University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER III

The Randolph Will Litigation

After Randolph's death it was found that he had made
various dispositions of his property by will at different
times. One will was executed in 1819 and placed in the custody
of Dr. Brockenbrough; it contained this declaration:

Then ensued provisions settling all the estate of the
testator, with certain exceptions, upon William Leigh,
William Meade, and Francis Scott Key, in trust to use it
in colonizing the slaves of the testator on a body of land,
not in excess of four thousand acres, to be purchased by
them in some part of the United States; defraying the
expense of removing them; and supplying them with cabins,
clothes, and utensils.[1]

Another will, without date, was executed in 1821, and
to this four codicils were subsequently added; dated, Dec. 5,
1821, Jan. 31, 1826, May 6, 1828, and Aug. 26, 1831, respectively.
Still another will was executed in January, 1832.

By the will of 1821, Randolph made Wm. Leigh his
executor, and devised to him the part of his Roanoke

estate which he called his Middle Quarter; bequeathing to
him at the same time all his household effects, live-stock,
tools, and the like. In the same will, he bequeathed freedom
to all his slaves in the following terms: "I give and
bequeath all my slaves their freedom, heartily regretting
that I have ever been the owner of one." Moreover, he
bequeathed to his executor a sum not in excess of $8,000,
or so much of such a sum as might be necessary, with
which "to transport and settle said slaves to and in some
other State or Territory of the United States, giving to all
above the age of 40 not less than 10 acres of land." Provision
was also made by the will for the sale of the remainder
of his Roanoke estate, and of his Bushy Forest
estate, in Charlotte County, and for the disposition of the
proceeds of sale by Francis Scott Key and the Rev. Wm.
Meade towards bettering the condition of the manumitted
slaves of the testator (to use his words). In this will,
Randoph also expressed the hope that his "old and
faithful servants," Essex and Essex's wife, Hetty, might
be suffered to remain in the State; and to each of them he
made an annual bequest of 3½ barrels of corn, two hundred-weight
of pork, a pair of strong shoes, a suit of clothes,
and a blanket; and to Essex besides an annual bequest of
a hat, 10 pounds of coffee, and 20 pounds of brown sugar;
and to his servants Nancy, the daughter of Hetty, Juba
(alias Jupiter), Queen, and Johnny, his body servant, the
same annual allowance as to Hetty.

By the codicil executed by Randolph in 1826, these
provisions were so modified as to place John, who was a
son of Essex, and Juba on the same footing as Essex and
John's wife, Betsy, and Juba's wife, Celia, and Nancy, on
the same footing as Hetty; and, after making these
changes, Randolph said:

There were some other special bequests contained in
the will of 1821, but they were all revoked by the codicil
of 1826, except a bequest to Theodore Dudley, which had
been previously revoked by the codicil of 1821. In
addition to revoking the bequest to Dr. Dudley, the
codicil of 1821 atoned for the lack of a residuary clause in
the will of 1821 by giving to the executor of the testator,
Wm. Leigh, all the lots and houses of the testator in
Farmville, and every other species of property whatever,
of which he might die possessed, save such property as
was disposed of in the will of 1821.

By the codicil of 1826, Randolph also specifically
devised to Wm. Leigh a tract of land in Charlotte County
which he had bought from the estate of Pleasant Lipscomb,
and a 53-acre tract of land in Halifax County, "lying at
the deep gut on Staunton River," which he had bought
from William Sims Daniel. Both tracts had been purchased
since the execution of the will in 1821; and, by the
codicil of 1826, Randolph also devised to Wm. Leigh an
175-acre tract of land in Halifax County, which he had
likewise bought from William Sims Daniel, to be held by
him during his life, and, at his decease, to pass to such one
of Leigh's children as he should make by his will the
devisee of the 53-acre Daniel tract. By the same codicil,
Randolph devised to Thomas H. Benton all that part,
consisting of about 600 acres, of the Bushy Forest tract
that he had set apart for the benefit of his slaves in the
will of 1821, which lay on the S. E. side of the Little
Roanoke; and, at the same time, he bequeathed to Benton
his large pistols made by Woydon and Burton. In the
same codicil, the subjects of such bequests in the will of

1821 as were revoked by it he bequeathed to his executor
as a fund to be used at his discretion for the benefit of the
testator's slaves; the surplus, if any, to belong to him.
The codicil of 1826 also made various specific bequests to
some of Randolph's friends, which modified to a limited
extent the general residuary dispositions which he had
made in favor of Wm. Leigh.

