as far as they have come to my knowledge, are diverse. I have uniformly given it as mine, to meet them upon their own ground, draw the best line and best terms we can, and part good friends. After the next session of our Assembly, more may be learned and communicated; and, if you should not receive it through a better channel, I will have the honor to inform you.'

I am sorry I cannot give you full information respecting Bushnell's project for the destruction of ships. No interesting experiments having been made, and my memory being bad, I may in some measure be mistaken in what I am about to relate. Bushnell is a man of great mechanical powers, fertile of invention and master of execution. He came to me in 1776, recommended by Governor Trumbull and other respectable characters, who were converts to

1 Virginia had always maintained her claims to Kentucky, and when George Rogers Clark, acting under orders from that State, conquered Illinois (1778), this claim appeared to be established beyond any question. Lands were freely granted, and counties marked off (1783), and a judiciary and local government constituted. The removal, in great measure, of the fears of Indian incursions, and the close of the Revolution, turned a large tide of emigration to this district, which soon realized the inconvenience of recognizing a government so remote as that of Virginia was. The threat of an Indian raid drew together the political elements of the country, and a council, assembled for military purposes, concluded that the time had come when Kentucky should be erected into a separate and independent State," with a local government of full powers (November, 1784). It was not until August, 1785, that a regular convention met and framed a memorial to the Virginia legislature praying for a separation, which was granted by an act passed January 10, 1786, subject to the approval of the Continental Congress. Through some unavoidable delays the question could not be acted upon within the period fixed, and securing an extension, it was in June, 1788, that Congress took the necessary steps to admit Kentucky to the Confederation, steps that were again blocked by the adoption of the new Constitution.

his plan. Although I wanted faith myself, I furnished him with money and other aids to carry his plan into execution. He labored for some time ineffectually; and, though the advocates of his scheme continued sanguine, he never did succeed. One accident or another always intervened. I then thought, and still think, that it was an effort of genius, but that too many things were necessary to be combined, to expect much from the issue against an enemy, who are always upon guard.

That he had a machine so contrived, as to carry him under water at any depth he chose, and for a considerable time and distance, with an appendix to it, charged with powder, which he could fasten to a ship, and give fire to in a given time sufficient for his returning, and by means thereof destroy it, are facts, I believe, which admit of little doubt. But then, where it was to operate against an enemy, it was no easy matter to get a person hardy enough to encounter the variety of dangers, to which he would be exposed; first, from the novelty; secondly, from the difficulty of conducting the machine, and governing it under water, on account of the current, &c.; and thirdly, the consequent uncertainty of hitting the object devoted to destruction, without rising frequently above water for fresh observation, which, when near the vessel, would expose the adventurer to a discovery and to almost certain death. To these causes I always ascribed the non-performance of his plan, as he wanted nothing that I could furnish to insure the success of it. This, to the best of my recol

lection, is a true state of the case; but Humphreys, if I mistake not, being one of his converts, will be able to give you a more perfect account of it than I have done. With perfect esteem and regard, I have the honor to be, &c.

DEAR SIR,

TO GEORGE MASON.

MOUNT VERNON, 3 October, 1785,

I have this moment received yours of yesterday's date, enclosing a memorial and remonstrance against the Assessment Bill, which I will read with attention. At present I am unable to do it, on account of company. The bill itself I do not recollect ever to have read; with attention I am certain I never did, but will compare them together.

Although no man's sentiments are more opposed to any kind of restraint upon religious principles than mine are, yet I must confess, that I am not amongst the number of those, who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians, or declare themselves Jews, Mahometans, or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief. As the matter now stands, I wish an assessment had never been agitated, and as it has gone so far, that the bill could not die an easy death; because I think it will be productive of more quiet to the State, than by enacting it into a law, which in my opinion would be impolitic, admitting there is a decided majority

T

1

In

for it, to the disquiet of a respectable minority. the former case, the matter will soon subside; in the latter, it will rankle and perhaps convulse the State. The dinner-bell rings, and I must conclude with an expression of my concern for your indisposition. Sincerely and affectionately, I am, &c.1

1A bill had been brought into the House of Delegates in December, 1784, and twice read, for establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian religion. By the principles of the bill, a specified tax was to be collected from every person in the commonwealth subject to pay taxes for other purposes; and the money raised by virtue of this act was to be appropriated by the vestries, elders, or directors of each religious society to a provision for a minister or teacher of the gospel of their denomination, or to the providing of places of worship. Quakers and Mennonists were to receive the amount collected among themselves, but they were to employ it in promoting their particular mode of worship. When the bill came up for a third reading, on the 24th of December, a motion was made to postpone it till the fourth Thursday in November, and this motion was carried by a vote of forty-five to thirty-eight. Before the time arrived, remonstrances and memorials agaimst it were prepared, and signatures obtained from those who were opposed to the measure. The consequence seems to have been a law of a very different complexion, in the preamble of which religious freedom is asserted in its fullest latitude, and by which it was enacted, "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or otherwise burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to possess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." -Hening's Statutes, vol. xii., p. 86.

END OF VOL. X.