CHAPTER VII

STEADY WORK

From the close of Patrick Henry's first term in the Virginia House of

Burgesses, in the spring of 1765, to the opening of his first term in

the Continental Congress, in the fall of 1774, there stretches a

period of about nine years, which, for the purposes of our present

study, may be rapidly glanced at and passed by.

In general, it may be described as a period during which he had

settled down to steady work, both as a lawyer and as a politician. The

first five years of his professional life had witnessed his advance,

as we have seen, by strides which only genius can make, from great

obscurity to great distinction; his advance from a condition of

universal failure to one of success so universal that his career may

be said to have become within that brief period solidly established.

At the bar, upon the hustings, in the legislature, as a master of

policies, as a leader of men, he had already proved himself to be, of

his kind, without a peer in all the colony of Virginia,--a colony

which was then the prolific mother of great men. With him, therefore,

the period of training and of tentative struggle had passed: the

period now entered upon was one of recognized mastership and of

assured performance, along lines certified by victories that came

gayly, and apparently at his slightest call.

We note, at the beginning of this period, an event indicating

substantial prosperity in his life: he acquires the visible dignity of

a country-seat. Down to the end of 1763, and probably even to the

summer of 1765, he had continued to live in the neighborhood of

Hanover Court House. After coming back from his first term of service

in the House of Burgesses, where he had sat as member for the county

of Louisa, he removed his residence into that county, and established

himself there upon an estate called Roundabout, purchased by him of

his father. In 1768 he returned to Hanover, and in 1771 he bought a

place in that county called Scotch Town, which continued to be his

seat until shortly after the Declaration of Independence, when, having

become governor of the new State of Virginia, he took up his residence

at Williamsburg, in the palace long occupied by the official

representatives of royalty.

For the practice of his profession, the earlier portion of this period

was perhaps not altogether unfavorable. The political questions then

in debate were, indeed, exciting, but they had not quite reached the

ultimate issue, and did not yet demand from him the complete surrender

of his life. Those years seem to have been marked by great

professional activity on his part, and by considerable growth in his

reputation, even for the higher and more difficult work of the law. Of

course, as the vast controversy between the colonists and Great

Britain grew in violence, all controversies between one colonist and

another began to seem petty, and to be postponed; even the courts

ceased to meet with much regularity, and finally ceased to meet at

all; while Patrick Henry himself, forsaking his private concerns,

became entirely absorbed in the concerns of the public.

The fluctuations in his engagements as a lawyer, during all these

years, may be traced with some certainty by the entries in his

fee-books. For the year 1765, he charges fees in 547 cases; for 1766,

in 114 cases; for 1767, in 554 cases; for 1768, in 354 cases. With the

next year there begins a great falling off in the number of his cases;

and the decline continues till 1774, when, in the convulsions of the

time, his practice stops altogether. Thus, for 1769, there are

registered 132 cases; for 1770, 94 cases; for 1771, 102 cases; for

1772, 43 cases; for 1773, 7 cases; and for 1774, none.[90]

The character of the professional work done by him during this period

deserves a moment's consideration. Prior to 1769, he had limited

himself to practice in the courts of the several counties. In that

year he began to practice in the general court,--the highest court in

the colony,--where of course were tried the most important and

difficult causes, and where thenceforward he had constantly to

encounter the most learned and acute lawyers at the bar, including

such men as Pendleton, Wythe, Blair, Mercer, John Randolph, Thompson

Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and Robert C. Nicholas.[91]

There could never have been any doubt of his supreme competency to

deal with such criminal causes as he had to manage in that court or in

any other; and with respect to the conduct of other than criminal

causes, all purely contemporaneous evidence, now to be had, implies

that he had not ventured to present himself before the higher

tribunals of the land until he had qualified himself to bear his part

there with success and honor. Thus, the instance may be mentioned of

his appearing in the Court of Admiralty, "in behalf of a Spanish

captain, whose vessel and cargo had been libeled. A gentleman who was

present, and who was very well qualified to judge, was heard to

declare, after the trial was over, that he never heard a more eloquent

or argumentative speech in his life; that Mr. Henry was on that

occasion greatly superior to Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Mason, or any other

counsel who spoke to the subject; and that he was astonished how Mr.

