Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1851-07-01

effect Of the natural right OF man TO control property
state of society. Agraranism was the exercise of The
natural right TO plumber according to law 1t not
the right to plumber i'll defiance of the law This wae
one decree, that the man who proposed ngrariansm
should be guiloned aud the other was, that property
should be represented. Mr.. Burke scorncd them all
n. saw the irreconcable Inconsistency between their
professions and their practice and III this letter fixes il
upou them He ashes them for their Inconsistency he
shows that their claims DO not accord with their prac
ce aud Ike goes step further aud says that this pro-
nerty representation, such as it is does not give procc
on enough. But, say frends-and this is n very
Grand discovery-Mr. Burke says YOU do not give pro-
lection enough to property ergo, property representa-
ton affords no protection at all.
Nv friend from Berkeley (Alr FAULKNER is too good
logcan to deal in logic Of that description if he coult
avoid it but nevertheless, that is the logic he is driven
othat because Burke that these men, in practice
were inconsistent with their profession and did give
notecton enough TO property ergo, Is the conclusion
rrcu you should not give property any representation
at all
Mr.. FAULKNER The gentleman has misunderstood
me il lie supposes quoted the authority Of Edmund
Burke TO prove any opinion entertained By that gentle
man that property ought to be represented in govern
meut Ny purpose in Introducing that authority was t.
prove that he himself Us distinguished advocate Of
property representation, regarded that scee III France
which was very similar to the have before us
alTriuS protection to property ut MI and TINT pro-
tcction must be found i'll suffrage. hive not heard
other Gentleman, meet that aspect OF the argument
| Mr. LYONS One step at a time. That is all am
mile TO take cannot take both Of these positions and
meet them Mt mean to consider the very suffrage
question which has been eloqucny alluded by
friend from Berkeley (31r. FAuLKyER and would to
God had the power TO present side Of the question
in equal terms, and in the style which he has presented
! his. But will follow Mr. Burke step further. The
gentleman from Berkeley quoted Mr.. Burke to prove
that this mode Of protection was not adequate-it did
not answer the purpose for which it was designed and
Lccase the protection afforded By the French constituent
assembly not sufficient protection they would de-
duce the argument that there should be no protection
bv representation ut all, according to Mir Burke.
| Now. let what Mr. Burke SAYS upon that sub
iect. Ho says:
| Ertracts from Burkcs lEmks, Vd III, lagos Giles
"Nothing is due and sre'lG.sc representation of
st, ,a.t docs not represent its ability us well a. its
properly But as ability vigorous and active prirci
Die and n property Is sluggish. inert and ti:n! il never
can bc safe from the invasions Of ability unless bc
ont Of proportion, predominant in the representation
It must I've represented too in great Of accu.nr-
lation or it is not rightly protected"
! when they cane 10 provide for population, they
were not able To proceed quite ih!v tlcy had
done in the Geld OF tLeir geometry. Here their arth
mcc came to bear upon their Iuridcal metaph rsics
Had they stuck to their nataphcsic principles the arh
inetca process would be simple indeed. Men with
tem are strictly equal nud entitled TO equal rights
|
would have its vote, and every man would vote directly
for the person who represent him in the Lcgsn-
ture But solt-by regular degrees not vet. This
nctaphv.c principle To which law custom, usage, poll
~ reason Weld is 10 yield itself to their plea
sure There must be many degrees. and stage-
before the representative contact with his
constituent. Indeed We shall s,on see these two
persons arc 10 have no sort of communion with each
other First the voters in the canton, who compose what
they call primary assemblies are to have republication.
What qualification on the indefrasible rights of men
Yes; but it shall be very small qualification Our
injustice shall be very little oppressive; only the locu
valuation Of throc days labor pald to the public Why,
his is not much readily admit for any thing but the
utter subvison Of your equazng principle As quail.
fcutipn il might we'll be let alone for it
one purpose Iur which qualifications established !;
and on your IDEAS it excludes from vote the of
all Others whose natural equality stands the most in
need Of protection and defence. lnean the who
has nothing else but his natural equality to guard him.
