the members of the convention have fully decided what the day of election should be, I hope I shall be sustained in calling for the immediate question.

Which said motion was seconded by the requisite number of delegates rising in their places.

And the question being taken,

Shall the question be now put?

It was determined in the affirmative.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the amendment?

and

The yeas nays were required by Mr. WooDWARD and Mr. MYERS, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Weaver, White, Woodward-82.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Farrelly, Forward, Hays, Hopkinson, Jenks, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Royer, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Snively, Thomas, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-37.

So the amendment was agreed to.

And the first resolution as amended was adopted.

The second resolution reported by the said committee being under consideration in the words following, viz:

Resolved, That on the first Tuesday in June aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the judges, inspectors and clerks of the said special election, in each of the townships, wards and districts of this commonwealth, to receive from citizens qualified to vote, written or printed tickets labelled on the outside "amendments," and to deposit them in a box or boxes to be for that purpose provided; and those who are favorable to the amendments, may express their desire by voting each a printed or written ticket or ballot, containing the words "for the amendments," and those who are opposed to the amendments, may express their opposition by voting each a printed or written ticket or ballot, containing the words "against the amendments."

A motion was made by Mr. WOODWARD,

To amend said resolution by striking therefrom all after the word "resolved,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words as follow, viz :

"That on the second Tuesday of October next, it shall be the duty of the judges, inspectors and clerks of the general election in each of the townships, wards and districts of this commonwealth, to receive from citizens qualified to vote, written or printed tickets labelled on the outside amendments," and to deposit them in a box or boxes to be for that purpose provided by the proper officers; and those who are favorable to the amendments, may express their desire by voting each a written or printed ticket or ballot containing the words "for the amendments," and

those who are opposed to the amendments, may express their opposition by voting each a printed or written ticket or ballot, containing the words "against the amendments."

Which motion was agreed to.

A motion was made by Mr. Darlington,

Further to amend the said resolution by adding to the end thereof the words as follow, viz:

"Provided, that it shall be the duty of the judges, inspectors and clerks of the said election, to receive from the said citizens separate tickets for and against the amendment contained in the tenth article, and for and against all the other amendments together."

Mr. DARLINGTON said:

One

My object in offering this amendment is, to test the sense of the convention whether the amendments shall be submitted to the people in mass, or so far separate as I have designated. And I do it for this reason. great complaint which has been pressed on the notice of this convention, has been that the people have no mode of providing for amendments to the constitution; and that, therefore, this convention had been called to make full provision for amendments hereafter desired.

Now, I propose to submit to the people the separate and distinct question whether they will have a clause in the constitution providing for future amendments, in order that they may have the power to resort to an easy mode of amendment if they think proper to do so, and at the same time may, if they think proper, reject all the other amendments. I am myself favorable to a part of the amendments, and are opposed to others. If I ain compelled to vote upon them in mass, I will vote against them all; but if you will allow me to vote separately upon the question of future amendments whereby the people may get what they want, I will vote in favor of that proposition and against others, because I think that, taken altogether, the amendments made in this body are worse than nothing. It is for this reason that I have offered my proposition, and I am anxious that it should be adopted.

In the convention of 1821, called to amend the constitution of the state of Massachusetts, it was agreed that the amendments then made should be submitted to the people in a separate and distinct form. The people voted upon them in such a manner that they could adopt some and reject others, or adopt or reject them all, as the case might be. That provision was found to operate with success. I know that no complaints were made. I see no difficulty in it; it is a plain and simple matter, and requires that the attention of the voters should be turned only to one single proposition at a time.

There are many men who would be inclined to vote for the amendment providing a mode by which future amendments might be secured, and who, at the same time, would be anxious to vote against all the others. Now, I will ask, is it fair in presenting to the people that which is to be the guide of all their conduct-that which relates to their government-is it fair to deny to the people the right to vote for or against such portions of the constitution as they may think proper-to deny to them the right to take one portion of these amendments and to reject another? Is it fair to deny them this privilege? It seems to me, that there can be neither

expediency, propriety nor justice in any objection to the provision of my amendment.

Without, therefore, consuming any further time, I will merely express the hope that a majority of the convention may be found in favor of the proposition.

A motion was made by Mr. Earle,

To amend the amendment by stiking out the word "tenth," where it occurs in the fourth line, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "third." Mr. EARLE said:

I prefer that a separate vote should be taken on the third article, because I, for one, am willing to vote for all the other amendments together. And, I prefer to do so for another reason, which is an important one. The amendinents generally, keeping out of view the third article, are not matters of conscience with any man in the state. They are mere questions of political expediency. Hence, you may offer all the rest together, and any individurl may give his vote for them, because he approves of the majority of them as questions of expediency, and without any violation of his conscience—although probably there may be some particular section amongst them to which he can not yield his approbation.

But, sir, there is in the third article a question which is a question of conscience. I received lately the address and proceeding of a convention of all the clergy of the most populous county of Massachusetts, and of all demoninations. And there a resolution was adopted which-with one dissenting voice-and also an address in favor of the natural equality of man as a religious principle-as the principle founded in the Scripturesin the New Testament.

Now, I do know that there are many citizens who can not conscientiously vote for the amendment we have made to the third article, whatever they may think of it as an abstract question of policy. And I think that it is proper and just to afford a man an opportunity to vote for those amendments which, as a religious man, he can conscientiously vote for; and also to afford him an opportunity of voting against any thing for which, as a christian man, he can not conscientiously vote.

