THE HISTORY OF SUFFRAGE IN VIRGINIA

CHAPTER I.

SUFFRAGE BEFORE 1830.

In 1619 the people of Virginia were, for the first time, granted the rights of suffrage. At that time came Governor Yeardley who, as an officer of the London Company, established in Virginia a representative form of government' and called the first Legislative Assembly that ever met on American soil. In the writs which ordered the election of "Burgesses," he ordained that they should be elected by the " inhabitants" of the colony."

Two years later Sir Francis Wyatt, who came as the successor of Yeardley, brought to the colony the famous "Ordinance and Constitution" of July 24, 1621. By this constitution the privileges which had been granted by Yeardley were affirmed by the London Company, and again it was stated that the Burgesses were to be chosen by the inhabitants."

66

8

At first glance one would think that the Virginia Colony had universal suffrage, that both men and women exercised the privilege and duty of voting; but, if we read between the lines the election law of 1646 (a law enacted with reference to the mode of conducting elections, and in no way intended to define an elector's qualifications), it is evident that the right of suffrage was granted only to freemen, except that "indented" or covenant" servants were to be

66

'Chandler's Representation in Virginia (J. H. U. Studies, 14th Ser.), p. 12 et seq.

2 Smith's Hist. of Va., vol. ii, p. 39.

3

Hening, vol. i, p. 112.

recognized as freemen. In 1655, the right of suffrage was, for the first time, abridged, being confined to "housekeepers, whether freeholders, leaseholders or otherwise tenants," but the term "housekeepers" was to be so construed that only one in a family was to have the right to vote.'

At the next session of the General Assembly (1656), the right of suffrage was again extended to all freemen, because the Burgesses considered it " something hard and unagreeable to reason that any person shall pay equal taxes and yet have no votes in elections.' By the revised laws of 1658 the franchise was still allowed to all freemen.' In 1670 the right of suffrage was restricted. The following is a part of the act:

99 6

"Whereas the usuald way of chuseing burgesses by the votes of all persons who, haveing served their tyme, are ffreemen of this country, who haveing little interest in the country, doe oftener make tumults at the elections. to the disturbance of his majesties peace, than by their discretions in their votes provide for the conservasion thereof, by making choyce of persons fitly qualified for the discharge of soe greate a trust, and, whereas the lawes of England grant a voyce in such elections only to such as by their estates real or personall have interest enough to tye them to the endeavor of the publique good: It is hereby enacted that none but freeholders and housekeepers, who only are answerable to the publique for the levies, shall hereafter have a voyce in the election of any burgesses." In 1676 occurred Bacon's Rebellion, a rebellion for the

8

In the time of Henry VI the franchise in England was limited to those who had estates of a rental value of 40 shillings a year. In the commonwealth period it was extended to all persons owning 200 pounds' worth of property, whether real or personal. On the restoration of the Stuarts the old freehold qualification was again reenacted. Feilden's Const. History of England, pp. 132-133. 'Hening, vol. ii, p. 280.

rights of freemen, and one of the first laws passed by the General Assembly which was summoned by Virginia's first rebel, was the repeal of the act of 1670 and the extension. of suffrage once more to all freemen."

Free manhood suffrage was not in accord with the narrow ideas of Charles II; so, in 1676, he wrote to Sir William Berkeley: "You shall take care that the members of the Assembly be elected only by freeholders as being more agreeable to the custom of England, to which you are, as nigh as conveniently you can, to conform yourself."" The following year, through the influence of Berkeley and the King, a law was enacted that freeholders only were to be electors. This was the first law which cut off housekeepers who were not freeholders."

In 1699, the General Assembly reaffirmed the statute of 1676, but in addition enacted that "no woman, sole or covert, infants under the age of twenty-one years, or recusant convict, being freeholders" should enjoy the franchise." The wording of this act shows that the parties mentioned as unqualified to vote had never had the right, and that the disfranchising clause was simply the embodiment of the then existing customary law.

In 1705, the General Assembly adopted what might be termed a revised code of laws. In this code a freeholder is defined as a person who has " an estate real for his own life, or the life of another, or any estate of any great dignity."

Under this statute a freehold was merely nominal; and, as a result, many fraudulent "leases of small and inconsiderable parcels of land upon feigned considerations" were often made by the candidates for the House of Burgesses

"Ibid., vol. ii, p. 425.

10 Hening, vol. ii, p. 356. "Ibid., vol. ii, p. 425. This is not the view expressed by Hening in the preface to his first volume. According to Hening the first statute to restrict suffrage to freeholders only was the act of 1670. That act certainly granted the franchise to housekeepers. "Ibid., vol. iii, p. 240.

13

Hening, vol. iii, p. 172.

16

or by their agents," so as to control an election. Because of such fraud practiced in the elections, a desire arose for an electorate composed of only bona fide freeholders, possessing a sufficiently large landed estate to make them truly interested in all public questions. The cheapness of land made it easy to acquire a small freehold; and, for this reason, among the higher and ruling class, there was a feeling for a much higher property qualification. If we can rely upon Governor Spotswood's statement, in 1712, the Virginia Assembly was composed of extremely worthless representatives. He claimed that this condition was due to a defect in the Virginia constitution which allowed every man who could acquire as much as one-half of an acre of land the right to vote." Even a free negro if he was a freeholder was a voter. The statement is also made that the Virginians favored the extension of suffrage to all freemen. The English Board of Trade, however, instructed Governor Spotswood and the Council in Virginia to propose a law to increase the qualifications of electors. The Board of Trade further said, if the colony refused to assent, that Spotswood should try to enforce his instructions, and that the Board would see that something was done in England to force the colonists to obedience." The opposition of the Governor and the Board of Trade to a liberal suffrage, together with the discovery of an intended negro insurrection, undoubtedly influenced the Virginia Assembly to pass an act in 1723, by which negroes, mulattoes and Indians, though they were freeholders, were deprived of the privilege of voting." And finally, in 1736, an act was passed

20

15 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 475.

18

10 The right to a fifty-acre freehold could be secured for five shillings. (Ballagh: White Servitude in Va., p. 86.)

17

Sainsbury MSS., Package iii (1706-1714), under date of Oct. 15, 1712, and Spotswood's Letter, vol. ii, pp. 1-2.

18 Ibid., Package i (1606-1740), p. 158.

19 Ibid., Package iii (1706-1714), under April 23, 1713, and July 20,

20 Ibid., Dec. 20, 1722.

"Hening, vol. iv, p. 133.