the bar." 213
He was buried in a clump of trees on " Raspberry Plain," his
estate near Leesburg; but no stone marks his grave. A venera-
ble descendant, still living, says that he had blue eyes. He was
married a second time to Mrs. Wallace, of Hampton, formerly
Miss Westwood. When the old gentleman — who, by the way,
was not more than forty at the time — married his second wife,
his son, John Thomson, used to say jocosely that his father had
brushed his hair and burnished himself so sprucely that he could
hardly recognize the old fellow. This lady long survived him,
and died in 1824, 2U preserving to the last those endearing quali-
ties of mind and character that fascinated the great lawyer. She
was accustomed to say that she was just sixteen when her future
husband took his seat in the House of Burgesses, and that he
was the handsomest and most eloquent member of the House.
She delighted to describe him as a devoted husband, sitting by
Temple Mason, a son of Thomson Mason. It was from the fact that he
received his property from his mother that her maiden name of Thom-
son was given to all his children. By the law of entails the property of
his father descended to the eldest son.
213 Letter to Wirt in Kennedy's Life, Vol. I, 317. The Judge, in the
same letter, states that Peyton Randolph was President of Congress to
the day of his death ; in which, however, he is mistaken.
1HFor a description of this lady, see Old Churches, &c., Vol. II, 230.
224 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
her side and recognizing in her fading features the beauty that
adorned them in youth. She spoke with grateful warmth of
his excellence as a stepfather. He wrote a paraphrase of the
Song of Solomon, adapted to the praise of his wife, which was
much admired, and is still in existence. A venerable descend-
ant, still living,215 says he always contributed liberally to the
army in provisions and by the hospitalities of his house; that he
was one of the kindest of men, but was apt to be regarded with
fear by those who did not know him well. He had a stern eye,
which it was not pleasant to look at when he was in a severe
mood. Dr. Wallace, his stepson, says that during the Revolu-
tion a quartermaster's deputy came to his room when he was ill
with the gout and asked for a contribution of corn. Mason
instantly directed his servant to give him half of all the corn he
had. The deputy tauntingly replied, " Half, indeed ! I must
have the whole." Mason, forgetting his gout, leaped from the
bed, seized the poker, and cudgelled the fellow out of the house.
The Doctor remembers that he was fond of his gun, and on one
occasion, being short-sighted, blazed away at some stumps nearly
covered with water, which he mistook for wild ducks.
I have thus endeavored to recall some of the details of the life
of Thomson Mason. To have said more would not have been
justified by the scope of this work, or by the materials in my
possession, perhaps in existence; to have said less would have
been ungenerous to the memory of a pure and intrepid patriot, of
a great lawyer, and of one of the wisest statesmen of the Revo-
lutionary era. I now pass to his accomplished son.
215 Mrs. Emily Macrae, a granddaughter.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON.
Stevens Thomson Mason, who was destined to invest his
honored patronymic with a brilliancy it had not yet known since
the emigration of the first George, was born at "Chippawamsic,"
in Stafford county, in the year 1760, and was the eldest of a
family of five sons and one daughter.*16
I am unable to say what were his opportunities for improve-
ment in early youth; but the school of the parish was the com-
mon resort in those days, and the rector was commonly a
graduate of an English or Scotch college; and, if not altogether
such a priest as James Blair or Jarratt, was almost invariably a
good classical scholar, was moderately versed in mathematics,
and cherished a taste for polite letters not at all incompatible
with an occasional fox hunt, or with a game at dominoes or
cards, or with the love of a glass of old wine. Young Scotch-
men were at that time easily obtained as tutors, who, unversed in
the common decencies of society, were enthusiasts in classical
learning, and who, in their almost servile condition, inspired
their pupils with a love of excellence that often led to the most
favorable results. These were the men whose teachings formed
those educated and able men whose eloquence shone in our early
councils, and whose skill drafted the State papers of that age.
It may be presumed that, when the oldest son was the favored
child, the father was frequently his guide and instructor.
When Stevens entered William and Mary College he was
quite as well prepared, as is shown by the result, as any modern
matriculate, and engaged with zeal in the prosecution of his
studies. He was quickened in his career by one of those acci-
dents which are sometimes more important in deciding the des-
tinies of young men than the mastery of the immediate studies
that constitute their chief work. Our clever Virginians almost
always appear in groups; and Mason was at once introduced to
116 The day of the month, or the month, I cannot find out. His
mother's name was Mary Barnes, of Maryland.
226 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
a number of young men of bright parts, with some of whom he
preserved pleasant and intimate relations, personal and political,
during the whole of his future career. Of this group William
Branch Giles, the amiable and lamented Hardy, Littleton Eyre,
John H. Cocke, the Carters (of Shirley), William Cabell (the
son of the patriarch of "Union Hill"), John Jones (of the Sen-
ate and of the present Convention), Richard Bland Lee, William
Nelson (the future Chancellor), John Allen (of Surry), John
Brown (a member of the Senate and of the old Congress), Spen-
cer Roane, William Short {Charge at the French Court, and
Minister to Spain and to The Hague), the Brents (of Maryland
and Virginia), Richard Booker (of Amelia), Beckley (who was
continuously the Clerk of the Senate, the successor of Edmund
Randolph as the Clerk of the House of Delegates, and the first
Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States) :Z1T
these, and others, were his contemporaries at college. Of this
number no less than six were members of the present Con-
vention.
In regarding this collection of young men we are reminded
of another that nearly trod upon their heels in the same venera-
ble institution, and intermingled with them in public life. Little-
ton Waller Tazewell, Robert Barraud Taylor, John Randolph,
James Barbour, William Henry Cabell, and the lamented John
Thompson caught the mantles of their predecessors as they fell.
Poor Thompson held the same painful relation to his group that
Hardy held in his — brilliant, profound, and suddenly snatched
away. And hardly had this group disappeared ere another,
which was destined to strive with them for the honors of an
entire generation, appeared in their places. I feel as if I were
pressing the sod of new-made graves when I pronounce the
names of Benjamin Watkins Leigh, of Chapman Johnson, of
Robert Stanard, of Philip Pendleton Barbour, and of Henry
E. Watkins. When the fame of all these gallant young men
is to be weighed, who can estimate the effect of association
with their fellows in the same institution ?
Young Mason had a strong military turn, and, after leaving
217 Beckley served during the eight years of Washington's adminis-
tration, was turned out during Adams's, and was reinstated in 1801,
serving till 1807— fifteen years.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 227
college, determined to take a part in the war, which was not yet
concluded. He served with credit through several grades, and
commanded a Virginia brigade at the evacuation of Charles-
ton."8
In the year 1783, as stated in the memoir of his father, he
became a member of the House of Delegates from the county
of Loudoun, and continued to hold his seat for two or three ses-
sions, when he withdrew, and never held a seat in that House
again. His votes on leading questions have already been
detailed elsewhere.219
His legislative career, which was almost unsurpassed in splen-
dor and effect, was now about to begin. After a short interval
he was returned to the Senate of Virginia from the counties of
Loudoun and Fauquier, and took his seat in that body for the
first time at the October session of 1787. His first act was to
vote for Edmund Randolph as Governor, with whom he was
soon to be intimately connected with in the present Convention,
in the House of Delegates, and as Attorney-General of the
United States, of which he was ere long to be a senator; and to
send his quartermaster-general (Edward Carrington), Henry
Lee (his colleague in the war of the South), and his classmate
(John Brown) to the Congress of the Confederation, along with
James Madison, with whom he acted in unison in Federal affairs
to the day of his death. Another classmate (Thomas Lee) was
his colleague in the Senate.
On the 26th of October the Senate received from the House
of Delegates a series of resolutions declaring that the Federal
Constitution, which had been published to the world the month
preceding, and which had been forwarded by Congress to the
Assembly, should be submitted to a Convention of the people of
the Commonwealth, and entering into other specifications on the
subject.** These resolutions were critically examined in the
Senate, were amended in several respects, and on the 3oth were
218 Mason manuscripts.
119 In the review of the legislative sessions, and in the preceding
sketch of his father.
MOSee the review of the session of 1787, ante. These resolutions
were afterwards embodied in a bill which passed both houses, and may
be seen in Hening.
228 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
adopted by the body. Mason was ordered to carry the amended
resolutions to the House of Delegates, which adopted them
forthwith. This was his first prominent movement in Federal
affairs, which he may be said to have controlled almost entirely
in both houses as long as he remained in the Senate.
The subjects discussed during the session included many
grave and perplexing questions, which were managed by Mason
with tact and ability. Some of those questions have partially
lost their interest; but it is easy to see, in tracing the progress
of measures through the Senate, that many fierce battles
were fought between their friends and opponents. Such mea-
sures as the establishment of the boundary line of North Caro-
lina; the construction of the Dismal Swamp canal; the acts
declaring tobacco receivable in payment of the taxes of 1787 (a
subject which involved a discussion of the currency); establish-
ing a district court on the western waters; concerning moneys
paid into the public loan office in payment of British debts; pro-
viding a sinking fund for the redemption of the public debt;
repealing all acts preventing the collection of the British debts;
discriminating commercially in favor of those nations which had
acknowledged the independence of the United States; prescribing
the mode of proving wills; imposing duties and regulating the
customs : such acts, and many others equally intricate and
embarrassing, passed under his review, and were, in many
instances, essentially modified by him. And when a conference
was called by the houses, as was often the case at this period,
the honor and the responsibility of representing the Senate most
commonly fell upon him. His decision of character, his know-
ledge of human nature, his ready elocution, his skill in law, and
his familiar acquaintance with the military and political measures
of the Revolution, made him uncommonly apt and useful in
settling those multitudinous and anomalous questions which
sprang up between the close of the war and the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, and which seriously perplexed the bench
as well as the Senate.
The Senate adjourned on the 8th day of January, 1788, and,
on the first day of the following June, he took his seat in that
Federal Convention which forms the theme of the present work.
Although he had discussed in public the true nature of the Fede-
ral Constitution, and was one of the readiest, most able, and
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 229
most fertile speakers of the day, he did not participate in the
debates of the Convention; for, as before observed, it was then
not deemed incumbent upon any man of mark to make a speech,
partly because, as is the custom of the British Parliament, it was
usual to defer to the prominent leaders, whose effective aid was
thought sufficient to attain the end in view; partly because, from
the habits of the Colony, in which there were neither reporters,
nor papers large enough to hold reports, the incitements to much
speaking had not become chronic; and, I may add, because the
duration of the session of the Convention was limited by the
approaching session of the Assembly.221
Yet, such was the wealth of the Convention in talent, had the
members who made speeches not been present, others would
have arisen on both sides of the House who would have filled
their places, would have commanded the respect and the
applause of the people, and would have given a new cast to the
reputations of that epoch. Mason, who was skilful as a par-
liamentarian (then fresh from the task of revising the rules and
orders of the Senate), was doubtless consulted by the opponents
of the Constitution, and he manifested his opinions by voting in
favor of previous amendments and against the ratification of that
instrument without them.222
When the Convention adjourned he passed at once into the
Senate, and performed the grateful office of nominating his class-
mate, John Jones, to the chair of that body, and of seeing him
elected by a unanimous vote. When the subject of the district
court bill was settled, the Senate, after a session of six days,
adjourned.
The Assembly met on the 2ist of October following, but the
Senate did not form a quorum till the 28th. The first business
snThe Assembly had been convoked by a proclamation of the Gov-
ernor to meet on the 23d of June. It accordingly met on that day,
and, after adjusting some difficulties in the bill establishing district
courts, adjourned on the 3oth, to meet on the third Monday of October
following. The approaching session of the Assembly had an effect,
whether designed or not, in shortening the session of the Convention;
for the members of the latter body had not the audacity of the Con-
vention of 1829, which sat a month and a half alongside of the Assem-
bly.
222 See his votes on the ayes and noes, ante.
230 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
relating to Federal affairs was the appointment of members to
the old Congress; for it was necessary that the old organization
should remain entire until it was superseded by the new.
Strange as it may appear, there were more candidates for the
five seats in the old Congress at the present session than at any
previous one; and the explanation may be found in the excited
state of parties, each being anxious to gain the influence of
Congress, whatever it might be, in its favor. The candidates in
nomination were Madison, Cyrus Griffin, John Brown, John
Dawson, Ralph Wormeley, Mann Page, John H. Briggs, John
Page (of "Rosewell"), Wilson Cary Nicholas, and John Mar-
shall. Wormeley was withdrawn before the balloting began.
The result was that Griffin, Brown, Madison, Dawson, and Mann
Page were chosen. On the 8th of November the Senate pro-
ceeded for the first time to choose senators of the United States.
Three persons only were in nomination in either house — Madi-
son, Grayson, and Richard Henry Lee; the first named repre-
senting the friends of the Constitution, the two last its oppo-
nents. Lee and Grayson were easily elected.223
The Senate received from the House of Delegates, on the loth
of November, the bill "for the appointment of electors to choose
a President, pursuant to the Constitution of government for the
United States "; which was referred to the Committee of the
Whole, was discussed on the nth, I2th, and I3th, and, having
received several amendments, was ordered to be read the third
time; and on the i4th it passed the body without a division.
Hugh Nelson was ordered to convey it to the House of Dele-
gates, which agreed to all the amendments of the Senate except
one, from which that body receded.
The bill for the election of members of the House of Repre-
sentatives was received by the Senate on the nth, was read the
first and ordered to be read the second time. On the I5th it
was read a second time, and committed to the whole house on
228 It is well known that Patrick Henry nominated Lee and Grayson
at the same time, but the Journals merely give the names of the per-
sons nominated. It has been frequently said that George Mason was
elected a senator of the United States on this occasion, and declined.
His name was not mentioned. (House Journal, and particularly Senate
Journal, November 8, 1788.)
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 231
the 1 8th, when it was discussed; but the Senate declined
receiving the report of the committee till the following day, when
it was duly received, and a motion made to strike out the words
; ' being a freeholder, and who shall have been a bona-fide resi-
dent for twelve months within such district." The design of the
bill as it stood was to prevent, partly, the selection of a group
of men from the metropolis, and, partly, the choice of a member
by another district who had been, or was likely to be, excluded
from his own. The motion to strike out failed by a vote of
twelve to three.224 The bill and amendments were then agreed
to without a division, and Thomas Lee was requested to return
them to the House of Delegates; which body, on the 2Oth, con-
curred in them all.
The Senate also proposed amendments to the bill calling a
new Federal Convention, in which the House of Delegates con-
curred. The bill authorizing the Executive to make known, by
proclamation, the times and places of appointing electors to
choose a President was likewise amended by the Senate; and in
all its amendments the House of Delegates concurred, with the
exception of one, from which the Senate receded. The resolu-
tions respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, which had
especial reference to the debate in the Convention on the subject,
were agreed to by the Senate, as well as by the House of Dele-
gates, unanimously.
Mason was one of the first of our early statesmen to condemn the
policy of insufficient salaries for the highest functionaries of the
State — a policy which prescribed as a fit reward for the services
of a Wythe a sum a modern day-laborer might earn in the
course of a year.2*5 When the bill allowing travelling expenses
124 As this vote shows the political complexion of the Senate at that
time, I annex it:
AYES— Burwell Bassett, John Page, and Hugh Nelson.
NOES— John Pride, Turner Southall, John S. Wills, John Coleman,
Matthew Anderson, Robert Rutherford, Joseph Jones, John Pope, John
P. Duval, Paul Loyall, Nicholas Cabell, and Thomas Lee.
Mason was out of the house when his name was called. Of these
Joseph Jones, Pride, and Bassett were members of the present Con-
vention. ,
M5The policy of low salaries for judges prevailed in Massachusetts
also until Story gave it a death-blow in the House of Representatives
of that State, and the genius of Parsons settled the question.
232 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
to the judges of the General Court, &c., was before the Senate,
he voted to amend it by enlarging the per diem of the judge
while holding his court, and by raising the standard of remune-
ration in other respects. He was sustained by a large majority
in striking out sixpence and inserting a shilling; but the other
amendments prevailed by a single vote. The bill and amend-
ments were returned to the House of Delegates, which refused
its concurrence, and sent the bill back to the Senate. Mason,
who had only carried the amendments by a single vote, saw that
all further effort at that time was vain; and they were receded
from without a division.
This session was memorable for the remodelling of the Court
of Appeals and the displacement and re-election of all of its
judges. The subject has already been alluded to,2W and is only
mentioned here as bearing upon the course which Mason followed
in the Senate of the United States on the repeal of the judiciary
bill of 1800.
At the October session of 1789 he appeared in his seat on the
2Oth, and nominated John Pride — with whom he had served in
the Convention — as Speaker of the Senate, and was sustained
by a majority of the House. He took an active part in all its
proceedings; but I shall allude at present only to his course on
the resolutions ratifying the amendments proposed by Congress
to the Constitution of the United States, which were sent to the
Senate from the House of Delegates on the 2d of December.
They were read a first time and ordered to be committed to the
whole House on the following day. They were put off from day
to day till the 5th, when they were discussed in committee, which
rose before a decision was made respecting them; and on the
following day they were considered with the same result. On
the 8th they were reported to the House; and a motion was
made to strike out sundry words and insert that "the third,
eighth, eleventh, and twelfth amendments adopted by Congress
be postponed to the next session of the Assembly for the con-
sideration of the people." A vote was taken seriatim on each
amendment, and recorded in the Journal. There was a majority
of one in favor of the first, of two in favor of the second, of one
in favor of the third, of six in favor of the fourth, of one in
favor of the fifth, and of six in favor of the sixth; the vote on
226 In the review of the session of 1788, ante.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 233
the seventh was unanimous. And the question recurring that
the Senate agree to the resolutions as amended, it was agreed to
without a division. On each vote Mason was with the majority.
The resolutions as amended were returned to the House of
Delegates.
Mason was fully conscious of the weight of responsibility
which devolved upon him; and he knew that his conduct would
be not only critically scanned in his own time, but would be
examined by posterity when the passions of the day would be
forgotten, and when it would stand on its own merit alone.
Hence, he was altogether conservative. He did not seek to
reject the proposed amendments ferfunctorily and finally, but to
subject them to the deliberate examination of the people. So
solicitous was he do right, and so anxious that in future time his
reasons should be fairly known and not left to inference, he and
those with whom he acted made the extraordinary request, which
was granted, that the views of the majority might be recorded in
the Journal.227 On the i2th a paper containing the reasons of
the majority, and signed by Mason, Pride, Anderson, Wills,
Joseph Jones, Russell, Southall, and Pope, was presented and
recorded in the Journal of that day. It is evidently from the
pen of Mason, and forcibly maintains those doctrines which
Virginia has upheld ever since. After* analyzing the several
amendments which he sought to postpone, he concludes by say-
ing "that of the many and important amendments recommended
by the Conventions of Virginia and other States, those propo-
sitions contain all that Congress is disposed to grant; that all
the rest are by them deemed improper, and these are offered in
full satisfaction of the whole; that, although a ratification of part
of the amendments that have been prayed for by Virginia would
not absolutely preclude us from urging others, yet we conceive
that, by the acceptance of particular articles, we are concluded as
to the points they relate to. Considering, therefore, that they
are far short of what the people of Virginia wish and have asked,
and deeming them by no means sufficient to secure the rights of
the people, or to render the Government safe and desirable, we
think our countrymen ought not to be put off with amendments
227 Senate Journal, December 8, 1789; and lor the reasons of the
majority, see December i2th, which deserve to be studied.
234 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
so inadequate; and, being satisfied of the defects and dangerous
tendency of these four articles of the proposed amendments, we
are constrained to withhold our consent to them; but, unwilling
for the present to determine on their rejection, we think it our
duty to postpone them till the next session of the Assembly, in
order that the people of Virginia may have an opportunity to
consider them."
The House of Delegates sent back the amendments to the
Senate on the nth, having disagreed to the first, second, and
third, and agreed to the fourth. The Senate insisted on their
amendments, and Mason was sent to carry their determination
to the House of Delegates. On the i4th the House determined
to adhere to their disagreement.
The acts referring to the judiciary establishment — especially
the bill to amend the District and General Court — which were
passed during the session, brought about some clashing between
the two houses, and were mainly under the control of Mason,
who was the first lawyer of the body.
We will pass rapidly over the proceedings of the Senate, which
began its next session on the i8th day of October, 1790. The
Federal Congress had held its sessions, and a sadness was cast
upon the Assembly by the unexpected death of Colonel Gray-
son, who had been one of the two first senators of the United
States, and was performing the duties of his office with diligence
and ability, when, after the close of the second session, he was
about to resume his seat, he died on the way.228
James Monroe was elected over John Walker for the unex-
pired term, and for a full term of six years thereafter. The first
and leading question on Federal affairs at the present session, as
heretofore detailed,229 was in relation to the act of Congress
assuming the debts of the States. The House of Delegates
passed resolutions declaring the act repugnant to the Constitu-
tion of the United States, unjust, and impolitic. These reso-
lutions assailed alike the constitutionality and expediency of
228Grayson's humor brightened to the last. I have heard very old
men say that, when the proper title for the Vice-President was dis-
cussed in the Senate at its first session, he proposed that it should be
" His Limpid Highness," or " His Superfluous Excellency."
229 Re view of the session of 1790, ante.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 235
the measure; and were conveyed to the Senate, on the 2ist of
November, by Henry Lee (of the Legion). They were referred
to a committee of the whole house on the following Monday,
when they were put off to Wednesday, and then to the following
Monday, and thenceforth were discussed and postponed till the
2ist of December, when they were amended and agreed to. As
soon as they were passed, Mason asked and obtained leave of
absence for the remainder of the session. What Chapman
Johnson — clarum et venerabile nomen — was in the Senate of
Virginia at a subsequent day, Stevens Thomson Mason was,
during the time he held a seat in that body, perhaps with this
distinctive difference springing from the temperament of the two
men, from the caste of their characters, and from the peculier
circumstances of the respective eras in which they lived, that
Johnson devoted his critical skill and his wide experience of
affairs to the domestic legislation of the Commonwealth, and
that Mason, who also watched with the strictest vigilance the
development of our judicial and general policy, and who was a
foremost champion at an extraordinary crisis, believed that the
rights and liberties of the people were placed in jeopardy by
the refusal of Congress to accept the amendments to the Federal
Constitution proposed by the Convention of Virginia, and that
the sternest rule of the interpretation of the powers of that
instrument was the only peaceful remedy.
The course pursued by Mason on Federal topics was alto-
gether acceptable to the people of Virginia, and when a vacancy
occurred in the Senate of the United States by the appointment
of Mr. Monroe to the Court of France, he was chosen to fill his
place.280 On the Qth of June, 1795, he appeared in his seat in
the Senate at the opening of the session; and although some of
the measures of the administration most obnoxious to the South
had already been disposed of, others were soon to follow which
placed him in a delicate and responsible position. In common
230 November 18, 1794. Henry Tazewell was elected a senator the
same day in place of John Taylor (of Caroline), resigned, and took his
seat on the 29th of December following, and on the aoth of February
was chosen President of the Senate. I have no copy of the Journal of
the Senate at hand, but I do not see the name of Mason in Benton's
Debates till the time specified in the text. He must, however, have
taken his seat when Tazewell took his.
236 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
with all Virginians, and especially with those who had been
engaged in military service during the Revolution, he cherished
the warmest love and veneration for Washington; but he had
been impelled by a sense of duty to oppose, with a large
majority of the people of Virginia, many of the leading mea-
sures of his administration. He was now to oppose with all his
ability a measure which at the time was deemed by its friends a
hardjone in its effects upon the whole country, but which was
believed to be exceedingly injurious to the interests of the South-
ern States, and to those of Virginia in particular. The famous
treaty with England had been signed by Mr. Jay and the British
Minister in London the day after Mason's election by the Assem-
bly to a seat in the Senate, had been received by our own Gov-
ernment on the jth of March following, was communicated to a
called Senate on the 8th of June, and was ratified on the 24th
by a bare constitutional majority. A single vote would have
defeated it. Every motion made by the Republican minority to
amend the objectionable articles of the treaty was voted down;
the enormous losses sustained by Virginia and other Southern
States in the abduction of slaves, in the face of solemn treaties,
were not only not recognized by the present, but were virtually
abjured forever; and the West India trade, which had always
been a source of profit to Virginia, was substantially sacrificed.
Both these last topics were sore subjects to Virginia. Some of
the members of the present Convention had repaired to New
York before the evacuation of that city by the British, and had
earnestly beseeched the British general to surrender to them
their slaves in his possession; but, so far from granting their
requests, he had sent the negroes off while the Southern claim-
ants were present in the city; and the West India trade, which
had been affected by orders in council soon after the peace of
1783, and which had been brought before the Assembly for
several years by the petitions of our merchants, had become a
subject of sensitive interest to the people at large. Of these
important interests the treaty was regarded as a final sacrifice.
Even after its ratification by the Senate, Washington was in
serious doubt respecting the course he ought to pursue. The
exact stipulations of the treaty were not as yet generally known,
but enough had got abroad to excite the most serious apprehen-
sions.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 237
But, apart from the specific provisions of the treaty, there was
a well-founded conviction in Virginia that it was one of a series
of measures calculated, if not designed, to injure the South and
materially check her future development. A bold and well-nigh
successful movement had been made a few years before by some
of the same men now in power, and especially by Mr. Jay (the
negotiation of the. obnoxious treaty to surrender the right of
navigating the Mississippi to Spain for a period of thirty years),
and this fatal scheme might be renewed at any moment, and with
the certain prospect of success. Moreover, the practical mea-
sures of Federal policy, which had resulted in concentrating a vast
moneyed capital in the Northern States, had been injurious to the
South, and were likely to prove more fatal in the process of
time. Added to these considerations, was a deep sense of wrong
felt by Virginia in the stern refusal of the Northern States to
accept those amendments to the Federal Constitution which
Virginia had pressed both by her Convention and by her Assem-
bly in the most solemn manner, and without a belief in the
ratification of which that instrument would have been rejected
by a decisive majority.
When the treaty was before the Senate two propositions were
made by its opponents — one from the North (by Burr), the other
from the South (by Henry Tazewell) — and both were rejected.
The resolutions of Tazewell — which received the sanction of
Ma?on, and were softened and modified to conflict as tenderly as
possible with the views of the majority — were as follows:
"That the President of the United States be informed that
the Senate will not consent to the ratification of the treaty of
amity, commerce, and navigation between the United States
and his Britannic Majesty, concluded at London on the igth of
November, 1794, for the reasons following :
" i. Because so much of the treaty as was intended to terminate
the complaints flowing from the inexecution of the treaty of 1783
contains stipulations that were not rightfully or justly requirable
of the United States, and which are both impolitic and injurious
to their interest; and because the treaty hath not secured that
satisfaction from the British Government for the removal of
negroes, in violation of the treaty of 1783, to which the citizens
of the United States were justly entitled.
238 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
"2. Because the rights of individual States are, by the ninth
article of the treaty, unconstitutionally invaded.
"3. Because, however unjust or impolitic it may generally be
to exercise the power prohibited by the tenth article, yet it rests
on legislative discretion, and ought not to be prohibited by treaty.
"4. Because so much of the treaty as relates to commercial
arrangements between the parties wants that reciprocity upon
which alone such like arrangements ought to be founded, and
will operate ruinously to the American commerce and navigation.
"5. Because the treaty prevents the United States from the
exercise of that control over their commerce and navigation, as
connected with other nations, which might better the condition
of their intercouse with friendly nations.
"6. Because the treaty asserts a power in the President and
Senate to control, and even annihilate, the constitutional right of
the Congress of the United States over their commercial inter-
course with foreign nations.
" 7. Because, if the construction of this treaty should not pro-
duce an infraction of the treaties now subsisting between the
United States and their allies, it is calculated to excite sensations,
which may not operate beneficially to the United States.
" Notwithstanding the Senate will not consent to the ratification
of this treaty, they advise the President of the United States to
continue his endeavors, by friendly discussion with his Britannic
Majesty, to adjust all the real causes of complaint between the
two nations."
The vote rejecting these resolutions was the same as that by
which the treaty was ratified.281
Up to this period, while Washington, excited by some recent
acts of the British Government, was hesitating about the course
which he ought to pursue, Mason forwarded, on the 2Oth of
June, an abstract of the treaty to the editor of a Philadelphia
paper; and in an instant there was an explosion of public senti-
ment against the treaty, then without a parallel in our history,
231 The vote was twenty to ten — exactly two-thirds. Neither the
resolutions of Tazewell nor the more downright and pungent ones of
Burr are to be found in Bentori 's Debates, but may be seen in the Sen-
ate Journal, and in a small volume containing the treaty and the memo-
rials and documents appertaining to it, published by Matthew Carey at
the date of the treaty.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 239
and only equalled by the exasperation excited at a later day by
the attack of the Leopard upon the Chesapeake.132 For a time
public opinion appeared to be unanimous against the treaty.*38
Public meetings were not as common then as now, but all the
commercial cities protested against the treaty as fatal to the
prosperity of the country. In Virginia there seemed to be but
one opinion on the subject, and the treaty was denounced as
unjust and injurious; for it not only deprived her merchants of a
trade which they had enjoyed in a greater or less degree for
more than a hundred years, but compelled them, with others,
to pay their debts to the British in coin, while the British were
relieved virtually of all counter claims founded upon the negroes
carried off, not by the prowess of war, but in the face of the
treaty of 1783.
There was, after a season, a slight reaction in favor of the
treaty, and Mason was denounced as a man who had violated
the decencies of life, had wantonly dishonored himself by vio-
lating the pledge of secrecy as a senator, and had made any
future effort to secure an advantageous treaty with a foreign
power impracticable.
On the other hand, his course was applauded with equal zeal
by the opposition. Boston, Baltimore, Trenton, and Norfolk not
only applauded the act, but bestowed on its author the loftiest
panegyric.23* Mason was sustained by the General Assembly of
232Judge Marshall thus alludes to the publication of the treaty :
"Although common usage, and a decent respect for the Executive
and for a foreign nation, not less than a positive resolution, required
that the seal of secrecy should not be broken by the Senate, an abstract
of this instrument, not very faithfully taken, was given to the public;
and on the 29th of June a senator of the United States transmitted a
copy of it to the most distinguished editor of the opposition party in
Philadelphia, to be communicated to the public through the medium
of the press." (Life of Washington, revised edition, Vol. II, 364.
M3Judge Marshall says: "In fact, public opinion did receive a con-
siderable shock, and men, uninfected by the spirit of faction.'felt some
disappointment on its first appearance." (Ibid, 364.) The intensity of
party feelinir at that day may be judged by the fact that so cool a man
as the Chief Justice, in revising his account of the affair forty-five years
afterwards, could brand with the epithet of factions a large majority of
the statesmen and of the people of the last century.
1134 Boston, in a special resolution, offered by Mr. Austin, extolled
Mason's " patriotism in publishing the treaty " ; Baltimore gave a vote
240 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Virginia by a direct vote and by a re-election to the Senate
of the United States. His conduct was approved not only by a
large majority of the people of Virginia, but of the Union; and,
as the subject was fully canvassed, the decision was as deliberate
as it was almost unanimous.
While the judgment of a man's contemporaries is an impor-
tant element in deciding upon his worth, still, as the subject is
as interesting now as it was sixty-four years ago, the question
recurs whether Mason was excusable for disclosing the outline
of the treaty to the people in violation of the rules of the Sen-
ate. None will deny that, as a general principle, the rules of a
deliberative body — especially in relation to the provisions of a
treaty not yet definitely concluded — should be faithfully observed;
and none probably will deny that a case is possible when it would
become the duty of a patriot to expose the proceedings of a
body which were, in his opinion, in manifest violation of the
Constitution and hostile to the integrity of the States, though an
order of that body enjoined secrecy upon its members. Mason
was a Virginian, and was intimately acquainted with the practice
of Virginia on such a subject. She had, again and again, called
her members of Congress before the Assembly, and required
them to discourse of public affairs in Congress, when the pro-
ceedings of that body were always as strictly secret as were those
of the Senate on particular occasions; and the members appeared
and made their representations without scruple. A vote of
thanks was given to Meriwether Smith on such an occasion.
But the most remarkable case occurred during the session of the
present Convention. The right of the navigation of the Missis-
sippi had been placed in imminent jeopardy by the Congress;
and the Convention, regarding the question as of vital interest
to Virginia, whose borders were washed by that stream, in the
waters of which she claimed the right of use, called upon the
members of Congress to state their proceedings in full, and they
•
of thanks "to the virtuous minority in the Senate, and to Stevens
Thomson Mason, for the patriotic service rendered his country by the
disclosure"; Norfolk declared that Mason "is entitled to the thanks
of every good citizen and real friend to the Constitution of the United
States for his patriotic and independent conduct in rending the veil of
senatorial secrecy," &c.; Trenton resolved that Mason "is entitled to
the highest veneration, respect, and esteem of his countrymen " for
making the disclosure, &c., &c.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 241
disclosed them without hesitation.235 The question, then, would
seem to have been decided in Virginia that a representative is
bound, at the bidding of his constituents, to disclose all his
doings in their behalf, even though a rule of the body to which
he belonged might be violated by the disclosure. It may be
alleged that Mason was not called upon by the Assemby to
make a disclosure, but acted on his own responsibility. But if a
disclosure at the bidding of the constituent body is justifiable, it
is justifiable on the ground of extreme necessity; and of this
necessity it may happen — as in the present case— that the repre-
sentative only can be the judge. He alone can know exactly
the impending dangers; and, if he believe the danger to be so
imminent as to involve the dearest rights of his constituents, the
mode of proclaiming that danger to them is, at best, a choice of
means, and may be as well — perhaps more effectually — done by
a publication in a paper of wide circulation as by a letter to the
Governor at a time when the Assembly was not in session, and
when a day's delay might be fatal. That the stipulations. of the
treaty were believed seriously to impair the rights and interests
of Virginia, has already been shown ; and Mason might fairly
presume that, if a rule of the Senate were regarded as an obliga-
tion incapable of being annulled but by a vote of the body itself,
no danger menacing a right or possession of the South could be
disclosed until the treaty had become a law, and the disclosure
was vain. None will wish that such cases should become fre-
quent ; but when they do occur, the great and essential interests
of a whole community will more completely control the action
of a representative than the rules of the body to which he
belongs. Each case must be decided on its own merits. Certain
it is that the course of Mason was sanctioned by those to whom
he looked for justification and approval.
When the British treaty was ratified by the Senate, an article
was added providing that so much of the twelfth article as
235 Madison boggled, as he knew the disclosures might seal the fate
of the Constitution in the Convention, but made the disclosure. It is
plain that, in a strictly federal system, it would be absurd to deny the
right of the Government to ask explanations from its ministers and
servants in relation to a public matter. An inviolable rule of secrecy
would sever all connection between the representative and the con-
stituent body.
16
242 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
related to the intercourse with the West Indies should be sus-
pended, and that fresh negotiations should be entered into on
the subject.236 At the same time Gunn (of Georgia) offered a
resolution requesting the President further to negotiate concern-
ing the payment of the value of the slaves carried off by the
British army in violation of the treaty of 1783. This resolution
was so modified as not to interfere with the treaty; but it was
promptly rejected. The result was, as was predicted at the
time, that the West India trade would never more be placed on
its old footing, at least for a generation to come;"7 and that the
stolen negroes would never be paid for; nor have they been to
the present hour.238
At the December session of 1795 the Senate proceeded, as
was then customary, to prepare a response to the President's
communication — a practice borrowed from the British Parliament
and long since disused, and ever ill-timed, as calculated to antici-
pate opinions and to stir party feuds on the threshold of a
session. The address inclined to take too favorable a view of
our foreign affairs, and Mason moved to strike out the fourth
236 When Mr. Jay made the treaty he was not aware that cotton had
become an article of export from the United States.
237 It was secured during General Jackson's administration.
238 My maxim in respect of foreign powers is that of the Declaration
of Independence, " Enemies in war, in peace friends"; and that of
still higher authority, " Peace on earth and good will to men "; but it is
the province of history to record the delinquencies of nations, and
those of Great Britain towards us have been formidable. If a bill with
accruing interest were made out of the value of our slaves purloined
in the face of a solemn treaty, of our commerce sequestered by orders
in council which the British tribunals have since pronounced illegal, of
the labor of our seamen pressed on board of British ships, of the
amount of losses sustained by our embargo and non-intercourse regu-
lations into which England forced us, and of the expenses of the war
which she compelled us to wage in defence of the common rights of
human nature — if all these sums with interest were made into a bill,
and that bill placed into the hands of some future senator from Oregon,
fresh from his jaunt of five thousand miles by land or fifteen thousand
by water, it is quite probable that, to simplify matters, he would pro-
prose at once to take possession of the little island, substitute a Terri-
torial Legislature for her Parliament, make her a coaling-station for our
steamers, and award her, as a matter of extreme grace, the privilege
of sending a territorial delegate to Washington.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. . 243
and fifth paragraphs. Pierce Butler was disposed to go further,
and contended not only for striking out, but for inserting a coun-
ter statement. The motion failed by a vote of eight to fourteen ;
and the entire address as reported was adopted by the same
vote. The slight synopsis which has come down to us of the
debates of this session shows several instances in which the roll
was called; but Mason does not appear to have been present at
the time.
On the I2th of January, 1797, he took his seat in the Senate,
and was immediately placed at the head of a committee to which
the notification of the House of Representatives of the election
of Mr. Jefferson as Vice- President of the United States was
referred, and he drew a form which the President was requested
to forward to that gentleman, stating his election to the office in
question. On the 2ist of February a bill to accommodate the
President was discussed and passed by a vote of twenty-eight to
three, Mason in the minority and Tazewell in the majority.
When the proposition was made in May, 1798, to allow Gene-
ral Thomas Pinkney, our Minister to Spain, to receive the cus-
tomary presents from His Catholic Majesty on the negotiation of
a treaty, it was carried by a vote of seventeen to five — Mason and
Tazewell in the negative. On the 25th of June, when the bill to
declare the treaties between the United States and the Republic
of France null and void was on its passage, Mason opposed it;
but it passed by a vote of fourteen to five. On the 27th, when
the notorious bill to define more particularly the crime of treason,
and to define and punish the crime of sedition, came up, a motion
was made to commit it, which prevailed — Mason and Tazewell
in the negative; and on the 29th a motion was made to amend
the bill authorizing the President to prevent and regulate the
landing of French passengers and other persons who may arrive
in the United States from foreign places, so as not to prohibit
the migration or importation of such persons as any State may
think proper by law to admit. Mason voted in the affirmative in
a minority of three. The bill passed the Senate with the usual
majority. When the bill from the House of Representatives
providing for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses, and
the enumeration of slaves was discussed, Mason moved to add
to the end of the eighth section the words: "except such slaves
as from fixed infirmity or bodily disability may be incapable of
244 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
labor"; and his amendment prevailed by a vote of eleven to
eight. When the treason and sedition bill again came up Mason
moved to expunge the words: "Or shall in manner aforesaid
traduce or defame the President of the United States or any
court or judge thereof, by declarations tending to criminate their
motives in any official transaction"; but he lost his motion by a
vote of fifteen to eight; and when the second and leading section
of the bill was read, a motion was made to strike it out, which
failed by a vote of eighteen to six. And the question on the
final passage of a bill, which was destined to overthrow an
administration and to blast for years the popularity of its sup-
porters, was carried by a vote of eighteen to six, Mason, Taze-
well, Anderson, Brown, Howard, and Langdon constituting the
minority.
The bill for encouraging the capture of French armed ves-
sels by armed ships or vessels owned by citizens of the United
States was opposed by Mason; but, like its kindred measures, it
prevailed by a vote of sixteen to four — Mason, Tazewell, Brown,
and Langdon being the minority. On the passage of the bill
for making further appropriations for the additional naval arma-
ment, he was in a minority of three — his colleague, Tazewell, and
Anderson alone standing by him.
One of the first duties which Mason was required to perform
on taking his seat at the December session of 1799 was to com-
mit to the grave the remains of his esteemed colleague and
friend, Henry Tazewell, who died on the 24th of January.
Tazewell had taken his seat in the Senate three days before, but
was suffering from an inflammatory attack which had seized him
on his route from Virginia. He was seen to be ill, but none
believed that his end was near. He was in his forty-eighth year.
He entered the Convention of December, 1775, and had con-
tinued in that body till the Declaration of Independence by Vir-
ginia and the formation of the first Constitution of the Common-
wealth. Throughout the war and after its close he remained in
the House of Delegates, always maintaining an eminent position
in the debates of the House and in the deliberations of the early
patriots, until he was called to the bench of the General Court.
On the bench of that court he acquired the reputation of an able
and learned judge, and had been elevated to the Court of
Appeals a short time before he was called upon by the Assembly
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 245
to take a seat in the Senate of the United States. His reputa-
tion had preceded him; and during the first session of his attend-
ance he was chosen its president pro tempore, an honor which
was conferred a second time upon him at the following session.
When the death of Tazewell was announced to the Senate
Mason was associated with Brown and Marshall (of Kentucky)
in superintending his funeral, which was attended to the place of
interment by the Senate in mourning. As he wept at the grave
of Tazewell,'239 how little did Mason dream, radiant with health
as he then was, and quickened by the intellectual contests in
which he was daily engaged, that in less than four years he was
to die in the same city! But we must not anticipate.
The act further to suspend commercial intercourse with France
(from the House of Representatives) came up in the Senate on
the 6th of February, but, after several ineffectual motions by the
Republicans to amend it, it passed by a vote of eighteen to ten —
Mason, of course, in the minority. On the 23d he opposed the
bill to augment the salaries of the principal officers of the
executive departments, which prevailed by a vote of twenty-
two to three; Langdon and Livermore voting with him. I wish
he had voted with the majority, as the salaries were very low,
that of the Secretary of State not exceeding three thousand
dollars, though three thousand dollars then were equal to six
thousand now.
The session of the Senate of the United States — beginning in
December, 1799 — was occupied for many days by a subject
which tended as much, perhaps, as any other to precipitate the
downfall of the party which governed its deliberations. At this
day it seems wonderful that a party consisting of so many pure,
able, and honorable men should have been so completely con-
trolled by leaders who thought that in a free country conciliation
was no part of the policy of statesmen, and who believed that
the best mode of securing the affections of the people was by
M9Judge Tazewell was buried in Christ church yard, corner of Fifth
and Arch streets, Philadelphia, a few feet from the western wall, and
about a fourth of the distance of the entire length of the wall from
Arch. A white marble slab, formerly on pillars, but now on the sur-
face, protects his remains. The grave of Colonel Innes is near by.
For a notice of Judge Tazewell, see my work on the Virginia Conven-
tion of 1776, page 79, et seq.
246 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
inspiring them with the terrors of the law. Had the Federal
party acted with ordinary prudence during the period when the
publication of the correspondence of our Envoys to France had
made a general impression in their favor, it is probable that John
Adams would have been re-elected, and its members — who were
soon to be scattered to the winds — might have received a new
lease of life. But the war upon foreigners seeking our shores,
and upon the press, alarmed intelligent men, who saw that,
under the guidance of such leaders, the liberty of speech, of
person, and of the press would soon be as much endangered in
a free country as in the despotisms of Europe. The great and
absorbing event of the present session was the persecution of an
editor. It appears that Colonel Duane, of the Aurora (news-
paper), had written and published an article which was distaste-
ful to the ruling majority of the Senate; and that body sum-
moned him to appear at its bar to answer for the contempt. He
appeared once; but, as the Senate refused him the full aid of
counsel, he declined to appear a second time. This case, in its
various stages, consumed a great deal of time, and without any
definitive action. It is to the credit of Mason that he opposed
this effort to gag the press in all its stages, and on the final pas-
sage of the order. On one of its phases Mason uttered these
words of warning:
"He recommended to gentlemen to explore well the ground
which the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut had taken,
and consider seriously the consequences to which they would be
led in pursuing their object. What was to be the course of their
proceeding? What were the embarrassments likely to arise
therein ? He called the House to view the delicacy of the situ-
ation in which they would be involved while defining their
newly-discovered privileges and subverting the old acknow-
ledged privileges of the liberty of the press — he said the delicacy
of their situation, because he considered it a delicate one; for he
was far from believing that the privileges of the Senate were as
unlimited as tha gentleman from Connecticut contended they
were; if so, and they proceed to touch the liberty of the press —
which they may discover in the end to be secured against the
invasion — they will be compelled to retrace every step they are
now taking, which will redound neither to their honor nor their
discernment. They should be careful how they expose them-
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 247
selves to popular scrutiny in cases respecting their own power
for the public mind had already been considerably agitated at
what many believed to be an unconstitutional exercise of power.
If, session after yession, attempts were made to fetter the freedom
of the press, the people of the United States would watch with
anxious regard every movement of this body. A measure which
originated in the Senate, and was subsequently acceded to by
the other branch of the Legislature, had been just ground of
alarm. It is no wonder they watch our bills as well as our laws;
for it must be recollected by many of the gentlemen who hear
me that the bill called the Sedition Bill was first introduced
here, and that, instead of being what it afterwards became, it
was a bill more particularly to define treason and sedition. The
good .sense of the House — during the time it was upon the table
and undergoing a political dissection — cut off from it manv of
those monstrous excrescences which at first disfigured it, and at
last trimmed it into a shapely form; but, after all, it was removed
below stairs in a condition not fit to meet the eye of our con-
stituents— even obliged to undergo a decapitation ; the head or
title of it was struck off, and instead of being a bill defining trea-
son— which is a thing totally out of our power, the Constitution
having declared in what alone treason should consist — instead of
being denominated a bill against sedition, it took the obnoxious
head of being a bill to amend the law for punishing certain
crimes against the United States."
As Duane would not appear, and as the majority were deter-
mined to punish him, it was resolved on the eve of adjournment,
by a vote of thirteen to four, that the President of the United
States be requested to instruct the proper law officers to com-
mence and carry on a prosecution against William Duane, editor
of the newspaper called the Aurora, for certain false, defamatory,
scandalous, and malicious publications tending to defame the
Senate of the United States.
The famous judiciaryact — the repeal of which will be presently
recorded — was discussed by the Senate at the present session.
When the bill to permit slaves, in certain cases, to be brought
into the Mississippi territory was on its final passage, it does not
appear that there was much discussion on its merits; but it was
rejected by a vote of five to fourteen —Mason one of the majority.
At the session of the Senate in December, 1800, the first bill
248 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
on which Mason was called to vote was a bill to erect a mau-
soleum to Washington. He sustained it in company with his
new colleague, Wilson Gary Nicholas. The vote was not unani-
mous, for there was a minority of nine; the choice between a
statue and a tomb making the difference among the members.
He consistently opposed the policy of shrouding the proceedings
of public bodies in secrecy; and when it was proposed in the
Senate that no person should be admitted into the gallery while
the votes for President and Vice-President were counted, he
objected to the proposition, but was left in a minority. The
debates of the Senate are so meagre, as reported by Colonel
Benton, that we cannot say anything about the course of Mason
during the session. Its great event was the election of Mr. Jef-
ferson to the Presidency; and when, on the 3d of March, the
Senate adjourned in its legislative capacity it was convoked in its
executive; and Mason had the pleasure of voting into office his
old colleagues who had fought with him against such formidable
odds ever since the adoption of the Federal Constitution. From
the time when he took his seat in the Senate to the close of the
present session, he was in a small minority, but his ability and
courtesy conciliated the respect of his opponents, while his
heroic devotion to his party, which he believed to be the party of
freedom and of union, received the cordial applause of a majority
of the people.
In the evening of his honored life, when Thomas Jefferson
was led to recount those acts by which he had rendered essential
service to his country, he referred with confidence to the term of
his presidency in the Senate of the United States, during which
he was compelled to endure in silence a course of proceedings
which he believed to be in open violation of the spirit and letter
of the Constitution. Let others apply the same test to the ser-
vices of Mason, who, for a longer term than four years not only
beheld those unconstitutional acts in question, but grappled with
their supporters, and who, though voted down at the time by a
"steady, inflexible, and undeviating " majority,240 made the vic-
tories of his enemies distasteful to them at first, and ultimately
disastrous, and his measure of fame will be full.
We are now to regard Mason as the leader in the Senate of
840 Mason's own words.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 249
the great party of which Mr. Jefferson was the chief; and I only
regret that my materials as well as my limits will enable me to
do him but small justice. His first grand effort was on the
repeal of the judiciary act of 1800. On the 8th of January,
1802, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution offered by
Breckenridge (of Kentucky) on the 6th, in the following words:
"That the act of Congress passed on the I3th day of February,
1801, entitled an act to provide for the more convenient organi-
zation of the courts of the United States, ought to be repealed."
That gentleman opened the debate on his resolution with a speech
of uncommon power and massive strength, in which he sought
to demonstrate the utter inexpediency of such a bill as the one
in review, by referring to the decreasing number of suits in the
Federal court, and from the certainty of a further decrease; and
he sustained the constitutional power of Congress to repeal the
act in question. He was followed by Jonathan Mason, of Massa-
chusetts, in reply; and when J. Mason resumed his seat, Gov-
ernor Morris rose and with consummate tact endeavored to
break the force of Breckenridge's speech. When Morris ended,
the Senate adjourned. On the i2th the discussion was renewed
by a frank and argumentative speech from General Jackson, of
Georgia, in favor of the resolution, who, with Tracy, occupied the
floor for that day. On the I3th the discussion was continued by
Stevens Thomson Mason, who made one of the most brilliant
displays of his parliamentary career. He was present when the
act passed the Senate and was familiar with all its details; and
he not only upheld the inexpediency of its passage at the time,
and the right and duty of Congress to repeal it, but brought the
charge of unconstitutionality, if such a charge was just, home
upon the authors of the act which abolished a court, set the
judges adrift, then took them up and placed them in another
court, much to their inconvenience and discomfort.
After dwelling for some time on this view of the subject, we
can imagine the effect, the tone, and the gesture with which he
rebuked his opponents as he uttered these words:
"Where, then, were these guardians of the Constitution, these
vigilant sentinels of our rights and liberties, when this law passed ?
Were they asleep on their post? Where was the gentleman
from New York (Morris'), who has on this debate made such a
noble stand in favor of a violated Constitution? Where was the
250 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Ajax Tdamon of his party — or, to use his own more correct
expression, of the faction to which he belonged? Where was
the hero with his seven-fold shield — not of bull's hide, but of
brass — prepared to prevent or punish this Trojan rape which he
now sees meditated upon the Constitution of his country by
a wicked faction? Where was Hercules, that he did not crush
this band of robbers that broke into the sanctuary of the Con-
stitution ? Was he forgetful of his duty ? Were his nerves
unstrung? Or, was he the very leader of the band that broke
down these constitutional ramparts?"
