The following able article, from Tucker's Life of Jefferson, relates to the "Abolition of Entails.-Primogeniture. Their effects considered.-Church establishment in Virginia-its gradual abolition.-Entire freedom of religion."

On the 11th of October, 1776, three days after Mr. Jefferson had taken his seat in the legislature, he brought in a bill for the establishment of Courts of Justice, which was subsequently approved by the House and passed. Three days afterwards, he introduced a bill to convert estates in tail into fee-simple. This, he avows, was a blow at the aristocracy of Virginia.

In that colony, in the earlier periods of its history, large grants of land had been obtained from the crown by a few favored individuals, which had been preserved in their families by means of entails, so as to have formed, by degrees, a patrician class among the colonists. These modes of continuing the same estates in the same family, found a protection here which they could not obtain in the mother country; for, by an act passed in the year 1705, the practice of docking entails, which had previously prevailed in Virginia as in England, was expressly prohibited; and whenever the peculiar exigencies of a family made it necessary that this restraint or alienation should be done away, it could be effected only by a special act of Assembly.

The class which thus provided for the perpetuation of its wealth, also monopolized the civil honors of the colony. The counsellors of the state were selected from it, by reason of which the whole body commonly had a strong bias in favor of the crown, in all questions between popular right and regal prerogative. It is but an act of justice to this class to state, that although some of them might have been timid and hesitating in the dispute with the mother country-disposed to drain the cup of conciliation to the dregs-yet, others were among the foremost in patriotic self-devotion and generous sacrifices; and there was but a small proportion of them who were actually tories, as those who sided with Great Britain were then denominated.

Mr. Jefferson was probably influenced less by a regard to the conduct of the wealthy families in the contest, than by the general reason which he thus gives: "To annul this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger than benefit to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, and scattered with an equal hand through all its conditions, was deemed essential to a well-ordered republic."

The repeal of this law was effected, not without a struggle. It was opposed by Mr. Pendleton, who, both from age and temper, was cautious of innovation; and who, finding some change inevitable, proposed to modify the law so far as to give to the tenant in tail the power of conveying in fee-simple. This would have left the entail in force, where the power of abolishing it was not exercised; and he was within a few votes of saving so much of the old law.

This law, and another subsequently introduced by Mr. Jefferson, to abolish the preference given to the male sex, and to the first-born, under the English common law, have effectually answered their intended purpose of destroying the gross inequality of fortunes which formerly prevailed in Virginia. They have not merely altered the distribution of that part of the landed property, which is transmitted to surviving relatives by the silent operation of the law, but they have also operated on public opinion, so as to influence the testamentary disposition of it by the proprietors, without which last effect the purpose of the Legislature might have been readily defeated. The cases are now very rare, in which a parent makes, by his will, a much more unequal distribution of his property among his children than the law itself would make. It is thus that laws, themselves the creatures of public opinion, often powerfully react on it.

The effects of this change in the distribution of property are very visible. There is no longer a class of persous possessed of large inherited estates, who, in a luxurious and ostentatious style of living, greatly exceed the rest of the community; a much larger number of those who are wealthy, have acquired their estates by their own talents or enterprise; and most of these last are commonly content with reaching the average of that more moderate standard of expense which public opinion requires, rather than the higher scale which it tolerates.*

Thus, there were formerly many in Virginia who drove a coach and six, and now

* A large portion of the matter on this page was appropriated by Lord Brougham, In his Miscellanies, without any acknowledgment whatsoever.

such an equipage is never seen. There were, probably, twice or three times as many four-horse carriages before the revolution, as there are at present; but the number of two-horse carriages may now be ten, or even twenty times as great, as at the former period. A few families, too, could boast of more plate than can now be met with; but the whole quantity in the country has now increased twenty, if not fifty fold.

Some nice but querulous observers, have thought that they perceived a correspondent change in the manners and intellectual cultivation of the two periods; and, while they admit that the mass of the people may be less gross, and more intelligent than the backwoodsman, the tobacco-roller, or the rustic population generally under the regal government, yet they insist that we have now no such class as that which formerly constituted the Virginia gentleman of chivalrous honor and polished manners-at once high-minded, liberal, delicate, and munificent; and that as to mental cultivation, our best educated men of the present day cannot compare with the Lees, the Randolphs, the Jeffersons, Pendletons, and Wythes, of that period.