He hoped, therefore, that this amendment would be so amended as to read "third," instead of "tenth." And, if this amendment should not be aodpted, another might. He trusted that a separate vote would be taken on each word.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, expressed a hope that the gentleman would so modify his motion as to allow of a direct vote being taken on the amendment.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, then withdrew his amendment for the present.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, rose to make a few remarks in reference to the course that he had once recommended to be pursued. And, he declared that he would not have troubled the convention, had he not deemed the explanation which he was about to make, due to himself. Early in the deliberations of this body, he had been of the opinion that the amendments should be classified. In looking at what was then done, what had been accomplished since, and what ought now to be done, his mind was fully

impressed that he should vote for a classification of the amendments, in order that the people might vote for the rejection of some of them, while they did so for the adoption of others. He thought it a mode that would be easily understood. He had originally proposed to submit all the amendments to the judiciary, as one proposition-those in reference to runaway slaves, as another-those relating to corporations, as another, &c. As he had already said, he had proposed this course of proceeding, and given notice of his intention to submit a motion to that effect. It had not been his desire, since the commencement of the deliberations of this body, to have said any thing in opposition to the ascertained will of a large majority of it. And, having discovered that his proposition was regarded as objectionable, he would therefore not now trouble the convention with pressing it.

Although he was in favor of classification to the extent which he had just stated, yet he confessed himself opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Darlington) because he believed that the tenth article would have but few opponents, and be adopted by the people.

He conceived that if the convention had refused to admit into the constitution, the important amendments which had been adopted, it would have been a matter of considerable doubt, whether we should leave this power in the hands of the legislature. But these amendments have taken away the power of the legislature. His intention was to vote against the proposition of the gentleman from Chester.

Mr. DENNY, regretted that the gentleman from Chester (Mr. Bell) had not carried out his idea of a classification of the amendments, instead of submitting the whole en masse to the people-the propriety of which course he very much doubted. It was applying to them the principle and application of the previous question, or gag-law, which had prevailed in this body so freely, and they were to be compelled either to accept all, or none. Their mouths were to be stopped, and they were not to be allowed to exercise their own judgment and discrimination in selecting or rejecting such amendments as they choose!

We had differed in this convention respecting the propriety of adopting several amendments, which had afterwards been carried by a bare majority only. We might as well say here, and with equal propriety, that we should vote on all the amendments at once, or that we ought to submit them to the people in the aggregate, for their vote upon the whole ogether. What opportunity, he asked, would this course of proceeding, give to the people of expressing their opinions in regard to the amendments? None, he apprehended. Some of them, indeed, were quite new to the people, and not in contemplation when they voted for the call of a convention. Many of them were not known to them at the time they voted for the delegates to this convention, and had been for the first time proposed here. It was, then, he maintained, unreasonable to suppose that the people would be so unanimous in opinion as to either accept or reject all.

He doubted not that some of the amendments would be well received, while there were others, respecting which, great diversity of opinion would

probably prevail. A great majority of the people might be found, perhaps, voting against many of the amendments, in favor of which great numbers of the people would vote. He thought that for this convention to say that the people shall not have an opportunity of voting for or against particular amendments, was going too great a length. It was tantamount to declaring that the people shall not have a fair and free choice in making their constitution. We were laying down an arbitrary rule that they must either take all, or reject all. He conceived that the people would not be disposed to sanction a rule of this character. He trusted that the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) would submit his proposition, and thus give the people an opportunity of voting for the amendments separately.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, had hoped that the gentleman from Chester (Mr. Bell) would have submitted his proposition, as an opportunity would then have been afforded of examining its merits. He (Mr. H.) had been in favor of submitting the amendments separately to the people. As the gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. Denny) had very properly remarked, some of the amendments would be approved by the people, whilst others were rejected. Now, he (Mr. Hiester) apprehended that if the amendments should be laid before the people separately and distinctly, great difficulty would arise. The impression upon his mind being, that in consequence of the people's approving some and rejecting others, the tendency would be to make the whole work incongruous. He confessed, however, that he did not know exactly how the gentleman from Chester intended to arrange the details of his plan, and he hoped that he would give the convention information respecting it, in order that they might see whether they could, with propriety, adopt his proposition.

But, laying this aside, he thought that there could be no objection to the proposition of his friend on the right (Mr. Darlington.) He entertained no doubt that the people would think their money well spent, if they could obtain the insertion of the amendatory clause in the tenth article, inasmuch as it would give an opportunity of amending the constitution hereafter, without expense or trouble. This was desirable, as we could not succeed in having the amendments classified, as he (Mr. H.) had supposed we should.

The gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) had observed that the amendment he proposed would be a popular one, and if connected with others might be the means of carrying them. He (Mr. H.) must freely declare, that he now thought it would be an unfair way, to give the people but one of two courses to choose, and that was, either to take the whole of the amendments, or none. It would be to deprive the people of an opportunity, and of the right, which they were entitled to exercise, of making their selection of the amendments which they conceived should be adopted. Indeed, as had already been remarked by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Denny) that, to say the people should vote on all the amendments at the same time, was carrying out the principle of the previous question, a rule often injudiciously resorted to in this body.

Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, said that he was in favor of submitting the amendments separately. He, therefore, moved to recommit the report to the committee, with instructions to classify the amendments, and report the same to the convention.