Part 12

In the year 1663, Charles II. granted the soil and seigniory of Carolina to eight Lords Proprietors, who, to encourage emigration, held out favorable terms. They promised to adventurers gratuities in land according to the number of their respective families, and the most perfect freedom in the exercise of religion. A civil government was established purely representative; a circumstance to which may be attributed, in a great degree, the republican feelings and opinions which soon characterized the colony, and which led to the plan of civil polity under which we now live. When the Lords Proprietors discovered that the colony was likely to become numerous and powerful they endeavored to restrain the civil and religious liberty which they had promised to emigrants: they established a new form of government, declaring their object to be "to make the government of the colony agree as nearly as possible with the monarchy of which it was a part, and to avoid erecting a numerous democracy." This plan of government was the joint work of Lord Ashley and the celebrated John Locke; and its chief aim was to appoint orders of nobility, establish a powerful aristocracy and check the progress of republican opinions and manners. A more ridiculous plan for the government of the colony could not have been devised. The people were accustomed to equality and self-government; a rank of nobility was odious to them, and they disregarded laws which they had not been consulted in making. The prosperity of the colony declined, public morals relaxed, the laws lost their energy, a general spirit of discontent grew up and ripened into rebellion; the Governors became corrupt, and the people idle and vicious. The attempt to give effect to the new plan of government entirely failed, and the Lords Proprietors abolished it as unsuited to the condition of the colony. Two factions then arose; one that wished to establish a high-toned prerogative government; the other consisted of High-churchmen, who gained the ascendency, and by their violence brought the government into contempt. Their object was to deprive all dissenters of the right of suffrage, to curtail their civil rights, and render their situation so oppressive as to compel them to leave the colony. A party of French Huguenots had emigrated to the colony to enjoy that liberty of conscience and of worship which was denied to them in their native country. These people, entitled by their sufferings no less than by their Protestantism to the friendship and hospitality of the colonists, were treated with a cruelty that disgraced the High-church party. Being aliens, they were incapable of holding lands until they were naturalized; and this party having the ascendency in the Assembly, not only refused to naturalize them, but declared their marriages by ministers not ordained by Episcopal Bishops illegal and their children illegitimate. The progress of this violent, persecuting spirit was checked by the wise and conciliating measures adopted by Governor Archdale. He assumed the government of the colony in 1695; he was a Quaker, and possessed in an eminent degree the philanthropy and command of temper for which this sect has been distinguished. He was one of the Proprietors of the province, and by the mere force of his character overawed the turbulent and restored good order. To this excellent man our ancestors are indebted for that tolerant provision in their militia law which we still retain as part of our code, for granting exemption to men who were restrained by religious principles from bearing arms.

The religious intolerance of the High-church party was exerted with new energy after the departure of Governor Archdale from the province. This party passed laws, which the Lords Proprietors ratified, to establish the Church of England and to disable dissenters from being members of the Assembly. This was in direct violation of the chartered rights of the colonists. The dissenters remonstrated to the House of Lords; and Queen Anne, upon the advice of that body, caused these laws to be repealed. But the High-church party, steady to their purpose, varied their mode of attack; the spirit of intolerance grew with the growth of the province; emigrations from the Virginia colony and the patronage of the Lords Proprietors gave to this party a decided majority in the Assembly; they levied a tax on each precinct for the support of a minister, and built churches. Protestant dissenters were only permitted to worship in public, and there to be subject to the rules and restrictions contained in the several acts of Parliament. Quakers were permitted to affirm instead of swearing; but they could not hold an office of profit or trust, serve as jurors, or give evidence by affirmation in any criminal case. This contest between the High-church party and the dissenters produced an hostility of feeling which time has softened, but which the lapse of more than a century has been insufficient to allay. This contest, however, promoted freedom of thought and inquiry among the people; it sharpened their understandings, and in a great degree supplied the place of books for instruction. At that time there were few books in the colony: the library of a common man consisted of a Bible and a spelling-book; the lawyers had a few books on law, and the ministers a few on theological subjects, and sometimes a few of the Greek and Roman classics: for they, particularly the Presbyterian ministers, were generally school-masters--and from them the poor young men of the colony, who wished to preach the gospel or plead law, received their humble education. The turbulent spirit of the colonists, their leaning towards republicanism and sectarianism, had induced the Lords Proprietors to forbid the establishment of printing presses in the colony; and Sir William Berkeley, who had the superintendence of this colony in 1661, gave thanks to heaven that there was not a printing office in any of the Southern provinces.