This comparison, however, cannot easily be made with fairness; for there are few who have lived long enough to compare the two periods, and those few are liable to be biased on one side or the other, according to their early predilections and peculiar tastes. But apart from these individual influences, there is a general one to which we are all exposed. Time throws a mellow light over our recollections of the past, by which their beauties acquire a more touching softness, and their harsher parts are thrown into shade. Who that consults his reason can believe, if those scenes of his early days, to which he most fondly looks back, were again placed before him, that he would again see them such as memory depicts them? His more discriminating eye, and his less excitable sensibility, would now see faults which then escaped his inexperience, and he would look tranquilly, if not with indifference, on what had once produced an intoxication of delight. Yet such is the comparison which every one must make between the men and things of his early and his later life; and the traditionary accounts of a yet earlier period are liable to the same objection, for they all originate with those who describe what they remember, rather than what they actually observed. We must, therefore, make a liberal allowance for this common illusion, when we are told of the superior virtues and accomplishments of our ancestors.

The intellectual comparison may be more satisfactorily made. While it is admitted that Virginia could, at the breaking out of the Revolution, boast of men that could hold a respectable rank in any society; yet, after making allowance for the spirit-stirring occasion, which then called forth all their talents and faculties, there seems to be no reason to suppose that there is any inferiority in the present generation. It must be recollected, that by the more general diffusion of the benefits of education, and the con. tinued advancement of mental culture, we have a higher standard of excellence in the present day than formerly, and in the progressive improvement which our country has experienced in this particular, the intellectual efforts which in one generation confer distinction, would in that which succeeds it scarcely attract notice. It may be safely said, that a well-written newspaper essay would then have conferred celebrity on its author, and a pamphlet would then have been regarded as great an achievement in letters as an octavo volume at present. Nor does there pass any session of the legislature, without calling forth reports and speeches, which exhibit a degree of ability and political information, that would, forty years ago, have made the author's name reverberate from one end of British America to the other. The supposed effect of this change in the distribution of property, in deteriorating manners, and lowering the standard of intellectual merit, may then well be called in question.

Another law, materially affecting the polity of the state, and the condition of society, owes its origin in part to Mr. Jefferson. This was the act to abolish the church establishment, and to put all religious sects on a footing. The means of effecting this change were very simple. They were merely to declare that no man should be com pelled to support any preacher, but should be free to choose his sect, and to regulate his contribution for the support of that sect at pleasure.

From the first settlement of Virginia, the Church of England had been established

The tobacco was formerly not transported in wagons, as at present, but by a much simpler process. The hogshead, in which it was packed, had a wooden pin driven into each head, to which were adjusted a pair of rude shafts, and thus, in the way of a garden roller it was drawn to market by horses. Those who followed this busines of tobacco-rolling, formed a class by themselves-hardy, reckless, proverbially rude, and often indulging in coarse humor at the expense of the traveller who chanced to be well. dressed, or riding in a carriage.

in the colony. The inhabited parts were laid off into parishes, in each of which was a minister, who had a fixed salary in tobacco, together with a glebe and a parsonage house. There was a general assessment on all the inhabitants, to meet the expenses. Mr. Jefferson thus explains the success of rival sects :

"In process of time, however, other sectarisms were introduced, chiefly of the Presbyterian family; and the established clergy, secure for life in their glebes and salaries, adding to these generally the emoluments of a classical school, found employment enough in their farms and school rooms for the rest of the week, and devoted Sunday only for the edification of their flock, by service and a sermon, at their parish church. Their other pastoral functions were little attended to. Against this inactivity, the zeal and industry of sectarian preachers had an open and undisputed field; and by the time of the Revolution, a majority of the inhabitants had become dissenters from the established church, but were still obliged to pay contributions to support the pastors of the minority. This unrighteous compulsion, to maintain teachers of what they deemed religious errors, was grievously felt during the regal government and without a hope of relief."