Henry could have acquired such a knowledge of the maritime law, to

which it was believed he had never before turned his attention."[92]

Moreover, in 1771, just two years from the time when Patrick Henry

began practice in the General Court, Robert C. Nicholas, then a

veteran member of the profession, "who had enjoyed the first practice

at the bar," had occasion to retire, and began looking about among the

younger men for some competent lawyer to whom he might safely intrust

the unfinished business of his clients. He first offered his practice

to Thomas Jefferson, who, however, was compelled to decline it.

Afterward, he offered it to Patrick Henry, who accepted it; and

accordingly, by public advertisement, Nicholas informed his clients

that he had committed to Patrick Henry the further protection of their

interests,[93]--a perfectly conclusive proof, it should seem, of the

real respect in which Patrick Henry's qualifications as a lawyer were

then held, not only by the public but by the profession. Certainly

such evidence as this can hardly be set aside by the supposed

recollections of one old gentleman, of broken memory and unbroken

resentment, who long afterward tried to convince Wirt that, even at

the period now in question, Patrick Henry was "wofully deficient as a

lawyer," was unable to contend with his associates "on a mere question

of law," and was "so little acquainted with the fundamental principles

of his profession ... as not to be able to see the remote bearings of

the reported cases."[94] The expressions here quoted are, apparently,

Wirt's own paraphrase of the statements which were made to him by

Jefferson, and which, in many of their details, can now be proved, on

documentary evidence, to be the work of a hand that had forgot, not

indeed its cunning, but at any rate its accuracy.

As to the political history of Patrick Henry during this period, it

may be easily described. The doctrine on which he had planted himself

by his resolutions in 1765, namely, that the parliamentary taxation of

unrepresented colonies is unconstitutional, became the avowed doctrine

of Virginia, and of all her sister colonies; and nearly all the men

who, in the House of Burgesses, had, for reasons of propriety, or of

expediency, or of personal feeling, opposed the passage of his

resolutions, soon took pains to make it known to their constituents

that their opposition had not been to the principle which those

resolutions expressed. Thenceforward, among the leaders in Virginian

politics, there was no real disagreement on the fundamental question;

only such disagreement touching methods as must always occur between

spirits who are cautious and spirits who are bold. Chief among the

former were Pendleton, Wythe, Bland, Peyton Randolph, and Nicholas. In

the van of the latter always stood Patrick Henry, and with him

Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, the Pages, and George Mason. But between

the two groups, after all, was surprising harmony, which is thus

explained by one who in all that business had a great part and who

never was a laggard:--

"Sensible, however, of the importance of unanimity among

our constituents, although we often wished to have gone

faster, we slackened our pace, that our less ardent

colleagues might keep up with us; and they, on their part,

differing nothing from us in principle, quickened their gait

somewhat beyond that which their prudence might of itself

have advised, and thus consolidated the phalanx which

breasted the power of Britain. By this harmony of the bold

with the cautious, we advanced with our constituents in

undivided mass, and with fewer examples of separation than,

perhaps, existed in any other part of the union."[95]

All deprecated a quarrel with Great Britain; all deprecated as a

boundless calamity the possible issue of independence; all desired to

remain in loyal, free, and honorable connection with the British

empire; and against the impending danger of an assault upon the

freedom, and consequently the honor, of this connection, all stood on

guard.

One result, however, of this practical unanimity among the leaders in

Virginia was the absence, during all this period, of those impassioned

and dramatic conflicts in debate, which would have called forth

historic exhibitions of Patrick Henry's eloquence and of his gifts for

conduct and command. He had a leading part in all the counsels of the

time; he was sent to every session of the House of Burgesses; he was

at the front in all local committees and conventions; he was made a

member of the first Committee of Correspondence; and all these

incidents in this portion of his life culminated in his mission as one

of the deputies from Virginia to the first Continental Congress.

Without here going into the familiar story of the occasion and

purposes of the Congress of 1774, we may briefly indicate Patrick

Henry's relation to the events in Virginia which immediately preceded

his appointment to that renowned assemblage. On the 24th of May, 1774,

the House of Burgesses, having received the alarming news of the

passage of the Boston Port Bill, designated the day on which that bill

was to take effect--the first day of June--"as a day of fasting,

humiliation, and prayer, devoutly to implore the Divine interposition

for averting the heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our

civil rights, and the evils of civil war; to give us one heart and one

mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper means, every injury to

American rights; and that the minds of his majesty and his parliament

may be inspired from above with wisdom, moderation, and justice, to

remove from the loyal people of America all cause of danger, from a

continued pursuit of measures pregnant with their ruin."[96] Two days

afterward, the governor, Lord Dunmore, having summoned the House to

the council chamber, made to them this little speech:--

"Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House of Burgesses, I have

in my hand a paper published by order of your House,

conceived in such terms as reflect highly upon his majesty

and the Parliament of Great Britain, which makes it

necessary for me to dissolve you, and you are dissolved

accordingly."[97]

