Hening's compilation was fifty some years after the passage of the
statutes you questioned. Although Hening's Statutes are generally accepted
as a correct rendition of the laws in force on the dates indicated, Henings
was not the document actually used. If there is an issue whether the
transcription was correct, the first effort would be to determine if an
original document exists with the laws as passed by the Burgesses.
Richard E. Dixon
Editor, Jefferson Notes
Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
703-691-0770
fax 703-691-0978
fax 703-691-0978
> [Original Message]
> From: Jon Kukla <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 1/25/2007 11:01:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Recusants
>
> > "Recusant convict" was a phrase frequently used in the English penal
laws.
> > It literally referred to people who had been convicted of recusancy,
i.e.,
> > of not conforming to the established church. If a person didn't conform
> > to
> > the established church but had not been convicted of non-conformity,
they
> > were simply recusants. Some of the penal laws applied only to
"recusants
> > convict" and not to plain old recusants.
> >
> . . . .
> > Beatriz B. Hardy, Director
> > Special Collections Research Center
> > Earl Gregg Swem Library
> > College of William and Mary
> > PO Box 8794
> > Williamsburg, VA 23187-8794
> > 757-221-3054
> >
> Interesting. A few months ago there was some costly litigation in Canada
> that turned on the precise meaning of a contract as determined by the
> presence or absence of a single comma.
>
> In this context, article 5 of the 1769 “Act for regulating the election of
> Burgesses . . .” (Hening 8: 307) presents a list of categories of persons
> who, even if they “are freeholders” (i.e. hold sufficient property) are
> nevertheless declared ineligible for voting “at any election of Burgesses”
> and incapable “of being elected.”
>
> The 1769 list includes
> • feme sole [ie., unmarried woman or widow]
> • feme covert [ie., married woman]
> • infant under the age of twenty-one [ie., minor]
> • recusant convict [ie, no comma but “convict” is the
> first word of the next line]
> • any person convicted in Great-Britain or Ireland, during
> the time for which he is transported [to the colonies
> as punishment]
> • free negro
> • mulatto
> • Indian
>
> In article 7 of the 1762 “Act for directing and better regulating the
> elections of Burgesses . . .” list (Hening 7: 519) the list differs to
> two ways as shown below 1) in the phrasing of the exclusion of women, 2)
> by the presence of a comma separating recusant and convict.
> • “no feme, sole or covert” [ie., no unmarried, widowed,
> or married woman]
> • infant under the age of twenty-one
> • recusant
> • convict
> • any person convicted in Great-Britain or Ireland, during the
> time for which he is transported
> • free negro
> • mulatto
> • Indian
>
> If, as suggested, “recusant convict” _could_ represent a distinct category
> of persons (rather than a typographical conjuncture of two discrete
> categories), that presents the logical possibility of an intentional
> change by the legislators rather than the omission of a comma by Hening’s
> typesetters.** That said,
> Do we have ANY evidence of formal convictions for recusancy in colonial
> Virginia?
>
> Dr. Jon Kukla, Executive Vice-President
> Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial
> 1250 Red Hill Road
> Brookneal, Virginia 24528 www.redhill.org
>
> ** Years ago I examined original colonial manuscripts at the Library of
> Congress from which Hening published mid-17th century laws. His penciled
> instructions to the typesetters are still visible on these original
> manuscripts.
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
