dorick Bland, William Grayson, James Monroe, and George Mason. These same persons voted against the adoption of the Constitution, which was only carried by a majority of ten. So great was the impression made on the public mind by the arguments in the Convention against the evil tendencies of the Constitution, that a majority of the Virginia Legislature that met the ensuing October, to appoint senators, and pass laws for electing members of Congress, was decidedly anti-federal; that is, opposed to the Constitution, as it came from the hands of its framers, without important modifications. Patrick Henry was the master spirit of that assembly. He was offered a seat in the Senate of the United States; but he declined it, as he had previously declined a seat in the Federal Convention. Through his influence the appointment of senator was conferred on William Grayson, and on Richard Henry Lee.

Mr. Grayson distinguished himself in the Virginia Convention by a very elaborate analysis of the new Constitution, pointing out its defects, and illustrating by history its dangerous tendencies. He gave utterance to a prediction, which many believe has been in the daily process of fulfilment from that time to the present moment. "But my greatest objection is," says he, speaking of the Constitution, "that it will, in its operation, be found unequal, grievous, and oppressive. If it have any efficacy at all, it must be by a faction-a faction of one part of the Union against the other. There is a great difference of circumstances between the States. The interest of the carrying States (since manufacturing States) is strikingly different from that of the producing States. I mean not to give offence to any part of America, but mankind are governed by interest. The carrying States will assuredly unite, and our situation will then be wretched indeed. Every measure will have for its object their particular interest. Let ill-fated Ireland be ever present to our view. I hope that my fears are groundless, but I believe it as I do my creed, that this government will operate as a faction of seven States to oppress the rest of the Union. But it may be said, that we are represented, and cannot therefore be injured a poor representation it will be! The British would have been glad to take America into the Union like the Scotch, by giving us a small representation. The Irish might be indulged with the same favor by asking for it. (As they have done, and with what

result?) Will that lessen our misfortunes? A small representation gives a pretence to injure and destroy. But, sir, the Scotch Union is introduced by an honorable gentleman as an argument in favor of adoption. Would he wish his country to be on the same foundation with Scotland? They have but 45 members in the House of Commons, and 16 in the House of Lords. They go up regularly in order to be bribed. The smallness of their number puts it out of their power to carry any measure. And this unhappy nation exhibits the only instance, perhaps, in the world, where corruption becomes a virtue. I devoutly pray, that this description of Scotland may not be picturesque of the Southern States, in three years from this time."

The other senator from Virginia was Richard Henry Lee. He stood by Patrick Henry from the commencement of our revolutionary struggles to their end. He was one of the first delegates to the first Congress. His name appears on almost all the important committees of that body. He was selected by the Virginia delegation to move the declaration of independence. For his patriotism, statesmanship, and oratory, he was regarded as the Cicero of his age. His classical and chaste elocution possessed a tone of depth and inspiration that charmed his auditory. While his great compatriot poured down upon agitated assemblies a cataract of mingled passion and logic, he awakened the attention, captivated the heart, and convinced the understanding of his hearers by a regulated flow of harmonious language, generous sentiment, and lucid argument. "In his personal character, he was just, benevolent, and high-spirited, domestic in his tastes, and too proud to be ambitious of popularity." This distinguished patriot and statesman was strenuously opposed to the Constitution as it came from the hands of its framers. He was a member of Congress to whom it was referred, and by whom it was expected to be recommended to their respective States. "When the plan of a Constitution," says Mr. Madison, "proposed by the Convention came before Congress for their sanction, a very serious effort was made by Richard Henry Lee to embarrass it. It was first contended that Congress could not properly give any positive countenance to a measure which had for its object the subversion of the Constitution under which they acted. This ground of attack failing, he then urged the expediency of sending out the plan with amendments, and proposed a number of them corresponding with the objections of Col. Mason." 2*

VOL. I.

He then addressed a letter to Governor Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, who as a member of the Convention had refused to sign the Constitution. After giving his objections in detail, he says: "You are, therefore, sir, well warranted in saying, either a monarchy or aristocracy will be generated—perhaps the most grievous system of government will arise. It cannot be denied with truth, that this new Constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed, that a government of the few, is, of all governments, the worst."