After tracing in detail the history of the passage of the bill
through the Senate, he continued:
"Various amendments were offered, some of which were
admitted to be proper. But they were not received. One,
indeed, proposed by a member from Connecticut, who was
chairman of the committee, and was then hostile to the plan, did
pass in the early stages of the bill; but on the third reading it
was expunged. All amendments proposed by the minority were
uniformly rejected by a steady, inflexible, and undeviating
majority. I confess that I saw no passion, but I certainly did
see great pertinacity; something like what the gentleman from
Connecticut had termed a holding fast. No amendments were
admitted; when offered, we were told no. You may get them
introduced by a rider or supplementary bill, or in any way you
please, but down this bill must go; it must be crammed down
your throats. This was not the precise phrase, but such was the
amount of what was said. I will say that not an argument was
urged in favor of the bill — not a word to show the necessity or
propriety of the change. Yet we are told that there was great
dignity, great solemnity in its progress and passage!
"But there is something undignified in thus hastily repealing
this law — in thus yielding ourselves to the fluctuations of public
opinion! So we are told. But if there be blame, on whom
does it fall? Not on us who respected the public opinion when
this law was passed, and who still respect it; but on those who,
in defiance of public opinion, passed this law after that public
opinion had been decisively expressed. The revolution in pub-
lic opinion had taken place before the introduction of this
project; the people of the United States had determined to com-
mit these affairs to new agents; already had the confidence of
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 251
the people been transferred from their then rulers into other
hands. After this exposition of the national will, and this new
deposit of the national confidence, the gentlemen should have
left untouched this :mportant and delicate subject — a subject on
which the people could not be reconciled to their views, even in
the flood-tide of their power and influence; they should have
forborne until agents, better acquainted with the national will,
because more recently constituted its organs, had come into the
government. This would have been more dignified than to
seize the critical moment when power was passing from them to
pass such a law as this. If there is error, it is our duty to cor-
rect it; and the truth was that no law was ever more execrated
by the public. Let it not be said, postpone the repeal till the
next session. No; let us restore these gentlemen to private life
who have accepted appointments under this law. This will be
doing them greater justice than by keeping them in office
another year, till the professional business which once attached
to them is gone into other channels." 24)
This speech, the technical part of which we have omitted, pro-
duced a sensible effect on the body and on the public, and called
forth a deliberate reply from Morris, which exhibited great
ingenuity and afforded at its close a fine specimen of declama-
tion; but he was unable to turn the edge of a single fact or argu-
ment urged by Mason, and the speaker seemed more inclined to
defend the reputation of the Federal party in relation to the act
than the act itself. The question was taken on the 3d, and the
bill founded on the resolution passed by a vote of sixteen to
fifteen.242
MlThe best report of Mason's speech will be found in the small
volume printed in Philadelphia by Bronson in 1802. But all the reports
are synoptical, and convey but a feint impression of his logical vigor
and of the fire of his eloquence. All pass over with a mere allusion
that admirable part of his speech in which he portrayed the action of
Virginia on a similar occasion.
142 As the ayes and noes will show who Mason's colleagues were in
this great debate, I annex them :
AYES— Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke,
Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, Nicholas,
Stone, Sumter, and Wright.
NOES— Chipman, Calhoun, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse, Howard,
252 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
On the real worth of the judiciary act of 1801 it is a delicate
subject to pass an opinion. Great confidence ought unques-
tionably to be placed in the judgment of the statesmen who
repealed it and in the public opinion which sustained the repeal.
With our present knowledge of the extent of our country and
its unparalleled development in population and resources, the
small number of the district judges and their meagre salaries
seem almost insignificant. The act increased the number of
judges to sixteen, and the cost of maintaining the system slightly
exceeded thirty thousand dollars; and the propriety and even
necessity of establishing Federal courts for the convenience of
the people in the various sections of a thinly settled country
should seem to be apparent. Even Mason stated of his own
knowledge that his friend, Judge Innes, one of the old judges
promoted to be one of the new, would be compelled to travel
hundreds of miles through a region beset by Indians in the per-
formance of his duties. And Mason knew the country, for he
had lately travelled through it, had lost his baggage, which was
stolen by the Indians, and had narrowly escaped a fight with the
savages. When, too, we consider that direct taxes were then an
important part of the Federal revenue, and that land titles
might require to be settled in Federal courts, the expediency of
an extended judiciary would appear to be obvious. The hos-
tility which caused a repeal of the act was evidently founded as
much on the circumstances of its progress and passage as of its
expediency. One good result may have flowed from the repeal.
No political party has since attempted to perpetuate itself or to
provide for its supporters by wholesale legislation on judicial
subjects.243
J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Ross, Sheafe. Tracy, Wells, and
White.
Of these able men I knew personally but one— the venerable Hill-
house — whose fame is almost lost in that of his son, the great dramatic
poet of his country, whom I also knew, and who has passed away.
243 The judges appointed under the act were Richard Bassett, Egbert
Benson, Benjamin Bourne, William Griffith, Samuel Hitchcock, B. P.
Key, C. Magill, Jeremiah Smith, George Keith Taylor, William Tilgh-
man, and Oliver Wolcott. On the 27th of January, 1803, they presented
to the Senate a memorial, in which they state that the law of i8or,
under which they v ore appointed, had been repealed; that no new law
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 253
While the bill to purchase a place of deposit near the mouth
of the Mississippi was before the Senate, a series of resolutions
on the same subject was introduced by Ross (of Pennsylvania).
The mover was an opponent of the administration; and the
obvious effect, if not the true design, of his resolutions was to
embarrass the Executive in its action in pursuance of the bill
which had received the sanction of the Senate. They set forth
that the United States have an indisputable right to the navi-
gation of.the Mississippi and to a place of deposit on its banks;
that the late infraction of their right*" is hostile to their interest
and their honor; that it did not consist with the dignity and
safety of the Union to hold so important a right by so frail a
tenure; that it concerned the people of the West and the dignity
and safety of the Union; that the United States obtain complete
security for the full and peaceable enjoyment of their absolute
right; that the President be anthorized to take immediate pos-
session of such places on the said island of Orleans or elsewhere
as he may deem proper, and to adopt such other means of
attaining the object as he might think expedient; that he be
authorized to employ fifty thousand militia to be drafted from
certain contiguous States, together with the whole military and
naval forces of the United States, for effecting the objects above
mentioned, and that the'sum of five millions of dollars be appro-
priated for the purpose. This was a most ingenious scheme for
has since passed assigning to them judicial functions; that they are
judges of the United States, and entitled to their salaries during good
behavior; and that they desire a review of the existing laws that their
duties may be properly defined. The paper is marked by self-posses-
sion and dignity. It was referred to a committee, of which Governor
Morris was chairman, and which reported a resolution requesting the
President of the United States to cause an information, in the nature of
a quo warranto, to be filed by the Attorney-General against Richard
Bassett, one of the petitioners, for the purpose of deciding judicially
on their claims. The resolution was discussed fully, and was rejected"
by a vote of thirteen to fifteen. If the judges possessed the talents
and the worth of George Keith Taylor, they would have been, and
doubtless were, worthy of their stations. My love for the memory of
Taylor leads me to wish that 1 could make a more pleasant mention of
him.
2USpain had ceded Louisiana to France without any allusion or
acknowledgment of our right to a place of deposit, &c.
254 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
defeating the policy of the administration. The resolutions
plainly pointed to an immediate war with Spain and France; and
while they would receive the unanimous support of the Federal
party, they were calculated to excite the warmest sympathies of
the Western and Southern States, on which the Government
mainly depended for parliamentary support. The speech of
Ross on moving them was highly imprudent and inflammatory;
and his speech was echoed by Governor Morris in a still more
warlike tone. Breckenridge made a strong speech against the
resolutions, and concluded by offering a substitute which left
substantially any act of reprisals and the calling out of the
militia at the discretion of the Executive, and which appropriated
funds for the purpose. DeWitt Clinton then rose and made>
perhaps, what was his maiden speech in the body, in which he
admitted the importance of the right of deposit and the free
navigation of the Mississippi; but demonstrated that the resolu-
tions offered by Mr. Ross involved an immediate declaration of
war, and the inexpediency of such a measure at that time.
General James Jackson followed in a bold and sensible speech,
in which he showed that the honor of the country, on which his
opponents had laid such a stress, was the true interests of the
country; and narrated with admirable effect the anecdote of
Count D'Estaing, who, having been wounded at the attempted
storm of Savannah, was visited in his chamber by Governor
Rutledge and others, who told the Count that his own honor
and the honor of France were concerned in his remaining and
taking the city; when the Count mildly replied: "Gentlemen, if
my honor is to be lost by not taking the city, it is lost already ;
but I deem my honor to consist in the honor of my country, and
that honor is my country's interest." Jackson was followed by
Wells (of Delaware), who, in a speech in which sophistry was
ingeniously mingled with sound argument and passionate declam-
ation, was fierce for war. Anderson followed in reply to Wells,
and when he closed Mason rose to speak. The subject of the
Mississippi he was well qualified to discuss. He had spoken
upon it more than once in the Assembly and in Congress, and he
always regarded it, and now more than ever, as Virginia had no
longer a direct interest in its decision, not as a local or party
question, but on principles of the broadest statesmanship. But,
unfortunately, he was indisposed, and stated in the outset that
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 255
his physical condition would not suffer him to go as much at
length into the discussion as he otherwise would have done.
After a short preamble he said that he had heard in the debate
many professions of confidence in the Executive. He was very
glad to hear such unusual expressions of confidence from that
quarter. However, it was entitled to its due weight — what that
was he would not inquire; but this he would say, that this unex-
pected ebullition of confidence went very much farther than he
should be disposed to carry his confidence in any man or Presi-
dent whatever. Gentlemen tell us that they are willing to entrust
to the Executive the power of going to war or not at his dis-
cretion. Wonderful, indeed; is this sudden disposition to confi-
dence! Why do not gentlemen give away that which they have
some authority or right to bestow? Who gave them the power
to vest in any other authority than in Congress the right of
declaring war ? The framers of this Constitution had too much
experience to entrust such a power to any individual; they early
and wisely foresaw that though there might be men too virtuous
to abuse such a power, it ought not to be entrusted to any; and
nugatory would be the authority of the Senate if we could
assume the right of transferring our constitutional functions to
any man or set of men. It was a stretch of confidence which he
would not trust to any President that ever lived or ever will live.
He could not as one, without treason to the Constitution, con-
sent even to relinquish the right of declaring war to any man or
men beside Congress.246
"We are told," he said, "that negotiation is not the course
which is proper for us to pursue. But to this he should reply
that such was the usage of all civilized nations; and however
gentlemen might attempt to whittle away the strong ground
taken by his friend from New York (Clinton), he had shown,
445 This argument was not answered in the debate, but it is not sound.
The assent of Congress to a measure which it was obvious would lead
to war, and which was to be carried into effect by arms, and the
equipping of the President with men and money for the purpose, is in
itself a declaration of war. If there was a precise formula on the sub-
ject of a declaration of war, Mason's argument would be good; but
there are as many ways of declaring war as there are for prosecuting
the war when it is begun. The President was instructed to do a certain
thing, peaceably if he could, but to do it at all events.
256 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
in a manner not to be shaken, that negotiation, before a resort to
the last scourge of nations, is the course most consistent with
good policy as well as with universal practice. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania had indeed told us that Great Britain had
departed from that practice; unfortunately for Great Britain and
the gentleman's argument, he told us at the same time that she
had sustained a most serious injury by her injustice and precipi-
tation. She went to war to seek restitution, and after fighting a
while she left off, and forgot to ask the restitution for which she
went to war. And this is the example held up for our imita-
tion! Because Great Britain violated the laws of nations, we are
called upon to do so too!
"We are also told that Great Britain commenced war during
our Revolution against the Dutch without any previous notifica-
tion; that she did the same in the late war with France, and in
both cases seized on their ships in her harbors — that is, like a
professional bully, she struck first, and then told them that she
would fight them. And this is the gracious example held up
to us.
"The merits of the different propositions consisted in this,
that by the amendments we propose to seek the recourse of
pacific nations — to follow up our own uniform practice; we pur-
sue, in fact, the ordinary and rational course. The first resolu-
tions go at once to the point of war. This was openly and fairly
acknowledged by the gentleman from New York (Morris). The
gentleman from Pennsylvania told us, indeed, that it is not war;
it was only going and taking peaceable possession of New
Orleans. He did not before think that the gentleman felt so
little respect for the Senate, or estimated their understandings so
much inferior to his own, as to call such measures an act of
peace. How did the gentleman mean to go, and how take
peaceable possession ? Would he march at the head of the
posse comtiatusf No; he would march at the head of fifty
thousand militia, and he would send forth the whole naval and
regular force, armed and provided with military stores. He
would enter their island, set fire to their warehouses, and bom-
bard their city, desolate their farms and plantations, ar.d, having
swept all their habitations away, after wading through streams
of blood, he would tell those who escaped destruction: We do
not come here to make war upon you; we are a very moderate,
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 257
tender-hearted kind of neighbors, and are come here barely to
take peaceable possession of your territory! Why, sir, this is
too naked not to be an insult to the understanding of a child.
"But the gentleman from New York (Morris) did not trifle
with the Senate in such a style: he threw off the mask at once,
and in a downright, manly way fairly told us that he liked war;
that it was his favorite mode of negotiating between -nations;
that war gave dignity to the species; that it drew forth the most
noble energies of humanity. That gentleman scorned to tell us
that he wished to take peaceable possession. No. He could not
snivel; his vast genius spurned huckstering; his mighty soul
would not bear to be locked up in a petty warehouse at New
Orleans; he was for war — terrible, glorious havoc! He tells you
plainly that you are not only to recover your rights, but you
must remove your neighbors' from their possessions, and repel
those to whom they may transfer the soil; that Bonaparte's
ambition is insatiable; that he will throw in colonies of French-
men, who will settle on your frontier for thousands of miles round
about (when he comes there); and he does not forget to tell you
of the imminent dangers which threaten our good old friends,
the English. He tells you that New Orleans is the lock, and
you must seize the key and shut the door against this terrible
Bonaparte, or he will come with his legions, and, as Gulliver
served the Lilliputians, wash you off the map. Not content — in
his great care for your honor and glory — as a statesman and a
warrior, he turns prophet to oblige you (your safety in the pres-
ent year, or the next, does not satisfy him); his vast mind,
untrammelled by the ordinary progressions of chronology, looks
over ages to come with a faculty bordering on omniscience, and
conjures us to come forward and regulate the decrees of Provi-
dence at ten thousand years' distance.
"We have been told that Spain had no right to cede Louisi-
ana to France; that she had ceded to us the privilege of deposit,
and had therefore no right to cede her territory without our con-
sent. Are gentlemen disposed to wage war in support of this
principle? Because she has given us a little privilege — a mere
indulgence on her territory — is she thereby constrained from
doing anything forever with her immense possessions ? No
doubt, if the gentleman (Morris) were to be the negotiator on
this occasion, he would say: You mean to cede New Orleans?
17
258 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
No, gentlemen; I beg your pardon, you cannot cede that, for we
want it ourselves; and as to the Floridas, it would be very indis-
creet to cede them, as, in all human probability, we shall want
them also in less than five hundred years from this day; and
then, as to Louisiana, you surely could not think of that, for in
something less than a thousand years, in the natural order of
things, our population will advance to that place also.246
"If Spain has ceded those countries to France, the cession
has been made with all the encumbrances and obligations to
which it was subject by previous compact with us. Whether
Bonaparte will execute these obligations with good faith, he
could not say; but to say that Spain had no right to cede is a
bold assertion indeed. The people of America will not go along
with such doctrines, for they lead to ruin alone. We are also
told that the power of the Chief Consul is so great that he puts
up and pulls down all the nations of the Old World at discretion,
and that he can do so with us. Yet we are told by the wonderful
statesman who gives us this awful information that we must go
to war with this maker and destroyer of governments. If, after
the unceasing pursuit of empire and conquest — which is thus
presented to us — we take possession of his territory, from the
gentleman's own declarations, what are we to expect? Only that
this wonderful man, who never abandons an object — who thinks
his own and his nation's honor pledged to go through with
whatever he undertakes — will next attack us ? Does the gentle-
man think that this terrible picture — which his warm imagination
has drawn — is a conclusive argument for proceeding to that war
which he recommends ?
"The Senate, Mr. President, at this moment presents a very
extraordinary aspect; and, by those not acquainted with our
political affairs, it would appear a political phenomenon. Here
we see a number of people from the Eastern States and the sea-
board filled with extreme solicitude for the interest and rights of
246 If Mason had survived twenty years he would have seen, not only
the Floridas, but all Louisiana, belonging to the United States ; but
his argument is honorable to him as showing that he thought the Ten
Commandments were still binding, and that nations no more than indi-
viduals should covet their neighbors' possessions. Had he survived
six months he would have read and ratified the treaty of Paris, which
ceded to the United States the territory of Louisiana.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 259
the Western and inland States; while the representatives of the
Western people themselves appear to know nothing of this great
danger, and to feel a full confidence in their government — the
former declaring that the Western people are all ready for revolt
and open to seduction; the latter ignorant of any such dispo
sition, and indignant at the disgrace which is thrown on their
character. In their great loving kindness for the Western peo-
ple, these new friends of theirs tell them that they are a simple
people, who do not know what is good for them, and that they
will kindly undertake to do this for them. From the contiguous
States of South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky
(those States from which the gentleman from Pennsylvania pro-
poses to draw the militia), every member of this House is opposed
to war; but from the East (and one can scarcely refrain from
laughing to hear the all-important representatives of the State of
Delaware, in particular), such is the passion for the wonderful or
the absurd, there prevails the liveliest sensibility for the Western
country."
The question was put on striking out the resolutions of Ross,
and decided in the affirmative by a vote of fifteen to eleven; and
the substitute of Breckenridge was then adopted by a unanimous
vote — ascertained by ayes and noes.
The course of the Federal party on this occasion deserves
severe censure. To force the nation into a war with France and
Spain without a resort to negotiation was as unwise and impolitic
as it was suicidal to those who proposed so rash an expedient.
It was unwise, as the object in view might be accomplished — as
it afterwards was — by the ordinary means of settling difficulties
among nations; it was impolitic, as it committed the Federal
party to the most violent measures which the Administration
might be induced to adopt, and would thereby deprive that
party of a legitimate ground of attack at the future stages of the
proceedings; and it was suicidal, as the boisterous vehemence of
their orators would be used argumentatively abroad in aid of
those negotiations which it was their wish to embarrass, and as
they had placed themselves, by their harangues, in the wrong
before the country, and particularly before the very people
whose rights and interests they assumed to defend against their
own representatives, and whose influence they sought to win. It
is a subject of congratulation that Mason and Nicholas — the
260 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
senators from Virginia in Congress — took the ground in this
debate which posterity, with one accord, pronounces to be just,
honorable, and wise.
And when the States which rest or depend on the Mississippi
shall begin to rear statues in commemoration of the past, they
will be sadly unmindful of truth and history if the marble image
of Virginia, who among the earliest, through good and evil
report, upheld the right of navigating their noble stream, and
whose great son finally confirmed that right gloriously and for-
ever, is not the first to adorn their halls.
Mason made this speech under bodily suffering; and, roughly
reported as it is, it serves to show the vigor, the sprightliness,
and the freedom which marked his style of debate. It compares
favorably with the speeches of the most eloquent British speakers
of the era ending with the American Revolution, as those
speeches are reported in the public debates, and it has much of
their freshness and savor. It was essentially the speech of a
debater, who seizes at once upon the salient points of his adver-
sary's arguments, and turns them against their authors. Like
most of our great statesmen who flourished, or who begun their
career during the last century, Mason never wrote or wrote out
a speech before or after delivery; but, in the remains of his
speeches that are left us, it is apparent that he spoke well and
readily, holding back nothing, fearing nothing; and, if not
weaving for himself a living crown of oratory with posterity, yet
accomplishing all that could be accomplished by eloquence in
his then day and generation.
It was on the 25th of February that Mason made his speech
just quoted, and in less than three months lator he was laid in
his grave. He had probably inherited from his paternal ances-
try a gouty diathesis, which developed itself in a dropsy, for the
relief of which he sought the city of Philadelphia, where he died
on the loth of May. Thus, in his forty-third year, in the prime
and pride of his intellectual powers, passed away a statesman
whose memory ought to be cherished with fond affection by his
country at large, and by Virginia in particular. He belonged
to a class of statesmen who were born at the early stages of the
troubles with the mother country, who have all passed away, and
who can never appear again. They were old enough to have
engaged in the latter part of the war of the Revolution, to have
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 2£1
served in the Assembly in the interval between the close of the
war and the adoption of the Federal Constitution, to have
fought the great battle in the public councils and on the rostrum
to which that Constitution led, to have watched its operation
with the strictest scrutiny, and in due time to bear a conspicuous
part in the practical administration of the Federal Government.
Mason's political beau -ideal was Virginia as a free, independent,
and intelligent Commonwealth, committing, for the sake of con-
venience, her foreign affairs to her Federal agents, but retaining
unimpaired all the rights and privileges of an integral empire.
It was in this spirit he refused to accept the amendments to the
Federal Constitution proposed by Congress, because, though
some of them were better than nothing, yet they were not those
that Virginia had proposed, and which she had a right to demand
and to receive. Not having been abroad in the Federal coun-
cils anterior to the adoption of the Constitution, his affections
were entire, and he had not been broken to the tune of a strong
central government, which fascinated the ears of some of his
compatriots and which insensibly led them to regard without
much aversion the trenching of the new government upon the
rights of the individual States. Hence, on all interesting Federal
questions, though courteous and respectful of the opinions of
others, he leaned towards the States, and opposed some of the
prominent measures of the Washington and Adams administra-
tions. He bore along with him throughout his career the
almost unanimous approbation of the Assembly and of the peo-
ple, who delighted to express their confidence in his abilities, in
his integrity, and in his patriotism by the usual marks of public
favor. In his thirty-fourth year he had been elected to the
Senate of the United States, in which he remained till the hour
of his death, his finest effort on the floor of that House being
his last; participating in all interesting discussions of foreign or
domestic topics with an effect that was acknowledged by a hos-
tile and exulting majority; and, latterly, swaying at will the
decisions of his own party under the fire of a strong opposition,
led by a wily, unscrupulous, but uncommonly able statesman.
His last scene on the floor of the Senate was a great triumph.
It required unusual prudence on his part to prevent the flame
kindled by the Federal party in favor of the supposed rights of
the Western States from spreading among the representatives of
262 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the West, and the loss of a single vote might have settled the
question; while he grappled directly and openly with Morris,
whose abilities as an orator were formidable, whose knowledge of
foreign affairs was exact and comprehensive, and whose hatred
of the administration of Jefferson impelled him to seek its over-
throw by plunging the country, without necessity and in viola-
tion of the usages of nations, into a war with the greatest mili-
tary power then or now existing. Mason succeeded. The
policy of his opponents was prostrated; his own favorite scheme
was adopted even by his enemies; and, when he passed the
doors of the Senate for the last time, the whole country was
applauding his eloquent harangue, little dreaming that it was his
last.™
In stature Mason was below six feet. He was very stout,
and is said to have attained his full growth at a very early age.
His countenance, as presented in his portrait, was open and
manly; his hair was dark, his eyes were large and of a deep
gray color; his nose and chin regular and good. His mouth
was vdry large and the lips compressed — a characteristic trait of
the Masons, it is said. His forehead was very broad, open, and
intellectual. He was neat in his apparel; and, as he wore silk
stockings, he might have taken in a somewhat personal sense
the reflection of the Northern man on the silk-stocking gentry.
His hair was well dressed, with the usual queue closely bound
with a black ribbon. His appearance on canvas is highly
imposing, and is not unbecoming his general reputation.248
One trait of Mason, which, if not the secret of his great popu-
larity, contributed to its diffusion and to its intensity, was his
MIMr. William Brent said that Mason was distinguished for his elo-
quence and wonderful powers of sarcasm. He once heard him in
Philadelphia reply to a Northern man who uncourteously alluded to
the Southern members as "the silk-stocking gentry "; and he said he
should never forget the effect of his oratory and the force of his sarcasm.
It was terrific. Had Mason lived six months longer he would have
read the treaty of Paris, which ceded to the United States the whole
of Louisiana.
248 There is a portrait of General S. T. Mason in the possession of his
granddaughter, Mrs. Emily Mason; and there is one of his father, T.
Mason, in the possession of Judge John T. Mason, of Baltimore. The
portrait of Thomson Mason presents a countenance remarkably benign,
regular features, and compressed lips.
STEVENS THOMSON MASON. 263
fearless and cordial support of his political friends, especially
when they were in trouble. He sat by the side of Judge
Cooper when that extraordinary man was prosecuted under the
sedition law during the whole of his trial; and when that sen-
tence of fine and imprisonment was pronounced against him,
Mason instantly rose in open court and congratulated his friend.
Fenno, the Federal editor, animadverted with stern severity upon
the conduct of ftjason, whom he charged with committing an
. outrage on the face of Justice ; but Duane, of the Aurora, came
to the rescue, and twitted Fenno for mistaking the bacon face of
the presiding judge for the face of Justice.2*9
The following account of the funeral of Stevens Thomson
Mason, Esq., is taken from the Philadelphia Aurora of Satur-
day, May 14, 1803, and has reached me through the kindness
of the Hon. William J. Duane — the son of the editor — who was
present at the burial as the adjutant of the Militia Legion, under
General Shee:
"On Tuesday evening last the remains of the late General
Stevens Thomson Mason, of Virginia, were interred in the bury-
ing-ground of the Protestant Episcopal church, in Arch street,
between Fourth and Fifth streets, and deposited near those of
the late Henry Tazewell, Esq., a senator of the same State, and
in his lifetime a colleague of General Mason. At 5 o'clock P.
M. the procession moved from the house of Mr. James O'Ellers,
corner of Fourth and Spruce streets, in the following order:
"i. The Militia Legion, commanded by General Shee, with
reversed arms, in advance of the whole.
" 2. The clergy of the city, of every denomination.
"3. The corpse, borne by watchmen and supported by six
pall -bearers; magistrates and officers under the Federal and
State governments.
"4. The chief mourners, immediately following the hearse.
"5. Private friends of the General as mourners, with the
attending physicians.
"6. The Governor of Pennsylvania, the Minister of Spain,
and other diplomatic characters now in the city.
"7. Officers of the General Government.
349 On the authority of Mr. Dickerson, of New Jersey, who sat on the
other side of Cooper during the trial.
264 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
" 8. Officers of the State Government.
" 9. Corporate councils of the city.
" 10. The members of the Board of Health.
"u. Officers of militia, in uniform.
" 12. Private citizens.
" Every degree of respectful attention was paid by the con-
course of citizens who attended and followed the procession
during the movement to the place of interment and the perform-
ance of the burial service by Bishop White; and there has been
seldom witnessed in this city a more solemn and affecting scene,
evincing a general testimonial of respect for the exalted virtues,
public and private, which so conspicuously marked the character
of the deceased."
I sincerely trust that the relatives of General Mason will cause
a plain slab to be placed over his remains.*50
250 As to the personal appearance of Stevens Thomson Mason, Mr.
Temple Mason did not think him handsome, but his granddaughter,
Mrs. Mason, thought that he was ; " that he had the bulk, with the spirit
of a king," and that he had "a princely crest." Both agree that he was
very large. His uncle, Colonel John Barnes, of Maryland, saw none
of the poetry of person or of bearing that struck the female eye, but
described his nephew as "bein^ blown up like a bladder."
ARMISTEAD THOMSON MASON.
Mason left a widow, three sons, and three daughters. The
maiden name of his widow was Mary Armistead, daughter of
Robert Armistead, of Louisa county. She survived him twenty
years.251 His eldest son was Armistead Thomson Mason, who
was born in 1786, was educated at William and Mary College,
served with credit in the second war with Great Britain, and was
elected a senator of the United States by the General Assembly
of Virginia in 1815. In 1817 he resigned his seat in the Senate
to become a candidate for the House of Representatives, in oppo-
sition to Charles Fenton Mercer, and was defeated. Out of this
contest sprang the difference which brought on his duel with his
cousin, Colonel John Mason McCarty, in which he fell at Bladens-
burg on the 6th day of February, 1819, at the age of thirty-
three. His death Virginia bemoaned with no passing grief. In
his character he united in a singular degree the qualities of an
orator, a soldier, and a statesman; and he was the idol of the
Democratic party, to which he belonged. All the honors which
Virginia could bestow he had either received, or they awaited
him. He was a major general, had been a senator of the United
States, was a member of the Board of Public Works, and would
have been the next Governor had he survived. His death was
lamented by the press throughout the Union. The Leesburg
Genius of Liberty echoed the general voice when it said: " All
who knew him mourn his fate and lament his loss. As a citizen,
neighbor, and friend he stood unrivalled. As a warrior he was
firm and undaunted, deliberate and humane. As a statesman he
was deep, clear, and penetrating. In short, he bade fair to
become one of our brightest ornaments, both as a private citizen
and public officer." The same journal adds: "In the fall of
General Mason Virginia has lost one of her most esteemed sons.
K1She died on the estate of her husband, near Leesburg, on the I2th
of February, 1824; aged eighty-four years. Her obituary may be seen
in the National Intelligencer of that date, in which she is described as
a very remarkable woman.
266 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Although he had numbered but thirty-and-three years, he had
risen high in popular favor. On the military list he had been
promoted to the office of major-general, and the highest civil
appointment, that of a senator of the United States, had been
conferred upon him." It describes his burial as follows: "On
the day of his funeral the most heartrending scenes were wit-
nessed. His numerous and faithful blacks crowded around his
grave, dissolved in tears and frantic with despair. The tender
sensibilities of those tawny sons and daughters of Africa would
have done honor to whiter complexions. To see an aged nurse,
whose head was blossoming for the grave, approaching the
corpse through the crowd, crying 'Oh, my master, my master !'
must have awakened sympathetic feelings in the most adamant-
ine heart. We have seldom witnessed in this town on any occa-
sion so numerous a concourse of the people as were present at
the funeral obsequies of this excellent man. Distinguished by
his energy, his firmness, and activity, General Mason enjoyed
that confidence and favor of his native State, which he appeared
to inherit from his ancestors."
He fell on the 6th of February, and on the gth of the same
month both houses of the General Assembly passed resolutions,
in which they say " that they esteem the death of General Mason
a public loss, and entertain the deepest sympathy on that
untimely event."
Just before Mason took the field he wrote to his uncle — Judge
John Thomson Mason, of Hagerstown, Md. — the following
letter, the original of which is before me :
"Mv DEAR UNCLE, — I have just time to recommend my
unhappy and helpless family to your paternal oare. You have
been a father to me; I know you will be one to them.
" I am your most sincerely affectionate nephew,
" ARMISTEAD T. MASON.
"City of Washington, 5th February, 1819."
One incident connected with the descendants of General
Mason and his opponent — Colonel McCarty tt2 — would seem to
363 A full account of the duel between General A. T. Mason and Colo-
nel McCarty may be seen in the January or February No. of Harper's
Magazine for 1858. [See. also, Sabine's Notes on Duelling and Tru-
man's Field of Honor. — EDITOR.]
ARMISTEAD THOMSON MASON. 267
protract a painful catastrophe to a second generation. Each of
them had an only son — a pair of promising and noble young
men. The son of Colonel McCarty was on a hunting excursion,
and for the first time !n his life, impelled by the pursuit of game,
crossed over on General Mason's land. In alighting from the
fence his gun was accidently discharged and killed him instantly.
When the war with Mexico broke out young Stevens Thomson
Mason, the son of the General, entered the service, and at Cerro
Gordo, while commanding a company of mounted rifles, fell
mortally wounded. Thus have these two families become extinct
in the male line.
General Mason was about five feet eleven inches in height,
rather stout in stature, of florid complexion, light eyes, free and
easy in his manners, and was usually generous, mild, and amia-
ble in his intercourse with every one. He was quick and impetu-
ous in temper — as ready to forgive as to resent an injury. He
is buried in the Episcopal grave-yard at Leesburg, where his
only son reposes by his side. Each grave is marked by a slab.
268 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
JOHN THOMSON MASON.5
Besides Armistead, who so richly inherited the virtues of his
father, General S. T. Mason left two other sons — John Thomson
and Thomson.254 The last-named died young. John Thomson
settled in Kentucky, and became a public man. He was Secre-
tary of the Territory of Michigan, and a commissioner to adjust
claims with the Indians. He left an only son, Stevens Thomson
Mason, who was born at Leesburg on the 27th of October,
1811, was educated at Transylvania University, at an early age
removed to Michigan (then a Territory), and was elected, when
the Territory became a State, the first Governor, and re-elected
in 1837. He had served two gubernatorial terms before he was
twenty-eight years of age. He married an accomplished lady
of the city of New York, and removed thither in 1840, where he
was very successful at the bar; but after an illness of four days
he died on the 4th of June, 1843, leaving an only son, who has
since died. Thus has every male representative of General
Stevens Thomson Mason passed away.255
253Thomson Mason wrote on a blank leaf in Burrows 's Reports "that
he had often heard it said that a child at two and a half years old was
just half as tall as he ever would be My son, John Thomson Mason,
is this day just two and a half years old, and is two feet ten inches and
a half high; and I can thus ascertain the truth of the remark." John
became about five feet nine, or thereabouts.
254 General S. T. Mason also left three daughters, the eldest of whom
married George Howard, territorial Governor of Missouri, but at the
time of his marriage member of Congress from Kentucky ; the second
married Colonel William T. Barry, afterwards Postmaster-General and
Minister to Spain; and the youngest married her cousin, William
McCarty, subsequently the representative of the Loudoun district in
Congress, and who is still living (August, 1859).
255 Thomson Mason, the father of General S. T. Mason, had two
other sons — John Thomson and Temple. The last-named is still living
in Washington (August, 1859), i° his eighty-fifth year, and has reached a
greater age than any of those who have borne the name. John Thom-
son was born in Stafford county in 1764, and was educated at William
ALEXANDER WHITE— SUPPLEMENTAL.266
In the review which I have made of the sessions of the Assem-
bly the name of Alexander White has been used as a thread of
connection through the whole; but, as so many members of the
Convention were also members of the Assembly, and as the
votes and opinions of public men on the great questions of their
times, which were discussed and settled by them in the public
councils, are their most faithful biography, I have presented at
the same time the votes of his colleagues in the interval in ques-
tion. In the course of the session just concluded White was
conspicuous in all its proceedings. He was not present — as was
and Mary. In early life he removed to Maryland, and settled at Hagers-
town, where he intended to practice law, but for three years he did
not obtain a single client. This was thought at the time an unlucky
omen, but it turned out to his advantage, for he made himself a good
lawyer. He afterwards removed to Georgetown, where his practice is
said to have included one or the other side of every case on the docket.
There and in Maryland he maintained many a hard-fought battle with
Chase, Pinkney, Martin, Key, Harper, Winder, and others, and acquitted
himself handsomely. In the celebrated case of Hampton vs. Harper,
said to be one of the hardest-fought legal battles in Maryland, he
gained great tclat. The counsel on one side were Mason, Pinkney,
and Johnson, and on the other Martin, Key, and Harper. On one
occasion, when Pinkney had been written to for an opinion in a case in
which Mason had furnished a carefully-prepared one, he returned the
following answer: "If my opinion should concur with that of Mr.
Mason, it could add no force to it; and it would be extremely hazard-
ous for any one to venture an opinion in opposition to one from so pro-
found a source." He was appointed Attorney-General of the United
States by Mr. Jefferson, and afterwards by Mr. Madison, but declined
the appointment on both occasions. He was chosen Chief Justice of
Maryland; but, though he held the appointment a few weeks, did not
take his seat on the bench, and resigned it.
256 [The perplexity of the editor in arranging in just connection the
manuscript of this volume may be imagined in the statement that the
author used paper of different colors, and not only neglected to num-
ber his pages, but was not uniform in his use of the paper— writing
270 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
too often the case with members who lived at a distance from
Richmond — at the beginning of the session, and could not be
placed on the standing committees at the time of their organiza-
tion; but he was assigned to the most important on his arrival,
and was a member of various select committees, the drafting of
whose reports generally fell upon him. His votes may be found
in the list of the ayes and noes already recorded. It will there
be seen that on the test question of striking out the report of
the Committee of the Whole, which presented the anti-Federal
programme for obtaining amendments to the Constitution, he
voted in the affirmative; but on the motion to strike out the
qualifications of members of Congress, in respect of freehold and
residence, he voted with the majority, of which Henry was the
chief. On several calls of the ayes and noes he was not in his
seat — as, indeed, was almost invariably the case with at least one-
fourth of the House.
His term of service in the House of Delegates closed with the
present session. He was returned to the first House of Repre-
sentatives of the United States from the Frederick district, and
was the only member of the House from Virginia who was
present in his seat on the 4th day of March, 1789 — the first day
of the session. An oath must be drawn up to be taken by the
members, in pursuance of the sixth article of the Constitution,
and White was appointed chairman of a committee — of which
Madison was a member — to report a proper form. When Madi-
son proposed (April 6th) to regulate duties according to the
scheme presented in 1783 by the Congress, White, under the
sometimes on single leaves, sometimes on sheets, and at other times
upon several sheets continuously, as held together in book form.
Many sheets and half-quires of paper had been reversed in their
arrangement by being folded in the opposite way. The whole mass
had become disarranged, and, to aggravate the torture of rearrange-
ment, many sheets, from the dampening of the sizing, adhered together.
This last evil was occasioned by the manuscript having been buried
during the war of i86i-'65, to ensure its safety from destruction by the
Federal army. Portions of the manuscript had to be soaked apart.
The sequence of all was as justly fixed as the apprehension of the
editor enabled. It may be inferred that Mr. Grigsby intended to revise
and readjust his matter before committing it to press. This is offered
in explanation of the resumption of the consideration of the career of
a character so lengthily treated before.— EDITOR.]
ALEXANDER WHITE— SUPPLEMENTAL. 271
impression that an immediate vote was desired by the mover,
urged delay for a more full consideration of the subject, and was
told by Madison that he did not desire an immediate decision.
On the following day he objected to the variety of articles sub-
jected to specific duties, and upheld the policy of Madison in
opposition to the scheme proposed by Fitzimons. He urged,
with his colleague (Andrew Moore), the propriety of a duty on
hemp, as that article could be cultivated to any extent in the
South and West, and the lands of the Shenandoah and its con-
secutive streams could produce the article in abundance. He
argued that a duty on hemp would do more to promote ship-
building than a bounty on ships.
He was inclined to favor the laying a duty on salt; but as that
article was consumed to such an extent by the poor he thought
it good present policy to let it pass free; that, as it was used by
all, all would feel the tax, and some might deem it oppressive;
that some taxes were odious from opinion, and as government
was founded upon opinion it should abstain from laying those
taxes which were offensive to the people.
On the i8th he made a report from the Committee of Elec-
tions, which declared that every member was duly returned.
On the 1 5th of May he presented to the House an important
resolve of the General Assembly of Virginia, offering to the
acceptance of the Federal Government ten miles square of terri-
tory, or any lesser quantity, in any part of that State which Con-
gress may choose, to be occupied and possessed by the United
States as the seat of the Federal Government; which was read
and ordered to lie on the table. That he was selected to present
the resolution to the House is an honorable mark of the estima-
tion in which he was held by his distinguished colleagues.
Although he voted to ratify the Federal Constitution, he was
determined to confine its practical working to the strictest letter
of its meaning. He saw that if discretion or policy was to be
the rule of its interpretation, the restrictions and limitations
which it contained were not worth the paper on which they were
written. Hence, when the engrossed bill laying' a duty on
imports was reported to the House from the committee, a motion
was made by Madison that a clause limiting the time of its con-
tinuance should be added at the end. The object of Madison
was altogether practical; for he knew, from his acquaintance with
272 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
commercial affairs, that if the merchant was not assured that
there was stability in the tariff he would not send his ships on a
distant voyage and subject their cargoes to a rate of duty which
might be ruinous on their return. But White, who also saw the
practical bearing of the proposition, took another view of the
case. He argued that he had no jealousy of the Senate or of the
Executive; but that, as the House alone had the power of origi-
nating money bills, we should be careful in parting with the
power for any long period; that, as the Constitution declared
that no appropriation should be for a longer term than two
years, it virtually limited the duration of a revenue law to that
period. The following day the amendment offered by Madison
again came up, and the ayes and noes were called upon it.
White, after expressing himself sarcastically on the policy of
calling the ayes and noes in the stages of a bill,257 went into a
masterly argument against the amendment, which, near seventy
years later, was applauded by an able parliamentarian and poli-
tician for its ability and wisdom. Madison, with his usual tact,
substituted another amendment in the place of the one he had
offered, and which was in substance that the act should not con-
tinue in force after a certain day, unless otherwise provided in
the act for the appropriation of the revenue. This proposition,
although it recognized the propriety of limitations, yet, if the
duration of the act exceeded two years, did not entirely accord
with the sound doctrine laid down by White; but, in a spirit of
compromise, he voted for it, and it prevailed by a vote of forty-
one to eight.258
The right of the President to remove public officers, whose
tenure of office is not prescribed by the Constitution, was dis-
cussed at an early day, and the doctrine advanced by White in
the first day's debate has been sanctioned by the uniform prac-
257 But for the calling of the ayes and noes what would have become
of the name of Alexander White ? Posterity would hardly have known
that he ever was a member of the Assembly, as the Journal of the
House of Delegates contains no other record of the full names of its
members, or any other obvious means of identifying them, than the
ayes and noes.
458 See the note of Colonel Benton on White's speech, in which are
enumerated the difficulties that have arisen since the adoption of the
Federal Constitution by a departure from the rule advocated by White.
ALEXANDER WHITE — SUPPLEMENTAL. 273
tice of the Government to this time. He said that the President
appointed the officers, and that he conceived that the party who
appointed ought to judge of the removal, always excepting those
cases specified in the Constitution. At a later day, when the
bill establishing a department for foreign affairs was discussed,
he reiterated the sound doctrine that the appointing power had
the right of removal; but, confounding the advisory power of
the Senate in relation to the appointment, which is mainly for the
purpose of record and identification, with the power of appoint-
ing, he argued that the Senate ought to be associated with the
President in removing incumbents from office — a doctrine that
strikes at the very root of executive vigor and availability.
At a still later day he seconded the motion that impeachment
was the only mode of removing a public officer. He said that
impeachments were to be employed in the case of officers who
held their employment for a term of years or during good
behavior. He intimated that they might be used when the Presi-
dent insisted on retaining an officer who ought not to be retained.
The judges were to be removed by impeachment. These, he
said, were the three cases in which impeachment was the remedy.
I am afraid that, if his views on the subjest of removal had pre-
vailed, he would have made a very considerable deduction from
the good which would have arisen had his opinions respecting
the limitation of public acts been acted upon. To bring a tide-
waiter from Oregon or California across the Isthmus or by the
Cape to be impeached by the House and to be tried by the
Senate, with the train of witnesses, and to consume the public
time and money in the trial, would involve so much inconvenience
and expense that we would soon find it a better plan to send the
culprit a check for fifty thousand dollars, and beseech him to
make for parts unknown. As he ultimately voted against a simi-
lar bill on constitutional grounds, I wish he had argued that as
the appointing power was vested by the Constitution in the
President, and with it the power of removal, the conferring upon
the President by act of Congress a right which he possessed
under the Constitution might lead to mistakes in our future
legislation and furnish a bad precedent. Such was doubtless
the view of Madison; but, seeing the temper of the House, and
anxious for the passage of so important a bill as that estab-
18
274 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
lishing a State Department, he was willing to regard the clause
conferring a power upon the President which he already pos-
sessed as mere surplusage, and voted for the bill.
He opposed a fixed salary for the Vice-President, contending
that he should be paid according to the amount of public ser-
vice rendered. Accordingly, he moved to strike out a clause in
the bill concerning that officer, which fixed the salary at five
thousand dollars; and said that if his motion prevailed he would
move an amendment allowing that officer the pay of the President
when he acted as President, and a daily pay during the time
that he acts as President of the Senate. During the debate he
said that the Vice-President had personal advantages from his
position, which holds him up as the successor of the President.
The voice of the people is shown to be considerably in his favor,
and, if he be a deserving person, there will be but little doubt of
his succeeding to the presidential chair.259 His motion to strike
out failed, and so did the motion of Page, who moved to strike
out five thousand dollars with the view of inserting eight thou-
sand dollars.260
He strenuously opposed the distinction between the pay861 of
the senators and that of the members of the House of Repre-
sentatives, and was joined by his colleague, Andrew Moore (and
opposed by Madison), on the ground that as the Constitution
made no distinction on the score of services between one mem-
259 The succession of the Vice-President to the chair of the President
continued in the two instances of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson;
then the State Department became within the line of safe precedents.
Now that is eschewed, and, perhaps, at present the chances of selec-
tion are in favor of those who hold no office at all.
260 It was on the motion of John Page that the President's salary was
fixed at twenty-five thousand dollars. He had previously moved to
fill the blank with thirty thousand dollars.
261 In all the early debates about fixing the wages of a member of
Congress no other mode than that of a per diem was hinted at. When
many years later an annual salary was allotted to the members, the
scheme was scouted by the people. Any other mode than that of a
per diem is plainly against economy and the very nature of a Parlia-
ment. Yet the rate of an annual salary has recently been adopted.
The remedy is to raise the per diem, but still cling to the per diem as
the life and substance of a representative system.
ALEXANDER WHITE — SUPPLEMENTAL. 275
her of Congress and another, legislation should make none, and
that the members of both houses ought to be paid in proportion
to the service rendered by them. Here he has been sustained
by the public opinion of our own times. He opposed the pro-
position of Vining for a home department, and argued with
great plausibility against it. 'In this opinion, however, though
he was probably right in his day, he is not upheld at the present
time, as the comparatively recent creation of the Department of
the Interior clearly shows.
A question of intense interest at the first session of the Con-
gress was the location of the seat of government. The House of
Representatives had, by a decisive majority, selected some place
on the banks of the Susquehanna; but at the heel of the session
the Senate sent back the bill with an amendment striking out
the Susquehanna, and proposing " a district of ten miles square,
bounded on the south by a line running parallel at one mile's
distance from the city of Philadelphia on the east side of the
river Delaware, and extending northerly and westerly so as to
include Germantown." The amendment kindled a blaze in the
House. The Southern members opposed it in a body. Theo-
doric Bland thought that the bill was so materially changed by
the amendment as to warrant the House in postponing its con-
sideration, and he made a motion to that effect. He said that
he trusted the House would not be affected by the fact that the
Senate had kept back the appropriation bill as a hostage for the
passage of the bill before them. Page seconded the motion to
postpone. White objected to the Senate's amendment, as virtu-
ally changing the tenor of the bill and as introducing a new sub-
ject; and, as the House would not allow the introduction of a
new subject by one of its own members at this late hour, so the
rule should apply to the new measure, though it proceeded from
the Senate. Madison, with exquisite skill, opposed the intro-
duction of an entirely new place for the seat of government, on
the ground that it had not been named before the people; that
all the other places had been deliberately brought to the notice
of the country; that two of them had been examined by the old
Congress and had received a favorable decision, and that to adopt
in a moment a rival place never before contemplated was risking
an improper and a dissatisfactory decision. The question on
276 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Eland's motion was taken by ayes and noes, and was rejected
by a vote of twenty-nine to twenty-five — all the Virginia mem-
bers voting in the minority.262
At the beginning of the second session of Congress, in Janu-
ary, 1790, the members from Virginia were nearly all in their
seats. One of the first questions1 discussed in the House was
respecting the reporters. During the previous session these
useful gentlemen, to whose labors history is more indebted than
to the labors of the professed historians, were placed behind the
Speaker's chair, whence they could see and hear to great advan-
tage; but at the present session they had been removed to the
gallery. Page brought the subject up informally before the
House, spoke very handsomely in favor of the reporters, and
thought that they ought to be restored to their old seats. White
acknowledged the general fidelity of the reported debates and
the readiness of the reporters in obtaining from the speakers
their exact expressions in debate, and thought that it was well
enough to admit them within the bar of the House; but he said
that if the House went further it would seem to give an official
encouragement to the reporters, and to hold the House in some
degree responsible for their reports. No question was taken,
but the cheerfulness with which the members approved of the
publication of the debates is the more praiseworthy, as the old
Congress always sat with closed doors, and as the Senate fol-
lowed their examble, and it was not long before that the publi-
cation of the debates in the House of Commons had ceased to
be a breach of privilege. Even at this day, in the House of
Lords, there are some restrictions on the right to publish without
the consent of their House.263
262 The Virginia members were Isaac Coles, James Madison, Theodo-
ric Bland, Alexander White (who were members of the present Con-
vention), John Page, Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Griffin, Josiah Parker,
and John Brown. Bland died during the second recess of Congress,
and was succeeded by William Branch Giles.
268 Lord Campbell says that before he could venture to offer to the
world his Lives of the Lord Chancellors he was legally estopped by a
standing order of the House of Lords, of ancient date, which declared
"that no one should presume to publish the lives of any lords, spiritual
or temporal, deceased, without the permission of their heirs and execu-
ALEXANDER WHITE— SUPPLEMENTAL. 277
The discrimination among the public creditors was another of
the difficult problems of our early legislation. That a capitalist
who had purchased from a poor soldier his certificate of one
hundred dollars for five or ten should receive the original amount
was monstrous; and the report of the Secretary of the Treasury
recommended a modified discrimination. When that report
came up in Committee of the Whole, Madison proposed a scale
of modification, which was earnestly and ably supported by
White. His speech on the occasion was probably the ablest he
ever delivered in Congress, and displays a perfect knowledge of
his subject, clear and conclusive argumentation, and no incon-
siderable learning. Moore also supported the motion of Madi-
son at great length, and with a seriousness in keeping with the
magnitude and the delicacy of the subject. But the arguments
of White, Moore, and Madison are too much in detail for our
present purposes.264
The report of a committee on a Quaker memorial concerning
slavery was discussed (March ijth) in the Committee of the
Whole, when White moved to strike out the first proposition,
because he was opposed to entering at that time into the con-
sideration of the powers of Congress on the subject. He
objected to other propositions contained in the report, which he
proposed to offer in a different form.*65 He concluded by
observing that his wish was to promote the happiness of man-
kind, and among the rest those who were the subjects of the
present consideration; but this he wished to do in conformity to
the principles of justice and with a due regard to the peace and
happiness of others. He would contribute all in his power
to the well-being and comfort of slaves; but he was fully of
opinion that Congress had no right to interfere in the business
any further than he proposed by his two propositions as modi-
tors" ; and as he was about to publish the lives of Thomas a Becket,
Michael de la Pole, and other early Chancellors, and, as he could hardly
think of hunting up their heirs and executors, he was led to move a
repeal of the order. This was within the last ten or twelve years.
(Lives of the Lord Chancellors^ Vol. V, 88.)
264 Consult in the index of the first volume of Benton's Debates the
names of White, Moore, Madison, &c.
265 The Debates do not give the report, and I cannot state the exact
nature of its recommendations.