By the codicil of 1828, Randolph revoked all testamentary
dispositions, if any, made by him after the execution
of the will of 1821, whether made by will or codicil; but an
"N. B." to the instrument contained a clause of specific
devise saving to Wm. Leigh the Pleasant Lipscomb and
the two Daniel tracts, and all the property of every
description which the testator had acquired since the date
of the will of 1821. Curiously enough, another addendum
to this codicil referred to his Ferry Quarter, which had by
the will of 1821 been directed to be sold for the improvement
of the condition of his manumitted slaves, as having
been made subject by that will to the refusal of Wm.
Leigh at a price, he said, which he then thought very
moderate, but which a change in the times had rendered
too high to answer his friendly intentions towards his
executor in giving him the refusal; so he modified the will
of 1821, he declared, so far, but so far only, as to reduce to
the extent of 50% the price at which Leigh might take all
the land above the Ferry Road that Randolph had inherited
from his father, and all that he had bought from
John Daniel, Tom. Beasley, Charles Beasley, and others
of that name and family. Such a misapprehension of the
terms of his own will was, of course, well calculated to
give color to the idea that Randolph was in an irresponsible
condition of mind when he made this codicil.

By the codicil of 1831, executed in London, Randolph
devised to his niece his Lower Quarter and some additional
land; and to his brother, Henry St. George Tucker, his
Bushy Forest estate, on both sides of the Little Roanoke,

and all his interest in the estate of Mrs. Martha Corran,
the widow of his Uncle Col. Theodorick Bland, and in his
lots and houses in Farmville. By this codicil, he also
bequeathed his plate and library to his niece. The
codicil likewise stated that the testator had upwards of
2,000 pounds sterling in the hands of Baring Bros. & Co.
of London, and upwards of 1,000 pounds sterling in the
hands of Gowan & Marx, and that this money he left to
his executor, Wm. Leigh, as a fund for carrying into
execution the provisions of his will relating to his slaves.
It also contained this provision:

The reader cannot fail to have noted, we are sure, the
persistency with which Randolph's wish to free his slaves
and to provide for their support continued from the date
of his will in 1819 to the date of his last codicil in 1831—a
period of some 12 years.

After his return from Russia, however, madness worked
a complete reversal for a time in the current of his feelings
in this respect. In January, 1832, he endeavored to
execute another will revoking all former testamentary
dispositions made by him, appointing Wm. Leigh and his
brother, Henry St. George Tucker, his executors, and
requiring them to sell all of his slaves and other personal
or perishable property, with certain exceptions, including
100 of his slaves, to be selected by his executors, and to
invest the proceeds in stock of the bank of the United
States; and, in default of there being no such bank (which

might God grant for the safety of their liberties), in the
English 3% consols; and, in case of there being no such
stocks (which also might God grant for the safety of old
England), then in the United States 3% stock; or, in
defect of such stock, in mortgages on land in England.
By this paper, Randolph further bequeathed to Wm.
Leigh and Henry St. George Tucker so much of the sum
of $20,000, which he then had in the bank of Virginia, as
might remain after payment had been made for certain
land just purchased by him from Elisha E. Hundley;
and upon his Bushy Forest estate, which he directed in
the will to be sold and made chargeable with such
debts and legacies as thereafter he might see fit to
give when he should have more leisure to make his will,
he charged a legacy of $5,000 in favor of John Randolph
Leigh, the youngest son of Wm. Leigh. By this will, he
likewise bequeathed to Dr. Brockenbrough, John Wickham,
Nathaniel Macon, Henry St. George Tucker, and
Wm. Leigh certain specific articles even more valuable
from the pretium affectionis that attached to them than
because of their intrinsic worth. And the residue of his
estate of every kind he gave to John C. Bryan, the only
son of his niece, during his life, with remainder to his
eldest son in fee simple; and, in defect of such issue, then
to the son of Henry St. George Tucker, called John Randolph
after the testator, during his life, with remainder
to his eldest son; and, in defect of such issue, then to
Tudor Tucker, the brother of John Randolph Tucker,
during his natural life, with remainder to his eldest son.