What improvement in literature could be expected among a people who were thus distracted by faction, destitute of books, and denied the use of the press? Notwithstanding all these discouragements and disadvantages, however, the literature of the colony evidently advanced. The public papers of that period are written in a conspicuous, nervous style, corresponding in force of expression, purity of language and perspicuity of arrangement, with similar writings in the reigns of Charles II., King William, and Queen Anne. The intelligence of the common people and the ability and learning of the men who managed the affairs of the colony in that period are matters of surprise and astonishment to any one acquainted with the disadvantages under which the colony labored. The Assembly and the courts of justice sat in private houses; the acts passed by the Assembly were not printed; they were read aloud to the people at the first court after they were passed; they were in force for only two years, and every biennial Assembly was under the necessity of reenacting all that were thought useful. There was no printing press in the colony before the year 1746, at which time the condition of the statute-book required a revisal, and the public interest called aloud for the printing of it. The learning and literature of the colony were confined to the lawyers and ministers of the gospel, most of whom were educated in England; and it was owing to this circumstance chiefly that the literature of the colony advanced so steadily with that of the mother-country.

The legislation of the colony began to assume form and system in the reign of Queen Anne; and in the year after her death, 1715, the Assembly passed sixty-six acts, most of which had been frequently reenacted before. Many of those acts remain in force to this day, and are monuments of the political wisdom and legal learning of that time. In style and composition they are equal to any part of our statute-book; they are the first statutes of the colony that have come down to our time.

In the year 1729 the Lords Proprietors, with the exception of Lord Granville, surrendered to the Crown their right to the soil and seigniory of North Carolina; and from that time the population and prosperity of the colony rapidly increased. But in a few years the great contest commenced between the prerogative of the Crown and the liberty of the colonial subject, which contest eventually terminated in the American Revolution. This contest gradually introduced into North Carolina, and into all the British colonies which took part in it, a style in composition which distinguishes this period from all others in English or American literature: a style founded upon and expressive of exalted feeling. Education embellished it and gave to it new beauties; but its force and impressive character were perceptible in the writings and speeches of ordinary men. What age or nation ever produced compositions superior to the addresses of the Continental Congress? When or where shall we find a parallel to the correspondence of General Washington and the general officers of the American army? The style of these addresses and of the correspondence is the style of high thought and of lofty, yet chastened feeling, and reminds the reader of the finest specimens of composition in Tacitus, and of the correspondence of Cicero and his friends after the death of Pompey.

There is something in the style and sentiment of the writings of this period which gives to them a magic charm, and seems to consecrate the subjects on which it is employed--a something connected with the finest perceptions of our nature. The reader is every moment conscious of it, yet knows not how to explain it. The high moral feeling and virtuous sympathy which characterized the American Revolution have given to it a hallowedness of character. It is fortunate for us that Chief Justice Marshall has written the history of this Revolution. Whatever may be the defects of this work, the history of our Revolution will never be so well written again: no work on that subject so well calculated to produce an useful effect upon its readers will ever appear. Marshall was a soldier of the Revolution, and possessed the finest genius; he was the personal friend of the Commander-in-chief; partook of all the feelings of the officers of the army; and he has transfused into his work that exalted sentiment which animated his compatriots in arms. This sentiment is strongly portrayed in the writings of the Marquis de Chastellux and Count Rochambeau, two French general officers in the American service, and in the correspondence of the Commander-in-chief and the American general officers. But it can never be embodied into an historical work by a man who did not feel it in all its force in the American camp. Literary elegance disappears before such moral beauty. There is no historical work in any language that can be read with so much advantage, such moral effect, by American youth, as Marshall's _Life of George Washington_. They should read it with diligence, and read it often. They will never rise from the perusal of it without feeling fresh incentives both to public and private virtue.

The progress of the style which marked the period of the American Revolution may be traced in North Carolina from the administration of Governor Dobbs. It had become the common style of the leading men of the colony before the meeting of the Continental Congress in 1774. The correspondence and public papers of Samuel Johnston and Joseph Hewes, of Edenton; of William Hooper and Archibald Maclaine, of Wilmington; of Richard Caswell, of Kinston; of Thomas Burke, of Hillsborough; of Francis and Abner Nash of New Bern, upon the great subjects which then engrossed the public attention, do honor to the literature of North Carolina at that time. They wrote upon matters of business--business which concerned the welfare of the nation; they wrote as they felt; and their compositions, coming warm from the heart, are free from affectation or pedantry, and equally free from that prolixity which is the vice of modern composition.