278 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
fied. If Congress had the power to interfere, he did not think
the essential interests of the Southern States would suffer.
Twenty years ago he supposed the idea he now suggested would
have caused universal alarm. Virginia, however, about twelve
years since, prohibited the importation of negroes from Africa,
and the consequences apprehended were never realized. On the
contrary, the agriculture of that State was never in a more pros-
perous condition.266
In the course of a debate on the subject White expressed his
views of the policy of bounties on the occupations of individuals.
A bill had been reported entitled an act for the encouragement
of the bank and other cod fisheries, which allowed a bounty of
so many dollars on the tonnage of the vessels engaged in the
trade. Giles moved to strike out the first section of the bill, and
made a strong speech on the impolicy of granting bounties to
any particular class of persons. White, conscious of the neces-
sity of building a commercial marine, had no objection to give
the trade a proper degree of encouragement; but he did not
relish the idea of granting bounties; but he said that if any gen-
tleman would prepare an amendment, so as to make them draw-
backs in fact as well as in words, he would consent to the
measure.
He was in his seat at the opening of the session in November,
1792, and was called on to give a vote on a subject which has been
long since settled, but which was then not decided. A motion
was made to inform the Secretary of the Treasury and the Sec-
retary of War that the House of Representatives would on the
following Wednesday take into consideration the report of a
committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the failure of
the late expedition under General St. Clair, to the end that they
may attend the House and furnish such information as may be
J66This testimony of an able and honest friend of the Federal Consti-
tution in favor of the prosperity of Virginia at the period of the ratifi-
cation of that instrument is in strong contrast with the gloomy pictures
of decay and desolation which were held forth by his associates in the
Federal Convention of Virginia. White's attention had probably been
called recently to this subject, as he had been appointed a year or two
before one of a committee to inquire whether the number of slaves in
the State had increased or diminished since the passage of the act
prohibiting the importation of slaves.
ALEXANDER WHITE — SUPPLEMENTAL. 279
conducive to the due investigation of matters stated in said
report. Williamson moved to strike out that part of the reso-
lution requiring the presence of the Secretaries, and Venable
followed in a short and decisive speech in support of the motion.
White followed Venable, and took the ground that would be
taken at the present day. Madison and Giles followed on the
same side, and the motion to strike out prevailed.267
He voted in the majority with Andrew Moore, against Madi-
son, Giles, Venable, and Parker, in favor of preventing a reduc-
tion of the army at that time, which was one of the party
questions of the day. He voted against the bill to create the
Department of Foreign Affairs, on the ground heretofore men-
tioned; his colleagues (Isaac Coles, Josiah Parker, and John
Page) voting with him, and Madison, Moore, Lee, and Griffin
against him. He voted in common with the whole Virginia
delegation against the scheme for fixing the seat of the Federal
Government on . the Susquehanna, and with Madison, Giles,
Moore, and Parker against the bill incorporating the Bank of
the United States. When the President returned the bill for
apportioning representatives among the several States to the
House of Representatives, with his reasons for not assenting to
its passage, he voted with his colleagues (Madison, Giles, Griffin,
Brown, and Moore) in the negative, and defeated that measure.
He approved the famous act respecting fugitives from justice and
persons escaping from the service of their masters, and voted in
the majority of forty-eight to seven. In the minority of seven
were two of his colleagues — John Francis Mercer and Josiah Par-
ker; but the grounds of their vote it is impossible now to ascer-
267 While the presence of the secretaries in the House of Commons
is the life and soul of the British polity, it is wholly inapplicable to our
institutions. In the colonial government of Virginia the Treasurer
always held a seat in the House of Burgesses; indeed, the Treasurer
and the Speaker were usually, though not invariably, the same person,
until 1765, when the two offices were prohibited by law from being
held by the same person. The Treasurer continued to be a member of
the House, and afterwards of the Conventions held prior to Declara-
tion of Independence. At the first session of the General Assembly
(October, 1776), it was decided that the Treasurer could not hold a
seat in either house, and Robert Carter Nicholas, who had been regu-
larly re-elected since 1766, preferring to hold his seat in the House of
Delegates, resigned the office of Treasurer.
280 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
tain. When several test questions were taken he appears to
have been absent from his seat.
Having served four years in Congress, he withdrew from
public life, maintaining to the last a high place among the most
distinguished members of the body. He does not seem to have
been a partisan on either side, but voted with either, according
to his sense of propriety and his views of the Constitution.
Eager to organize the new government, he opposed the act to
establish the Department of Foreign Affairs, because it con-
tained, in his opinion, an unconstitutional provision; and on the
same ground, though favorable to the eminent man at the head
of the Treasury, he opposed the favorite scheme of a bank of the
United States.
His long and honorable career was drawing to a close. He
had devoted the prime of his life to the public service, and
in his latter days he was assigned the duty of supervising the
construction of the buildings which were designed to accommo-
date the Federal authorities in the new city of Washington,
which had been established by his vote on the banks of the
Potomac.268 And at Woodville, in the county of Frederick, in
the year 1804, and in the sixty-sixth year of his age, he departed
this life.
The character of White must be determined by his acts, and
these we have endeavored to lay before the reader. In all the
public bodies of which he was a member, whether at home or
abroad, his ready information, his eloquence, and his decision
placed him in the front rank. His public qualifications were
enhanced by his virtues, among which were a deep and ever-
present sense of an overruling Providence, and a firm belief in
the truth of the Christian religion.
268 A letter from General Washington to White, dated March 25, 1798,
would lead me to believe that the latter held the trust mentioned in the
text. . ( Writings of Washington, Vol. IX, 334.) In Lanman's Dictionary
of Congress, Alexander White is confounded with a person of the same
name from North Carolina, who was a member of the old Congress in
May, 1786, but who was not a member of Congress during Washing-
ton's administration. White of Virginia was never a member of the
old Congress.
GEORGE NICHOLAS.
Continuing our course in the shadow of the Blue Ridge, we
enter the county of Albemarle, the red soil of which is reputed to
be fertile of official dignitaries, and which certainly contributed
to the Convention two very remarkable men in the persons
of George and Wilson Gary Nicholas. They were brothers,
and acted together in political affairs while they both lived; but,
for twenty years after the death of George the name of Wilson
Gary, in his capacity as a member of the House of Delegates, of
the Senate, and of the House of Representatives of the United
States, and as Governor of Virginia, was well known and read
daily from one end of the country to the other.
And first of George. Allusion has been repeatedly made
already to his course in the Assembly in our review of the ses-
sions to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and the
striking figure which he made during the debates in the present
Convention has been exhibited at full length; but such was the
force of his character, such was the vast influence in Virginia and
in Kentucky until the close of the last century, that a more
deliberate notice of his character is due to his memory; and I
perform this office with the less reluctance, as there is not, so far
as I know, any record of his career in print, and as if neglected
now it may be overlooked hereafter.
He was the son of Robert Carter Nicholas and of Anne Gary,
his wife.*69 Of the father it may suffice to say that he was
esteemed for his abilities as a lawyer, for his sterling qualities as
a statesman and a patriot, and, at a time when religion in its
devotional aspects had almost faded away among the great, for
his pure and ardent piety. He was a member of the House of
Burgesses from the county of York as early as 1758, holding a
place on all the important committees, and in 1766, on the death
of Speaker Robinson, when the office of Treasurer was separated
from that of the Speaker, he was chosen by the House of Bur-
269 R. C. Nicholas married Miss Gary in 1754.
282 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
gesses to the former office. He performed the duties of his
office with great satisfaction to the public until the first session
of the General Assembly held in October, 1776, when, in conse-
quence of a decision of the House of Delegates, of which he was
a member, that the offices of a delegate and of the* Treasurer
were incompatible, he resigned the latter in a short address to
the House, in which he said that he resigned his office " with
honest hands — at least with empty ones," and received the unani-
mous approbation of both houses of the Assembly for his integ-
rity, fidelity, and honor in the discharge oi his duties. On the
first organization of the judiciary he was elected one of the
judges. of the General Court; but, as the war kept the courts
closed, it is probable that he did not take his seat on the bench ,
or, if he did, that it was but for a short time that he performed
the duties of a judge, which he was so well qualified to discharge.
It was at the bar and in the House of Burgesses that he acquired
the great reputation which he enjoyed among his contempo-
raries, and which was acknowledged by his appointment to the
office of Treasurer, and to the office of President of the Conven-
tion of July, 1775, on the retirement of Peyton Randolph. That
he was the equal and rival of such men as Thomson Mason,
Wythe, Pendleton, Peyton Randolph, and his brother John, and
others of a similar stamp, is praise enough with posterity. He
did not live to hail the recognition of the independance of his
country by Great Britain, but died at his seat in Hanover, in
1780, in the fifty-second year of his age.270
270 In the Discourse on the Convention of 1776, page 67, where a fuller
account of Robert Carter Nicholas may be seen, I state erroneously
that he died in his sixty-fifth year; but since the publication of that
work I have received from one of the descendants of Nicholas a small
slip of paper, being a copy of the original, which contains the date of
his birth, and which was obtained by Nicholas himself from Robert
Fry, the clerk of Bruton parish, on the 26th of December, 1777. The
slip is endorsed by Nicholas, and has these words: "Robert Carter
Nicholas, son of Dr. George and Elizabeth Nicholas, was born January
28, 1728." This paper had been laid away seventy years and more,
when it was found by a fair correspondent of mine and transmitted to
me. And I must confess here that I have received much valuable aid
from the female descendants of my characters ; and their zeal in behalf
of the memory of their ancestors gives me a livelier notion of what
their grandmothers were than I had before I began this work.
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 283
It is said that clever men may be traced to their mothers; and,
although in a physiological view the notion cannot be sustained,
it is certain that George Nicholas is not an exception to the rule.
His mother was Anns Gary, daughter of Colonel Wilson Gary,
of "Richneck," and sister of Colonel Archibald Gary, who,
as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, reported to the
Convention of 1776 the memorable resolution instructing the
delegates of Virginia in Congress to propose independence, and
who was the chairman of the select committee which reported
the Declaration of Rights and the first Constitution of a free
Commonwealth. She is said to have been of small stature, to
the eye exceedingly fragile, but possessed of untiring energy.
A correspondent, whose sources of information are unquestion-
able, thus describes her: "Fully imbued with the spirit of the
times in which she lived, she early instilled into her sons that
republicanism and love of country which had distinguished their
father; and, herself a woman of high cultivation, she beguiled
the tedium of an almost constant confinement to her couch by
awakening in them a thirst for knowledge and a love of reading,
more necessary to be roused at a period when war had closed
all the institutions of learning. Her labors were requited by
the celebrity of four of her five sons. When the war broke out,
in 1775, Mrs. Nicholas retired to the country, probably to avoid
the excitement and the alarms of which the seat of government
was the scene. Her place of retreat was a farm of her husband's
in Hanover, called the 'Retreat,' where, in 1780, her husband
died and was buried. Here she resided when Lord Cornwallis,
crossing the James, fixed his headquarters in the immediate
neighborhood of that estate. On the report of the enemy's
approach, she concealed her plate and jewels in the chimney;
but one of the children disclosing the place of deposit, Corn-v
wallis,1" who was present, entreated her with a smile not to feel
any alarm on the score of her property — a subject which, how-
871 1 record with pleasure the liberal conduct of Cornwallis on this
occasion, but it is in strong contrast with his doings at other times in
Virginia. And even here there is another version of the story, which
renders it probable that the plate was carried off after, as is stated by
Bishop Meade (Old Churches, &c., Vol. I, 185). where may also be
found the capital advice addressed by Mrs. Nicholas to her son, Wilson
Gary.
284 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ever engrossing at another time, then hardly occupied her
thoughts, as she had just observed from her door a chase in
which her son, John, thanks to the fleetness of his horse, had
made his escape from the British dragoons. She had no reason
to complain of the treatment received from Lord Cornwallis;
but, being wholly unprotected, she moved to Albemarle, where
her husband had purchased large estates on James river. She
lived to see her sons rise to distinction, and to address to one of
them about to embark in public life some sage advice, which
may well be heeded even at the present day."
Robert Carter Nicholas and Anne Gary had five sons — George,
John, Wilson Gary, Lewis, and Philip Norborne; and two daugh-
ters— Elizabeth, who married Edmund Randolph, and another
who married John H. Norton, of Winchester. George Nicho-
las, the subject of this sketch, was born in Williamsburg in or
about the year I755,272 attended the grammar school of William
and Mary College, and in 1772 entered the college as a regular
student, having for his associates James Innes, with whom he
served in the army, in the Assembly, and in the present Con-
vention; William Nelson, the future chancellor; St. George
Tucker, the future commentator of Blackstone, and judge of the
Court of Appeals; James Madison, the future bishop; Beverley
Randolph, the future Governor; Samuel Jordan Cabell, the
future member of the present Convention and member of Con-
gress; Benjamin Harrison, of " Brandon," and other young men
who became conspicuous in after life. At the breaking out of the
war he obtained a captain's commission, and conducted himself
with credit at Hampton. He attained the rank of colonel in Bay-
271 All the genealogies in my possession make George the oldest son;
and if he was, he must have been born a year or so after the marriage
of his parents, which took place in 1754; but in the catalogue of Wil-
liam and Mary College, under the year 1766, there is a Robert Carter
Nicholas, "son of the Treasurer." If this youth was the son of the
Treasurer, he could only have been eleven or twelve in 1766, when in
college. I make no doubt the error is in the catalogue, and that if
there was such a person at that time he must have been the son of
another man. It is hardly probable that the name and memory of
such a youth, if he was the son of the Treasurer, should not appear
in the family records. If, however, the youth was a son of the Trea-
surer, he was the oldest son, and we must put the birth of George in
1756 or 1757.
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 285
lor's regiment; and it was at a ball given to the American officers
in Baltimore, in 1778, when he had reached the rank of colonel,
that he saw for the first time Mary Smith, the lady who was to
become his bride. She was the sister of General Samuel Smith,
then a colonel, long distinguished as a member of the Senate of
the United States, and of Robert Smith, who was successively
Secretary of the Navy and of the State Department. Court-
ships were rapid during the Revolution; and during the same
year, in which he saw her for the first time, Mary Smith became
the wife of Colonel Nicholas. Withdrawing from the army, he
studied law and entered the Assembly.
During the session of 1781, at a time when the cavalry of the
enemy were roving through the State and driving the Assembly
before them, and when immense losses were suffered from hostile
depredations, Nicholas, then a young man of five-and-twenty,
and the representative of the county in which the Governor of
Virginia resided, moved an inquiry into the conduct of that
officer. It is easy to imagine the feelings of a gallant young
patriot in beholding the whole Commonwealth at the mercy of a
squad of dragoons, and it was his first impulse to move an
inquiry into the conduct of the Executive. Such an investiga-
tion might be right and proper, whatever may have been the
innocence or guilt of the Governor. It was due to all parties
that the facts of the case should be fully known; and it is certain
that, if a becoming investigation had then been held, and the
results committed to paper, we should have had a valuable con-
tribution to our history. The inquiry was properly postponed
to the following session, when Mr. Jefferson appeared in the
House of Delegates as a member from Albemarle. On the day
set apart for the investigation that gentleman rose in his place
and avowed his readiness to answer any questions on the sub-
ject. Nicholas was absent, but Mr. Jefferson read the objections
received from Nicholas and his own answers. No further pro-
ceedings followed, and both houses of Assembly adopted a
resolution, in which they declare the high opinion which they
entertained of Mr. Jefferson's ability, rectitude, and integrity as
Chief Magistrate of the Commonwealth, and that they mean, by
thus publicly avowing their opinion, to obviate and remove all
unmerited censure.
When Nicholas became convinced, upon mature deliberation,
286 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
that his motion for an inquiry was founded on a misapprehen-
sion of the true state of affairs, he made the amende honorable ;
which was the more magnanimous, as it was already seen that
the same intrepid spirit which impelled him to originate the
inquiry was not to be swayed by fear or favor.173
In the interval between the close of the war and the adoption
of the Federal Constitution he was frequently a member of the
House of Delegates, and by his skill in law and by his vigorous
powers of debate exerted great influence in all its decisions.
With the subject of the Western lands, most of the laws respect-
ing which he aided in framing, he was most intimately acquainted;
and when Kentucky became a State he removed to that country,
and connected his destinies with the new Commonwealth.
He took up his residence in his new home about 1790, not
leaving Virginia until the adoption of the Federal Constitution
had been secured. It was in the present Convention, called to
decide upon that instrument, that he displayed in the greatest
perfection his wonderful ability in debate, and reared for himself
the most durable monument of his fame. His general course in
that body has been detailed with some minuteness. To say that
it was distinguished would convey a faint impression of its
efficiency. He was the Ulvsses as well as the Ajax Telamon
of the hosts which upheld the Constitution. Tongue and tact,
as well as brawn and vigor, were his characteristics. Clear as
was the logic, convincing as were the ample and apt illustrations
of Madison, their effect was equalled, probably surpassed, by the
exhibitions of Nicholas. His powerful voice, which could be
heard with ease over the hall, and even at the head of a bat-
talion (a rare quality in a close reasoner); his profound acquaint-
ance with the intricate local legislation of the State, in which he
had so large a share; his perfect knowledge of his opponents —
of their plans and of their modes of thought and action — derived
from long experience at the bar and in the Assembly; his famili-
arity with law and with British political history, which enabled
him to detect unerringly any incongruity in the arguments urged
"3 For a masterly review of this subject, consult Randall's Life of
Jefferson, Vol. I, 349, et seq. The eighth and ninth chapters of the
first volume will richly repay the student of the Revolutionary history
of Virginia.
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 287
in debate; the advantages resulting from an intimate association
with the people, whose manners, habits, and prejudices had been
observed minutely by him ever since his entrance into public life;
the wonderful readiness with which he marshalled his resources,
and the utter fearlessness with which he ventured into the field
of debate with his strongest adversaries — qualities in which he
was not excelled by friend or enemy — fully justified the choice of
his party in consigning to him the province of opening the grand
•discussion on the practical merits of the new Constitution. He
bore the brunt of the battle, assisted, indeed, by eloquent and
powerful colleagues, and by none more than by Madison, whose
sphere, exalted as it was, was rather in a forum of philosophers
than in a vast congregation of planters, whose passions and
prejudices were to be cunningly soothed or dexterously assailed,
not only by pure reasoning, but by strength of utterance, by
vehement gesticulation, and even by personal daring.
Having thus given an outline of the life of Nicholas, I turn to
particular parts of his career as detailed by a venerable man,
who, having studied law in his office, and observed him critically
in his public and private relations in Kentucky, undertook, in
his eightieth year, when he had lost his sight and wrote by the
hand of an amanuensis, to reduce his recollections to writing.274
After some prefatory remarks concerning the ancestry and
birth of Nicholas, which have been treated more at large and
more accurately already, our reminiscent continues:
"At the close of the war of the Revolution Colonel Nicholas
removed to the village of Charlottesville, in Virginia, and com-
menced the practice of the law in that place and in the surround-
ing courts. He soon rose to a high eminence, and became the
most distinguished lawyer wherever he practiced. He was par-
ticularly successful and distinguished at the bar of Staunton, a
place then at which much legal business concentrated, and where
the celebrated Gabriel Jones resided, and had long been monarch
at the bar. Jones soon became a great admirer of Nicholas and
his talents, and threw his patronage upon him. He (Jones),
having accumulated a large fortune by the practice, had deter-
274 Robert Wickliffe, Esq., of Kentucky, whose death is announced
in the Richmond papers received while I was writing this memoran-
dum—September 7, 1859.
288 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
mined upon withdrawing from it altogether; and Colonel Gam-
ble relates an anecdote that one of Jones's old clients and
friends, having a suit depending of much interest, he directed
his client to associate Nicholas with himself in the prosecution
of it. In the argument of the case Nicholas displayed great
ability, and the cause was gained; on which Jones's client asked
Nicholas his charge, and was told he must pay him a guinea.
Jones, meeting his client, asked him what he had paid Nicholas.
He informed him, and Jones said, 'Go and give him two more.'
The man accordingly went and told Colonel Nicholas what Jones
had said; but the Colonel refused to take the two guineas, saying
to the man, 'You have paid me my charge.' The man inform-
ing Jones that Nicholas would accept no more, he told the man
to deliver him the guineas, and that Nicholas should accept
them. This anecdote not only illustrates the character of Nicho-
las's mind, but also the principles on which he practiced in the
early part of his career.
"When the reminiscent, a student of Nicholas's, a few months
before his death, was about to return to his home to enter upon
the practice of law, he waited upon Colonel Nicholas to take his
leave, and found him in his office, alone. Nicholas, before he
took his final leave, said to him : ' You are about to practice
where you will find the courts often ignorant and incompetent.
You will owe it to your own personal respect, as well as to your
interest, to treat the judges with a deference and respect due to
the judiciary of the land, and never to wound the feelings of a
judge by intimating that he is incompetent from ignorance.
With your clients be ever candid and sincere, and never, by
exciting their fears or hopes, extort an additional farthing to
your fee. Some lawyers, after bargaining for a fee, and getting
their clients in their power, refuse or fail to do their duty until
their fees are enlarged. Such conduct is base, as well as unlaw-
ful. A lawyer should be reasonable in his charges and faithful
in his duties, and no honorable gentleman of the profession will
ever make the size of his fee dependant upon the ignorance or
credulity of his client; in fine, he should consider himself the
friend and the trustee of his client. Make no enemies, if you
can help it, and do not depend with too much confidence on the
professions of friendship for your success in life; but while
friends may wish you well, and are certainly necessary to success
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 289
in life, when it comes to a question whether a friend will give his
business to a competent or incompetent lawyer, he will not be
long in deciding to give it to a competent lawyer.'
"Colonel Nicholas, while he practiced law in Kentucky, was
the most moderate lawyer in his charges and the most laborious
in his duties to his clients. His regular fee in chancery was five
pounds, Kentucky currency, and in a common-law case about
three.
"About the year 1787 (1789 or 1790) Colonel Nicholas
removed from Charlottesville to the county of Mercer, and set-
tled on a farm near Danville, then the seat of justice of the
Supreme Court for the district of Kentucky. He was no sooner
settled than he was crowded with business, and considered
decidedly the best lawyer in the county so long as he remained
at the bar. His competitors at the Supreme Court for the dis-
trict were of the best talents the country then afforded. When
the district was turned into a State, and the Supreme Court was
substituted by the Court of Appeals, in civil cases, and the court
of Oyer and Terminer, in criminal cases, here Colonel Nicholas
met not only the first men of the bar of Kentucky, but competi-
tors equal to those of any bar in the United States. Among
them were the late John Breckenridge, James Hughes, William
Murray, Thomas Todd, James Brown, and Joseph Hamilton
Daveiss. These men were not only distinguised for learning, but
for their eloquence and highly honorable bearing as a bar. At
the head of this bar was George Nicholas. All his brethren
deferred to him; and the courts as well as the people at large
listened and were instructed in the great displays which he often
made in the important causes with which the Court of Appeals
was crowded.
"Colonel Nicholas seems to have commenced his political life
and services at the close of the Revolutionary War, always taking
a decided and active part in the political questions that agitated
his native State, as well as those that concerned the Confedera-
tion of the States, and when he was always the advocate for a
more strong and energetic government than the Confederation
States had. So that when the present Constitution of the United
States was submitted to a Convention of the people of Virginia
for ratification, it found in him an able and active advocate. In
defence and explanation of it he often addressed the people at
290 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
large, before his election to the Convention. On the assembling
of the Convention, though believed to be the youngest member
elected,275 he took the lead in opening the debate in favor of the
adoption of the Constitution. His speech upon the subject has
been preserved among the debates of that distinguished body,
and has ever been considered an able exposition and defence of
the Federal Constitution.
"Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution in Virginia
Colonel Nicholas, as before stated, removed to the district of
Kentucky, where he found the district in a state of great excite-
ment upon the subject of the separation of the district from Vir-
ginia, and an election of a Convention to form a Constitution for
the new State. He brought with him a great reputation, both
as a lawyer and a statesman, which induced several of the lead-
ing gentlemen of the district to apply to him to become a candi-
date for the Convention about to be elected. He expressed his
willingness to do so, but his doubts of the propriety of his
becoming a candidate on account of his non-acquaintance with
the people, and the weight of private and professional business
that was pressing upon him. To this the applicants replied that
he need not have any apprehension of his election, nor waste
his time in becoming acquainted with the people before his elec-
tion; that they would advocate his claims, and had no doubts ol
being able to secure his election. He was accordingly announced
a candidate, and, instead of making a canvass, he devoted his
time, from his becoming a candidate to the meeting of the Con-
vention, in drafting a form of a Constitution for the proposed
State. On his being elected and taking his seat he laid before
the Convention his plan of a Constitution, which was finally
adopted, and passed by the Convention with scarcely an altera-
tion. While his draft was being discussed an incident arose in
the Convention which serves in some measure to illustrate the
character of Colonel Nicholas's mind. Some one of the Con-
vention had the indelicacy to intimate to him that he was a
stranger to the people, and had come in under the popularity
and influence of others; upon which he arose, tendered his
275 There were many much younger. If born in 1755, he was thirty-
three in 1788— the same age of John Marshall, and a year older than
Legion Harry Lee.
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 291
resignation, and went home. The Convention proceeded no
longer with the Constitution, but ordered a new election in a few
days. The people of the county in which he lived, spontane-
ously and without any exertion of his own, re-elected him; and
he again took his seat, and remained in the Convention until it
not only adopted his Constitution as offered, but closed its entire
business.
" The people of Kentucky were the first that applied to be
separated from a mother State and become an independent
State, and the Constitution drafted by Nicholas is believed to be
the first Constitution formed for a new State. Happy would it
have been for the people of Kentucky had they perpetuated its
existence. It was a perfect Constitution in all its parts, entirely
conservative, and the powers of government were well sustained
by checks and balances, whereby one branch of the government
was forbidden to trench upon the powers of either of the other
branches. It was perfect in all its forms; its language clear and
perspicuous; each line had its appropriate meaning, and each
word in the line its appropriate place. So that the whole instru-
ment manifested itself to be the work of an able and accom-
plished statesman, well acquainted with the condition of the
people who were to be governed by it. The Constitution lasted
not quite nine years. Under it the people of Kentucky enjoyed
law and liberty; no people ever obeyed their constitutional
injunctions more faithfully, and under the laws of their land
lived more happily; but in some evil hour, for some objections
to minor parts in the Constitution, the people consented to go
into a Convention to amend their Constitution. The Conven-
tion assembled, but Nicholas was not there, but in his grave.
His Constitution went into the hands of the new Convention,
and did not come out of it until juvenile lawyers and unfledged
politicians made sad work of its most valuable and conservative
principles.
"During the continuance of the old Constitution, Kentucky
knew nothing but thrift and prosperity, and, as far as a people
could be under any form of government made, happy. During
all which time Colonel Nicholas seemed to take but little part in
the State government; but by his conversation arid conduct
indicated that he thought it was best to let well enough alone.
"About the year 1796 he retired from the practice, sold his
292 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
farm in the county of Mercer, removed his family to the Iron-
Works Company's property, of which company he was a mem-
ber— hoping by a residence on the property to give a change to
the administration of its affairs by the company, which were
then in a bad condition. He remained there, however, little
more than a year, when he look up his final residence in the
town of Lexington. General Washington's administration had
expired, and his successor, Mr. Adams, had put his administra-
tion in hostile array against the Republic of France by calling
into existence a standing army, passing alien and sedition laws,
and, to sustain the extraordinary expenses of his administration,
bringing to his aid stamp acts and direct taxation; and, to deter
the friends of the Constitution and human liberty from resisting
his tyrannical and unconstitutional measures, caused prosecu-
tions against those who wrote or published what were deemed
seditious libels, until the jails were not only filled with citizens,
but some members of Congress. Early in the year 1797
George Nicholas took the field against these high-handed and
tyrannical pleasures of the Federal Government. He not only
spoke to the people and brought unto his aid the co-operation
and much of the talent and worth of the country, but kept the
few papers then published well supplied with his essays arraign-
ing the conduct of the administration, and forewarning the peo-
ple of the imminent danger in which their liberties were, and
calling upon them to wake up to their danger.276
"These calls were not lost upon the people of Kentucky.
Public meetings were held in the most prominent parts of the
State, and by proper preambles and resolutions the measures of
the administration were denounced as unconstitutional and
tyrannical. These proceedings in Kentucky were justly ascribed
by the administration to George Nicholas, and the administra-
tion, it is said, contemplated having him arrested for sedition;
but before proceeding to execute their designs President Adams
sent the Hon. James Ross, then a member of the Senate of the
United States, a confidential agent, to Kentucky to ascertain and
find out the extent and nature of the opposition, who were its
276 One of his essays was signed "A Friend to Peace," in six num-
bers; another series was signed "By a Lawyer Who Does Not Wish to
Be a Judge."
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 293
leaders, and what were their designs, especially to ascertain the
purposes Nicholas had in view; and what acts of a seditious
character, if any, he had been guilty of. Ross, who was an
honorable gentlemen, of great legal knowledge, and the origi-
nal friend to the administration, possessed a character too ele-
vated to be its dupe or instrument. Fortunately for him and the
country he was an old and intimate friend of Colonel James
Morrison. Morrison was a friend and relation of Nicholas, and
in daily communication with him. Ross frankly disclosed to
Morrison the object of his visit, and received from him perfect
satisfaction that Colonel Nicholas was sincerely attached to the
Union, and that his only object was a reformation of the policy
of the administration and to produce a repeal of the laws
which he believed to be unconstitutional; and, in addition to
other facts, he communicated in still confidence that he had it
from Colonel Nicholas himself that the Spanish Government,
through their agent, Thomas Perrei, tendered to Colonel Nicho-
las and two other gentlemen two hundred thousand dollars — one
hundred thousand to be to their own use, and the rest to be
used in carrying out the measure — to use his and their influence
in producing a separation of Kentucky from the Union and
annexing it to the Spanish province; that Colonel Nicholas and
the other gentlemen not only refused it, but positively assured
the agent that no considerations could induce them to desire a
separation from the Union or accept a compensation for their
political services from any foreign government. When Morri-
son communicated to Nicholas his conversation with Ross
Nicholas replied that he was glad Morrison had made the com-
munication of the facts to Ross, and that the Government would
now be informed through its agent of the designs of Spain.
"Colonel Nicholas was continually assailed by the adminis-
tration papers, particularly by that of Cobbett, and the essays
of anonymous scribblers and pamphleteers of the Federal party,
in which threats of arrest and punishment were not unfrequent.
He, however, sustained himself by letters to his friends and
appeals to public opinion through newspapers, until about the
month of August, 1798, when he made an appointment through
the newspapers to address the people of Kentucky on the con-
dition of the country. On the day of appointment a vast
assemblage of people from all parts of the State met at Lexing-
294 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ton in pursuance of the notice. There being no house, public
or private, large enough to contain the crowd, the people were
assembled to the amount of thousands on the College lawn,
when Colonel Nicholas addressed them for four hours in a strain
of eloquence and power scarcely ever equalled, and certainly
never surpassed. In his speech he laid open to the people their
Federal Constitution, the nature of their Union, their value and
importance to the protection of the States and the liberties of
the people of the States; then laid bare the maladministration
of President Adams, its crimes, its follies, and its cruel oppres-
sions. He drew a strong picture of the sufferings of the country,
and the victims under the alien and sedition laws. He, how-
ever, warned them against violence as a means of redress, but
urged them to take the constitutional means through the ballot-
box, their only remedy of changing the administration and
restoring the Constitution to its supremacy, thus relieving the
country of their oppression under the Stamp Act, direct taxa-
tion, and unconstitutional persecutions.
"This speech overwhelmed the Federal party in Kentucky,
and established the cause of the opposition. Colonel Nicholas
was now at the highest of his popularity; but his political diffi-
culties were not yet at an end. The Federal administration had
infused into most of the religious societies a horror of French
infidelity, and denounced Nicholas, Jefferson, and others of the
opposition as infidel Democrats. And while Nicholas was
engaged in overturning the power of the administration, his
adversaries, and those of the Democratic party, set on foot an
opposition to the State Constitution, principally on the ground
that it tolerated negro slavery, and finally succeeded in having
acts passed to call a Convention; and for a season it appeared
obvious that the Abolitionists would throw a majority of their
party into the Convention, and the slaves would be emancipated.
From some cause Colonel Nicholas seemed to pay no attention
to the movements of the Abolitionists until the month of Febru-
ary preceding the election of members to the Convention, which,
by law, was to take place on the first Monday in May. Seeing
that an effort upon the town of Lexington would be ineffectual,
the Abolitionists being too strong in the town, he called a meet-
ing of the people in the county, at Bryan's Station, where he
had a meeting of the country people, and addressed them at
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 295
large upon the propriety of their voting for conservative men,
and particularly for supporting men opposed to turning the
negroes loose upon the country. This speech was well received
by the thinking classes of the community north of the Ken-
tucky, and was decisive of the question with the people in every
part of the State; so that when the people met there was but
one emancipator elected.277
"Colonel Nicholas was not only a politician, and exerted, as
such, a great influence over the public men of Kentucky; he was
also an agriculturist and a political economist; and by his moral
writings, lectures, and conduct contributed much to regulate
public sentiment in favor of all the branches of labor. He not
only devoted himself to this object, but had his office filled with
students of law, to whom he lectured and whom he prepared for
the profession with a success rather astonishing, as scarcely one
of his students failed in the profession, and most of them rose to
high eminence, both at the bar and in the councils of the State
and the nation. He did not live to reap his full share of the
benefits resulting from his labors for his country. He died in
the month of June, 1799, in the forty-sixth year of his age,278 and
in the midst of his usefulness, to the loss of his country and the
irreparable misfortune of his widow and numerous family. He
was a man of low stature, not exceeding five feet seven inches
high, of a fair complexion, large, glowing blue eyes. His head
was very large for his stature; his hair (what remained of it)
was red. He became before his death almost entirely bald, from
which circumstance, and from other indications of age, for more
than six years before his death, he was called Old Nicholas.279
He was a man of taciturn habits in mixed company, but in pri-
vate circles; and especially at his own house and fireside, he was
a most interesting companion, and sometimes both humorous
and witty. He was remarkable for his hospitality, and in all the
relations of husband, father, and master his character was per-
fect. He was universally loved by the gentlemen of the bar, and
J77The reader will regard these views of Mr. Wickliffe as embracing
the opinions of himself and of Nicholas only.
278 Forty-four only, if born in 1755.
279 Every clever fellow by the name of Nicholas soon gets the title of
"Old Nick."
296 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
looked up to by the greatest lawyers and sages of the age. His
eloquence was of a very high order, and his reasoning most
powerful. As a criminal advocate in his day he had no equal in
Kentucky. This is proved by his success both as a civil and
criminal advocate. At the time of his death he was the employed
counsel of the unfortunate Fields, who was accused of the mur-
der of his wife. Nicholas died before his trial, and the unfortu-
nate man was condemned to the gallows, although he was ably
defended by the late Chief-Justice Marshall. Fields was a man
possessed of many able qualities, and had many friends out of
his own family; and his family in Kentucky and Virginia among
the most numerous and respectable in America, many of whom
loved him and stepped forward to rescue him from the fate that
awaited him. He continued to declare himself innocent from
the moment of his arrest to the moment of his death; and the
last words he uttered under the gallows were that he was inno-
cent, and knew not how his wife came by her death. Had
Nicholas survived, no one acquainted with his powers and influ-
ence as a counsellor doubts that the fate of the unhappy man
would have been very different. Nicholas was not only a benevo-
lent and kind-hearted man, but an encourager of every branch
of labor; and to the poor he was courteous and kind. The whole
State was shocked at his death, and the Legislature that suc-
ceeded his death, in gratitude and remembrance of his great
talents and services, named the county of Nicholas after him."
I have only a few words to add to these reminiscences. It
was to Nicholas Mr. Jefferson communicated the celebrated
Kentucky resolutions, which received the sanction of that State,
and played an important part at a memorable crisis.180 The
course of Nicholas in the Virginia Assembly may be seen in
the review of their sessions heretofore given.
His last days were serene and honorable. On his removal to
Lexington he occupied a commodious house, which became the
centre of refined and intellectual society. Here his relatives and
friends from abroad received a courteous and cordial welcome,
and formed a favorable opinion of the West; and many were
induced to make that land of promise their permanent abode.
""^Jefferson's Works (Randolph's edition), Vol. IV, 344, and Randall's
Life of Jefferson, Vol. II, 448.
GEORGE NICHOLAS. 297
Few men excelled him in the graces and courtesies of social life.
His varied experience in human affairs, his intimate familiarity
with all the great men and great questions of his times, his
sterling practical sense, and his easy flow of speech made him
most instructive and most interesting in conversation. A long
and honored life seemed to stretch away before him. Although,
like most of his family, he lost his hair in early life, and appeared
older than he was, his constitution was unbroken, and when he
smiled his pure white teeth displayed the freshness of youth.
He died after a short illness, and was buried in the family burial-
ground, in the eastern part of the city of Lexington, about a
quarter of a mile from the court-house. His grave has no stone,
but is enclosed by a substantial wall; and within that enclosure,
seven years later, was deposited the body of his wife. It is said
that the mourning and wailing of his slaves (who were mostly
native Africans), as his coffin was lowered in the grave, was a
strange and startling sight. The wild gestures and frantic
sounds with which they gave vent to their sense of bereavement
on the death of their master, we are told, inspired a supernatural
awe.
He left several sons, of whom Colonel Robert Carter and
Major Gary Nicholas engaged in the war of 1812; Smith was
bred a merchant in the house of Smith & Buchanan, in Balti-
more, and died young on a trip to the East Indies; John Nelson
studied law, and died at the age of thirty-three; George Wilson,
a naval officer, died at sea; Samuel Smith studied law, and is the
present Judge Nicholas of Louisville, Kentucky, and is the only
son who ever married. Colonel Nicholas left also seven daugh-
ters— Maria, Anne, George Anne, Margaretta, Elizabeth Ran-
dolph, Hetty Morrison, and a seventh, whose name has not
reached me.281
Length of life is sometimes as important an element in consti-
tuting the reputation of the statesman as in amassing the wealth
of the capitalist. George Nicholas died at the age of forty-four.
281 The Saunders paper in the Nicholas manuscripts. I confess my
obligations to Miss Ellen Wayles Randolph (now Mrs. William B.
Harrison, of " Brandon,") for valuable materials relating to the life of
George Nicholas, especially for the Wickliffe and Saunders manuscripts,
and some printed documents.
298 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Had he attained the term reached by some of his associates at
the bar and in the Assembly — by Marshall, by Monroe, and by
Madison — how different might have been the story which the
historian would be required to record! What he might not or
might have been, it is impossible to divine. He might not have
been other than he was — the master-spirit of the young Com-
monwealth (which was mainly fashioned by his hands, and which
holds his dust), moulding her young men to his own high stand-
ard of abilities and character, and guiding her politics by his
judicious and temperate counsels. He might have been placed
on a loftier pedestal, and have transferred the sceptre of the
presidency a quarter of a century earlier to the West. Had
Marshall died in 1799, what a blank there would be in that
career which now looms so grandly before us! He would have
been remembered by a few old men as a clear-headed lawyer of
slovenly appearance, or as an unlucky minister plenipotentiary.
The fame of the great speech in the case of Jonathan Robbins
would not have been his.282 Had Monroe died in the same year
his name would be found on the list of the Governors of Vir-
ginia, and of the Ministers to France and to England, and there
only. Had Madison died at the same time, the report of ninety-
nine would have been unwritten; his part in the General Federal
Convention and in the present would be remembered by the
studious, and his career in the House of Representatives for a
few years would be known to some of the higher order of politi-
cians, but all else of his long and honored life would be wiped
away. And fully as fair as any of these stood George Nicholas
when he descended to the tomb.
282 This speech was delivered in the House of Representatives on the
yth of March, 1800.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS.
If the sun of George Nicholas was eclipsed at meridian, the
light of the genius of his brother, Wilson Gary Nicholas, if less
dazzling, shone not less effectively for a score of years to come.
The course of George, except in a military capacity, never
extended beyond the limits of Virginia and Kentucky; but much
of the career of his younger brother was spent abroad in one or
other of the houses of Congress; and from the adoption of the
Federal Constitution almost down to the close of his natural
life he was the main-spring of the party organizations of the
day. He exerted, directly or indirectly, no little influence on
all the political questions that arose in the interval above defined,
either in a minority, as was the case in the earlier part of his
course, hanging heavily on the skirts of his foes, or when in a
majority, as he was from the commencement of the century,
arranging the tactics of the hour, composing the tender griefs of
great men who sometimes thought themselves overlooked by their
party, and bidding them soothingly to bide their time, assigning
the tasks of duty to each individual with a strict regard to his tastes
and to the breadth of his shoulders — believing, as he did, that
the rule of Horace was quite as applicable to politics as to poetry;
engaging in debate with his strongest opponents with sound
arguments, with practical rather than with figurative or learned
illustrations; and, above all, with that delicate tact which made
him say neither more nor less than was needful at the time, and
which prevented him from offending an adversary who might
be likely to be won over at no distant period, any more than
seemed indispensable to the conduct of his argument, to the
gravity of his theme, or to the bounding pulses of his more fiery
coadjutors. If his life could have been written in full, there
would be seen the history of the most adroit political manage-
ment of the last or the present century. His manners and
deportment contributed to his success. In his apparel he was
300 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
exceedingly plain; he was serious and even solemn in his aspect;
his words were few, unless in the presence of intimate friends,
but they were well studied, were never uttered to the wrong per-
son, always sank deep in the minds of men, and were never
forgotten. He read at a glance the thoughts of men; and when
he saw a young recruit, and had looked into his performances,
he at once allotted him a special place in the machinery of his
party, and made him an active and willing adjutant. The talents
of Nicholas were invaluable to his party at a time when coali-
tions were the order of the day; when a numerous and able
party, but recently triumphant, and though wincing under a
terrible defeat, ready to coalesce with old friends and with their
old enemies, were dogging the footsteps of his own, and when
members of his own party even, which had become too strong
and was beginning to fritter, were courting their Federal ene-
mies and were looking to them for smiles and votes, Nicholas
was equal to the emergency. He could not prevent a small
squad of clever friends, who could not be satisfied with anything
short of despotic rule and a full enjoyment of choice offices, from
starting a little opposition of their own, nor could he control
their forked tongues; but he utterly deprived them of all influ-
ence in affairs, forced them to doff their uniform and to drop the
glorious war-cry of past victories, and drove them in the face of
the country to take shelter in the camp of the enemy. His man-
agement was altogether successful. If he could not extract the
fangs of the asp, he neutralized its poison. Its very victims,
instead of dying, flourished fairer than ever, grew fat, laughed at
the sinuous motions of their recreant enemy, and at last put
their heels upon its head. The leading measures advocated by
Nicholas were founded on the best interests of his country; and
it was the fault of his enemies that his singular skill in the tactics
of party were called into exercise. And wherever, these quali-
ties of his were required there they were instantly brought into
play. Yesterday he was in the Senate of the United States;
to-day he is in the House of Delegates; to-morrow would find
him in the House of Representatives, and the day after he would
be the Governor of Virginia. If lesser spheres were to be
looked into, he became the president of the branch bank of the
United States at Richmond, or the collector of the port of Nor-
folk; loving no office for its own sake, holding none but for a
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 301
short time,283 and always eager to return to "Warren," his
seat on the banks of the James, and surpass his practical neigh-
bors in making corn, wheat, and tobacco.
He carried the Sta.te with him and the people in all his move-
ments. He seemed to combine in a wonderful degree the good
qualities of Sir Robert Walpole and of Talleyrand without their
bad. Like the former, his policy was as pacific as it was practi-
cable; and in a time of extraordinary embarrassment in our
foreign affairs, which appeared to render warlike demonstrations
essential to the interests and honor of the country, he cooled
down the bellicose and the demonstrative of his own party, out-
witted the machinations of his wily opponents, and secured the
adoption of measures which, while they postponed actual war,
tended seriously to incommode and annoy our foreign enemies.
Like Talleyrand, he was versatile or inscrutable, as the occasion
required — a weigher of mystic words and of looks more weighty
than words, or indulging in a honeyed flow of transparent talk;
retentive of his own secrets, but disclosing enough to secure the
secrets of others; in debate on topics of great concern frequently
silent, or speaking but little, but turning with fatal facility the
fairest flowers of speech, yet fragrant with the dew of hostile
lips, into dust and ashes; and in the various complications of
parties and of circumstances, purposely designed to put him off
his guard and to confound him, so much a master of himself, so
entirely poised, as not only to circumvent the schemes that were
laid to betray him, but to lead his opponents into the belief that
he thought them much better and wiser than they felt them-
selves to be; and, unlike Talleyrand, he never used other
weapons than those with which truth, reason, and honor sup-
plied him. He would have been a prince among diplomatists;
and every foreign mission was open to him, but his family
engagements and his tastes bound him to his home.
In the business of ordinary life he was very generally regarded
as an infallible, almost an inspired, oracle. The confidence of the
people was as unlimited in his integrity as in his wisdom; his
friends shared liberally in his ventures; and although he was,
W3The political enemies of Nicholas used to say that he held the
different offices to keep unpopular candidates out of them and until
the right man of the party should turn up.
302 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
from peculiar circumstances which were beyond the control of
individual action, but rather the results of political arrangements,
unforeseen or improbable at the time, to the last degree unfortu-
nate, and more unfortunate still in involving his friends in mis-
fortune, he retained their sympathy and confidence to the end.
And when the cloud burst, had he thrown off the trammels of
politics and position and directly engaged in commercial affairs,
he might have retrieved a false step, reimbursed his own losses
and those of his friends, and established his character by the not
unfrequently false but ever-flattering test of success, instead of
affording, by his conduct, an ever-memorable example of the
extreme danger which the most prudent and the wisest men
incur when they turn their backs upon their regular business,
and, forsaking the farm and the rostrum, embark in schemes
which, if successful, may add to their thousands, but which will,
if unfortunate (as such schemes, from the nature of the case, are
almost always apt to be), overwhelm them and their friends in
one universal ruin.
But it is time that we begin to trace more minutely the events
in the life of Wilson Gary Nicholas. He was the son of Robert
Carter Nicholas and Anne Gary, of both of whom some mention
has already been made.28* The characteristics of his revered
father were integrity, wisdom, piety, and unalloyed devotion to
his country — qualities which environ this name to this hour with
a bright and unfading halo. The mother of Nicholas was a
sister of Archibald Gary, that fierce and daring man, who bore
the sobriquet of "Old Iron"; who reported to the Convention of
1776 the resolution instructing the delegates of Virginia in Con-
gress to propose independence; who brought forth in the Con-
vention the Declaration of Rights and the first Constitution of
an independent Commonwealth; who threatened to plant his
dagger in the bosom of any man who should assume the office
of dictator ere the setting of the first day's sun; who, at the time
of his death in 1786, when he was the Speaker of the Senate of
Virginia, was heir-apparent288 of the English barony of Huns-
284 In the sketch of George Nicholas, ante.
1(85 Discourse on the Virginia Convention of 1776, page 91, where the
fact is stated, as well as other things concerning Colonel Gary. The
late Richard Randolph, Esq., is my authority about the position of
Gary in respect of the barony in question.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 303
<Jon — a man and a statesman whom neither interest, fear, nor
favor could swerve from the cause of his country.
Wilson Gary Nicholas was born in the city of Williamsburg
on the 3ist day of January, 1761, when Governor Fauquier had
fairly inaugurated his popular reign. He saw, in his eighth year,
the august obsequies which were performed at his grave; had
attended with his father — the Treasurer — the meetings of the
Council when the mild and enlightened John Blair, the elder, sat
as its president; had seen the splendid equipage in which Bote-
tourt drove up the York road when he made his first entrance
into the city; had visited with his father that amiable nobleman,
and been driven in his coach drawn by his spanking grays, and
'had been present when the body of that lamented man, in the
presence of a weeping audience, was lowered into the sepulchre
of the Randolphs, to await its transportation to England; had
seen William Nelson take the seat of the departed peer in the
Council; had gone with his father to pay his respects to the Earl
of Dunmore and his interesting family on their arrival from the old
country, and had heard the uproar when it was known one bright
April morning that the Earl had purloined the power of the Colony
and conveyed it on board a man-of-war. Before fourteen he
had wrestled with the sons of Dunmore on the palace green,
had hunted hares and gathered chinquapins with them, and at the
dancing school had tripped a hornpipe or cut a pigeon-wing in
the presence of his popular and pretty daughters. Kt
Meantime Wilson attended the grammar school of William
and Mary College, and was about to enter that institution when,
in 1775, the troubles of the Colony began in earnest, and the
tramp of armed men began to be heard in the hitherto peaceful
metropolis. The delicate health of his mother required a less
exciting scene, and she removed, with her younger sons, to the
"Retreat," an estate of her husband's in Hanover, and there
superintended their education. When Wilson Cary attained
his eighteenth year — a gloomy period of the war — he entered
the army, and, having served several campaigns, returned to
286 The residence of Judge Nicholas was opposite the public green
and in the rear of the magazine from which the powder was taken.
Lord Dunmore had three sons at William and Mary in 1775— George
Viscount Fincastle, the Hon. Alexander, and John Murray.
304 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
"Warren," a paternal seat in Albemarle, to which his mother had
removed after the visit of Cornwallis to the "Retreat," an
account of which has been detailed in the life of George. Under
the guidance of his mother he spent his time in reading, his
father having died in 1780 at the " Retreat" before the departure
of his mother. Such was the progress which he made in his
studies, and so high did he stand with the people of his adopted
county, that in 1784 — in his twenty-third year — he was chosen
by a flattering vote to a seat in the House of Delegates. When
his mother, who had probably returned to her home in Williams-
burg, heard of the election of her son, she addressed him a letter
which, with the allowances every intelligent reader will make for
her early prejudices and prepossessions, may be studied at the
present day by politicians, old as well as young. It is in these
words:
" DEAR WILSON, — I congratulate you on the honor your county
has done you in choosing you their representative with so large
a vote. I hope you are come into the Assembly without those
trammels which some people submit to wear for a seat in the
House— I mean, unbound by promises to perform this or that
job which the many headed monster may think proper to chalk
out for you; especially that you have not engaged to lend a last
hand to pulling down the Church, which, by some imperti-
nent questions in the last paper, I suspect will be attempted.