At the July term of the General Court of Virginia, in
the year 1834, John Coalter, as the next friend of John
Coalter Bryan, the residuary legatee under the will of 1832,
presented that will to the court for probate. The application
was opposed by Rev. Wm. Meade, as trustee for the
slaves under the will of 1821, and by Frederick Hobson,
as the Committee of John St. George Randolph, John

Randolph's insane nephew; on the ground that John
Randolph was insane at the time of the execution of the
paper. During the progress of the trial, Wm. Leigh,
having, with a degree of unselfishness such as has rarely
ennobled human conduct, released all his interest under
the will of 1821 and the codicils thereto, so as to qualify
himself as a witness for the purpose of upholding the still
richer gift of liberty that Randolph had bequeathed to his
slaves, was examined as a witness by Meade; and, his
testimony being reduced to writing, was made a part of
the record of the court. The General Court admitted the
will to probate, but, on appeal to the Court of Appeals of
Virginia, this judgment was reversed, and the will of 1832
was declared to be null and void.

After this decision of the Court of Appeals of Virginia,
Wm. Meade presented to the General Court at its July
term in 1836 for probate the will of 1821 and its four
codicils. The application was opposed by Hobson, as the
Committee of John St. George Randolph, who claimed
that all four of these testamentary papers were invalid;
and by Henry St. George Tucker and John Randolph
Bryan and his wife, so far as the will of 1821 and its first
three codicils were concerned; but by these last defendants,
it was claimed that its fourth codicil (that of 1831) was
maintainable as an independent testamentary paper.
The grounds on which Hobson, as Committee, impugned
the validity of the will of 1821 and all of its four codicils,
and on which the other defendants impugned the validity
of the will of 1821 and its first three codicils, were that the
testator was insane at the time of the execution of the
several papers, and that, besides, the will of 1821 had been
cancelled. On this trial, by consent of the parties, the
testimony taken on the application to admit to probate
the will of 1832, including that of Wm. Leigh, was used,
and the General Court reached the conclusion that John
Randolph was sane when he executed the testamentary

papers offered for probate, and that he was insane when he
cancelled the will of 1821. The Court, accordingly, entered
up a judgment admitting the will of 1821 and its
four codicils to probate, and, upon appeal to the Court of
Appeals, this judgment was affirmed.

Thereupon, Wm. Leigh, the executor, named in the will
of 1821, qualified as such in the General Court in December,
1837, and settled two administration accounts before
a Commissioner of the Court, by which a large amount of
assets was shown to be in his hands ready for distribution.
Immediately after the qualification of Wm. Leigh as
executor, Nathaniel Beverley Tucker, Randolph's brother,
and St. George T. Coalter, his nephew, filed a Bill in Chancery
in the Circuit Superior Court for the County of James
City, in the City of Williamsburg, against Wm. Leigh, as
executor, and Francis Scott Key and Wm. Meade, as
trustees for the emancipated slaves and the plaintiff's
coheirs and co-distributees, John St. George Randolph,
Henry St. George Tucker, and John Randolph Bryan and
wife, praying, among other things, that Wm. Leigh, as
executor, might be enjoined from carrying into effect any
of the provisions of the will of 1821 and its four codicils;
(all of which, the bill alleged, were invalid because of the
lack of mental capacity in the testator) in relation to the
slaves, and from removing them out of the Commonwealth.
This case went off on technical grounds.

In 1840, St. George Tucker Coalter having died, leaving
a widow and five infant children, Corbin Braxton, as his
executor and the next friend of his infant children, and the
widow filed their Bill in the same court in the City of
Williamsburg, asking that the validity of the will of 1821
and its four codicils might be passed upon by a jury. An
answer to the Bill was filed by Wm. Leigh, as executor,
and later the case was removed to the Circuit Superior
Court of Law and Chancery of the Town of Petersburg.
Subsequently, Nathaniel Beverley Tucker, by agreement