The successive steps by which an institution, which was deeply rooted in the affections of many of the principal citizens, was deprived of its power and property, without disturbing the public tranquillity, may be not unworthy of notice.

In the bill of rights which was drawn by George Mason, June 12, 1776, the principle of religious freedom is distinctly asserted in the last article, which declares, "that redigion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can only be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." But the constitution itself, passed June 29th, is silent on the subject of religion, except that it renders "all ministers of the Gospel" incapable of being members of either House of Assembly, or of the Executive Council.

At the first session of the legislature, in the same year, under the new constitution, numerous petitions were received for abolishing the general assessment for the established church; and at this session, Mr. Jefferson drafted and supported a law for the relief of the dissenters, which, he says, brought on the severest contests in which he was ever engaged. Here, too, he encountered the formidable opposition of Mr. Pendleton and Mr. R. C. Nicholas, both zealous churchmen. The bill finally passed, but modified by its opponents. It declared all acts of Parliament, which proscribe or punish the maintenance of any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever, to be of no validity within the commonwealth; it exempts dissenters from all contributions for the support of the established church; and, as this exemption might in some places make the support of the clergy too burdensome on the members of the church, it suspends, until the end of the succeeding session, all acts which provide salaries for the clergy, (except as to arrears then due,) and leaves them to voluntary contributions. But, at the same time, it reserves to the established church its glebe lands and other property, and it defers "to the discussion and final determination of a future Assembly," the question, whether every one should not be subjected by law to a general assessment for the support of the pastor of his choice; or, every religious society should be left to voluntary contributions." The church party had previously succeeded so far as to obtain a declaration in committee, "that religious assemblies ought to be regulated, and that provision ought to be made for continuing the succession of the clergy, and superintending their conduct." In the following years, the question of providing for the ministers of religion by law, or leaving it to individual contributions, was renewed; but the advocates of the latter plan were only able to obtain, at each session, a suspension of those laws which provided salaries for the clergy-the natural progress in favor of liberal sentiments being counterbalanced by the fact, that some of the dissenting sects, with the exception of the Baptists, satisfied with having been relieved from a tax which they felt to be both unjust and degrading, had no objection to a general assessment; and, on this question, voted with the friends of the church. But the advocates of religious freedom finally prevailed, and after five suspending acts, the laws for the support of the clergy were, at the second session of 1779, unconditionally repealed. And although Mr. Jefferson was not then a member of the legislature, it is probable that his influence, as governor of the commonwealth, was sufficiently exerted towards its repeal. But to protect the rights of conscience, it was not deemed enough to remove past injustice, it was thought also prudent to prevent its recurrence. Among the bills, therefore, reported by the re

This probably greatly overrates their number.

visers, was the celebrated act of religious freedom, drawn by Mr. Jefferson; which not merely reasserts the principles of religious liberty contained in the bill of rights, but aims to give them permanence, by an argument equally clear, simple, and conclusive.

This bill, with many others, was not acted upon by the legislature for several years; but in the mean time, the friends of the Episcopal church prepared to make one more effort to recover a portion of its ancient privileges, by a general assessment. Their first object was to get an act of incorporation for the church, to enable it the better to retain and defend the large property it held, as well as to facilitate further acquisitions. A resolution having passed by a large majority, in favor of incorporating "all societies of the Christian religion" which desired it, leave was immediately given to bring in a bill "to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Church," by which the minister and vestry in each parish were made a body corporate, for holding and acquiring property, and regulating the concerns of the church, and which finally passed into law. The plan of à general assessment met with more difficulty. The petitions which had been got up among the people gave it the show of popularity, and it received the powerful aid of Patrick Henry's eloquence. Thus supported, it seemed likely to obtain a majority, when those who were opposed to the measure on principle, for the purpose of gaining time, proposed to refer the matter to the people before the legislature acted upon it, and they succeeded in postponing it. George Mason, George Nicholas, and others of this party, then proposed to Mr. Madison to prepare a remonstrance to the next legislature against the assessment, to be circulated through the state for signatures. This was done, and the paper which he prepared exhibited the same candid, dispassionate, and forcible reasoning, which had ever characterized the productions of his pen, convincing those who before doubted, so that there was a general disapprobation of the measure among all sects and parties; and, at the next session, the table could scarcely hold the petitions and remonstrances against the proposed assessment. Such a manifestation of the pubhe will was not to be resisted. The measure was abandoned, and Mr. Jefferson's bill, with some slight alterations, was then passed without difficulty.