Never, my dear Wilson, let me hear that by that sacrilegious
act you have furnished yourself with materials to erect a scaffold
by which you may climb to the summit of popularity; rather
remain in the lowest obscurity; though, I think, from long obser-
vation, I can venture to assert that the man of integrity, who
observes one equal tenor in his conduct — who deviates neither
to the one side nor the other from the proper line — has more of
the confidence of the people than the very compliant time-server,
who calls himself the servant — and, indeed, is the slave — of the
people. I flatter myself, too, you will act on a more liberal plan
than some members have done in matters in which the honor and
interest of this State are concerned; that you will not, to save a
few pence to your constituents, discourage the progress of arts
and sciences, nor pay with so scanty a hand persons who are
eminent in either. This parsimonious plan, of late adopted, will
throw us behind the other States in all valuable improvements,
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 305
and chill, like a frost, the spring of learning and spirit of enter-
prise. I have insensibly extended what I had to say beyond
my first design, but will not quit the subject without giving you
a hint, from a very good friend of yours, that your weight in the
House will be much greater if you do not take up the attention
of the Assembly on trifling matters nor too often demand a
hearing. To this I must add a hint of my own — that temper and
decorum are of infinite advantage to a public speaker, and a
modest diffidence to a young man just entering the stage of life.
The neglect of the former throws him off his guard, breaks his
chain of reasoning, and has often produced in England duels
that have terminated fatally. The natural effect of the latter
will ever be procuring a favorable and patient hearing, and all
those advantages that a prepossession in favor of the speaker
produces.
"You see, my son, that I take the privilege of a mother in
advising you, and be assured you have no friend so solicitous for
your welfare, temporal and eternal, as your ever affectionate
mother,
"ANNE NICHOLAS. *T
" Williamsburg, 1784."
It now remains to be seen how far he followed, in a political
career of thirty-five years, the suggestions of his estimable parent.
The first act on taking his seat in the House of Delegates in
May, 1784, was to vote for the re-election of John Tyler as
Speaker, whom he had frequently seen in his childhood in Wil-
liamsburg, who had long known and esteemed his father, and
with whom he was to be associated under a new Federal Gov-
ernment for many years to come. The nomination of Tyler was
seconded by French Strother, whom our young politician had
also seen in his early youth, who had proved himself a sterling
patriot in our civil conflicts, and with whom he was to fight
under the same standard many a sharp battle before the close of
the century. As he looked over the House, he recognized many
faces which he had seen in his youth, and beheld a number of
young men who, like himself, were new members, and with
whom he was to engage earnestly on the field of politics for
more than the third of a century to come. Among the older
287 Old Churches, Vol. I, 184.
20
306 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
members were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, William
Grayson, Henry Tazewell, Madison, John Taylor (of Caroline),
Jones (of King George), and others; and among the younger
ones were John Marshall, Alexander Stuart, and others who
were destined to acquire reputation in the Assembly, in the Con-
gress, and under the new Federal Government. His brother
John was his colleague, and sat by his side. His relative, Wil-
son Miles Cary, was chairman of the Committee of Religion,
which at that particular conjuncture was the most interesting of
the standing committees. Nicholas was placed on the Com-
mittee of Propositions and Grievances, of which Tazewell was
chairman, and on the Committee of Courts of Justice, in which
Jones (of King George) presided.
As a general outline of the proceedings of this session has
already been given, it will be only necessary to state the occa-
sion when some test question of the times was presented for his
vote. The first test question was on the engrossing a bill for
adjusting claims for property impressed or taken for public ser-
vice. As the bill was lost, we cannot ascertain its details; for it
is plain that it was in some detail of the bill and not in its nomi-
nal object that it was disapproved by the House. Nicholas
voted for the rejection with Henry, Madison, Taylor (of Caro-
line), Marshall, Jones (of King George), and his brother, John.
The bill was defeated by five votes.
The next test question was one of the most exciting that was
agitated in the Assembly before the adoption of the present
Federal Constitution. The definitive treaty with Great Britain
stipulated that the debts due British subjects before the Revo-
lution should be paid in full. The right of a State to confiscate
a debt due to the public enemy was as clear as the right to take
any other kind of property, or even life itself, if it were deemed
expedient so to do; and Virginia had exercised this right by
requiring the British debtors to pay their several amounts into
the public treasury. The subject had been deliberately acted
upon, and was regarded as settled forever; to open it afresh was
thought by the majority of the people of that era as imprudent
and as unjustifiable as it would be to require the restoration of
any other property taken from the British. But the public
aversion to the measure was increased by the absence of all
reciprocity on the part of the British, though that reciprocity
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 307
was enjoined by the treaty. Negroes had been taken off at the
evacuation of New York not only in violation of the treaty, but
in spite of the demands of their owners, who were present in
person at the time of their embarkation. The payment of the
debts due by the citizens of Virginia to British subjects was,
beyond dispute, decreed by the treaty; yet it was urged by the
majority that, though those debts would have to be paid, it was
prudent to delay payment until every fair effort could be made
to secure the rights of our own citizens. Great Britain could
not complain, unless she consented to perform her own part of
the bargain; and it was plain that she not only did not intend to
pay for our slaves, but designedly kept possession of those forti-
fied places which she had agreed to evacuate, and from which
she could annoy us most readily in case of war. On the other
hand, it was urged by the members of the minority, of whom
Nicholas was one, that our first office was to do justice, and that
if England did not fulfil her part of the treaty in good faith we
should adopt the means of redress which the laws of nations
pointed out. The form in which the present question came up
was this: A motion was made that the House adopt a resolu-
tion declaring that all acts of Assembly incompatible with the
definitive treaty ought to be repealed. The previous question,
"Shall the question to agree to the resolution be now put?" was
called, and was negatived by a vote of thirty-seven to fifty-seven.
In other words, the House refused to come to a direct vote on
the resolution at that time. Nicholas voted in the minority with
Madison, Marshall, Richard Henry Lee, Corbin, White, Taze-
well, and Edmunds (of Brunswick); while the majority included
Patrick Henry, Crocker, Strother, John Trigg, Vanmeter, Zane,
Ruffin, Edmunds (of Sussex), Matthews, Porter (the colleague of
Madison), Riddick, Thomas Smith — members who came from
the extreme West as well as the extreme East, and who clearly
voted on general grounds.
The proper site for the seat of government of the Common-
wealth was long a subject of dispute in our early councils. It
had been removed from Williamsburg during the war, when,
from the position of that city (between two navigable streams),
an attack might at any moment be made upon it, and lands had
been purchased in Richmond; but Richmond was far from being
in the centre of the State, and, at a time when men could travel
308 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
on horseback only, it was deemed a long distance from the inte-
rior to the falls of the James. At the present session a resolu-
tion was reported from the Committee of the Whole, declaring
that all the public lands in Richmond not necessary for the pur-
poses of government should be sold, and the proceeds thereof
applied to the erection of public buildings in Richmond, pursu-
ant to the act for the removal of the seat of government. When
it came up a motion was made to strike it out and insert that it
was expedient that measures should be taken to ascertain the
opinion of the people as to the place to be fixed on for the seat
of government. The amendment was negatived, and the origi-
nal resolution was agreed to by a vote of sixty-three to fifty-
seven. It is probable that the vote on the adoption of the
resolution was the direct reverse of the vote in favor of the
amendment; and if this supposition is true, then Nicholas voted
with Patrick Henry, Madison, Marshall, and Strother, and against
White, Tazewell, Prentis, Richard Henry Lee, King, Ruffin, and
Matthews — in other words, against the Williamsburg interest,
which on such occasions was always upheld with ability by the
delegate from that city, who was generally an able and clever
tactician, and who at this time was the mild and venerated
Prentis.
I now come to a vote given by Nicholas on a subject which
seriously perplexed the thoughts of our early statesmen during
the period which elapsed between the close of the war and the
adoption of the Federal Constitution. In that interval Virginia
was truly and practically a sovereign State. In main respects
she regulated her own commerce at her own discretion; laid
duties on exports and imports; had or might have a navy of her
own; did have her revenue cutters, and collected her marine
dues in her custom-houses or by her officers on board the ships.
This independent position involved important responsibilities,
none of which was greater than that of building up a commercial
marine. From the earliest times the British vessels traded up
our bay and the larger streams, and discharged and received
their cargoes at the landings, and sometimes almost at the barn-
doors of the planters; and the result was a virtual proscription
of the existence of any ships owned by Virginians, and a facility
for smuggling which a large navy — if a large navy had been
practicable — could not have entirely prevented. When, at the
AVILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 309
close of the war, it became necessary to levy duties on imports,
and also on exports, it was seen that the facility of eluding all
the regulations of revenue was such that the State would be
compelled either tc establish innumerable places of deposit and
entry — the expense of which would almost entirely consume the
amount derived from the customs — or, in justice to the fair
dealer, who would be ruined by the smugglers, to give up the
scheme of a revenue from commerce altogether. At this con-
juncture it was determined that a few places of deposit and entry
should be chosen, as such a policy would not only secure the
safe and speedy collection of the revenue, but tend to rear a
commercial marine of our own. The transportation of freight
to and from the specified ports would soon call into existence a
class of men accustomed to the water and ready to man our
ships, when they should be built, to foreign ports, and especially
able to defend our coasts in time of war. The sagacity of
Madison had embraced the whole subject, and he determined to
bring the matter before the Assembly.288 But there were many
strong prejudices and powerful local interests to encounter. It is
a trait of the Anglo-Saxon family — derived, perhaps, from their
piratical ancestors — to hate taxes of all sorts, especially those
accruing from the sea, and to love smuggling; and it was also a
trait of our British forefathers of a later day, who were mainly
agricultural, to hate towns, as interfering with their interests in
more regards than one. Even since the accession of the Prince
of Orange to the British throne there have been repeated efforts
in Parliament by the county members to prevent the growth of
London, and severe taxes have been proposed on every new
building in the metropolis. The same prejudice existed in Vir-
ginia, and, from obvious geographical considerations, to a much
greater extent than in England. Our noble bay and our nume-
rous rivers, though affording invaluable advantages to the farmer,
are fatal to the existence of any large town, unless their naviga-
288 1 have no authority derived from the Journals to sustain my asser-
tion of the primacy of Madison on this subject ; but I have often heard
old men, who lived thirty years ago, speak of Madison's scheme for
building up towns and creating a coasting trade, etc. The present bill
passed both houses, but was assailed and amended at every session,
until the whole subject was transferred to the Government under the
Federal Constitution.
310 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
tion is controlled by stringent laws; and a large majority of a
rural people, in deciding between the personal and immediate
benefit derived from the free use of their streams by ships,
foreign as well as domestic, and the apparently remote advan-
tages springing from an economical collection of the revenue, and
an efficient marine in case of war, appeared to dread a change.
At the present session — on the lyth of June — the subject was
presented on the passage of a bill to restrict foreign vessels to
certain ports within the Commonwealth. The bill passed by a
vote of sixty-four to fifty-eight; Patrick Henry, Madison, Strother,
Corbin, Eyre, Mann Page, Jones (of King George), Edward
Carrington, Philip Barbour, Prentis, Matthews, and others in the
affirmative, and Nicholas, with Grayson, Marshall, Ruffin, White,
and others in the negative. Tazewell and Richard Henry Lee
were absent. I wish I could have recorded the name of Nicholas
on that side of the question which posterity has substantially
approved, but it must not be forgotten that he strenuously
upheld the adoption of the Federal Constitution, which estab-
lished the existing arrangement; as it was, I can only say that he
voted in very decent company.
The next vexed question which he had to encounter was the
propriety of calling a Convention to revise the Constitution of
the State. A few weeks after the adjournment of the Convention
which formed that instrument, Wythe, in a letter to Jefferson,
expressed himself in a way that would lead at first sight to
the opinion that he believed an ordinary Legislature compe-
tent to amend that instrument at pleasure, and a design was
seriously meditated during the war of undertaking the office
of revisal.239 The attack made on the Constitution in the
Notes on Virginia was not yet generally read, but it is proba-
ble that the opinions of Mr. Jefferson had been uttered freely
in conversation, and that his friends — and among them Nicho-
las— knew what they were. The question now came up in
289 In a review of the Life of Jefferson by Randall, in the Richmond
Enquirer of isth of January, 1858, the language of Wythe is examined,
and shown to be the result of forgetfulness for the moment, and not
conflicting with the doctrine afterwards laid down by him, that an act
of Assembly in conflict with the Constitution is void. A letter of
George Mason's, deprecating the attempt to revise the Constitution by
the Assembly, may be seen in the Virginia Historical Register.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 311
the House on agreeing with the opinion of the Committee of
the Whole, to which the Augusta petition in favor of calling a
Convention had been referred, and which opinion was adverse to
the prayer of the petition. The resolve set forth that the peti-
tion should be rejected, " such a measure (as the call of a Con-
vention) not being within the province of the House of Delegates
to assume; but, on the contrary, it is the express duty of the
representatives of the people, at all times and on all occasions,
to preserve the same inviolable until a majority of all the free
people shall direct a reform thereof."
A motion was made to strike out the part quoted above, and
was negatived by a vote of forty-two to fifty-seven. Nicholas was
so much interested in the question that he rose and demanded
the ayes and noes. He voted in the minority — that is, in favor
of striking out — with John Taylor (of Caroline), Madison, Mar-
shall, Stuart, Jones (of King George), Prentis, and Tazewell;
while Henry, White, Strother, King, Eyre, Ruffin, Matthews,
and his brother John were in the majority. The decision of the
majority was that the Assembly had no right to call a Conven-
tion, or to meddle with the matter, unless instructed by a majority
of all the free people of the State; and it is presumed that the
minority thought that the Assembly did possess the power of
calling one without any formal instruction from the people. The
opinion held forty four years later, when a Convention was
called, seems to be intermediate between the opinions held by
both parties on the present occasion. The Assembly then passed
an act affording facilities for the expression of the wishes of the
people on the subject, and, having learned that a majority of
votes was cast in favor of calling a Convention, carried the public
will into effect.
He voted with the majority on the passage of the bill to amend
the several acts concerning marriages, which was opposed by an
able minority, headed by Tazewell, Grayson, Matthews, and
others; and he witnessed the amusing scene, already described,
which occurred when John Warden was brought before the House
for a contempt. And he had the pleasure of voting for that statue
to Washington, with the inscription on its base by Madison,
which, so finely executed by Houdon, has for more than seventy
years adorned the Capitol of Virginia. The session adjourned
on the 3Oth of June.
312 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
The House of Delegates reassembled on the i8th day of Octo-
ber, but could not obtain a quorum for several days. The roll
was called, the absent members were noted, and the sergeant-at-
arms was instructed to take them into custody. In due time
Nicholas, Henry, Madison, Adam Stephen, and Grayson were
produced at the bar in custody of the sergeant, and were required
to make their excuses for their delay in attending the session.
Nicholas appeared on the 3oth. and was placed on the Commit-
tee of Religion — of which Norvell was chairman — and on the
Committee of Propositions and Grievances, with Tazewell at its
head.
The great question concerning religion came on the nth of
November in the shape of a resolution from the Committee of the
Whole, "that the people of the Commonwealth, according to
their respective abilities, ought to pay a moderate tax or contri-
bution annually for the support of the Cnristian religion, or of
some Christian church, denomination, or communion of Chris-
tians, or of some form of Christian worship." It has been com-
mon to regard the assessment recommended by this resolution
as the evidence of a lingering attachment to a church establish-
ment; but nothing can be further from the true state of the case.
To require all the sects of a Christian community, such as
Virginia then was, to make a contribution to their respective
churches was a measure which, so far from tending to consoli-
date the sects and rear an establishment, was the most efficient
that could be devised for rendering an establishment impractica-
ble. It was essentially a measure of moral police, deemed advisa-
ble at a time when the voluntary system had not been tried,
except on a very small scale, and no more trenched on religious
freedom than the setting apart of the first day of the week,
under severe penalties, as a day of rest alike to Jew and Gentile,
can be regarded as an infringement of religious liberty. The
House happened to be thin when the question was taken, but
the resolution was carried by a vote of forty-seven to thirty-two;
Patrick Henry, Jones (of King George), Tazewell, Prentis, Coles,
King, Wray, Edmunds (of Sussex), Edmunds (of Brunswick),
Riddick, Eyre, and Allen voting in the affirmative, and Nicholas,
with Madison, Strother, Johnston, Stuart, Spencer Roane, John
Breckenridge, Porter, Russell, and Matthews, in the negative. A
committee was appointed to bring in a bill in pursuance of the
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 313
resolution, consisting of Henry, Corbin, Jones (of King George),
Coles, Norvell, Wray, Jones (of Dinwiddie), Carter H. Harri-
son, Tazewell, and Prentis.
On the i yth of November the question concerning religion
came up a second time on two resolutions, reported by the
Committee of the Whole, which declared, first, that so much of
the petition of the Presbytery of Hanover, and of the Baptist
Association, as prays that the laws regulating the celebration of
marriage, and relating to the construction of vestries, may be
altered, is reasonable; and, secondly, that acts ought to pass for
the incorporation of all societies of the Christian religion which
may apply for the same. The first passed without a division,
but the second excited a warm debate. White called for the
ayes and noes, and we are thus enabled to learn how each mem-
ber voted on the subject. The resolution, enforced as it was by
-tbe eloquence of Henry, passed by a vote of sixty-two to
twenty-three — largely over two to one; Patrick Henry, Stuart,
Spencer Roane, Jones (of King George), and Matthews voting
for its passage, and Nicholas, with Madison, John Taylor (of
Caroline), Strqther, White, Johnston, and John Trigg, against it.
Of this resolution it may be said that it contained nothing exclu-
sive. It offered equal facilities to all Christian sects. Matthews,
Henry, Madison, and Others were appointed a committee to bring
in a bill pursuant to the first resolution; and leave was immedi-
ately granted to bring in a bill to incorporate the clergy of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, and Carter H. Harrison, Henry,
Thomas Smith, William Anderson, and Tazewell were ordered
to prepare it.
A bill was reported from the Committee of the Whole on the
26th respecting the extradition of criminals, when a motion was
made to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert a more
explicit enactment instead. The motion prevailed; Madison,
Tazewell, Eyre, Ruffin, Marshall, and Matthews in the affirma-
tive, and Nicholas, with John Trigg, Strother, and Prentis, in
the negative. The amended bill then passed without a division.
It was on the 22d of December, 1784, that the engrossed bill
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church came up on its
passage; and as soon as the blanks were filled the question was
taken, and the bill passed by a vote of forty-seven to thirty-
eight; Madison, Marshall, Grayson, Tazewell, and Jones (of King
314 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
George) voting in the affirmative, and Nicholas, with Johnston,
Porter, Stuart, and Roane, in the negative. John Taylor (of
Caroline) was absent. To have a true notion of this bill, the
reader will remember that it sprang from a resolution which
accorded equal privileges to all sects, and that he has only to
strike out the words "the Protestant Episcopal Church" and
insert "the Baptist" or "the Presbyterian," and the case will be
identically the same. Madison was doubtless the author of the
bill, and while drawing it had in his possession (certainly under
his guardianship) the famous bill concerning religious freedom,
and a few months later drew the celebrated memorial, which was
signed by thousands and returned to the Assembly by a large
number of counties; and it is plain that if he had deemed the
present bill hostile in any respect to the cause of religious free-
dom, instead of drafting it and of voting for it, he would have
been its warmest opponent.
On the 24th another aspect of the religious question was pre-
sented. The bill establishing a provision for the teachers of the
Christian religion came up on its passage, and a motion was
made to postpone its consideration until the fourth Thursday of
November next, and was carried by a vote of forty-five to thirty-
eight; Nicholas, with Madison, Johnston, Trigg, Stuart, Strother,
Spencer Roane, Porter, and Matthews, voting in favor of post-
poning, and John Marshall, Cropper, Benjamin Harrison, Jones
(of King George), Eyre, Ruffin, Corbin, Willis Riddick, and
Tazewell against it. The postponement was made with a view
of consulting the opinions of the people upon it; and the bill
was published in hand-bills, with the ayes and noes on postponing
it annexed, copies of which were furnished to every member,
who was instructed to obtain full information of the public will
on the subject.
It has been seen that Nicholas encountered all the leading
religious questions of the day, and, although attached to the
Episcopal Church, and urged by the eloquent persuasion of his
pious mother against all hostile movements aimed at the Church
of her affections, he steadily upheld in its broadest sense the
doctrine of a disconnection of the State with religious affairs,
passing a bowshot beyond Madison himself, and deserves all the
credit that flows from such a course of action. On the other
hand, it is due to the cause of justice to say that the policy of
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 315
the majority was not only fair and liberal, but tended to multiply
and strengthen individual sects instead of aggrandizing any one
of them at the expense of others; and that in affording the
people an opportunity of deciding whether a contribution should
be levied for the support of any particular form of Christian wor-
ship which the tax-payer preferred, they acted with deliberation,
prudence, and wisdom.
Although the session was occupied with many interesting sub-
jects, those already specified embrace the only occasions on
which the vote of Nicholas was recorded in the list of ayes and
noes. It may be said, however, that in the main he belonged to
the younger branch of the great party, of which Henry had long
been the leader, engrafting upon the old trunk certain vigorous
and fruitful scions from the gardens of " Montpelier" and "Mon-
ticello."
He was returned to the House of Delegates at the April elec-
tion of 1785, and in the following October took his seat in the
body. He was now to be present and to bear an honorable part
in the deliberations of a session which, in the number of distin-
guished men who composed the House, in the variety and mag-
nitude of the subjects which were discussed and settled, and in
the absorbing interest which it naturally excited among the
people of all conditions and denominations, civil and religious,
was hardly ever exceeded in our annals. It was, indeed, a
glorious school for a young politician. We can readily imagine
the sense of responsibility felt by Nicholas when, a few days after
taking his seat, he saw Madison rise in his place and report,
from the Committee of Courts of Justice (of which he was chair-
man), a budget of one hundred and seventeen bills, contained in
the Revised Code, and not of a temporary nature, and heard
him recite deliberately the title of each.*90 To maintain and
defend so many important bills was a gigantic task, which no
statesman had hitherto attempted, but which Madison, then in
his thirty-fifth year, and in the prime and pride of his great
powers — and flushed with the glory he had won in the Congress
290 This happened on the 3oth of October, 1785. The bills were seve-
rally read a second time, says the Journal ; but. as a matter of fact,
they were not read at all, except in a parliamentary sense, and were
referred to a committee of the whole House on the following day.
316 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
of the Confederation — not only undertook, but carried through,
with the skill and tact and that ever-abounding illustration that
he always brought to bear upon every serious public exhibition
of his life. These bills involved almost the entire policy of
domestic legislation, and their critical examination and discus-
sion were calculated to call forth the finest faculties of the mind
and all the wisdom of human experience. Among his associates,
beside Madison, the Corypheus of the group, were the veteran
Harrison, who, lately Governor, now filled the Speaker's chair,
and his old colleague John Tyler, John Taylor (of Caroline),
and his namesake (of Southampton), Joseph Prentis, Meriwether
Smith, James Innes, French Strother, Cuthbert Bullitt, Stuart
(of Augusta) and his venerable colleague Zachariah Johnston,
Turberville, Henry Lee (of the Legion), S. Jordan Cabell, Isaac
Coles, the Bowyers, the Carys, and many others, who had either
attained to distinction or were soon to win it.
Having already reviewed the proceedings of this session, I
shall confine myself to a notice of the votes given by Nicholas
on the different questions as they arose. His two first votes
reflect credit upon his independence, as he voted to send back
to the people two prominent men whose elections were contested
on just and legal grounds. He succeeded in sending Arthur
Lee home; but he failed in the case of Harrison, who, having
been beaten by Tyler in Charles City on the first Monday in the
past April, moved over with a pot-boiler's outfit to Surry, and
on the fourth Monday offered himself as a candidate for the
House of Delegates, and was elected. As soon as Harrison took
his seat in the House he became a candidate for the chair of the
Speaker, which Tyler had filled the year before, and for which
his name was now presented to the House, and defeated him.
Harrison had no title to a seat in the body, and any other per-
son in his position would have been ejected unanimously; but
his public services and the Speakership saved him from the fate
of Lee.
The subject of the manumission of slaves was discussed on the
1 3th of December. A report was made from a standing com-
mittee, which recommended that so much of the petition of sun-
dry citizens of Halifax as prayed for the repeal of the act to
authorize the manumission of slaves was reasonable. A motion
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 317
was made to strike out the words "is reasonable" and insert
"be rejected," which was lost by the casting vote of the Chair,
the House being equally divided; Nicholas voting against
striking out (that is, in favor of the repeal of the act to author-
ize the manumission of slaves) and Madison voting for striking
out (that is, against the repeal). The main question was then put
on the resolution as reported, and, some two or three members
coming in, it was decided in the affirmative by a vote of fifty-
one to fifty-two — a majority of a single vote. This decision
would seem to show how equally divided the politicians of that
day were on the subject of manumission. Present public senti-
ment sustains the vote which Nicholas gave on this occasion.
The same subject was renewed on the 24th of December.
The bill carrying into effect the report of the committee, which
had been approved by the House, was read the first time, and
when the question was on its second reading, it was rejected by
the decided vote of fifty-two to thirty-five — Nicholas in favor of
the second reading and Madison against it. There must have
been something in the details of the bill offensive to the House;
for as soon as it was rejected a committee — of which Nicholas
was a member — was ordered to bring in a bill to repeal the act
in question, which was duly brought in and passed, under the
title of an act concerning slaves, without a division.
When the celebrated bill for establishing religious freedom
came up on its second reading,291 on a motion to strike out the
preamble from the pen ,of Jefferson and insert the sixteenth
section of the Declaration of Rights in its stead, Nicholas voted
with the majority against the amendment; and when the bill was
read- a third time, on the following day, he was one of the large
majority (seventy-four to twenty) which voted for its passage.
And when the bill came back from the Senate again and again,
with the amendments of that body, he always voted to retain, as
far as 'possible, the language of its author and its catholic spirit."2
Those who voted for the bill for establishing religious freedom
merit the applause of their country. They gave to the world a
191 December 16, 1785.
292 The bill was bandied between the two houses for nearly a fortnight.
For a correct view of the original bill, with the amendments in a single
view, see Randall's Life of Jefferson, Vol. I, 219.
318 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
conspicuous and deliberate example of liberal legislation on the
question of religion, and showed that, at that early day, they
fully appreciated the subject in all its bearings. What could
fairly be done by act of Assembly they accomplished. But
while history bestows all foir and liberal praise upon the friends
of the bill, it is due to justice not to visit with harsh censure the
small minority of members whose votes are recorded against it.
The truth is that, in a certain sense, the bill came too late. Had
it been passed when it was written by its author, its effect would
have been original as well as conclusive. But it had been kept
back seven or eight years, and until the substantial policy which
it prescribed was secured by law. The equality of all sects had
already been recognized and established, and the same privileges
were offered to all. With this view of the case, those who voted
against the bill, while they regarded it as effecting no new or real
change in existing laws, were strongly inclined to interpret the
language of the preamble as in some instances hostile to the
orthodox doctrines of the Christian religion.293 Hence they
sought to substitute for the long preamble, with its questionable
theology, the seventh section of the Declaration of Rights, which
was succinct, thorough, explicit — covering the whole ground of
religious freedom — and, from its origin, imparting dignity and
authority to the act, while it was wholly free from religious
ambiguity. It is also probable that the minority were favorable
to the policy of assessments — a policy which Patrick Henry,
George Washington, Richard Henry .Lee, and other illustrious
patriots approved, and which was not only compatible with the
bitterest hostility to an establishment, but actually rendered the
existence of such an institution impossible; and though they
believed that the bill establishing religious freedom did not
necessarily condemn the policy of assessments, as recorded in
the bill, to carry that purpose into effect, yet that such a meaning
might be placed upon it; and they preferred that the policy of
assessments should be decided independently and on its own
merits. A glance at the names of the minority will detect those
293 It should be remembered that the bill, as we now have it, was
freed by the Senate from some strong objections which pious men
might entertain to its details; but when the bill passed the House of
Delegates, on the iyth, it contained these objectionable parts.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 319
of some of the purest, most liberal, and most undaunted Repub-
licans of their times. !9t
On the nth of January, 1786, an engrossed bill to amend the
act restricting foreign vessels to certain ports within the Common-
wealth was put upon its passage, and was carried by a vote of
fifty to forty-six — Nicholas happening to be out of the House at
the time. With his usual policy Madison sustained the bill.
Numerous and important as were the subjects discussed and
settled during the session, one of the most memorable, not only
in our own State but throughout the Union, was reserved to the
last day. Soon after the Journal was read John Tyler rose in
his place and offered the following resolution:
"Resolved, That Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Walter
Jones, Saint George Tucker, and Meriwether Smith, Esqs. , be
appointed commissioners, who, or any three of whom, shall
meet such commissioners as may be appointed by the other
States in the Union, at a time and place to be agreed on, to take
into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine
the relative situations and trade of the said States; to consider
how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be
necessary to their common interest and their permanent har-
mony; and to report to the several States such an act relative to
'mln my assumed character of attorney for the Commonwealth of the
past, though I shall not hesitate to condemn any man or measure
when it is just so to do, I abhor any indirect reflection on the men
and measures of the early days of the Commonwealth. One of the
minority against the hill was that sterling patriot, John Page, the class-
mate of Jefferson and his life long friend — the only member of the
Council of Duhmore who stood up for Patrick Henry in his powder
foray. Throughout the war he was a true patriot and a thorough
Republican. As a member of the first Congress under the present
Constitution, and as a Republican elector of 1800, he rendered most
efficient service to his country, which was recognized by the Assembly
when they conferred the office of Governor upon him. His paper,
addressed to Meriwether Jones, when that gentleman was collecting
materials for a continuation of Burk, is thoroughly democratic. In
Church and State he was ever fair and liberal. In private life he was
so pure that he was requested, as we are told by Bishop Meade, to take
orders, that he might be elected the Bishop of the Episcopal Church
of Virginia. He died at Richmond October 11, 1808; aged sixty-four.
Peace and honor to his gentle and gracious memory.
320 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
this great object as, when unanimously ratified by them, will
enable the United Stales in Congress effectually to provide for
the same."
It was twice read and agreed to without a division. Matthews
was ordered to take it immediately to the Senate, which body
acted on it forthwith and approved it, with certain amendments.
The House concurred in some of the amendments and refused
to concur in others. Matthews again took the bill to the Senate,
which receded from its amendments, and the resolution was a
law.295 Annapolis was chosen as the place of meeting; and
measures were there and then adopted which resulted in the
call of the General Convention which formed the present Federal
Constitution. How short is the space traversed by the vision of
the wisest men! Had Tyler been re-elected at the beginning of
the session to the Speaker's chair, the loss of which, under the
circumstances, was deeply mortifying to him, he could not have
taken the honorable part in debate at this important juncture
which now confers so much credit upon his character; nor could
he have made a solitary motion on the floor of the House; and
he would have forfeited the honor of having offered a resolution
which may be said to have laid the corner-stone of the Federal
Constitution, and which will cause his remotest posterity to
rejoice in the glory of their ancestor. I doubt not that Nicholas,
who was the neighbor and the intimate friend of Madison
through life, was privy to the plan of presenting the resolution
by the hands of a leading member of the majority at this late
stage of the session; and though he did not offer it himself, he
cordially approved it, and in this way connected his name honor-
ably with an extraordinary epoch.
Having obtained a competent knowledge of the conduct of
public bodies and of the prominent politicians of the State, and
having been engaged in the adjustment of some of the most
delicate and interesting questions of the day, Nicholas now with-
drew for a season from public life and devoted his attention to
his private affairs. It was not until the assembling of the pres-
ent Convention, on the 2d day of June, 1788, that he appeared
in a public body. He was returned, as the colleague of his
brother George, from the county of Albemarle; and, though he
295 See the history of the resolution treated in detail, ante.
v
\
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS.
did not engage formally in debate, he was regarded as one of the
most useful and most effective friends of the new Federal system.
His votes have already been recorded; and it will suffice to say
that he opposed the scheme of previous amendments and voted
in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. When the Con-
vention adjourned he returned to Albemarle and embarked with
fresh zest in agricultural pursuits, which, above all the honors of
political life which he lived to attain, were the source of his
purest enjoyments.
The adoption of the Federal Constitution had wrought a
material change in our political system. The progress of the
new administration was watched with the strictest vigilance; but
the subject which more particularly attracted the attention of a
large majority of the Assembly and of the people was the proba-
ble fate of the amendments, which Virginia had proposed by her
Convention, to the Constitution. One session of the new Con-
gress had been held, and some of the amendments had been
adopted, but the fate of others was deemed very uncertain.
The Assembly met on the igth day of October, 1789, and
Nicholas appeared in the House of Delegates as a member from
Albemarle. He saw in the chair of the Speaker Thomas Mat-
thews, with whom he had previously served in the House and
lately in the Convention; and among the members — though
Tazewell and Prentis had been translated to the bench, and
Grayson, Lee, Madison, Coles, Page, Moore, White, and Bland
were in the new Congress-r-were some of the ablest friends and
of the most uncompromising opponents of the new government.
Patrick Henry, however, was still a member, and Benjamin Har-
rison, Edmund Randolph, Dawson, Strother, Henry Lee (of the
Legion), Wormeley, Richard Lee, Edward Carrington, Briggs,
Edmunds (of Sussex), Norvell, Marshall, and a number of old
politicians, who, having flung aside forever (as they supposed)
the armor of politics, had determined to venture another cam-
paign and observe the progress of a fresh political organization.
Hitherto, for the most part, the ruling majority, which, since
1765, had usually controlled the local and, at a later day, the
Federal politics of Virginia, had remained unbroken by any seri-
ous schism; but in the recent struggles consequent upon the
formation of the new Federal system some of its younger and
more promising members had favored that scheme, and were in
21
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
a state of isolation in respect of their old friends. Was this state
of parties to continue, or were the old majority to unite with
the youthful seceders, or were the youthful seceders to return
to the fold ? In other words, should the brilliant and accom-
plished Edmund Rahdolph, who happened to be the latest of
the seceders, or Patrick Henry, the old and eloquent oracle of
the Republican hosts, be the leader of the majority ?
The second day of the session was marked by a deep and
ingenious design on the part of the Federalists — as the friends
of the Constitution were called. It was proposed that a com-
mittee be appointed to prepare an address to President Wash-
ington, declaring the high sense felt by the House of his eminent
merit, congratulating him on his exaltation to the first office
among freemen, assuring him of their unceasing attachment, and
supplicating the Divine benediction on his person and adminis-
tration. It passed unanimously. Henry Lee, who doubtless
offered the resolution, was appointed chairman of the committee
of eight to prepare the address; Nicholas was one of its mem-
bers. Of the eight, all were Federalists but two. The address
was reported on the 2yth, was recommitted, was reported with-
out amendment on the following day, and was unanimously
adopted.
On the 5th of November Nicholas was placed on a committee
to bring in a bill for the cession of ten miles square for the per-
manent seat of the Federal Government. Henry Lee, who
offered the resolution, was chairman, and Edward Carrington,
John Marshall, and Corbin were members. It is remarkable
that there was not an opponent of the Constitution on the com-
mittee, which was appointed by the Speaker, who was a Fede-
ralist. The bill was duly reported, and passed both houses.
This was the first connection of Nicholas with the ten miles
square, within which, in the process of time, he was to act a
conspicuous part. Nicholas opposed the bill for regulating and
fixing the salaries of the officers of civil government, which pre-
vailed by a vote of seventy to sixty- five. I hope that the ground
of his opposition was the meanness of the salaries. When the
test question concerning the payment of the taxes in specie came
up on the I3th of November, which seems to have settled the
subject in favor of hard money, he happened to be out of the
House.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 323
The first regular skirmish between the new parties occurred
on the 5th of December on a resolution reported from the Com-
mittee of the Whole, which declared that the Assembly ought to
call the attention of Congress to the propriety of acting on the
amendments to the Constitution proposed by Virginia, not
included in those already acted upon. A motion was made to
strike out the resolution entirely and insert a more stringent one
in its place, and was negatived by the casting vote of the
Speaker — the vote being sixty-two to sixty-two. Henry was
absent, and Randolph, Marshall, and Nicholas carried the day
by the aid of the Speaker.
The act for establishing religious freedom was not altogether
conclusive of all the topics connected with the late establishment;
and the Baptist Association petitioned for a sequestration of the
glebes. Their memorial was referred to the Committee of Reli-
gion, which (November 2yth) reported that the disposition of
church property was a serious question, not to be decided in
haste, and that it ought to be referred to the people. A motion
was made to amend the report by substituting in its stead an
amendment, which declared that the House would uphold the
act for establishing religious freedom forever; that the contest
for the glebes, churches, and chapels was not a religious question,
but should be decided by the rules of private property, etc.
The report and amendment were then referred to the Committee
of the Whole, which reported (December 9th) a resolution post-
poning the Baptist memorial, with its appendages, to the 3ist
day of March next. The resolution prevailed by a vote of
sixty-nine to fifty-eight — Nicholas, William Cabell, Jr., Edmund
Randolph, John Marshall, Mann Page, Clement Carrington,
Norvell, King, Booker, Henry Lee (of the Legion), and others
in favor of postponing, and Johnston, John Trigg, James Breck-
enridge, Prunty, Vanmeter, Green Clay, Crockett, McClerry,
McKee, Hugh Caperton, and others against it. The vote
plainly indicated a geographical caste, the East voting in the
affirmative and the West in the negative. When we estimate
the comparatively small value of the property in question — its
position, the doubt and uncertainty likely to result from the
contest for its possession, during which the houses would be
turned into ruins, to say nothing of the public time and money
spent therein, and the prejudices engendered during the strife — it
324 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
would have been wise to adopt the amendment, which referred
the right of property in the glebes and buildings to the courts
of law, where, at this stage of the contest, it certainly belonged;
and it is to the credit of Nicholas that he took this view of so
perplexing a question.
Many grave questions were decided during the session, a view
of some of which may be seen elsewhere;296 but I have confined
myself to those topics in the settlement of which the votes of
Nicholas are recorded. From the number of select committees
to which he was assigned it is evident that he was gradually
taking his place in the front rank of his political associates; and
it is probable that, in the troubled state of domestic and Federal
relations existing during his apprenticeship in the Assembly and
in the Convention, he imperceptibly acquired that knowledge of
the world, and that intuitive tact in composing feuds or in twist-
ing them to his purposes, which the good-natured part of his
opponents were wont, at a subsequent day and in a wider scene,
to attribute such wondrous effects.297
Before we follow Nicholas beyond the limits of the Common-
wealth we must trace him in a memorable session of the House
of Delegates, in which he held a conspicuous position. It is
difficult, at the present day, to estimate the intensity of the
excitement which raged during the administration of the elder
Adams. Brother was estranged from brother, father from son;
the courtesies of life were disregarded, and the stamp of worth
was looked for not in the moral qualities that compose a vir-
tuous and honorable character, but in the color of the flag under
which an individual fought. There was a strong majority of the
Federal party in both houses of Congress; and the administra-
tion, having the Legislature in its hands, unwisely determined
to use it as a means of curbing the spirit of the people. The
sedition law was passed, and it is a known fact in Virginia that
every man who made a speech to his neighbors was watched,
and his words were weighed by his opponents, in the hope of
finding some expression which could be tortured by the Federal
courts into an offence to be visited with fine and imprisonment
298 Review of the session, ante.
297 Nicholas held a seat in the House of Delegates from 1794 to 1798,
but our limits will not allow us to trace him at length.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 325
in a common jail. The alien law was deemed harsh and unjust,
especially on the seaboard; but in the interior, where aliens were
comparatively unknown, there were no subjects on which it
could operate, and it was discussed on grounds of general
policy. Had the counsels of such pure and able statesmen as
John Marshall prevailed, the sedition law would not have dis-
graced the statute-book of a free country.198 But madness ruled
the hour, and the majority in Congress resolved to appeal to the
fears rather than to the affections of the people. The minority
in both houses was outvoted, but not cast down; and, as all
opposition on the floor was of no avail upon legislation, it was
determined to transfer the contest from the Federal Capitol to
the Legislatures of the several States. Some leading members
of Congress vacated their seats and entered the House of Dele-
gates; and resolutions, drawn with eminent skill, and embodying
what was deemed the true view of the nature of the Federal
compact, as well as a severe analysis of some of the obnoxious
measures of the administration, embraced the chart of the cam-
paign. Those adopted by Kentucky were from the pen of
Jefferson, and those which produced the memorable debate in
the House of Delegates — of which we shall proceed to give an
account— though offered by- John Taylor (of Caroline), were
drafted by Mr. Madison.
It was on the i3th day of December, 1798, that the House of
Delegates of Virginia went into Committee of the Whole on the
resolutions of John Taylor. James Breckenridge, whose life,
protracted almost to our own day, has made his venerable figure
known to many now living, and who belonged to the Federal
party, was called to the chair."99 John Taylor then rose and
spoke for several hours in support of the resolutions, which were
believed to be his own. When he ended George Keith Taylor,
an able and excellent man, too soon snatched away from the
bar which he adorned by his genius and learning, and from
society, of which he was a shining light, moved that the com-
mittee rise; but upon an inquiry from Nicholas whether he
298 " He gave his vote to repeal the obnoxious clause of the sedition
act." (Plunder's Lives of the Chief Justices, Vol. II, 395.
299 In my early youth while travelling on horseback to the West I saw
General Breckenridge as I was passing his beautiful seat in Botetourt.
I remember his courteous salutation to an unknown lad, covered with
the dust of travel. [He died in August, 1846— EDITOR.]
326 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
designed to prevent any one from speaking who might be dis-
posed to take the floor, withdrew his motion. But, as no mem-
ber seemed inclined to speak, the committee rose and the House
adjourned. On the following day (i4th) George Keith Taylor
replied at great length and with all his accustomed ability to the
speech of his namesake from Caroline. Having spoken for
several hours he took his seat, and was followed by William
Ruffin in support of the resolutions. He was succeeded on the
same side by John Pope (of Prince William), who indulged in
some humorous remarks. John Allen (of James City) then
spoke in favor of the resolutions until the adjournment. On the
I7th James Barbour (of Orange), then a very young man, and
destined in after life to serve with distinction in the office of
Governor at an eventful crisis, of Senator of the United States,
of Secretary at War, and of Minister at the Court of St. James,
addressed the committee, replying in detail to the arguments of
the gentleman from Prince George and in review of the policy
of the administration of Adams. His speech was prepared
with care, and made a favorable impression upon the House.
At its close the House adjourned. Next morning (i8th) Archi-
bald Magill (of Frederick) spoke in opposition to the resolu
tions and in reply to Barbour, and was in turn replied to by
Foushee (of the city of Richmond), who was followed by
Edmund Brooke (of Prince William) in opposition until the
adjournment. On the following day (igth) Pope replied to his
colleague Brooke, and was followed by William Daniel, Jr. (of
Cumberland), afterwards known as a distinguished judge of the
General Court, in an exceedingly able speech, which displayed
those characteristics of his mind to which he owed his reputa-
tion. He examined in minute detail and with consummate tact
and research the arguments of Taylor (of Prince George), and
showed an ability in debate that must have led to the highest
political preferment. When he concluded his speech, after
some conversation between General Henry Lee and Nicholas,
William Cowan (of Lunenburg) addressed the committee in
opposition to the resolutions until the adjournment.800
300 William Cowan is the " Billie Cowan" who was "to show Patrick
Henry the law" in the famous beef case at New London. He was an
able lawyer, a man of pure morals, and, indeed of eminent piety, but
his manner and the tones of his voice were ludicrously solemn; so that
when he spoke he always appeared to be preaching a funeral sermon.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 327
On the 20th General Henry Lee took the floor and spoke with
much ingenuity and with sober earnestness in defence of the
alien and sedition laws and against the resolutions; and was fol-
lowed by Peter Johnston,801 who had fought gallantly in the war
of the South under the standard of Legion Harry, whom he now
rose to answer, and who was afterwards a judge of the General
Court. He was followed by John Taylor (of Caroline), in reply
to the arguments which had been urged by him when last up;
and when he concluded, after a short speech from Thomas M.
Bayley (of Accomac), against the resolutions, the committee
rose, and the House adjourned.
On the 2ist George Keith Taylor replied to his namesake of
Caroline, and to other speakers who had sustained the resolu-
tions, in a speech of several hours, which was marked by great
ability of argumentation and by splendid eloquence, and which
closed in the following words: " May He who rules the hearts of
men still dispose us to yield obedience to the constitutional acts
of the majority; may He avert the mischiefs which these resolu-
tions are calculated to produce; may He increase the love of
union among our citizens; may no precipitate acts of the Legis-
lature of Virginia convulse or destroy it; and, to sum up all in
one word, may it be perpetual."
When Taylor finished his speech there was a solemn pause
for a few moments in the proceedings of the House, when a
member rose in his place, who seemed to be in the prime of
manhood, and who, elegantly dressed in blue and buff, booted
and spurred, and with a riding-whip in his hand, had entered the
House just as Taylor rose to speak. He placed his hat upon his
knee, and would now and then use the top of it as a resting-
place for a small slip of paper, on which he would scribble a
note. He had entered Congress in 1790, but, until the present
session, had never been a member of the Assembly; and though
his fame was diffused throughout the Union, he had never spoken
He was requested to become a minister of one of the churches, hut he
wisely declined to change his profession so late in life. See the Life
of Dr. A. Alexander by his son, James Waddell Alexander, whose
recent death I deeply deplore as I trace these lines.
301 [Father of General Joseph Eggleston Johnston, late Confederate
States Army. — EDITOR.]
328 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
on a great public question in his native State. But on this, as on
all subsequent occasions to the end of a long life, when he was
called^upon to address a public body, his simple and sensible
narrative, his clear and plausible reasoning, the tact with which
he either spiked the artillery of his opponents or turned its
thunders against them, and his familiar knowledge of life and
manners in Virginia, from which he mainly drew his illustrations,
produced a great sensation in the House, and abated at once and
by the force of magic the grave argument and the impressive
declamation of Keith Taylor. Such were the victories William
Branch Giles was wont to win in the pride of his extraordinary
powers. He was, more than any man of his generation, a natu-
ral debater, attaining almost by intuition to the rank which he
soon reached; relied upon as a forlorn hope implicitly by his
friends, wresting victory where victory was not hopeless, and
more dreaded by his ablest opponents than was any other of his
distinguished contemporaries.302
At the close of Giles's speech a motion was made by General
Henry Lee to strike out a part of one of the resolutions, when
Nicholas rose and opposed the amendment. After demonstrating
in some detail the bad effect of the measures of the administra-
tion of Adams, he repelled the charge of disunion made by
Keith Taylor, and closed his remarks by declaring " that he had
been a member of the Convention that adopted the Constitution;
that he had been uniformly a friend to it; that he considered
himself as now acting in support of it; that he knew it was the
artifice of those on the other side to endeavor to attach a sus-
picion of hostility to the Federal Government to those who dif-
fered with them in opinion. For his part, he despised such
insinuations, as far as they might be levelled at him. He appealed
to his past life for his justification. The friends of the resolu-
tions yield to none in disinterested attachment to their country,
to the Constitution of the United States, to union, and to liberty.
He said he had full confidence that the amendment would be
rejected, and that the resolutions, without further alteration,
^Governor Tazewell, who was a member of the House, informed
me of the appearance of Giles in this debate. By the way, these two
eminent men never came in collision. Randolph, in the Convention of
1829, playfully alluded to Giles in debate ; but they never met in a fair
fight, though.opposed to each other in Congress in high party times.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 329
would meet the approbation of a great majority of that House."
Lee replied, and was followed by Samuel Tyler — afterwards
Chancellor — in opposition to the amendment (which was rejected)
and in a general defence of the resolutions. The main question
was then put, and the resolutions were carried by a vote of one
hundred to sixty-three. They were immediately sent to the
Senate, and passed that body on the 24th by a vote of fourteen
to three. The eighth resolution required the Governor to trans-
mit a copy of the series to the executive authority of each of the
other States, with a request that the same may be communicated
to the Legislature thereof.303
The House of Delegates at its present session contained a
large number of men then eminent, or who subsequently attained
to distinction in the public service. Besides such as John Tay-
lor (of Caroline), George Keith Taylor, Giles, Breckenridge,
Samuel Tyler, Henry Lee, and others of that stamp, there were
Littleton Waller Tazewell, James Barbour, William Henry
Cabell (afterwards Governor and president of the Court of
Appeals), William Daniel, Thomas Newton, Archibald Magill,
James Pleasants (afterwards Governor, senator, and judge),
Peter Johnston, William McCoy (long a member of Congress),
and others of great respectability. A representation of the Con-
vention of 1788 still appeared in both houses of the Assembly.
In the Senate were Archibald Stuart, Richard Kennon, French
Strother, George Carrington, and Benjamin Temple, all of whom
sustained the resolutions; and in the House were Wilson Cary
Nicholas, Worlich Westwood, John Prunty, James Johnson (of
Isle of Wight, the survivor of the Convention), William O.
Callis, Willis Riddick, Henry Lee, and Robert Andrews, all of
whom, except the two last named, voted in favor of the resolu-
tions.
While the friends of the resolutions were rejoicing at their
triumphant passage through the Assembly, their feelings were
shocked by the intelligence of the death of an illustrious states-
man, who was regarded as one of the ablest champions of their
303 The resolutions were slightly amended during the discussion. The
student who wishes to examine the subject in detail will refer t6 the
valuable little work containing the speeches and proceedings of the
sessions on Federal matters, issued in 1850 by J. W. Randolph, of
Richmond.
330 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
party in the Senate of the United States, and whose ability was
greatly relied on to uphold the doctrines of the resolutions
on the floor of that body. Judge Henry Tazewell had been
exposed during his' journey in mid-winter to Philadelphia, where
Congress then held its sessions, but was able to take his seat on
the 2ist of January, 1799. His disease, however, resisted the
efforts of his physicians, and he died on the morning of the 24th.
When the Assembly proceeded to fill the vacancy caused by his
death, Wilson Gary Nicholas was chosen to fill the unexpired
term. When we count over the names of the distinguished
men who either had been or were subsequently candidates for a
seat in the Senate — when we recollect that Madison, Giles, Tay-
lor (of Caroline), Andrew Moore, and others of equal celebrity
were within the range of selection — it plainly shows the estima-
tion in which Nicholas was held that he was chosen to execute
such an important trust at that extraordinary epoch in the state
of parties.
Nicholas took his seat in the Senate of the United States on
the 3d day of January, 1800, just after Henry Lee, his associate
in the House of Delegates, had delivered his eloquent eulogy on
the death of Washington before both houses of Congress. The
first vote which he gave was to strike out from a bill to regulate
disputed presidential elections part of the first clause, which
assigned certain duties in the premises to the Chief Justice, or,
in his absence, to the next oldest judge. The motion to strike
out failed by a vote of eleven to nineteen; and Nicholas had an
opportunity of knowing, for the first time, how men feel who
vote in a minority. The next subject he was called to vote upon
was a resolution, offered by Tracy (of Connecticut), instructing
the Committee of Privileges and Elections to inquire who was
the editor of the Aurora newspaper, how he came in possession
of a copy of the bill prescribing the mode of deciding disputed
presidential elections, published in one of the numbers of his
paper, and how he knew this and how he knew that; and to
report the answers to the Senate. Cocke (of Tennessee) made a
strong, common-sense speech against it, and was followed in a
very elaborate harangue by Charles Pinckney, who showed the
utter futility and inexpediency of making war upon the press.
