John Tazewell letter to John Norton, 1771 June 4

John Tazewell letter to John Norton, 1771 June 4

John Tazewell letter to London merchant John Norton concerning the Hustings Court in Williamsburg, Virginia.

MS1936.3.444
Folder 40

John Norton and Sons Papers, MS 1936.3

Special Collections, John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

Ink on paper

Page 1

Williamsburg June 4^th 1771

Sir,

I troubled you with a Letter on the Subject of this the other
Day, since which, I have made some Gent: (who think themselves
interested in the Fate of the Law respecting the Court of Hustings) acquainted
with it's contents, and they have desired me to point out more plainly, the
Design and Ill tendency of it, imagining from the Multiplicity of other Business
they may have escaped you. It is plain, to me at least, the Authors of this Law
intended as much as in them lay, to frame it in such a manner as to prevent any
Suspicion of it's real Tendency, even in the Title of it, for instead of a Law to
repeal so much of an Act passed in 1736 as gives the Court of Hustings
the same Jurisdiction as county Courts, they have called it a Law to explain
cetains Doubts &c. What Doubts - I will venture to affirm there has never
been a single Doubt about the Jurisdiction since the year 1736, & that
the Law then passed is exceeding plain & free from Ambiguity, that
Law was made for the furtherance of Justice and needed no Cloak
to recommend it. If this here title had been given, they plainly
foresaw the necessity of a suspending Clause untill his Majesty's
Approbation should be obtained, which probably would never be.

When we come to the Law itself, one would at first imagine they,
[torn, illegible] granting some powers to this Court which it had not before, &
[torn, illegible], I believe was done to make less suspected. the City of Wms.^burg
never petitioned for this city and Law, or desired for their Court any other
Jurisdiction than it then had; if anything but the Expedition
with which Business is carried on here, had given Rise to this Law
it would have been petitioned for and the Grievances to be redressed
particularly pointed out, which petition would have referred to a
Committee, where it would have been fully enquired into, and in
this Instance would have been found not to exist at all.
I might go on to shew how liable every part of this Law is to Objection,
but perhaps I have already tired you, I will therefore only add
the Sentiments of a Gent: who opposed this Law in the Assembly.
he thought it unjust, impolitic and dishonorable to this Country - that
this was no Time to shut up those few Courts of Justice where Business
was expeditiously transacted - that a Law to encourage other
Courts

Page 2

to initiate this in the Discharge of their duty, seemed much more to need
the Interposition of the Legislature - that from his Observation those
Counties were most flourishing, were dilatory proceedings in their Courts
were unknown, & several Counties - That Complaints had been
already made, & he could but acknowledge with some Reason, that their
Laws of late were generally favourable to Debtors - that the Law had been
improperly brought on, as there was not so much as a single Greivance
pretended - that so long as this Court coninuted to ably and
faithfully to discharge their Duty it should meet with every Encouragement
from him, & that he should think it happy for this Country if there
was such a Court in every County in it -

I am Sir, y^r. Mo: ob^t.
John Tazewell

Address leaf

To
John Norton Esq;
Virginia 4 June 1771
John Tazewell Ex'd
Rec^d; 6 August 1771

Ans^d the March
p Robertson