To conclude this history of religious establishments in Virginia: the law could not fairly claim the praise of impartiality, so long as a single church had the benefits of incorporation; and the injustice was the greater, if, as the other sects maintained, most of the large property it held it owed to the public bounty. In two years afterwards the act allowing religious incorporations was repealed, but with a saving to all religious societies of the property they possessed, with the right of appointing trustees for its management. In 1799, all these laws, as well as those made for the benefit of the dissenters and the church, were repealed, as inconsistent with the bill of rights and the principles of religious freedom; and lastly, in 1801, the overseers of the poor in each county were authorized to sell all its glebe lands, as soon as they shall become vacant by the death or the removal of the incumbent for the time; but reserving the rights of all private donations before 1777. By the execution of this act, the last vestige of legal privilege which this church had over other sects, was completely eradicated.

LISTS OF VIRGINIANS WHO HAVE HELD HIGH PUBLIC STATIONS.

The following are lists of Virginians who have held high public stations under the general govern ment. They are complete only to the year 1842.

Presidents of the United States.-George Washington, elected 1789; died Dec. 14, 1799, aged 67. Thomas Jefferson, elected 1801; died July 4, 1826, aged 83. James Madison, elected 1809; died June 28th, 1836, aged 84. James Monroe, elected 1817; died July 4, 1831, aged 72. William Henry Harrison, elected in 1841; died April 4, 1841, aged 68. John Tyler, 1841.

Vice-Presidents of the United States.-Thomas Jefferson, elected 1797. John Tyler, elected 1841. Secretaries of State.-Thomas Jefferson, 1789. Edmund Randolph, 1794; died Sept. 12, 1813. John Marshall, 1800; died July 6, 1835, aged 79. James Madison, 1801. James Monroe, 1811. Henry Clay, (born in Va.,) 1825. Abel P. Upshur, 1843; died Feb. 28, 1844. John Forsyth, (born in Va.,) 1834; died Oct. 22, 1841, aged 61.

Secretaries of War.-James Monroe, 1814. James Barbour, 1825; died June 8, 1842, aged 66.

Secretaries of the Navy.-Abel P. Upshur, 1841. Thomas W. Gilmer, 1843; died Feb. 28, 1844. John Y. Mason, 1844.

Attorney-Generals.-Edmund Randolph, 1789. Charles Lee, 1795; died June 24, 1815, aged 58. William Wirt, (D. C.,) 1817; died Feb. 18, 1834, aged 61. Peter V. Daniel, appointed in 1833, but de clined.

Chief-Justices of the Supreme Court.--John Marshall, 1801 to 1835.

Associate do.--John Blair, 1789 to 1796; died Aug. 31, 1800, aged 68. Bushrod Washington, 1798 to 1829; died June 14, 1832, aged 73. Thomas Todd, 1807 to 1826; died Feb. 1826. Philip P. Barbour, 1836 to 1841; died Feb. 25, 1841, aged 60. Peter V. Daniel, 1841.

Foreign Ministers.-James Monroe, Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain in 1803, 1806, and 1808. James Barbour, do. to do. in 1828. Andrew Stevenson, do. to do. in 1836. William Short, Chargé de Affaires to France in 1790. James Monroe, Minister Plenipotentiary to do. in 1794. Patrick Henry, Min. Plen. to do. in 1799; did not accept. Wm. C. Rives, Min. Plen. and Envoy Extraordinary to do. in 1829. Wm. Short, Minister Resident in Spain, 1794. James Monroe, Min. Plen. to Spain, 1804. John Forsyth, (born in Va.,) Min. Plen. 1819. Hugh Nelson, Min. Plen. and En. Ex. to Spain, 1823. Wm. Short, Min. Res. to Netherlands, 1792. John Graham, Min. Plen. to Brazil, 1819. Thomas L. L. Brent, Chargé de Affaires to do., 1825. Henry Clay, (born in Va.,) to Prussia, 1823. John Randolph, about 1831, Min. Pien. to Russia. Richard C. Anderson, Min. Plen. to Colombia, 1823. Wm. Boulware, Chargé de Affaires Two Sicilies, 1841. Wm. Brent, Chargé d'Affaires to Buenos Ayres, 1844. Henry A. Wise, Minister to Brazil in 1844. Wm. M. Blackford, Chargé d'Affaires to New Grenada, 1842. Wm. Crump, Chargé d'Affaires to Chili, 1844.