When several members had spoken, it was moved to postpone
the resolution till the following Tuesday; but the motion failed
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 331
by a vote of nine to nineteen; Nicholas and his colleague, Stevens
Thomson Mason, in the minority. Nicholas then rose and asked
for information. Was it intended by this resolution to charge
the committee with inquiring into a breach of privilege, as it
respected a majority of this body ? For the resolution itself fur-
nished no correct idea on this point. He wished also to know
whether it was intended that the Senate should declare that the
publication was a breach of privilege. Tracy, the author of the
resolution, made an evasive reply. Humphrey Marshall then
proposed to amend it by instructing the committee to make
similar inquiries about a publication in a Federal paper, which
he pronounced a hundred-fold more outrageous than the article
in the Aurora; but his amendment was voted down — Nicholas
sustaining it.
On the 8th of March the original resolution passed, unamended,
by a vote of nineteen to eight — Nicholas and Mason in the
minority. The report of the committee was made on the i8th,
and concluded with a resolution that pronounced the article in the
Aurora to be false, defamatory, and scandalous, and tending to
defame the Senate and excite against them the hatred of the
people of the United States. The resolution was agreed to by
a vote of twenty to eight — Nicholas and Mason opposing it.
The report in full was adopted on the 2Oth by a vote of eighteen
to ten — Nicholas and Mason in the minority.30' Then a commit-
tee was appointed to prepare a form of proceedings for the trial
of Duane, the editor of the Aurora; but, as I have already
detailed these miserable proceedings in another place,505 it is
only necessary to say that Nicholas voted throughout on the
side of the freedom of the press. Indeed, he must have con-
trasted painfully the freedom of the press and of speech, with
which he had been familiar in Virginia, with the odious tyranny
which was sought to be visited upon an editor by so grave a
body as the Senate of the United States.
The next question which the Senate discussed was the amend-
ment of the judicial system of the Union. A bill to amend the
act to establish the judicial courts of the United States was
304 For the report and resolution, and the subsequent proceedings in
the case, see Benton's Debates, Vol. II, 422.
305 In the sketch of Stevens Thomson Mason.
332 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
brought in by Charles Pinckney on the 5th of March, was
explained and enforced by that gentleman 'with much plausibility
and at considerable length, and referred to a committee, which
reported certain amendments. Nicholas in vain strove to modify
its details, and the bill passed to its third reading. It ultimately
passed both houses, became a law, and was repealed in 1802,
when Nicholas was present and voted for the repeal. But I
must not anticipate.
The Senate resumed its session on the lyth of November,
1799, but Nicholas did not appear until the 25th. One of the
first duties to be performed by the Senate was to examine the
electoral votes for President and Vice- President. A resolution,
which was strongly characteristic of the temper of a majority of
the body, that had spent a large part of its last session in perse-
cuting a poor printer, was offered February 10, 1800, to pro-
hibit any person from being admitted into the gallery when the
two houses shall proceed to count the electoral votes for Presi-
dent and Vice- President. Why the few people who might hap-
pen to be in Washington, in which the session of Congress was
now held for the first time, and which was a sheer wilderness,
should not be allowed the gratification of overlooking from the
gallery so interesting a procedure, can only be explained on the
ground that the Federal majority, which was conscious that the
sceptre was about to pass from its hands, were fearful of a shout*
or a smile, or a sneer from the victors. The proceeding was
the more disreputable, as the two houses were to assemble in the
Senate chamber, and each had a right to be consulted in the
premises. The resolution was carried by a vote of sixteen to
ten — Nicholas and Mason voting in the minority, and in favor of
that policy which prevails with universal acceptance in our
times. The House of Representatives on the same day notified
the Senate that they would attend on Wednesday next for the
purpose of being present at the opening and counting of the
votes, and that they had appointed Rutledge and John Nicholas
tellers on their part. The Senate then appointed Wells (of
Delaware) their teller. On the nth the votes were counted,
and the result was that Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had
received seventy-three each; that John Adams had received
sixty-five; that Charles Cotesworth Pinckney had received sixty-
four; and that John Jay had received one.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 333
As the number of votes received by Jefferson and Burr was
the same, the office of the Senate was performed, and the decision
devolved on the House of Representatives. On the i8th that
House informed tht Senate that Thomas Jefferson had been
chosen by them as President of the United States for the term
commencing on the 4th of March next. In this decision Nicho-
las saw the triumph of the party to which he was attached, and
in the conduct of which he was to lend his influence till the close
of his life.
Though ruled by a stern majority, Nicholas was occasionally
placed on important committees that were raised during the
session. He was one of the committee to which was referred
the bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from carrying on
any business of trade, commerce, or navigation. He also reported
the bill providing for a naval peace establishment, with amend-
ments, which were concurred in by the Senate. The bill passed
unanimously. On the 3d the session terminated, but the Senate
was immediately convoked by the new President in its executive
capacity, and sat for two days.
When the Seventh Congress assembled in the city of Wash-
ington, on the yth day of December, 1801, Nicholas appeared in
his seat on the first day of the session. Heretofore neither him-
self nor his colleague had been very punctual in their attendance,
as it was known that no vote of a Republican member was likely
to affect the fate of any question before the Senate; but the case
was now altered, and every Democratic vote was needed to sus-
tain the Government. The first reform of the new administration
was a personal one, affecting the President as an individual. Up
to this period it had been customary for that officer to deliver
his opening speech before the two houses in joint session. The
speech was responded to by an address from the houses. This
address called forth a letter of acknowledgment from the Presi-
dent. But the good sense of Jefferson impelled him to put an
end to a custom which, however appropriate in a strictly parlia-
mentary government like that of England, was inconvenient and
often embarrassing here, and he accordingly accompanied his
message806 to the heads of the two houses with an explanatory
^Though the first message to Congress was delivered orally, all
other communications from the President during the session were in
writing.
334 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
note. Henceforth all the communications between the Execu-
tive and the legislative departments were to be in writing.
The first regular skirmish between the rival parties occurred
on a resolution to admit stenographers within the area of the
Senate, at the discretion of the President in respect of the place
in which they should sit. The resolution passed at first without
a division, but a motion was made to reconsider, which prevailed
by a vote of seventeen to nine; all the Federal members, in the
hope of curtailing the privilege, and some of the Republicans, in
the hope of enlarging it, voting in the affirmative. Nicholas,
however, opposed the motion, fearing lest, in the nicely-balanced
state of parties, the liberal purpose of the resolution might be
trenched upon. Nor were his suspicions vain; for a motion was
immediately made by a Federal member to exact from each
stenographer a bond in a certain sum, with two sureties for a
certain sum, as a pledge for his good conduct. The amendment
was lost — nearly all the Federal and wavering members voting for
it. The resolution was then amended to include note-takers as
well as stenographers, by a vote of sixteen to twelve, and ulti-
mately passed without division.
It is profitable to recur to the various gradations by which we
have reached the freedom we now enjoy. Every theory of a
republican government should seem to involve a public pro-
cedure of its representatives; as otherwise their actions could not
be known until it was too late to prevent a mischievous result.
But our reasoning and experience on this subject had been
derived from England, where, even to this moment, a standing
order of the House of Commons, though fallen into disuse, pro-
hibits the publication of their debates without the formal consent
of the House itself or of its Speaker. When Lord Campbell
was about to publish the first volumes of the Lives of the Lord
Chancellors, he thought it prudent to move the repeal of a rule
of the House of Lords which prohibited any one from writing
the life of a lord or officer'of that House without the consent of
the House or of the representatives of the deceased. As he
could not easily learn who were the descendents of Augmendus,
the Chancellor of Ethelbert, or even the representatives of Wil-
liam of Wickham, without certainly subjecting himself to the
charge of a breach of privilege, he obtained the abrogation of
the rule in question. From the commencement of the sessions
of the Senate of the United States, in April, 1789, to the 2oth of
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 335
February, 1794 — a space of five years— that body imitated the
example of the old Congress, and sat alike in its executive and
legislative capacity with closed doors. Experience is a wise
teacher; and we owe .nuch that is permanent and valuable in our
institutions to the caution which its lessons have enjoined; yet
there is great difficulty in determining what is taught in a given
case. It is honorable to the Republican party that, while expe-
rience and prejudice might seem to lean against them, they
. opened, without hesitation, the doors of the Senate to the people
and admitted reporters on its floor.
The repeal of the judiciary act of the last session was now
agitated in the Senate. Mason, the colleague of Nicholas, moved
(January 6, 1802) the reading of that part of the President's
message relating to the judiciary; and when the reading was
ended, Breckenridg* rose and moved that the act passed at the
last session respecting the judiciary establishment be repealed.
The resolution was considered on the 8th of January — a day
fatal to the Federal party — when its author explained his views
in a speech of unusual ability. He was followed in opposition
by Governor Morris, who was replied to uy Jackson (of Georgia).
Tracy followed in opposition, and was succeeded by Mason,
who, by considerations drawn from the Constitution, from the
practice of the States, and from public convenience and expedi-
ency, justified the repeal. He was followed by Olcott in oppo-
sition, who was replied to by Cocke. Morris again took the
floor in an elaborate and brilliant oration, mainly in reply to
Mason. It was not until the 3d of February that the debate
ended, when the motion to repeal the judiciary act was carried
by a vote of sixteen to fifteen — Nicholas and Mason in the
affirmative. ^
When the vote was about to be taken on referring the bill to
repeal the judiciary act to a committee — a measure recommended
and enforced by its enemies — and after an able appeal by Cal-
houn (of South Carolina) in favor of reference, Nicholas, whose
skill as a party manager was held in high respect, rose to speak
807 1 have made this summary of the debate from Benton's second
volume; but Mr. Benton's account is very imperfect and cannot convey
the faintest impression of the interest excited in the several stages of
the bill. A tolerably fair account may be seen in the little volume pub-
lished by Bronson in 1802, where the ayes and noes are always given.
336 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
to the point. He said he flattered himself that the subject was
well understood by the Senate. "What is now the question?
The same that has-been so often decided. Gentlemen in oppo-
sition have said, 'Amend, but do not repeal.' He could say that
every vote of that House, in every stage of the discussion, had
said, 'Repeal, and do not amend.' He believed the old system
required but little amendment. It was the best suited to the
interests of the United States and of the States. The law of
the last session was in fact a bar to improvement. Gentlemen
say why not provide for these judges as you have provided for
a judge of the Supreme Court. He would reply that the last
operation was simple and easy of execution; but how were we
in this new mode to get rid of the circuit judges without having
these courts in one part of the Union and not in another? The
gentlemen from New Jersey has said this measure is admitted
to be bold and violent. By whom is it admitted? Not by me
or by gentlemen who think with me. As regards the Constitu-
tion, there is no man here — let his boast of federalism be what it
may — that can take stronger ground than I hold. Gentlemen
profess a great respect for the Constitution; but our principles
are not to be evidenced by mere professions. They are to be
evidenced by the series of our actions." "My conduct," said
Nicholas, "since the formation of the Constitution to this day,
is known by those who know me, as well as the conduct of
gentlemen is known by those who know them. To the people I
appeal. I am not to be alarmed by the tocsin of hostility to the
Constitution that is so loudly sounded in our ears. I hope, sir,
we shall have the question."
When Nicholas took his seat the question was taken on
referring the bill to a committee, and the vote was a tie — fifteen
to fifteen — when the Vice-President gave the casting vote on
the, affirmative with a distinct declaration that he regarded the
purposes of its opponents to be sincere; but that if he saw
that it was only meant to defeat the bill he would vote accord-
ingly.808
At the close of Ogden's speech, after Wright and Jackson had
made some explanations, Nicholas again rose to speak, with a
copy of the Constitution in his hand, but seeing that Brecken-
308 (Debates on the Judiciary Bill, by Bronson, page 256.)
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 337
ridge had the floor, took his seat.809 On the 3d of May the
Senate adjourned.
In the December session (1802) Nicholas was early in his seat,
and took an active part in the leading questions of the times.
The first of a party caste that engaged the attention of the
Senate was the memorial of the judges who were appointed
under the judiciary act of 1800, which had been repealed at the
last session. The form in which it presented itself was that of a
resolution from a committee, requesting the President of the
United States to cause an information, in the nature of a quo
warranto, to be filed by the Attorney-General against Richard
Bassett, one of the judges, for the purpose of deciding judicially
on their claims. The resolution, after a long debate, was rejected
by a vote of thirteen to fifteen — Nicholas in the majority. The
great political topic of the session was the subject of the Missis-
sippi. Spain had ceded the province of Louisiana to France,
and our right of deposit at New Orleans had been suspended.
The Executive communicated the facts to the Senate in a mes-
sage, which at the same time nominated Robert R. Livingston
as Minister Plenipotentiary and James Monroe as Minister
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to France and Spain, to
arrange the difficulty by negotiation. In a few days a bill came
up from the House of Representatives making further provision
for the expenses attending the intercourse between the United
States and foreign nations. The object of the bill was to author-
ize the purchase of the island of New Orleans only; for at this
time the purchase of all Louisiana, though doubtless entertained
by Mr. Jefferson, had not been communicated to either house.
The purpose to be accomplished by the bill was of transcendant
importance to the whole country as closing a troublesome ques-
tion, likely at any moment to lead to war, and to the Western
States in particular; but it appealed in vain to the Federal
minority. The vote on its passage was fourteen to twelve,
Nicholas and his colleague (Mason) ably sustaining it. Mason's
speech on its several stages is preserved, but that of Nicholas,
though referred to in debate, is probably lost. The subject of
the Mississippi called forth the last speech of Mason, who died a
few weeks later in Philadelphia; but he could not have spoken
809 Ibid, page 312.
22
338 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
on a grander or more glorious topic, and I could have wished
that he had lived to learn that by the present bill the vast domain
of Louisiana was in a few weeks forever secured to his country.
While this wise and politic measure was under discussion,
Ross, of Pennsylvania (a Federal member), introduced a propo-
sition of his own on the Mississippi question, which appeared to
go far beyond the administration in avenging the wrongs and
in securing the rights of the West, but which, in fact, was inge-
niously designed either to force the administration into an
immediate war with Spain or France, or to expose it to a for-
feiture of the affection and support of the Western people. No
member of the Senate was more capable of detecting and
exposing such a tortuous policy than Nicholas, who, though
unwell, spoke with his usual tact on the question. The propo-
sition of Ross was met by one from Breckenridge, which made
it acceptable to the administration, and which was adopted by a
strict party vote. Nicholas warmly sustained the amendment,
and, the question recurring on the resolution as amended, it
passed unanimously — a remarkable instance in which the oppo-
sition, by seeking to thwart the administration by outdoing it
on its own ground, was forced to play into its hands and to fur-
ther its most darling purposes.
The Eighth Congress assembled in Washington on the iyth of
October, having been convened by a proclamation of the Presi-
dent in consequence of the purchase of Louisiana. Nicholas
was present on the first day, and must have heard, with a just
pride, the Clerk of the Senate read the message of his friend and
neighbor, which announced in graceful and modest terms the
consummation of that great event. John Taylor (of Caroline)
had succeeded Mason by an executive appointment, and until
the arrival of his successor,310 and afforded Nicholas the aid of
his great abilities at that difficult conjuncture. The first move-
ment on the subject of the treaty was made by Breckenridge,
who gave notice on the 2ist that he would ask leave next day to
bring in a bill to enable the President to take possession of the
territories ceded by France to the United States by the treaty
concluded in Paris on the aoth of April last, and for other pur-
310 Abraham B. Venable, who lost his life at the burning of the Rich-
mond Theatre on the evening of December 26, 1811.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 339
poses, which was brought in accordingly, and in due time
became a law.
The proceedings of the House of Representatives during the
late presidential elec.ion, when it was doubtful for some time
whether the person who had received seventy- three votes — a
majority of all the votes — for the office of President should be
chosen in preference of one who had not received a single bona-
fide vote for the office, were well calculated to excite alarm, and
seem to render an amendment to the Constitution indispensable
to prevent the possible recurrence of such a crisis. A resolution
was accordingly brought forward by DeWitt Clinton respecting
an amendment to the Constitution respecting the election of
President, and was referred to a committee, of which Nicholas
was a member. When the report came up, on the 23d of
November, Nicholas moved to strike out all following the seventh
line of the report to the end, and insert an amendment which he
held in his hand, and which was substantially the same as that
subsequently engrafted upon the Constitution. The motion to
strike out was agreed to unanimously, and the amendment was
adopted. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of twenty-two
to ten, was ultimately ratified by the States, and will effectually
prevent the mischief it was designed to remedy. The debate on
the bill was very able— John Taylor (of Caroline) making the
closing speech, and winding up by quoting the lines recited by a
member in the House of Commons in the debate on the bill to
exclude the Duke of York (afterwards James the Second) from
the succession :
" I hear a lion in the lobby roar ;
Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door
And keep him there ? Or let him in,
To try if we can get him out again?"
One of the most interesting debates of the session occurred on
the bill authorizing the creation of a stock of eleven million two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the payment of the pur-
chase-money of Louisiana. It was warmly opposed by White,
Wells, Pickering, Dayton, Tracy, and others, and was warmly
supported by Wythe, Taylor (of Caroline), Breckenridge, and
Nicholas. The bill finally passed by a vote of twenty-six to five,
some of the Federal members having changed their minds dur-
ing the discussion. Nicholas closed the debate as follows:
340 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
"The gentlemen on the other side, Mr. President, differ among
themselves. The two gentlemen from Delaware say that if
peaceable possession of Louisiana is given, this bill ought to
pass; the other gentlemen who have spoken in opposition to it
have declared that if they believed the Constitution not violated
by the treaty they should think themselves bound to vote for the
bill. To this Senate it cannot be necessary to answer argu-
ments denying the power of the Government to make such a
treaty; it has already been affirmed, so far as we could affirm it,
by two-thirds of the body. It is, then, only now necessary to
show that we ought to pass the bill at this time. In addition to
the reasons which have been so ably and forcibly urged by my
friends, I will remark that the treaty- making power of this Gov-
ernment is so limited that engagements to pay money cannot be
carried into effect without the consent and co-operation of Con-
gress. This was solemnly decided, after a long discussion of
several weeks, by the House of Representatives, which made the
appropriations for carrying the British treaty into effect, and
such, I believe, is the understanding of nine-tenths of the
American people as to the construction of their Constitution.
This decision must also be known to foreigners; and if not, they
are bound to know the extent of the powers of the Government
with which they treat. If this bill should be rejected, I ask
gentlemen whether they believe that France would or ought to
execute the treaty on her part? It is known to the French Gov-
ernment that the President and Senate cannot create stock, nor
provide for the payment of either principal or interest of stock;
and if that Government should be informed that a bill author-
izing the issue of stock to pay for the purchase ' after possession
shall be delivered,' had been rejected by the only department of
our Government competent to the execution of that part of the
treaty, they would have strong ground to suspect that we did
not mean to execute the treaty on our part, particularly when
they are informed that the arguments most pressed in opposition
to the bill were grounded upon a belief that the Government of
the United States had not a constitutional power to execute the
treaty. Of one thing I am confident, that if they have the dis-
trust of us which some gentlemen have this day expressed of
them, the country will not be delivered to the agents of our
Government should this bill be rejected. The gentleman from
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 341
Connecticut (Tracy) must consider the grant of power to the
Legislature as a limitation of the treaty making power; for he
says that ' the power to admit new States and to make citizens
is given to Congress and not to the treaty-making power'; there-
fore, an engagement in a treaty to do either of those things is
unconstitutional. I cannot help expressing my surprise at that
gentleman's giving that opinion, and I think myself justifiable in
saying that if it is now his opinion, it was not always so. The
contrary opinion is the only justification of that gentleman's
approbation of the British treaty, and of his vote for carrying it
into effect. By that treaty a great number of persons had a
right to become American citizens immediately, not only with-
out a law, but contrary to an existing law. And by that treaty
many of the powers specially given to Congress were exercised
by the treaty-making power. It is lor gentlemen who supported
that treaty to reconcile the construction given by them to the
Constitution in its application to that instrument with their
exposition of it at this time.
"If," he continued, "the third article of the treaty is an
engagement to incorporate the territory of Louisiana into the
union of the United States and to make it a State, it cannot be
considered as an unconstitutional exercise of the treaty-making
power; for it will not be asserted by any rational man that the
territory is incorporated as a State by the treaty itself, when it
is expressly declared that 'the inhabitants shall be incorporated
in the union of the United States and admitted as soon as possi-
ble, according to the ^principles of the Federal Constitution';
evidently referring the question of incorporation, in whatever
character it was to take place, to the competent authority, and
leaving to that authority to do it at such time and in such man-
ner as they may think proper. If, as some gentlemen suppose,
Congress possess this power, they are free to exercise it in the
manner they may think most conducive to the public good. If
it can only be done by an amendment of the Constitution, it is a
matter of discretion with the States whether they will do it or
not; for it cannot be done 'according to the principles of the
Federal Constitution' if the Congress or the States are deprived
of that discretion which is given to the first, and secured to the
last, by the Constitution. In the third section of the fourth
article of the Constitution it is said ' new States may be admitted
342 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
by the Congress into this Union.' If Congress have the power,
it is derived frqm this source; for there are no other words in the
Constitution that can, by any construction that can be given to
them, be considered as conveying this power.311 If Congress
have not the power, the constitutional mode would be by an
amendment to the Constitution. If it should be conceded, then,
that the admission of this territory into the Union as a State
was in the contemplation of the contracting parties, it must be
understood with the reservation of the right of this Congress or
of the States to do it or not. The words 'admitted as soon as
possible' must refer to the voluntary admission in one of the
two modes that I have mentioned; for in no other way can a
State be admitted into this Union."
The bill erecting Louisiana into two territories produced a
long and most animated discussion, but ultimately passed by a
vote of twenty to five — Nicholas sustaining the bill. He also
voted with the majority (seventeen to twelve) on the bill to
repeal the bankrupt law. Another act of the session — unimpor-
tant in itself, but frequently referred to — was the passage of the
bill to alter and establish certain post-roads. The last section
provided that two post-roads should be laid out under the
inspection of commissioners appointed by the President — one to
lead from Tellico block-house (in the State of Tennessee), and
the other from Jackson court-house (in the State of Georgia),
by routes the most eligible and as nearly direct as the nature of
the ground will admit, to New Orleans. The bill had been
referred to a committee, of which Nicholas was chairman. The
vote on adding the last section to the bill was seventeen to ten;
the minority voting on anti-Louisiana grounds and not from any
constitutional scruple about the laying out of roads by Federal
, commissioners. It passed without a division.
On the I3th of March John Randolph (of Virginia) and Peter
Early (of Georgia) appeared at the bar of the Senate, and, in
the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people
of the United States, impeached Judge Samuel Chase of high
crimes and misdemeanors; and the Senate took the initiatory
311 If Governor Nicholas had lived to read the admirable review of
this doctrine in a report on the American Colonization Society by Gov-
ernor Tazewell, to be found in the United States Senate Documents of
1828, he would have taken broader ground on the subject.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 343
steps for a trial, which took place at the following session. Nor
should we omit to say, in closing a review of the session, that
the Senate, on the 2ist of October, resolved to go into a mourn-
ing of thirty days for Stevens Thomson Mason.
At the close of the session Nicholas, from the state of his
private affairs, resigned his seat in the Senate. He fondly
believed that, in the repeal of the judiciary and bankrupt laws,
in the final settlement of the Mississippi question, which had,
ever since the Declaration of Independence, harassed our coun-
cils— State and Federal — by the acquisition of Louisiana, and in
the growing popularity of the administration, which had now
secured a predominant majority in both branches of the legisla-
ture, a long period of comparative repose was to be enjoyed by
his political friends, and that he was fairly entitled to a release
from public life. He also knew that his seat in the Senate would
be filled by Mr. Giles, his intimate personal friend, who was fully
competent to sustain the administration on the floor of that
body. But these pleasant anticipations were not to be fulfilled
in all their extent. The extraordinary success of the administra-
tion in its measures of domestic policy had almost annihilated
opposition; but the party which had kept together in the face of
an able and relentless foe was now to disagree within itself and
to present a divided front to the enemy, which, though over-
powered, was ever ready to show itself on the least chance of
success.3'2
This is not the place to detail at length the causes which led
to a split in the Republican party during the administration of
Jefferson. The measures which the administration was com-
pelled to adopt, in consequence of the arbitrary and piratical
conduct of England and France, were the ostensible grounds of
the schism; but it was then, and is now, believed that private
griefs had no little share in making the breach. However this
may be, one of the most eloquent friends of the administration
became its bitterest enemy, and, leaguing with his old foes, not
only opposed the measures of the party to which he still pro-
fessed to belong, but sought most earnestly to involve the country
812 On resigning his seat in the Senate, Colonel Nicholas accepted the
appointment of collector of the port of Norfolk and Portsmouth, but
held it for a short time only.
344 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF ifSS.
in a war with Spain, and, from the connection then existing
between Spain ^nd France, with France also. How far this feud
might possibly extend it was difficult to foretell; and it became
important — not only in respect of the administration as of the
establishment of the party throughout the JJnion — that the
policy of the eloquent and able, though meagre, minority should
be counteracted by efficient management in the House of Repre-
sentatives.
At this crisis it was the general wish of his party that Nicholas,
whose popularity made all offices equally open to him, should
again appear in Congress. He received intimations of the public
will from various quarters, and he was pressed by Mr. Jefferson
in the strongest terms to become a member of the House of
Representatives, in which " his talents and standing, taken
together, would have weight enough to give him the lead."3"
And that standing was indeed high. It was well known that he
had repeatedly declined the most honorable and profitable
foreign missions, and lately the mission to France, and that he
could obtain not only any office in the gift of the Executive for
himself, but could exert a great influence in getting offices for
other people. He was accordingly returned from the Albemarle
district in 1808, and his presence was soon felt to some extent in
debate, but mainly by an efficient management which tended to
thwart all the cherished plans of the Republican seceders, and
to fix the Republicans in power for years to come. The seceders,
who were commonly called tertium quids, felt that their day was
over, that their real influence was henceforth gone, and that their
only alternative was, whether they regarded the present or the
future, to unite themselves permanently with their Federal allies,
or, caps in hand, to beg readmission into the fold from which
they had been tempted to stray. But, mean time, their tender
mercies, when it was safe to bestow them, fell on Nicholas. He
was a cousin of Sir Robert Walpole and a blood -relative of
Talleyrand. He was more of an Italian than an Anglo-Saxon,
and, if not really descended from Machiavelli — who had not yet
been placed rectus in historia — he was one of his most danger-
ous pupils. Posterity can form an opinion of the character of a
public man from the caricatures and gibes of his enemies almost
313 ( Jefferson's Works, Randolph's edition, Vol. IV, 66.)
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 345
as well as from the eulogies of friends, and it is the duty of his-
tory to preserve the hostile portrait for its reflection and exami-
nation. A sketch of Nicholas, which originally appeared in the
Washington Republican, and is drawn by a bitter but witty
enemy, may amuse the reader:
" The opinion is certainly entertained, and has been often con-
fidently advanced by some who knew him well, and who are also
acquainted with the character of Talleyrand, that our ' Virginia
woodsman' surpassed the French diplomatist in the talent which
rendered him most useful to his friends and most formidable to
his foes. Though he never gave any great proofs of scholarship
within my knowledge. I am satisfied that he enjoyed the advan-
tages of a good classical education, at the least, and that nature
gave him a mind of most gigantic power is doubted by none.
Mr. Nicholas's ambition knew no bounds; for its gratification
he sought popularity 'in his own way' with a perseverance and
a clearness of judgment almost unexampled. He was always
proverbially plain in his dress and in his manners — two of Wis-
dom's important steps to reach the hearts of the people. He
was, in general, grave and reserved, and sometimes would
appear to be even morose and grum — infallible means of estab-
lishing with the public a full credit for all the talents he pos-
sessed; and the certain means of enhancing, even to fascination,
the value of an agreeable smile, or marked familiarity, in which
he occasionally indulged with the happiest success. Our coun-
try never, perhaps, gave birth to a man better acquainted with
all the avenues to the human heart; and few have profited
more than Mr. Nicholas for a long while did by the com-
mand of that rare and invaluable species of knowledge. The
wise and the simple, the learned and the unlearned, were
alike at his pleasure — mere automata in his hands. Among
other endowments he seemed also sometimes to possess the
power of ubiquity; for often has he been politically seen and
felt at the same moment in places very different and very distant
from one another; and, what almost surpasses belief, he found
in our modern hard times, when standing on the verge of bank-
ruptcy, no difficulty in laying the wisest and most cautious of
our citizens under contribution. * * * I will conclude this
letter with the recital of an anecdote relating to the adroitness
with which, while in the House of Representatives, he some-
346 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
times managed certain members of that body. It is said that
on some occasion of great importance when a measure was
depending before Congress, the adoption of which Mr. Nicholas
had much at heart, having just recovered, he said, from a fit of
the gout, well muffled in an old-fashioned dress, he sallied forth
in quest of recruits; and no statesman, to be sure, possessed a
happier talent for enlisting speakers and voters by the exercise
of what is called out-of-door influence than he did. The first
boarding-house to which he repaired was filled with members of
Congress from and . Upon entering the apart-
ment occupied as a drawing-room by the honorable gentlemen,
very much in the style of a plain, unceremonious farmer, the
members, rising, generally welcome their visitor with great polite-
ness. As soon as he was seated he complained, in a manner
quite familiar and good-natured, that his worthy friends had
neglected him whilst afflicted with the gout, declaring at the
same time he would not have treated them so unkindly. They,
of course, all apologized, and the sufficiency of their excuses
was readily admitted. Next, with the seeming artlessness and
cordiality of a good, well-meaning country gentleman, he inquired
after their families, and then discoursed of plantation matters
and on such other subjects as he found to be most agreeable.
Whilst all were yet charmed by the conversation of their guest
he rose, and, taking a most friendly leave of the gentlemen
individually, obtained from each a promise soon to return his
call. At the threshold of the door, departing, he suddenly
paused, and turning hastily about, as if just then struck with a
new thought, which it was his duty as a friend to communicate,
he exclaimed: *O! Mr. , have you reflected on the great,
the important question now before Congress?' alluding to the
very measure which so deeply interested himself. To which Mr.
replied: 'No, Colonel, I confess I have not.' Where-
upon Mr. Nicholas rejoined: 'Good God, sir, is it possible that
a gentleman of your talents, one who ought to take the lead in
every great question discussed in Congress, one whom I had
always believed to be remarkably attentive to all subjects of a
public nature, but more especially to those which immediately
concerned his own district or State — is it possible, sir, that you
have overlooked this question, important, it is true, to the public
at large, but more particularly so to the State from which you
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 347
come?' Then, turning to all the members who were listening
auribus erectis, he added: 'Aye, gentlemen, in the highest
degree important to both of your States.' And by a plausible
short oration Mr. Nicholas proceeded to convince his delighted
hearers that all which he had said to them was perfectly ortho-
dox; for the Colonel, like many other politicians of weight, was
admirably good at a short speech in a small circle, whilst it is
certain that he never did distinguish himself as an orator in
either house of Congress. Mr. Nicholas, in fine, had the good
fortune to obtain from every member whom he thus addressed
an assurance that he would attend whenever the important mea-
sure should be called up, and give it, at least, the support of his
vote. As to poor Mr. , he then for the first time in his
life, under the light shed upon the subject by Mr. Nicholas, dis-
covered that his endowments were most rich and splendid and
his acquirements most valuable and unlimited — fitting him as an
orator for the highest niche in the Temple of Fame. He, of
course, promised not only to vote, but to speak on the import-
ant measure. Highly gratified with the result of his visit and
harangue to so many of the members of two influential States,
Mr. Nicholas, bowing a second time more profoundly than
before, again took an affectionate leave of his friends, reminding
them severally of their promise to return his call. In like man-
ner, and with like success generally, Mr. Nicholas visited many
other boarding-houses where members of Congress lodged, and
in several of them, as in the first he had visited, found those
whom he convinced by a few judicious remarks and compli-
ments, exactly suited to the taste and mind of each, that they
were among the most eloquent of all the members of Congress.
It was afterwards no difficult task to satisfy each of those inflated
orators that it was a sacred duty which he owed to himself
and his country no longer 'to hide his light under a bushel.'
These novi homines promised, of course, to speak as well as to
vote in favor of the important measure. Thus had Mr. Nicho-
las, after recovering from a fit of the gout, under which he
thought much more than he suffered, in very good time made
every arrangement necessary to carry his favorite measure.
" ' He that hath ears to hear let him hear ' is an injunction
which is believed to have been always as scrupulously observed
by the celebrated statesman ' of Roanoke ' as any other precept
348 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
contained in the sacred volume; and he saw and heard enough,
in relation to^what had passed at the boarding-houses, perfectly
to comprehend the whole game in all its depth which Mr.
Nicholas had been playing. Finally the important measure was
called up, and Mr. Nicholas, his orators, and other friends being
all in their places, Mr. (of ) rose and addressed
the House at some length in favor of the measure in a neat
speech, but more animated than the occasion seemed to require.
He was followed by Mr. (of ), who spoke with
considerable ability in opposition. Then, in regular succession,
one after another, rose some half a dozen more of Mr. Nicholas's
orators. Such thundering and declamation! On such a ques-
tion, too! 'Sure, the like was never heard before!' During all
this time Mr. Nicholas, who felt in reality more solicitude for
the fate of the question than all Congress besides, with muscles
unmoved, sat at his desk folding up newspapers and copies of
documents and addressing them to his constituents, seeming all
the while to be just as unconcerned as if he were entirely igno-
rant of the subject under consideration. All this was observed
by the statesman 'of Roanoke,' who, sitting in his place with
folded arms, and looking sometimes at Mr. Nicholas and some-
times at his orators, at length touched a friend near him and
said, with a point and an energy peculiar to himself : ' The
master-spirit that acts on this occasion is invisible.' Then,
pointing carelessly to Mr. Nicholas, with a significant look, he
added: "Tis Signor Falconi who, from behind the curtain, plays
off these puppets upon us ' (pointing to Mr. Nicholas's orators).
The hit was so excellent that, ever afterwards, to the day of his
death, Mr. Nicholas was known to many persons by his new
name chiefly. I presume you have not forgotten that, some
years ago, the eminence of Signor Falconi in conducting puppet
shows was unrivalled, and that he was acknowledged to be the
'emperor universal' overall rope-dancers and jugglers wherever
to be found."3"
^Letters on the Richmond Party, page 15 — a duodecimo of forty-
eight pages. They were published originally in the Washington Repub-
lican in 1823. Their design is to show that the active members of the
Democratic party, in office since 1794, were connected by blood or
affinity with one another, and that their true object was rather a love
of the loaves and fishes than any particular affection for the principles
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 3 19
But mark the result ! The orator, whose brilliant eloquence,
keen wit, and blighting sarcasm held his hearers spell-bound as
long and as often as he spoke, and not unfrequently against their
will, rarely or never won a vote ; was, after years of recruiting,
seldom in command of a larger squad than the boat's crew of a
custom-house tender — and that squad ever ready to run off at
any moment when the eye of the basilisk was turned from
them ; gained whatever victories he may be said to have gained
in contests with his own friends, whose general principles he
professed to approve, but whom he followed with immortal hate;
saw the glittering prizes of successful ambition which he would
have delighted to grasp and sport at St. Cloud, and, above all, at
St. James's, and, in his excursions through England, at the
sepulchres of his sires, casting back upon the ancestral dust the
westering radiance of the name — these trophies he saw borne
off, one by one, from his reach ; was, after years of isolation,
again united with his old friends, who, when his last sands were
running, when the "church-yard cough" was racking a frame
never stout enough for the eagle spirit which it encaged, bestowed
upon him the empty office, which he accepted, but which he was
unable to discharge, of appearing at the court of men whom he
had constantly ridiculed as "ruffians in 'off,'" and of exposing
a constitution which required the balm of the tropics to the snows
of the arctic zone. How different was the fortune of Nicholas !
He was a plain, substantial farmer, not looking to a public career
as the staple of life or as a scene of ambition; no orator, in the
higher sense of the word, though a strong, well-informed, and
ready speaker, always keeping the main point in view and sitting
down when he was done, and ever from his sense and position
uttering well-weighed words and retaining the erect ear of the
House; yet receiving, during a life running through the third of
a century, almost every honor which Virginia and the Federal
Executive could bestow; declining instantaneously the most daz-
zling of them all, that would take him abroad from his fireside
and from his fields, and holding those at home only long enough
which they professed. The letters are written with no inconsiderable
ability, and with some force and grace of style, and were the source of
much mirth at their date, and of some severe denunciations from those
who were honored with the special attentions of the writer. Thirty
years ago I heard them attributed to Mr. Macrae.
350 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
to accomplish some important result; and by his wonderful fore-
cast, by his broad common sense, by his extraordinary tact, and
by his comprehensive wisdom, composing the stripes and con-
firming the union of that great party, which, beginning its
triumphs with the opening century, has ruled, with slight inter-
vals, the destinies of the country to the present hour, which has
achieved so many remarkable and glorious results, and which
owes a debt to the memory of Nicholas that it will be ever ready
to acknowledge and ever prompt to pay; and, victorious to the
last, retiring from the chair of the Governor (which he filled at
a remarkable epoch), while he was yet pressed to remain, to the
bosom of his lovely family, there to descend in peace to the
tomb.
In resuming the thread of my narrative, I borrow the pen of a
female descendant of Colonel Nicholas, which touches nothing
that it does not adorn. Alluding to the reasons which led him
to resign his seat in the Senate, she says:
"All the great changes contemplated by his party having been
accomplished, and the dispute about the right of deposit at New
Orleans adjusted without a war with Spain by the acquisition of
the whole of Louisiana, Colonel Nicholas thought that he might,
without any dereliction of duty, resign his seat in the Senate ;
which step was imperatively demanded by the state of his private
affairs, now seriously embarrassed. To these he continued to
devote himself for a time with great assiduity — his success in
agriculture bearing witness to the skill and energy with which its
operations were conducted. In 1806 he refused a special mission
to France to ratify, under the auspices of Napoleon, the treaty
with Spain. But in 1809 the necessity of having some one
' whose talents and standing, taken together, would have weight
enough to give him the lead,' brought on him such urgent
appeals to his patriotism that he was forced to yield. He
became a candidate for Congress, and was elected without
opposition.
"The period was momentous and highly critical. The aggres-
sions of England in the attack on the Chesapeake, and the exten-
sion of the orders of the King in council, and afterwards the
application by France of the Berlin and Milan decrees to our
commerce, imposed upon us the necessity of resistance. But,
pursuant to the pacific policy which had governed our councils
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 351
during a period of unparalleld aggression on the part of Great
Britain — a period extending back as far as 1793 — our Government
proposed an embargo. The country was at that time in a
wholly defenceless state; we had but the skeleton of an army,
few or no ships in commission, no military stores, with an
immense value of property afloat, and our whole seaboard, from
north to south, open to attack. Under these circumstances Mr.
Nicholas united cordially in support of the embargo, willing to
try its efficiency for a while as a coercive measure, but relying
on it more as giving us time to prepare for other measures. In
1807 he assured his constituents that, in case of the failure of the
embargo to produce some speedy change in the policy of France
and Great Britain, the only alternative offered was of base and
abject submission or determined resistance. In his circular to
them, as well as from his seat in Congress, he urged the neces-
sity of raising men and money, and providing immediately
everything necessary for war. In the fall of 1808 he wrote to
Mr. Jefferson urging him in the strongest terms, unless there was
a moral certainty of a favorable change in our affairs before the
meeting of Congress, to announce to them in his message that
our great object in laying the embargo had been effected.
Having gained that, he said, nothing more was to be effected
from it, and it ought to be raised, and other measures, such as
the honor of the State required, resorted to; that our people
would not much longer bear the embargo, and that we could not
and ought not to think of abandoning the resistance we were so
solemnly pledged to make.
"In 1809 Mr. Nicholas was again elected to Congress, and
served in the spring session, when the agreement with Mr. Ers-
kine produced a delusive calm. In the fall of that year, on his
way to Washington, he had so violent an attack of rheumatism
that he was compelled to resign his seat, and was confined to his
room for four months. He was now so convinced of the
impracticability of enforcing any commercial restrictions, of their
demoralizing effect upon the people, and their exhausting effect
on the finances of the country, that he frequently avowed his
determination never again to vote for any measure of the kind,
except as preparatory to war, and then to last only a short time.
"In the month of December, 1814— the gloomiest period of
the last war with England, when Virginia and the other States
352 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
were left much to their own resources — Mr. Nicholas was elected
Governor of the State. Nothing but patriotism could have
induced any man, at such a time and under such circumstances,
to have undertaken this office; much was risked, with little pros-
pect of anything being gained. The possibility of being able
to render service to his country vanquished every obstacle sug-
gested by discretion, and the post was accepted. Fortunately
for the country, peace was announced in about three months;
and the opportunity was not afforded to judge conclusively what
was the capacity of the new Governor for such a state of things.
There is reason to believe, however, that his administration would
have been distinguished by energy, prudence, and indefatigable
industry. The defence of the State depending mainly upon
militia who could not be kept constantly in the field, an appro-
priation was made to enable him to erect telegraphs and to raise
a corps of videttes, to be so stationed, at his discretion, as to dis-
tribute his orders with the utmost possible dispatch throughout
the State. A plan for this purpose was digested, but was ren-
dered unnecessary by the peace.
"As an evidence of the great confidence that was put in
Governor Nicholas by the Legislature, it may be stated that at
the close of the session, and in great haste, they passed a law, of
very complicated character, in reference to raising a force for
the defence of the State. The execution of this law depended,
in almost every particular, on instructions to be given by the
Governor. The responsibility thus devolved on him was assumed
in consideration of the object to be gained, though the execution
of the law was rendered unnecessary by the termination of
hostilities. Loans were necessary to pay and equip this force,
and these were obtained on the most reasonable terms, condi-
tioned upon a clause not authorized in the act ; but, being recom-
mended to the legislature by the Governor, this was done at the
next session, and the desired clause inserted without difficulty,
and much to the honor of the State.
"After the peace every claim against the State was paid as
soon as the account was adjusted; the militia in service were
discharged in a manner most gratifying to them. They were
completely paid; provision was made for their return home, and
for the care of the sick until they could be safely removed.
All the military stores of a perishable nature were disposed of,
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 353
and the others, including tents and other camp equipage, suffi-
cient for an army of ten thousand men, were deposited in the
State arsenal. The closing the accounts for the expenses of the
war was pushed on with as much dispatch as was consistent with
safety in their after-adjustment at Washington.
" If the war had continued it was the determination of the
Governor to urge all the able men of the State, with whom he
could take the liberty, to offer for the next Assembly. The
return of peace did not prevent this application, but the motive
was different. Foreseeing that the State would have command
of considerable funds, he believed it was important to make an
early effort to induce the Assembly to apply their proceeds to
the great purposes of internal improvement and education.
This application, it is believed, had some effect, as in the two
next Assemblies there appeared many gentlemen who had not
been there for several years. At the commencement of the
session the Governor pressed these subjects upon their attention
with earnestness. They were acted upon, and the means then
placed at the disposal of the Board of Public Works and of the
President and Directors of the Literary Fund were appropriated
to their respective objects, and the foundation laid of a system
which has added to the intelligence as well as the wealth and
prosperity of the State. In a review of the messages of Gov-
ernor Nicholas it will be found that most of the objects recom-
mended by him were acted upon by the Legislature, and that
they are all strongly marked by an intimate knowledge of the
wants and capacity of Virginia. So satisfactory had been the
administration of the government that he was re-elected with
the loss of but one vote.
"The first act of his second term was an attempt to adjust the
claims of the Commonwealth against the United States, all pre-
vious efforts at which having proved abortive. After reflecting
maturely upon the subject, the Governor believed that a different
course ought to be pursued and an additional agent appointed.
Upon asking the advice of the Council, some unwillingness was
expressed to make the change. It was, however, assented to,
and resulted in a speedy adjustment. As President of the
Board of Public Works and of the Literary Fund, we find Gov-
ernor Nicholas displaying the same industry and wise foresight
as in the other departments of the government. In all his con-
354 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
tracts for the State, of any sort, the utmost economy was prac-
ticed and the greatest caution used to preserve the public
interest. A remarkable proof of this was given in the execution
of a law providing for a complete map of the State within limits
which such an object would justify. He anxiously wished it
accomplished; but he could not authorize, in duty to the State,
such an expenditure of public money as the entire execution of
the act would require. After much reflection he gave such
instructions to the county courts, to govern them in their con-
tracts, as would keep them within bounds. Having informed
himself fully as to the value of such surveys, he then divided the
State into districts and made contracts for the general survey.
It is believed that more than one hundred thousand dollars were
saved to the State by this single transaction.
"At the expiration of his second term of office as Governor
he served for a few months as president of the branch of the
United States Bank in Richmond. In the spring of 1819 he
returned to 'Warren.' He had always been of a very deli-
cate constitution, and the bodily fatigue and anxiety of mind
which had marked his later years brought on ill health, and he
was advised to take a journey on horseback. He left home, but
got no further than ' Montpelier,' the residence of Mr. Madison,
when he found himself too unwell to go on, and returned to
'Tufton,' the residence of his son-in-law, Thomas Jefferson
Randolph, Esq. Here he lingered from day to day, each day
hoping to be well enough to return to 'Warren.' Mr. Jefferson
and Mr. Madison (who was then on a visit to 'Monticello'), both
of whom had been his intimate personal friends, visited him fre-
quently here, and all was done which skill or affection could sug-
gest for his recovery, but to no purpose. On the loth of
October, 1819, he expired suddenly while in the act of dressing.
He was buried in the graveyard at ' Monticello.'
" As regards his wisdom and patriotism, his public life speaks
too plainly to require a word from his biographer. Viewed as a
private individual, none could have been purer from every vice;
and his kind heart and calm temper made him the best father
and the kindest master and neighbor. He owed his influence in
the councils of his country more to his moderation and wisdom
than to his power as a speaker. His style in conversation was
cool, deliberate, sententious, and forcible, replete with the strong-
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 355
est views and the wisest opinions. His manners, perfectly
moulded in the finest school — viz., the old Colonial Court of
Virginia— that we have ever had in the United States, combined
a polished dignity and courtesy with a fascination that won its
way in the regards of men. His play of feature and its effects
were most wonderful; his smile had a charm which threw sus-
picion off its guard and drew persons irresistibly to him. The
rebuke of his cold, stern eye and the withering curl of his lip
seemed to congeal the very blood of insolence or arrogance.
The posts occupied by Mr. Monroe previous to his election as
President, and which proved the stepping-stones to that high
station, were all declined by Mr. Nicholas before they were
offered to Mr. Monroe. Mr. Jefferson saw in the pecuniary
embarrassments in which his endeavors to prop the failing for-
tunes of a valued friend had involved him the only obstacles to
his election to the highest post in the gift of the country."
It would be unfair to close this account of Nicholas without
acknowledging the influence wrought on his character by the
virtues and graces of that sex which, gentle and shrinking in
prosperity, faces the sternest trials and braves the risks of pesti-
lence and war with a firmness rarely exceeded by its manlier
counterpart. Of his pious, intelligent, and patriotic mother,
who, bereaved of her husband in the darkest period of the
Revolution, saw his yet unturfed grave trampled by the myrmi-
dons of Tarleton, and who devoted her time to the education
and sustenance of her family, I have already spoken. But
Nicholas was blessed not only with a mother worthy of the
times in which she lived, and of the gallant sons whom she gave
to her country; he was equally fortunate in that lovely woman
whom, meeting with her on a military tour, he fell in love with,
and whom, when the war was over, he conducted as his bride to
his paternal seat at " Warren." Her name was Margaret Smith,
daughter of John Smith (of Baltimore), and a sister of General
Samuel Smith, whose name for more than the third of a century
was connected with Federal affairs, and of Robert Smith, for-
merly Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of State during the
administration of Mr. Madison. She was born and lived in Bal-
timore; but, in order to avoid the dangers to which a seaport in
time of war was likely to be exposed, she was sent in childhood,
when she was old enough to remember the leading incidents of
356 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the Revolution, to the town of Carlisle, in the State of Pennsyl-
vania. She was capable of appreciating the dangers to which
her father was daily exposed as the active chairman of the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means of the State of Maryland; and she
saw her three brothers arm in defence of their country. One of
them, overcome by the fatigue of war, returned only to die.
Samuel at length returned safe, bearing with him the laurels he
had earned at Fort Mifflin. " The gentle and amiable Andre, then
a prisoner on parole, was domesticated in her father's family; and,
though her childish affections were won by his kindness and her
mind dazzled by his varied accomplishments, such was her vene-
ration for the great name of Washington, that she could never be
induced to condemn the act of stern and unrelenting retribution
which consigned so many virtues to an ignominious grave."315
The love of country was no mere sentiment in her bosom. It
was a principle, inculcated in early childhood, and fixed by the
study and reflection of riper years. When, at the age of eighty,
she was erroneously informed that her son (Colonel Nicholas, of
Louisiana) had changed his politics, she rose from her chair, and,
raising her hand, her eye brilliant as in youth and her voice
tremulous with emotion, she exclaimed: "Tell my son, as he
values the blessing of his old mother, never to forsake the faith
of his fathers."316 She lived to behold and enjoy the honors
attained by the husband of her youth, and by her descendants;
blending to the last all the gentleness of woman with a masculine
judgment and intellect which had enabled her to understand and
advise with her husband in all the difficulties that arose in the
complicated political career of his eventful life.
Such was Wilson Gary Nicholas. Embarking early in public
life, he exerted a various influence in the passage of many of the
most important measures, from the treaty of peace with Great
Britain, in 1783, to the treaty of peace with the same Power in
1815; and his life extended from the governorship of Francis
315 If my correspondent does not confound Asgill with Andr£, the
abode of Andrg in Carlisle must have been after his capture by Mont-
gomery in 1775, at St. John's, and before he was exchanged.
316 This anecdote is in fine keeping with a similar one told of the
mother of Lord-Chancellor Erskine in respect of George the Fourth,
by Lord Cockburn in the Memorials of His Jiine.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 357
Fauquier to the presidency of James Monroe — one of the grand-
est stretches of American history. If he had devoted more of
his time to letters and had learned to put his thoughts on paper,
what a charming narrative could have been unrolled before the
coming ages! Born in Williamsburg, he might, in early youth,
have seen his father, and Peyton Randolph, and Wythe bearing
the pall of Fauquier, and might have told us where the bones of
that skilful dealer in cards, and elegant scholar, were laid away.