At ten o'clock on the following day, May 27, the members of the late

House met by agreement at the Raleigh Tavern, and there promptly

passed a nobly-worded resolution, deploring the policy pursued by

Parliament and suggesting the establishment of an annual congress of

all the colonies, "to deliberate on those general measures which the

united interests of America may from time to time require."[98]

During the anxious days and nights immediately preceding the

dissolution of the House, its prominent members held many private

conferences with respect to the course to be pursued by Virginia. In

all these conferences, as we are told, "Patrick Henry was the

leader;"[99] and a very able man, George Mason, who was just then a

visitor at Williamsburg, and was admitted to the consultations of the

chiefs, wrote at the time concerning him: "He is by far the most

powerful speaker I ever heard.... But his eloquence is the smallest

part of his merit. He is, in my opinion, the first man upon this

continent, as well in abilities as public virtues."[100]

In response to a recommendation made by leading members of the recent

House of Burgesses, a convention of delegates from the several

counties of Virginia assembled at Williamsburg, on August 1, 1774, to

deal with the needs of the hour, and especially to appoint deputies to

the proposed congress at Philadelphia. The spirit in which this

convention transacted its business is sufficiently shown in the

opening paragraphs of the letter of instructions which it gave to the

deputies whom it sent to the congress:--

"The unhappy disputes between Great Britain and her American

colonies, which began about the third year of the reign of

his present majesty, and since, continually increasing, have

proceeded to lengths so dangerous and alarming as to excite

just apprehensions in the minds of his majesty's faithful

subjects of this colony that they are in danger of being

deprived of their natural, ancient, constitutional, and

chartered rights, have compelled them to take the same into

their most serious consideration; and being deprived of

their usual and accustomed mode of making known their

grievances, have appointed us their representatives, to

consider what is proper to be done in this dangerous crisis

of American affairs.

"It being our opinion that the united wisdom of North

America should be collected in a general congress of all the

colonies, we have appointed the honorable Peyton Randolph,

Esquire, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick

Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund

Pendleton, Esquires, deputies to represent this colony in

the said congress, to be held at Philadelphia on the first

Monday in September next. And that they may be the better

informed of our sentiments touching the conduct we wish them

to observe on this important occasion, we desire that they

will express, in the first place, our faith and true

allegiance to his majesty King George the Third, our lawful

and rightful sovereign; and that we are determined, with our

lives and fortunes, to support him in the legal exercise of

all his just rights and prerogatives; and however

misrepresented, we sincerely approve of a constitutional

connection with Great Britain, and wish most ardently a

return of that intercourse of affection and commercial

connection that formerly united both countries; which can

only be effected by a removal of those causes of discontent

which have of late unhappily divided us.... The power

assumed by the British Parliament to bind America by their

statutes, in all cases whatsoever, is unconstitutional, and

the source of these unhappy differences."[101]

The convention at Williamsburg, of which, of course, Patrick Henry was

a member, seems to have adjourned on Saturday, the 6th of August.

Between that date and the time for his departure to attend the

congress at Philadelphia, we may imagine him as busily engaged in

arranging his affairs for a long absence from home, and even then as

not getting ready to begin the long journey until many of his

associates had nearly reached the end of it.

FOOTNOTES:

[90] MS.

[91] Wirt, 70, 71.

[92] Wirt, 71, 72.

[93] Randall, _Life of Jefferson_, i. 49; Wirt, 77.

[94] Wirt, 71.

[95] Jefferson's _Works_, vi. 368.

[96] 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 350.

[97] Campbell, _Hist. Va._ 573.

[98] 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 350, 351. The narrative of these events as given

by Wirt and by Campbell has several errors. They seem to have been

misled by Jefferson, who, in his account of the business (_Works_, i.

122, 123), is, if possible, rather more inaccurate than usual.

[99] Campbell, _Hist. Va._ 573.

[100] Mason to Martin Cockburn, _Va. Hist. Reg._ iii. 27-29.

[101] The full text of this letter of instructions is given in 4 _Am.

Arch._ i. 689, 690. With this should be compared note C. in

Jefferson's _Works_, i. 122-142.

Patrick Henry · 第 7 / 23 章