fully? No; they would return sad and gloomy. This, then, became a personal consideration. But, when we were debating about principle, all personal considerations were to be put aside. They should find no place in the heart and head of any man. If the principle was an odious one-if life offices were distasteful, and should not be suffered longer to exist, still we could not go so far as to desire to see men of refined taste and cultivated minds,-men whose course of life had been wholly unexceptionable, sunk down in poverty-degraded, he might say, and deprived of all those comforts and necessaries which he heretofore possessed. We all know that our republican institutions do not allow of giving our officers high salaries-nothing more than would barely procure the common necessaries of life. We do not here, as is done in England, give retiring pensions to our judges, consequently their salaries while in office are all they have to expect. He could not believe that the people of this commonwealth would sanction the insertion of such a provision as this, because it was not founded on the principles of humanity. I do think, (said Mr. H.) too, that justice requires this thing to be well thought of. Remember, sir, I do not now raise the question how far this is a constitutional or an unconstitutional act. It would be against power, for that question is gone by. I say, I will not agitate that question now; but I ask that it may be brought in as an auxiliary incentive to those who have the power to use it like men of kindness and of justice. I do say that when you reflect that these men came into office under the constitution of Pennsylvania, that they have been in office for years, without complaint, under a solemn constitutional contract that they should hold their offices during life or good behaviour; when you reflect that probably they abandoned a lucrative practice to take their seats on the bench, I say, these are fair considerations to press upon the minds of gentlemen here, that they ought to take care so to carry out this provision as not to involve the faith plighted under the old constitution. 1 I have not touched upon any of the arguments which have been already given. I will only express the hope that the present judges will be permitted to hold for the rest of their lives under the conditions on which they were appointed, or, at all events, that they shall hold their seat for fifteen years. On motion of Mr. M'DowELL, The committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Mr. HAYHURST hoped that leave would not again be granted. A motion was made by Mr. M'DowELL, That the convention do now adjourn, And on the question, Will the convention agree to the motion? The yeas and nays were required by Mr. WOODWARD and nineteen others, and are as follow, viz: YBAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Barn'tz, Bell, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cine, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Donagan, Donnel, Doran, Dunlop, Fleming, Forward, Harris, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Jenks, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Montgomery, Payne, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Sterigere, Thomas, White, Young, Sergeant, President-52. NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Banks, Barndollar, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawferd, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Earle, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart Gilmore, Grenell, Hayhurst, Hastings, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Merkel. Miller, Myers, Overfieid, Reigart. Read, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers. Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Woodward-57. So the convention refused to adjourn. A motion was made by Mr. DARLINGTON, Will the convention agree to the motion? The yeas and nays were required by Mr. MANN and nineteen others, and are as follow, viz: YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barnitz, Bell, Carey, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Donagan, Doran, Fleming, Forward, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin. Hopkinson, Jenks, Knigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Russe 1. Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Snively, Sterigere, Thomas, White, Young, Sergeant, President-47. NAYS--Messrs. Banks, Barndollar, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler. Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curl. Dar ah, Dillinger. Donnell, Dunlop, Earle Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris. Eastings, Hayhurst. Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Ca hen, Merkel, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Scheetz. Sellers, Shel ito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weidman, Woodward-- 63. So the convention refused to adjourn. The question being, "shall the committes have leave to sit again ?" Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said the effect of refusing to greni leave would be to bring the matter immediately before the convention, where there could be action on it without delay, and we should have the question under the control of a majority. He hoped, therefore, that the convention would refuse leave for the committee to sit again. Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, would have no objection to this course, if the convention were full. It was an important subject. He protested against taking the question now. Several gentlemen had gone away. It would be better to postpone the question until to-morrow morning. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, hoped the committee would have leave to sit again. No amendments could be offered unless in committee. He objected to this side way of attaining an object. Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, expressed his hope also that the committee would sit again. He should grieve exceedingly if the leave were not given, and for the same reasons assigned by the gentleman from Susquehanna for a different course. He would ask the freemen on this floor who represent the free people of Pennsylvania, to look at the reason. Because the majority could control the minority! What! does the gentleman mean to tell us that there is an ascertained, picked, packed majority here! He thanked God that now the people would know this fact. He grieved to see this spirit prevailing when we are so near the close of our labors. If a majority of this body be thus organized to put down the minority, all he would ask, on behalf of a minority of the committee, was, that we might be permitted to enjoy the same freedom of action on this subject which we have enjoyed on other questions, by going once more into committee of the whole. Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, said he had not suffered any thing which fell in the course of the debate on this floor, to put him out of temper. He would now merely ask the gentleman from Philadelphia whether he will lose any advantage by the refusal to grant the conmittee leave to sit again? If he could shew that he would be deprived of any right by this course, he would be able to make out a stronger case for the consideration of the convention. If he thought that the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia would lose any right-any advantage which he would have in committee, he would vote affirmatively again. He, however, thought that the gentleman would not, and he (Mr. B.) should, therefore, vote in the negative. He felt satisfied that nothing would be gained by going into committee, but time would be saved by not doing so. Mr. STERIGERE moved that the convention do now adjourn. Mr. SHELLITO, of Crawford, asked for the yeas and nays; whereupon Mr. STERIGERE withdrew his motion, Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, rose, and said that he saw it was the determination of the majority of the convention to turn out the present judges. He meant of the democrats,-those attached to loco focoism. Why, he asked, need gentlemen on the other side show so much feeling in regard to this matter, particularly when it was recollected who it was that desired to turn them out? Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, here rose to a point of order. Mr. DUNLOP was about to proceed with his remarks, when Mr. HIESTER again called him to order. The PRESIDENT pronounced the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Dunlop) to be out of order. Mr. DUNLOP said he would appeal from the decision. Mr. Cox moved an adjournment. Mr. M'CAHEN asked for the yeas and nays, and being taken, the motion was decided in the negative ;-yeas 46, nays 53. YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barnitz, Bell, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cope, Cox, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Doran, Dunlop, Forward. Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Jenks, Konigmacher, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sterigere, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Sergeant, President-46. NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barndollar, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Darrah, Dillinger, Donnell, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Woodward-53. So the question was determined in the negative. Mr. READ demanded the previous question, Which said motion was seconded by the requisite number of delegates rising in their places. And the question being taken, Shall the main question be now put? It was determined in the affirmative. And on the question, Shall the committee of the whole have leave to sit again? The yeas and nays were required by Mr. READ and Mr. DARRAH, and are as follow, viz: YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barnitz, Bell, Carey, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cope, Cox, Cummin, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Forward, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Jenks, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Thomas, Sergeant, President-36. NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barndollar, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donnell, Dunlop, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Merkel, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Payne, Reigart, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Todd, Weidman, Woodward-58. So the question was determined in the negative. A motion was made by Mr. REIGART, That the convention do now adjourn. Which was agreed to. And the convention adjourned until half past nine o'clock to-morrow morning. SATURDAY, February 17, 1838. Mr. BEDFORD rose and addressed the chair as follows: Mr. President: In presenting to the convention, for its consideration, the resolution I hold in my hand, and am now about to offer, I have been actuated principally by two reasons. In the first place, by a desire to see the cause of education promoted in this commonwealth by the establishment of public schools throughout the state, so that the benefits of education may be placed within the reach of all persons desirous of obtaining it. And in the second place, to give to the members of this convention and all the citizens of the state an opportunity of expressing their views in relation to this highly important subject apart from any entagling connexions with other proposed amendments concerning which the opinions of the people widely differ, and upon which they must decide by the ballot box. When an amendment some days since was offered to the first section of the seventh article of the constitution, by the gentleman from Philadelphia county, (M'Cahen) very similar to this resolution, I was placed under the disagreeable necessity of voting against its adoption, in the place it must then have occupied in connexion with the other amendiments, apprehensive that by uniting the opposition to the other proposed changes in the constitution with that known to exist in some sections of the state to the establishment of public schools, the result would be a defeat of all the amendments. But by presenting this separately from the others all would be accepted by a majority of the votes of the people. The conservatives of this convention, who have invariably voted against every amendment adopted, declared themselves in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Philadelphia county, and voted in favor of it. But, sir, if such an amendment had been agreed to in connexion with the others we are about to offer to the people, how could these gentlemen or their constituants-being conservatives-give any aid to it at the ballot box while opposed to the amendments as a whole? This proposition of taking a separate vote of the people upon this question, if agreed to by the convention, will admit of a fair expression of public opinion in relation to it. I am aware, sir, that many gentlemen, who occupy seats upon this floor deem such a constitutional provision entirely unnecessary, because, as they assert, the legislature may at any time make suitable enacments upon the subject. But the law that is passed this year may be repealed the next. So that our school system which is the basis of the intelligence of the people, must be liable to change with the political policy of our law makers, and, therefore, be liable to perpetual fluctuation and uncertainty. Let it not be supposed that the patriotic and intelligent citizens of Pennsylvania, possessing a soil of remarkable fertility, whose whole surface is chequered with canals and rail roads, with hills and vallies resting upon. inexhaustable beds of mineral treasures, will hesitate to adopt this propo |