He had seen the members of the House of Burgesses quit their
hall and march in procession to the "Raleigh"; and he might
have peeped in and seen them sign the memorable non-importa-
tion agreement. He might have seen the statue of Lord Bote-
tourt, which had'been voted to his memory by a grateful people,
as it was dragged in huge boxes from the James and placed upon
its pedestal; and he might have seen that nobleman as he dis-
tributed, in the chapel of William and Mary, his golden medal-
lions to the students of each term who excelled in the languages
and in science, and he could have told us whether the deceased
Baron was really committed to the vault of Sir John. Nicholas
was a nephew of Archibald Gary, and was not far from five-and-
twenty when the old patriot departed. Indeed, when Nicholas
was a member of the House, Gary was Speaker of the Senate.
How much he must have heard from "Old Iron"! He must
have heard from his lips all about the dictator scheme of 1776,
and whether that famous threat was ever made. Nicholas must
have heard, again and again, from his brother George, all about
the inquiry that that brother moved into the conduct of Governor
Jefferson, and the second scheme of a dictatorship which was
said to have been meditated at the same session. What an
interesting account of the state of parties, from 1783 to 1789, he
could have written out, and, when the new Federal Government
went into operation, how many things he could have told that
now we may never know. Was it here that a party existed
which sought to put aside Jefferson as the leader of the Republi-
can party, and as the successor of Washington, and take up
Edmund Randolph in his stead? Why did Nicholas allo-v
himself, in 1794, to be brought out for the Senate against that
tried champion of the Republicans, Stevens Thomson Mason ?
Or was this the first overt act of the new party ? Did Patrick
Henry really send a challenge to Edmund Randolph by the
358 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
hands of Colonel Cabell ? 3n What were the precise grounds of the
charges urged by Randolph against Henry, and afterwards by
George Nicholas, still more doggedly, on the floor of the Con-
vention ? Who was the author of those eloquent, but bitter and
contumelious, letters addressed to Patrick Henry, the first num-
ber of which appeared in the Virginia Independent Chronicle of
the yth of January, 1789? Who wrote those other libels on
Henry under the signature of a "State Soldier" ? And who
was the writer that dared the authors of those papers to the
proof of their charges ? And then, at a later day, how many
questions we would like to ask him: Was Jefferson really
understood by his own party to include Washington in his
Mazzei letter? Did the Republican party of- 1800 intend to
resist the election of Burr or Adams by force of arms ? At
what precise moment did the scheme of purchasing the entire
broad domain of Louisiana enter the mind of Jefferson ? What
was the true cause of the hostility of John Randolph to the
administration of Mr. Jefferson ? What negotiations preceded
the visit of Mr. John Quincy Adams to Mr. Jefferson on the
embargo business, and was not there some other negotiator than
Mr. Giles ? What was the cause of the temporary hostility of
Mr. Giles to the administration of Madison ? Did Clay and
Calhoun really bully Madison into a war and afterwards into a
bank ? These, and a thousand other questions, no man could
have answered more authoritatively than he.
As to his public acts, they embraced the most interesting and
the most stirring events of the age. He voted to abolish all
hindrances to the execution of the British treaty of 1783. He
voted to keep the seat of government in Richmond, but refused to
sustain the policy of Madison in building up commercial marts in
the Commonwealth. He saw John Warden before the House of
Delegates for a contempt, and, after laughing at the shrewdness
of the wily Scot, voted to discharge him. He voted the statue
to Washington which Houdon fashioned with such exquisite
517 1 attach not the slightest blame to the friends of Edmund Ran-
dolph for seeking to elevate him to the presidency. His position in
the Virginia Federal Convention, as well as in the General Federal
Convention, was eminently splendid ; and abroad he was regarded as
the most efficient person in securing the ratification of the Constitution
by Virginia.
WILSON GARY NICHOLAS. 359
skill. He voted on all the exciting religious questions that agi-
tated our early councils, always leaning to the side of liberty,
and recorded his name in favor of the glorious act establishing
religious freedom. He voted for the resolution convoking the
meeting at Annapolis, and for the ratification of the Federal
Constitution, to which that resolution may be said to have given
birth. He was one of the committee to bring in a bill to cede
ten miles square to the Federal Government as a permanent seat
of the capital. He sustained the resolutions of lygS-'gg, and
voted to repeal the judiciary act of 1800. He took an active
part in securing the ratification of the treaty which ceded Louisi-
ana to the Union. On these and many other occasions he
rendered most valuable and efficient service; yet all that he
could have told about them is lost!
A friend of Nicholas, in a letter addressed to me in answer to
one which I had written to him making inquiries of Mr. Nicho-
las, says:
" I have no anecdotes of Mr. Nicholas. He was too wise to
be eccentric, and too calm and prudent in his conduct to excite
remark. He was on one occasion elected from his county by a
unanimous vote; and in high political excitements his vote
always greatly exceeded his party strength. He was loved and
admired by many of his political opponents. His manners,
whenever he chose, were playful and bewitching in the extreme."
Another letter from a most competent judge presents the fol-
lowing characteristic traits:
" Mr. Nicholas's private character was most amiable and exem-
plary, and was such as to attach to him with unbounded devo-
tion his family and friends. His manners were of that polished
character of the old Williamsburg Colonial school — a mixture of
grace, benignity, and dignity — which won all hearts. His powers
of countenance were beyond those of any man I have ever
known. His smile won the confidence and love of all on whom
it beamed; his sternness repelled all approach or familiarly with-
out the utterance of a word. As a listener he was unsurpassed.
His conversation was calm, deliberate, imperturbable, forcible,
sententious, and pregnant with thought and wisdom. He never
spoke without reflection. If asked a question he was not pre-
pared to answer, he would reflect until his queriest might sup-
pose that he had forgotten his question, and then his reply
360 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
would come in the exposition of the wisest and most profound
views. As a debater in public bodies he spoke rarely, but con-
cisely, deliberately, and with great force.318 As a manager of
men he had few equals. When in the House of Representa-
tives or in the Senate of the United States during the presi-
dency of Mr. Jefferson, I have often heard Mr. Jefferson say
that he (Mr. Jefferson) had no trouble; that Mr. Nicholas wielded
such controlling influence in the party as to keep it in perfect
agreement with the administration; and that he esteemed him
capable of filling the highest stations. In early life he became
embarrassed in some speculations in Western lands, into which he
had been drawn by General Henry Lee. This, added to losses
sustained in efforts to aid his brother, George Nicholas (of Ken-
tucky), and his brother-in-law, Edmund Randolph, marred his
ability to accept office; and, finally, the financial catastrophe of
1819 completed his ruin. He died at the house of his son-in-
law, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Esq., and was buried at
' Monticello ' ; and was attended to the grave by his friend, Mr.
Jefferson, who made the remark on that occasion that had it
not been for his pecuniary embarrassments he would have been
the President in Monroe's place; that the mission to France, and
other offices which led to the presidency, had been first pressed
upon him for acceptance. Of this fact the letters of Mr. Jeffer-
son, among the papers of Mr. Nicholas, furnish abundant proof.
Mr. Jefferson regarded him as one of the ablest and purest
public and private characters he had ever known. Judge
William Cabell, President of the Court of Appeals, in speaking
of Mr. Nicholas to a friend after his decease, said that he would
except no man he ever knew, not even Mr. Jefferson, Judge
Marshall, or Mr. Madison; but that Mr. Nicholas was the man
of the most sense he had ever known. Had fortune combined
with nature to place him in the position to which his virtues and
abilities entitled him, he would have ranked among the wisest
and most distinguished of Virginia's sons. Of those who were
unfriendly towards him he never spoke or alluded to; they were
as forgotten or dead."
818 Colonel Nicholas spoke oftener than my correspondent is aware
of, but always in the manner described by him.
APPENDIX.
DELEGATES RETURNED
TO SERVE IN
Convention of March, 1788.
The editor has added the following brief and unpretentious
biographical notes, in the hope that they may serve those inter-
ested somewhat as data in the preparation of more adequate
presentations of the careers of the worthies thus comprehended:
Accomac — EDMUND CusTis,319 GEORGE PARKER.SM
Albemarle — GEORGE NICHOLAS, WILSON GARY NICHOLAS.
Amelia — JOHN PRIDE, EDMUND BOOKER.*"
Amherst — WILLIAM CABELL, SAMUEL JORDAN CABELL.
Augusta — ZACHARIAH JOHNSTON, ARCHIBALD STUART.
Bedford— JOHN TRIGG,SW CHARLES CLAY.
Berkeley— WILLIAM DARKE,323 ADAM STEPHEN/"
Botetourt — WILLIAM FLEMING, MARTIN MCFERRAN.
Bourbon — HENRY LEE,325 NOTLAY CONN.
Brunswick — JOHN JoNES,828 BINNS JONES.
Buckingham — CHARLES PATTESON,*" DAVID BELL.W
Campbell— ROBERT ALEXANDER, EDMUND WINSTON."*
Caroline— Hon. EDMUND PENDLETON, JAMES TAYLOR.830
Charlotte— THOMAS READ,331 Hon. PAUL CARRINGTON."'
Charles City — BENJAMIN HARRISON, JOHN TYLER.
364 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Chesterfield— DPCVID PATTF.soN,833 STEPHEN PANKEY, JR.
Cumberland— JOSEPH MiCHAUX,834 THOMAS H. DREW.385
Culpeper — FRENCH STROTHER,386 JOEL EARLY.837
Dinwiddie — JOSEPH JoNES,8'8 WILLIAM WATKiNS.339
Elizabeth City — MILES KiNG,8'0 WORLICH WESTWOOD.S"
Essex— JAMES UPSHAW,342 MERIWETHER SMITH. S4S
Fairfax — DAVID STUART,S" CHARLES SIMMS. 845
Fayette — HUMPHREY MARSHALL,846 JOHN FOWLER.
Fauquier — MARTIN PiCKETT,347 HUMPHREY BROOKE. 848
Fluvanna — SAMUEL RICHARDSON, JOSEPH HADEN.
Frederick — JOHN S. WOODCOCK, ALEXANDER WHITE.
Franklin — JOHN EARLY, THOMAS ARTHUR.
Gloucester — WARNER LEWIS,"*9 THOMAS SMITH.850
Goochland—]on^ GuERRANT,351 WILLIAM SAMPSON.
Greenbrier— GEORGE CLENDENIN, JOHN STUART.
' Greene sville — WILLIAM MASON, DANIEL FISHER.
Halifax— ISAAC CoLES,852 GEORGE CARRiNGTON.353
Hampshire — ANDREW WOODROW, RALPH HUMPHREYS.
Hanover — PARKE GoooALL,354 JOHN CARTER LiTTLEPAGE.365
Harrison — GEORGE JACKSON, JOHN PRUNTY.
Hardy — ISAAC VANMETER, ABEL SEYMOUR.
Henrico — Governor EDMUND RANDOLPH, JOHN MARSHALL.
Henry— THOMAS COOPER, JOHN MARR.
Isle of Wight— THOMAS PiERCE,856 JAMES JOHNSON.
James City— NATHANIEL BuRWELL,357 ROBERT ANDREWS.858
Jefferson — ROBERT BRECKENRiDGE,859 RICE BULLOCK.
King and Queen— WILLIAM FLEET,360 JOHN RoANE.361
King George — BURDET ASHTON, WILLIAM THORNTON.
King William — HOLT RicHESON,362 BENJAMIN TEMPLE. Ms
Lancaster — JAMES GORDON,864 HENRY TOWLES.
LIST OF DELEGATES. 365
Loudoun — STEVENS THOMSON MASON, LEVIN POWELL. "^
Louisa — WILLIAM OVERTON CALLis,386 WILLIAM WHITE.
Lunenburg— JONATHAN PATTESON, CHRISTOPHER ROBERTSON.
Lincoln — JOHN LoGAN,367 HENRY PAWLING.888
Madison— r] OHN MILLER, GREEN CLAY.369
Mecklenburg — SAMUEL HOPKINS, JR., RICHARD KENNON."°
Mercer — THOMAS ALLEN, ALEXANDER ROBERTSON.
Middlesex — RALPH WORMELEY, JR., FRANCIS CORBIN.
Monongalia — JOHN EVANS, WILLIAM MCCLERRY.
Montgomery— WALTER CROCKETT, ABRAHAM TRIGG.
Nansemond — WILLIS RIDDICK,*" SOLOMON SHEPHERD.
New Kent — WILLIAM CLAYTON,3'2 BURWELL BASSETT.'"
Nelson — MATTHEW WALTON, JOHN STEELE.
Nor/ot&—] AMES WEBB, JAMES TAYLOR.
Northampton— JOHN STRINGER, LITTLETON EYRE.
Northumberland — WALTER JONES,"* THOMAS GASKIXS.
1 Ohio— ARCHIBALD WOODS, EBENEZER ZANE.
Orange— JAMES MADISON, JR., JAMES GORDON.
Pittsylvania — ROBERT WILLIAMS, JOHN WILSON.
Powhatan — WILLIAM RONALD, S75 THOMAS TURPIN, JR.
Prince Edward— PATRICK HENRY, ROBERT LAWSON.376
Prince George — THEODORIC BLAND,"' EDMUND RUFFIN."B
Prince William— WILLIAM GRAYSON, CUTHBERT BULLITT.ST"
Princess Anne—AxTHON? WALKE,380 THOMAS WALKE.
Randolph— BENJAMIN WILSON, JOHN WILSON.
Richmond— WALKER TOMLIN, WILLIAM PEACHY.
Rockbridge— WILLIAM McKEE, ANDREW MOORE.
Rockingham — THOMAS LEWIS, GABRIEL JONES.
Russell— THOMAS CARTER, HENRY DICKENSON.
Shenandoah—]ACO* RINKER, JOHN WILLIAMS.
366 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Southampton— BENJAMIN BLOUNT, SAMUEL KILLO.
Spotsylvania — JAMES MONROE, JOHN DAWSON.MI
Stafford— GEORGE MASON, ANDREW BUCHANAN.
Surry— JOHN HARTWELL CocKE,382 JOHN ALLEN.388
Sussex— JOHN HOWELL BRiGGs,38* THOMAS EDMUNDS. 385
Warwick — COLE DiGGEs,388 RICHARD GARY.387
Washington — SAMUEL EDMISTON, JAMES MONTGOMERY.
Westmoreland — HENRY LEE, BUSHROD WASHINGTON.388
York — Hon. JOHN BLAIR,389 Hon. GEORGE WYTHE.
Williamsburg — JAMES INNES.
Norfolk Borough— THOMAS MATTHEWS.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES,
119 EDMUND CUSTIS was a descendant from John Custis, who, by
tradition, was a native of Ireland ; had been for some years an inn-
keeper in Rotterdam, Holland, and settled in Northampton county in
the earlier half of the seventeenth century, his name appearing in the
records of that county as early as 1649. The first husband of Mrs.
George Washington, John Parke Custis, was of the same descent.
Edmund Custis was a member of the House of Delegates in 1787,
and perhaps other years.
320 Of the family of GEORGE PARKER were Robert, George, and John
Parker, who received patents of land in Northampton county, respec-
tively, in 1649, 1650, and 1660. Captain George Parker was a Justice of
the Peace for Accomac county in 1663, and Major George Parker,
probably his son, a Justice in 1707 and Sheriff in i73O-'3i. It was the
unwritten law of Virginia, down to 1850, that the prerogative of the
sheriffalty was vested in the senior magistrate of the county, in rotation,
and thus, doubtless, Major George Parker succeeded. Sacker Parker,
Burgess from Accomac county, died in June, 1738. Colonel Thomas
Parker, of Accomac county, served with distinction in the Revolution
as Captain in the Fifth Virginia regiment ; was taken prisoner at the
battle of Germantown, and died in December, 1819. George Parker,
probably the member of the Convention, for many years a Judge of the
General Court of Virginia, died July 12, 1826; aged sixty-five years.
John A. Parker, member of the House of Delegates from Accomac
county, i8o2-*3 ; General Severn Eyre Parker, member of the House
of Delegates and member of Congress, iSig-'ai ; and John W. H.
Parker, State Senator, 1852 and later, are other representatives of the
family.
M1 Members of the BOOKER family frequently represented Amelia and
the neighboring counties in the House of Burgesses and the State
Legislature. Samuel Booker was a Captain, and Lewis Booker a
Lieutenant, in the Revolution.
3MThe progenitor of the TRIGG family of Virginia was Abraham
Trigg, who emigrated from Cornwall, England, about the year 1710.
He had issue five sons : ABRAM, a Colonel in the Virginia line in the
Revolution, and member of Congress 1797-1809, and, it is presumed,
the member of the Convention from Montgomery county ; Stephen,
368 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
went to Kentucky as a member of the Land Commission in 1779; com-
manded a regiment in the battle of Blue Licks, and fell there gallantly
leading a charge; his gallantry is commemorated on the monument
at Frankfort, and Trigg county was named in his honor; JOHN, the
member of the Convention, was a Major of artillery in the Revolution ;
was present at the surrender of Cornwallis, and was a member of the
House of Delegates 1784-^2 ; a member of Congress 1797-1804, and
died June 28, 1804; William and Daniel were the remaining sons. Hon.
Connally Findlay Trigg, Judge of the United States District Court of
Tennessee — died in 1879 — was descended from William Trigg, as are
Hon. Connally F. Trigg, member of Congress from Virginia, and Mrs.
Edmund D. T. Myers and William Robertson Trigg, Esq., of Richmond,
President of the Richmond Locomotive and Machine Works.
323 WILLIAM DARKE was born in Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania,
in 1736. In 1740 his parents moved to Virginia. He was with the Vir-
ginia troops at Braddock's defeat, in 1755, and was made a Captain at
the beginning of the Revolutionary War. He was taken prisoner at
the battle of Germantown, but being released, was Colonel Command-
ant of the regiments from Hampshire and Berkeley counties at the
surrender of Cornwallis. He frequently represented Berkeley county
in the Virginia Assembly ; was Lieutenant-Colonel of a regiment of
" Levies " in 1791, and commanded the left wing of St. Clair's army at
its defeat by the Miami Indians, November 4, 1791. He made two
gallant and successful charges with the bayonet in this fight, in the
second of which his youngest son, Captain Joseph Darke, was killed,
and he himself wounded, narrowly escaping death. He was subse-
quently a Major-General of Virginia militia. He died in Jefferson
county November 26, 1801.
324 GENERAL ADAM STEPHEN died in November, 1791. His grand-
daughter, Ann Evelina, daughter of Moses Hunter, married Hon.
Henry Saint George Tucker, and was the mother of the Hon. John
Randolph Tucker.
325 HENRY LEE, Kentucky pioneer, was born in Virginia in 1758; died
in Mason county, Kentucky, in 1846; well educated, and studied sur-
veying, which he pursued for several years; represented the district of
Kentucky in the Virginia Legislature ; member of the Convention
which met at Danville in 1787; was one of the Commissioners that
located the seat of government at Frankfort, and County Lieutenant
for all the territory north of Licking river. Studied law, and was
appointed Judge of the Circuit Court for Mason county ; was also for
many years President of the Washington branch of the Bank of Ken-
tucky. He was a sagacious man, of excellent business habits, and
amassed a large fortune. He was tall and powerfully built, and his
personal appearance was imposing.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 369
326 COLONEL JOHN JONES was probably a descendant of Captain Peter
Jones, the founder of Petersburg. He was a Burgess from Dinwiddie
county in 1757^58 ; member of the State Senate i776-'87, and Speaker
i787-'88; County Lieutenant of Brunswick county 1788, and later.
Hon. John Winston Jones (Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives), son of Alexander and Mary Ann (daughter of Peter
Winston) Jones, was his grandson.
327 CHARLES PATTESON was probably of the same lineage as David
Patteson, of Chesterfield county. He was a member of the Bucking-
ham County Committee of Safety, i775-'76, of the Convention of 1776,
and of the House of Delegates of i787~'88. Other members of the
family have been prominent in the State annals. Captain Camm Pat-
teson, of Buckingham, and S. S. P. Patteson, Esq., of Richmond, are
present representatives.
328 DAVID BELL was a son of David and Judith (sister of Archibald
Cary of " Ampthill "} Bell.
329 EDMUND WINSTON, of "Hunting Tower," Buckingham county,
Judge of the General Court of Virginia, was a first cousin of Patrick
Henry, under whom he studied law, whose joint executor he was, and
whose widow he married. He was the son of William Winston and
grandson of Isaac and Mary (Dabney) Winston. Isaac, William, and
James Winston emigrated from Yorkshire, England, in 1704, and set-
tled near Richmond, Virginia. From them have descended the distin-
guished Winston family, whose ramifications include nearly every
family of worth in the Southern States. Edmund Winston wore the
ermine worthily. He was a sound lawyer, and his character was spot-
less. He died in 1813, aged more than four-score. A number of his
descendants reside in Missouri.
330 COLONEL JAMES TAYLOR was of the family of President Zachary
Taylor. He was a Burgess i762-'64, member of the Committee of
Safety of Caroline county i774-'76, and of the Conventions of J775-'76.
331 THOMAS READ, the son of Colonel Clement Read (see Grigsby's
Convention of 7776, page 106, et seq.), began life as a surveyor; studied
at William and Mary College, and was Deputy Clerk of Charlotte
county, when it was set apart from Lunenburg in 1765, becoming Clerk
in 1770, holding the office until 1817, "to the approbation of all." He
was of fine physique, his stature approaching six feet. He died at his
seat, " Ingleside," February 4, 1817.
332 PAUL CARRINGTON was the eldest son of Judge Paul Carrington,
and by the early laws of primogeniture, his father dying intestate,
inherited the whole estate of the latter. He nobly divided the estate
24
370 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
equally with his brothers and sisters. He was a member of the House
of Burgesses and of the Conventions of i775-'76; appointed, in 1779,
the second Judge of the General Court of. Virginia ; was Chief Justice
in 1780; 1789, Judge of the Court of Appeals ; resigned 1807, at the age
of seventy- five ; died, aged ninety-three years.
333 DAVID PATTESON, a descendant of David Patteson, who received
a patent of land in Henrico county (then including Chesterfield county)
in 1714; was Colonel commandant of Chesterfield county in 1785 and a
member of the House of Delegates, i79i-'93- Of his descent are Mrs.
Branch, the widow of the late Colonel James R. Branch, and Mrs.
McCaw, wife of Dr. James Brown McCaw, of Richmond.
334 The emigrant ancestor of the MICHAUX family of Virginia was a
Huguenot, Abraham Michaux ; born at Cadent, France, in 1672, and
died in Henrico county, Virginia, in 1717. He married Susanna Rochet
(who escaped from France, in a hogshead, to Holland, and was subse-
quently known by the soubriquet " Little Night-Cap," from having been
thus mentioned to friends by her sister to avoid attention and religious
persecution). Of their issue was JACOB MICHAUX, a Captain in the
Revolution, who died in 1787. He married Judith Woodson, and had,
among other issue, the member Joseph Michaux, who died in 1807.
335 A son of the member, of the same name, THOMAS H. DREW; born
May 13, 1785, at "Clifton," Cumberland county; died at Richmond,
Virginia, at the residence of his son-in-law, William D. Gibson, Esq.,
October 9, 1878; was an interesting link with the past. He came to
Richmond in 1803, and was first employed as a collector by the old
Mutual Assurance Society, which was founded in 1794, and, though
the oldest in Virginia, is still among the staunchest. He was deputy
United States Marshal in 1807, and summoned the famous jury which
tried Aaron Burr for treason. He subsequently engaged in mercantile
pursuits, and was the senior member of the firm of Drew, Blair &
Carroll. He was one of the audience in the Theatre at its lamentable
burning on Saturday night of December 26, i8n,and one of the movers
in the building of the Monumental Church on its site. His memory
was very clear as to the moving events of his long life, and he was a
delightful raconteur. The family was seated in York county as early
as 1657, and has been numerously represented in Eastern Virginia.
336 Slaughter, in his History of St. Mark's Parish, page 169, cites
General Richard Taylor, late Confederate States Army, son of President
Zachary Taylor, whose mother was Sarah Strother, as having visited
the old family burying-ground of the Strothers in the Isle of Thanet,
County Kent, England, and noted the name in its various transitions
from its original form, Straathor, to its present authography. Anthony
Strother, of this derivation, patented, in 1734, a tract of land under the
Double-top mountain, in what was then St. Mark's Parish, and is now
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 371
Bromfield, in Madison county ; Jeremiah Strother died, in that part of
Orange county which now forms Culpeper. in 1741, leaving wife,
Eleanor, and children, James, William, Francis, Lawrence, Christopher,
Robert, and several daughters, the marriages of whom are recorded in
preceding sketches. James, the eldest son, married Margaret, daughter
of Daniel French, of King George county. Of their issue was FRENCH
STROTHER, who married Lucy, daughter of Robert Coleman. He was
a vestryman and church warden of St. Mark's Parish, and as such
" made himself very popular by releasing a Baptist minister, who had
been imprisoned at night, substituting his servant man, Tom, in his
place." He represented Culpeper county in the General Assembly for
nearly thirty years ; was a member in 1776 and also in 1799, when he
voted against the celebrated resolutions of 1798 -'99. He was solicited
to oppose James Madison for Congress, but James Monroe became the
candidate, and was badly beaten. Monroe had only 9 votes in Orange,
Madison 216, Culpeper, Monroe 103, Madison 256. One of his daugh-
ters married Captain Philip Slaughter, of the Revolution. A son,
George French Strother, was a member of Congress, i8i7-'2o.
387 The distinguished Jubal A. Early, late Lieutenant-General Con-
federate States Army, has written me that his ancestor emigrated from
Donegal, Ireland, early in the eighteenth century, settled in Culpeper
county, and married a Miss Buford. They had issue three sons: Joshua,
the great-grandfather of General Early, whose father was Joab, and
grandfather Jubal Early, "who established his son-in-law, Colonel
James Callaway, in Franklin county, with the first iron furnace in the
Piedmont region ; JOEL EARLY, the member, who removed to Georgia,
and was the ancestor of Governor Peter Early of that State ; JOHN
EARLY, member from Franklin county, ancestor of Bishop John Early,
of the Methodist Church South.
838 JOSEPH JONES, "of Dinwiddie," probably served in the House of
Burgesses. He was a member of the House of Delegates i784-'87 ;
Postmaster of Petersburg; a General of militia. He married Jane,
daughter of Roger Atkinson, of " Mansfield," and left issue.
339 The WATKINS family of Virginia has been supposed to be of
Welsh origin. James Watkins was among the emigrants to Virginia in
1608. John Watkins was granted 850 acres of land in James City-
county July 3, 1648. An account of the family was prepared by the late
Hon. F. N. Watkins. He commences his deduction with Thomas
Watkins, of Swift Creek, Cumberland county, whose will bears date
1760. He had issue eight children, the eldest Thomas. Another son,
Benjamin, married Miss Gary, of Warwick county. He was the first
Clerk of Chesterfield county, in 1749, until his death, in 1779. He was
a member of the Conventions of i775-'76, and took an active part in
the affairs of the Revolution. One of his daughters was the wife of
372 VIRGINIA CONVENTION* OF 1788.
Rev. William Leigh, and the mother of Judge William Leigh and of
United States Senator Benjamin Watkins Leigh. Another daughter,
Frances, married William Finnic, of Amelia county, and her descen-
dants include the names also of Royall, Worsham, Sydnor, and others.
WILLIAM WATKINS, member, is presumed to have been the brother of
Benjamin Watkins.
•"MILES KING was a member of the House of Delegates from Eliza-
beth City county in 1784. i786-*87, '91, '92-*3, and 1798, and resigned
in the latter year to accept the county clerkship. Henry King was a
member of the Virginia Convention of 1776 from Elizabeth City county.
10 WORLICH WESTWOOD was a Burgess in 1774; member of the Com-
mittee of Safety of Elizabeth City county i774~'76 ; member of the
Conventions of i775-*76 ; member of the House of Delegates 1785,
1790, 1798-1800, i8o2-'3, and Sheriff in 1790.
|
** JAMES UPSHAW was a signer of the Resolutions of the Westmore-
land Association against the Stamp Act, February 27, 1766. His ances-
tor. John U pshaw, probably from England, born July 21, 1715, was a
Burgess from Essex i758-'65. Forest Upshaw, who served as Captain
in the French and Indian war ; Captain James Upshaw, of the Revolu-
tion, a member of the Virginia branch of the Order of the Cincinnati ;
John H. Upshaw, member of the House of Burgesses 1809-' 10, were
all of this lineage.
*° MKRIWETHER SMiT»was born about the year 1730 at " Bathurst,"
Essex county. His mother was a daughter of Launcelot Bathurst, a
patentee of nearly 8,000 acres of land in New Kent county, Virginia, in
1683, who was appointed, August i, 1684, by Edmund Jenings, Attor-
ney-General of Virginia, his deputy for Henrico county. The name
Bathurst appears as a continuously favored Christian name in the Buck-
ner, Hinton, Jones, Randolph, Skelton, Stith, and other families. Meri-
wether Smith married twice — first, about 1760, Alice, daughter of
Philip Lee, third in descent of the emigrant Richard Lee, and widow
ef Thomas Clarke; and, secondly, September 29, 1769, Elizabeth,
widow of Colonel William Daingerfield, of Essex county, member of
the House of Burgesses. Meriwether Smith served Virginia with zeal
and distinction through a long series of years, and in important sta-
tions. He appears as a signer to the Articles of the Westmoreland
Association of February 27, 1766, which, in opposition to the odious
Stamp Act, was pledged to use no articles of British importation ; and
on May 18, 1769, was a signer also of the Williamsburg Association,
which met at the old Raleigh Tavern, in that city, and who bound
themselves to abstain from the use of the proscribed British merchan-
dise, and "to promote and encourage industry and frugality and dis-
courage all luxury and extravagance." In 1770 he represented Essex
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 179
county in the House of Burgesses. He was a member of the Con-
ventions of i775-'?6, and in the latter body prepared a draft of the
Declaration of Rights. He was a representative of Virginia in the
Continental Congress from 1778 to 1782. He represented Essex county
in the House of Delegates ijS6-tSS. "He died January 25, 1790. His
wife, Mrs, Elizabeth Smith, surviving him, died January 24, 1794. They
are both buried at " Bathurst." A son by the first marriage, George
William Smith, born at " Bathurst " 1762 ; married February 7, 1793,
Sarah, fourth daughter of Colonel Richard Adams, the elder, member
of the Convention of 1776, an ardent patriot throughout the Revolu-
tion, and one of the most enterprising, public-spirited, wealthy, and
influential citizens of Richmond. Colonel Adams was a large pro-
perty-holder, and the Assembly considered for a time the erection of
the State Capitol upon a site in Richmond, on Church Hill, owned by
him, and proffered as a gift to the State. George William Smith repre-
sented Essex county in the House of Delegates in 1794. Soon there-
after he made Richmond his residence, and in his profession of the law
speedily took high rank and enjoyed a lucrative practice. He repre-
sented the city in the House of Delegates from 1802 to 1808, inclusive,
and in iSio was appointed a member of the State Council, and as
senior member of that body, or Ueutenant-Governor, upon the resig-
nation of Governor James Monroe to accept the position of Secretary
of State in the Cabinet of President Madison, succeeded, December 5,
iSn, as the Executive of the State. His term was lamentably brief, he
being one of the victims of the memorable calamity, the burning of the
Richmond Theatre. December 26, 1811.
'"Da. DAVID STUART, of " Hope Park " and " Ossian Hall," Fairfex
county, was the son of Rev. William Stuart, of King George county,
and a correspondent of Washington. He was a member of the House
of Delegates i785-"S7; married Eleanor, widow of John Parke Custis,
and daughter of Benedict Calvert. of Maryland.
**» CHARLES SIMMS is presumed to have been the gallant Colonel of
that name of the Revolution.
** HUMPHREY MARSHALL, 5orn in Virginia, about 1756, was a pioneer
to Kentucky in 1783; married, 1784, Mary Marshall, born in Virginia
1757; died 1827. He was a relative of Chief-Justice John Marshall.
He was a member of the Convention which assembled in Danville in
1787, preliminary to the formation of the State Convention ; a member
of the Kentucky Legislature for many years, and United States Senator
1795-1801. He fought a duel with Henry Clay, in which the latter was
wounded. Author of the first history of Kentucky, published in one
volume in 1822, and enlarged to two volumes in 1824. He was the
father of John J. and the Hon. Thomas A. Marshall, and died at the
residence of the last name<^July i, 1841.
374 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
347 MARTIN PICKETT was a member of the Convention of 1776, and a
great-uncle of the late General George E. Pickett, Confederate States
Army; Sheriff of Fauquier county
348 ROBERT BROOKE is said to have come to Virginia about 1660.
Robert Brooke was a Justice of the Peace of King William county in
1691. Robert Brooke, Sr.( William Brooke, Humphrey Brooke, and
George Braxton, Sr., had a joint patent of land in 1720. Brooke mar-
ried Elizabeth, daughter of George Braxton, Sr. (who died 1748, aged
seventy-one), and their son was George Brooke. Robert Brooke was
Sheriff of King and Queen county in 1723. Humphrey Brooke, a
Justice of the Peace of King William county, died in October, 1738.
Colonel George Brooke was Burgess from King and Queen 1772^75 ;
member of the Committee of Safety 1774-^6 ; of the Conventions of
i775-'76; State Treasurer 1781; Member of the House of Delegates
1792, and later. Walter Brooke was a Commodore in the Virginia Navy
of the Revolution, and George Brooke a Colonel, and both received
bounty lands. HUMPHREY BROOKE, member, was the Clerk of Fauquier
county and later of, the State Senate, 1791-1802. General George M.
Brooke, United States Army, and Commodore John Mercer Brooke,
United States and Confederate States navies, were of this lineage.
349 This is presumed to be WARNER LEWIS (died December 30, 1791,
aged forty-four years) son of Warner Lewis, of "Warner Hall," and
his wife, Eleanor (widow of William, son of Sir William Gooch, and
daughter of James Bowles), great-grandson of Robert Lewis, from
Brecon, Wales, and grandson of Augustine Warner.
S50THOMAS SMITH was a member of the House of Delegates from
Gloucester county almost continuously from 1784 to 1840. Whether it
was the same individual or not, I do not know. Colonel Thomas
Smith, of " Airwell," Gloucester county, was dead in 1841.
351 JOHN GUERRANT, of Huguenot descent, was born March 23, 1760;
member of the House of Delegates i787-'93, and probably later; mem-
ber of the State Council, and for a time its President, and as such
Lieutenant- Governor, in 1805. He married Mary Heath, daughter of
Robert and Winifred (Jones) Povall, and had issue.
352 COLONEL ISAAC COLES was the son of Major John Coles, an Irish-
man, who settled in Henrico county early in the eighteenth century,
and engaged in merchandising. The house in which he resided in
Richmond, a frame building on Twenty-second between Broad and
Marshall streets, was demolished in 1871. He was a worthy citizen
and was long a vestryman of St. John's Church, beneath which he was
buried. He married Mary, daughter of Isaac Winston, one of the
three emigrant brothers from Yorkshire, England. Colonel Coles was
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 375
thus a first cousin of Patrick Henry. He was a member of Congress
lySo-'Sg and again i793-'97, and voted for locating the seat of govern-
ment on the Potomac. He married Catherine Thompson, of New
York, whose sister married Elbridge Gerry. Coles's Ferry, Halifax
county, perpetuates the name and seat of Colonel Isaac Coles.
353 LIEUTENANT GEORGE CARRINGTON of the Revolution, and a mem-
ber of the Virginia branch of the Cincinnati; born June 21, 1758; died
May 27, 1809. He was the son of George Carrington, born in Barbadoes
1711 ; died in Virginia February 7, 1785 ; married, 1732, Anne Mayo.
354 The name GOODALL appears early in the annals of Virginia.
Michael Goodall patented lands in 1662, and James Goodall in 1740.
Charles Goodall died in Hanover county in 1766, Samuel Overton
administering on his estate. PAKKE GOODALL, member, was the son
of Richard Goodall, of Caroline county, a British subject, whose estate
was vested in the son by statute. He was an Ensign in the company
of Captain Samuel Meredith, of Hanover county, which marched
under Patrick Henry (to whom the command was resigned) to \Vil-
liamsburg, in 1775, to demand restitution of the powder removed from
the magazine by Lord Dunmore; was a Justice of the Peace for Han-
over county in 1782; member of the House of Delegates i786-'89;
Sheriff in 1809, and subsequently proprietor of the Indian Queen Tav-
ern, in Richmond. He was latterly termed Major Goodall — probably a
militia title. His two daughters, Martha Perkins (died May i, 1809)
and Eliza, married, respectively, Parke and Anthony Street, brothers.
A son, Colonel Charles Parke Goodall, who married Elizabeth, daugh-
ter of Isaac Winston, and died at " Mayfield," Hanover county, Octo-
ber 5, 1855, aged seventy years, and a grandson, Dr. Charles Parke
Goodall, each frequently represented Hanover county in the Virginia
Assembly.
355JoHN CARTER LITTLEPAGE was of the family of the famous adven-
turer, Lewis Littlepage, Chamberlain to Stanislaus Augustus, King of
Poland ; served as Captain in the Revolution, and several times repre-
sented Hanover county in the Assembly. He may have been of the
descent of the emigrant, John Carter.
358 By my venerable friend, Dr. John Robinson Purdie, of Smithfield,
whose dimmed vision caused him to avail himself of the kind services
of Captain R. S. Thomas as amanuensis, I am enabled to add some
particulars as to the members from the Isle of Wight county, CAP-
TAIN JAMES JOHNSON and THOMAS PIERCE. The age of the former
at death is given me as ninety-one years. He was long a Justice of the
Peace of the county, and in court was always the presiding magistrate.
Dr. Purdie states that he sat on the bench of magistrates with him as
376 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
late as 1843. He was tall and muscular, and retained his vision in a
remarkable degree. He was fond of field sports and an excellent shot.
Up to his death he was accustomed to go out deer hunting " with the
boys," and would drop a buck as often and as surely as any of them.
Neither he nor his colleague were remarkable for mental vigor, and it
was matter of surprise that they should have defeated competitors of
such ability and experience as General John Scarsbrook Wills and
Colonel Josiah Parker. The former had frequently been in the Assem-
bly, and was a member of the Conventions of 1775 and 1776. He was a
Brigadier-General of militia, and resided in the Carroll's Bridge section
of the county, where are now descendants of his, and his name is com-
memorated in a venerable church formerly held by the Episcopalians,
called Wills's Old Meeting-House. Wills and Parker were devoted
adherents of Patrick Henry, and with him opposed to the ratification
of the Constitution. They were badly beaten by Johnson and Pierce,
who favored ratification. ( VI Hening, page 450.) Joseph Bridger,
a great-grandson of Colonel Joseph Bridger (died 1688), who superin-
tended the building of the historic church at Smithfield, erected, it is
claimed, in 1632, married Mary, daughter of Thomas Pierce, and had
issue Judith, who married Richard Baker, of Burwell's Bay, Clerk
of Isle of Wight county. They were the parents of Judge Richard H.
Baker (father of Richard H. Baker, Esq., of Norfolk, Virginia). After
the death of Thomas Pierce his widow, Mary, married Colonel Josiah
Parker, and had issue a daughter, Nancy, who married Captain William
Cowper, and had issue : i, Joseph Parker; ii, Leopold P. C., Lieutenant-
Governor of Virginia, died unmarried ; Hi, T. F. P. P. (whose children
are residents of Smithfield and Norfolk); and iv, William Cowper, died
unmarried. Josiah Parker Cowper's name was changed by an act of
the Assembly to Josiah Cowper Parker to enable him to inherit the
estate of his grandfather, Colonel Josiah Parker. Thomas Pierce
owned a large landed estate, and resided just beyond the limits of
Smithfield — the lands of Smith and Pierce adjoining for the whole
length of what is now Main street and beyond it. Pierce was wealthy
and of excellent social position. Both he and Johnson have descend-
ants living in the county. Colonel Josiah Parker was also a member
of the Conventions of i775~'76 He commanded a regiment in the
Revolution, and distinguished himself at the battle of Brandywine.
He was, unfortunately, of irascible temper. After the battle, applying
to General Washington for a furlough, and being denied, in irritation
he resigned his commission — an impulsive action, which was ever
regretted by him. He was subsequently a Judge of the General Court
of Virginia and a member of Congress i789-'9i, and voted for locating
the seat of government on the Potomac.
857 NATHANIEL BURWELL, subsequently of "Carter Hall," Clarke
county, Virginia, fourth in descent from Major Lewis Burwell (who
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 377
settled, about 1640, on Carter's Creek, Gloucester county,) and his wife,
Lucy, daughter of Robert Higginson ; student at William and Mary
College in 1766; married, first, his cousin, Susanna Grymes ; second,
Mrs. Lucy (Page) Baylor.
358 REV. ROBERT ANDREWS, Professor of Moral and Intellectual
Philosophy at William and Mary College from 1777. In 1784 he served
with John Page and Bishop James Madison, of Virginia, and Andrew
Ellicott, of Pennsylvania, in fixing the boundary line between the two
States.
359 ROBERT BRECKENRIDGE, pioneer to Kentucky from Virginia;
married the widow of Colonel John Floyd ; representative from Jeffer-
son county in 1792, and Speaker; member of the Convention held in
Danville in 1792, and which formed the first Constitution of Kentucky.
360 A descendant of WILLIAM FLEET, Gent, a member of the Virginia
Company, of Chartham, Kent ; married Deborah Scott, daughter of
Charles Scott, of Egerton, Kent, by his wife, Jane Wyatt. He had
issue seven sons and one daughter, viz. : George, William, Henry,
Brian, Edward, Reynold, and John, and Catherine. On July 3, 1622,
he transferred to his daughter his three shares in Virginia. At least
four of his sons (Henry, Edward, Reynold, and John) were among
the early emigrants to Virginia and Maryland. All four of them were
members of the Maryland Legislature of 1638 — the first Assembly
whose records have been preserved. Captain HENRY FLEET was the
most noted of this brotherhood in our annals. He, at an early date,
was captured by the Indians on the Potomac in 1623 ; remained a cap-
tive until 1627 ; became familiar with the Indian tongue ; an interpreter,
trader, and legislator in Maryland ; finally settled at Fleet's Bay, in Lan-
caster county, and represented- the county in the House of Burgesses
in 1652. His daughter, Sarah, married Edwin Conway. of Lancaster
county, Virginia. Captain Henry Fleet was first cousin to Dorothy
Scott, who married, first, Major Daniel Gotherson, of Cromwell's army,
and about 1655 became a Quaker preacher. She married, secondly,
Joseph Hogben, and, about 1680, settled at Long Island, New York.
(Brown's Genesis of the United States, Vol. II, p. 892.)
361 JOHN ROANE was a Presidential Elector in 1809, and a member of
Congress from 1815 to 1817, from 1827 to 1831, and from 1835 to 1837.
362 HOLT RICHESON was a Colonel in the State line in the Revo-
lution.
363 LIEUTENANT-COLONEL BENJAMIN TEMPLE, a gallant officer of the
Revolution.
378 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
GORDON, of an ancient Scotch family, was a member of the
Convention of 1776. Of his lineage is the distinguished family of
Albemarle county, so often and worthily represented in our legislative
annals.
365 LEVIN POWELL was born in 1738; served through the Revolution,
and rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel ; was a member of Con-
gress 1799-1801 ; died at Bedford, Pennsylvania, in August, 1810.
366 COLONEL WILLIAM OVERTON CALLIS, son of William and Mary
(Cosby) Callis, was born March 4, 1756, near " Urbanna," Virginia, and
died March 14, 1814, at " Cuckoo," Louisa county, Virginia. His mother
was third in descent from William Overton; born December 2, 1638,
in England; settled in Hanover county, Virginia, in 1682; married,
November 24, 1670, Mary Waters, who by tradition was a descendant
of the famous Nell Gwynne, mistress of Charles the Second. William
Overton Callis served in the Revolution seven years and ten months
entering the army as Lieutenant, and promoted Captain, and so badly
wounded at the battle of Monmouth as to require a trip to the West
Indies to recruit his health. During 1781 he served on the staff of Gene-
ral Thomas Nelson, with the rank of Major, being at the reduction of
Yorktown; served in the Virginia Assembly seventeen years, and voted
for the Resolutions of i798-*99 ; was twice married — first to a daughter
of John Winston, and second to the daughter of Captain Thomas Price,
of Hanover connty. Hon. William Josiah Leake, of Richmond, Vir-
ginia, is his great-grandson. The descendants of William Over-
ton include the worthy names of Blackford, Barry, Berkley, Carr,
Clough, Claybrooke, Campbell, Coleman, Gary, Fontaine, Gilliam,
Garland, Hart, Harris, Holliday, Harrison, Leake, Morris, Minor, Nel-
son, Terrell, Waller, Watson, and others.
367 COLONEL JOHN LOGAN, a doughty Indian-fighter.
36" HENRY PAWLING was a representative of Lincoln county in 1792,
under the first Constitution of Kentucky.
369 GREEN CLAY, son of Charles Clay, was born in Powhatan county,
Virginia, August 14, 1757. He was of the family of Henry Clay. He
went to Kentucky when a youth, entered the office of James Thomp-
son, and became a proficient surveyor. His occupation gave him the
opportunity to acquire a large and valuable landed estate. He was a
member of the Convention of 1799, which formed the present Consti-
tution of Kentucky, and long represented Madison county in each
branch of the Legislature. Appointed a Brigadier-General March 29,
1813, he led 3,000 Kentucky volunteers to the relief of Fort Meigs and
forced the enemy to withdraw. General Harrison left him in the com-
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 379
mand of Fort Meigs, which he skilfully defended from the attack of
a large force of British and Indians, under General Proctor and
Tecumseh. He was the father of Hon. Cassius M. Clay. He died
October 31, 1826. Clay county, Kentucky, was named in his honor.
370 GENERAL RICHARD KENNON, third in descent from Richard Ken-
non, who settled in Virginia, about 1670, at " Conjuror's Neck," about
five miles below Petersburg, Virginia: entered the army of the Revo-
lution as Lieutenant in the Fifth Virginia Regiment; promoted at the
battle of Monmouth ; served throughout the war ; appointed by Presi-
dent Jefferson first Governor of Louisiana Territory ; died in that State,
aged forty-four years ; member of the Cincinnati ; married Elizabeth
Beverley, daughter of Robert and Anne (Beverley) Munford, of " Rich-
land,1' Mecklenburg county, Virginia.
311 WILLIS RIDDICK was a member of the Virginia Conventions of
~'7^> and served long in the Virginia Assembly.
37J WILLIAM CLAYTON was a descendant of John Clayton, a Burgess
from James City county in 1723; Attorney-General of the Colony in
1724; Judge of the Court of Admiralty; died November 18, 1737, in
the seventy-second year of his age. A manuscript volume of his
opinions has been preserved. William Clayton was a Burgess from
New Kent in 1769, member of the House of Delegates 1776, and mem-
ber of the Virginia Convention of 1776.
373 COLONEL BURWELL BASSETT, JR., of "Eltham," New Kent county,
Virginia, was a nephew of Mrs. George Washington; member of the
House of Delegates of Virginia 1789, 1819-' 20; of Slate Senate i798-'99,
i8o2-'3; member of Congress i8o5-'i3, iSis-'ig, and i82i-'3i ; died
February 26, 1841, aged seventy-six years and eleven months.
374 DR. WALTER JONES was born in Virginia in 1745; graduated at
William and Mary College in 1760; studied medicine in Edinburgh,
Scotland, and received the degree of M. D.; on his return to Virginia
he settled in Northumberland county and became eminent as a scholar
and physician. In 1777 he was appointed by Congress Physician-Gene-
ral of Hospitals in the Middle Department ; was a representative in
Congress from Virginia from 1797 to 1799, and again from 1803 to 1811.
He was at one time a " Free Thinker," but his views were subsequently
entirely changed, and he embraced the Christian faith, after which he
wrote a lengthv volume denouncing his former views, and stating with
clearness the grounds on which he did so. This was done for the satis-
faction and the gratification of his children. He died in Westmoreland
county, Virginia, December 31, 1815.
380 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
S7S WILLIAM RONALD was a native of Scotland and a brother of
General Andrew Ronald, a prominent lawyer of Richmond, Virginia,
who was one of the counsel representing the British merchants in^the
so-called British Debts case, in which the debtors were represented by-
Patrick Henry.
876 GENERAL ROBERT LAWSON was a gallant and meritorious officer
of the Revolution.
S"THEODORICK BLAND was born in Virginia in 1742, and was the uncle
of John Randolph, of Roanoke. Graduated M. D. in Edinburgh, Scot-
land, and practiced his profession for a time in Williamsburg, com-
bining with it, as was the custom in the towns of Virginia in that day,
the keeping of an apothecary or dispensary. At the commencement of
the Revolution he entered the army, and rose to the rank of Colonel of
Dragoons. In 1779 he had command of the troops at Albemarle
barracks, and continued in that station till elected to Congress in 1780,
where he served three years. He was then chosen a member of the
Virginia Legislature. He was a representative in the first Congress
under the Constitution. He died at New York June i, 1790, while
attending a session of Congress. He was the first member of Congress
whose death was announced in that body ; and although buried in
Trinity church-yard, the sermon in the church was preached by a
pastor of the Dutch Reformed denomination. He was present at the
battle of Brandywine, and enjoyed the confidence of General Washing-
ton. He was of worthy lineage and a man of culture. His corre-
spondence with eminent men, under the title of The Bland Papers,
was edited by Charles Campbell (author of a history of Virginia), and
published in two volumes, 8vo., in 1843.
37S EDMUND RUFFIN, fourth in descent from William Ruffin, who was
seated in the Isle of Wight county in 1666, and died 1693. He was the
son of Edmund Ruffin by his first marriage with Mrs. Edmunds, nee
Simmons (he married secondly Elizabeth Cocke, of Surry county), and
was born January 2, 1744- '45 ; died in 1807 ; was a member of the
House of Delegates 1777, 1784, 1786, and 1787; County Lieutenant
1789; Sheriff 1797; married Jane, daughter of Sir William Skipwith,
Baronet, of " Prestwould," Mecklenburg county. Their grandson, Ed-
mund Ruffin, of Prince George and Hanover counties, born January 5,
1794, was the eminent agriculturist, who volunteered in the late war
between the States, and is said to have fired the first gun in the reduc-
tion of Fort Sumter. Under mental depression, caused by the failure
of the Confederacy, he committed suicide June 15, 1865.
379 CAPTAIN THOMAS BULLITT was a meritorious officer under Wash-
ington in the French and Indian war. Cuthbert Bullitt was probably of
the same family. He was a Judge of the State Court.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 381
380 The ancestor of the WALKE family of Virginia was Anthony Voelke
(anglicized Walke), who accompanied William, Prince of Orange, to
England in 1688, and came to Virginia in 1693. His grandson, ANTHONY
WALKE, the member, was a worthy citizen and pious churchman. He
built the church still standing near Norfolk and known as Old Donation
Church He married twice — first, Jane, daughter of William Randolph ;
second, Mary Moseley, a granddaughter of Bishop Gilbert Burnett. He
died in 1794. His colleague, THOMAS WALKE, was of the same lineage.
