This is very probably the same draft that Thomas Ludwell Lee sent to his brother, Richard Henry Lee, some time in May, and of which he wrote, on the 1st of June:

"I enclosed you by last post a copy of our declaration of rights nearly as it came through the committee. It has since been reported to the Convention, and we have ever since been stumbling at the threshold. In short, we find such difficulty in laying the foundation stone, that I very much fear for that Temple to Liberty which was proposed to be erected thereon. But laying aside figure, I will tell you plainly that a certain set of aristocrats, for we have such monsters here, finding that their execrable system cannot be reared on such foundations, have to this time kept us at bay on the first line, which declares all men to be born equally free and independent. A number of absurd or unmeaning alterations have been proposed. The words as they stand are approved by a very great majority, yet by a thousand masterly fetches and stratagems the business has been so delayed that the first clause stands yet unassented to by the Convention."'

Edmund Randolph says of this discussion that "the declaration in the first article of the Bill of Rights, that all men are by nature equally free and independent, was opposed by Robert Carter Nicholas, as being the forerunner or pretext of civil convulsion. It was answered perhaps with too great an indifference to futurity, and not without inconsistency, that with arms in our hands, asserting the general rights of man, we ought not to be too nice and too much restricted in the declaration of them; but that slaves, not being constituent members of our society, could never pretend to any benefit from such a maxim." The Bill of Rights consisting of fourteen articles, as reported to the Convention on the 27th of May, contained eighteen, and as finally amended and passed by the Convention on the 12th of June it was reduced to sixteen articles, the one on ex post facto laws having been omitted, and the sixth article of the original

'Lee Papers. Southern Literary Messenger, new series, vol. vi., p. 325. MS. History of Virginia.

such manner as thall be judged most conducive to the public Neal. 4. That no man, or Sit of men are intitled to exclusive or seperate

8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hatha Fright to demand thebaure & Nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the Accusers & Wilnesses, to call for vidence in his havour, and to a speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his Vicinage, without or hose unanimous Consent He cam not he found guilty, nor cante be competted to give evidence Manlidymived against himself; and that no Man be deprived of his Liberty, except by the Lawe of the Lanzor the Judgment of his pers That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Punishments inflicted

9.

"Dinis impor·rv

10. That incontroversies respecting property, and in Suits between Man & Man, the ancient Trial by Jury is pre - ferable to any other, Dought to be held sarridu

1. That the bacedom of the press is one of the great. Bulwarks
of Liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotee Governmennt,
12. That a mill regulated Militia, composed of the Body of thir
people trained to Arms, is the proper, natural, safe Defence of
Pepper the
a free State ; that standing Armees, in Time of peace, shand
be avoided, as dangerous to Liberty; and that, in all bases, the
Military should be under strict Sabordination to & governedly

a

the Civil ponus.

can

13. That no fuer Government, or the Blessing of Liberty,. be presented to any people, but by a firm Adherence to

Justice

THE ARTicle on religion.

241

draft, which the committee had divided into two, being restored to its original unity.' The two new articles admitted declared general warrants to be grievous and offensive, and that the people have a right to uniform government. The Convention also inserted a few words into the first article of the original draft, and added something to the fifth. They also restored the fourth article to its original form, which was greatly superior to that proposed by the select committee.

And here in the Convention also an alteration was made in the article on religion. Madison objected to the idea which he thought lay in the word "toleration," and he offered an amendment, given in full by Rives,' which, as modified by the committee of the whole, received the sanction of the Convention. It would seem probable that the question of religious liberty, in all its bearings, was discussed by the Convention at this point. And it may have been that Henry offered an amendment also, or, if not, it is likely that he entered with his wonted vehemence into the merits of the subject. Either here or in the select committee, it is probable that his advocacy of the principle of freedom in religion -men remembering the part he had taken in the "Parson's Cause "-may have led to the query from some conservative member as to his designs on the Established Church, as reported by Edmund Randolph. The latter says that an article prohibiting bills of attainder, by whom proposed he does not state, was defeated by Patrick Henry, either in the committee or in the Convention, Henry drawing “a terrifying picture of some towering public offender, against whom ordinary laws would be impotent."

In regard to the establishment of religious freedom in Virginia, George Mason's course, as we have said, was both a prominent and consistent one. The first legislation in the Virginia Assembly on this subject may be traced to him, as he was named first on the committee appointed to prepare an act in conformity with the religious section of the Bill of

Rights, at the meeting of the new House under the Constitution. The second section of this act, undoubtedly drawn up by George Mason, begins with the preamble:

"And whereas there are within this commonwealth great numbers of dissenters from the church established by law who have been heretofore taxed for its support, and it is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth, be it enacted, &c."

At this same session a committee of five members was appointed to revise the laws of the commonwealth. These five were Jefferson, Pendleton, Wythe, George Mason and Thomas Ludwell Lee. They met at Annapolis, in January, 1777, and decided on the plan of revision, assigning to each member his part. George Mason afterwards resigned from the committee, but not until the whole scheme was mapped out. In a letter written by Jefferson and Wythe, laid before the June Assembly, 1779, they state:

"In the course of this work we were unfortunately deprived of the assistance of two of our associates appointed by the General Assembly, of the one by death [T. L. Lee], of the other by resignation. As the plan of the work had been settled, and agreeable to that plan it was in considerable degree carried into execution before that loss, we did not exercise the powers given us by the act, of filling up the places by new appointments, being desirous that the plan agreed on by members who were specially appointed by the Assembly, might not be liable to alteration from others who might not equally possess their confidence, it has therefore been executed by the three remaining members."'

Among these laws, planned in part by George Mason, was the "Act Establishing Religious Freedom," promulgated in Hening's "Statutes."

1