"The only check to be found in favor of the democratic principle, in this system, is the House of Representatives; which, I believe, may justly be called a mere shred or rag of representation; it being obvious to the least examination, that smallness of number, and great comparative disparity of power, render that house of little effect to promote good, or restrain bad government. But what is the power given to this ill-constructed body? To judge of what may be for the general welfare, seems a power coextensive with every possible object of human legislation." Such were the first senators from Virginia, and of a like complexion were a majority of those returned to the House of Representatives. For devoting himself so ardently to the election of men known to be hostile to the Constitution as it stood, Mr. Henry was charged with a design of subverting that which he could not prevent. It is said that his avowed attachment to the confederation was mere hypocrisy; that he secretly rejoiced in its imbecility, and did not desire a union of the States under any form of government. He was attacked in a most virulent and personal manner by a writer who signed himself Decius. He charged Mr. Henry with a design of forming Virginia and North Carolina into one republic, and placing himself at the head as their dictator. "Were I to draw the picture of a tyrant for this country," says Decius, "it should be very different from that which some others have sketched

out.

He should be a man in every instance calculated to soothe and not to threaten the populace; possessing a humiliating and not an arrogant turn; affecting an entire ignorance and poorness of capacity, and not assuming the superiorities of the illumined; a man whose capacity should be calculated to insinuate itself into the good esteem of others by degrees, and not to surprise them into a compliance on a sudden; whose plainness of manners and meanness of address first

should move our compassion, steal upon our hearts, betray our judgments, and finally run away with the whole of the human composition."

This description of the demagogue winning his way by affected humility and low cunning to the supreme command, was intended to be applied to Mr. Henry. Many of his own expressions are used in drawing the portrait, but no man less deserved the epithet of ambitious. There can be no doubt that he delighted to sway the passions of the multitude, and to influence the decision of legislative bodies by the powers of his eloquence; but that his ambition extended to the acquisition of supreme executive command, there is not the slightest ground of suspicion.

The virulence with which he was assailed must be attributed to the high party excitement of the times, which indiscriminately assaulted the most spotless characters, and paid no respect to exalted services or venerable age.

CHAPTER VIII.

GEORGE MASON.

GEORGE MASON was a wise man. He was at once the Solon and the Cato, the lawgiver and the stern patriot of the age in which he lived. At a period when republics were to be founded, and constitutions of government ordained for growing empires, he was the first to define and to guard with watchful care the rights of the people-to prescribe limitations to the different departments of government, and to place restrictions on their exercise of power. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of Virginia, are lasting monuments to his memory. One sentence of the former contains more wisdom and concentration of thought, than all former writings on the subject of government. The sentence is this; "that no man or set of men is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments, or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or

judge, to be hereditary." Here is a volume of truth and wisdom, says an eminent writer, a lesson for the study of nations, embodied in a single sentence, and expressed in the plainest language. If a deluge of despotism were to overspread the world, and destroy those institutions under which freedom is yet protected, sweeping into oblivion every vestige of their remembrance among men, could this single sentence of Mason be preserved, it would be sufficient to rekindle the flame of liberty, and to revive the race of freemen. Though Mr. Mason did not object to a union of the States for their mutual defence and welfare, he yet regarded the commonwealth of Virginia as his country, and her government as the only one that could guarantee his rights or protect his interests. So far back as 1783, Mr. Madison, speaking of him, says, "his heterodoxy lay chiefly in being too little impressed with the necessity or the proper means of preserving the confederacy." Virginia was a great empire within herself, and had every thing to sacrifice in surrendering her sovereignty to a central government. On the independence of the States also rested his only hope of preserving the liberties of the people. He entered the Federal Convention, therefore, in 1787, with a stern resolution never to surrender the sovereignty of the States. Others, on the contrary, could conceive of no other plan but a consolidated government, by which the States should be reduced from political societies to mere municipal corporations. The middle ground of compromise had not yet been thought of. Mr. Madison had but a dim perception of its possibility. Even he was for a strong government. In a letter addressed to Edmund Randolph, dated New-York, April 8th, 1787, he says: "I hold it for a fundamental point, that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think, at the same time, that a consolidation of the States into one simple republic, is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried, then, whether any middle ground can be taken." To the untiring exertions of Mr. Madison, both in the Federal Convention and in the Convention of Virginia, are we indebted for the existence of the Constitution. But to Colonel Mason are we indebted for the only democratic and federal features it contains. But for Madison we should have been without a government; but for Mason, that government would have crushed the States, and swallowed up the liberties of the people. To Mason