381 JOHN DAWSON graduated at Harvard University in 1782 ; was a
Presidential Elector in 1793; member of Congress 1797-1814; was fre-
quently in the Virginia Legislature ; was a member of the Executive
Council of Virginia ; rendered service in the War of 1812 as Aid to the
Commanding General on the Lakes, and was appointed bearer of dis-
patches to France in 1801 by President John Adams. He died in
Washington, D. C., March 30, 1814, aged fifty-two years.
382 The progenitor of the COCKE family of Virginia was Richard
Cocke, who emigrated from Leeds, Yorkshire, England, in 1636, and
settled at " Malvern Hills," Henrico county, the locality of a san-
guinary battle of the name during the late war between the States.
Richard, a grandson of the emigrant, married Elizabeth, daughter of
Henry Hartwell, who was Clerk of the General Court in 1675, and one of
the trustees in the charter of William and Mary College, February 8,
1692, O. S. From this couple was descended the member, JOHN HART-
WELL COCKE.
383 The ancestor of the member, JOHN ALLEN, was Major Arthur
Allen, who patented lands in 1649 in Surry county. He was the grand-
son of Colonel John Allen, of " Clermont." He was a member of the
House of Delegates in 1784, '86, '87, '88, and '91 ; a member of the
Council, and died before 1799.
384 JOHN HOWELL BRIGGS, the son of Gray Briggs a native of Ireland,
was a member of the House of Delegates i786-'88, and of the Council
in 1789. His sister, Eliza, married Colonel William Heth.of the Third
Virginia regiment, a gallant officer of the Revolution, who enjoyed the
friendship of Washington, by whom he was appointed Collector of the
Ports of Richmond, Petersburg, and Bermuda Hundred. He was
removed in 1802, being succeeded by John Page. He died in May,
1807. His brother, John Heth, was a Lieutenant in the Revolution ;
and his sister, Margaret, married General Robert Porterfield.
^THOMAS EDMUNDS was the son of John Edmunds, who died Febru-
ary 8, 1770, and who had represented Sussex in the House of Burgesses
from' the creation of the county. William Edmunds (probably the
father of John Edmunds) died in Sussex, March 9, i739~'4O.
382 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
386 COLE DIGGES was the grandson of Cole Digges, a Burgess in 1718 ;
member of the Virginia Council in 1724, and subsequently it's President,
and who was the son of Edward Digges (fourth son of Sir Edward
Digges, of Chelburn, Kent, England, Master of the Rolls and M. P.),
President of the Council of Virginia, and Acting Governor of the
Colony, i665-'66. His son, Edward Digges, also served in the Council,
and his daughter, Mary, was the first wife of Nathaniel Harrison, of
"Wakefield."
387 RICHARD GARY was born in Elizabeth City county. He is said to
have served for a time in the Revolution, on the staff of Washington ;
Judge ol the Court of Admiralty of Virginia in 1777, and subsequently
of the Court of Appeals. He was a man of cultivated tastes, and was
fond of botanical studies, in which he acquired much proficiency.
388 It may be of interest to note that of the forty-nine members of
the Phi-Beta-Kappa Society, organized at William and Mary College
December 5, 1776, nine were members of the Convention of 1788:
John Jones, John Stuart, Littleton Eyre, John Allen, BUSHROD WASH-
INGTON, William Cabell, Archibald Stuart, John Marshall, Stevens
Thomson Mason, and a tenth, if Hartwell Cocke and John Hartwell
Cocke may be identified as the same individual. Another member,
John James Beckley, was the Secretary of the Convention. The Society
was an admirable nursery of patriots and statemen, as the distinguished
careers of others of its members has given evidence.
389 JOHN BLAIR was the son of John Blair, President of the Council,
and Acting Governor of Virginia in 1758; grandson of Dr. Archibald
Blair, a brother of Commissary James Blair, President of William and
Mary College. He was born in Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1732 ;
graduated at William and Mary College ; studied law at the Temple,
London ; a Burgess in 1765 ; and on the dissolution of the House in
1769, he, with Washington and other patriots, drafted the " Non-importa-
tion Agreement " at " Raleigh Tavern." He was one of the committee
in June, 1776, which drew up the plan for the government of the State ;
was elected a Judge of the Court of Appeals, then President of the
Court, and, in 1780, Judge of the High Court of Chancery. He was a
Delegate to the Philadelphia Convention to Revise the Articles of Con-
federation. He supported the "Virginia Plan." In September, 1789,
he was appointed by Washington a Judge of the United States Supreme
Court, resigned in 1796; died in Williamsburg August 31, 1800.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 383
ARCHIBALD STUART.
The Hon. A. H. H. Stuart was engaged in the preparation
of the following sketch for this work, in emendation and enlarge-
ment of that by Dr. Grigsby, given ante (pages 10-15), when he
was stricken with fatal illness, dying February 13, 1891. Whilst
it is to be regretted that it is incomplete, it is invested with
peculiar interest as being the final literary and a filial task of
his nobly useful life. His son-in-law, Alexander F. Robertson,
Esq., writes me that "he made a great effort to complete it."
It is received just in time to add finally to the text of the work
previously in print. — EDITOR.
R. A. BROCK, ESQ.:
My Dear Sir: Sickness, accompanied by a nervous affection of
my right hand, which rendered it impossible for me to write legibly,
prevented me during the summer and autumn months from preparing
the "sketch" of my father, "Archibald Stuart," which I promised
you. I have read with great interest and satisfaction your publication
founded on Mr. Grigsby's lecture. But there are some errors and
omissions which I desire to correct and supply, and also some notes as
to his ancestry.
First, I wish to state that Archibald Stuart, Sr., his grandfather— the
first of the family who came to America — was a young Irishman of
respectable family, who lived not far from Londonderry. He was a
man of good education, as evidenced by the fact that his will, written
by himself, and now in the office of Augusta county, dated 1759 and
recorded 1761, presents, both in style and handwriting, unquestionable
proof that he was a man of education. He was a man of intelligence
and deep religious convictions and great energy of character. In early
life he married Janet Brown, a sister of John Brown, who afterwards
became a Presbyterian minister in Virginia. By her he had two chil-
dren while living in Ireland — viz., a son, named Thomas Stuart, and a
daughter, named Eleanor.
About i725-'a6 the persecutions of the Presbyterians and other "dis-
senters " became so intolerable that Archibald Stuart, with others,
384 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
became active promoters of an avowed insurrection or rebellion to
defend their rights. The military power of the Government was
invoked to suppress it, and when that was done Archibald Stuart was
one of those proscribed, and if he could have been arrested would
have been executed for treason.
Being thus compelled to fly for his life, he managed with great diffi-
culty to make his escape to the coast, where he contrived to get on
board a ship bound for America, leaving his wife and two children
behind him. He reached America in safety and took refuge in the
wilds of Western Pennsylvania, where he remained in concealment for
seven years. Finally there was some act or proclamation of amnesty,
which enabled him to send for wife and children to join him in Penn-
sylvania. During his seclusion in Pennsylvania he had been diligently
making provision for his family, so as to be ready to receive them. In
1732 his wife and children came over, under the escort of her brother,
John Brown, and joined Archibald Stuart in his new home in Penn-
sylvania. They remained in Pennsylvania for about seven years, and
during that time two other children were born — viz., Alexander and
Benjamin.
After the proclamation of the Governor of Virginia in 1738, granting
freedom of religious opinions and worship to immigrants who would
move to the Valley of Virginia and protect the western frontier of Vir-
ginia against the incursions of the Indians, Archibald Stuart, with his
family, removed to Virginia, accompanied or followed by John Brown,
and settled permanently in Augusta county. Archibald Stuart, being a
sagacious business man, acquired large and valuable tracts of land and
other property, which not only enabled him to live in comfort, but also
to give to his children the best opportunities for education which the
circumstances would allow, and to convey to each of them by deed or
will a valuable estate in land.
The three sons of Archibald Stuart married in early life daughters of
prominent settlers of the Valley. His daughter, Eleanor, also married
Edward Hall, the son of a neighbor, and left a large family. Among
her descendants were Dr. Isaac Hall, who graduated at Edinburgh
Medical College in the latter part of the last century, and settled in
Petersburg, Virginia, where he became eminent as a physician ; Judge
John Hall, of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and many others
who became distinguished. One of her daughters married Captain
Andrew Fulton, an officer in the Revolutionary War, and among the
offspring of this marriage were Hon. John H. Fulton, of Abingdon,
who was for several terms representative of that district in Congress,
and Hon. Andrew S. Fulton, for many years judge in the Wythe
district.
All the sons of Archibald Stuart, Sr., left large families, the members
of which in turn intermarried with families of the vicinage, until they
were closely allied to the Pattersons, Moffets, McClungs, Fultons,
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 385
Tales, Tylers, Halls, Guthries, Alexanders, Withrows, Watkinses,
Douglases, Moores, Steeles, McDowells, and many others of the best
standing in this part of the Valley.
John Brown, Mrs. Stuart's brother, also married and settled in
Augusta county. His wife was a daughter of John Preston, and the
fruit of this marriage was five sons. He studied divinity at Princeton,
became pastor of Providence church, and held that position for forty-
four years, and was the second rector of Liberty Hall Academy. Late
in life he removed to Kentucky, where his sons attained high distinc-
tion, one of them (James) having served as United States senator and
afterwards as Minister to France ; and another was the ancestor of the
late B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri.
v At an early day, after Archibald Stuart had established himself in
Augusta, two of his brothers, named David and John, came over from
Ireland. Of them I know but little, except that they were men of high
character and intelligence. David was the ancestor of the Stuarts of
Greenbrier county. John, after remaining some time in Virginia,
removed to Kentucky. Among his descendants were John T. Stuart,
of Springfield, Illinois, who was at an early age a prominent member
of Congress (having beaten Stephen A. Douglas in an earnestly-con-
tested race), and subsequently a very distinguished lawyer. He was a
partner of Abraham Lincoln in the practice of law, and when he died
was the subject of a noble funeral oration by ex-Judge David Davis, of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
I have thus disjointedly jotted down some of the facts connected
with the ancestry and family connections of Archibald Stuart. I have
done so because of late years I have received many letters from all
parts of the country making inquiries on the subject.
As has been already stated, Archibald Stuart, Sr., left three sons to
survive him — viz.; Thomas, who was born in Ireland, and Alexander
and Benjamin, who were born in Pennsylvania after his wife and chil-
dren joined him there.
Thomas was a prominent man in Augusta county, and is the person
' of that name referred to by Mr. Grigsby as one of the founders of
Liberty Hall Academy. Benjamin was the youngest son, and is repre-
sented to have been a man of admirable character and fine intellect.
He inherited the family mansion of his father and lived a quiet life, not
taking any active part in public affairs. He married, and left a number
of children.
Of these two members of the family I do not deem it necessary to
say anything more than that they lived honorable and useful lives.
Alexander Stuart, Sr., was the second son of Archibald Stuart, Sr ,
the fugitive emigrant from Ireland. He was born during the sojourn
of his parents in Pennsylvania, and came with them at the age of four
years to Augusta county, where he was reared to manhood. He
received a common-school education, and his letters show that he
wrote and spelled correctly and was versed in arithmetic and the sim-
25
386 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
pier branches of mathematics. At the age of twenty he married Mary
Patterson, the daughter of a Scotch-Irish farmer of the neighborhood.
By her he had two sons— Archibald and Robert — and a number of
daughters. For some time after his marriage he lived in Augusta,
about three miles northwest from Waynesboro'. Subsequently he
removed to a farm, which his father had given him, lying in what is
now Rockbridge county, near Brownsburgh. Having lost his wife, he
married a second time. His second wife was a young widow lady, a
Mrs. Paxton, whose maiden name had been Moore. By her he had two
sons and a number of daughters. The sons were named Alexander
and James. Alexander Stuart, Sr., my grandfather, is the person
referred to by Mr. Grigsby as Captain Alexander Stuart, one of the
founders of Liberty Hall Academy. He seems to have been deeply
impressed with the importance of education, and as he had four sons to
educate he took an active part in causing the academy to be removed
from its original location in Augusta county to a point near Timber
Ridge church, which would bring it much nearer to his residence. To
that end he and his neighbor, Samuel Houston (the father of President
Samuel Houston, of Texas), offered to the trustees a donation of forty
acres of land each, and liberal subscriptions in money, if they would
remove the academy to the place indicated by them. This offer was
accepted and the removal accomplished. The four sons of Alexander
Stuart were educated at the academy after its transfer to the new loca-
tion. Archibald, the oldest son of Captain Alexander Stuart, having
exhibited a strong thirst for knowledge while a pupil at Liberty Hall
Academy, and more than ordinary capacity to acquire it, he made
known to his father his wish to adopt the law as his profession. This
suggestion being approved, his father determined to send him to Wil-
liam and Mary College to obtain the best education that could then be
had in Virginia. He accordingly went to William and Mary about
1777, and continued there until 1781. During a large portion of his
sojourn at college he was an inmate of the family of Bishop Madison,
the president of the college. He thus had opportunities of seeing the
best society of the city and of becoming acquainted with many of the
gentlemen who were prominent in the councils of the State, Williams-
burg being the seat of government.
Meanwhile the struggle for independence of the Colonies was pro-
gressing, and when the seat of government was transferred to the
South by the invasion of Cornwallis the militia troops of the Valley
and Southwestern Virginia were called into active service and ordered
to proceed to the South to join the army of General Greene. Among
these was the regiment of which Colonel Samuel McDowell, a gallant
and distinguished officer, was colonel, and which consisted mainly of
troops from Augusta and Rockbridge. Colonel McDowell was a man
of high character, a brave and experienced officer, but unfortunately
some time before the battle of Guilford Courthouse he had an attack
of malarial-fever, which unfitted him for active service in the field, and
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 387
the command of the regiment devolved on Major Alexander Stuart,
tvho was the senior officer in the absence of Colonel McDowell. This
regiment was composed mainly of the flower of the young men of the
Valley, who fought w:th the enthusiasm of patriots and the steadiness
of veterans. They were stationed at a point particularly exposed to
the fire of the British artillery, and suffered greatly. In my early youth
and manhood I was personally acquainted with a number of men who
participated in the battle, and heard from their lips many interesting
incidents connected with it. Among these was the late General Samuel
Blackburn, of Bath county ; Rev. Samuel Houston, of Rockbridge ;
David Steele, of Augusta; and my father, of Augusta.
General Blackburn and my father passed through the fight without
injury. Rev. Samuel Houston narrowly escaped death from a musket-
ball, which struck the Bible which he had in his knapsack with such
force as to penetrate more than half-way through it. David Steele
received a sabre-cut, which chipped a small piece from his skull and
exposed to view the coating of his brain, which was protected by a
small plate of silver attached to the bone. The wound did not seem
to have any injurious effect upon him, except perhaps to develop some
eccentricities which were observable in his conduct, and he lived to
attain the age of seventy-five or eighty years.
Major Alexander Stuart, according to every account, conducted him-
self with great gallantry, and two horses were killed under him during
the battle. The first casualty occurred in an early stage of the conflict,
but he was promptly mounted on another horse and resumed his posi-
tion in the field. At a later period of the fight, when the British
artillery were brought to bear on the American troops, a shell exploded
so near to Major Stuart that the fragments killed the horse on which
he was mounted and inflicted a severe wound on himself. Being thus
disabled, and his horse having fallen on him, he had not the strength to
extricate himself from his entanglements, and was compelled to lie
helpless on the field until he was captured and sent as a prisoner to
the British hospital, where his wound was properly attended to. When
he was well enough to be moved he was transferred, with other prison-
ers, to one of the prison-ships on the coast, where he was detained for
more than six months, when he regained his liberty by an exchange of
prisoners. Meanwhile the condition of things had materially changed.
The surrender of Cornwallis soon followed, and active hostilities had
ceased.
Archibald Stuart spent the greater part of the next two years in the
study of law with Mr. Jefferson. After he had completed his course of
reading he returned to the residence of his father, in Rockbrid^e
county, with a view to conference with his friends as to his future set-
tlement in life. Some of them thought that it would be advisable for
him to become a candidate for a seat in the House of Delegates at the
election which was then near at hand. The elections were then, and
continued for half a century later, to be held on the first day of the
388 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
county courts of April in the respective counties. The April term ot
the County Court of Rockbridge was then, and I believe still continues
to be, held on the Monday before the first Tuesday in April, and all the
votes were cast at the court-house. In compliance with the wishes of
his friends he became a candidate, but was defeated by a majority of
thirteen votes.
On the day after the election he was requested by his father to go to
Botetourt county to close some matters of unsettled business which he
had with Colonel George Skillern, who resided about two miles from
Pattonsburg. Accordingly, on Wednesday, he went to the residence of
Colonel Skillern, and on the following day closed up the business which
was the object of his visit, so as to enable him to return to his father's
on Friday, according to his original plan.
In the mean time an invitation had been sent to him, as the guest of
Colonel Skillern, to attend a barbecue to be held on Friday at Pattons-
burg. At the urgent solicitation of Colonel Skillern he consented to
remain and attend the festival, at which it was expected most of the
leading gentlemen of the county would be present.
During the progress of the entertainment a toast was offered in honor
of the soldiers of the Revolutionary War, and Archibald Stuart was
called on to respond to it. This he did at some length, and apparently
to the satisfaction of his audience, to whom he was a stranger. Many
inquiries were made about him, and it having been made known that
he was the son of Major Alexander Stuart, who had commanded the
Valley regiment at Guilford, and that he had left William and Mary
College some weeks in advance of the battle to join the army, and had
himself actively participated in the fight, the favorable impression
made by his speech was strengthened ; and some one having referred
to the fact that he had been defeated as a candidate for the Legislature
in Rockbridge on the preceding Monday, it was suggested that the
people of Botetourt should elect him as one of their delegates at the
election to be held on the following Monday. The suggestion was
promptly adopted, and a committee appointed to wait on Mr. Stuart
and communicate to him their wishes and invite him to be a candidate.
This action was wholly unexpected by him, and after thanking them
for their kind wishes he was obliged to decline their offer, on the
ground that he was ineligible for Botetourt, not being a freeholder in
the county. Colonel Skillern, who was a man of wealth, promptly
replied that he was prepared to remove that objection by conveying to
Mr. Stuart a small house and lot which he owned in Fincastle. The
proposition was finally accepted, and all the arrangements perfected,
and at the close of the barbecue the gentlemen who had been present
returned to their homes prepared to announce to their neighbors that
Mr. Stuart would be a candidate for a seat in the House of Delegates
from Botetourt at the election to be held on the following Monday.
He remained as the guest of Colonel Skillern, who was an old friend
of his father, but on Monday morning he appeared at Fincastle, and
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 389
the deed from Colonel Skillern to him having been deposited in the
clerk's office which made him eligible, he was regularly announced as
a candidate for the House of Delegates from Botetourt county, and
proceeded to address the large crowd, which, attracted by the novelty
of the circumstances, had assembled at the court-house, on the political
topics of the day, and at the close of the polls he was announced as
one of those duly elected.
Thus it happened that the young man who had left his father's
house a week before a defeated candidate for the House of Delegates
for Rockbridge county, returned a " delegate-elect " for Botetourt.
These events occurred in April, 1783. In the progress of that year
Archibald Stuart removed to Staunton, which presented many induce-
ments to a young man who proposed to follow the profession of law.
By diligence and energy he soon acquired a large and lucrative practice.
As proof of the activity and industry which he displayed in the pursuit
of his profession, I can refer to the fact that, in addition to what may
be called his " home practice " in Augusta and the adjacent, he was a
regular attendant on what were then called the "district courts," held
at New London, Abingdon, the Sweet Springs, and Rockingham.
He represented Botetourt in the session of the General Assembly in
the winter of i783-'84, and was re-elected and served the same county
in the sessions of 1784 '85 and i785-'86.
In 1786 he was elected and served as a delegate from Augusta ; was
re-elected in 1787. In 1788 he was elected a member of the conven-
tion of Virginia which ratified the Constitution of the United States.
He was probably the youngest member of that body, as he had barely
completed his thirty-first year when he took his seat in it. There he
was brought into association with Edmund Pendleton, President,
Patrick Henry, George Mason, James Madison, Edmund Randolph,
John Marshall, James Monroe, George Nicholas, and many other of the
distinguished men of Virginia.
In the presence of men like these, who had inaugurated and con-
ducted the movement for independence, he very properly declined to
participate in the debates, and was content to remain an attentive and
delighted listener to the marvellous displays of wisdom, logic, and
eloquence which were made by those who were justly regarded as the
fathers of the Republic.
After the close of the session of the Convention Archibald Stuart
declined a re-election to any public office, with a view to devote his
whole time to his profession. There were other family reasons which
concurred in leading him to this conclusion. His father, who was
advanced in life, had met with some heavy losses in consequence of
a partnership into which he had unfortunately entered. He was, there-
fore, unable to give to his two younger sons, Alexander and James, the
same opportunities of education which he had extended to Archibald.
He had been educated at Liberty Hall Academy, which afforded a
fine course of instruction. They were both young men of energy and
390 VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ability, and, stimulated by the success of their brother in the law,
evinced a strong desire to adopt the same profession. This fact
having been made known to Archibald Stuart, he promptly invited
them to come to Staunton and take positions in his office, and study
law under his supervision and instruction. A similar invitation was
given by him to his cousin, John Hall. These invitations were grate-
fully accepted, and in due season these three young men became
installed as law-students in the office of Archibald Stuart. They all
proved to be diligent students, and all successful men in after life.
John Hall settled in North Carolina, where, after a distinguished
career at the bar, he was elected Judge of the circuit or district court,
and, after a service of some years in that court, he was promoted to
the bench of the Supreme Court of that State, where he gained still
higher distinction as an able and upright judge.
After Alexander Stuart had completed his course of study of law in
the office of his brother in Staunton he removed to Campbell county,
where he commenced the practice of his profession. Not long after-
wards he was elected a member of the Executive Council of the State
and removed to Richmond, where he resided for some years. About
this time (but the writer has no information as to the date) he married
Miss Ann Dabney, a near relation of the late Chiswell Dabney, of
Lynchburg; and when a territorial government was established in
Illinois, he was appointed United States Judge for the territory, and
settled in Kaskaskia. But, the climate proving unfavorable for the
health of his family, he returned to Virginia. Subsequently he
removed to Missouri, where he owned valuable real estate, and con-
tinued to be a resident of that State until his death, in December, 1832.
During his residence there he served as District Judge of the United
States, and occupied other positions of honor and responsibility.
Two of his children by his first wife (Miss Dabney) survived him —
viz., a son, Archibald, and a daughter, Anne. Anne married Judge
James Ewell Brown, of Wythe county, Virginia. Archibald Stuart
studied law and settled in Patrick county, Virginia, where he became
eminent as a lawyer and politician. He represented Patrick county at
different times in the House of Delegates, in the Senate of Virginia,
in the Congress of the United States, and in the Virginia Constitutional
Convention of i829-'3o and iSso-'si. He married Miss Elizabeth
Pannil and reared a large family of sons and daughters. Two of his
sons, in after life, attained peculiar eminence in their respective voca-
tions— viz., William Alexander Stuart as one of the most enterprising
and successful business men of the State, and General James Ewell
Brown Stuart, who is generally recognized to have been the most
brilliant and successful cavalry officer of the late war between the
States.
James Stuart, after obtaining his license to practice law, removed to
one of the southern counties of Virginia (PittsylVama), commenced
his professional career, and soon afterwards married a lady named
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 391
Stockton. The result of this marriage was a large family of children.
For many years he was successful as a lawyer, but finally he was over-
taken by disease which impaired his mind to such an extent as to dis-
qualify him for the pursuit of his profession. The family then removed
to Mississippi, where they established themselves in good social posi-
tion, and their descendants are now to be found in various parts of the
State. During the late civil war two young men, the grandsons of
James Stuart, who had won for themselves great distinction at the
University of Mississippi, came to Virginia with the troops of that
State. In consequence of their scientific attainments they were
assigned to duty in the signal department ; but, when the hour of
deadly conflict came, they were unable to restrain their military ardor,
and rushed into the thickest of the fight and both were killed — one at
the second battle of Manassas and the other at Fredericksburg.
Passing from this digression from the regular line of narrative — which
the writer thought might be interesting to collateral branches of the
family connected with Archibald Stuart — he now returns to the con-
sideration of the principal events connected with .the subsequent
career of Archibald Stuart.
On the 4th of May, 1791, Archibald Stuart was married to Eleanor
Briscoe, second daughter of Colonel Gerard Briscoe, of Frederick
county, Virginia. Colonel Briscoe was a Maryland gentleman, and
had served in the Revolutionary War. He lived for many years in
Montgomery county, near Rockville, Maryland, but having married
Miss Margaret Baker, a Virginia lady, he subsequently removed to an
estate which he owned near Winchester, Virginia, where he continued
to reside during the residue of his life. After Archibald Stuart's
marriage he withdrew from public life and devoted all his time to his
professional business interests. But he still felt deep solicitude about
the success of the new Federal Government, which he, as a member
of the State Convention of 1788, had aided in establishing.
It will be remembered that the Constitution of the United States
seemed to contemplate the division of each State into "electoral dis-
tricts," corresponding in number with the number of electoral votes
which the State was entitled to cast, and the people of each district
were allowed to choose their own elector. In the earlier presidential
elections the counties of Augusta, Rockingham, and Shenandoah com-
posed one electoral district
The writer has not taken pains to inform himself who was elected
from that district in the year i788-'89, when George Washington was
first elected, but he has in his possession the original certificate of the
election of Archibald Stuart as elector in that district at the second
election. This paper is prepared and certified under the hands and
seals of And. Shanklin, sheriff of Rockingham, Joseph Bell, sheriff of
Augusta, and Jacob Steigal, deputy sheriff for Evan Jones, sheriff of
Shenandoah county, dated i2th day of November, 1792. Under this
392 VIRGINIA CONVENTION' OF 1788.
certificate of his election Archibald Stuart qualified as a member of
the Electoral College of Virginia and cast the vote of his district for
George Washington at his second election in 1793.
It may be added that at each presidential election thereafter, up to
and including the election of 1824, he was chosen a member of the
Electoral College of Virginia, voting consecutively for Jefferson, Madi-
son, Monroe, and William H. Crawford, of Georgia
In pursuance of a resolution of the General Assembly of Virginia,
passed on the 25th of December, 1795, authorizing the Executive to
appoint commissioners to ascertain the boundary line between the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Kentucky, a commission
was
The manuscript of Mr. Stuart concludes as above. The com-
missioners on the part of Virginia were Archibald Stuart, General
Joseph Martin, and Creed Taylor ; and John Coburn, Robert
Johnson, and Buckner Thruston on the part of Kentucky.
Their report is embodied in " an act for confirming and estab-
lishing the boundary line between this State and the State of
Kentucky, ascertained and fixed by certain commissions by both
States, and for other purposes," passed by the Virginia Assembly
January 13, 1800. {Shepherd? s Continuation of Hening's Statutes,
Vol. II, pages 234, et seq.} — EDITOR.
INDEX
Abolition of Slavery, I, 191, 309,
341 ; II. 277 ; efforts for, in Ken-
tucky, II, 294.
A British American, Letters of.
II, 218.
Academy, The Richmond (between
Twelfth and Thirteenth streets),
founding of, I, 67.
ADAMS, John, I, 177, 186,214; II,
381 ; administration of, 294; ex-
citement during the administra-
tion of, 324.
Colonel Richard, II, 373.
Sarah, II, 373.
Admiralty of Virginia, Commis-
sioners of the, I, 249.
Admission of States into the Union,
I, 305-
AGNEW, Rev. John, II. 47.
"Airzvell," II, 374.
ALEXANDER, D. D., Rev. A., I, vi;
II, 116, 327.
ALEXANDER, D. D., Rev. H. C., I,
xiii.
ALEXANDER, Robert, II, 363.
Alien and Sedition Laws, discus-
sion of, II, 243; vote on, 224, 292,
324-
ALLEN, II, 381.
Major Arthur, II, 381.
Rev. Gary, II, 52.
Colonel John, II, 381.
John, II, 16 226, 326, 366, 381, 382.
Thomas, I, 7; II, 265.
AMBLER, Jaquelin, II, 210.
Mary Willis, I, 177.
Amendments to the Federal Con-
stitution, I, 225, 307, 317, 318, 320,
332,334,344; committee to pre-
pare, 347, 350; vote on, 351 ; II,
38; Edmund Randolph's substi-
tute for, 38, 183, 208. 231, 323.
American Philosophical Society,
I, xix.
"Ampthill," II, 369.
ANDERSON, II, 254.
ANDRE, Major John, II, 356.
ANDREWS, Rev. Robert, II, 23, 329,
364-
Annapolis Convention, The, dele-
gates to, I, 131, 144, 251; II, 34.
37, 70, 149. 153 ; circular propos-
ing the, 166.
Apollo Tavern, The, 11,217.
Armed Neutrality, I, 187.
ARMISTEAD, Mary, I, 250 ; II, 265.
Robert. II, 265.
William, II, 171.
Army of the United States, Reduc-
tion of the, II, 279.
Articles of the Confederation, I, 20,
29. 45. 49- 54-
ARTHUR, Thomas, II, 364.
ASHTON, Burdet, II, 364.
ATKINSON, Jane, 11,371.
Roger, II. 371.
Attainder, Act of . I, 122.
Augusta County, Va., exalted stat-
ure of men from. I, 338; patriot-
ism of, 338; Address from. Feb-
ruary 22, 1775, 338; extension of
limits of, II, 23.
Aurora newspaper, The, II, 246,
~3o.
Ayes and Noes, when first ordered
in a Virginia Convention, I, 344.
Bacon's Rebellion, II, 215.
BACON, Sir Nicholas, I, 79.
BAKER, Margaret, II, 391.
Judge Richard H., 11,376.
Richard H.. 11,376.
Baltimore. Md., trade of, fostered
by Virginia legislation, II, 139.
BALDWIN, Briscoe G., II, 15.
Dr. Cornelius. II, 15.
Bank of the United States, II, 280.
BANTE. II, 32.
Baptist Associations, memorial
from, II, loo, 103; petition for
394
INDEX.
use of Episcopal churches, 210;
for sequestration of Episcopal
Church property, 323; vote on,
323.
BARBOUR, Benjamin Johnston, II,
213.
James, I, 39, 182 ; II, 48, 226, 326.
Philip Pendleton, I, 39; II, 180,
226, 347.
BARNES, Colonel John, II, 264.
Mary, II, 225.
BARRY. II. 378.
W. T., II, 268.
BASSETT, Burwell, II, 173, 178, 190,
198, 199. 365 ; sketch of, 379.
Richard, II, 252, 337.
BATES, II, 83.
" Bathurst," II, 373.
BATHURST, Launcelot, II, 373.
BAXTER, D. D., Rev. George A.,
H, 52.
Louisa P., II, 54.
Sidney S , II, 54..
BAYLEY, Thomas H.. II, 327.
BAYLOR, Mrs. Lucy (Page), II, 377.
Beacon, The Norfolk, I, viii,
Beard, little worn, I, 95.
BECKLEY, II, 378.
John James, sketch of, I, 64 ; II,
53, 98. 226, 382.
BELL, David, II, 363, 369.
Joseph, II, 391.
Judith (Gary), II. 369.
BENSON, Egbert, II, 252.
BERKELEY, Sarah, I, 169.
BERTIE, I, 60
BesT, I, 119.
BEVERLEY, Anne, II, 379.
BICKLEY, Henry, I, 64.
Joseph, I, 64.
Sir William, I, 64.
Bill of Attainder, I, 262.
Bill of Rights, 11,373-
BINNEY, Horace, I, xvii.
Bishop of London, I, 258 ; II, 216.
BLACKBURN, General Samuel, II,
387.
BLACKFORD, II, 378.
BLAIR, Dr. Archibald, 11,382.
Dr. James, I, xxvii ; II, 216, 225,
382
John, I, 29, 162, 347 ; II, 167, 192
210, 219, 366 ; sketch of, 382.
President John, II, 303.
BLAND, Edward, II, 92
Richard, I, 37, 52, 66, 187 ; II, 133.
Theodorick, I, 35, 53, 197, 347 ; II,
56, 275; sketch of, 365, 380.
BLOUNT, Benjamin, II, 366.
Blue Licks, Battle of, II, 368.
BOOKER, II, 367
Edmund, II, 362.
Louis, II, 367.
Richard, II, 226.
Captain Samuel, II, 367.
BOONE, Daniel, II, 173.
BOTETOURT, Lord, burial of, II, 303 ;
statue of, 93.
Boundary lines, between Virginia
and Kentucky, II, 14; and Penn-
sylvania, 23 ; and North Carolina,
228.
Bounties on Occupations, II, 278.
BOURNE, Benjamin, II, 252.
BOWLES, E'eanor, II, 374.
James, II, 374.
John, I, vii.
BOWYER, John, II, 92.
Colonel William, II, 43.
Braddock's Defeat, I, 256; II, 42,
368.
BRAGG, Mrs. Lucy, I, 205.
BRANCH, Colonel James R. II, 370.
"Brandon," II, 284, 297.
Brandy wine, Battle of. II, 376, 380.
BRATTON, James, II, 52.
BRAXTON, Carter, I 52; II, 122, 127.
Elizabeth, II, 374.
George, II, 374.
Bulk of Cargoes, Breaking, II, 72.
BRECKENRIDGE, James, II, 325.
John, II, 92, 249, 254, 289, 335, 338.
Robert, 1, 7 ; II, 364, 377.
BRENT, II, -226.
William, II, 263.
BRIGGS, Eliza, II, 381.
Gray, II, 381.
John Howell, II, 210, 230, 366,
381.
BRIDGER, Joseph, II, 376.
BRISCOE, Eleanor, II, 15, 391.
Colonel Gerard, II, 15, 391.
British, cruelties of, during the
Revolution, II 45; supply arms
to Indians, 83, 96.
British Debts, I, 54, 266; II, 82, 95,
vote on, 95, 118, 176, 227, 239,
306, 380.
British Monopoly of trade, and
greed of merchants, I, 357 ; II,
138, 236.
British Navigation Act, I, 361 ; II,
81, 127, 138, 236.
British Treaty, I, 166, 276, 279 ; II,
82 ; vote on, 84; infraction of, 94,
236 ; opposing resolutions to, 237.
INDEX.
395
BROCK, R. A., History of Tobacco
in Virginia, I, 10.
BROOKE, Edmund, II, 326.
General George M., II, 374.
Humphrey, I, 307 . II, 178, 198,
211,364, 374.
Commodore, John M., II, 374.
Robert, II, 374.
Commodore Walter, II, 374.
William, II, 374.
Brown's Genesis of the United
States, II, 377.
BROWN, James, II, 289.
Judge James Ewell, II, 390.
Janet, II, 383.
John, II, 192, 226, 227, 230, 245,
276.
Rev. John, II, 383, 384, 385.
BUCHANAN, Andrew, II, 366
James, II. 74.
BUCKNER, II, 372.
BUFORD, II, 371.
BULLITT, Cuthbert, II, 140, 219, 365,
380.
Captain Thomas, II, 380.
BULLOCK, Rice, I, 7 ; II, 364.
Burgesses, The, difficulty in rinding
who were, 11,76; of 1619, I, 40,
49; of 1765, 40 ; Speaker of, also
Treasurer, 44.
BURNETT, Bishop, II, 381.
BURR, Aaron, II, 237, 333 ; trial of,
370.
Burwell's Bay, II, 376.
BURWELL, Major Lewis, 11,376.
Nathaniel, II, 364 ; sketch of,
376.
BUTLER, Mann, I, 7.
Pierce, II, 243.
BVRD, Colonel William, II, 80.
CABELL, John, I, 338.
Samuel Tordan, I, 35, 40, 75; II,
284, 363-
Dr. William, II, 71.
William, I, 49, 165; II, 48, 71, 90,
181, 226, 363 382.
William H., II, 226.
CALHOUN, John C., II, 334.
CALLOWAY, James. II, 371.
CALLIS, William Overton, II, 365 ;
sketch of, 375.
CALVERT, Benedict, II, 373.
Eleanor, II, 375.
CALVIN, John. 1, 257.
Campbell's Lives of the Chancel-
lors, restrictions as to publishing,
II, 276, 335.
CAMPBELL, II, 378.
Charles, II, 380.
Colonel William, II, 47.
Capitol of Virginia, old edifice, I,
i ; II, removal of, to Richmond,
74 ; vote on removal, 75, 85 ;
Church Hill proposed for site of,
373-
CARLETON, General, II, 96.
CARR,!!, 378.
CARRINGTON, Colonel Clement, I,
ix, 197.
Edward, I, 12, 160, 204; II, 170,
182, 199, 201, 203, 227, 322.
George, I, 35: II, 98, 329, 364,
375-
Joseph, II, 71, 80.
Paul, I, 50, 64, 66, 347, 351 ; II, 19,
48. 51, 173, 192, 219, 363; sketch
of, 369.
CARTER, II. 26.
Charles, II, 53, 98, 198, 199, 200.
John, II, 375.
Robert Grayson, I, 203, 204.
Thomas, II, 365.
" Carter Hall," 11,376.
GARY, II, 371, 378.
Archibald, I, 38, 66 ; iron works
of. 66; II, 61, 74, 283, 302, 369.
Judith, II, 369.
Richard, tl, 128, 193, 366; sketch
of, 382.
Colonel Wilson, II, 283.
Wilson Miles, II, 306.
Central Presbyterian, I, xiii.
Certificates of Debt, II, 177.
Charlotte Gazette, I, x.
Charters, jealousy regarding, II,
164.
CHASE, impeachment of Judge
Samuel, II, 342.
CHASTELLUX, Marquis de, I, vi.
CHENOWITH, Richard, II, 176.
Cherokee Indians, Commissioners
to, II, 196.
Chesapeake, Defense of the, II, 73.
CHICHELEY, Sir Henry, I, 169.
Chickasaw Indians, II, 201.
"Chippewamsic," II, 223.
CHRISTIAN, Anne, II, 42.
Elizabeth. II, 42.
Issac, II, 42.
Mary, II, 42.
Priscilla, II, 42.
Rose, II, 42.
Colonel William, II, 42.
Church Establishment, vote on the,
II, 75-
396
INDEX.
Cincinnati, Society of the, I, 160,
340; II, 372, 375, 379.
Citizenship in Virginia, discussed,
II, 80, 222.
CLARKE, II, 65.
Alice (Lee), II, 372.
Thomas, II, 372.
CLAY, Cassius M., II, 379.
Rev. Charles, 1,4, 151 ; sketch of,
255: grave of, 256, 317; 11,363,
378.
Green, I, 7; II. 365; sketch of,
378.
Henry, I, 255 ; II, 16, 373, 378.
CLAYBROOKE. II, 378.
CLAYTON, John, II, 379.
William, II, 365 ; sketch of, 379.
CLENDENIN, George, I, 35 ; II, 264.
Clergymen of Virginia, number of,
before and at close of the Revo-
lution, I, 259 ; II, 97 ; as educators,
225.
"Ctermont," II, 381.
"Clifton," II, 370.
CLINTON, DeWitt, II, 254 339.
Governor George, II, 188.
CLOUGH, II, 378.
COBBETT, William, II, 293.
COBURN, John, II, 392.
COCKE, 7.1, 330. 381.
Elizabeth, II, 380.
John Hartwell, II, 226, 366, 381,
382.
Richard, II, 381.
Cod-fishery interests, II, 278.
Code of Virginia, revision of, II,
134, 202, 315.
COLEMAN, II, 378.
Lucy, II, 371.
Robert, II. 371.
COLES, Governor Edward, 1,83,95.
Isaac, II, 222, 276, 279,364,374.
Major John, II, 374.
Coles1 Ferry, II, 375.
Commerce and Na vigation , d iscu ss-
ed, I, 314 ; II, 68 ; regulation of —
vote on, 87 ; regulation of, 140.
Committee of Safety, in 1776, II, 48.
Common Law, how regulated, I,
265.
CONARROE, George M., I, 186.
( onfiscations, I, 278
Confederation, Articles of the, I,
20, 29, 45, 54, 80, 89, 91 ; draft of,
129, 137, 237. 310; II, 219.
Confederations, ancient and mod-
ern; of the New England States,
I, 146
Congress, original term of a mem-
ber of, I, 51 ; jealousy of the acts
of, 52 ; power of, 137, 258 ; elec-
tion of members of, 139 ; mem-
bers from Virginia reported pro-
ceedings to governor, II, 199.
"Conjuror's Neck," II, 379.
CONN, Notlay, I, 7; II, 353.
Constitution, The Federal, opposi-
tion to, defects of, I, 31, 41, 48, 49,
51. 58, 319; adoption of, by the
several States, 40, 57, 78,310,319;
condemned and infractions fore-
told, 117, 156. 198, 208, 293; dis-
cussed by Madison, 134; ratified
by the influence of Revolution-
ary officers, 192 ; vote on the
ratification of, 345 ; amendments
to, II, 183; vote on, 183, 208 ;
new convention proposed, 231,
322.
Constitution of Virginia, resolution
to revise the, II, 210.
CONTESSE, Dr., I, 248.
Continental Money, settlement of,
I, 265 ; speculation in, 265 ; de-
preciation of. II, 45, 73.
CONWAY, Edwin, II, 377.
Moncure D., II, 208.
COOKE, I, 347.
COOPER, Thomas, II, 364.
CORBIN, Francis, descent of. I, 143;
his ability, 145, 247, 259, 264, 274,
276, 347 ; 11,56, 114, 127, 167, 198,
199, 200.
Henry, I, 143.
Richard, I, 143.
CORNWALLIS, Lord, generosity of,
II, 383 ; carried off plate, II, 83 ;
defeat of, II, 368.
Cotton Exports, II, 242.
Counties of Virginia, named in
honor of patriots, I, 24; of kings
and nobles, I, 60.
County Lieutenant, commission of,
II, 48.
Courts of Virginia, creation of the,
II. 62 ; vote on the, 62; District,
176 ; operation of, suspended,
181 ; Appeals, reconstructed, 192,
193; Admiralty, 193; General and
Appeals, re established, 219, 232.
COWAN, William, II, 326.
COWPER, Josiah Parker, II, 376.
L. P. C, II, 376.
T. F. P. P., 11,376.
William, II, 376.
Captain William, II, 376.
INDEX.
397
CRAWFORD, William Harris, I, 61 ;
II, 392.
Creditors of the Nation, distinction
among the, II, 277 .
Creek, applicability of the name,
I, 233.
CROCKETT, Walter, II. 365.
"Cuckoo" II, 375.
Cumberland County. II, 71.
Current Money of Virginia, II, 204.
CUSTIS. Edmund, II, 363 ; descent
of, 367.
John, II, 367. '
John Parke, II, 367, 373.
Customs, Revenues from, I, 277.
DABNEY, Ann, II, 390.
Chiswell, II, 390.
Mary, II, 369.
DAINGERFIELD, Elizabeth, II, 372.
Colonel William, II, 372.
DANIEL, Jr., William, II, 326.
DARKE, Captain Joseph, II, 368.
General William, 1, 35, 340; 11,9,
363 ; sketch of, 368.
DAVEISS, Joseph Hamilton, II, 289,
DAVIDSON, Miss Mary, I, vii.
DAVIES, Rev. Samuel, I, 255, 257 ;
II, 42, 114
DAVIS, Augustine, I, 67.
General, II, 25.
David, II, 385.
DAWSON, John. I, 139, 314 ; II, 192,
199, 230, 375; sketch of, 381.
DUANE, LL. D., Charles, I. xxiii.
Debtors, bill for the relief of, II,
74; vote on, 74.
Debts of States, 1, 90; to be assumed
by the general government, II,
212; vote on, 213; sinking fund
for, 228; of the United States to
foreign governments, 125.
" Decius" Letters of, I, 333; II,
358.
Delaware and Cataivba Indians,
II. 55-
D'EsTAiNG, Count, anecdote of,
II, 254-
DICKENSON, Henry, II, 365.
Dictator proposed for Virginia in
1781, II, 352, 357-
DIGGER, Cole, II, 366, 382.
Dudley, II, 48.
Edward. II, 382.
Sir. Edward, II, 382.
DINWIDDIE, Governor Robert, His
pistol tax, I, 35 ; presents mace to
Norfolk, 74, 329; H. 25, 4^ 42.
Dirlton's Doubts, I, 258.
Dismal Swamp, cans\, II, 176, 228;
lands, I, 161.
Disunion, Apprehensions of, 1, 154.
DODDRIDGE. Philip, I, 201, 347.
DOUGLAS, Stephen A., II, 385.
DREW, Thomas H., II, 360, 370.
Will., II, 53-
DRINKARD, Jr., William, I, 66.
Sr., William. I, 66.
DROMGOOLE, George C., I, 24.
DUANE, William, editor of the
Aurora; cited before the United
States Senate for contempt, II,
246, 263
William, J., II. 263.
Z>w^/,betvveen Mason and McCarty.
II, 265; between Marshall and
Clay, 373.
DUNCAN, Rev. James A., I, viii.
Rev. W. W., I, viii.
DUNMORE, Lord, I, 324; II, 46, 61,
303, 375-
Eagle Tavern, I, 347.
EARLY, Joab, II, 364, 371.
Joel.
John, II, 364, 371.
Bishop John, II, 371.
Jubal, II, 371.
General Jubal A , II, 371.
Peter. II, 342, 371.
" Edge Hill," I, ix.
EDMISTON. Samuel, II, 366.
EDMOND, Charles, I, vii.
EDMUNDS, II, 380.
John, II, 381.
Thomas, II, 366. 381,
William, II, 381.
Education in Virginia, Early, II,
71, 216, 225, 379, 382.
EGE, Jacob, II, 137
Elections, Federal, I, 118; regula-
tion of State, II, 82.
" Eltham," II, 379.
ELTONHEAD, Alice, I, 143.
Emancipation of Slaves, I, 211;
II, 56 ; vote on, 59, 69, 130, 131,
195. 316-
Entails, question of, II, 72.
Episcopal Church, legislation con-
cerning the. II, 99, 106, 114; II,
313, 323; value of its property,
113; ministers of, their scholar-
ship, ri4, 122, 126; free use of
its edifices petitioned for, 210,
323.
Escheats and Forfeitures, II, 96.
398
INDEX.
ETCHISON, I, vi.
EVANS, John II, 365.
EWEI.L, Colonel Benjamin S., I,
xviii; his tribute to H. B Grigsby,
xvii.
General R. S., I, xviii.
Dr. Thomas, I. xviii.
D. D., Rev. William Stoddard, I,
xviii.
Export Duties, I, 263.
Expost Facto Laws, I, 262 ; apply
only to criminal cases, 267, 293.
Extradition Laws, II, 117, 313.
Eye-glasses, early use of, I, 76.
EYRE, Littleton, II, 226, 365, 382.
FAIRFAX, Lord, II, 16.
FALCONI, Signer, II, 348.
FARLEY, II, 80.
FAULKNER, Hon. C. J., I, 301.
FAUQUIER, Governor Francis, II,
42, 302.
federal Convention of 1788, I, 29,
41, 51, 131. 144, 251 ; II, 34, 37, 70,
149, 156; circular proposing, 166.
Federalist, The, I, 31, 241.
Federal Policy, selfish. II, 237.
Federal Requisitions, I, 51.
Federal Officers, salaries of, aug-
mented, II, 245.
FIELDS, case of, for murder of his
wife, II, 296.
FINNIE, William, II, 372.
FISHER, Daniel, II, 364.
Fishery and Fur Interests, I, 208,
276.
FITCH, John, privilege granted, in
steamboats, II, 177.
FITZHUGH, William, II, 19.
FITZSIMMONS, II, 271.
Fleet's Bay, II, 377.
FLEET, Brian, II, 377.
Catherine, II, 377.
Edward, II, 377.
George, II, 377.
Henry, II, 377.
John, II, 377.
Reynold, II, 377.
William. 11,364.371, 377.
FLEMING, Dorothea, II, 40, 52.
Eliza, II, 52.
John, II, 52.
Leonard, II, 40, 52.
William, I, 35. 52, 350, 363 ; II, 9,
26 ; sketch of. 40, 52 ; acting
governor of Virginia, 52, 363.
Judge William. II, 54 192.
FLOYD, Colonel John, II, 377.
FONTAINE, II, 371.
FOOTE, Richard H., I, 250.
FORD, Rev. Reuben. II, 125.
Foreign Affairs, Department of,
II, 280.
Forts — Henry, II, 65 ; Meigs, 378 ;
Pitt, 66; Pleasant, 55.
FORTH, I, xv.
FOUSHEE, William, II. 326.
FOWLER. John, I, 7 ; II, 364.
Fox's Eulogy of Pitt, I, 333.
Franchise, former Virginia law
regarding, II, 388.
FRANKLIN, Benjamin. I, 76; his
present from Louis XVI, 264.
Freeholder, qualifications of the,
II, 191.
FRENCH, Daniel, II, 371.
Margaret, II, 371.
French, debts to the, I, 152 ; im-
migrants, bill regarding, II, 243;
capture of their vessels, 244;
commerce with, suspended, 245.
FROGGE. Agatha, II, 28.
John. II. 28.
FRY, Hugh W.t I, i.
Robert, II, 282.
FULTON, Captain Andrew, II, 384.
Hon. Andrew S., II, 384.
John H., II, 384.
GALLATIN, Albert, I, 177.
GALT, Alexander, sketch and an-
cestry of, I, vii ; his works, xii,
xxi.
Dr. Alexander, I, xii.
Hugh B. G., I, xxi.
John, I, xii.
Mary Carrington, I, xxi.
Mary Jeffrey, I, xiii.
Mary Sylvester J., I, xii.
Robert Ware, I, xxi.
William R., I, xxi.
William W., I, xxi.
GAMBLE, Colonel Robert, II, 258.
GARLAND, II, 378.
GASKINS, Thomas, II, 365.
GATES, General Horatio, II, 47.
GEORGE, Colonel John B., charged
W. F. Gordon with inconsistency,
I, 165.
Germantown, Battle of, II, 367,
368.
GERRY, Elbridge II, 375.
GIBSON, William D., II, 370.
GILES, William B., I, 101, 183; II,
107, 226, 276, 279, 328, 343.
GlLLIAM, II, 378.
INDEX.
399
GILMER, Dr. George, II, 20.
Governor George R., II, 21, 25.
GILPIN, editor of the Madison Pa-
pers, tribute to, II, 142.
GIRTY, Simon, II, 64
GIST, General Nathaniel, I, 197.
Glebe Lands, property in, II, 112;
vote regarding, 114.
GOOCH, Sir William, I, 329; II,
374-
William, II, 374.
GOODALL, Charles, II, 375.
Colonel Charles P., II, 375.
Dr. Charles P., 1^375.