U. S. Senators, from the adoption of the Constitution.-Wm. S. Archer, 1842 to 1847. James Barbour, 1815 to 1825. Richard Brent, 1809 to 1815. John W. Eppes, 1817 to 1819; died Sept. 1830, aged 50. Wm. B. Giles, 1804 to 1816; died Dec. 8, 1830. William Grayson, 1789 to 1790; died March 12, 1790. Richard H. Lee, 1789 to 1792; died 19th June, 1794, aged 62. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, 1834 to 1838. A. T. Mason, 1815 to 1817; died 6th Feb. 1819, aged 33. James Monroe, 1790 to 1794. Andrew Moore, 1804 to 1809. Wilson C. Nicholas, 1799 to 1804; died 10th Oct. 1820. James Pleasants, 1819 to 1822. John Randolph, 1825 to 1827; died 24th May, 1833, aged 60. William C. Rives, 1832 to 1834, 1836 to 1839, 1842 to 1845. John Taylor, about 1803. Henry Tazewell, 1794 to 1799. Littleton W. Tazewell, 1824 to 1833. John Tyler, 1827 to 1836. Abraham B. Venable, 1803 to 1804; perished in the Richmond Theatre, 26th Dec. 1811. John Walker, 1790.

Members of the Old Congress from 1774 to 1788, inclusive.-Thomas Adams, 1778 to 1780. John Banister, 1778 to 1779. Richard Bland, 1774 to 1776; died in 1778. Theodorick Bland, 1780 to 1783; died in 1790, aged 48. Carter Braxton, 1776; died 1797, aged 61. Edward Carrington, 1785 to 1786; died 1810, aged 61. John Fitzhugh, 1779 to 1780; died in 1809, aged 83. Wm. Grayson, 1784 to 1787. Cyrus Griffin, 1778 to 1781, 1787 to 1788; died in 1810, aged 62. Samuel Hardy, 1783 to 1785. John Harvie, 1778 to 1779. Benjamin Harrison, 1774 to 1778; died in 1791. James Henry, 1780 to 1781; died in 1805. Patrick Henry, 1774 to 1776. Thomas Jefferson, 1775 to 1777, 1783 to 1785. Joseph Jones, 1777 to 1778, 1780 to 1783. Arthur Lee, 1781 to 1784; died 14th Dec. 1782, aged 42. Francis L. Lee, 1775 to 1780; died 1797, aged 63. Henry Lee, 1785 to 1788; died in 1818, aged 62. Richard H. Lee, 1774 to 1780, 1784 to 1787; died in 1794, aged 62. James Madison, jr., 1780 to 1783, 1786 to 1788; died in 1836. James Mercer, 1779 to 1780. James Monroe, 1783 to 1786; died July 4, 1831. Thomas Nelson, 1775 to 1777, 1779 to 1780; died Jan. 4. 1789. aged 50. Mann Page, 1777. Edmund Pendleton, 1774 to 1775; died in 1823, aged 82. Edmund Randolph, 1779 to 1782; died in 1813. Peyton Randolph, 1774 to 1775; died 22d Oct. 1775, aged 52. Meriwether Smith, 1778 to 1782. George Washington, 1774 to 1775. George Wythe, 1775 to 1777; died 6th June, 1806, aged 80.

Members of the Convention from Va. which formed the Constitution of the United States.-John Blair, James Madison, Jr., George Mason, James M'Clurg, Edmund Randolph, George Washington, and George Wythe. Messrs. Mason, M'Clurg, Randolph, and Wythe, did not sign the constitution.

List of members from Virginia, of the U. S. House of Representatives, from the adoption of the Federal Constitution to the 4th of March, 1845.