Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-01-30
DEBATE ON THE CONVENTION

The House adjourned.
DEBATE ON THE CONVENTION
Mr.. DOnDRIDGE'S reply TO the Srcet:bes of
MessrS. Old and Miller of Povhaian and Mr. Pnrk .
or OF Northampton, on the 9th inst.
Mir. CHAIRMAN: The principal argument relied
on by the members from Powhatan and Northanp-
ton Is that persons and property being the objects Of
governmental protection ought both to be rcnrcsent
cd in 'ho Legislature, and therefore in convention
One otthc mcmbersfrom Powhatan has rom. SO IA
rs IN SPY that slaves in time of peace are eoua IN
usetnnosso the lower classes of white labourcrs and
add "a much 10 the strength of the country and no
contends that the representation in Congress- and the
plan o the first section OF the bill under consideration
are aI!c detective, III omitiDg 20 provide reprcsnu
tation OF their whole number instead of three ffhy
Indeed one of the Delegates from Powhatan the rs,
who addressed the Commute, has said that propnrtv
Is more especially entitled to representation than per
sons His argument Is TINS II persons possesscd of
property hold the Legislative power thew cannot o.
gisatc nlnrionslv personal rights withouniurino
themselves, but If persons toithOm properly couId
'erlsiate 0rer property they could exercise this pow
or inuriousy without affecting themselves Tho
other member from the same county has assumed tho
revolutionary MAXIM that representation and taxation
should 90 hand and hand and has cndeavored 70 press
It INTO the present service. BY this ma kim nc afrms
the great Earl of Chatham made the mo of FnIa,
trcmbc on his throne. Finding the principle of y 90
representation to be growing every day more od;oue
he hns cudcavored To support the bill on the new
t'nce that 1t was intended, not to produce slave rc
persons and property.
The application Of the great maxim that taxation
and representation should go hand in hand is spacious
indeed but IS not well founded Doctor Franklin has
placed this claim in it's true Iipht. At the pcriod of
The revolution the King Of England held the thrones
OF England and Scotland Ivy descent aud that of Ire
land by conquest. The three European kinrrlorns
now composing the united kingdom or cinpire were
separate and independent Of each other. 'Thcv vora
ALIKE subject TO the executive head bnt cach had
rs Own parliament IN which tho esa~v ~ oacb .nre
represented. Takes in England are considered ne
Grants by the Commons 70 tho King, for pnblic ,,se
Ihc COMMONS 0f England could tax tbe rponlo NJ
England but not those of Scotland and Irc1and: nd
81 vice versa Doctor Franklin considered tho th;r
teen American Colonies as occupying the same re-
iions tn the monarch and people of ENGLAND ms did
"''flnnd and ireland. Each Colony had its own
P"rtnmcnt or General Assembly. by whom alone tbev
could lawfully be taxed and tho principle asserted by
me revolution was no more than this. that the colo
mos having no representation in parliament onrht
not to be taxed by Parliament The principle had
no personal or individual application or fit had the
commonwealth has from it's birth lived i'm the con,inu-
a violation Of tho principle itself for from the first tho
uon-rcchndcr ha4 been subjected 10 taxo,iop. al
though be- has had no voice IN the choice of repre-
sentative.
The Earl Of Chatham however, has never said
what The eDcniGs Of reform now contend for that
man who ~ taxed for million Of dollars ought 10
possess ten times much political power no he who
j. taxed for one hundred Thousand. j. was reserved
10 the republicans ofthe present day 20 advance this
alarming doctrine.
The answer to gentlemen on Iris head, may nc
Faiedin few words. Taxation on property and
protection Of property, should go hand IN hand. a
citizen taxed for million, has that million protected
by government, and he who is only taxed one dollar
has that dollar protected. The account is thus set
tied. But personal and political rights are concerns
OF an nconparavey higher order, end require equal
representation. The statesmen who claims that the
posscsSor Of wealth must govern the majority rs the
only means ofprotectiDg that wealth. do in fact assert
the principle Of governing country by on olgarchy
Of few wealthy individuals. According to their
theory, The protection Of property il of impor
lance, Than the protection ocal the rights of person
political or rehgious-a theory which we cannot adj
nit.
The term oligarchy. although perfectly descriptive
81 ii~ colonial and present grycrnmcu', seems TO