Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-05-04


SUBSTITUTE
INTENDED TO DE OFFERED 70 rHE NEXT MEET
ING oE THE CITIZENS OF RICHMOND ON TIE
SUBJECT OF A CONVENTION, IN LIEU oE THE
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
(Concuded)
end. The objection to the freehold GualiG-
cation Of suhrage, is avowedly founded not on
any abuse OF their power, committed by the
freeholders of Virginia in time past or appre-
hended from them in future, but on alleged
abstract principles of right
The act Of 1856 confined the right of suf-
frage TO the freeholders of one hundred acres
ut un,mprored, or tipenty. fire acres Of Improved
land; and required tcefre months previous IL
tie and possession. An act passed in 1863,
reducing the quantity of unimproved land me-
cessary 10 qualify freeholder to vote, 10 f1y
acres and the term of previous title and pos
session tn sir months but this act was sus-
pended for the royal appreciation, and that
never came. The constitution provides, that
the right of Suffrage, in the election Of mems
hers OF the assembly, shall remain exer-
cised at present" And the act of 1885, fixed
the qualification of the freebolders, in respect
of unimprored land, at. fifty acres, and the term
oil previous title and possession at SIR months
the Legislature either considering, that while
the free hold principle preserved, an ex-
tension Of the right of suffrage, by reducing
the quantity of land and the term of title aud
possession, was constitutional; or regarding
the act of 1863 as in force, notwithstanding
the want of the royal assent or Knowing. that,
IN fact, at the date Of the constitution the right
of suffrage was exercised according to the
provisions of the act of 1863 The act Of 1888
was proposed by the famous committee ofre-
visors: all of them men intimately acquainted
with the exact state Of things at the date Of
III q constitution.
Such is the history and present state of the
right of suffrage in Virginia.
Ii this be an arIstocracy, II is the most open
and the most unguarded that ever existed:
every man is free 10 acquire the patent of no.
bility. II has indeed been suggested, as a
probable state Of facts that The freehslders
do not constitute ma jority Of the freemen Of
Virginia. But this meeting is not informed
of the grounds upon which this conjecture is
founded, nSr is il aPprizrd OF the exlsteuce Of
any body authorization, any where or u, any
manner collec 10 which recourse can tie
had for the purpose of examining the accura-
cy or probability of it II therefore setsrefn-
tation at defiance for The present: it may be
affirmed denied with equal safety Bat il
it be meant TO affirm. that the qualified ,oters
do not constitute the great body of free srhifs
men oper t,centy one gears Of age, and Of SCI
tied residence this meeting, advertng tn the
character of our population : the nature efour
tenures the agricultural occupation If TIE
whole people the early marriages general
| throughout the country, and the const gusut
early settlement of every man on land of his
own the sparseness of population in proper
| tiun TO the extent @f territory, and the conse-
quent abundance of land cannot doubt that
| the freeholders constitute large ai0rity of
such freemen in thi' Spmmonwealth.
Wen have been known 10 purchase free
hold, IN order TO qualify themselves TO be e.
lected in the Legislature but, if any instances
have occurred of men purchasing freehold,
IN order to qualify Themselves to vote in eioc-
tons, such instances are extremely rare : a
sure proof, that the freehold qualification is
not felt as real grievance by those who hap
pen not TO possess it +; and that the objection
Is founded on imaginary hardship and heo-
retical reasopings.
This meeting is little moved By the obiec-
ton, that the freehold qualification was an in
stitutiOn of Colonial times. This is mere ella
mour Jury trial was a colonial iusIitu-
ton. Representative goUenment was = colo
NAL institution. and undoubtedly an Ergsh
Invention. The county court system was CO.
onial institution md invention.
1t seems 10 this meeting very surprising,
that the enem-s of freehold suffrage should
claim the authority of our Bill OF Rights. Il
is an attempt to force on the words of the in
strument different sense from that in ~ hcb
the trainers of it certainly used them. The
convention of l77G, declared, in the Biz of
Rights, " that all men, having sufficient evil
" dence of permanent common interest with.
- and attachment to, the community haze the
right of suffrage :" and the same convention
established the freehold qualification by the
constitutions; thus giving us their contemporary
exposition of their own declaration of right
and shelving US, that, in their sense of that
declaration, the possession of freehold was
The sufficient evidence of permanent common
interest with and attachment to the COMMUNIST
! ty, which entitled the citizen to vote.
The BW Of Rights also declares 4" that all
men are by nature equally free and indcppn-
dent, and have certain inherent rights, of
which, when they enter into society, thew
cannot, by any compact deprive or dvest
their posterity; namely, the enjoyment Of
life and liberty, with the means of acquirii g
" and possessing property, and pursuing and
obtaining happiness and safety" Surely, it
cannot seriously be believed, that this dCcla-
ration of natural rights, in any sense to which
IT can he wrestSd, has reference TO the right
of suffIage. 1t is declaration of rights
and liberties, inherent in man, before he enters
into society," Is the right Of suffrage Inherent
IN man, can it exist, before man enters inio So
ciety?
Leaving the ground Of authority for that
| Of argument, the enemies Sf the freehold
qualification Of suffrage, are understood TO
| maintain, that all free men. being subject 10
the laws, and boui d to defend the govern
ment by personal service, and to contribute 20
| its support, have natural right to vote for
members of the Legislature.