When these men disappeared, our literature, in a great degree, disappeared with them. The war had exhausted the resources of the State and ruined the fortunes of many individuals; we had no schools for the education of our youth; few of our citizens were able to send their sons to the Northern colleges or to Europe to be educated. Two individuals, who received their education during the war, were destined to keep alive the remnant of our literature and prepare the public mind for the establishment of this University. These were William R. Davie and Alfred Moore. Each of them had endeared himself to his country by taking an active part in the latter scenes of the war; and when public order was restored and the courts of justice were opened they appeared at the bar, where they quickly rose to eminence, and for many years shone like meteors in North Carolina. They adorned the courts in which they practiced, gave energy to the laws, and dignity to the administration of justice. Their genius was different and so was their eloquence. Davie took Lord Bolingbroke for his model, and Moore, Dean Swift; and each applied himself with so much diligence to the study of his model that literary men could easily recognize in the eloquence of Davie the lofty, flowing style of Bolingbroke; and in that of Moore, the plainness and precision of Swift --they roused the ambition of parents and their sons; they excited emulation among ingenuous youth; they depicted in glowing colors the necessity of establishing a public school or university in which the young men of the State could be educated. The General Assembly resolved to found an university. I was present in the House of Commons when Davie addressed that body upon the bill granting a loan of money to the trustees for erecting the buildings of this University; and although more than thirty years have since elapsed, I have the most vivid recollections of the greatness of his manner and the power of his eloquence upon that occasion. In the House of Commons he had no rival, and upon all great questions which came before that body his eloquence was irresistible. The genius and intellectual habits of Moore fitted him for the bar rather than a deliberative assembly. Public opinion was divided upon the question whether he or Davie excelled at the bar. Moore was a small man, neat in his dress and graceful in his manners; his voice was clear and sonorous, his perceptions quick, and his judgment almost intuitive; his style was chaste and his manner of speaking animated. Having adopted Swift for his model, his language was always plain. The clearness and energy of his mind enabled him, almost without an effort, to disentangle the most intricate subject and expose it in all its parts to the simplest understanding. He spoke with ease and with force, enlivened his discourses with flashes of wit, and where the subject required it, with all the bitterness of sarcasm. His speeches were short and impressive: when he sat down every one thought he had said everything that he ought to have said. Davie was in his person tall and elegant, graceful and commanding in his manners; his voice was mellow and adapted to the expression of every passion; his mind was comprehensive, yet slow in its operations, when compared with his great rival. His style was magnificent and flowing, and he had a greatness of manner in public speaking which suited his style and gave to his speeches an imposing effect. He was a laborious student, arranged his discourses with care, and, where the subject suited his genius, poured forth a torrent of eloquence that astonished and enraptured his audience. They looked upon him with delight, listened to his long, harmonious periods, caught his emotions, and indulged that ecstasy of feeling which fine speaking and powerful eloquence alone can produce. He is certainly to be ranked among the first orators, and his rival, Moore, among the first advocates, which the American nation has produced.

Whilst these two men were in the zenith of their glory, another man arose at the bar in North Carolina who surpassed them both in profoundness of legal learning, and, on many occasions, successfully contended with them for the palm of forensic eloquence. This was the late John Haywood. He had few advantages from nature; his person was indifferent, his voice harsh, his manners uncouth, his education limited. He was a stranger to the graces, and had few of the accomplishments of an orator. But he had a powerful and intrepid mind, which he cultivated by the most laborious study. The fame of Davie and Moore inspired his ambition, and he was tortured by a desire of entering the lists with these champions of the bar. He was conscious of his defects, and sought to gain the ascendency by superior legal learning. He came to the bar with confidence of high intellectual powers and profound knowledge of the law; and in a little time acquired a reputation that placed him at the head of his profession in this State and gave him rank among the ablest common-law lawyers in the Union.

