PROGRAMME OF THE ANTIFEDERALISTS.

225

party of Madison had been the victor in the former assemblage, yet was there a good prospect of the amendment party triumphing here. Henry Lee, of Westmoreland, wished the discussion to begin immediately, but the other side was not to be hurried, as many of the members had not yet arrived, and both George Mason and Benjamin Harrison advocated an adjournment until the next day. On the 4th of June the business properly commenced, the Convention resolving itself into a committee of the whole, George Wythe in the chair. Nicholas, Henry, Randolph, and Mason were the four speakers on this day. Edmund Randolph showed his colors, coming out unequivocally for the unamended Constitution, he who had a few months before in the Federal Convention declared for amendments and a "Second General Convention." Patrick Henry did not fall into line immediately with George Mason, but rather overstepped the mark, and his first exception to the Constitution was taken in somewhat free-lance fashion. He took issue with the Federal Convention for changing the character of the government "to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the States." There was a confederacy of nine States to be formed to the exclusion of the other four, and this new confederacy was to form a consolidated government. Henry then made his famous objection to the phrase in the preamble, "We, the People," etc.' That it was understood by the Federal Convention in any consolidated" sense, or as other than a convenient style of expression for the people of the several States, may be most positively denied, or George Mason's jealous ear would have been offended, and his voice have been raised against it. Since neither Mason nor any other defender of the States in the Convention saw fit to oppose the use of this phrase, it is apparent that they were quite sure of its harmless nature. However, it was to be distorted, as Patrick Henry feared, from its obvious signification, and to be used by the party of consolidation for their own purposes at a later day.

vol. ii-15

"Debates of the Virginia Convention," Robertson.

66

1

The first and second sections of the first article were under consideration. Randolph had spoken after Henry. "He was followed," says Grigsby, "by Mason, whose words were now watched with an interest hardly exceeded by that which existed when he first rose to address the house; for he too had been a member of the General Convention, and had declared in that body that, on certain conditions, none of which included the words of the preamble, he would approve the Constitution; but though no parliamentarian, he saw the snare into which his opponents were anxious that he should fall, and adroitly avoided it by taking ground which placed him in instant communion with Henry." He maintained that the clause in the second section, “giving the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes,' changed the union into a “national government." He urged with great force the danger of leaving the manner of levying taxes to those who, in the nature of things, cannot be acquainted with the situation of those on whom they are to impose them, when it can be done by those who are well acquainted with it. He thought the general government should have "the power of demanding their quotas of the States, with an alternative of laying direct taxes in case of non-compliance." The same sum raised in one way, as he declared, would be very oppressive raised in another way. The second objection made by Colonel Mason was directed against that part of the same section which dealt with representation. He did not think it a full and free representation. The Constitution did not expressly provide one representative for every thirty thousand, but it states: "the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000." So it might be reduced without violating the letter of the law. Colonel Mason concluded with reiterating his objection to the taxing power given Congress. With this feature amended, this part of the Constitution would receive his sanction, but he regarded it as a sine qua non. Madison closed the debate with a few remarks, reserving a fuller reply to a future occa"History of the Virginia Federal Convention," p. 92. ? Appendix iii.

MADISON DISPARAGES HIS OPPONENTS.

227

sion. George Mason does not seem to have spoken in the Federal Convention against giving Congress the power of direct taxation. He had there urged the clause against taxing exports, and further reflection had evidently impressed him with the conviction that the power of Congress should be limited, in this matter of revenue, to the duties on imposts, as explained in the fourth amendment of the Virginia Convention. Madison on the evening of the 4th of June wrote an account of the Convention proceedings to Washington, which the latter in turn retailed to John Jay a few days later. It is evident the course taken by Edmund Randolph had greatly elated the Federalists. Madison writes disparagingly of his antagonists, Henry and Mason, accusing them of making "a lame figure" in the recent debate. Still he is by no means confident of the result. "Kentucky. . . is supposed to be generally adverse, and every kind of address is going on privately to work on the local interests and prejudices of that and other quarters.' There were fourteen representatives in the Convention from the district of Kentucky.