Eliza, II, 375
James, II, 375.
Martha Perkins, II, 375.
Michael, II, 375.
Parke, II, 364; sketch of, 375.
GOODE, Robert, II, 74.
William O., I, 241.
GOODRICH, Agatha Wells, II, 46.
Bartlett, II, 46.
Bridges, II, 46.
John, II, 46.
William, II, 46.
GORDON, James, II, 364, 365, 378.
William F , I, 165.
Gosport, II, 285.
GOTHERSON, Daniel, II, 377.
GRAHAM, Rev. William, I, vi, 340;
II, 10, 23, 104, 108.
GRAYSON. Alfred W., I, 210.
Benjamin, I, 203.
Benjamin Orr, I, 210, 211.
Frances, I, 210.
George W., I, 210.
Hebe C., I, 210.
Hebe S., I, 210.
General John B., I, 210.
Rev. Spence, I, 210.
William, I, 35 ; sketch of. 195,
210; intrepidity of, 198; ora-
torical powers of, 200; his per-
son, 202 ; speaks, 207, 231, 241,
244, 255, 259, 268, 272, 274, 277,
300,314,320,347; 11,85,91,170,
178, 192, 214, 230; his honor,
234, 365-
William J., I, 210.
William P., I, 210.
Great Britain, delinquency of, II,
242.
GREEN, General Nathaniel, I, 47,
109.
GRIFFIN, Cyrus, II, 19, 192, 230.
Samuel, II. 276.
GRIFFITH, William, II, 252.
GRIGSBY, Colonel Andrew J., I, vii.
Rev. Benj. Porter, I, vi ; founder
of the Presbyterian church in
Norfolk, vii; II, 27, 116.
Elizabeth McPherson, I. vi.
Hugh Blair, sketch of, I, v; his
education, viii ; edits Norfolk
Beacon, viii ; legislative ser-
vice of, ix ; his devotion to
agriculture, x, xxv ; his charac-
teristics, x; his love of books,
art, etc., xi; his piety, xiv; de-
votional poetry of, xiv ; literary
productions of, xix : last public
appearance of, xx ; epitaph of.
xxi ; issue of, xxi.
Hugh Carrington, I, xxi.
General J. Warren, I, vii.
James, I, vi,
John, I, vi
Mary Blair, I. vi.
Mary Venable, I, ix.
Captain Reuben, I, vi, xii.
GRYMES, Susanna, II, 377.
GUARDOQUI, I, 233.
GUERRANT. John, II, 364, 374.
Guilford, Battle of, II, 12, 386.
GUNN, Jariies, II, 242.
Gunpowder for the Colony, II, 183.
GUTHRIE, II, 385.
GWYNNE, Nell, II, 378.
Habeas Corpus \ I, 262.
HADEN, Joseph, II, 364.
HALKET, Sir Peter, II. 42.
HALL, Edward, II, 384
Dr. Isaac, II, 384.
Judge John, II, 384.
HAMILTON, Alexander, II, 166.
HAMMOND, II, 83.
Hampden Sidney College, II, 51.
Hanover Presbytery, II, 113, 123,
130.
HARDY, Samuel, notice of, II, 137,
226.
HARCOURT, Sir William, I, ix.
HARDWICKE, Earl of, II, 216.
HARRIS, II, 378.
HARRISON, II, 378.
Alexander, II, 149.
Benjamin, I, 37, 52, 71. 184, 186,
257, 251, 300, 321 ; II, 66, 121,
173, i?8. 198. 199, 211.
Benjamin, " of Berkeley," I, 249 ;
II, 363-
Benjamin, "of Brandon," II, 254 ;
moves to Surry as a "pot-
boiler," 316.
400
INDEX.
HARRISON, Carter Henry, II, 91,
122, 131.
Mrs. Ellen Wayles, II, 297.
Herman, I, 186.
Nathaniel, II, 382.
Mary, II, 382.
Robert Hanson, I, 211.
William, B , II, 297.
William Henry, I, 61 ; II, 121.
Harrison County, II, 66.
HART, II, 378.
HARTWELL, Elizabeth, II, 381.
Henry, 11,381.
HARVIE, General John B., II, 19.
HAY, George, II, 198.
HAYS, Captain John, II, 32.
HELM, Captain William, I, 204.
Hemp, duty on, proposed, II, 271.
HENRY, James, II, 193
John, notice of, I, 4, 119. 256.
Patrick, I, 4, 24, 28, 29, 32, 37, 42,
53. 54, 56 ; gestures of, 76 ;
speech on the Constitution, 80,
90, 99, 105; his rejoinder to
Henry Lee, 113; discusses the
Constitution, 114; aspersions
of his character, 114; influence
of his eloquence, 118, 140, 145,
146; portrays the expense of
the Federal Government, 148 ;
his plea for States Rights, 149 ;
his mode of preparation for
speaking, 150; his powers of
acting, 156, 163, 1 66, 168, 186,
189, 193, 2ii, 218, 224, 243,245;
his devotion to Virginia, 253,
255, 259; his epigram, "The
sword and the purse,'' 259, 262,
264, 273, 292, 300, 302, 303; his
scheme for the ratification of
the Constitution, inveighs
against it, 308, 312; amend-
ments to it, 316; striking mani-
festations of the elements
during a speech of his, 316,
318; length of his speechs,
328, 347, 35i ; H, 19, 22, 30, 38,
43- 61, 65, 73, 74, 85, 97, 114,
126, 167, 173, 181, 192, 198, 204,
209, 219, 22 r, 230, 318, 322, 357,
365, 369, 375, 376, 380.
Spotswood, birth of, I, 119.
William Wirt, I, xxii, 4.
HERON, Peter, case of, II, 72.
HETH, General Harry, I, 74.
Captain John, II, 381.
Margaret, II, 381.
Colonel William, I, 74; II, 381.
HIGGINSON, Lacy, II, 377.
Robert, II, 377.
HITCHCOCK, Samuel, II, 252.
HITE, II, 55.
HOGBEN, Joseph, II, 377.
HOGE, William, II, 71.
Holland, Government of, I, 155.
HOLLTDAY, II, 378.
HOLMES, Judge Hugh, II, 15, 17.
HOOE, Robert Townsend, II, 167.
HOOK, John, case of, II, 326.
HOOMES, John, II, 107.
"Hope Park," II, 373.
HOPKINS, Jr., Samuel, II, 12.
Hospital at Norfolk, Marine, IIr
207.
Houdon's Statue of Washington,
I, 6; reproduced in bronze, II,
3"-
HOUSTON, Samuel, II, 386.
General Samuel, II, 386.
Rev. Samuel, II, 12,387.
HOWARD, George, II, 268.
HUBARD, Eliza Gordon, I, 7.
James, I, 249.
William James, sketch of, I, 6, 7.
HUGHES, James, II, 289.
HUMPHREYS, Ralph, II, 364.
Hunsdon, Barony of,\\, 302.
HUNTER, Ann Evelina, II, 368.
Moses, II, 368.
" Hunting Tower" II, 369.
Illinois County, established, II, 219.
Immigrants to Virginia, II, 82.
Impeachment, Power of , I, 271.
Independance, Resolutions of, by
the Virginia Assembly, I, 132.
Indiana Company, I, 279, 289, 302.
Indian Queen Tavern, II, 375.
Indian Relations, I, 153 ; II, 201 ;
invasions, I, 339 ; II, 200.
Infidelity, Federal administration
inspired a horror of, II, 294.
" Ingle side," II. 369.
INNES, Harry, II, 214.
Colonel James, I. 329.
James, I, 37, 75, 169; notice of,
324, 333, 347J 11,23, 121, 138,
140, 157 ; grave of, 245, 284, 366.
Rev. Robert, I, 324.
Inspection laws, I, 267.
International law, H. B. Grigsby
on, I, ix
Irish Colonization in Virginia,
11,9.
Iron works in Kentucky, Early, II,
292.
INDEX.
401
JACKSON, II. 52.
Andrew, II, 242.
Edward, II, 66.
George, sketch of, I, 40; II, 66,
364-
James, II, 249, 254.
John, I. 40.
General T. J., II, 66 ; bust by
Gait, I, xii.
iARRETT, Rev. Devereux, II, 225.
AY, John, I, 237; II, 236.
EPPERSON, I, 40.
Thomas. His statue by Gait, I,
xii; 53, 152, 177, 229 ; II, 12, 51,
52, 83, 91, 126, 133, 134, 136 ;
his return from France, 210,
243 ; service in the United
States Senate, 248 ; inquiry
into his conduct whilst gover-
nor. 285; contest between him
and Burr, 333, 354, 357, 373, 387,
392.
JEFFERY, Lord, I, 97.
JENINGS, Edmund, II. 372.
JENKINS, General A. G., I, vii.
JOHNSON, Chapman, I, 39, 102, 166,
347; II, 226, 235.
James, I, 3, 102, 256; II, 15, 364 ;
sketch of, 375.
Robert, II, 392.
JOHNSTON, General Joseph E., II,
327-
Peter, II, 327.
Zachariah, I, 337; II, 122, 127,
181, 363-
JONES, II. 372.
Alexander, II, 369.
Binns, II, 363.
Evan, II, 391.
Francis B., 1, 301; II, 16. 19, 60, 180.
Gabriel, 1,340; sketch of. 340;
II, arms of, 16; portrait of, 17,
22 176, 288, 365.
John, II. 178, 226, 229, 365 ; sketch
of, 369, 382.
John Winston, II, 369,
Joseph, II, 92, 93, 170, 178, 191,
198, 219, 222. 264, 271.
Mary Heath, II, 373.
Pete'r, II. 369.
Walter, II, 153,365; sketch of, 379.
JORDAN. Charles, I, 40.
Jtiduciary; Federal law repealed,
11,193, 249; Act of 1801,252, 332;
of Virginia, I, 92, 280, 295; es-
tablishment of district courts, II,
176; amended 193; low salaries
of, 231.
KIERNAN, George S. M., II, 65.
KELLO, Samuel. II, 366.
KENNON, Richard, II, 329. 365 ;
sketch of, 379.
Kentucky, counties of Christian,
Fleming, and Trigg, II, 43 ; dele-
gates from, to the Virginia Con-
vention. I, 7 : boundaries of, 152 ;
made a State, II, 196 ; proposi-
tion to, from the Spanish Gov-
ernment to become, a province
thereof, 293 ; dividing line be-
tween Virginia and, II, 14 ; com-
missioners for settling claims to
lands of, II. 48.
KEY, B. P., II, 252.
KING, Henry, II, 372.
Miles, II. 200, 364, 371.
King's Mountain, battle of, II, 47.
LACY, William, I, viii.
LAFAYETTE, naturalization of, II,
136-
Land, laws, I, 78, 122; titles, 279,
289 ; public, disposition of. II, 82 ;
vote on, 85 ; disposition of, near
Richmond, 96.
LAWSON, General Robert, II, 365,
380.
Lawyer's Road, II, 17.
LEAKE, II. 378.
Hon. William Josiah, II, 378.
LEE, Alice, II, 372.
Arthur, II, 12, 316.
Charles Carter, I, 109, 150.
Henry, I, 35, 71 ; II, 363 ; sketch
of, 368.
Henry (of the Legion), I, 7, 35,
53; person, career,, and ances-
try of, 109, 135, 149; speaks,
assailing Patrick Henry, 109,
118; speech of. 158, 194, 197,
234, 259. 270; II, 170, 179, 211,
227, 234, 322, 326, 360.
Philip, II, 372.
Richard, II, 373.
Richard Bland, II, 56, 226, 276.
Richard Henry, I, 19, 29, 31, 63,
186, 193, 214, 252, 301, 305, 357 ;
II, 98. 99, 106, 170, 181, 182, 192,
198, 211. 217, 219, 230,318.
Thomas. II, 227, 231.
Thomas Ludwell, 11,48, 134, 219.
LEIGH, Benjamin Watkins, I, 37,
39,78, 241,347; 11,226,372.
William, I, 37; II, 372.
Leopard, Attack by the, on the
Chesapeake, II, 239.
402
INDEX.
LETCHER, Governor John, I, xii.
LEWIS. Andrew, II, 25,61.
Colonel Charles, II, 44.
John, II, 25.
Robert, II, 374.
Colonel Thomas, I, 76, 338 ; II,
9, 17, 18; sketch of, 20; descent
of, 21, 24, 30, 365.
Warner, 1, 75; II, 364, 374.
Liberty Hall Academy, II, 385, 389.
Libraries in the Colony of Vir-
ginia, II, 1 6, 23, 30, 51.
LINCOLN, Abraham, II, 385.
LITTLEPAGE, John Carter, II, 364,
375-
Lewis, II, 375.
LIVINGSTON, R. R., II, 337.
LLOYD, Rev. John James, I, 7.
LOGAN, John, I. 7 ; II, 365.
Louis XVI of France, I, 152.
Louisiana, acquisition of, I, 217;
H. 337 ! cession of, to France by
Spain, II, 253; speech on, by S.
T. Mason, 253; divided into two
territories, 342.
Loyalists, former, favorable to the
Constitution, I, 193; notes on,
11,46; their influence during the
Revolution and subsequently, 79.
LYNE, Edward, II, 48.
LYNN, Margaret, II, 25.
LYONS, Peter, II, 192.
MCCARTY, John Mason, I, 211 ;
duel of, with A. T. Mason, II,
265; his son, 267.
William M., II, 268.
McCAW, Dr. James Brown, II, 370.
Mace of the House of Burgesses
of Virginia ; of Norfolk, I, 74.
McCLERRY, William, II, 200, 365.
McCLURG, II, 384.
Dr. James, I, 29.
MCDOWELL, Governor James, II,
49-
Colonel Samuel, II, 386.
Samuel, I, 338; II, 49.
McFERRAN, Martin, sketch of, II,
37, 363-
McKEE, William, I, 16, 347; II, 37,
365-
McPHERSON, Hugh, I, vi.
Lilias (Blair), I, vi.
McRAE, Alexander, II, 349.
MACRAE, Mrs. Emily, II, 224, 262.
MADISON, II, 382.
James, I, 28, 29, 30, 36, 53, 56,
64, 72 ; replies to Governor
Mason, 93 ; his public service
and appearance, 93; wrote out
the debates of the Federal Con-
vention,95; mode of speaking,
97, 99, 101, 102 ; speech of, 131,
143, 144, 146, 162, 170, 187; his
modesty, 205, 222, 228, 234, 243,
290. 293, 299, 304, 315, 316, 318,
323. 347, 348, 357 ; II. 15, 58, 89,
93,99, ui, 120, 123. 126, 135,
137, 140, 146, 148, 149, 151, 170,
192, 227, 230, 240, 241, 253, 270,
273, 275, 277, 279,314, 337, 354,
365, 370. 371.
James. D. D., II, 10, 23, 284, 386.
John, II, 17.
Thomas, II, 210.
MAGRUDER, Allan B., I, 3.
"Malvern Hills,'" II, 381.
"Mansfield," II, 371.
MARR, John, II, 364.
Marriage Laws of Virginia,
amendment of the, II, 97 ; vote
on, 98.
MARSHALL, Humphrey, I, 7, 31,
240; II, 245, 364 ; sketch of, 373.
Chief Justice John. Lives and
Memorials of, I, 3, 36, 75, 150,
167, 170; person of— speech
of, 176 ; his eloquence, 185, 256,
298, 3I9-347; II, 15-49. in, 211,
230, 239, 297, 298, 322, 325, 364,
373, 382.
John J.. II, 373.
Mary, II. 373.
Cotonel Thomas, I, 197; II, 49.
Thomas A., II, 373.
William, II, 80.
MARTIN, General Joseph. II, 14, 392.
Maryland, delay of, in ratifying
Articles of Confederation, I. 90 ;
her commercial policy, II, 138.
MASON, Armistead Thomson, I,
211 ; sketch of, II, 265.
Francis, II, 215.
Captain George, II, 215.
George, I, 4, 19, 24, 29. 31, 42,
69, 78 ; on taxation, 92, 100,
114, 122, 162; speech of, 188,
193. 255. 259, 260, 263, 267, 269,
270, 284, 304, 313, 347, 349, 351 ;
II, 30. oo, 123, 126, 134, 149,
155, 167; ancestry of, 215, 217,
219 304, 311, 366.
Jonathan, II, 249,
John Thomson, II, 223, 266;
sketch of, 268.
Judge John T., II, 262.
INDEX.
403
MASON, General Stevens Thom-
son, II, 268.
Stevens Thomson, I, 24, 36,
327 ; II, 72, 138, 178, 193, 198,
215, 216, 220; sketch of, 225;
death and burial of, 263, 268,
269, 343, 365, 382.
Temple, II, 223, 264, 268.
Thomson, sketch of, II, 215 ; per-
sonal characteristics of, 224,
262, 268.
William, II, 215, 364.
MASON family, in New England,
11,215.
Massachusetts Historical Society,
action of, on the death of H. B.
Grigsby, I, xxv.
Massachusetts, intestine commo-
tions of, I, 82 ; insurgents of, 270.
MATHEWS, George, I, 338 ; II, 80.
Sampson, I, 338.
MATTHEWS, Major, II, 45.
Thomas, I, 36; notice of, 306,
321, 343, 347; H, 80, 105, 173,
179, 198, 211, 366.
MAXWELL, II, 81.
William, I, vii, xvii.
MAY, David, II, 48.
" Mayfield," 11,375-
MAYNARD, Lieutenant, I, 95.
MAYO, Ann, II, 375.
Joseph, II, 56, 69, So.
Mecklenburg county, Virginia, pe-
titions for emancipation, II, 131.
MERCER, II, 55.
General Hugh, II, 53.
James, I, 66; II, 19, 48, 193.
John Francis, II, 279.
Merchants of Virginia, chiefly
foreign, II, 143.
MEREDITH, Colonel Samuel, II,
375- ,
Messages from the Governor of
Virginia, not formal in early
days, II, 199.
Methodist Episcopal Church, II,
126.
MlCHAUX, II, 370.
Abraham, II, 370.
Captain Jacob, II, 370.
Joseph, II, 364 ; sketch of. 370.
Military officers, influence of, in
ratifying the Constitution, I, 160.
Militia of Virginia, intrepidity of,
I, 160, 259; II, 174-
MILLER, John, I, 7 ; II, 368.
MILO, trial of, I, 269.
MINOR, II, 378.
Mississippi, navigation of the, I,
152, 181 ; discussed, 231, 274; II,
169, 171, 194. 237.
MOFFET, II, 384.
Monmouth, Battle of, II, 378, 379.
Monongahela, Battle of, II, 42.
MONROE, II, 392.
James, I, 36, 64, 75, 102 ; notice of,
167 ; discusses the Federal
Government, 175, 203, 211, 234 ;
cabinet of, 239, 243, 255, 257,
268, 304, 323, 347; II, 214;
ballad on his election to the
United States Senate over John
Walker, 214, 337, 366, 371, 373.
Spence, I, 203
" Monticello," II, 315.
" Montpelier" II, 315.
MONTGOMERY, James, II, 366.
Monumental Church, The, I, 68 ;
II, 370.
MOORE. II, 386.
Andrew, I, 36, 340, 347 ; II, 9 ;
sketch of, 31, 271, 274, 279,
345- 365-
David, II, 32.
William, II, 36, 63.
MORECOCKE, W. H. E., I, xxvi.
MORGAN, II, 55.
Daniel, Rifle Corps of, II, 32.
MORRIS, II, 378.
Gouverneur, II, 249, 254, 335.
Robert, cited on the poll tax, I,
190.
MORRISON, Colonel James, II, 293.
MOSELEY Mary, II, 381.
MUHLENBURG, General, I, 258;
II 97.
MUNFORD, Anne, I, 144.
Anne Beverley, II, 379-
Elizabeth Beverlev, II, 379-
Robert, II, 379.
William G., II. 92.
MURRAY, Hon. Alexander, II, 303.
George, Viscount Fincastle, II,
303-
John, II, 303.
William, Earl of Mansfield, II,
216.
William, II, 289.
Mutual Assurance Society of Vir-
ginia, II, 370.
MYERS, Major E. D. T., II, 368.
Naval Officers of Virginia, legis-
lation regarding, II, 17?-
Navy, United States. I, 214; its
creation due to Jefferson, 214.
404
INDEX.
Negro slaves, taken off by the Bri-
tish during the Revolution, I, 8;
number of, in Virginia in 1790;
evils apprehended from the in-
crease of, 124 ; their emancipa-
tion foretold, 157 ; in the army as
soldiers, 309 ; in the South, 309.
NELSON, II, 378.
Hugh, II, 199, 230.
General Thomas, II, 378.
President William, II, 303.
William, II, 226, 284.
New England, influence of, I, 142 ;
fisheries of, 207 ; opposed the
acquisition of Louisiana, 217 ;
interested legislation of, 314; re-
proached for apathy in the Revo-
lution, 322 ; Federal policy in
favor of, II, 237.
Newspapers of Virginia : Gazette,
Whig, Enquirer, i, 67.
NICHOLAS. Anne, II, 297.
Anne Gary, II, 281 ; character of,
283 ; inspiring letter to her
son, 304; exhortation of, to
her son, 356.
Elizabeth, II, 282.
Elizabeth Randolph, II, 297.
Dr. George, II, 282.
George, I, 36, 73, 75, 78 ; person
°f. 79> 99- nS; speech of,
140; ability in debate of, 140,
1 86, 231, 246, 255, 259, 263, 267,
271, 273, 274, 300,302, 317, 324,
347 ; II, 72, 123, 126, 162, 173,
l&3> 199, 214, 222; sketch of,
281 ; conscientiousness of, 287 ;
advice of, to a young lawyer,
288 ; offers draft for the Con-
stitution of Kentucky, 291 ;
public grief at the death of,
297, 324, 363-
George Anne, II, 297.
Hetty Morrison, II, 297.
John, II, 284, 306
John Nelson, II,. 297.
Lewis, II, 284.
Maria, II, 297.
Margaretta, II, 297.
Mary Gary, II, 297.
Colonel Robert, II, 297.
Robert Carter, I, 37, 44, 249 ; II,
71, 74, 99, 183, 279, 281 ; purity
of, 282 ; death of, 282.
Samuel Smith, II, 297.
Wilson Cary, I, 36, 75 ; II, 127,
J93> 23°- 248, 281 ; sketch of,
299; compared to Talleyrand,
Walpole and Machiavelli, 301 ;
claimed to be a relation of
Talleyrand, 344; criticism of
the character of, 345 ; his in-
fluence as a partisan, 353 ; his
financial enterprises, 360, 363.
NIVISON, John, IF, u.
Nonimportation Agreement, II,
382.
Norfolk, burning of, I, n.
North Carolina, rejects the Con-
stitution, I, 320; boundary line
of, II, 228.
Northern Neck Titles, I, 278, 289,
299, 302; lines of grants — jour-
nal of the commissioners to fix.
the lines in 1746, II, 24.
Northwestern Lands, conveyed to
the Nation by Virginia, II, 82.
NORTON & SONS, John, II, 183.
John Hatley, II, 284.
NORVELL, William, II, 99, 173, 211.
O'ELLERS James, II, 263.
OLCOTT, II. 335.
Old Donation Church, II, 381.
ORANGE, William, Prince of, I, 59 ;
II,38i.
ORR, John M., I, 203.
"Osstan Hall," II, 373.
OVERTON, William, II, 378.
PAGE, John, I, 68; II, 56, 181, 230,
274, 276, 319, 381.
Major Leigh R., I, 34.
Mann, I, 169; II, 56, 72,98, 192,
230.
PALFREY, Dr. John G., I, xxii.
PANKEY, Jr., Stephen, II, 364.
PANNIL, Elizabeth, II, 390.
PARKER, George, II, 363, 367.
James, II. 46.
John, II, 367.
John A., II, 367.
John W. H., 11,367.
Colonel Josiah, II, 276, 279, 376.
Josiah Cowper, II, 376.
Mary, II, 376.
Nancy, II. 376.
Richard, II, 176.
Robert, II, 367.
Sacker, II, 367.
General Severn Eyre, II, 367.
Colonel Thomas. II, 367
PARSONS, Judge Theophilus, his
relations with his associates, II,
223.
PATTESON, Camm, II, 369.
INDEX.
405
PATTESON, Charles, 1,338 ; 11,363;
sketch of, 369.
David, II, 364, 369, 370
Jonathan, II, 365.
3. S. P., II, 369.
PATTERSON, II, 384.
Mary, II, 10, 386.
PAWLING, Henry, I, 7 ; II, 365.
PAXTON, II, 386.
Major A. J., I, vii..
General E. F., I, vii.
PEACHY, William, II, 365.
PENDLETON, Edmund, 1,18,27,33,
36, 37, 42, 64 ; replies to Patrick
Henry as to the defects of. the
Constitution, persojj^of, 102,
118, 186, 2 1 5-2 1 7*246, 247, 259;
on the tariff, 277 ; *>peech on the
judiciary, 280, 294, 3o6, 321, 350,
351, 353; II, H2, 192,363-
Jr., Edmund, I, 67.
Per diem of officers and members
of the Convention, I, 349.
Petersburg, its trade compared
with that of Richmond, II, 143;
founding of, II, 369.
PETTIGRU, Hon. James L., I, 211.
Phi Beta Kappa Society, seal and
proceedings of, II, 12, 382.
PHILLIPS, Josiah, case of, I, 122,
178, 185, 220.
PICKETT, General G. E , II, 374.
Martin, II, 364, 374.
PIERCE, Thomas, II, 364; sketch
of 375-
William, I, 67.
PlNCKNEY, C. C., II, 330.
Thomas, II, 343.
Pistole Tax, The, I, 35.
PITT, William, Earl of Chatham,
II, 216.
PLEASANTS, John Hampden, I,
67.
Thomas, II, 167.
Point Pleasant, Battle of, I, 340,
351; II, 26, 29, 36, 37, 44.
Political animosities, I, 53.
POPE, John, II, 326.
PORTER, Ann (Campbell), I, vi.
Benjamin, I, vi.
Charles, II, 118.
Elizabeth, I, vi.
Frances, I, vii
PORTERFIELD, Margaret (Heth),
II, 281.
General Robert, II, 381.
Portsmouth, Virginia, II, 85.
POSEY, General Thomas, I, 118.
Post roads to New Orleans, Louisi-
ana, II, 342.
Potomac and James rivers, naviga-
tion of, II, 1 20, 149.
POVALL, Mary Heath, II, 374.
Robert, II, 374.
POWELL, Levin, I, 40, 197 ; II, 365,
378.
Captain William, I, 40.
POWER, Thomas, II, 293.
POYTHRESS, Peter, II, 220.
PRENTIS, Joseph, I, 249; II, 89,92,
140, 172, 176.
Presbyterian Church, memorials
from, II, lot, 108, 161.
Presents from Foreign Powers to
United States officials, I, 264;
II, 243-
President of the United States,
term of, 1, 267 ; powers of, 270 ;
electors for, II, 191, 192, 230;
disputed elections of, 330, 339 ;
right to remove officers, 272 ;
salary of, 274.
PRESTON, John, II, 385
" Prestwould" II, 380.
PRICE, Samuel, II, 30.
Captain Thomas, II, 398.
PRIDE, John, I, 307; II, 178, 191,
198, 211, 232, 363.
PRINGLE, John, II, 66.
Samuel, II, 66.
PROCTOR, General, II, 379
PRUNTY, John, II, 66, 329, 364.
PURDIE, Dr. John R., II, 375.
Quakers, The, memorialize Con-
gress regarding slavery, I, 277.
QUESNAY, Chevalier, I, 67, 219.
QUINCY, Josiah, I, 181.
Raleigh Tavern, II, 357, 372, 382.
RAMSAY, James, II, 109.
Rev. Samuel, II, 52.
RANDOLPH, II, 372.
Beverley, I, 324 ; II, 210, 284.
Edmund, I, 19, 29, 69, 71 ; per-
sonnel of, speech in defence of
the Constitution, 83, 84; as-
sails Patrick Henry, 90, 99, 118,
120. 146; his letter to the Vir-
ginia Assembly. 147, 155; dis-
avows inconsistency, 162 ;
makes unwarrantable attack
on Patrick Henry. 165. 166,
186 ; recommended to Wash-
ington by Benjamin Harrison,
1 86, 228, 247, 259, 263, 266, 267,
406
INDEX.
273, 300, 303, 311; his rebro-
bation of secession from the
Convention, 312, 343, 347; II,
19, 38, 112, 149, 153, 157, 167,
195. '98, 199, 200, 203 ; his
manuscript history of Vir-
ginia, 208; 211, 212, 226, 227,
284, 322, 357, 360, 364.
RANDOLPH — John, Attorney-Gen-
eral, 1,48, 84; II, 282.
John, "of Roanoke," library of,
I, xi, xix, 9, 39, 64 97, 102, 166,
211, 255; II, 139, 226, 328, 342,
348, 358, 380.
Sir John, epitaph of, I, 48.
Jane, II, 381.
Lucy H., I, 325.
Peyton, I. 35 ; sketch of, 38, 44,
48; II, 223, 282.
Richard, II, 302.
Robert, II, 200.
Thomas Jefferson, II, 354, 360.
William, II. 381.
"Raspberry Plain''1 II, 223.
Ratification of the Constitution,
committee on, I, 347.
Rats introduced into Virginia, I,
186.
RAWLE, William Henry, I, 3.
READ, Clement, II, 369.
Isaac, II, 138
Thomas, I, 36. 75, 347 ; sketch
of, II, 363, 369.
Religious Freedom, I, 229, 331 ;
vote on, II, 33, 63, 69; vote on
tax for church support, 102.128,
312,317; in Virginia in 1738,384.
Religious Sects, in Virginia, num-
ber of each of the, II, 105, 126.
Reporters in Congress, question of
allowing, II, 296, 334.
Revenue Tax, II, 129; of Virginia,
under the new Constitution, 177,
196.
Representation, inadequate, I, 115.
Republican Party, Split in the, II,
343-
Resolutions of /?o8-'oo, II, 14, 35.
"Retreat. The," II, 283.
Revolution, in the United States
foretold, I, 316, 335; slaves taken
off by the British during the, 8 ;
veterans of, in the Convention,
35 ; debt of the, 46 ; prices dur-
ing the, II, 45 ; scarcity of money
during the, 67.
RICHARDS, Catherine. I, 325.
RICHARDSON, Samuel, II. 364.
RICHESON, Holt, I, 325 ; II, 364,
367-
" Richland," II, 379.
Richmond, in 1789, I, 5, 24; capital
removed to, II, 74 ; directors for
removal, 74 ; founding of, 137 ;
burning of the theatre at, in 1811,
II. 370, 373-
Richmond Parly, The, Letters on,
in 1823, II, 348.
"Richneck," II, 283.
RIDDICK, Willis, I, 36 ; II, 72, 209,
365, 379-
Rights, The Bill of , I, 228.
RINKER, Jacob, II, 365.
RITCHIE, Thomas, I, 95.
RIVES, William C., I, xvii ; his
"Life and Times of Madison,"
I, 54-
Rhode Island, conduct of, during
the war, I, 174.
ROANE, John, II, 364, 377.
Spencer, I, 254; II, 92, in. 226.
ROBBINS, Jonathan, case of, 1, 177 ;
II, 298.
ROBERTSON, Alexander, I, 7 ; II,
365-
Alexander F., II, 383.
Christopher, II, 365.
ROBINSON, Speaker John, I, 44.
ROCHET, Susanna, II, 370.
Rockbridge County, memorial
from, II, io~.
RONALD, Andrew, II, 380.
William, I, 317, 347; II, 140, 155,
167, 365, 38"-
Ross, David, II, 155.
James, II, 254, 292, 338.
ROYALL, II, 372.
RUFFIN, Edmund, II, 219, 365 ;
sketch of, 380.
Edmund, agriculturist, II, 380.
William, II, 326, 381.
RUSSELL, William, II, 92.
Russian Embassador to Queen
Anne, case of, I, 273.
RUTHERFOORD. II, 55.
ST. CLAIR, General Alexander, de-
feat of, II, 278, 368.
St. John 's Church, Richmond, II,
374-
Salaries, of Federal officers aug-
mented, II, 245 ; of State officers
of Virginia, 231.
Salt, duty on, proposed, II, 271 ;
works of Virginia, 219.
SAMPSON, William, II, 364, 374.
INDEX.
407
Saura Town Lands, I, 161 ; II, 80.
Savannah, Georgia, seige of, II,
254-
Schools in Virginia, II, 51.
Scotch- Irish Settle* s of Virginia,
II. 23.
Scotchmen as Tutors in Virginia,
II, 225.
Scotland, union of, with England,
I, 226.
SCOTT, Charles, II, 377.
Deborah, II, 377.
Dorothy, II, 377.
General. II, 46.
General Winfield, I, 240.
Seat of the General Government,
location for, offered by Virginia,
II, 209, 232, 271 ; banks of the
Susquehanna river proposed for,
275. 279.
SEI.DEN, II, 212.
SEYMOUR, Abel, II, 364.
SHANKLIN, Andrew, II, 391.
SHEDDEN, Robert, II, 46.
SHEPHERD, Solomon, II, 365.
Sheriffs of Virginia, rapacity of,
II, 72.
Ship, Sir Simon Clarke, I, 250.
"Shirley," II, 226.
SHIRLEY, General, I, 300; II, 42.
SHORT, William, II, 226.
SIMMONS, II, 380.
SIMMS, Colonel Charles, I, 347 ; II,
364, 373-
SKELTON, II, 372.
SKILLERN, Colonel George, II, 13,
383.
SKIPWITH, Jane, II, 380.
Sir William, II, 380
SLAUGHTER, Captain Philip, 11,371.
Rev. Philip, D. D., II, 370, 371.
Slaves, memorial to Congress to
free the. II, 277; emancipation
of, considered, I, 211; II, 56;
vote on, 59, 69, 130, 316; impor-
tation of, I, 260 ; property in, 262 ;
in tail, II, 72; property in, in-
vaded by the Declaration of
Rights, II ; manumission of, 171 ;
carried off by the British, 176,
236, 242, 294, 307.
SMALLWOOD, Eleanor, I, 203, 210.
General William, I, 203, 210.
SMITH, Elizabeth, II, 373.
Governor George William, II,
373-
Captain John, I, 186.
John, II, 355-
SMITH, Rev. John Blair, I. 32; II,
125.
Larkin, II, 92, 200.
Margaret, II, 285.
Meriwether, I, 144, 347; II, 19,
121, 127, 153, 164; sketch of,
372.
Robert, II, 285, 355.
General Samuel, II, 285, 355.
Rev. Thomas, II, 129.
Thomas, II, 364.
William P , I, 210.
Smithfield Church, Old, II, 376.
SMYTH, Captain J. F. D., I, 10.
SOUTHALL, Turner, 11,^4,92, 199.
South Carolina, succored by Vir-
ginia, I, 300.
Southern Literary Messenger, I,
xix.
Spain, cessions to, I, 133, 152 ;
jealous of English settlements,
236; treaty with. 236; posses-
sions of, in America, II, 50.
SPOTSWOOD, Colonel Alexander,
I, 196.
Stage Coaches, privilege of run-
ning, II, 107, 177.
Stamp Act, Federal, II, 294; Eng-
lish, I, 39, 249; II. 6, 21 ; reso-
lution of Virginia agents, 217,
372
STANARD, Robert, I, 39; II. 226.
STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS, King of
Poland, II, 375.
States' Rights, I, 81, 164, 135.
Slate Sovereignty, benefits of, I,
116, 285.
States, to be made to pay the Fede-
ral debt, I, 90; called at the bar
of the Federal courts, 299.
" State Soldier," The, his attacks
on Patrick Henry, II, 358.
Steamboats, privileges of, II, 107,
177.
STEELE, John, I, 7, 36 ; II, 36, 365.
David, II, 387.
STEIGEL, Jacob, II, 391.
STEPHEN, II, 55.
General Adam, I, 36, 214 ; sketch
of, 300. 337; II, 9, 42, 72, 173.
363. 368.
STEPTOE, James, II, 48.
STEVENS, General Edward, II, 72,
173-
STITH, II, 372.
STODDERT, Rev. William, his
touching mention of H. B. Grigs-
by, I, xviii.
408
INDEX.
Stone House, The Old, Richmond,
Virginia, II, 137.
STREET, Anthony, II, 375.
Parke, II. 375.
STRINGER, John, II, 565.
STROTHER family, origin of, II, 37.
STROTHER, Anthony, II, 371.
Christopher, II, 371.
Eleanor, II, 371.
Frances, II, 371.
French, II, 56, 222, 305,329, 364;
sketch of, 371.
George French, II, 371.
James, II, 371.
Jeremiah, II. 371.
Lawrence, II, 371.
Margaret. II, 17.
Margaret (French), II, 371.
Sarah, II, 371.
William, II, 17.
STUART, Alexander H. H., I, 340 ;
II, 12, 16; his sketch of his father;
death of, 383.
Alexander, II, 385.
Judge Alexander, II, 386, 389, 390.
Major Alexander, I, 340 ; II, 10,
11,384,385,386,387,388.
Anne, II. 390. «,
Benjamin, II, 384, 385.
Archibald, I, 36, 317, 256, 340,
347; sketch of, II, 9, 23, 38, in,
12 r, 221, 329, 363, 382, 383, 386,
387, 388 ; his first service in
the Virginia Legislature, 388,
390. 39 1-
Archibald, Sr , II, 383, 384.
David, II, 25, 364 ; sketch of, 373,
385.
Eleanor. II, 385.
James, II, 386, 389. 390.
General James E. B., II, 390.
John, I, 36, 256, 340; 11,9; sketch
of, 25 ; death of, 28, 364, 382,
385-
John T., II, 385-
Robert, II. 386.
Thomas, II. 383, 385.
William Alexander, II, 390.
Rev. William, II, 373.
Suffolk. Virginia, burning of, II,
46.
Slimier, Fall of Fort. II, 380.
SVVANN, Thomas, II, 222.
SWEARINGEN, II, 85.
Swiss Confederacy, I, 133.
TARLETON, Colonel Banastre, II,
285.
Tariff, effects of the, I, iS, 22, 215;
rate of, 277 ; early legislation on,
II, 35, 142, 150, 155, 271.
TATE, II, 385.
Tax, Federal power to, I, 92 ;
conflict with the State, 116, 138,
156; direct, discussed, 187, 190,
209, 213, 221, 228, 264, II, 294; col-
lectors' hostility to, in Virginia,
I, 148; II, 126; of 1785 in Vir-
ginia for revenue, vote on, II, 67,
127; law modified in collections,
73; payable in kind, 77; vote
on, 78, 91, 159, 174, 204, 227 ; of
1786, 159 ; on wheels. 159 ; of
1789, 206.
TAYLOR, Eleanor, I, 169.
Judge Creed, II, 14, 392.
George Keith, II, 252, 325, 327.
Jacquelin P., I, 27.
James, II, 363, 365, 369.
Colonel John. I, 169.
John, "of Caroline," II, 14, 92,
III, 121, 221, 235, 325, 327, 338.
General Richard, II, 370.
General Robert Barraud, I, 14 ;
II, 226.
General Zachary, I, 240 ; II, 369,
370.
TAZEWELL, Henry, I, 328; 11,78,
92, 99, in, 121, 138, 193, 221,
235. 243 ; death of, 244.
Governor Littleton W., I, xii, 29,
181, 200, 326, 347 ; II, 226, 328.
TECUMSEH, II, 378.
TEMPLE, Colonel Benjamin, II,
364, 377-
TERRELL, II, 378.
Thanksgiving, national day of, II,
206.
Theatre, burning of the Richmond,
I, 68.
THOMAS. R. S., II, 375.
THOMPSON, Catherine, II, 375.
James, II, 378.
John, II, 226.
THOMSON, Stevens, II, 216.
THORNTON, William, II, 364.
THOROUGHGOOD, II, 215.
THRUSTON, Buckner, II, 392.
Colonel Charles Mynn, I, 258 ; II,
97, 129, 161.
TILGHMAN, William, II, 252.
Timber Ridge Church, II, 386.
Tobacco^ exports of, from Virginia,
I. I0, 357 ', prices of, 357 ; worms
first a pest in Virginia, 186; plan-
ters, 204; export duty on, II, 160.
INDEX.
409
TODD, Thomas, II, 259.
TOMLIN, Walker, II, 365.
TOTTEN, II, 41.
TOWLES, Henry, II, 364.
TRACY, II, 249. 341.
7rade, of the United States, com-
mission from Virginia to con-
sider the, II, 154, 319; bounties
on branches of, II, 278.
Transylvania University, II, 176.
Treasurer of Virginia, Speaker
of the Burgesses, II, 279.
Treaties, I, 271 ; with Great Britain,
II, 82, 222.
Trial by Jury, I, 265, 294.
TRIGG, II, 367.
Abraham, II, 365, 367.
Connallv F., II, 368.
Oaniel, II, 368.
John, II, 363, 368.
Stephen. II, 43, 367.
William, II, 368.
William R., II, 368.
TUCKER, Henry St. George, II, 368.
' John Randolph, II, 368.
St. George, I, 204, 324. 328; II,
153, 167, 176, 223, 284.
TUFTON, II, 354.
TURBERVILLE, George Lee, II, 199,
2OO.
TURPIN, Jr., Thomas, II, 365.
TYLER, II, 385.
John, I, 69 ; his motion for
Committee of the Whole, 71 ;
seconds the nomination of Pen-
dleton for President, 248; dying
words of, 250 ; his devotion to
Virginia, 253 ; person of, 254 ;
on the slave trade, 261, 333,
347; II, 98, 121, 193, 222, 305,
316, 363-
President John, I, xviii, 39.
Lyon Gardiner, I, xviii.
Samuel, II, 329.
Wat., I, 248.
UNDERWOOD, Thomas, II, 56.
United States Bank, branch at Rich-
mond, II, 354
United States, The, conferred with
foreign governments, I, 113.
UPSHAW. Forrest, II, 3^2.
James, II. 364, 372.
John, II, 372.
John H., II, 372-
" Urbanna," II, 378.
VALENTINE, Mann S., I, 7.
Valley of Virginia, I, 1 10.
VANCE, II, 55.
VANMETER, Isaac, II; 55, 364.
John, II, 55.
VENABLE, A. B., II, 279, 338.
Vice- President of the United States,
humorous title proposed for, II,
234 ; salary of, 274 ; successor to
the President, 274.
VINTON, Dr. Alexander H., I, xxii.
Virginia, social and material posi-
tion of, in 1788, I, 5, 9, 47 ; popu-
lation of, 8; in 1774, 8; revenues
of, 9; commerce of, 13, 18; deso-
lation of, by the British, 15 ;
counties formed between 1776-
'88, 24 ; mode of travel in 1788,
25 ; cedes Jands to the United
States. I, 7, in ; government of,
as a Colony, I, 43 ; under Crom-
well, 44 ; her support of Con-
gress, 54 ; tobacco planters, ad-
dress of to King William, 62;
tranquil under the Confedera-
tion, 82 ; first delegation to the
Continental Congress, 184 ; lofty-
stature of her statesmen, 184 ;
termed country, 252 ; elections,
when held, II, 13; boundary line
between, and Kentucky, II, 14,
392; and North Carolina, 223 ; and
Pennsylvania, 23 ; distress of, in
1785. 67 ; financial condition of,
in 1786, 158; local bias of her
statesmen, 139 ; influence of,
148 ; ineligible to Federal offices,
182 ; advances made to her con-
gressmen, 195; magnanimity
and patriotism of her people,
197 ; her congressional repre-
sentatives called before the As-
sembly for report, 240 ; as a
Confederated State : her sove-
reignty. 309 ; foreign vessels re-
stricted as to her ports, 310;
vote on, 319; salaries of her
officials, 322 ; claims of, against
the General Government, 353;
map of, 354.
Virginia Assembly, mode of elect-
ing the, I. 252 ; quorum in 1781,
336; ability of, II, 119; eligibility
of members of, 121 ; of 1786- '87,
157; of 1788, 179, 230; question
of double per diem for, 179; of
1789, 179; resolutions of, of 1769,
217 ; privilege of members of
the, 219; qualifications of, 230;
410
INDEX.
early proceedings of. 242 ; of
1798, ability. 329.
Virginia Bill of Rights, provi-
sions of, I, 260.
Virginia Burgesses, I, 44 ; opposi-
tion to British taxation, 47 ; ses-
sions of, and circumstances gov-
erning, II, 6.
Virginia Code, revision of, II, 134,
202.
Virginia Committee of Safety, in
1776, I, 42.
Virginia Constitution, I, 260; re-
vision of, II, 92, 310.
Virginia Conventions, of 1774, 1775,
1776, 1788, sessions of, 33, 39;
personnel of that of 1788, 35 ; of
that of i829-'3o 36, 64 95 ; II,
93, 177, 180; of i775-'76, 1,66;
II, 64, 93, 162 ; Committee of
Privileges and Elections of 1788,
67 ; acts of Assembly calling it
moved to be read, 77.
Virginia Impost Duties, I, 126;
commerce in 1788, i?6, 153.
Virginia Historical Society , I. xvii ;
its action on the death of H. B.
Grigsby, xxi.
Virginia Historical Register, I,
xix; II, 18, 30, 87.
Virginia Independent Chronicle,
The, II, 358.
VOELKE, Anthony, II, 381.
" Wakefield," II, 382.
Waddell's Annals of Augusta
County, II, 26.
WALKE, Anthony, II, 365, 381.
Rev. Anthony, II, 129
Thomas, II, 96, 365, 381.
WALKER, John, II, 214, 234.
Thomas, II, 48.
WALLACE, Judge Caleb, II, 43,
49-
Dr., II, 224.
Mrs., nee Westwood, II, 223.
WALLER, II, 378.
WALTON, Matthew, I, 7 ; II, 365.
WARD, Townsend, I, 329.
WARDEN, John, arraignment for
contempt, II, 86 ; amusing anec-
dote of, II, 311, 358.
WARNER, Augustine, II, 374.
" Warner Hall;1 II, 374.
War of 1812, the first prize case of,
I, 250.
" Warren," II, 279, 304.
WARWICK, Abraham, I, 34.
WASHINGTON, Bushrod, I, 57, 100,.
143, 170; II, 366, 382
George, I, 29, 42, 57, 72, 114,
143, 186, 199, 300, 319, 327, 339,.
35O; II, 12, 29, 32, 42, 1 2O, 126,
134, 167,231, 366; statue voted
to, 167; address to, from Vir-
ginia Assembly, 199, 217, 236,
318, 322, 367, 379, 380, 391 ; Hou-
don's statue of, 93.
Lawrence, I, vi.
Peter G , I, 198.
Washington and Lee University,
II, 10.
Washington Monument at Rich-
mond, movement for, I, 2.
WATERS, Mary, II, 378.
WATKINS, origin of family, I, 37 ;
II, 371. 385.
Benjamin, I, 37 ; II, 371.
Francis N., I, 37 ; II, 371.
Henry E., II, 226.
James, II, 371.
John, II, 371.
Thomas, II, 371.
William, II, 74, 364, 372.
WATSON, II, 378.
WAUGH, Rev. Abner, notice of, I,
66, 230.
WEBB, James, II, 365.
West India, trade with Virginia, II,
81, 127, 143, 236, 242.
Western Country, commission to
adjust claims of, II, 49.
Westmoreland Association, The,
II, 217, 372.
WESTWOOD, II, 223.
Worlich, II, 329, 364, 372.
Wheeling, West Virginia, II, 64.
WHITE, II, 55.
Alexander, I, 254, 256 ; sketch of,
II, 71, 74, 127, 143, 157, 221, 269,
276, 277 ; death of, 280, 364.
Judge Robert, II, 371.
Surgeon Robert, II, 371.
Bishop William, I, 198; II, 264.
William, II, 365.
WHITEHEAD, John B , I, vii, 119.
Dr. Nathan Colgate, I, vii.
Robert, I, vii.
Thomas, early grants of land to,
I, vii.
WICKHAM, John, II, 365.
WICKLIFFE, Robert, death of, II,
287.
Wig ton, Earldom of, II, 42.
WILDER, Marshall P., on reverence
for the past, I, v.
INDEX.
411
William and Mary College, I, xvii ;
action of, on death of H. B.
Grigsby, xxvi, 24, 48, 60, 75 ; II,
10, 20, 32, 85, 216, 223, 265, 303,
377, 379- 38f, 382, 39i-
William, Prince of Orange, affec-
tionate reverence for, I, 59 ; II,
381.
WILLIAMS, John, II, 365.
Robert, II, 365.
Williamsburg Association, The, II,
372, 382.
WILLS, II, 254.
John S.. II, 376.
Wills 's Old Meeting House, II, 376.
WILSON, Benjamin, II, 365.
James, I, 76.
John, II, 365.
Samuel, II, 52.
WINSTON, Edmund, II, 180, 193,
363 ; sketch of, 369.
Elizabeth, II, 375.
Isaac, II, 369, 374, 375.
James, II, 379.
John, II, 378.
Mary, II, 374.
Mary Ann, II, 369.
Mary (l)abney), II, 369.
Peter, II, 369
William, II. 369.
WINTHROP, Forth, lines on, and
notice of, I, xi.
Governor John, I, xv.
Robert C., I, xv ; his tribute to
the memory of H. B. Grigsby,
xxiii.
WIRT, William, I, 317; II, 87, 112.
WISE, Henry A., I, xxvii.
WITHROW, II, 385.
WOLCOTT, Oliver, II, 252.
WOODCOCKE, John S., II, 364.
WOODFORD, General William, I, 24.
WOODROW, Andrew, II, 364.
WOODS, Archibald, II, 365.
WOODSON. Judith, II, 370.
WORMELEY, Agatha, II, 169.
Captain Christopher, II, 169.
John, II, 169.
Captain Ralph, II, 169.
Jr., Ralph, descent of, I, 169; II,
200, 230, 360.
WORSHAM, II, 372.
WYTHE, George, I, 29 ; residence
of, 34, 36, 42, 65, 74; pupils of,
95; personal appearance of, 75,
86, 15-, 162, 259, 268, 274, 300,
306; his scheme of ratification,
307, 312, 347, 348; II, 12, 32, 231,
366.
YATES, Justice Richard, I, 95.
Ya2oo land speculations, I, 302.
Yellow fever at Portsmouth, Vir-
ginia. I. vi.
York Duke of, lines on, by a mem-
ber of the House of Commons,
recited in debate to exclude him
from succession to the throne of
England, II, 339
Yorktmvn, Reduction of, II, 378
ZANE, Ebenezer, I, 36 ; II, 55. 58 ;
daring of wife and sister of, 65 ;
sketch of, 64, 365
Isaac, II, 59 ; sketch of, 60 ; iron
works of, 60.
William, II, 59.
Zanesville, Ohio, II, 65.
V A
F
230
G75
v.2
Grisby, Hugh Blaire
The history of the
Virginia federal convention
of 1788
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11