gave rise to several questions concerning inheritances, which could be settled only by the process of litigation and judicial decision.

In criminal law, the committee were disposed to act on the system recommended by Beccaria; and, abolishing the punishment of death, in all cases, except for treason and murder, to have a gradation of punishments by hard labour. In some cases, however, they proposed to adopt the principle of retaliation. Mr. Jefferson, in his memoirs, seems to wonder how "so revolting a principle obtained their approbation," as well he might; since, besides being repugnant to modern feelings, it is often absurd, and sometimes impracticable*.

This part of Mr. Jefferson's labours indicates a good deal of industry and legal research; and it introduced many innovations which still constitute a part of the penal code of Virginia. In a letter to Mr. Wythe, in November, 1778, in speaking of the act for "proportioning crimes and punishments, in cases heretofore capital," which he encloses, he says, " in its style, I have aimed at accuracy, brevity, and simplicity; preserving, however, the very words of the established law, whether their meaning had been sanctioned by judicial decisions, or rendered technical by usage. The same matter, if couched in the modern statutory language, with all its tautologies, redundancies, and circumlocutions, would have spread itself over many pages, and been unintelligible to those whom it concerns. Indeed, I wished to exhibit a sample of reformation in the barbarous style, into which modern statutes have degenerated from their ancient simplicity. And I must pray you to be as watchful over what I have not said, as what is said; for the omissions

*It seems from his letter to Mr. Wythe, in November, 1778, that this principle was adopted against his approbation.

of this bill have all their positive meaning. I have thought it better to drop in silence the laws we mean to discontinue, and let them be swept away by the general negative words of this, than to detail them in clauses of express repeal."

In framing the other laws, he took the precaution, when re-enacting an English statute, not to vary its ancient diction, lest "he should give rise to new questions by new expressions; and in all draughts of new statutes, he endeavoured to avoid the tautology and repetition which are found in modern statutes, and which multiplied efforts at certainty, he justly remarks, by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, are really rendered more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to the lawyers themselves."

The committee completed their work in February, 1779, a little more than two years, and they had comprised all the common law which they thought it expedient to alter, and all either of the English or Virginia statutes, which they thought should be retained, in one hundred and twentysix bills, occupying nearly ninety folio pages. The work of each member was afterwards carefully scrutinized, and amended by the whole committee of three, and reported to the General Assembly in the following June. Some of the bills were occasionally selected and passed by the Legislature, but the great body of them were not acted on until the year 1785, when, as Mr. Jefferson remarks, " by the unwearied exertions of Mr. Madison, in opposition to the endless quibbles, chicaneries, perversions, vexations and delays of lawyers and demi-lawyers, most of the bills were passed by the Legislature, with little alteration." It sems probable, from the language here used, that Mr. Jefferson was annoyed by the cavils and objections which were made. to some of the bills reported by this class of men, who were at once most likely to perceive objections, and most capable

of enforcing them. His acquaintance with Mr. Madison, who was destined to occupy so distinguished a place in the subsequent history of his country, commenced in 1776. From that time, until they were separated by death, there was an uninterruptible friendship of fifty years, never embittered by envy or rivalry, and neither weakened by separation, nor cooled by difference of opinion. They first met in the Legislature of their native state, and Mr. Jefferson, referring to the occasion, thus speaks to posterity of his illustrious friend and compatriot.

"Mr. Madison came into the House in 1776, a new member and young; which circumstances, concurring with his extreme modesty, prevented his venturing himself in debate, before his removal to the Council of State, in November, 1777. From thence he went to Congress, then consisting of few members. Trained in those successive schools, he acquired a habit of self-possession, which placed at ready command the rich resources of his luminous and discriminating mind, of his extensive information, and rendered him first of every assembly afterwards, of which he became a member. Never wandering from his subject into vain declamation, but pursuing it closely in language, pure, classical, and copious; soothing always the feelings of his adversaries by civilities and softness of expression, he rose to the eminent station which he held in the great National Convention of 1787; and in that of Virginia, which followed, he sustained the new Constitution in all its parts, bearing off the palm against the logic of George Mason, and the fervid declamation of Mr. Henry. With these consummate powers were united a pure and spotless virtue, which no calumny has ever attempted to sully. Of the powers and polish of his pen, and of the wisdom of his administration in the highest office of the nation, I need say nothing-they have spoken, and will for ever speak for themselves."

At the session of the General Assembly, in May, 1779, Mr. Jefferson introduced a law which defined who were citizens of the Commonwealth, and recognised the right of expatriation, as well as prescribed the mode in which it should be exercised. The rights of citizenship, being given, according to the common law of England, by birth, can never be divested. The tie of allegiance is considered to be indissoluble. But the opposite principle on which the Legislature of Virginia proceeded, better accords with the liberal spirit of the age, by promoting the welfare of individuals, without practically affecting national security or prosperity. The great mass of every community are inevitably destined to remain in the country where they are born-the happy and thrifty from choice; the poor from necessity-so that, of all the possible dangers to a nation, that arising from excessive emigration appears to be the most visionary. The rule then of perpetual allegiance cannot be justified by national considerations: whilst, on the other hand, individuals often find that their talents, which are idle and unprofitable at home, may be usefully and gainfully exerted abroad, or that they can attain that peace of mind in other countries, which from some disappointment, or humiliation, or injustice, is denied them at home. If utility, or the conduciveness to human happiness, be the foundation of natural law, individuals should, except under special circumstances, have the right of locomotion and expatriation, without violating the rights of the country abandoned. It was, no doubt, with these rational and philanthropic views that the law in question was suggested. The right has since expressly received the general sanction of the American people, and has found a virtual recognition in the practice of all other civilized nations.

The committee having made such important provisions for the equal distribution of property, next endeavoured to pro

vide for the intelligence of the people by a general system of juvenile instruction; it seeming to them, that the stability of republican government depended upon diffusion of knowledge, together with the prevention of those overgrown fortunes, which are at once likely to kindle ambition, and to furnish the means of gratifying it; as well as to encourage a distinction between the vulgar and the well-born. By the first-mentioned course of legislative policy, the community is kept right in its feelings: by the second, in their opinions, and in the knowledge of the means of taking care of their interests. These seem to be the two grand pillars of popular government, and no effort should be spared to place them on bases at once solid and broad.

With these views, a general system of education was proposed by the committee, which, by their request, was prepared by Mr. Jefferson. The plan recommended three degrees of instruction, adapted to the different classes of society. 1st. Elementary Schools, for all the children in the community. 2ndly. Colleges, for a further degree of instruction, suited to the common purposes of life, and to all who were in easy circumstances. 3rdly. To exalt William and Mary into a University, for teaching the highest branches of science, and to aid it by an extensive library. Bills for these several objects were reported; but they all lay dormant until 1796, and then were acted on only so far as concerned the elementary schools. But as a new clause was then introduced, by which the execution of the law in each county was left discretionary with its magistrates; and as, moreover, the bill provided that every county should defray the expense of its own schools, whereby the wealthy would be made to bear the expense of educating the poor, the magistrates, who generally belong to the wealthy class, were unfavourable to the plan, and it was not carried into execution in a single county.