Unlike the Federal Convention, which held secret sessions, the Virginia Convention, as has been said, was open. to the public, and was attended by large crowds of citizens, who gave the most eager attention to all that was said. It is to be regretted that there were not some fluent scribes among these spectators, to write down their impressions of the scenes they witnessed, and to preserve for posterity a record of the logic and eloquence there manifested. The reports of Robertson, as will appear, were not wholly to be relied on. And the Federalist Madison writing under the excitement of the contest was certainly not to be trusted in his estimate of the Antifederalist champions opposed to him. But with the debates before us, as they have come down to our generation, there seems no cause for the Federalists to take any credit to themselves, up to this point of time. George Nicholas had advocated the system of repre"Writings of Washington," Sparks, vol. ix., p. 370 (note) and p. 373.

166

sentation, but the ambiguity remained unanswerable, in the wording of the provision. Edmund Randolph could only put forth in his defence of the Constitution-and of himself -the poor plea of expediency. To the three or four tangible objections made by the opposition to the first part of the Constitution there was as yet no answer given.

From the 4th of June to the 13th, though still nominally employed upon the first and second sections of the first article, the Convention in fact diverged widely from the point, and discussed the Constitution at large. The great speech of the 5th of June was made by Patrick Henry in answer to Pendleton and General Henry Lee. He brought forward new objections. "How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone-not sufficiently secured in criminal." He thought also that the militia should not be in the hands of Congress. And he dwelt upon the folly of looking for subsequent amendments when it was in their power to insist upon them beforehand. He quoted from the Virginia Bill of Rights, the third article, on the right of the people to reform or abolish their government; the fifth article, on taxation; the sixth article, requiring the consent of the people to suspend the laws; and showed how each was endangered by the new Constitution. One phrase here is prophetic: "When the people of Virginia at a future day shall wish to alter their government, though they should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented therefrom by a despicable minority at the extremity of the United States." He objected to giving Congress the control of the custom-houses, and also to the inadequate representation of the people in that body. Like the other Southern patriots, Henry believed that the South would eventually be numerically stronger than the North, a pathetic illusion as was too soon made apparent. The whole scheme of the government Henry thought too extravagant, and the President, with "the powers of a king," at the head of the army might eventually overthrow American liberties. Another specific objection advanced by Henry was the control given to Con

SPEECH OF PATRICK HENRY,

229

gress over the time, place, and manner of elections. Again he denounced the clause concerning the publication of the journals "from time to time" only. Without the obligation to publish their proceedings, they would be without public responsibility. "The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility." Jay's treaty, a few years later, seemed to many, just such a case as was here anticipated. Stevens Thomson Mason, who was with Henry now in the Convention, mindful of this doctrine of responsibility, which his uncle had also enforced in the Federal Convention, was the senator, it will be remembered, who gave Jay's treaty to the public prints in 1795. Patrick Henry concluded his powerful speech by beseeching the Convention not to hurry Virginia into an acceptance of the proposed government simply because eight States had adopted it. They should insist upon its being amended, and not fear this bugbear of anarchy that was suggested. Pennsylvania he thought had been "tricked" into adopting the Constitution. "If the other States who have adopted it have not been tricked, still they were too much hurried into its adoption. There were very respectable minorities in several of them, and if reports be true, a clear majority of the people are averse to it. If we also accede, and it should prove grievous, the peace and prosperity of our country [Virginia], which we all love, will be destroyed." Edmund Randolph made the opening argument on the following day. He referred to a portion of George Mason's speech in these words: "It is objected by the honorable gentleman over the way, that a republican government is impracticable in an extensive territory, and the extent of the United States is urged as a reason for the rejection of this Constitution." And he contended that if the laws were wisely made and executed, the extent of the country would be no bar to the adoption of a "good gov ernment." For the definition of a good government, however, the factor of territory must be taken into account, 1 "Debates of the Virginia Convention," Robertson, p. 55.

1