Contemporary with Haywood were several gentlemen of the bar now living and several who are dead who have sustained the character of their profession for legal learning and general literature. Among the latter were William Duffy and Archibald Henderson. Duffy was the child of misfortune. Thrown upon the world without friends and without fortune, accident introduced him, in his early youth, to the acquaintance of John Haywood, Esq., the venerable Treasurer of this State, who, in the exercise of that benevolence for which his whole life has been conspicuous, gave him employment and enabled him to prosecute his studies and prepare himself for the bar. Duffy had an opportunity of witnessing the splendid displays of Davie and Moore and he profited by their example. He devoted a large portion of his time to polite literature, and acquired a more elegant style in composition than any of his contemporaries in North Carolina. He had a slight impediment in his speech, but by laborious perseverance he succeeded in regulating the tones and modulations of his voice in such a way that his impediment seemed to be an ornament to his delivery. He was one of the few men of our country who could read well; he studied the art of reading, and his friends will long remember the pleasure they have received from hearing him read. In his addresses at the bar he was always impressive, particularly upon topics connected with virtuous and benevolent feeling. He had a vigorous mind and feelings attuned to the finest emotions. I remember him with fond affection. He was my friend, my preceptor, my patron. He instructed me in the science of the law, in the art of managing causes at the bar, and in the still more difficult art of reading books to advantage. I wish it were in my power to render to his memory a more permanent honor than this passing tribute of respect and gratitude!

Henderson survived Duffy many years, and obtained the first standing at the bar of this State. He was devoted to his profession, and, upon the whole, was the most perfect model of a lawyer that our bar has produced. It was late in life before he turned his attention to polite literature, and he never acquired a good style in composition. Yet his style and manner of speaking at the bar were extremely impressive. I shall here speak of him as I did in a sketch of his character published shortly after his death. In him the faculties of a fine mind were blended with exalted moral feelings. Although he was at all times accessible, he seemed to live and move in an atmosphere of dignity. He exacted nothing by his manner, yet all approached him with reverence and left him with respect. The little quarrels and contests of men were beneath him; his was the region of high sentiment, and there he occupied a standing that was preeminent. The Constitution and jurisprudence of his country were his favorite studies. Profound reflection had generalized his ideas and given to his political and legal learning a scientific cast. No man better understood the theory of our government; no man more admired it, and no man gave more practical proofs of his admiration. The sublime idea that he lived under a government of laws was forever uppermost in his mind, and seemed to give a coloring to all his actions. As he acknowledged no dominion but that of the laws, he bowed with reverence to their authority, and taught obedience no less by his example than his precept. To the humble officer of justice he was respectful; the vices of private character were overlooked when the individual stood before him clothed with judicial authority. In the County Courts, where the justices of the peace administer the law, he was no less respectful in his deportment than in the highest tribunal of the State. He considered obedience to the laws to be the first duty of a citizen, and it seemed to be the great object of his professional life to inculcate a sense of this duty and give to the administration of the laws an impressive character. He was conscious of his high standing, and never committed himself nor put his reputation at risk. He always came to the trial of his causes well prepared; and if the state of his health or his want of preparation were likely to jeopardize his reputation in the management of his client's cause he would decline the trial until a more favorable time. The courts in which he practiced, and his brother lawyers, understood the delicacy of his feelings upon this point so well that they extended to him the indulgence he required, and a knowledge of this part of his character gave confidence to his clients and attracted crowds of people to hear his speeches. When he rose at the bar no one expected to hear common-place matter; no one looked for a cold, vapid, or phlegmatic harangue. His great excellence as a speaker consisted in an earnestness and dignity of manner and strong powers of reasoning. He seized one or two strong points, and these he illustrated and enforced. His exordium was short and appropriate; he quickly marched up to the great point in controversy, making no manœuvre as if he were afraid to approach it, or was desirous of attacking it by surprise. The confidence he exhibited of success he gradually imparted to his hearers; he grew more warm and earnest as he advanced in his argument, and seizing the critical moment for enforcing conviction, he brought forth his main argument, pressed it home and sat down. As he advanced in life he seemed more and more anxious that the laws should be interpreted and administered by the rules of common sense. He lost his reverence for artificial rules; he said the laws were made for the people, and they should be interpreted and administered by rules which the people understood, whenever it was practicable; that common sense belonged to the people in a higher degree than to learned men, and that to interpret laws by rules which were at variance with the rules of common sense necessarily lessened the respect of the people for the laws, and induced them to believe that courts and lawyers contrived mysteries in the science merely for the purpose of supporting the profession of lawyers. He said the rules of pedantry did not suit this country nor this age; that common sense had acquired dominion in politics and religion, and was gaining it in the law; that judges and lawyers should have the independence and magnanimity to strip off the veil of mystery from every branch of the science, and simplify and make it intelligible, as far as possible, to the understanding of the common people.