USA > Virginia > The history of the Virginia federal convention of 1788, with some account of eminent Virginians of that era who were members of the body, Vol. II > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39
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.
F
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.
117
ALEXANDER WHITE.
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, Corbin, 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 19th 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 I 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.
=
1
119
ALEXANDER WHITE.
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.107
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 30th 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 7th 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 1, 1784; and for the amendments of the Senate and the report of the conference, January 5, 1785, pages 106 and 107.
108 Judge 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.
.
A
المحرزة الحكي
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." 110 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 17th 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
109 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.
=
121
ALEXANDER WHITE.
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 of 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,1" but their places were hlled by several able men, among whom were Arthur Lee, Meriwether Smith, and James Innes.
The chairmen 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 19th). 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.
L
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. 112
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 Cary 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 I 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 OF 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, Albemarle, Amherst, Louisa, Goochland, Essex, Westmoreland, Culpeper, Prince Edward, Fairfax, King and Queen, Pittsylvania, Mecklenburg, Amelia, Brunswick, Middlesex, Amelia,
-
123
ALEXANDER WHITE.
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 10th 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.
114 See 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. 1, 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-
115 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.
£
والحرية
-
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-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.