You order him to buy the right which YOU before told
him nature had given to him gratulto!sv ut his BIRTH
uni Of which authority on earth could lawfully de-
prive him. With regard tothe person who cannot
up to your market, tvrannous arisocracy, against
him. established the very outset by YOU who pre-
tend to be its sworn foe"
But as ability is vigorous and ac''c principle, and
as property is sluggish inert and nacve il
be safe from the invasions OF ab' :nles. out Of all
proportion has influence IN the rcprcscn-
| taton. Will gentl".na cl' M now Il is that Mr..
the purpose 9: $40 tina property is no. entitled TO
reprcser!na3. for 4 he gentleman does not prove that
he does coTc ANYTHING At =. TO aid them. Mr..
! Tls%c hcg .! laying ...wa lie maxim, "that there
n ne 70 1ontto"tinmcnt mat docs not represent all
n. ah:i:, - 81, az property" But he goes step
ricr =, =. says you must make the protection Of
IL 0ut Of all proportion to the protection of abili
!, - The representation. Nr. Burke then is with us
"a principle and only differs in degree ! will not de-
ia III The Committee by reading further. Ny colleague,
Mr.. SrAsSARn) in his able argument before the Com
mittec days since, discussed that point with
elusive force, and quoted from Mr.. Burke to sustain
his opinions, and here Mr. Chairman, let me make the
lust confession that The learning and ability with which
my friends and colleagues have maintained our cause,
make me feel more sensibly though gratefully, the
inability Of my effort, if could forbear it, Mr.. Burke
goes further for tho purpose of showing that the
sttucnt assembly of France, by this mode of represent
Ing property did not give it much representation as
it was entitled 10. What then; Do our friends wish
10 give US more representation for property; If they
say so, we will not offend them by refusing Do we
ask too little Will they give us protection BY
representation No they say VIC will not give YOU
particle Of protection by representation Wew do is
We will take the government into our own hands, we
will take the principle Of numbers without regard any
other consideration whatever; we will have right to
control it, and BY our favor and pleasure, 10 last
as long as we choose, We will give YOU guaran-
tee that shall be called protection, which Of
shall endure in like manner. Will gentlemen deny
that this the exact meaning of their proposition;
Although they 10 not put it in these terms, yet will
they deny that this is the exact meaning and effect Of
it, If they have that power il that power is conceded
10 hem then they may take away the guarantee just
when they please. As they have given the guarantee,
then, because they have power to change the constu
ton at their pleasure, they also take away the
guarantee which they have given, they say, in the
name of right, conscience equality and justice. This
is very just, equal and conscentious-only allow to
take possession Of you and your property, and will
extend TO you such protection for it think right
to last as long We think it ought to last And how
long that will be- my friend, (Ar. RIvEs,) who sits be-
fore me- has taught lesson upon that bect BY read
Ing from the legislative debate of 1920 There did
come time when protection. in that form, would not
have lasted for day. if it had depended upon the pow.
Of those who voted to destroy it. Was not and not
fOr it IS the same Silly the guarantee strong any
that can be put into the constitution now, and although
the effort to repeal it will not be repeated again de-
beratcly am sure, yet like circumstances may
again with like results In the Of this debate
lhayc heard, with infinite pain and regret the remarks
Of gentlemen who tell u.s. that must beware of max
ing them the enemies Of our slaves BY putting ourslaves
between them and power. Let them not obstruct our
path, say they for you do you make us the enemies
Of these slares-wc may destroy them. | am not wrong
| in this More than one gentleman has limited at this.
What then Is the state Of the case; 1t is no longer
II question Of principle, but a question of degree
Principle Will be rs much violated by destroying our
! TO get ny dee u IN 10