of the parties, became a plaintiff in the case, and, with the
original plaintiffs, filed an amended Bill in it, renewing
substantially the same objections to the papers that had
been made to them in the beginning of the controversy.
After some preliminary sparring on a formal point, which
did not stop short of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the
case was submitted to a jury, which, on Feb. 11, 1845,
found that the will of 1821 and its codicil of Dec. 5, 1821,
were "the only true last will and testament of John Randolph."
It would seem, however, from a petition for a
fee for his services in the case, which was filed by H. L.
Brooke, one of the counsel for Hobson, the Committee of
St. George Randolph in the case, in another case, that this
verdict was entered up as the result of a compromise
between the parties, which the petition says: "while it
gave the slaves their freedom and $30,000, secured to St.
George Randolph's estate a property valued at more than
$50,000." Thus ended the celebrated Randolph will
litigation in which Walter Jones and Chapman Johnson,
two of the most famous lawyers in the history of Virginia,
and other eminent lawyers were at one time or another
engaged.[2]

For some reason, the decisions of the Court of Appeals
in the two probate proceedings, which were instituted
before the General Court, were not reported along with the
reports of other cases decided by the Court of Appeals of
Virginia; and all the records of the General Court itself
were unfortunately destroyed by the great fire which
befell Richmond at the close of the Civil War. It would
seem, too, that, in some unaccountable manner, all the
papers in the case in the Superior Court of Law and
Chancery for the Town of Petersburg, in which Wm.

Leigh, as executor of John Randolph, settled up and distributed
his estate, have become mislaid or lost.

Even if the jury did nothing more than register the
result of the compromise arrived at by the parties in the
case, the fact remains that the members of the Court of
Appeals of Virginia not only declared the will of 1832, by
which Randolph directed his slaves to be sold, to be
invalid, but declared the will of 1821, by which he gave
freedom to them all, to be valid. We are also told by
Dr. James Waddell Alexander that, while the will litigation
was pending, everybody in Charlotte County considered
it highly inequitable that Randolph's slaves should be
kept from the benefits intended by their master.[3] Moreover,
the human sense of duty has rarely found finer
expression than it did in the utterances of the Rev. Wm.
Meade and Judge Wm. Leigh in regard to the moral
obligations imposed upon them by the testamentary dispositions
of John Randolph. Writing to John Randolph
Clay a few months after the death of Randolph, Judge
Leigh said:

Not less resonant are the words used by the Rev. Wm.
Meade, who by the way was the author of one of the

fairest summaries of the weakness and strength of slave
institutions, of which we have any knowledge,[6] in his
separate answer, as one of the trustees for Randolph's
slaves, to the same bill:

In the light of such facts as these, what language can
we find strong enough to fitly condemn the shallow
bigotry, the benighted ignorance that did not, or would
not, or could not, know the whole truth about human
slavery in Virginia, and impelled Henry Adams in his
John Randolph to say sneeringly that it was difficult to
understand how the jury could possibly have held the will
of 1821, which emancipated Randolph's slaves, to be a
saner document than that of 1832 which did not?[8]

In 1833, the people of Virginia were not entirely ripe,
though ripening fast, as the great debate over slavery in

the Virginia Assembly of 1832 showed, for the voluntary
adoption of the system of gradual but universal emancipation,
which, at this day, at any rate, it is reasonable to
believe, would, in the ordinary course of human events,
after the usual stages of agitation and reaction through
which every great political issue passes in a democratic
community, have been adopted by them, without the loss of
a life on the battlefield, if only the question of freedom for
the negro could have been kept entirely exempt from
external complications; which, of course, under the circumstances
was impossible; but, in 1833, public sentiment
in Virginia against the institution of slavery was sufficiently
pronounced to allow neither judge nor jury any
pretext for thwarting the desire of a testator to confer the
boon of liberty upon his slaves. Be this as it may, there
was little disposition at that time on the part of some of
the very free States, which were busily assailing the
character and motives of Virginia, and kindling the spark
of servile insurrection in her bosom, to second her in her
efforts to rid herself of the cancer that Randolph told
her sharply stood out from her very face.

Speaking of the efforts of Judge Leigh in 1846 to find
a home for Randolph's emancipated slaves on 3200 acres
of land, which he had purchased for them in Mercer
County, Ohio, Henry Howe says: