Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-07-19


uniting The right Of suffrage to the proposed con-
venton: and tho he denied, that the vote on Mr.
Hunters amendment, was evidence of the sen'i-
ment OF the minority ON the subject of freehold
Suffrage; and tho he said Is he was not opposed
TO any possible extension of the right OF sufage'
yet II is plain enough, to my understandings that
he did not consider marriage. or mechanic trade
or the possession Of bonk stock or fighting the
odstles OF the country, such evidence of permanent
common interest IN and attachment TO the COM
munity, as should en'le the citizen 10 voe for he
puts all those cases on the same footing as the case
OF mere citizenship, which he surely did not then
think sufficient qualification. The speech is no,
explicit, certainly; but defy him TO reconcile il
with the opinion he expressed at the Fairfax eec-
ton, " that every man who pays tax ought to
havea right to vote;" or with another opinion he
Is reported TO have expressed on other occasions,
- that every man WHO has a musket and two spare
hints, should have the right to votes, or with the
language, which, in the Alexandria edition Of the
second freeman Of 1925, as 's the present arbi-
trary and unjust distribution of the ri.ht of SUI
fragc."
For my own part, hold it an equally iniudicious
and Unfair course in legislation. TO pursue favor
lie end by amy manner OF indircctioD. But, if MIR.
Mercer was really hostile TO the principle of he
freehold qualification, and yet sirenuousy opposed
every proposition TO subject that feature of the con-
ststu,ion 10 revision and reform, and this for the
mere purpose OF obviatng objections that mig Int be
fatal 10 the bill he can have right to complain
OF those whoever ,l.ey Were, who were tlierdly to
the principle of freehold qualification, and yet vo-
ted 10 put IL in hazard, in order 10 enibarrass and
defeat the bill.
In the speech which Mr.. Mercer made on the
general question, (reported by himself and publish
ed IN The Enquirer Of the 30;h January lSl7) the
only objection he urged against the constitution,
was The inequality of the representation. For my
sell, SIR, he said) tnnueh member OF the select
committee, stood aloof from its proceedings at
The commencement of tbe Session, and urged ma
ny OF the most active members of the House 10
bring IN bill TO cGuaize the Senatorial repres
toh. appeal to the member from Norfolk il
ne does not reco.'ec, tire call which made on
him, 10 bring in bill for this purpose; cali
which l subsequently addressed to the member
from Wythe Oh my left, 10 tie member from Hen
rico who Is sitting before me- and 10 the member.
from w ashington and Brooke, and 10 MANY Other
honorable members of this house Sir, l i'm.
piored the gentleman from Norfolk, to take upon
him the task for which he is so well iucd; but
impored in vain. Need say, that am attached
TO our present constitution? feel veneraion
Tor the old Tree, the withered trunk of which
yet stands, told By my fathers house: IFS
shade sheltered from the Sun my boyish sports.
and his aged head while he regarded his sons,vit Ii
parental care. Can / feel less for the cons,i,u-
ton, which he contributed to form, How often.
sir, have IRE together recorded our votes asains,
any change ofthis constitutional This speech
was addressed 10 MIR. Stanard, the Speaker of the
House.
During the progress of this convention bill
through the House of Delegates, MIR. Blackburn
had obtained leave 10 bring in bill to equaize the
senatorial representation and the land tax This
bill passed that House the 18th February, 1917
The Enquirer of the 9th says, there =, rs a long
and interesting debate upon it: Messrs. Hay and
Tucker being in opposition to the Bill; Mr.. Taze-
well IN iavor OF i;-Jur. Mercer (of Loudou,,)
made some remarks on certain incidental points.
wish tLey had been reported; for, as did not
hear his speech In answer TO Mr.. Tazewell on the
convention bill (Which is reported am very sure