54 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



No. 1 



tant interests of the commonwealth. We were there- 

 fore in a great measure prepared for a final rejection of 

 the petition of the Convention, after some njjpearance 

 of deliberation thereon. We had even (in imagination) 

 anticipated the kind of reasoning that would be used to 

 oppose the general measure — and were prepared to 

 hear of the ridicule and scoffing of every particular 

 proposition that had been (or could be) made, for the 

 advancement of agricultural improvement — and still 

 more to hear the economical objections of members, who 

 would not have hesitated to spend more public money 

 than all that was required for a year's expense of a 

 Board of Agriculture, in a contested election of a door- 

 keeper of their hall. But we were not lyrejmrcd for the 

 actual course by which the expected result was reach- 

 ed. The petition was not rejected— for in truth it ne- 

 ver was acted upon, considered, or its objects in any 

 way discussed by the legislature — and almost as lit- 

 tle may be said of the action of the Committee of Agri- 

 culture, to whose charge the petition had been referred. 

 As late as five or six weeks after that reference, the 

 committee had not taken the petition into consideration, 

 and had taken no step whatever, with regard to it. Af- 

 terwards, at the request of its chairman, and aided by 

 his interest and support, (andfor which, however, in- 

 effectually exerted, that gentleman deserves the thanks 

 of the friends of the measure) — the Committee of Agri- 

 culture, took up the petition — but only to ask of the 

 house, "to be discharged from its further consideration;" 

 which was done, with the utmost readiness. This final 

 dispositon of the petition attracted so little attention, 

 that probably half the members of the legislature did 

 not know of it being made — and it may be doubted 

 whether they know of it yet. 



If the most enlightened and patriotic legislature that 

 Virginia has ever been blessed with, had, in good faith, 

 and with the best intentions, undertaken the novel sub- 

 ject of aiding the improvement of agriculture, there 

 would necessarily have been much diversity of opin- 

 ion, and on that account, a probable want of final and 

 proper action, during the first session. Butthe discussion 

 of itself, would have done much good, and would have 

 certainly led to future and beneficial action. With even 

 this evidence of disposition to aid agriculture, and the 

 prospect which it would have offered of future results, 

 the friends of the cause might have been contented. 

 Such certainly would have been our own view of the 

 matter — and however anxious that something should be 

 done to further the general object of the Convention, 

 we would have preferred that there should have been 

 too litllr, rather than too much action of the legislature ; 

 or that any particular measures should have been adopt- 

 ed, unless with due deliberation, and in tlie manner 

 best calculated for permanency. If, at the last ses- 

 sion, the legislature had extended (and limited) their 

 action to simply instituting a Board of Agriculture — a 

 mere consulting and advising body, of eight or ten 

 members — which would not have cost annually more 

 than $'1000 ; and which institution, would not have 

 pledged the legislature to any other special measure or 

 action in future — we would have preferred that course 

 to the adoption of all of the other recommendations of 



the Convention. This admission may perhaps, be 

 thought to contradict our former expressions, or acts. 

 But there is certainly a great difference between the 

 advocating by a private individual, of general mea- 

 sures, or a system., for the adoption of government, and 

 of hasty enactments designed to bring such general mea- 

 sures into operation. Of the value of the eyid in view, 

 there is no question : but of the means, there may be 

 much to doubt, and to fear — and the adoption of unsuit- 

 able means — though haste and want of due considera- 

 tion, would greatly retard, instead of hastening the re- 

 sults desired. 



But the mode in which the last legisluture disposed 

 of the petition of the Convention, furnished no ground to 

 suppose that the objects of that paper, would have found 

 favor under any circumstances. The course was pre- 

 cisely such as might have been expected, from a body 

 that closed their long session by passing or rejecting 

 bills almost en 7nasse, and in the most indecent haste, 

 after having spent two weeks, or more, in discussing 

 abstract resolutions on the northern abolition move- 

 ments — (a question on which the members professed to 

 be all of one opinion — ) and which resolutions, when 

 finally passed, could not lead, and were never expected 

 or designed to lead, to any practical, useful, or direct 

 end whatever. They have been laid before Congress. 

 Their existence is scarcely known to one abolitionist 

 in a thousand — and on not one of them, nor on any one 

 else, have the resolutions had the slightest effect. This 

 is a peculiarly forcible, but yet true illustration of the 

 general character of the legislative procedure of Vir- 

 ginia; and the existence and long continuance of that 

 character, is the sorest of all the many evils under 

 which the best interests of the commonwealth are suf- 

 fering and sinking. The " anti-abolition resolutions" 

 are particularized, not so much for the enormity of the 

 case, as because they were in the uncommon position 

 of not presenting a question of creed and conflict of 

 political parties : and opinions on questions of the 

 latter kind, will always be carefully avoided in this 

 journal. 



Such censures as we now utter, may perhaps apply 

 with peculiar fitness to particular acts and times, or 

 to particular bodies of men. But generally and cor- 

 rectly they apply, (and so we design them to apply,) 

 to all times for twenty years back, or more — and to all 

 parties, whether forming majorities or minorities in our 

 legislature. We fear that it is the incurable vice of Vir- 

 gitiia legislation to talk, and uot to act — and that it will 

 continue to be distinguished for its abundant fruits of 

 long speeches upon abstract questions — and its utter 

 neglect of useful and practical works. Because Madi- 

 son, and Taylor, and Giles, and other intellectual giants 

 of that time, by tlie discussion of resolutions in the 

 Virginia legislature, effected a great political reforma- 

 tion — many, even of the pigmies among their succes- 

 sors, have aped the form of their example, and tried by 

 mere "resolutions" upon almost every federal ques« 

 tion of interest, to produce important results. The pe- 

 culiar circumstances which existed in '98, the cause, 

 and above all the men who acted — produced the re- 

 sults — and not the manner of action (by passing reso- 



